Agreeing with World Domination 201 plot
I just carefully read World Domination 201 document and surprising as it may sound to some I find myself in agreement.
Maybe if it focused on World Domination for the World Domination's sake I wouldn't have found it as compelling, but there is a theme visible throughout the whole article which suggests something deeper. It is not about achieving World Domination by GNU/Linux so much as it is about achieving power necessary to essentially "free the world" of all that is proprietary.
Authors basically succeeded at convincing me that without a bit of compromise, we just wont be able to pull it out in time. And no matter how pure in our ideals we were, we would be too small for our voice to be significantly world changing. I am not sure Richard Stallman and the whole Free Software movement can cause a movement of such massive proportions to change things for everyone soon enough. In fact, after reading this it seems to me that choosing the completely uncompromising path at this point would be akin to choosing to play defense instead of offense. It's "we are not about domination, we're about freedom" attitude.
But that begs the question, freedom for who? Only a few of us who care to have it or for the whole world? Sure, some of us may say that those who don't care for freedom don't deserve to have it. But I beg to differ. By that line of thinking those who we just written off as those who don't deserve it may well become those who contribute to the pressure against freedom of our own, yes ourselves who do care about our freedom. No, I believe that freedom should be delivered to everyone, including those who don't care enough to even try to understand it. Trust me, they probably aren't too enthusiastic about proprietary stuff either. If you give them the Free code that works, they'll use it as much as they'd use the proprietary code that works.
Which brings us back to the question of how to bring them the Free code that works. How to bring *all of them* *only* the Free code that works?
If we can't do it without that paradoxical compromise to our ideals then we obviously have to consider other options.
It comes down to this:
The world is mud. But we are clean. And we want the whole world to be clean. However, from where we stand, isolated in our cleanness from the rest of the mud we can't spill enough cleaning water to clean the world. We need to climb higher, but to do so we need to pass through bits of mud, but we are anti-mud, we don't want to do that. But if we want the world to be clean we have to. We have to endure bits of mud being spilled onto us in order to come out on the top and spill the cleaning water.
Maybe it's a silly analogy, but I hope it portrays the way I'm thinking about it. The compromise in this case is not exactly a compromise of our ideals if we do it for the sake of those very ideals. We want to dominate the world because we are the only ones who can change it to reflect the ideals we believe in. And we can't do that without a bit of sacrificing.
I guess I've said enough. I anticipate your opinions.