Richard Stallman's Setup

Krause · 2010-01-27 23:16:42

hw-tph wrote:

Misfit138 wrote:
Probably??
Linus is the poster boy for the open source movement (and even of the free software movement if you ask some people)

Um, no. Linus refuses to use the name "Free Software", insisting on the misnomer "Open source software", because he dislikes what he describes as "Fanaticism" of the FSF.

Last edited by Krause (2010-01-28 03:07:11)

hw-tph · 2010-01-28 08:52:19

Krause wrote:

Um, no. Linus refuses to use the name "Free Software", insisting on the misnomer "Open source software", because he dislikes what he describes as "Fanaticism" of the FSF.

That is the reason I wrote "if you ask some people".

toad · 2010-01-28 09:05:25

hw-tph - thanks for the info re that small piece of hardware! Where on earth did you get the info on the leemote yeelong? afaik google knows nothing about it...

EDIT:

Ha, finally found it They even brought out the new 10" Richard Stallman is craving for http://www.tekmote.nl/epages/61504599.s … /CFL-003-B

Last edited by toad (2010-01-28 09:11:11)

Krause · 2010-01-28 13:09:59

At €340, I admit I'm tempted, but the CPU is kinda weak compared to the Atom, and it doesn't get much battery life. And by the looks of it, it has one of those microscopic touchpads that don't support tapping. I bought my eee 901 almost a year ago for an identical price, and it's superior in all those aspects. I'd never have imagined being fully-Free would carry such a price tag.

Last edited by Krause (2010-01-28 13:12:41)

Netsu · 2010-01-28 13:26:29

For sure, there would be no Arch without Stallman, and I admire his dedication to his ideals, but I doesn't change the fact that I plainly disagree with him on the matters of freedom.
I have the freedom to use the software I want and to distribute my own software the way I want. If I was unable to make my own work proprietary then it won't really be freedom. Code is information, if I wrote it then it's a product of my thought. If I am forced to share my thoughts then I am not free, I'm enslaved by ethics telling me to share knowledge. It might be selfish, but that's a whole different argument (selfish is bad m'kay), it's my freedom to be selfish.

Misfit138 · 2010-01-28 14:02:26

Though I respect Stallman highly, I do realize he has a polarizing effect on people. I admit I am as guilty of falling prey to this effect as anyone else. (Let me take this moment to make a cathartic reminder to not stir up too much controversy in this thread.)
;)

mythus · 2010-01-28 14:46:09

Hmm.... while I do not agree completely with all of his philosophy and ideas, I must say I am deeply impressed by him and his willingness to walk the walk and live by the ideals he is 'preaching'. Really, running a completely free os using nothing proprietary and closed source on a machine built completely with open source specifications and hard ware, even bios... that takes some hard dedication. All too often do you hear of people who preach one thing but do something else... Stallman is obviously not one of those people. He lives by what he preaches and for that he is to be respected.

fsckd · 2010-01-28 15:19:55

Netsu wrote:

For sure, there would be no Arch without Stallman, and I admire his dedication to his ideals, but I doesn't change the fact that I plainly disagree with him on the matters of freedom.
I have the freedom to use the software I want and to distribute my own software the way I want. If I was unable to make my own work proprietary then it won't really be freedom. Code is information, if I wrote it then it's a product of my thought. If I am forced to share my thoughts then I am not free, I'm enslaved by ethics telling me to share knowledge. It might be selfish, but that's a whole different argument (selfish is bad m'kay), it's my freedom to be selfish.

Freedom always employs tradeoffs and something that may be considered freedom by one is considered enslaving by others (yes, even "freedom" of speech). As such it is rather subjective and people who don't find the GPL free may think FSF is an oxymoron. In the case of FSF, the freedom they espouse is the freedom of consumers to not be dependent on producers. For a producer who wishes for consumers to depend on him as his source of income, this is not very free at all, but as a consumer who wishes to not be tethered to a producer, this is precisely the freedom desired. The preamble of the GPL has mentioned this tradeoff since at least version 1.something. So people do know what they are getting into (hopefully), "To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others."

Now, the rest of this post might seem personal but please do not take it that way. You are not the first person to say the things in your post and may very well not be the last.

It seems you want to be able to take the work of others and produce a derivative work distributable with a license of your own choosing. There is no other way you can be forced to license your work as GPL unless your country has some sort of strange law. I'm pretty sure Microsoft has the resources to fight such a law. However, there are licenses which do as you want and I'm pretty sure most of the people know of them. The public domain is one such license and is the freest license of all. People who choose to license their works as GPL are probably aware it would preclude the sort of freedom you want. Their right to selfishness trumps your freedom to selfishness. It is a tradeoff.

Some other points, no one is forcing redistribution of software. Sharing is not required and the GPL only places restrictions when one shares a GPL work. Neither does the GPL forbid commercial distributions. There were retail copies of SUSE Linux available at Best Buys for about $200 several years ago.

hw-tph · 2010-01-28 16:05:29

toad wrote:

hw-tph - thanks for the info re that small piece of hardware! Where on earth did you get the info on the leemote yeelong? afaik google knows nothing about it...
EDIT:
Ha, finally found it They even brought out the new 10" Richard Stallman is craving for http://www.tekmote.nl/epages/61504599.s … /CFL-003-B

Hey, it's all in the hips - sorry - I mean spelling. It's actually YeeLoong. The model Stallman has is the YeeLoong 8089. Google that instead.

OSNews has an article on this piece of hardware if you're interested in it. Personally, I think I'd wait for the next generation which should bring a lot better performance for the same price.

DrunkenMaster · 2010-01-28 16:19:42

Netsu wrote:

For sure, there would be no Arch without Stallman, and I admire his dedication to his ideals, but I doesn't change the fact that I plainly disagree with him on the matters of freedom.
I have the freedom to use the software I want and to distribute my own software the way I want. If I was unable to make my own work proprietary then it won't really be freedom. Code is information, if I wrote it then it's a product of my thought. If I am forced to share my thoughts then I am not free, I'm enslaved by ethics telling me to share knowledge. It might be selfish, but that's a whole different argument (selfish is bad m'kay), it's my freedom to be selfish.

I would say that being enslaved by ehtics is what actually defines ethics : reasons above all reasons. There lies, I think, the fundamental difference between someone like Linus and RMS : Linus has goals that are not defined by ethics. He calls it being pragmatic and that explains his famous quote "I'm the engineer, RMS is the philosopher".

I think that having both Linus and RMS working on free software (because even though Linus talks about Open Source, the kernel remains GPL) shows just how great the thing is : it's both ethical and pragmatic.

To go back to the right to be selfish, I think that yes, sure, it can be a right, and is even an ethical one : total freedom. Freedom doesn't have to take others into account. That's the BSD ethics. I just think it lacks a pragmatic side : when excercising your right to be selfish, you can't benefit from sharing the code.

Netsu · 2010-01-29 15:30:52

Just to clarify, I like the idea behind GPL, open source and sharing code, but for a more pragmatic reason. It is nice to do something as a community, nice to see your work improved on and modified and GPL allows to do so and respect the original author at the same time. Plus the outcome can sometimes be way better than any commercial product.
But I see no freedom in fighting proprietary software, it's denying other's freedom to use any license they want.

fsckd wrote:

It seems you want to be able to take the work of others and produce a derivative work distributable with a license of your own choosing. There is no other way you can be forced to license your work as GPL unless your country has some sort of strange law.

Not really, I just don't agree with RMS and his principles on fighting for freedom and how proprietary software denies us our freedom. The way I understand it he would want everything to be licensed as GPL so that 'our freedom would never again be threatened'.

Anikom15 · 2010-01-29 16:08:49

The biggest misconception about the GPL, in my opinion, is that it's for the developer. It's in fact for the consumer, not the developer. The GPL protects my ability to share the software with all my friends without being sued. A license that protects the developers freedoms would be something like the BSD licensce (let's not go into that debate).

DrunkenMaster · 2010-01-29 16:32:38

Netsu wrote:

But I see no freedom in fighting proprietary software, it's denying other's freedom to use any license they want.

Yes, it is, you're right. But writing proprietary software is also denying other's freedom. Both approaches are denying some freedom to others.

Netsu wrote:

Not really, I just don't agree with RMS and his principles on fighting for freedom and how proprietary software denies us our freedom. The way I understand it he would want everything to be licensed as GPL so that 'our freedom would never again be threatened'.

It sounds radical but I think we really need someone able to talk like that. It's very hard for the message not to get lost when the community is expanding like Linux's is. You need someone to say it again and again, loudly. Otherwise, unaware people just can't hear you. The message of some of the proprietary software shops, 'Open Source is evil, communism, whatever' is even louder and repeated more often. The difference is that it doesn't sound radical, just because people are more used to it. In my point of view, it is just as radical as Stallman's message.

Many people come to Linux because it's like a free (no charge) and legal version of Windows. Getting them to understand what the advantages of free software are, even for a user, and then to stay because of that is a very difficult and ambitious task. I think that Stallman's radical message is what it takes. Have you read Nine Princes in Amber ? I see him a bit like Amber itself : always there, always the same, and propagating slightly altered versions of itself everywhere around it.

Last edited by DrunkenMaster (2010-01-29 16:34:55)

Netsu · 2010-01-29 17:49:57

DrunkenMaster wrote:

The message of some of the proprietary software shops, 'Open Source is evil, communism, whatever' is even louder and repeated more often. The difference is that it doesn't sound radical, just because people are more used to it. In my point of view, it is just as radical as Stallman's message.

That's true, and the sad thing is, many people who know very little about software and computers in general are much more likely to believe a seller in a shop or a lawyer in a suit than some guy that, let's face it, looks like he lives in a basement.

fsckd · 2010-01-29 17:52:46

Anikom15 wrote:

The biggest misconception about the GPL, in my opinion, is that it's for the developer. It's in fact for the consumer, not the developer. The GPL protects my ability to share the software with all my friends without being sued. A license that protects the developers freedoms would be something like the BSD licensce (let's not go into that debate).

This is what I was getting at. There is a tradeoff involved. The FSF makes no secret of it. Depending on what you want, either the tradeoff is in your favor or not.

DrunkenMaster wrote:

Many people come to Linux because it's like a free (no charge) and legal version of Windows. Getting them to understand what the advantages of free software are, even for a user, and then to stay because of that is a very difficult and ambitious task.

I have yet to get my own family to understand the advantages of free software.

Misfit138 · 2010-01-29 18:57:27

fsckd wrote:

I have yet to get my own family to understand the advantages of free software.

For most people, there is no advantage. Most people buy software, expect it to just work, and it does.
A small minority pirate software too.
To the overwhelming majority of users, a PC and an OS is a means to run applications, period. Nobody cares about the right or ability to hack code or redistribute anything. If more people cared, more people would embrace FOSS. This will not change.
People are not being born with more computer science skills right from the womb. FOSS and *nix will continue to be a niche, just like developers, hackers and PC hobbyists like it.

Eratosthenes · 2010-01-29 20:47:52

Misfit138 wrote:

... FOSS and *nix will continue to be a niche, just like developers, hackers and PC hobbyists like it.

Linux is used on phones, tvs, internet tablets, gps devices, pcs, mainframes, servers, super computers, music players, pdas, dvd players, routers, wireless access points, robots, pvrs, industrial controllers, lab instruments, and just more stuff than I can remember. Windows runs on pcs and servers.

Windows runs on X86 compatible cpus (incl 64 bit). Linux runs on all the cpus.

Which OS is in the niche? They do have a nice profitable niche on X86 pcs.

Misfit138 · 2010-01-29 21:03:43

Eratosthenes wrote:

Which OS is in the niche? They do have a nice profitable niche on X86 pcs.

Heh. Now go back and actually read my post.

Eratosthenes · 2010-01-29 21:05:33

I disagree with Stallman that the user has somehow acquired rights when he installs software on his computer*.

I think the the rights belong to the creator. (I'm channeling Howard Roark here.) I chose to release my project as open source under GPL and therefore granted the user some rights. (and also placed some responsibilities on him) That choice worked out for me because there are now about 12 developers contributing code and expertise to the project. Since I am also a user, I get a lot value from their contributions.

Selling the project as closed source, or releasing under a different license are valid choices and will work out best for other creators. I like the freedom of disposing of my creation in the manner I choose.

* The use does acquire some rights when he, for example, purchases closed source software. Those rights normally do not include redistributing the software.

fsckd · 2010-01-29 21:28:16

Eratosthenes wrote:

I disagree with Stallman that the user has somehow acquired rights when he installs software on his computer*.
blah blah [snip]
* The use does acquire some rights when he, for example, purchases closed source software. Those rights normally do not include redistributing the software.

I do not think Stallman has ever referred to the four freedoms as rights. If I'm wrong, please do provide a link.

ngoonee · 2010-01-30 02:14:17

Misfit138 wrote:

A small minority pirate software too.

It is SO obvious you don't live on my side of the world .

Imagine trying to promote free software in a place where almost all software is considered 'free' in the financial sense.

Anikom15 · 2010-01-30 02:59:59

[Snip]

Moderator edit: If you can't keep your manners, steer clear completely.

Last edited by .:B:. (2010-01-30 17:12:54)

DrunkenMaster · 2010-01-30 07:35:00

Misfit138 wrote:

For most people, there is no advantage. Most people buy software, expect it to just work, and it does.
A small minority pirate software too.
To the overwhelming majority of users, a PC and an OS is a means to run applications, period. Nobody cares about the right or ability to hack code or redistribute anything. If more people cared, more people would embrace FOSS. This will not change.

I completely agree : users should only care about using the software. I was not talking about this kind of advantages. I still think that the FOSS model presents an advantage here for the user : you can get applications that actually work, get fixed when there's a problem and that suit your need better. It's nothing automatic nor garanteed, sure. But happened quite a few times. It can work on a large scale (Firefox, blogging software) or for small communities. Since small communities are unlikely to generate loads of profits, they are often neglected. The FOSS model is an opportunity for them to build themselves what others won't. For example, I recently discovered that sociologists use R, LimeSurvey and many other FOSS tools and apps. They like that their feedback is taken into account between two release of the software. I think it's the same in many areas. (I made that discovery when I realised that my girlfriend, a sociologist, was indeed using FOSS without me having anything to do with it).

Misfit138 wrote:

People are not being born with more computer science skills right from the womb. FOSS and *nix will continue to be a niche, just like developers, hackers and PC hobbyists like it.

I don't think you need to be a unix hacker to use FOSS. Dell sells PCs with Unix on it (even though we may not like the way they do it). All the netbooks are really for non-skilled people, to me.

But I think that we are both right and that's what makes this period interesting : can Unix be both a system for everyone and remain something hackers like to hack ? I see it sort of happening, with Ubuntu on one end and Slack, Arch and BSD on the other.

Netsu · 2010-01-30 11:49:07

ngoonee wrote:

Misfit138 wrote:
A small minority pirate software too.
It is SO obvious you don't live on my side of the world .
Imagine trying to promote free software in a place where almost all software is considered 'free' in the financial sense.

Anikom15 wrote:

There's a lot of crap between Thailand and Singapore. Where are you?

Actually I'm surprised there are parts of the world where piracy is a minor issue, I think it's safe to say that EVERYONE pirates software in my country. I don't remember when was the last time I have seen a legit install of Windows, beside those that students get for free from Academic Alliance.
Nobody cares if it's a crime or not, it's like running across the street on red lights, you just remember not to do this around the police.

res · 2010-01-30 12:36:29

Anikom15 wrote:

There's a lot of crap between Thailand and Singapore. Where are you?

ot, but I gotta say your posting style is the funniest. You always post terse, almost-brutal posts and never use smilies nor exclamation points. Very funny ;)

Arch Linux

#51 2010-01-27 23:16:42

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#52 2010-01-28 08:52:19

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#53 2010-01-28 09:05:25

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#54 2010-01-28 13:09:59

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#55 2010-01-28 13:26:29

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#56 2010-01-28 14:02:26

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#57 2010-01-28 14:46:09

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#58 2010-01-28 15:19:55

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#59 2010-01-28 16:05:29

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#60 2010-01-28 16:19:42

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#61 2010-01-29 15:30:52

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#62 2010-01-29 16:08:49

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#63 2010-01-29 16:32:38

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#64 2010-01-29 17:49:57

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#65 2010-01-29 17:52:46

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#66 2010-01-29 18:57:27

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#67 2010-01-29 20:47:52

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#68 2010-01-29 21:03:43

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#69 2010-01-29 21:05:33

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#70 2010-01-29 21:28:16

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#71 2010-01-30 02:14:17

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#72 2010-01-30 02:59:59

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#73 2010-01-30 07:35:00

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#74 2010-01-30 11:49:07

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#75 2010-01-30 12:36:29

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

Board footer