Linux on older laptops

[Rick]

Luke-Jr wrote:
>> I'm sorry, but at this point, you fall off the edge of your own world.
>> You claim it's immoral for an entity, be it personal or corporate,
> 
> "corporate entities" is a bug in certain legal systems, not a real thing.

"corporate entities" in my context is that entity which has a legal 
presence.

> 
>> to distribute *their* creation as they see fit,
> 
> The problem is only when "they see fit" involved artificially restricting the 
> rights of others.

What perceived rights do you assert to *my* belongings?

> 
>> yet you find it reasonable to continue to use that same software/hardware?
> 
> Not when I have a choice. If I am forced to use something licensed/distributed 
> immorally, well... I'm forced to use it. Not much I can do there. The new 
> open-design PPC system looks promising, though.

Someone is forcing you to post to this list? You should contact the 
authorities immediately.

> 
>> You *do* have that choice.
> 
> Nope.

Yes, you do. To say otherwise is to state that you are being forced to 
do something that is obviously voluntary. Computer access is not even on 
the order of food, air, or water for survival.

> 
>> You could fabricate your own hardware, and then program it yourself.
> 
> I could not, as I lack the skills to design the hardware or to fabricate it.

And here we identify your core rationalization. You *chose* not to learn 
how to do these things, perhaps for perfectly good reason. However, you 
mask this *choice* as your reason for not building your own system.

> 
>> You *choose* to skip that step and use someone else's piece's and parts, all
>> the while espousing how immoral it all is. 
> 
> I have no choice but to use the parts someone else has designed due to above 
> limitations of practicality.

Practicality is not a bound of immorality. To state otherwise is a 
rationalization. If you want to be an idealist, don't half-ass it.

> 
>>>> The way I see it: the drivers aren't immoral; the company's decision to
>>>> not open source the drivers was immoral.
>>> And your decision to buy the device and use the drivers is an act of
>>> support. Now, obviously if you were given it or had already bought it,
>>> that doesn't apply, but you're still sacrificing your rights and
>>> piece-of-mind (who knows what backdoors these drivers might have?) by
>>> using them.
>> Are you not, according to your first paragraph, also supporting them?
>> You're obviously using a computer, yet every computer that runs on non
>> free-as-in-beer hardware/software is immoral?
> 
> I can only make a choice when a choice is given. If someone pushes you off a 
> tower, are you at fault because you chose to continue falling?
> 

If you do not choose, you have still made a choice. You *choose* not to 
learn how to do all these things, and therefore you *choose* to use 
*other's* ideas, sweat, time, and money.

An example: I spend a year carefully building a really nifty widget, 
spending nights away from my family, my money to buy systems to test it, 
etc. When I'm done, *I* get to decide how my widget should be used 
because it's *mine*. If I decide to open source my widget, great. I've 
donated *my* efforts to the community. To imply that you have some 
innate rights to my blood, sweat, and tears is to give weight to MS's 
argument that F/OSS should dump the GPL in favor of the BSD license.

The philosophy you're espousing utilizes the absolute worst parts of 
communism, by claiming right to my work without requiring any investment 
on your part. It is parasitic and worse than useless in the real world.

Rick B