[OT] Re: Python training time (was)

[Martijn Faassen]

David K. Trudgett <dkt at registriesltd.com.au> wrote:
> On Tuesday 2003-02-25 at 01:14:32 +0000, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> 
>> And he said saying "free software" gives bad connotations as
>> managers somehow associate it with "communism". 

[snip]
> On the specific point of ESR's, that the term "free software" gives a
> bad impression to business people, and that the term "open source" is
> better used instead, I have to disagree.

It makes some amount of sense in English, but less so in most other
languages, where we have separate words for 'free' and 'gratis', too.
I can imagine a manager getting daunted by use of the word 'freedom'
in a business proposition -- people don't associate business so much
with ideology.

[snip]
> I have to agree with RMS that
> the principle of freedom is the crux, even for business.

Then again, RMS himself won't make any stunning impression on most
business people. :)

Anyway, I tend to prefer using 'open source'. I can do ideological
debates too but I don't feel much inclined to; instead we (Infrae) just
put our money where our mouths would be. :)

> I wonder if ESR would prefer the term "free love" to "open monogamy".
> Which is more important? Openness or freedom? :-)

He prefers 'polyamorous' as far as I'm aware. :)
 
>> While communism is likely considered a distinctly bad idea to most
>> managers in Europe it doesn't mean people are instantly repelled and
>> fearful either.
> 
> I would hazard that that is mostly because a lot more people in Europe
> are exposed to, and know about, the various flavours of communism and
> how they are supposed to work in theory.

We're not exposed to communist theory that much. But somehow it seems
to be less of a bogeyman, even though many europeans saw flavors of 
communism practiced very much up close.

> To an outsider, it appears to
> me that to many Europeans, communism is more something to be wary of
> than fearful of, and that's mainly because a number of evils can be
> hidden within one label (authoritarian and totalitarian control being
> one of them).

Wariness tends to be closer to wisdom than fear. You fear what you
don't know and can't get a handle on. You're wary of something you 
know plenty about and have figured is not a good idea.

[snip]
>> Oh, and of course ESR also holds peculiar views not shared by lots of
>> others in the US -- then again, his set of peculiar views could've only
>> arisen in the US. :)
> 
> Not wishing to comment one way or the other on ESR's well-known views,
> I can only ask the rhetorical question: "How many geniuses didn't have
> 'peculiar' views?" :-) That's not to say that peculiar views are any
> indicator of genius! :-))

It can also work the other way around. If you're intellectually inclined
and have some peculiar views *and* you're pretty sure you're right
about them, you're far more inclined to go go public with them and
become well known than if your views were a bit more subtle and you 
were a bit less adamant. Thus, you're far more likely to be recognized
as a genius if you are unconventional in your thinking *and* adamant about it.
You got to have both; one isn't enough.

Regards,

Martijn
-- 
History of the 20th Century: WW1, WW2, WW3?
No, WWW -- Could we be going in the right direction?