religion?

[Leo Mauler]

--- Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:

> On Wednesday 12 March 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
> > When you throw in someone who is devout in 
> > both areas (such as Luke-Jr, who regards 
> > "ndiswrapper" as a kind of apostasy because 
> > it requires the use of Microsoft drivers), a 
> > Linux list getting a religious rant is 
> > entirely too likely. 
> 
> Do you enjoy misquoting?

Nope, which is why I didn't quote you from memory. 
Note the lack of quotation marks around my own words
in the phrase "Luke-Jr ... regards 'ndiswrapper' as a
kind of apostasy" (the one above, obviously not this
one).  "Apostasy" generally means "becoming immoral"
or "adopting immoral behaviors" (both of which aren't
that much different from the strict dictionary
definition, "leaving one's religion").

I pretty much nailed your exact opinion of
"ndiswrapper", which you revealed during a KCLUG list
discussion from December 2005 to January 2006, "Linux
on older laptops":

> On Thursday, 29 Dec 2005 14:20:47 Luke-Jr 
> <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday 29 December 2005 08:57, Leo 
> > Mauler wrote:
> > 
> > > As for wireless support, learn this 
> > > keyword: "ndiswrapper".
> > 
> > ndiswrapper is just a hack to use immoral 
> > drivers.  Not a real solution at all.

Your use of the words "immoral drivers" was what
prompted my comment about "apostasy".  You didn't call
the Microsoft drivers "bad drivers," or
"poorly-written drivers."  No, you used the religious
term "immoral."

And when I tried to defend ndiswrapper, you replied
again that it is better to have no drivers AT ALL than
to have immoral drivers:

> On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 15:57:18, Luke-Jr Luke-Jr 
> <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Sunday 01 January 2006 06:58, Leo Mauler 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > --- Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > ndiswrapper is just a hack to use immoral 
> > > > drivers.  Not a real solution at all.
> > >
> > > Of course its a real solution.  If you don't 
> > > have drivers then you don't have a network 
> > > card.  If you do have drivers then you have 
> > > a network card, regardless of where the 
> > > drivers came from.
> > >
> > > What you meant to say was that it is a less 
> > > preferable solution.
> >  
> > Better to not have drivers at all than to have 
> > immoral drivers.

Other people tried to reason with you as well.  You
would have none of it:

> On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 03:17:03, Luke-Jr 
> <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Monday 02 January 2006 02:20, Matthew 
> > Copple wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 15:57:18, Luke-Jr 
> > > <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Better to not have drivers at all than to 
> > > > have immoral drivers.
> > >
> > > Better an immoral driver than a $1,000+ 
> > > paperweight (or a $1,299 Windows XP box, 
> > > which is what would happen if there were 
> > > no driver available).
> >  
> > Better to deprive business and a sale than to 
> > buy hardware without [moral] drivers.

=====
And:
=====

> On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 14:54:32, Luke-Jr 
> <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Monday 02 January 2006 13:03, Bill 
> > Cavalieri wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm not understanding your comparison of 
> > > morality and ndiswrapper I guess.
> > 
> > The only practical use for ndiswrapper is 
> > to load an immoral driver.

==========================
And I tried one more time:
==========================

> On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 04:33:11, Luke-Jr 
> <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday 03 January 2006 20:42, Leo Mauler 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 05:34:44, Luke-Jr 
> > > <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Tuesday 03 January 2006 00:19, 
> > > > Richard Piper wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Just curious Luke, how far do you take 
> > > > > this belief? Do you only run computers 
> > > > > which work with a free-as-in-freedom 
> > > > > BIOs as well?
> > > > 
> > > > If I had that choice, I certainly would. 
> > > > Ditto for firmware and hardware.
> > >
> > > And if we had the choice of using "moral" 
> > > drivers, we certainly would.  Some of us 
> > > don't have the choice of using "moral" 
> > > drivers, so, EXACTLY LIKE YOU, we choose 
> > > what we have to and not necessarily what 
> > > we want.
> > 
> > That doesn't work when someone knowingly 
> > chooses to limit their choices by buying 
> > hardware lacking moral drivers.

I think that "apostasy" accurately describes your
opinion of anyone who uses ndiswrapper in Linux.  From
the words you actually said, your opinion seems to be
that there is no *moral* way to use ndiswrapper, thus
anyone who uses ndiswrapper has clearly "left the fold".


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ