Various people from time to time suggest that the Linux / FOSS community should accept a temporary compromise in order to achieve some goal. Even esr's World Domination 201 essentially ends up making this suggestion. One thing they are all missing is a credible mechanism to ensure that the compromise is, indeed, temporary. If the problem is mentioned at all, it tends to be in a conclusory, passive-voice way; "must be prepared to … die", to only slightly twist esr's words, if not his meaning.
Possibly, this is simply an idea that won't work; there's nothing wrong with that, everyone has one of those. It does mean, however, that we should reject it, like we do all the other ideas that won't work. It will not help us to follow such a plan.
Possibly, the proponents intend a permanent compromise, and any talk of its being temporary is mere misdirection. Perhaps we are happy with that, but we should be honest about what it is we are doing.
Possibly, of course, they do have such a mechanism, but aren't telling us, or such a mechanism exists to be found. In that case, great — once we know what it is, we can judge it on its merits.
⇦ A free software advocate is … | ⇨ Niva for sale |
