Latest Richard Stallman Interview

shadowhand · 2005-03-31 21:47:37

http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=New … le&sid=353

When will this guy get a clue? No matter how imporant free (as in speech) software is, the whole world is NOT going to be able to use just Emacs and Bash like he does.

He rails against public terminals that install Java and the Flash plugin, Mozilla for their "non-free" binaries, and tells the world that he can only ethically recommend some obscure West European distro because it's the only distro that refuses to include anything that isn't GPL licensed. Obviously this guy doesn't own a nVIDIA card.......

i3839 · 2005-03-31 21:55:55

Better his point of view than the horrible "as long as it works and doesn't cost me money it's okay"...

People like him are needed to keep the world balanced.

kth5 · 2005-03-31 22:00:14

"west european"? yeah right....

i must admit that i too don't agree with being as strickt about "freedom" as he is since i think exactly that kind of freedom somehow restricts me to do some things i might want to do. for example link some GPL stuff into my own program which happens to be not released under the GPL cos i need to do it for my company. that sometimes creates a hassle for me as a dev and sysadmin.

even though, i agree with 95% he says about ethical reasons he has not to use "non-free" software such as Java etc. Java actually gives us material for flame wars as well as serious discussions about it being even necessary in the IT world for years. come on, the VM is yet another excuse for lazy devs and how it actually impacts portability is questionable. being non-free is another thing.

about this "i have to install non-free software cos i do not like XY" is pretty ignorant. ask yourself, why are some things not available as free software? there are always people who would like to contribute free versions but it's not always possible. why? just give it some thought, it should be obvious.

if it weren't for people like RMS i wonder if the free software movement even would have survived long M$ introudced the the word "closed source" after the late the 80ies.

shadowhand · 2005-03-31 22:05:08

No, but I think that ATI, NV, Macromedia, etc. supporting Linux at all is a good frist step. Personally, I don't care that my video driver isn't free (as in speech), just as long as it's free (as in beer). To me, the difference between the two isn't that important. A company like NV deserves the right to keep certain things secret if it can hurt their business.

It would be nice if the drivers were built into the video card and platform independant though. Then this would be a non-issue. Or maybe it would.... Free BIOS anyone?

jp_fielding · 2005-03-31 23:20:51

the thing that annoys me about stallman is his hypocrisy about the 'gnu/linux' thing. if you insist others standing on your shoulders give you credit, then i think a full accounting of the scientific and academic contributions you are basing your work on are in order. of course, that whole clever gnu recursive acronym thing would be screwed with something like 'unix/turing/newton/caveman/ameoba/...../gnu'.

some other interesting things pointed out by wdemoss is that stallman insists on 'gnu/linux' instead of 'linux/gnu', giving his interests first priority. also interesting that the 'gnu's not unix', plainly tries to dissociate itself from what it is blatently attempting to clone. i bet he'ld love to see 'Linux Isn't Gnu'.

all in good fun :-)

but i agree with i3839... we need psychos like him in the world.

phrakture · 2005-03-31 23:29:45

ever time I see his picture, I have to laugh

iBertus · 2005-04-01 00:07:32

I can't be entirely happy with Novell as long as it distributes non-free software, and in particular, I can't entirely approve of SuSe as long as it distributes non-free software.

WTF? Is every company in the world supposed to give all of their products away for free? Seems like that's what Stallman would like. So, if this guy thinks all software should be free, what does he think shouldn't be? I think that most people in the world will continue to use what works best for them, FSF guidelines be damned! Do you know anyone that refuses to use a software package because it isn't free if they have work to do and that software (is the best) helps get it done quickly? Most of the time a F/OSS project IS the best for a task, but other times it's not. Only if I didn't have the money (like now) have I not used the best tool for the job.

Also, I feel that he doesn't quite get the amount of code that these companies give back to the F/OSS projects they use in commercial applications. Fact of the matter is that programmers cost money and most projects would slow to a crawl if totally dependant on volunteers that code only when not doing work for some other full-time job. As my grandma would say "I'm happy to help, but I've got to make the light bill." Sorry Stallman but the electrical utility company doesn't give it away for free and probably won't anytime soon!

cactus · 2005-04-01 02:24:17

jp_fielding wrote:

the thing that annoys me about stallman is his hypocrisy about the 'gnu/linux' thing.

There is no hipocracy. He is making the statement that the gnu foundation utilities make up the rest of a distribution. Linux kernel + gnu utilities == distro.
That was definately how it was initially.
gnu --> {compiler, linker, make, c library, implementation of shells, etc.}
Linux --> Kernel

Gnu came first as well, all the utilities were in place, and gnu was working on a kernel. That has proved to be quite the cluster-fuck over time, and thankfully a Helsinki grad student swooped in to plug the last remaining "hole". *waves at Linus*

I know that I for one would want a little recognition for all the work I had done if I had made all those gnu utilities. I empathize with the gnu position. But, Linux has become the generic name for the amalgamation of the kernel and gnu userspace utilities..for better or for worse.

if you insist others standing on your shoulders give you credit, then i think a full accounting of the scientific and academic contributions you are basing your work on are in order. of course, that whole clever gnu recursive acronym thing would be screwed with something like 'unix/turing/newton/caveman/ameoba/...../gnu'.

see above

some other interesting things pointed out by wdemoss is that stallman insists on 'gnu/linux' instead of 'linux/gnu', giving his interests first priority. also interesting that the 'gnu's not unix', plainly tries to dissociate itself from what it is blatently attempting to clone. i bet he'ld love to see 'Linux Isn't Gnu'.

See above

all in good fun :-)

Being wrong is fun?

but i agree with i3839... we need psychos like him in the world.

Without the dreamers and philosophers, where would we be?
*grunts at fire*
*paints on cave wall*

neotuli · 2005-04-01 15:15:00

*grunts at fire*
*paints on cave wall*

Yes, but is the painting licensed under a sufficiently open license? ...or do you hold the patent to "stick man killing wild bore"?

phrakture · 2005-04-01 15:40:42

ack! not a linux <-> gnu/linux discussion! lock it, hurry!!!!! 8)

Dusty · 2005-04-01 17:33:23

I've always admired Stallman as the most brilliant programmer ever, but I never had much respect for his political skills. People arguing over what he says is a waste of time. Talking about what he's coded, now there's an interesting exercise...

Dusty

jp_fielding · 2005-04-01 17:55:44

cactus wrote:

Being wrong is fun?

and which statement was wrong exactly?

all i've said is that he demands linux pay homage to gnu with it's name, but gnu pays homage to noone with it's name. not only that, it's name explicity attempts to dissociate itself from those that original put their time and effort in unix.

jp_fielding · 2005-04-01 18:08:25

phrakture wrote:

ack! not a linux <-> gnu/linux discussion! lock it, hurry!!!!! 8)

sorry man, i was really just poking fun originally, but apparently i've walked on someone's sacred ground here.

jp_fielding · 2005-06-05 11:08:29

first let me just say, how wonderfully analogous debating the gnu/linux issue with techies is to debating abortion at a bar full of catholics and liberals. :-)
*dodges flying bottle*

skycordinator wrote:

The acronymn is a joke. It's meant to be "tounge-in-cheek." GNU was (from the beginning) a free implementation of unix and as a joke they referred to it as "GNU's not Unix."

exactly, whether tongue in cheek or not, if vendors called their distros 'linux's not gnu', i'm sure stallman would be rolling on the floor. that was _suppposed_ to the be the lighthearted point above.

maybe it's just a vocabulary difference, but i've always thought of the kernel as the os, and all the pretty stuff as just basic apps. in the operating systems class i took, all we had to write was a kernel. maybe that's my bias.

cactus wrote:

Gnu came first as well, all the utilities were in place, and gnu was working on a kernel. That has proved to be quite the cluster-fuck over time, and thankfully a Helsinki grad student swooped in to plug the last remaining "hole". *waves at Linus*

whether or not gnu came first, it never became an os because it never had a kernel (my opinion). linux was an os, but nothing else, and while a convienient marriage, that does not make it gnu/linux to me, at best linux with the gnu platform or something. but i'm sure stallman wants first billing for all his hard work. but that's like giving the kid that ran his butt off at the race (even to support some moral cause) a first place ribbon for coming in second, for effort.

i3839 · 2005-06-05 11:31:09

Stop quibling about definitions and other vocabulary crap please, this thread was months old.

To sum it up: You think GNU is no OS because it has no kernel. Linux is only a kernel, but you say that that's a whole OS. How hard can it be to come to the conclusion that neither GNU nor Linux are strictly speaking an OS, but that they needed eachother to become one? Now there are free alternatives to GNU programs, and there a whole lot more apps now, a lot non-GNU, so the importance of GNU within the GNU/Linux OS is less, but in the beginning that was different, and we still rely on gcc.

(You edited your post just in time, lucky you...)

iBertus · 2005-06-05 14:23:23

Geez...

Arch Linux

#1 2005-03-31 21:47:37

Latest Richard Stallman Interview

#2 2005-03-31 21:55:55

Re: Latest Richard Stallman Interview

#3 2005-03-31 22:00:14

Re: Latest Richard Stallman Interview

#4 2005-03-31 22:05:08

Re: Latest Richard Stallman Interview

#5 2005-03-31 23:20:51

Re: Latest Richard Stallman Interview

#6 2005-03-31 23:29:45

Re: Latest Richard Stallman Interview

#7 2005-04-01 00:07:32

Re: Latest Richard Stallman Interview

#8 2005-04-01 02:24:17

Re: Latest Richard Stallman Interview

#9 2005-04-01 15:15:00

Re: Latest Richard Stallman Interview

#10 2005-04-01 15:40:42

Re: Latest Richard Stallman Interview

#11 2005-04-01 17:33:23

Re: Latest Richard Stallman Interview

#12 2005-04-01 17:55:44

Re: Latest Richard Stallman Interview

#13 2005-04-01 18:08:25

Re: Latest Richard Stallman Interview

#14 2005-06-05 11:08:29

Re: Latest Richard Stallman Interview

#15 2005-06-05 11:31:09

Re: Latest Richard Stallman Interview

#16 2005-06-05 14:23:23

Re: Latest Richard Stallman Interview

Board footer