However, as a saint (and non-theist) I recommend this if it works with your hardware.
to make cyberspace a better place
"On a business level, that decision to censor... was a net negative."Morality is not a matter of the bottom line. Are we to shed a tear that,
"the company had suffered because of the damage to its reputation"or because the rights of human beings have been violated? It is disturbing to hear you say,
"perhaps now the principled approach makes more sense.""Perhaps now"? This implies that principles are playthings. Playthings to be used when profitable yet ignored when inconvenient. There is no restitution with this admittance. This admittance is a reminder that when it comes to the search for, and accessibility of information, Google is still committed to place profit over people.
"Tell us in 100 words or less, why you are such a supporter of your chosen operating system and what features you love about it."Knowing full well a lottery win is more likely than BBC publishing my response, I felt compelled to submit an answer anyway. And much to my own amusement, I hit the 100-word bullseye without intention as follows...
"I use the GNU/Linux operating system. I use this system because it is free (libre) and open source software. Such an operating system gives me the freedom to share it with other human beings, modify it to suit my needs (or hire someone if I so choose), and use for any purpose I wish. I use the GNU/Linux operating system because such software is an effective measure in bridging the global digital divide. I also use the GNU/Linux operating system because it is the most effective defense against unethical attacks in the form of spyware and viruses."Apparently, the BBC will choose 3 differing opinions (Mac/Windows/"Linux") and have them go "head-to-head-to-head" on this matter. This is yet another reason why my input is unlikely to be valued. For as RMS puts it, once you choose freedom, it's not about competition. There is no debate. Once you choose freedom, all other operating systems "are out of the running." (@~17m20s)
Labels: free software
"One reason I really dislike DRM is that it is technologically an inferior solution to not doing DRM. It actually makes it harder for people to do what they want to do. It makes it harder to do things that you really should be able to do"Torvalds then says -
"At the same time, on a completely different tangent -- forget about technology -- I am a big believer in letting people do what they want to do. If somebody wants to do DRM it is their problem.""Their" problem? I'm confused as to how Linus can reconcile these statements. He says that individuals "should be able to do" things with their files. I agree. But he also claims to be a "big believer in letting people do what they want to do". In general, I agree with this too. I can understand the belief in the freedom to act and speak as one wishes. However, this is obviously dependent on such action and speech not interfering with the freedom of others. This is clearly not the case with either DRM or yelling "fire!" in a crowded room when there's no danger. This is why I find the statement that DRM is "their problem" to be astoundingly naive. If someone has put DRM on my files, I don't see how this problem is not mine as well.
"We need proprietary software to control our computers. Free software means 'anyone' is 'free to change' it, so it's insecure."When you have a free software program, you are free to change your copy. Nobody else can change your copy as you are the one who controls that copy. If another gets a copy then they may change that copy. But that does not affect your copy. Some have associated the "freedom to tinker" with the assumption that control over your own data and software is negated. This is false.
"Linux monoculture is not necessarily a good thing either ‘cause we want kids to be able to do things with computers, and not just Linux boxes and not just Windows boxes..."Linux monoculture is risky not because "we want kids to be able to do things with computers" (though true in its own right), but because all computers would be exposed to any critical kernel flaw.
"We need kids to use what is popular. If we don't, we won't be preparing them for the 'real-world'"If this were an actual fact, then monoculture avoidance for the reason stated would make sense. But it's not. Any student encouraged to critically think instead of memorize will know, or figure out quickly, how to operate any GUI or office suite thrown at them. So if unskilled GNU/Linux students (is that an oxymoron?) are actually being created by monoculture, then that is a pedagogical issue, not a choice of software issue.
To profit from software, users must be restricted.Of course, the proprietary mind never actually says this aloud for it would face ridicule over the mass of evidence contradicting its first premise. Rather, when encountering those curious yet uninformed about free software it asks rhetorically, "How can you make money from free software?" Wishing the sheep not even consider the question to any depth, it pauses for no more than a second and follows with a self-confirming, "You see!? Now let's go get a beer." To which there is only one appropriate response...
Free software does not restrict users.
Therefore, profit cannot be made from free software.