Richard Stallman's Setup

raymboard · 2010-02-05 20:18:25

People make fun of people who stick to their ideals because it makes them feel bad for not sticking to their own ideals.

Last edited by raymboard (2010-02-05 20:18:39)

raymboard · 2010-02-05 22:33:03

Do you think Arch gnu/linux could run on that laptop?

Last edited by raymboard (2010-02-05 22:33:37)

ak-89 · 2010-02-06 07:59:13

raymboard wrote:

Do you think Arch gnu/linux could run on that laptop?

Yes, if you port Arch to mips architecture.

jowilkin · 2010-02-06 09:51:22

matty wrote:

If memory serves there was an extended period when RMS didn't even have a house, as such. He essentially lived in his office at MIT.
M

It's not at all unheard of for top quality academics. For instance Paul Erdős published an amazing amount of mathematical papers (very high quality papers too) and lived much of his life without a house.

Misfit138 · 2010-02-06 16:25:02

Trent wrote:

I agree with the points, but I think the term "very small minority" may not convey a correct impression. To me nothing above, say, 5% is a very small minority (depending of course on what the topic is). I would say that piracy is much closer to 50%, even in the U.S. But of course we are basing our observations on what are probably very different populational cross-sections. Reliable numbers are impossible for obvious reasons, but the real rate is probably in between.

I'm surprised to hear such a high estimate actually. Is it safe to conclude that you believe that 1 out of every 2 installations of Windows is pirated?

fsckd wrote:

Richard Stallman doesn't like the term piracy: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to- … tml#Piracy .

Heh, I forgot that.

pogeymanz · 2010-02-06 22:23:22

raymboard wrote:

People make fun of people who stick to their ideals because it makes them feel bad for not sticking to their own ideals.

QFT

ngoonee · 2010-02-06 23:09:57

Misfit138 wrote:

Trent wrote:
I agree with the points, but I think the term "very small minority" may not convey a correct impression. To me nothing above, say, 5% is a very small minority (depending of course on what the topic is). I would say that piracy is much closer to 50%, even in the U.S. But of course we are basing our observations on what are probably very different populational cross-sections. Reliable numbers are impossible for obvious reasons, but the real rate is probably in between.
I'm surprised to hear such a high estimate actually. Is it safe to conclude that you believe that 1 out of every 2 installations of Windows is pirated?

Not just windows, what about Office (I think that's pirated MUCH more often) and things like games? Or music/movies?

Misfit138 wrote:

fsckd wrote:
Richard Stallman doesn't like the term piracy: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to- … tml#Piracy .
Heh, I forgot that.

Quite the zealot, he is. Didn't someone propose Arch Gnu/Linux some time back?

whacath · 2010-02-06 23:46:29

5 pages? I cant believe how much people have to say about Stallmans setup.

Its kinda strange he own a computer at all. He should probably be happy with a typewriter. btw, does his tipi have any outlets? I mean, how does he charge his netbook?

owain · 2010-02-07 00:23:44

ngoonee wrote:

Not just windows, what about Office (I think that's pirated MUCH more often)

I can certainly sympathise with the objection for the term 'pirate' here, because I've used the same literally-off-the-shelf Office XP CD to install on numerous physical computers, plus many VirtualBox images. Every time, the program has activated itself without question. Against the EULA, sure, but 'pirate'?

Krause · 2010-02-07 00:39:55

ngoonee wrote:

Quite the zealot, he is. Didn't someone propose Arch Gnu/Linux some time back?

Propose? I use "GNU/Linux" for all software distributions of GNU/Linux, even if they conveniently forgot about GNU when deciding on the name themselves. Alternatively, just use the distribution name without the part of it that spells out the OS name. (ie Debian instead of Debian GNU/Linux, Arch instead of Arch Linux etc). I think that's an acceptable diplomatic solution, in that it doesn't concede the irrelevance of GNU, nor does it require extra effort on the pronunciation front.

jumzi · 2010-02-07 01:30:43

Richard M Stallman is an amazing person, and as such is ofc my idol. After have listening to his speeches and debates i've been convinced that we have to stop using and promoting properititary system for both the freedom and developments sake. It's ofc also redicioulos that my taxpayer money should go to educate people in microsoft nonfree-products and deploy those systems in our goverment(Is it only me seeing some serious security and privacy problems?). I also pray to him everyday to give me little of the amazing strength he has proven to have over the last 20 years.

And before i run away to create my very own little cult... He's setup was really neat... Altough i would gone for something with a sparc But then again those things might not be produced in a fully Open and Free laptop.

Last edited by jumzi (2010-02-07 01:39:44)

Misfit138 · 2010-02-07 01:33:29

Krause wrote:

ngoonee wrote:
Quite the zealot, he is. Didn't someone propose Arch Gnu/Linux some time back?
Propose? I use "GNU/Linux" for all software distributions of GNU/Linux, even if they conveniently forgot about GNU when deciding on the name themselves. Alternatively, just use the distribution name without the part of it that spells out the OS name. (ie Debian instead of Debian GNU/Linux, Arch instead of Arch Linux etc). I think that's an acceptable diplomatic solution, in that it doesn't concede the irrelevance of GNU, nor does it require extra effort on the pronunciation front.

See http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13384#comment56257

Krause · 2010-02-07 13:16:56

Misfit138 wrote:

See http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13384#comment56257

As I said, I couldn't care any less about the distribution developers' opinion on this issue. They're producing a software distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system, and what they think it should be called has no relevance to that fact.

raymboard · 2010-02-07 13:53:27

Krause: We can just call it Arch gnu/linux anyways

Last edited by raymboard (2010-02-07 13:58:31)

Misfit138 · 2010-02-07 14:23:31

Krause wrote:

Misfit138 wrote:
See http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13384#comment56257
As I said, I couldn't care any less about the distribution developers' opinion on this issue. They're producing a software distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system, and what they think it should be called has no relevance to that fact.

You are responding as if you have not read the f. request nor the conclusion. (?)
I find it to be very good news that GNU will be rightly represented when this feature request is closed.

fsckd · 2010-02-07 18:18:37

rms is often quite prescient. People call him a zealot or an extremist and 5 to 10 years later he's proven right. Take, for example, the GNU/Linux issue. That name distinguishes from GNU systems which do not use Linux, such as GNU/HURD, GNU/kfreebsd, and Cygwin. Of those, only Cygwin has any real popularity comparable to GNU/Linux. More importantly, however, is the distinction from Linux systems which do not depend upon GNU. Android is, perhaps, an example. Considering the growing adoption of LLVM, I would not be surprised to find in the future a Linux system that does away with the GNU toolchain entirely.

davidm · 2010-02-07 19:15:02

I wonder if anyone has attempted to create a GNU type organization for hardware? I'm aware that you couldn't really make it free (as in free beer) but one might be able to make components and systems out of entirely "free" parts. Perhaps start small with something like making BIOS chips or graphics adapters. The idea being that the hardware is open and drivers and such can easily be made by the open source community.

I for one would love to see hardware which is "free" and would definitely do what I could to support it. It would possibly be a great benefit to users because a) much better support for linux could be presumed and b) one would think by subtracting the profit motive (presumably such an organization would operate as a non-profit though still selling to cover costs and minimal salaries) components would be available cheaper to end users.

Last edited by davidm (2010-02-07 19:15:49)

Draje · 2010-02-08 07:10:52

jowilkin wrote:

matty wrote:
If memory serves there was an extended period when RMS didn't even have a house, as such. He essentially lived in his office at MIT.
M
It's not at all unheard of for top quality academics. For instance Paul Erdős published an amazing amount of mathematical papers (very high quality papers too) and lived much of his life without a house.

Blessed be Paul's love of amphetamines.

mikesd · 2010-02-08 08:33:24

jowilkin wrote:

It's not at all unheard of for top quality academics. For instance Paul Erdős published an amazing amount of mathematical papers (very high quality papers too) and lived much of his life without a house.

Interesting read. Hadn't heard of him before.

blithe · 2010-02-26 17:23:19

davidm wrote:

I wonder if anyone has attempted to create a GNU type organization for hardware? I'm aware that you couldn't really make it free (as in free beer) but one might be able to make components and systems out of entirely "free" parts. Perhaps start small with something like making BIOS chips or graphics adapters. The idea being that the hardware is open and drivers and such can easily be made by the open source community.
I for one would love to see hardware which is "free" and would definitely do what I could to support it. It would possibly be a great benefit to users because a) much better support for linux could be presumed and b) one would think by subtracting the profit motive (presumably such an organization would operate as a non-profit though still selling to cover costs and minimal salaries) components would be available cheaper to end users.

I think the reason we don't see more of this in practice is because of the large cost/overhead/proprietary research and knowledge it takes to build quality hardware. This certainly isn't always the case, take a look at the OpenPandora handheld device. While it looks pretty cool, they've had all sorts of manufacturing glitches and delays that have prevented this thing from shipping. If you peel back the skin, you'll see that it's built on a lot of licensed components as well. Still, the fact that it's built by geeks for geeks in an open way is a step in the right direction. We still have a long way to go until this becomes easier to do.

Mustard · 2010-03-31 19:12:28

Snakeye wrote:

The balance is out of wack. We need more stallman's, even with his eccentricity. Too many low life valueless unprincipled selfish backstabbing cut their own mother's throat for a buck scumbags out there these days.

Absolutely!

Idealism is underrated. Pragmatism and realism lack the necessary romance of idealism to truly inspire the masses. The idealist lead the pack in ideas, by definition.

corsakh · 2010-04-07 00:05:17

A freedom campaigner self constrained to use one and one only computer out of tens of thousands of options in front of him. How ironic.

Anikom15 · 2010-04-07 02:11:15

He's not constrained. It's his choice.

corsakh · 2010-04-07 02:32:28

He is constrained and he says so himself. Whether it is by his own choice or the will of little green people from mars is irrelevant.

Ranguvar · 2010-04-07 03:24:01

The choice to live freely in one manner often limits your freedom, you could say, in others.
It's his choice though. Obviously he prefers having a free reign over his hardware AND software more than he would being able to choose any computer to use, or he wouldn't make that choice in the first place.

And obviously most of us prefer the relative freedom of GNU/Linux in many ways to the freedom to be able to run nearly any Windows program natively, or we wouldn't be using Arch.

Don't spin crap when there isn't crap to be spun, please.

Arch Linux

#101 2010-02-05 20:18:25

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#102 2010-02-05 22:33:03

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#103 2010-02-06 07:59:13

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#104 2010-02-06 09:51:22

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#105 2010-02-06 16:25:02

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#106 2010-02-06 22:23:22

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#107 2010-02-06 23:09:57

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#108 2010-02-06 23:46:29

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#109 2010-02-07 00:23:44

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#110 2010-02-07 00:39:55

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#111 2010-02-07 01:30:43

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#112 2010-02-07 01:33:29

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#113 2010-02-07 13:16:56

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#114 2010-02-07 13:53:27

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#115 2010-02-07 14:23:31

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#116 2010-02-07 18:18:37

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#117 2010-02-07 19:15:02

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#118 2010-02-08 07:10:52

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#119 2010-02-08 08:33:24

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#120 2010-02-26 17:23:19

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#121 2010-03-31 19:12:28

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#122 2010-04-07 00:05:17

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#123 2010-04-07 02:11:15

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#124 2010-04-07 02:32:28

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

#125 2010-04-07 03:24:01

Re: Richard Stallman's Setup

Board footer