Gentoo Forums :: View topic - [split] big companies, free software and unicorns

[split] big companies, free software and unicorns

View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page 1, 2 Next

Gentoo Forums Forum Index

Gentoo Chat

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

khayyam
Watchman

Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101

Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:24 pm Post subject: [split] big companies, free software and unicorns

ADMIN EDIT: Split from UNIX way, C, LISP et al. --pjp

steveL wrote:

You cannot solve sociopolitical problems via technical solutions to something completely different.

CasperVector wrote:

In "the only technical means by which we can get rid of control by big companies", by "we" I meant, roughly, those who have already been fed up with abominations like systemd (after all, most computer users on this planet use M$ Windows). If they take the pain to adapt to the Unix philosophy (cf. my definition above), what they get in return is not only a cleaner yet more powerful system, but also freedom from these abominations, since a system adherent to the philosophy is very immune to systemd-like infections (eg. imagine how systemd would invade Alpine Linux?). And by the way, the free software movement was, apart from political, also very technical; [...]

CasperVector ... I have to disagree with that assessment, for two reasons:

Firstly, said "big companies" are the direct result of the sort of "freedom" envisaged by the "free software movement", it's not a secondary effect of that conception, but an inevitable outcome. These companies exist for the sole purpose of extracting surplus value from labour, and having done so they own the one thing that would make such "freedom" actionable: power (in this case in the form of capital). Those who laboured are disinvested of that power as they can not claim the full product (such as it is) of their labour, nor can they claim a right, via sweat equity, to govern how that power is used.

The primary basis for fraud is psychology, that means, creating something that looks as much as possible like a normal set of transactions.

Secondly, unicorns and politics have no connection with one another, calling something "political" without this description explaining the phenomena in all its observable aspect is a fraud (or, more charitably, an error). To have freedom/liberty it must be actionable, it is not an abstract condition whereby all unicorns will be released from captivity if you believe in a state of affairs wherein unicorns exist.

best ... khay

CasperVector
Apprentice

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 156

Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:53 pm Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al.

khayyam wrote:

Firstly, said "big companies" are the direct result of the sort of "freedom" envisaged by the "free software movement", it's not a secondary effect of that conception, but an inevitable outcome. These companies exist for the sole purpose of extracting surplus value from labour, and having done so they own the one thing that would make such "freedom" actionable: power (in this case in the form of capital). Those who laboured are disinvested of that power as they can not claim the full product of their labour (such as it is), nor can they claim a right, via sweat equity, to govern how that power is used.

I think a natural progression of this is the decentralisation of FOSS development, since the latter seems, when properly done, usually much more efficient.
And of course, education (read as: lobbying) is needed for this progression to gain more momentum, just like what FSF did to promote free software.

khayyam wrote:

Secondly, unicorns and politics have no connection with one another, calling something "political" without this description explaining the phenomena in all its observable aspect is a fraud (or, more charitably, an error). To have freedom/liberty it must be actionable, it is not an abstract condition whereby all unicorns will be released from captivity if you believe in a state of affairs wherein unicorns exist.

Considering that supporting elegant software is actually easier than supporting bloatware, as long as there are people that are (elegance-concerned && lazy && somewhat wealthy), I guess the former kind of service can be profitable?
For this assumption to be true, the number of these people certainly needs to be greater than a threshold, which again depends on education.
_________________
My current OpenPGP key:
RSA4096/0x227E8CAAB7AA186C (expires: 2020.10.19)
7077 7781 B859 5166 AE07 0286 227E 8CAA B7AA 186C

khayyam
Watchman

Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101

Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:06 pm Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al.

khayyam wrote:

CasperVector wrote:

I think a natural progression of this is the decentralisation of FOSS development, since the latter seems, when properly done, usually much more efficient at least in a technical sense. And of course, education (read as: lobbying) is needed for this progression to gain a bigger momentum, just like what FSF did to promote free software.

CasperVector ... again, I can't agree, political problems can't be resolved via technical means (efficiency, or what-have-you) that is why I didn't answer to that technical/political contrast as you'd framed it, and substituted unicorns in its place (see bellow). If technical means were capable of modifying political relationships/transactions, then we would have to explain how "centralisation" happens while such technical changes occur (and we have many such historical changes we could use as examples, or exemplars). So while technical changes can alter the forms of labour, the underlying politics (extraction, capture, etc) remain mostly unchanged. Plus, and more importantly, with any fraud what holds it together is that appearance of "a normal set of transactions", its this we need to divest ourselves of, and normativity is a political construct that doesn't have a technical correlative (except perhaps in the minds of trans-humanists).

khayyam wrote:

CasperVector wrote:

Sorry, but I do not understand what you mean. May I request that you translate that into Simple English?

Sorry, I was being altogether "too clever" ... I was trying to underscore what domain something can be said to exist in (an epistemology of politics if you like), I then attempted to mix this with the political claim of "free software", and what we mean when we say "free" but exclude the domain in which that freedom operates (in the non-abstract). So, a heady mix, and one which came about as I wanted to focus directly on the political question, and only allude vaguely to the technical one (or, the other "unicorns" of politics). In simple terms I was saying that the claim (say, "free") needs to refer to the domain in which that term operates, and so must explain what happens in that domain, ie, it has to explain how having the product of labour captured by corporations engenders freedom, which I'm arguing it doesn't, and isn't ... and so is a conception no more valid than a unicorn.

best ... khay

CasperVector
Apprentice

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 156

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:46 am Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al.

khayyam wrote:

[...] So while technical changes can alter the forms of labour, the underlying politics (extraction, capture, etc) remain mostly unchanged. Plus, and more importantly, with any fraud what holds it together is that appearance of "a normal set of transactions", its this we need to divest ourselves of, and normativity is a political construct that doesn't have a technical correlative (except perhaps in the minds of trans-humanists). [...] In simple terms I was saying that the claim (say, "free") needs to refer to the domain in which that term operates, and so must explain what happens in that domain, ie, it has to explain how having the product of labour captured by corporations engenders freedom, which I'm arguing it doesn't, and isn't ... and so is a conception no more valid than a unicorn.

So if I understand you correctly, what you meant was, roughly, that whatever freedom we pursue (software freedom for Stallman, freedom from bloat for some people including me, etc.), as long as there exist corporations capturing the product of labour, alienation of the freedom will be inevitable? So if alienation is inevitable, let it be; and there still was, is, and will be space for software developerment more or less independent of corporations; and I think it is not hopelessly impossible to keep this kind of independence by consciously embracing minimalism.
_________________
My current OpenPGP key:
RSA4096/0x227E8CAAB7AA186C (expires: 2020.10.19)
7077 7781 B859 5166 AE07 0286 227E 8CAA B7AA 186C

khayyam
Watchman

Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:45 am Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al.

khayyam wrote:

CasperVector wrote:

CasperVector ... no, what I'm saying is that in order to pursue such things we need first to understand the field of operations, and how it functions, and to divest ourselves of our illusions, errors, etc. That is why I introduced the concept of fraud in relation to that capture:

khayyam wrote:

The primary basis for fraud is psychology, that means, creating something that looks as much as possible like a normal set of transactions.

CasperVector wrote:

So if alienation is inevitable, let it be; and there still was, is, and will be space for software developerment more or less independent of corporations; and I think it is not hopelessly impossible to keep this kind of independence by consciously embracing minimalism.

I'm not sure I find the concept of alienation that useful, I didn't introduce it, and as it suggests the idea of false consciousness, it is probably better avoided ... and I say that with a mind to "consciously embracing minimalism" ... but in the epistemological field. What we have is a fraud (or, more generally, criminality) and not, as Marx would have it, a problem of consciousness (with it's attendant "spectres", "fetishism", etc, etc). For this reason I don't think we need something "independent of corporations" (understood correctly), only that such "bodies" function in a just and equitable manner.

best ... khay

CasperVector
Apprentice

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 156

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:37 am Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al.

khayyam wrote:

CasperVector ... no, what I'm saying is that in order to pursue such things we need first to understand the field of operations, and how it functions, and to divest ourselves of our illusions, errors, etc.
I'm not sure I find the concept of alienation that useful, I didn't introduce it, and as it suggests the idea of false consciousness, it is probably better avoided ...

Fine, so I did not get your point. So since (1) I am admittedly not familiar with your political/philosophical terms, but (2) many of us on this forum are more or less familiar with the free software movement, and (3) I personally find what I pursue to be structurally very similar to what Stallman pursues, may I request that you explain how Stallman and followers of the free software movement understood (or not) "the field of operations, and how it functions"?

khayyam wrote:

What we have is a fraud (or, more generally, criminality) and not, as Marx would have it, a problem of consciousness (with it's attendant "spectres", "fetishism", etc, etc). For this reason I don't think we need something "independent of corporations" (understood correctly), only that such "bodies" function in a just and equitable manner.

Well, I do not even know what you intended to mean when saying "understood correctly" and "bodies".
_________________
My current OpenPGP key:
RSA4096/0x227E8CAAB7AA186C (expires: 2020.10.19)
7077 7781 B859 5166 AE07 0286 227E 8CAA B7AA 186C

khayyam
Watchman

Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:37 pm Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al.

CasperVector wrote:

So since (1) I am admittedly not familiar with the political/philosophical terms, but (2) many of us on this forum are more or less familiar with the free software movement, and (3) I personally find what I pursue to be structurally very similar to what Stallman pursues, may I request that you explain how Stallman and followers of the free software movement understood (or not) "the field of operations, and how it functions"?

CasperVector ... sure, they consider freedom (a product of working together for a common mutual benefit) in a purely abstract sense. It is a freedom divested of power, because its productive value, and/or the rights acquired by producers by virtue of their labour, are not considered as necessary conditions for actuating, or acting on, that freedom. It's here that "big corporations" step in, by extracting the value of "free labour" they acquire both the value, and right (or taken together, power) and so direct the course of "software freedom". I call that fraud, it looks like a normal transaction (of the sort we might engage in everyday, ie, giving some aspect of ourselves/time to assist others without recourse to payment, or thought of return), but results in our labour, and the benefits of labour, being captured.

khayyam wrote:

CasperVector wrote:

Well, I do not even know what you intended to mean when saying "understood correctly" and "bodies".

Well, the root of "corporation" is "corpus" (lat: "body"). So, "understood correctly" a corporation is just a body of persons, or group of people.

best ... khay

CasperVector
Apprentice

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 156

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:51 pm Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al.

khayyam wrote:

Now I see. So what do you think they should have done?

khayyam wrote:

Well, the root of "corporation" is "corpus" (lat: "body"). So, "understood correctly" a corporation is just a body of persons, or group of people.

What if the groups just do not want to function in a just and equitable manner?
_________________
My current OpenPGP key:
RSA4096/0x227E8CAAB7AA186C (expires: 2020.10.19)
7077 7781 B859 5166 AE07 0286 227E 8CAA B7AA 186C

khayyam
Watchman

Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 4:55 pm Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al.

khayyam wrote:

CasperVector wrote:

Then what do you think they should have done?

CasperVector ... part of me wants to absolve myself of any responsibility to answer that question, and say "I'm a philosopher, it's not my purview to tell you how to do it, only to explain what's involved. Would you ask a mathematician how best to build a bridge?". I expect that won't fly, because philosophers are considered as occupying the role of statesman, and not scientists. But ok, how do we make such arrangements just and equitable, well, I've answered this in part, we need to understand the field of operations, and how it functions, divest ourselves of our illusions/errors, and instate political and juridical constructs which function to ensure that such problems are mitigated, and that the "common mutual benefit" is effected. That is it in as clear a form as I can state, and while it doesn't answer to what "they should have done", it is a far sharper tool than the one offered by the FSF.

khayyam wrote:

Well, the root of "corporation" is "corpus" (lat: "body"). So, "understood correctly" a corporation is just a body of persons, or group of people.

CasperVector wrote:

What if the groups just do not want to function in a just and equitable manner?

You treat it in the same way as you treat other criminal behaviour ... but think, what part of "common mutual benefit" does such a body think it is? If the "just" condition is removed then the condition of reciprocity is similarly removed, and that is what all our political, social, juridical, constructs are at core, and attempt to maintain such reciprocal arrangements, and to mitigate against such abuses.

best ... khay

CasperVector
Apprentice

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 156

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 6:02 pm Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al.

khayyam wrote:

But ok, how do we make such arrangements just and equitable, well, I've answered this in part, we need to understand the field of operations, and how it functions, divest ourselves of our illusions/errors, and instate political and juridical constructs which function to ensure that such problems are mitigated, and that the "common mutual benefit" is effected. That is it in as clear a form as I can state, and while it doesn't answer to what "they should have done", it is a far sharper tool than the one offered by the FSF.

So that is still vague enough. Suppose your ideal license ("a far sharper tool") exists, free of loopholes, then some of us would surely use it to good effects, but this does not seem to be the case. By saying this, I do intend not to blame you, but mean to point out that based on the same technical foundation (license terms; or otherwise what else can we rely on?), we do not have much better ways. At least not for now, and I am not even sure about the theoretical existence of these ways, and therefore even more concerned about loopholes you would have to eliminate from the actual license.

My viewpoint is much more pragmatic. Yes, perhaps Stallman and other leaders did not consider the issue of free bloatware (especially those deliberately made, which I think are not much different from obfuscated code), and the developer can shamelessly say "it's FOSS so shut up". However, the written terms did take effect, and there do exist many useful FOSS projects; free bloat-malware is truly a very small minority. And actually, I do not even want to rely on license terms. Corporations have been always persuading people to use licenses more permissive than GPL; the BSD people, minimalists and some other (more or less) independent FOSS developers do prefer more permissive licenses. I attribute these to be the education by FOSS advocates, and the fact the even the most permissive FOSS licenses do allow people to use the code.

My methodology is also pragmatic. Since free bloatware is an issue, let's handle it, in a more or less useful and sufficiently non-harmful way. As long as we are using FOSS, we are authorised to adapt what we use; and by embracing minimalism, we can already individually get rid of control by the bad actors, and things like dbus are annoying but at least do not invite spaghetti monsters into your system. And if the voice of minimalism advocates gets mass effect, it is possible that we would collectively live better lives.

As a final comment in this post, I find the difference between your ideal and my ideal to be quite similar to that between Lisp and Unix.
_________________
My current OpenPGP key:
RSA4096/0x227E8CAAB7AA186C (expires: 2020.10.19)
7077 7781 B859 5166 AE07 0286 227E 8CAA B7AA 186C

Last edited by CasperVector on Tue Jul 03, 2018 7:34 pm; edited 1 time in total

khayyam
Watchman

Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 7:05 pm Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al.

khayyam wrote:

CasperVector wrote:

CasperVector ... I'm perfectly happy to treat the sharing of code in the same manner as I would offering directions to someone in the street ... without "recourse to payment, or thought of return". You see, to paraphrase Spinoza, if man lives according to reason (and by reason he means also justice), then no law is necessary. What you want, I think, is for me to provide a solution (ie, one that involves licences, etc, etc) and I can only point you to one simple fact, providing such a solution is the very reason we institute political and juridical systems, and it's these that we need to look to to check abuse, and provide justice. Of course these are also subject to capture, and you needn't look far to see that writ large, however, what I'm trying to make clear is the nature of the problem, as that is the purpose my ars serves. However, I am pragmatic, I'm more than willing to use that ars in ways that prompt action, but I recognise that I am only one voice in a sea of voices ... many of which are dead set on perpetuating said fraud, or are in error about what to do about it (ie, Stallman).

CasperVector wrote:

My viewpoint is much more pragmatic. Yes, perhaps Stallman and other leaders did not consider the issue of free bloatware (especially those deliberately made, which I think are not much different from obfuscated code), and the developer can shamelessly say "it's FOSS so shut up". However, the written terms did take effect, and there do exist many useful FOSS projects; free bloat-malware is truly a very small minority. And actually, I do not even want to rely on license terms. Corporations have been always persuading people to use licenses more permissive than GPL; the BSD people, minimalists and some other (more or less) independent FOSS developers do prefer more permissive licenses. I attribute these to be the education by FOSS advocates, and the fact the even the most permissive FOSS licenses do allow people to use the code.

I too am pragmatic, but I'm simply not going to advocate for something which I know to be false. The FSF doesn't advocate for freedom in any meaningful sense, if anything it is a "useful idiot" for the likes of Redhat, who know who's freedom such an arrangement benefits.

CasperVector wrote:

My methodology is also pragmatic. Since free bloatware is a issue, let's handle it, in a more or less useful and sufficiently non-harmful way. As long as we are using FOSS, we are authorised to adapt what we use; and by embracing minimalism, we can already individually get rid of control by the bad actors, and things like dbus are annoying but at least do not invite spaghetti monsters into your system. And if the voice of minimalism advocates gets mass effect, it is possible that we would collectively live better lives.

All of which seem to be "technical" considerations, I'm concerned entirely with the social, political, and juridical, questions involved. I did mention there are "historical [...] examples" I could use to illustrate how such technical innovations do not in fact make for "better lives" (at least not without attendant political change accompanying them), but I feel that doing that will drag the discussion off on a tangent ...

CasperVector wrote:

As a final comment in this post, I find the difference between your ideal and my ideal to be quite similar to that between Lisp and Unix.

Hmmm ... I don't see my position as one of "ideals", no more than thermodynamics is an "ideal". I accept they are "beings of reason", but what I attempt to do is grounded in a scientific paradigm, not a metaphysical one. Otherwise, I would describe my position as scholastic realism (after Peirce) but focused on socio-political concerns.

best ... khay

CasperVector
Apprentice

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 156

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 7:54 pm Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al.

khayyam wrote:

I guess this is at the heart of our disagreement, and I suggest that we agree to disagree on the usefulness of said advocation. To me, GNU projects are technical meaningful, and though many of them are mediocre, these are not free bloat-malware; the same goes for many other FOSS projects which I respect more or less, and that is satisfactory enough to me and perhaps many others. Nevertheless, you are free to think otherwise.

khayyam wrote:

I think it would be very nice for you to give synopses for one or two examples, although I would not necessary comment on it, for the reason above.

khayyam wrote:

I knew the word "ideal" was to attract some comments; it was the first word I came up with to describe this. However, that was just an aside and I have to finish my dissertation, so time-saving is a concern, and let it be.
_________________
My current OpenPGP key:
RSA4096/0x227E8CAAB7AA186C (expires: 2020.10.19)
7077 7781 B859 5166 AE07 0286 227E 8CAA B7AA 186C

Last edited by CasperVector on Wed Jul 04, 2018 11:40 am; edited 1 time in total

Tony0945
Watchman

Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 9:55 pm Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al.

CasperVector wrote:

What if the groups just do not want to function in a just and equitable manner?

That's why we have laws and courts. Well, that was the reason before laissez-faire became the rallying cry of both US political parties. Now they exist to preserve the status quo and increase the power and profit of business. But, before, when "We the People" meant something.

khayyam
Watchman

Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:15 pm Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al.

khayyam wrote:

CasperVector wrote:

I guess this is at the heart of our disagreement, and I suggest that we agree to disagree on the usefulness of said advocation.

CasperVector ... ok ... if you provide an argument that counters, or falsifies, those I've made. Also, a word of warning: how many ships were lost to the rocks for want of an accurate map.

CasperVector wrote:

To me, GNU projects are technical meaningful, and though many of them are mediocre, these are not free bloat-malware; the same goes for many other FOSS projects which I respect more or less, and that is satisfactory enough to me and perhaps many others. Nevertheless, you are free to think otherwise.

As I've been at pains to show, freedom, as a concept, is entirely within the realm of politics, so any reference to technical merit, is entirely outside of the terms of reference for that particular construct.

khayyam wrote:

CasperVector wrote:

I think it would be very nice for you to give synopses for one or two examples, although I would not necessary comment on it, for the reason above.

OK, one ... fossil fuel: from year zero to 1730 world population was more or less stable at approx 500 million. With the advent of fossil fuel (1730 or thereabouts) the population increases exponentially (and that process has continued on a steep incline to the present day). What should be a drastic increase in quality of life (because of the increased energy/resources available) is actually expended in population, increased production (because of an increased labour force), resulting in impoverishment (for the majority in the industrial world, and beyond). This processes accelerated such things as enclosure (because once dispossessed of land those living on that land were forced into cities for the purpose of industrial production), industrial scale manufacture (where labour, much of it child labour, was working 14hr days, with little or no benefit from that labour), urbanisation (with a now impoverished labour force living in abject conditions, and reduced mortality), colonialism, etc, etc. Along with this technological change came the political, and moral, justification for such "progress" (in fact progress became the central theme for that and the following centuries), and adjacent theories of population, such as Malthusianism (naturalising the process of impoverishment with the idea of "positive checks" ... disease, starvation, war ... on population), and later social-darwinism.

That could be fleshed out more fully, but those are outcomes of technological change, without the political realm placing checks on its effects (instituting justice, etc, etc).

best ... khay

CasperVector
Apprentice

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 156

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2018 5:29 am Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al.

khayyam wrote:

CasperVector ... ok ... if you provide an argument that counters, or falsifies, those I've made.

I find the following quotation interesting in this context:

khayyam wrote:

You see, to paraphrase Spinoza, if man lives according to reason (and by reason he means also justice), then no law is necessary. What you want, I think, is for me to provide a solution (ie, one that involves licences, etc, etc) and I can only point you to one simple fact, providing such a solution is the very reason we institute political and juridical systems, and it's these that we need to look to to check abuse, and provide justice. Of course these are also subject to capture, and you needn't look far to see that writ large, however, what I'm trying to make clear is the nature of the problem, as that is the purpose my ars serves.

So you kept talking about the necessity for a "freedom" to be "actionable"; however, in order for your "freedom" to be actionable, at least most people and bodies of people need to "live according to reason", which is far from the fact. Yes, the way to "freedom" as you proposed is perhaps "meaningful", but people need to be educated (again, read as: "lobbied") about it for it to be practical, in the first place. And here comes the second problem: even if people are seriously ready to accept to such education, which school should they accept? What if people prefer, for instance, Marxism? In mathematics and natural sciences, there are also debates between different schools, but these debates do not seem to seriously affect the extents and reliability of the agreements betweeen schools, eg. the disagreements between physicists for and against the string theory seem to have little effect above the layer currently called particle physics phenomenology. I would be more than glad to be corrected, but I do not quite think you political scientists agree much about, for instance, how the humankind should practically evolve to "live according to reason".

khayyam wrote:

OK, if you believe the word "freedom" is to be tightly coupled to pure politics, what about I use "convenience" from now on? We both agree that politics is important, but I, as a programmer, need the technical convenience to be able to make my own life easier, before being able to contribute to the socio-political change about what you call "freedom". Human beings are so complicated (as can be seen from the very limited agreement between political scientists; and as such, I do not consider mentioning the limit as humiliating your research field, just in case), which is the main reason many people, including me, invest their lifes in science, technology, and perhaps to some extent, art; and these people need technical convenience to develop what they are interested in. Socio-political changes, if possible, are surely more than desirable, but I do not really think you have proposed a practical way: note the "at least most people and bodies of people" above, so it would not matter even if I, as only one person, completely accepted your opinion.

Finally, back to my own post:

CasperVector wrote:

And the Unix philosophy is, by the way, the only technical means by which we can get rid of control by big companies like the one which attempts to push systemd everywhere.

Perhaps I should have said "... perhaps the only practical means by which we can get rid of technical control by big companies like the one ...". I believe I have shown that we already can.
_________________
My current OpenPGP key:
RSA4096/0x227E8CAAB7AA186C (expires: 2020.10.19)
7077 7781 B859 5166 AE07 0286 227E 8CAA B7AA 186C

Last edited by CasperVector on Wed Jul 04, 2018 10:19 am; edited 10 times in total

CasperVector
Apprentice

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 156

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2018 5:55 am Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al.

Tony0945 wrote:

That's why we have laws and courts.

But khayyam did not seem to want to rely on laws (at least the current ones)

_________________
My current OpenPGP key:
RSA4096/0x227E8CAAB7AA186C (expires: 2020.10.19)
7077 7781 B859 5166 AE07 0286 227E 8CAA B7AA 186C

khayyam
Watchman

Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:32 pm Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al.

khayyam wrote:

CasperVector wrote:

So you kept talking about the necessity for a "freedom" to be "actionable". So in order for your "freedom" to be actionable, at least most people and bodies of people need to "live according to reason", which is far from the fact. Yes, the way to "freedom" as you proposed is perhaps "meaningful", but people need to be educated (again, read as: "lobbied") about it for it to be practical, in the first place.

CasperVector ... that, at least, is an attempt to grapple with my argument, however, you're conflating a number of things, 1). the condition of freedom (ie, what's required for it to qualify as such), and human actions (ie, whether they exhibit freedom, coercion, etc), 2). the point about reason was made in relation to instituted law, and can be thought of as a regulatory mechanism, or interpretive procedure, with the purpose of reaching agreement ... rather than a sign of one or other persons brain working in a certain manner. So, for example, a sociopath may "reason" that they can renege on some (implicit, or explicit) agreement without suffering (negative) reciprocity, and having reasoned such a person is reneging those injured may respond in kind. In the context I introduced Spinoza I was simply arguing that such formalised agreements (such as a licence) are not the only mechanism in play, nor are they the only means by which we come to agreement, reciprocate, etc. I understand Spinoza's argument as an attempt to explain the phenomena (what laws are ... a reasoning about justice), their locus, and how we might reason about them. So, whether people reason that it is just to act in a manner detrimental to my well being is beside the point, that reason, and any actions that follow from it, can be checked, corrected, and made just ... or reason, justice, etc, falls.

CasperVector wrote:

And here somes the second problem: even if people are seriously ready to accept to such education, which school should they accept? What if people prefer, for instance, Marxism? In mathematics and natural sciences, there are also debates between different schools, but these debates do not seem to seriously affect the extents and reliability of the agreements betweeen schools, eg. the disagreements between physicists for and against the string theory seem to have little effect above the layer currently called particle physics phenomenology. I would be more than glad to be corrected, but I do not quite think you political scientists agree much about, for instance, how the humankind should practically evolve to "live according to reason".

I have no problem with there being 10,000 schools, I expect however that the errors of any one of those schools would be made evident, and so capable of correction. That is the basis of the scientific methodology, and what makes it such an accepted procedure. The basic premise being that given an indefinite period for evaluation to occur a community of enquires will come to the same conclusion and so "be of the same mind" (in Spinoza's parlance). It's not infallible, but of the four methods of enquiry (tenacity, authority, a priori, science) it is the one best suited to settling belief (see: Charles S. Peirce, The Fixation of Belief). So, if someone wants a society governed by sociopaths, fraudsters, and other myopic tendencies, then they are welcome to it ... it may put me at loggerheads with them, it may be cause for conflict, war (or in other words a cessation of civil society) ... but such is the risks we take when acting on our belief.

khayyam wrote:

CasperVector wrote:

OK. So if you believe the word "freedom" is to be tightly coupled to pure politics, what about I use "convenience" from now on? We both agree that politics is important, but I, as a programmer, need the technical convenience to be able to make my own life easier, before being able to contribute to the socio-political change about what you call "freedom". Human beings are so complicated, which is the main reason many people, including me, to invest their lifes in science, technology, and perhaps to some extent, art; and these people need technical convenience to develop what they are interested in. Socio-political changes, if possible, are surely more than desirable, but I do not really think you have proposed a practical way: note the "at least most people and bodies of people" above, so it would not matter even if I, as only one person, completely accepted your opinion.

I'm not sure I understand your argument here, in what way can "convenience" be said to resemble freedom? Anyhow, I'm not an absolutist, being free (in a political sense) doesn't entail being without material constraints, we all operate under such constraints (be they inter-personal, political, gravitational, etc). However, no one should suffer under the illusion that the term includes servitude to another's will (or, for that matter, the will of the many), nor that "freedom" has any meaning outside of the domain in which it operates. So, lets not treat the term willy-nilly ... there be unicorns.

CasperVector wrote:

Finally, back to my own post:

CasperVector wrote:

And the Unix philosophy is, by the way, the only technical means by which we can get rid of control by big companies like the one which attempts to push systemd everywhere.

CasperVector wrote:

Perhaps I should have said "... perhaps the only practical means by which we can get rid of technical control by big companies like the one ...". I believe I have shown that we already can.

... and as I argued previously, there are no technical solutions to political problems, and as you claim that this has been "shown" not to be the case then please explain the level of control Redhat exercises in terms of software development. If not that then explain how said "means" are applicable now, but not coextensive with the control now exercised (by that I mean, something must explain all the factors than made such control possible).

best ... khay

khayyam
Watchman

Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2018 1:02 pm Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al.

Tony0945 wrote:

That's why we have laws and courts.

CasperVector wrote:

But khayyam did not seem to want to rely on laws (at least the current ones) :(

CasperVector ... ummmm, yes, but only in the sense that no jew in their right mind would rely on the Nuremberg Laws to furnish justice. None the less, Tony0945 is right, that is the purpose of laws and courts ... and I said as much "providing such a solution is the very reason we institute political and juridical systems, and it's these that we need to look to to check abuse, and provide justice."

So, the question is, does the law (so, the licence), and courts that uphold that law, secure the liberty of those using it for that purpose, or does it provide the means by which "big corporations" can extract the value of that labour ... and having done so then be at liberty to use the value extracted as a means to direct development in whatever direction they deem necessary for their revenue stream?

best ... khay

CasperVector
Apprentice

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 156

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2018 1:15 pm Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al.

khayyam wrote:

In the context I introduced Spinoza I was simply arguing that such formalised agreements (such as a licence) are not the only mechanism in play, nor are they the only means by which we come to agreement, reciprocate, etc.

So do you have, or not, a practical proposal about a way to the "freedom" you suggest?

khayyam wrote:

I have no problem with there being 10,000 schools, I expect however that the errors of any one of those schools would be made evident, and so capable of correction.

I guess technical advocation about technical problems (eg. the advocation for open soure) should have been supported by certain schools.

khayyam wrote:

I'm not sure I understand your argument here, in what way can "convenience" be said to resemble freedom?

I do not consider what I call convenience to resemble what you call "freedom"; if it resembles freedom, the freedom will be that one in "being technically free from bloat".

khayyam wrote:

Here "control" specifically meant the de facto restriction imposed by free bloatware (and especially free bloat-malware) that the user cannot easily modify the software, despite it being prefectly FOSS.
So this was specifically about technical problems: even for free bloat-malware, although there is clearly a political agenda, the problem we directly face and need to solve is still technical.
_________________
My current OpenPGP key:
RSA4096/0x227E8CAAB7AA186C (expires: 2020.10.19)
7077 7781 B859 5166 AE07 0286 227E 8CAA B7AA 186C

khayyam
Watchman

Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2018 5:04 pm Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al.

khayyam wrote:

CasperVector wrote:

So do you have, or not, a practical proposal about a way to the "freedom" you suggest?

CasperVector ... we've been here before. Do you want that I understate the problem, and assure you that all you need do is check the box "Yes, to proposition x ... oh, and take immediate steps to avert the impending disaster our species, and planet, is heading toward at an increasingly alarming speed"? I'm not going to do that, it would be dishonest. No, the problems are huge, and I can not pretend otherwise, there is no quick fix, or magic bullet. All I can do is provide some much needed clarity, and where possible act in a manner that lives up to the ethical conditions I espouse.

Those issues trump those of software licensing, and go right to the heart of the socio-political arrangements we engender, validate, compose, and place our trust in. I'm not cynical enough to think that I'm the only person on planet earth to see their (or our) failings, but I'm also not willing to play Cassandra to a sonambulant Narcissus ... I know where that path leads, and I would sooner accept my own immanent mortality than be someones darling something, or a peddler in solutions.

khayyam wrote:

I have no problem with there being 10,000 schools, I expect however that the errors of any one of those schools would be made evident, and so capable of correction.

CasperVector wrote:

I guess technical advocation about technical problems (eg. the advocation for open soure) should have been supported by certain schools.

OK ... and now found to be in error.

khayyam wrote:

I'm not sure I understand your argument here, in what way can "convenience" be said to resemble freedom?

CasperVector wrote:

I do not consider what I call convenience to resemble what you call "freedom"; if it resembles freedom, the freedom is that one in "being technically free from bloat".

So, nothing at all to do with a political condition, and so bears no resemblance to freedom whatsoever ... other than the inclusion of the word "free" (meaning without).

khayyam wrote:

CasperVector wrote:

Here "control" specifically meant the de facto restriction imposed by free bloatware (and especially free bloat-malware) that the user cannot easily modify the software, despite it being prefectly FOSS. So this was specifically about technical problems: even for free bloat-malware, although there is clearly a political agenda, the problem we directly face and need to solve is still technical.

OK, I think I've chased this one particular argument to ground. So, one simple question: how did redhat (or other redhat supported projects) gain technical control?

best ... khay

CasperVector
Apprentice

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 156

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2018 5:52 pm Post subject: Re: UNIX way, C, LISP et al.

khayyam wrote:

589 bytes, really nice an expansion for "no". I consider "impractical" as severe as "meaningless" (quite Marxist, isn't it?), and since many people (including me) do not consider technical benefits "meaningless", what I pursue is surely better than "meaningless" for these people. I guess this says enough about the root of our disagreements.

khayyam wrote:

OK ... and now found to be in error.

Which I disagree.

khayyam wrote:

So, nothing at all to do with a political condition, and so bears no resemblance to freedom whatsoever ... other than the inclusion of the word "free" (meaning without).