Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 11th Nov 2012 15:49 UTC
Windows "Yesterday my desktop died, and so I went ahead and got a brand new Windows 8 laptop. It's always been my feeling that as years go on, user experience has been going down for people who use a computer and the Internet, because of decisions all companies make that are clearly anti-user, either because they think they know best, or in many cases, for financial gains. But from spending all night reinstalling everything and customizing the laptop, I realized just how bad it has become." Probably the biggest reason to go Mac or Linux. Such a shame Microsoft found it more important to pressure OEMs into silly Secure Boot nonsense instead of doing something about the anti-user crapware disaster. Goes to show who Microsoft cares about. Hint: it ain't you.
Thread beginning with comment 542092
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by marcp
by kwan_e on Mon 12th Nov 2012 08:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by marcp"
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

[It's the GPL that capitalizes and redefines freedom in a creepy newspeak fashion.


There's the definition, and there's the actual concept and its effects. Like it or not, the real world doesn't care how freedom is defined. What matters is what you actually get as a result.

In some cases, the result you get with GPL licence is more beneficial than BSD.

What's creepy is that people consider freedom to include "freedom to screw others over". There's simply no such thing as absolute freedom - there will always be contention. Ultimately there is a choice between GPL and BSD that anyone can make so it's disturbing how people can view the existence of something contrary to their ideas as somehow personally affecting them.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by marcp
by WereCatf on Mon 12th Nov 2012 08:52 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by marcp"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

There's simply no such thing as absolute freedom - there will always be contention.


Indeed. True, fully complete, unadulterated freedom is in and of itself an oxymoron: it would mean you have the freedom to reign over anything and everyone else while at the same time having the freedom not to be reigned over yourself by anyone or anything -- you simply cannot have both at the same time. As such freedom in the real, material world will always be a subset of the actual philosophical concept of freedom, there is simply no way of fully fitting an all-encompassing, philosophical concept into a world that is governed by physics, not philosophy.

With the aforementioned in mind it's silly to try to claim one's approach to freedom is the best one as it is still affected by one's values, culture and various kinds of limitations imposed by the government and plain, old physics. Debating which approach is better -- not the best -- is certainly acceptable, but one really needs to keep in mind that they are still merely projections of something that is unobtainable and therefore they will always come short.

Reply Parent Score: 3