|
|
发表于 2006-5-31 20:39:47
|
显示全部楼层
first i want to solve the problem of binbindatou:
算了吧，韦先生，我们还继续喂下去吗？瞧瞧他说的话：
引用:所以推廣在技術上沒有優勢的軟件，我認爲是害了多數的人。 所以是用多數人的自由換少數人的自由。
当然，你举例说明了，很多自由软件确比专有软件强。 但是就算不证明，单单看他这句话…… 他在信口雌黄！ 我是不想继续喂下去了。
but my point of view is based on your words:
呵呵，自由是相对的，人类社会本来如此。人类历史的进程也就是"不断地剥夺一部分人的自由，让另一部分人更加自由的过程"，不满？抱怨？谁让你生而为人呢？
so every time you want to quote my words, please add the whole text to avoid misleading.
now that Mr. Wei declear his point of view with patient, i will also give my stand this time.
first let me do some warm-ups:
The issue is that the proprietary software companies won't allow free software by lobbying the government to threaten free software developers with
such a kind of harsh punishment
do you have any proof of it? if not, please be careful next time. you should be responsible to your words.
I consider the GNU FDL (GNU Free Documentation License) as problematic.
in fact, the free software's documents is the biggest headache of stallman. he said the real threaten of the fs is not from the outside, but its inside. such
a funny paradox thing.
you have said Stallman == Hitler, and then say Stallman is a nice guy? Then doesn't this mean Hitler is a nice guy too?!
well, nice here means he has a good behavior, and stallman is nice. stallman is also a good man because what he said can do good to some hackers. but some
people as you want to "bring the freedom to everybody" which i do not agree.
引用:所以是用多數人的自由換少數人的自由。
Sorry. I can't see your point. Why giving something which freed the users from the danger of being sued for doing something natural with the software can
"take away" their freedom? And why it's more "free" for the users when they are threatened with all sorts of harsh punishments for using or sharing the
software?
as i have pointed out, free software itself has no problem. but many people think it is good and can bring freedom to them, they think all the people should
have this freedom so that they promote free softwares and its philosophy which i think it deprives many people's freedom.
here let's talk about the free software.
my view is that "the free software movement" is good because it can bring freedom to many people, especially hackers. but some people like you want to bring
such freedom to most of the computer users.i think this is wrong.because most of the time free software do no good to common users, because common users
cannot change a software themselves with their ability. and the two freedom (which you pointed out above) is not a good reason (which i will take into
account after a minute). so that if you want everyone to use free software, you deprived their freedom.
here let me define the word freedom. the freedom i use in this text means classical freedom(罗克或者霍布斯定义的自由), which means you have the freedom to do
anything provided that you do not deprived other's freedom. rousseau(卢梭) defined another kind of freedom which means you use this thing to choose a better
thing. i do not use this freedom because the classical freedom is more generally used in our world. i think your words are somewhat rousseau's freedom.
because you have the freedom to use free software which you think it's good to you and you ask many people who are behind the veil of ignorance to use free
software because you think it will do good to them and the people behind that veil do not understand which is the good thing they really want. in this way
you help those people who are ignorance to find there freedom which was considerd as a freedom by rousseau.
Please tell me why it's _wrong_, and not whether it's against the law or not. When the law is prohibiting something not wrong, it's the law that is
unjustify.
now i can tell you why it is wrong. because all the DVDs have there copyrights. in order to protect the DVDs' copyrights, we have invented a new encryption
technology (called CSS) to make it unable to copy and an organization called DVDCCA came into being. what the DVDCCA do is that it will sell you the licence
to make a DVD player. but in 1999, a group of hackers (i wonder can they be called hackers) cracked the CSS and developed a tool called DECSS, and what is
worse, they did it without the licence. in fact, CSS is a biz-secret to most DVD makers because without it they will lose a lot of money. so that you can
only make a software for study or research use. a similar example is that now you made a software to crack the Windows XP's serial number, can you publish
it? so my view is very clear: yes, you can have your freedom, but you cannot interfare other's freedom. such things like cracker or decss will hurt others.
and may not called "bring freedom to somebody", the fact is that they hurt the whole movie industry!
The goal the free software movement is not just technical, that's true; however that doesn't mean free software are inferior. GNU/Linux has proven to
be more usable and powerful than many non-free UNIXes. And the GCC is the first true cross-platform optimize compiler in this world.
the disscussion we hold is only based on the documents such as GPL, and i do not want to use any vivid example. because what i am interested in is only the
philosophy. now that you have pointed out that free softwaere have technical advanced, let's take a look at it. i agree that the gcc or the linux kernel is
very powerful. but many users needn't using it. for those who are not hackers, the softwares they needed were not very well as to the free version. let's
take some general used software as example, many people should use a word processing system. and MS word is very powerful. last time a friend of mine didn't
know the pinyin of a chinese character, and he used the "Microsoft Pinyin Imput Method" pad to draw the character and imputed it. with Open Office and Fcitx,
now it is impossible to do that. in fact Microsoft Office have other technical advantage to make work easier to do. as another example, i found that matlab
is better than MAXIMA. i also use AutoCAD because i think OpenCAD is somewhat JUNK. so that i agreed that many gnu software is good, but as to the programme
the most users want, they are not very well. and now i should define a kind of "technical". for most users, technical advantages do not only mean they can
use most of it(for example when you use Tex, you can do everything you want with codes). the word "technical" i used here also means people can take very
simple steps to finish the work and the design of the software take everything the mass need into account.
That _is_ actually against the OEM License.
What's worse, do you think it's fair if you need to have yourself hurt when you are doing something _nice_? So IMHO what you said is totally bovine manure.
Noone will "share" software they still need if they have to delete it from their own computers first. This version of the freedom to share is an illusion.
okey, buy a new copy and that will do. |
|
IP卡
狗仔卡
显身卡