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

81–90 of 165 posts

Re: GNU LibreJS

#81

Post by PeCaN »

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…

As long as the FSF controls Emacs, GCC, and coreutils they're definitely doing a little more than shouting.

I mean they're ‘GNU’ in GNU/Linux, which is a bit more widespread¹ than any BSD/Linux type thing.

¹Pretty sure Android/Linux wins in sheer numbers, but GNU/Linux has been historically more important and is deployed in more scenarios than smartphones. But if we consider ‘widespread’ to mean numbers, my statement is false.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#82

Post by jordigh »

madeofpalk wrote: post #50
jordigh wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much HTML and CSS nowadays is not really readable, but minified or obfuscated. It's not the 1990s where reading other people's static HTML was a good way to learn how to make your own websites.

Eh. HTML and CSS is the easy part - you can't really obfuscated, only minify it to remove whitespace, which is easily reversible. All great browser dev tools have built in ways to unminify web assets. And it's even easier for HTML and CSS as they're easily viewable in parsed form (DOM).

My point is that HTML and CSS rarely is "source code" these days, (i.e. "the preferred form for modification") but the output of a tool. Back when we were using assemblers instead of compilers, assembly was considered source code, but now it's an opaque object. It is most HTML and CSS these days: opaque objects. If nothing else, the identifiers and CSS selectors can be easily obfuscated.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#83

Post by pessimizer »

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…

> 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

The OSI and Linux Foundations are results of the FSF. The FSF changed the entire face of computing, and the daily lives of every programmer in the world.

> What I don't agree with is the all or nothing attitude they have.

They are an ethics organization. They are consistent and clear. They do not work with organizations or individuals who actively oppose the ethics they endorse. Exactly what goals are they trying to achieve that would benefit from that?

Their goals do not include getting the most users, making computers more convenient, or cheaper, producing the greatest software, or selling the most ads. They are clear about their purpose. When they attempt those things, it is solely to advance ethical goals. Specifically, who should they be working with, to what end?

Re: GNU LibreJS

#84

Post by pessimizer »

krapp wrote: post #74
j_koreth wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's like saying that priests don't think anyone should have sex.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#85

Post by Delmania »

PeCaN wrote: post #81
Delmania wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

As long as the FSF controls Emacs, GCC, and coreutils they're definitely doing a little more than shouting. I mean they're ‘GNU’ in GNU/Linux, which is a bit more widespread¹ than any BSD/Linux type thing. ¹Pretty sure Android/Linux wins in sheer numbers, but GNU/Linux has been historically more important and is deployed in more scenarios than smartphones. But if we consider ‘widespread’ to mean numbers, my statement…

It's Linux, not GNU/Linux. The other problem is people don't consciously associate Emacs or GCC with GNU or the FSF, they're just tools on a machine.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#86

Post by soupbowl »

connorshea wrote: post #75
EuAndreh wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Has your team looked into http://matrix.org/ ? I looked into rocket chat before finding matrix and I found it covered my needs better.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#87

Post by roywiggins »

callesgg wrote: post #46

To me it would seam this boils down to a philosophical issue regarding what is information and what is code, and i guess ownership of information. If someone gives me something directly (like a book or information in a conversation) without a disclaimer or some sort of contract. I would assume it is now mine and i assume the law does to. And from my perspective getting a response from a http server is the same thing…

It may be yours to view, but it's not yours to copy and republish. That's what copyright is all about- the right to view and the right to copy are explicitly unbundled, and the former hardly ever implies the latter.

You can't assume that if someone lets you into their house, they've implicitly granted you the right to enter their house whenever you want or invite your own guests. There's no disclaimer needed, ever, because it's their property. Copyright just extends that idea to intellectual property.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#88

Post by Delmania »

Touche wrote: post #73
EuAndreh wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Do you not have control over your life if proprietary pants software cools your legs when it's hot?

Do you have the source code to firmware on the chip in the pants? Can you install a custom version? That would be consistent with the FSF's viewpoint. They want the user to have full access and control over the software he uses in all devices he uses.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#89

Post by krapp »

pessimizer wrote: post #84
krapp wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's like saying that priests don't think anyone should have sex.

Priests (for certain values of "priest") do believe only heterosexual married Christians can have sex without committing sin, as long as they only have sex with their spouse, so it is kind of like that.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#90

Post by antod »

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…

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

I'm not a fan of ESR at all (he's a bit of a paranoid nutcase), but you are taking that way out of context here.

The "given enough eyeballs" quote was about project leadership styles not software licensing. It was about empowering and accepting many contributors into a project (the bazaar) instead of having a small clique in charge of a project (the cathedral).

> 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.

ESR thought that attracting large contributor bases to projects was the key to improving quality. Not that Open Source automatically means better quality.

Post reply on HN