Petr Kovar posted on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 22:48:05 +0200 as excerpted: >> Their share of >> the FLOSS community is lower as well, tho that may have to do as much >> with opportunity in a formerly closed society as it does with >> recognition/ monetary compensation priorities. > > Well, I live in one such former Eastern bloc country and I can't agree > with you here. Why do you think that "their share of the FLOSS community > is lower"? I'm pretty sure that their share is as high as it is with > people from other developed regions of the world.
I had some difficulty writing that and obviously didn't succeed in conveying what I intended, tho it too may be incorrect. What I was trying to say, and failing, was that (my impression is that) Eastern bloc contributions have been lower in the past, and may still be, but are rising and may well be comparable at this point. I gave the reason why I believe that to be the case (the former lack of communication between the sides), but failed to convey that IMO it's self-correcting as we speak, and may indeed have already done so. (FWIW, I use reiserfs and likely will continue to until btrfs stabilizes, and did have in mind all the work put into that, despite the unfortunate situation it's in with its namesake being a convicted murderer of his former wife -- talk about abuse. And I respect all the continued work Eduard S. (IIRC that's correct) and his team has put into reiser4 despite all the unfortunates. But it's true I don't really know the extent of Eastern bloc participation in other FLOSS projects at this point.) BTW, is "Eastern bloc" still acceptable, or does it bring up histories better left in the past, etc, as well? Is there a more acceptable term, from the viewpoint of folks actually there? >> I look forward to the day when if someone makes a remark like that in a >> presentation, RMS or no RMS, half the room (more, it'd be great if it >> were the entire audience, but there's always the few) gets up as if one >> body and walks out, end of presentation, beginning of message that such >> behavior will NOT be tolerated. > > You know what I found more interesting about this RMS "joke" is that to > make fun of women is strictly no-no due to feminism being more or less > part of the Western culture nowadays, but to banter on religion (or > Roman Catholicism and Virgin Mary, to be specific) seems to be much, > much more broadly acceptable in (technical or not) society. I see this > as a clear example of double standard. Well, there's the woman thing, true, but to me it's not that, but the implication of abuse of anyone. That it happened to be women here is somewhat beside the point, for me. As Alan points out with his prison example, males are subject to rape -- and other abuse -- as well, and especially because I'm an abuse survivor myself (don't get me talking about revictimization patterns, what I term victim syndrome), but more than that, because I've known other victims, I simply don't find it acceptable that any positive reference to abuse be tolerated. Uhoh, I'm /already/ talking about victim syndrome... I guess the post isn't quite done yet, after all! =:^) One of the issues victims often deal with is the fact that often, the learned reactions in the victimizing situation aren't healthy coping mechanisms, often ultimately leading to becoming repeat victims as the victims repeatedly and now automatically fall into the same flawed coping patterns, either bringing on abuse or simply reacting as if it was abuse, in situations that wouldn't be a problem for a normal, healthy individual. One of the ways out of this pattern is to learn to assertively and constantly look for every possible alternative, evaluating them and actively ranking them by preference, then making a deliberate choice of which option to take. This works, because it's in every way, a repudiation (which can be assertive enough to be almost violent in some cases) of the previously learned pattern of victimization and reality distortion whereby valid ways out don't appear to be real options. Once one is in that pattern, the ONLY way out is to be constantly assertive in exploring, prioritizing and actively choosing your own destiny, because the moment you yield to "oh, but I had no choice", you're falling into the same old traps and will very likely find yourself victimized once again. I know, I was in the pattern. It took me three times, and that was it. Now, I *HATE* *WITH* *A* *VISCERAL* *PASSION* the "oh, I had no choice" attitude. As a victim wishing to leave victim syndrome behind, one must be ever vigilant, deliberately searching out those options, because in reality, unless you're physically straitjacketed or something similar. there are ALWAYS options. One example I've seen is people with only one broadband provider in their area. "Oh, I have no choice but to use them," they say. But an assertive exploration of options will reveal that's not the case. They can simply ask themselves what they'd do if the provider pulled out of the area or went bankrupt. There's the choice to move. There's the choice to go dialup. There's the choice to do without. There may be other choices, satellite, and for some, paying big bucks to have a T-1 or similar brought in (with the possibility of sharing the connection and cost with the neighbors), etc. All these are choices. Now, it's very possible that one so outweighs the others that it /seems/ the only choice, but in reality, that's only because it's so much better than the others. Recognize that and act on it! Perhaps there are family or friends they don't want to leave behind, and thus don't wish to move. Great. They now know they prioritize their family higher than their Internet connection. Good on to recognize the fact and act on it! But what /would/ they do if that single broadband provider pulled out? Perhaps if they have family, it's important enough to do without Internet at all for a time, or to suffer with dialup. But if it's just that they have a home and would have to take a big loss if they tried to sell it and leave in this financial climate, maybe it really /is/ worth taking the loss and moving, to get better Internet. Maybe it isn't. But it's them with the choice and their priorities they're dealing with. Rank them, recognize them for what they are, and ACT on them, and they'll be happier for it. No more playing a victim to circumstance, whatever it may have been, that landed them in the situation with only one broadband provider (or whatever the issue may be)! They can explore their options, rank their priorities, and assertively ACT on what has been discovered about themselves! And yes, I can witness from personal experience, it DOES make one a happier person! Of course, part of all that positive assertiveness is recognizing positive references to abuse and victimization for what they are and assertively making it known that they aren't acceptable and I, for one, am not going to be tolerating it. To do otherwise is to slip back into the victim role of simply letting it happen, because "oh, I have no choice"! THAT is why I **HATE** the "have no choice" idea, and THAT is why I MUST act on comments such as those of RMS, above. Yes, I CAN choose to just let it slide, but that's again falling into that trap, and "never again!" as they say. Meanwhile, while not a Roman Catholic, as regulars likely recall from another OT discussion not long ago, I *AM* a Christian. But for all the reasons implied above and others (see that earlier thread for some discussion of at least related ideas), I tend to be much more tolerant of folks making fun of that, than I am of folks making light of abuse. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman _______________________________________________ Pan-users mailing list Pan-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
