64 bit distributions - Worth bothering yet?

[Monty J. Harder]

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Justin Dugger <jldugger at gmail.com>

> > The entire point of "GNU" and "Free Software" is to be ABLE to run only
> > non-proprietary software if one chooses.  For those of a different
> > ideological orientation, the above paragraph applies.  It is a similar
> > disagreement to the one Objectivists have with Libertarians.
>
> You are neglecting the "Linux" portion of "GNU/Linux" quoted from the
> grandparent.  Torvalds has consistently been at odds with the FSF, who
>

I'm not neglecting it.  I guess I didn't connect the dots well enough for
you.


> view presently view liberated software as a moral objective itself
> rather than a means to an end -- fixing bugs.  Even Stallman's
> original cause was to fix a bug in a printer, and he still fights to
> preserve the right for people to fix bugs in products they own.  In
> fact, Stallman had to go in and add "freedom of use" later to his free
> software definition, because his goal is a place where programmers can
> Write and Fix free software, not merely Use it.
>

No, I don't have to connect the dots, because you've shown that you already
have them connected.  Torvalds' goal has always been good software, not the
freedoms that RMS and the FSF hold so dear.  He just thinks that GPL2 is a
license that facilitates making good software.

It really rankles ideologial purists when someone agrees with them for the
wrong reasons; they worry about those wrong reasons leading to what they
consider wrong answers on other points.  But occasionally, those
disagreements can be used as object lessons. I think RMS really enjoyed the
BitKeeper debacle, because it gave him a chance to say "I told you so."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kclug.org/pipermail/kclug/attachments/20081128/17d5108d/attachment.htm>