You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
3 Comments
Glanz Says:
I agree with that post. Mark is a positive guy! All he is trying to do is turn a potentially very negative and unproductive situation into something persuasively constructive. Now I not only enjoy using Ubuntu; I am proud to use it. So the founder is outspoken! My, my, what a shock!
The spirit of Mark’s “offer” is not at all a “cheap move” as some have suggested. I know that I would not be comfortable developing for a LINUX DISTRIBUTION that has a monetary association with a criminal monopolist. Perhaps some SuSE developers feel the same. In spite of Novell’s Open Letter to Microsoft, the MS FUD is already in the works, crudely thrown in the media gears by Ballmer. I have a question for Open SuSE developers: Do you feel comfortable having Ballmer speaking for you and for your efforts, and also believing that he has some control over them?
There are two things here. (i) The ridiculous presupposition that Mark’s actions were appropriate; leaders are great, but they’re useless if everyone follows them BLINDLY. (ii) Your comment that those disagreeing with Mark are irrational. Well, needless to say argumentum ad hominem is hardly a valid form of logical argumentation. As soon as someone doesn’t have a leg to stand on, the insults come in, indeed. :)
Intentions are one thing, actual actions are another. It’s quite irrelevant if I kill 1000 people because I feel they’ll be happier. Where I’m acting without reason, my intentions take a far lower status.
Putting aside your perfect right to come down on one side of the argument or the other, implicitly labelling those whose comments you disagree with (presumably, myself included) as irrational, while easy to do, is quite damaging, for two reasons.
First, you polarise the discussion. In fact, there have been irrational reactions on each side of this discussion, but plenty more rational ones on both sides. Labelling the entirety of one side as irrational will damage the chances of having a perfectly productive discussion between people who disagree about something which in the end is a matter of opinion.
Second, it comes across as arrogant to dismiss other people’s opinions like that. As I say, there are a whole host of potential opinions in relation to this discussion, most of which are rational and perfectly valid. I’m sure that isn’t what you meant, it’s just how it sounds.
Irrational is a strong word, as apocryphos has pointed out.
I agree with that post. Mark is a positive guy! All he is trying to do is turn a potentially very negative and unproductive situation into something persuasively constructive. Now I not only enjoy using Ubuntu; I am proud to use it. So the founder is outspoken! My, my, what a shock!
The spirit of Mark’s “offer” is not at all a “cheap move” as some have suggested. I know that I would not be comfortable developing for a LINUX DISTRIBUTION that has a monetary association with a criminal monopolist. Perhaps some SuSE developers feel the same. In spite of Novell’s Open Letter to Microsoft, the MS FUD is already in the works, crudely thrown in the media gears by Ballmer. I have a question for Open SuSE developers: Do you feel comfortable having Ballmer speaking for you and for your efforts, and also believing that he has some control over them?
There are two things here. (i) The ridiculous presupposition that Mark’s actions were appropriate; leaders are great, but they’re useless if everyone follows them BLINDLY. (ii) Your comment that those disagreeing with Mark are irrational. Well, needless to say argumentum ad hominem is hardly a valid form of logical argumentation. As soon as someone doesn’t have a leg to stand on, the insults come in, indeed. :)
Intentions are one thing, actual actions are another. It’s quite irrelevant if I kill 1000 people because I feel they’ll be happier. Where I’m acting without reason, my intentions take a far lower status.
Putting aside your perfect right to come down on one side of the argument or the other, implicitly labelling those whose comments you disagree with (presumably, myself included) as irrational, while easy to do, is quite damaging, for two reasons.
First, you polarise the discussion. In fact, there have been irrational reactions on each side of this discussion, but plenty more rational ones on both sides. Labelling the entirety of one side as irrational will damage the chances of having a perfectly productive discussion between people who disagree about something which in the end is a matter of opinion.
Second, it comes across as arrogant to dismiss other people’s opinions like that. As I say, there are a whole host of potential opinions in relation to this discussion, most of which are rational and perfectly valid. I’m sure that isn’t what you meant, it’s just how it sounds.
Irrational is a strong word, as apocryphos has pointed out.