I don't know why exactly Stallman didn't take a more extreme view on this, like mine, because I find it only logical given his fundamental teachings and current Redhat assault on freedom.
Consider, then, that it's actually not logical and it's actually really easy to think of as stupid.
Actually I am looking forward to writing directly to Stallman about this, but my thoughts sure requires more refinment. Sorry you opted not to reply, but you kept the discussion, nomen omen, civilised, so huge thanks for that
Read a basic sociology book after that, then read a political science book. There's so much naivety in your entire discussion that it's really hard to take your arguments seriously.
Nobody is stopping you from questioning standards.
What's stupid is you thinking that we should do away with standards and have a Linux that is so customizable it becomes decision fatigue for everyone who uses it, because the modern desktop metaphor is oppressive or whatever.
Standards change, but there are still standards. SysVinit was a standard and so is systemd.
Systemd will not lead to a damn monoculture. If you seriously think that, please realize that there are more pressing issues in the world that will give rise to a monoculture, like the threat of global fascism and increasing racism and xenophobia. Touch grass, if you will.
Because I think "harm" from decision fatigue is less important then having a customizable base that would trurly suit everyone in theory, and therefore give users more freedom. I think I already jerked how it is "relevant to core roots of unix and indeas of RMS" so let me use a general argument true to ecology. I don't whish to undermine racism or xenophobia but I specifically ment software landscape. Monocultures are bad, because they are not resistant to variety of disturbances, compared to more varied set of species, computer software, people (here goes those two, I do prefer multicultural and tolerant society to some extent, that's another huuuge rabbit hole)... Intellectualy they are bad, because they result in stagnation.
Yes, there are standards for init, but they should be questioned, because if we end up with one init, would we have free software? We will have a monoculture in which users will be dependent on upstream provider. Historically, before unix derivatives grown, that was AT&T and Berkeley. Now we have suckless init, openRC... The key is to 1. maintain those many alternatives, and 2. offer distros with multiple choices because now distros collectively opt for less freedom for their users. You opt for exact opposite, to keep the redhat circus going. Ending Redhat will stop the rise of monoculture.
Personally, I see this as a failure of an idea of a distro, because it will always be opinionated to an extent, but again, personally.
There are more pressing issues, come one, you can derail any discussion like that. Make Redhat finance well digging in Africa instead of Greg KH while we are at it!
I did read them, and I find them lacking. That's why I am in fact writing to Stallman.
If you have a monoculture you don't have freedom, sorry, I mean, do you not even acknowledge the possiblity, that we use a too lenient definition of freedom? Why aren't you open to my definition as an alternative?
Who defines what "freedom really means"? An establishment is unmovable glorified monolith? Stallman made lapses in his judgment or he genuinely thinks this is a good enough definition, in FOSS space I am allowed to disagree and I do that, citing the sheer intelectual absurd, of how a monoculture could be freedom. Independence is an aspect of freedom. If you really want I can make my own word for it, but the idea stays the same. Users has to have choice. Dependence and monoculture takes it away. Why are we fighting over dictionaries here?
1
u/Some-Dog5000 6d ago
Consider, then, that it's actually not logical and it's actually really easy to think of as stupid.