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

Stallman’s Law

gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 150 posts

Re: Stallman’s Law

#81

Post by JacksonGariety »

stcredzero wrote: post #60
JacksonGariety wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom is not so simple: “This procedure thus implies a certain logic of exception: every ideological Universal–for example freedom, equality–is 'false’ in so far as it necessarily includes a specific case which breaks its unity, lays open its falsity. Freedom, for example: a universal notion comprising a number of species (freedom of speech and press, freedom of consciousness, freedom of commerce, political freedom…

Just because your quasi-mathematical model breaks, that doesn't necessarily mean this has anything to do with reality. We have high confidence that mathematical models in physics and chemistry often do have consequences and say something about reality. Economics has an interesting track record here as well. In the realm of ethics, politics, and ideology? Ehhh...not so much.

Ideology has almost nothing at all to do with mathematics, you got that right.

Re: Stallman’s Law

#82

Post by Retra »

makecheck wrote: post #47

Corporations need to be treated as if they could have radically different managers at any moment (because they can). The Best Company Ever of today could be bought by Worst Corporation In Existence tomorrow. It essentially doesn’t matter what a company is currently doing or “promises” to do or not do, if those behaviors are not legally binding. And even then, if you have to read a hundred-page document to figure out…

"Voting with your wallet" seems a pretty absurd concept to me anyway. If you could vote with money, there'd be no need to call it a vote. One may as well be a proponent of "voting with bombs" for all the rational good tying power directly to wealth will do you.

Re: Stallman’s Law

#83

Post by hota_mazi »

stcredzero wrote: post #10

Here's the thing about Richard Stallman -- he's absolutely correct in all of his principles and all of his underlying thinking. He's as intellectually farsighted as anyone I can think of in tech. However, all of the movement around him and the resulting "outreach" efforts have been rather shortsighted in comparison. Let's use environmentalism as an analogy. There is a place for an absolutist intellectual position, wh…

> However, all of the movement around him and the resulting "outreach" efforts have been rather shortsighted in comparison.

I'd say it's the exact opposite: Stallman is a hopeless idealist with absolutely no anchor in reality. The only thing that keeps the FSF relevant is the people running it besides Stallman.

Re: Stallman’s Law

#84

Post by misrepresent »

catern wrote: post #72
misrepresent wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think one mission statement on one website represents the position for all of us?

Clearly this has now devolved into mere semantics, but... if your position emphasizes user freedom, then your position is the "free software" position, not the "open source" position, just as a matter of the historical definitions of those terms. "Open source" was coined for the explicit purpose of de-emphasizing user freedom (that is, making the idea of FOSS more palatable to companies that were not interested in al…

Look, he used a bullshit argument. One guy says, (paraphrasing) [open source has many advantages]. The next guy replies by quoting the opensource.org website as though that's the only definition available. A citation for a strawman doesn't make it valid.

I have no idea who first put the words "open source" together, and neither do you. I think it's much more likely someone grabbed the term and added their own agenda to it after it was already popular. Regardless, assuming the original intention was as you claim, that doesn't mean everyone who uses that term now shares that view.

Re: Stallman’s Law

#85

Post by comex »

misrepresent wrote: post #84
catern wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly this has now devolved into mere semantics, but... if your position emphasizes user freedom, then your position is the "free software" position, not the "open source" position, just as a matter of the historical definitions of those terms. "Open source" was coined for the explicit purpose of de-emphasizing user freedom (that is, making the idea of FOSS more palatable to companies that were not interested in al…

Look, he used a bullshit argument. One guy says, (paraphrasing) [open source has many advantages]. The next guy replies by quoting the opensource.org website as though that's the only definition available. A citation for a strawman doesn't make it valid. I have no idea who first put the words "open source" together, and neither do you. I think it's much more likely someone grabbed the term and added their own agenda…

> I have no idea who first put the words "open source" together, and neither do you. I think it's much more likely someone grabbed the term and added their own agenda to it after it was already popular.

Perhaps you should read the site in question rather than guessing.

https://opensource.org/history

> The “open source” label was created at a strategy session held on February 3rd, 1998 in Palo Alto, California, shortly after the announcement of the release of the Netscape source code. [..] The conferees also believed that it would be useful to have a single label that identified this approach and distinguished it from the philosophically- and politically-focused label "free software." Brainstorming for this new label eventually converged on the term "open source", originally suggested by Christine Peterson.

Re: Stallman’s Law

#86

Post by sedachv »

JacksonGariety wrote: post #32
stcredzero wrote: post #10

Here's the thing about Richard Stallman -- he's absolutely correct in all of his principles and all of his underlying thinking. He's as intellectually farsighted as anyone I can think of in tech. However, all of the movement around him and the resulting "outreach" efforts have been rather shortsighted in comparison. Let's use environmentalism as an analogy. There is a place for an absolutist intellectual position, wh…

Freedom is not so simple: “This procedure thus implies a certain logic of exception: every ideological Universal–for example freedom, equality–is 'false’ in so far as it necessarily includes a specific case which breaks its unity, lays open its falsity. Freedom, for example: a universal notion comprising a number of species (freedom of speech and press, freedom of consciousness, freedom of commerce, political freedom…

Stallman recognized this from the start of GNU:

"proprietary modifications will not be allowed"

https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html

Re: Stallman’s Law

#87

Post by sedachv »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #45
tbrownaw wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the thing about Richard Stallman -- he's absolutely correct in all of his principles and all of his underlying thinking. I disagree with this. There are things you can (are allowed to) do, things you know you can't do, and things that are inconceivable / impossible. His position is that #2 is evil (because knowing you could fix that printer driver if only you were allowed to is fucking annoying ), and there is…

#2 and #3 have one huge practical difference: incentive. See, as far as profit-maximising is concerned, expanding the realm of #2 is very good for whoever owns the stuff. See how DRM is doing exactly that. If #2 itself was either forbidden or visibly abhorrent for everyone involved, we'd get more #1 right away. Note that there is some flaw to #3 to #2 even when public funding is involved . Many patents were born that…

> Destroying #2 doesn't have to choke off the flow from the impossible to the possible, if adjust our society around it.

I honestly cannot tell exactly what the parent comment is referring to with #1 #2 #3, but a mutual change of societal incentives for writing software enabled by Free Software is what RMS suggested in the GNU Manifesto:

"In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the postscarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to make a living. People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun, such as programming"

https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html

Re: Stallman’s Law

#88

Post by uabstraction »

stcredzero wrote: post #10

Here's the thing about Richard Stallman -- he's absolutely correct in all of his principles and all of his underlying thinking. He's as intellectually farsighted as anyone I can think of in tech. However, all of the movement around him and the resulting "outreach" efforts have been rather shortsighted in comparison. Let's use environmentalism as an analogy. There is a place for an absolutist intellectual position, wh…

Stallman's greatest strength - his uncompromising, liberty or death approach to computing - is also his greatest weakness. With all due respect, by refusing to use proprietary software under any circumstances, and taking extreme measures to avoid various forms of tracking, he isolates himself into a sunshine and rainbows bubble of free software. Stallman is very good at predicting what the worst case scenarios may look like under various regimes of technological oppression, but he has no idea what the current state of affairs is outside his freedom bubble. He can't see what direction the state of the art is moving in, and has no first hand experience with any of the various evils he dedicates his life to fighting.

Stallman wrote my favorite text editor, and the original version of the C compiler I've fiddled with for the past decade, so I can't complain about the guy. He's a living legend. I just think that the potential negative results of hard-line free software purism don't get enough discussion within the free software community.

Re: Stallman’s Law

#89

Post by misrepresent »

comex wrote: post #85
misrepresent wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, he used a bullshit argument. One guy says, (paraphrasing) [open source has many advantages]. The next guy replies by quoting the opensource.org website as though that's the only definition available. A citation for a strawman doesn't make it valid. I have no idea who first put the words "open source" together, and neither do you. I think it's much more likely someone grabbed the term and added their own agenda…

> I have no idea who first put the words "open source" together, and neither do you. I think it's much more likely someone grabbed the term and added their own agenda to it after it was already popular. Perhaps you should read the site in question rather than guessing. https://opensource.org/history > The “open source” label was created at a strategy session held on February 3rd, 1998 in Palo Alto, California, shortl…

And yet, if I look at:

    https://archive.org/stream/CathedralAndTheBazaar/cathedral-bazaar_djvu.txt
I see that Eric Raymond used the term on November 18th 1997. Wanna place a bet that I can't find an earlier use than that? Perhaps you shouldn't trust everything you read as definitive...

Re: Stallman’s Law

#90

Post by sedachv »

comex wrote: post #85
misrepresent wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, he used a bullshit argument. One guy says, (paraphrasing) [open source has many advantages]. The next guy replies by quoting the opensource.org website as though that's the only definition available. A citation for a strawman doesn't make it valid. I have no idea who first put the words "open source" together, and neither do you. I think it's much more likely someone grabbed the term and added their own agenda…

> I have no idea who first put the words "open source" together, and neither do you. I think it's much more likely someone grabbed the term and added their own agenda to it after it was already popular. Perhaps you should read the site in question rather than guessing. https://opensource.org/history > The “open source” label was created at a strategy session held on February 3rd, 1998 in Palo Alto, California, shortl…

In reply to user misrepresent, who seems to have signed up to HN just to attack RMS:

Wrong.

"Revision 1.29 February 9 1998 esr Changed ``free software'' to ``open source''. "

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral...

Post reply on HN