Both aren’t really sustainable. Open source doesn’t pay live-able wages without some kind of proprietary component and going full vegan is very detrimental to the health and sometimes even the cause itself. I’m not a dictionary and english isn’t my first language, but in my understanding, the “right” thing should at least be viable, without taking compromises from the other side.
To clarify, I’m not saying that open-source and veganism are bad or we shouldn’t aim towards those. What I’m saying is that, while half-opensource like redhat and half-veganism (on supplements) is viable, so is all-meat diet and all-proprietary software, but not going full RMS opensource-only and getting rid of all animal-based products without causing even more damage to the ecosystem with the alternatives. Maybe we’re missing some puzzle pieces (like properly implemented communism) or the end-goal is a bit off, or, maybe, going half-way is actually the “right” thing all along.
Could you explain the difference?
Both aren’t really sustainable. Open source doesn’t pay live-able wages without some kind of proprietary component and going full vegan is very detrimental to the health and sometimes even the cause itself. I’m not a dictionary and english isn’t my first language, but in my understanding, the “right” thing should at least be viable, without taking compromises from the other side.
To clarify, I’m not saying that open-source and veganism are bad or we shouldn’t aim towards those. What I’m saying is that, while half-opensource like redhat and half-veganism (on supplements) is viable, so is all-meat diet and all-proprietary software, but not going full RMS opensource-only and getting rid of all animal-based products without causing even more damage to the ecosystem with the alternatives. Maybe we’re missing some puzzle pieces (like properly implemented communism) or the end-goal is a bit off, or, maybe, going half-way is actually the “right” thing all along.