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

Richard Stallman Explains [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 207 posts

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#51

Post by quadrangle »

wmf wrote: post #4
Boothroid wrote: post #2

I was amazed to see that Stallman doesn't install his OS himself - hasn't for years. He seemed diminished in my eyes after I learnt this.

Stallman reminds me of a king who has everything done by servants and knows only what his courtiers tell him. Being free of menial tasks like installing software leaves him more time to tackle serious issues. But it also insulates him from the problems that real people face.

He's intimately aware of the problems real people face and spends lots of his time discussing them. If he's a king with servants, he's one who knows the value he receives and thinks constantly about how to achieve a world in which everyone can easily get the results he has (e.g. not worry about installing their OS but still having fully-free/libre software)

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#53

Post by quadrangle »

krick wrote: post #28
ue_ wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His programming and social acheivements in my opinion vastly outclass installing an OS by himself, though I wonder why he doesn't do it; I assume he knows how partitioning etc. works. And to be honest, how often do most people need to reinstall their OS? I would be surprised if he has reinstalled more than 3 times in 5 years.

I'm still struggling to understand, what exactly Stallman's social acheivements are. It's not like he is the reason people care about proprietary software and surveillance. No, the real reasons are these things themselves, because — I won't say "all people", but many people understand the dangers and inconveniences of it pretty damn well. I myself perfectly agree with Stallman on many (if not all) of his convictions,…

RMS created the foundations for the existence of a fully-free OS, both technically and socially. He created the concept of copyleft and the GNU GPL, a fundamental feature of the free software movement. He founded GNU and FSF which remain important enough to be notable.

Even the Linux kernel started off with a weird non-free license until Torvalds decided the GPL was a good fit, changing his views on commercial-restrictions after hearing RMS talk.

RMS is a philosopher of sorts and is already seen historically as a fundamentally important figure in the philosophy and ethics of technology.

Sure, the ideas would be out there some way even if RMS wasn't around. Similarly, biological evolution was inherently an idea that was even being thought about by others at the time of Darwin, but we still acknowledge Darwin's major contributions even though we'd almost certainly at some point know everything we know now even if Darwin had never published anything.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#54

Post by teekert »

Ever since I listened to this episode of the Linux Action Show [0] I can't take RMS serious anymore. He bases everything he believes on one assumption he doesn't dare to argue himself: "Proprietary software is evil." That is it.

When you attack his values and stances, he falls back to that sentence. When you argue: But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his own terms? He comes back to "Proprietary software is evil" in the end. He is incapable of defending beyond that point. I think Bryan makes some very good points in the podcast below [0] that RMS fails to answer properly to.

I love open source, I love the philosophy, I want to use as much FOSS as possible and I see how it ultimately will protect our society, I get that. But I see no evil whatsoever in someone making a software tool and selling only the binaries to someone who is happy to use said binaries under the terms the seller and buyer agree upon. That to me is freedom, nobody is forced in that scenario.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=radmjL5OIaA

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#55

Post by teekert »

amelius wrote: post #40
trestletech wrote: post #32

I feel like we're not far off from a digital version of the Amish. "Technology was perfected by the FSF in 2003; everything developed since is evil."

Everything developed by big companies that deals with our data on their premises is evil. We should simply not allow that, and let big companies just develop the hardware.

""We" should not allow that"... Yeah that sounds like freedom to me.

You are free to deal with these companies or not. Whether you agree with these companies and their ways is irrelevant. This is same as not agreeing with another persons' religion, you are free do choose a way to lead your life, don't try to force your way upon others. Others happily share their data with Google and reap the benefits of a very helpful Google Home assistant.

Direct your efforts towards educating these people about the potential downsides, yes, but don't try to use law or other forms of powers to change their ways. That is not freedom.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#56

Post by tequila_shot »

teekert wrote: post #54

Ever since I listened to this episode of the Linux Action Show [0] I can't take RMS serious anymore. He bases everything he believes on one assumption he doesn't dare to argue himself: "Proprietary software is evil." That is it. When you attack his values and stances, he falls back to that sentence. When you argue: But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his ow…

well RMS has nothing to do with Open Source. Open Source is different from FSF. But I generally agree with your comments. I have seen in a number of videos that RMS tends to always fall back on the "Proprietary software is evil".

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#57

Post by tho9Ohx1eo »

lloydde wrote: post #49
Ace17 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But at some point in the food chain, software developers need to put food on the table and send their kids to school. How does that happen if all software is free? Please note "free" has nothing to do with price, but with end-user freedom (to use/study/modify/share). (example answer to your question: custom/internal software).

It actually does have to do with price. All free software is one user away from the possibility (likelihood) it is free as in beer. The parent comment is correct that free software has put magnitudes less food on kids bellies.

> The parent comment is correct that free software has put magnitudes less food on kids bellies.

At the same time it empowered those who could not afford to pay or could not pay (legal/geo-restrictions, DRM etc).

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#58

Post by willtim »

teekert wrote: post #54

Ever since I listened to this episode of the Linux Action Show [0] I can't take RMS serious anymore. He bases everything he believes on one assumption he doesn't dare to argue himself: "Proprietary software is evil." That is it. When you attack his values and stances, he falls back to that sentence. When you argue: But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his ow…

Sure 'evil' is hyperbole, but he gives many examples in the posted video of control, security and privacy issues. Essentially with proprietary software, there is a fundamental conflict of interest between the proprietor and user.

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#59

Post by chauhankiran »

People do not like RMS's "extremeness" for "free" software. But, I personally thing that - if this level of "extremeness" was/is not given by RMS then "free" movement might died within couple of years with loosely couple definition and then more loosely definition of free software by organizations (supported by "evil" companies).

Re: Richard Stallman Explains [video]

#60

Post by deepnet »

teekert wrote: post #54

Ever since I listened to this episode of the Linux Action Show [0] I can't take RMS serious anymore. He bases everything he believes on one assumption he doesn't dare to argue himself: "Proprietary software is evil." That is it. When you attack his values and stances, he falls back to that sentence. When you argue: But aren't you restricting freedom when you would keep a creator from sharing his software under his ow…

Stallman's view is perhaps a little more nuanced.

Don't forget Stallman saw the destruction of his beloved Hacker Culture of Sharing and Academic Discourse eroded and broken by the LISP machine debacle and the change to a closed anti-sharing approach of UNIX by the newly privatised Bell in the 1980s.

And it was a proprietary printer driver which initiated his epiphany that in a world governed by proprietary software the user would have no freedom or a freedom that could be taken from them so no right to freedom. RMS could easily have made the modification to the driver he wanted but he was not allowed the source code.

From this he invented his four essential freedoms [1] manifesto and the GPL which allowed developers to develop with out fear of the closing of their contributions behind paywalls.

In the early 1990s the Linux kernel flourished with its GPL license ensuring it remained a bastion of freedom.

As Stallman advocates for a future where users have maximum freedom then proprietary software is opposed to that.

If I use Photoshop over GIMP and write tutorials and encourage others to use Photoshop then the world is a little less free for those users in the sense of the four essential freedoms [1]

By this definition proprietary software is opposed to Stallman's vision and insiduously so.

To oppose the freedom of others is in RMS's eyes not a good act, thus it can be rightly called evil in that context and IMHO he is not wrong in this.

Proprietary software 'may' not steal your freedom today but it can lock away your contributions and data tomorrow and one has no recourse - Stallman having lived through this wishes to oppose it and fight for the right to Freedom for us all and forever.

His is a glorious vision and he is not wrong, without free software competing with it, proprietary software would likely offer much less freedom and can and has taken what freedom it offered away !

We will live in an increasingly computerised and robotised society. We must choose : will we only have tenuous freedom exchanged for conveniences and mind-candy, rescindable freedoms only for some given by the whim of corporations; or will we work together on GNU and other Free projects and live as Free peoples of the solar system ?

Free as in Liberty, Egality, & Community.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

Oh ye of little faith, history has so far found that :

https://stallmanwasright.reddit.com

Post reply on HN