When Good Agendas Turn Bad - Linux/GNU, etc

[Richard Franks]

On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 19:59 +0000, Declan Naughton wrote:
> "Threat to unregister" I never knew you considered me to be such a
> valuable asset. I posted pretty much exclusively to the GNU/Linux or
> Linux related threads.

The point of a community is that everyone has something to contribute.


> Whenever I registered I did think freedom discussion would be on the
> agenda, and valued, but if it explicitly isn't, that's exactly
> opposite to what I was expecting.

"Free Your Phone!", "OpenMoko" - Freedom is the foundation to this
project.. and as this kicks off it is going to be invaluable to have
opinions from people who care this much about Freedom to help keep the
balance. Technology when abused decreases Freedom after all.


>  I would not really be unregistering
> in protest, but believe what you want.

Then I choose to believe you - apologies for jumping off the wrong side of ambiguity.


> "an issue the community can solve itself" I think if the project's
> father/s projected their views, what they intended when they began the
> project, people who may have gotten the wrong idea can leave if they
> wish.

"No particular scope" would be my personal guess.

However you wouldn't show up at a Linux Users Group meeting, and keep
interrupting by yelling "Windows Sucks!" every five minutes - and I
think this is somewhat similar - I may agree with you, but the
disruption caused is overshadowing the technology.

I think we can be stronger if we pool our energy - in terms of Freedom,
the Neo1973 is breaking new ground - the computer you carry in your
pocket will grow to become your main interface to the electronic world -
the frameworks we create now will eventually define this era of
computing.

If we were to lose the FSF perspective at any stage down the road, then
we could end up only able to buy highly sophisticated yet crippled
devices which actively impose upon our Freedoms. Like now, but worse.

In that sense, I imagine the Neo1973 as a platform which furthers the
aims of the FSF through its success.. and retains its integrity through
that symbiotic relationship.

So although I'd rather we didn't have hundreds of posts saying pretty
much the same thing again and again... linking repeatedly to the FSF
website for reference.. if accepting this silently is the only way to
retain your input, then fine :-)

Richard