Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GNU LibreJS

gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 165 posts

Re: GNU LibreJS

#71

Post by EuAndreh »

connorshea wrote: post #66

At GitLab we've been working with some volunteers at the FSF/GNU Project to improve our score on the Ethical Repo Criteria Evaluation [1]. We've got an issue open about LibreJS [2] specifically, as well as another to fix the other issue preventing us from receiving a B grade. We're also working on resolving some of the A grade criteria, albeit not all of them [3]. It's disheartening to see the FSF demonized here, as…

I'd like to note that GitLab not only is doing an awesome job with the FSF, but they are also themselves embracing free software tools for their internal work.

They're switching from Slack to Mattermost[0], from Google Analytics to Piwik[1], looking for a free software commenting software to replace Disqus[2].

[0]: https://about.gitlab.com/2015/08/18/gitlab-loves-mattermost/

[1]: https://about.gitlab.com/2015/11/27/gitlab-switches-to-piwik...

[2]: https://about.gitlab.com/2015/05/20/gitlab-gitorious-free-so...

Re: GNU LibreJS

#72

Post by jordigh »

the_af wrote: post #63
jordigh wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unsure of exact licensing compatibility so I can't say it's all Free Software. Open source and free software mean the same thing, or at least they intend to mean the same thing. There are very few obscure examples where they differ (for example, the NASA license). You are very unlikely to run across a difference. https://opensource.org/faq#free-software https://lobste.rs/s/lexyz5/why_open_source_misses_the_point_..…

They do not mean the same thing. They are often coincidentally the same thing, but philosophically they are not the same: "Why 'Free Software' is better than 'Open Source'": http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.h... (Note: the title is not mine)

No, the intention of "open source" was to have a synonym for "free software".

http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgot...

They mean the same thing in the same way that "digital rights management" and "digital restrictions management" means the same thing: they refer to the same thing, but give a different slant to refer to the same thing.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#73

Post by Touche »

EuAndreh wrote: post #69
Touche wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The original idea of web servers wasn't to do computing for you, it was to publish information for you to access. Even today this is what most web sites do, and it doesn't pose the SaaSS problem, because accessing someone's published information isn't doing your own computing. The more grey area that exists the harder it is for me to understand what Stallman's beliefs actually are. "doing your own computing", why i…

The point of "doing your computing" is the concept of freedom within the Free Software movement. According to RMS, "freedom is having control over your life". "In a computer system there are just two possibilities: either the user controls the program or the program controls the user". So, "doing your own computing" is "having control over your life", and thus, having freedom.

My point, that I didn't articulate well, is that over time everything is going to be computing. Some day your pants will have a CPU in it. Do you not have control over your life if proprietary pants software cools your legs when it's hot?

So it seems that the definition of "what is software" has to constantly be redefined OR the whole Free Software thing becomes more and more a luddite idea.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#74

Post by krapp »

j_koreth wrote: post #23
SEJeff wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, he would likely want everyone to be an absolute masochist like him and have websites converted to emails: https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html """ I generally do not connect to web sites from my own machine, aside from a few sites I have some special relationship with. I usually fetch web pages from other sites by sending mail to a program (see git://git.gnu.org/womb/hacks.git) that fetches them, mu…

Where does stallman say he wants other people to do the same as him. He merely listed just how he browsers rahpther than how I ther people should browse

Would it not be safe to assume that, if RMS is living according to his principles, his lifestyle reflects what he believes to be a reasonable expression of those principles? Why would he refuse to use a web browser, if it were possible for him to do so within his moral framework?

Re: GNU LibreJS

#75

Post by connorshea »

EuAndreh wrote: post #71
connorshea wrote: post #66

At GitLab we've been working with some volunteers at the FSF/GNU Project to improve our score on the Ethical Repo Criteria Evaluation [1]. We've got an issue open about LibreJS [2] specifically, as well as another to fix the other issue preventing us from receiving a B grade. We're also working on resolving some of the A grade criteria, albeit not all of them [3]. It's disheartening to see the FSF demonized here, as…

I'd like to note that GitLab not only is doing an awesome job with the FSF, but they are also themselves embracing free software tools for their internal work. They're switching from Slack to Mattermost[0], from Google Analytics to Piwik[1], looking for a free software commenting software to replace Disqus[2]. [0]: https://about.gitlab.com/2015/08/18/gitlab-loves-mattermost/ [1]: https://about.gitlab.com/2015/11/27/g…

Just to be fair, internally we're currently using Slack. We'll be switching to Rocket Chat next week (right before we all fly to Austin to meet everyone face-to-face, so God help us there if stuff breaks). I'm relatively new, so I don't know what happened with Mattermost. I also haven't been following what we're intending to ship with in future versions, it could be both or just one, but don't quote me on that.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#76

Post by ymse »

sdegutis wrote: post #22

It's really interesting to see GNU writing their own version of everything so that it adheres to its own principles. It reminds me of China. Both reinvent things based on questionable motivations, both seem to really not "get" every-day people (e.g. understand their needs and wants), and both end up with products that just feel lower-quality and half-put-together than the products they're cloning on principle.

I'm curious, which products are you referring to? In most cases the GNU version predates the alternative by a large margin. E.g. screen vs tmux, squid vs varnish, wget vs curl, net-tools vs iproute2 etc.

Of more recent software "clones", there is guix vs nix, mcron vs vixie-cron, shepherd vs systemd, gnutls vs openssl, all high-quality implementations of good ideas.

Sure, lsh has a way to go before it's a viable alternative to OpenSSH, but I wouldn't say it's low-quality. I don't think I've come across a GNU project which felt "half-put-together", rather the opposite.

The GNU projects' motivation is very clear-cut and not at all different from e.g. the BSD camp or suckless. How are they questionable?

Re: GNU LibreJS

#77

Post by the_af »

jordigh wrote: post #72
the_af wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do not mean the same thing. They are often coincidentally the same thing, but philosophically they are not the same: "Why 'Free Software' is better than 'Open Source'": http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.h... (Note: the title is not mine)

No, the intention of "open source" was to have a synonym for "free software". http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgot... They mean the same thing in the same way that "digital rights management" and "digital restrictions management" means the same thing: they refer to the same thing, but give a different slant to refer to the same thing.

Like you mentioned in your article, this indeed seems to be Bruce Perens' opinion. However, notice how both Eric Raymond (on the side of open source) and Richard Stallman (on the side of free software) disagree with him.

If you listen to people like Eric Raymond, open source is all about quality. "Many eyes make all bugs shallow", etc.

If you listen to people like Richard Stallman, free software is all about users' rights: in some cases free software may be of higher quality than comparable proprietary software, but that's just a welcome side-effect -- what matters is that it respects users' rights. In this view, free software would be worthwhile even if it was technically inferior to contemporary proprietary software.

Or to put it another way: if Eric Raymond one days wakes up convinced that Open Source is technically inferior, he must drop it in order to remain consistent with his own justifications. If Richard Stallman one day wakes up convinced Free Software is technically inferior, he will remain committed to it, since technical quality was never his primary goal.

I'd say that's a pretty big philosophical difference!

Re: GNU LibreJS

#78

Post by krapp »

Delmania wrote: post #59
pessimizer wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FSF has had a massive impact on the world. The constant discussion of how they should be presenting their message should be in the dictionary under bikeshedding. Maybe it isn't the way they're presenting their message; maybe you just don't agree with them.

> The FSF has had a massive impact on the world. It has? I'll accept that only for the conception of FLOSS. However, I would then say that the OSI and Linux Foundations have had greater impact. They relied on the RMS's license, but they have actually managed to make inroads, whereas the FSF has stayed in it's corner, shouting. > maybe you just don't agree with them. What I don't agree with is the all or nothing attit…

>What I don't agree with is the all or nothing attitude they have. The ability to know when to compromise is crucial to working with people.

They consider nonfree software to be not merely inconvenient, but evil, a violation of fundamental human rights. Why would they ever compromise?

Re: GNU LibreJS

#79

Post by jordigh »

the_af wrote: post #77
jordigh wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the intention of "open source" was to have a synonym for "free software". http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgot... They mean the same thing in the same way that "digital rights management" and "digital restrictions management" means the same thing: they refer to the same thing, but give a different slant to refer to the same thing.

Like you mentioned in your article, this indeed seems to be Bruce Perens' opinion. However, notice how both Eric Raymond (on the side of open source) and Richard Stallman (on the side of free software) disagree with him. If you listen to people like Eric Raymond, open source is all about quality. "Many eyes make all bugs shallow", etc. If you listen to people like Richard Stallman, free software is all about users' r…

Yes, I'm very well that they refer to philosophical differences. But they are both talking about the same damn software. Not the same philosophy, but the same software. This is something everyone agrees about, not just Bruce Perens. This is also the official position of OSI, not just Bruce Perens': that open source is just another name for free software.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#80

Post by krapp »

henrikschroder wrote: post #42
s4chin wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I attended an RMS lecture about free software and the GNU movement. To me, RMS just seems to be too paranoid about "non-free" software to the point that it just seems impractical. He spoke about LibreJS and about why we should complain, but I wasn't really convinced due to the exact same reason you mentioned.

RMS is not paranoid, he is extremely consistent in applying his philosophy. He shows by example what it's like to use only free software. For the rest of us, his ways are extremely impractical, so we compromise. We run a lot of proprietary software, and we don't really think about it. But RMS thinks about it, and tells us in every single instance exactly what we are giving up as a compromise. And in that regard he, a…

One can be paranoid and maintain a consistent worldview.
Post reply on HN