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

Richard Stallman answers Reddit's top 25 questions.

blog.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 263 posts

Re: Richard Stallman answers Reddit's top 25 questions.

#211

Post by cschwarm »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #198
cschwarm wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slave owners universally don't want to be slaves, thus it's immoral. Buyers and sellers of proprietary software don't have no problem buying and selling proprietary software from others, thus it's NOT immoral.

There's plenty of examples of proprietary software vendors doing their best to avoid lock-in from other proprietary software vendors, while doing the same to their own customers. Apple vs Adobe on the iPhone flash issue for example, where Apple proposed open standards and developing directly for iPhone as the two permitted options.

Interesting observation, but it has nothing to do with the question of moral behavior.

There're also plenty of examples of businesses trying to buy as cheap as possible while at the same time trying to sell as expensive as possible. That just proves that buyers should beware.

Also, proprietary software is not equivalent to high switching costs: in fact, it's a rather subjective calculation. If you don't care about keeping your old emails, switching your E-mail client has nearly no costs, for example. Additionally, "free" software doesn't imply low switching costs: develop a large application using the KDE or GNOME APIs, and you'll find that switching is rather expensive.

In general, your argument is a red herring: Since switching costs may establish a trap, you should warn about software with high switching costs, not about proprietary software.

Re: Richard Stallman answers Reddit's top 25 questions.

#212

Post by filosofo »

I have a great amount of respect for Richard Stallman, but I don't understand how he reconciles his concerns about a large "surveillance state" (#24) with his insistence that governments take away enough power from companies to make them "squeal." (#17)

Doesn't one work against the other? In other words, a government with enough power to make citizens' organizations squeal by practical necessity risks becoming a "surveillance state."

Re: Richard Stallman answers Reddit's top 25 questions.

#213

Post by turtle4 »

statictype wrote: post #153
avar wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bill and Melinda Gates have done tremendous good in the world, and anyone who thinks otherwise is either crude or uninformed. Their foundation has done a lot of good, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Why does it have all that money in the first place? Well, mostly because Microsoft managed to work itself into a monopoly position with dirty tactics, and the proliferation of their own proprietary file formats. This…

I'm surprised at how high your comment is rated. Bill Gates didn't become rich because Microsoft managed to work itself into a monopoly position with dirty tactics. The whole problem people have with Microsoft is that they abused their monopoly in one area to gain a foothold in another! They already had a virtual monopoly on desktop computers. How did they get there? By having smart people and making really good soft…

Its pretty hard to say that the only way MS leveraged its monopoly was to enter other markets. That may have been the biggest problem, but I doubt it is the 'whole' problem. You really believe that MS didn't gouge consumers on the price of their OS? Or their Office suite?

Regardless of your opinions on their specific business practices, I think the OP's point still stands: its difficult at best to laude someone for giving away money that to some extent was derived illegally.

Re: Richard Stallman answers Reddit's top 25 questions.

#214

Post by rick888 »

ohyes wrote: post #159
rick888 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"RMS sees the ability to hack your own system as a fundamental freedom. Computer as an extension of your mind/person. It would be like me telling you that you are not allowed think certain thoughts." Under these rules, I should be able to include GPL source in a proprietary application and not have to release the code. It's my fundamental freedom to do as I wish with open source code. Yet, it doesn't work this way. P…

Well, as long as you don't release the application, you are certainly allowed to do that under the GPL. No one will sue you (furthermore how would they know?). I like the mind analogy, it is sufficiently weird. Lets say my friend Phil and his pet Demon have the technology to implant a calculus subroutine in your brain. It is a little buggy, but overall it works pretty well, sometimes it will get the wrong answers, bu…

"I didn't come in here to argue that RMS is right, but there does seem to be some sort of moral or ethical issue behind this that is far beyond RMS getting upset that someone else is able to make money with his code. I suspect that he could make quite a bit of money not being the 'free software' guy, if it were mere jealousy."

For me, the issue comes down to my own rights as a developer. If I sell an application with no source, nobody has a right to:

1) copy it freely to their friends 2) get my source

RMS gladly sacrifices the rights of a developer for the rights of a user and I just can't agree.

"If we take the idea that the computer is an extension of the mind seriously, any sort of proprietary software is extremely anti-social behavior. If I create proprietary software and allow people to install it, I am cutting them off from little pieces of understanding and knowledge that they could otherwise have."

The computer isn't an extension of the mind. It's just a tool.

"It is even worse if it doesn't work properly and I 'hang them out to dry' once they depend on it (i.e. stop fixing bugs)."

If that's the case, move onto another application. It's obviously working to some degree if you are using it. Even changes in operating systems won't suddenly make an application stop working (you can continue to use the old OS until you change to a new application).

Open source won't save you from this scenario. Open source developers stop fixing bugs all the time. I can't tell you how many abandoned projects I've seen on Sourceforge or Freshmeat. Sure, you could hire a developer to make changes..but you either have to:

1) hire a contractor (it's not easy to find a contractor that can get familiar with the code you need or is competent enough to get the job done in a timely fashion. This wastes lots of time and money (I know, I've been there).

2) Hire a full-time employee. So now, instead of paying a company $1000/year for bug fixes/updates, you need to pay a full-time developer 10X more.

3) wait for someone to pick the project up. This happens, but since most open source projects are a hobby for the developer, major bugs that you need fixed aren't a priority when the developer needs to pay the rent.

Some companies based on open source do offer support. But it's just as expensive as any other company. So it really offers no benefit.

Either way, Stallman, the pirates, and the zealots have pushed me away from selling software. This is mostly because many of the people from all of these communities feel entitled to my proprietary work. Over time, this is going to make it difficult for anyone to sell software (because everyone is going to just share it for free..and not care). So, all of my software ideas are now web service ideas. This is where software is headed. So now instead of paying a one-time fee (which is what I was going to do originally), you will be paying a monthy/yearly fee to use software (and you won't get anything even close to the source).

Re: Richard Stallman answers Reddit's top 25 questions.

#215

Post by turtle4 »

mkr-hn wrote: post #70
Locke1689 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly, I believe that this tone and rhetoric devalues some of the great things he has done. I completely disagree. He has certain values and political goals which he believes very strongly in -- and espouses them aggressively. This is true for all of us. I personally disagree with him (I am willing to give up some of my freedom for money), but I would never say that that diminishes his accomplishments and contribut…

You don't necessarily give up freedom to use proprietary software. If free (as in speech) software offers no suitable solution for what you need to do, and you lack the skills or time to improve the existing alternatives, I don't think you can be free if you choose to use the next-best option. Proprietary vendors can do things to prevent a suitable alternative from existing, but that's a separate consideration from w…

If you are using free software, and a feature is missing or a bug is present, and you have neither the time nor skills to correct the issue, you can sponsor or request that someone else make the change. Alternately, anyone else using the software could have that time or skill, and their contribution would benefit all.

With proprietary software, you absolutely give up that ability.

So yes, you do always give up the freedom. The counterpoint, though, is that if you were never to exercise the freedom, it has no value. So even though you've given up a freedom to use a proprietary solution, if you never encounter a case where you want/need to exercise that freedom, it hasn't really hurt you. That may be more what you are getting at?

Re: Richard Stallman answers Reddit's top 25 questions.

#216

Post by mkr-hn »

turtle4 wrote: post #215
mkr-hn wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't necessarily give up freedom to use proprietary software. If free (as in speech) software offers no suitable solution for what you need to do, and you lack the skills or time to improve the existing alternatives, I don't think you can be free if you choose to use the next-best option. Proprietary vendors can do things to prevent a suitable alternative from existing, but that's a separate consideration from w…

If you are using free software, and a feature is missing or a bug is present, and you have neither the time nor skills to correct the issue, you can sponsor or request that someone else make the change. Alternately, anyone else using the software could have that time or skill, and their contribution would benefit all. With proprietary software, you absolutely give up that ability. So yes, you do always give up the fr…

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. I've spent too much time in places (rest of the internet) where there's no real incentive to make sure your point is clear, so I had trouble making it so. :(

Working on it though. :)

Re: Richard Stallman answers Reddit's top 25 questions.

#217

Post by rick888 »

kiba wrote: post #155
rick888 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Free software have nothing to do much with capitalism." So why does the GPL make it so difficult to make any kind of money. Many of the supporters are also against any and all forms of commercial software. "What he disagree with is what he called combat.(Or what I least remember from reading one of his essay) Rather than improve over your competitors and sell great stuff to customers, you seek to annihilate your com…

So why does the GPL make it so difficult to make any kind of money. Many of the supporters are also against any and all forms of commercial software. How many Free software supporters did you count said they're explicitly against profiting from software? Beside, if GPL make it difficult to earn money, than it's a pure side effect.

"How many Free software supporters did you count said they're explicitly against profiting from software?"

Do I really need to keep count? Look at any discussion involving the GPL.

"Beside, if GPL make it difficult to earn money, than it's a pure side effect."

A side effect? I just don't believe it. Stallman and many people from the community are very focal about being anti-corporation and anti-profit.

If you can't see this, then I don't know what to tell you.

Re: Richard Stallman answers Reddit's top 25 questions.

#218

Post by rick888 »

aardvark wrote: post #166
rick888 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Free software have nothing to do much with capitalism." So why does the GPL make it so difficult to make any kind of money. Many of the supporters are also against any and all forms of commercial software. "What he disagree with is what he called combat.(Or what I least remember from reading one of his essay) Rather than improve over your competitors and sell great stuff to customers, you seek to annihilate your com…

Red Hat is making pretty good money supporting GPL'd software, over $700 million in FY 2010.

that's support. I'm talking about selling software. There's a difference.

Re: Richard Stallman answers Reddit's top 25 questions.

#219

Post by _pi »

sid0 wrote: post #194
_pi wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There are few OSS projects that have done anything more than steal ideas from commercial software in terms of innovation. Programming languages are the only place I can think of that OSS is cutting edge. Surely you're joking? Outlook is a crappy email client. Mutt which is older than I am, handles mail better than Outlook does, I hate using Outlook. It means archiving my mail every month (several accounts over sever…

> Linux in the kernel level has removed the need for file polling, replacing it with iwatch As long as we're comparing who did what first (as if that's relevant today ), ReadDirectoryChangesW came in Windows 2000. inotify came in 2005. > MS to this day hasn't standardized it's own security structure (EX: runas.exe in XP will have the processes pass on administrator rights to all child processes 7 doesn't neither does…

>As long as we're comparing who did what first (as if that's relevant today), ReadDirectoryChangesW came in Windows 2000. inotify came in 2005.

Inotify was a replacement for dnotify. Which was there since 2.4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnotify

Also comparing the two subsystems is entirely wrong. ReadDirectoryChangesW is still a polling mechanism, inotify and dnotify are kernel level events.

>Amusingly, this just displays your own naivete. The only way to get security if someone has physical access is through cryptography. Pressing cancel on a local login screen is equivalent to booting into single user mode or just using a boot disk and wiping out the local administrator's password.

You're just being an obstinate child here. There's a difference when anyone can defeat your security, and when knowledgeable people can defeat your security. Why do company's take people of the premises when they're fired? Because it's easier for them to lash out, and cause damage. Well it's certainly easier for a passerby to break into your system by pressing cancel. Outside physical threats are always there, especially in the form of delivery men. What's the point of even password protecting something when the UPS guy can come and hit cancel cause he has 95 at home? Not only that but you still need a password for single user mode, and it would take a bit longer for him if he had a boot disk.

>Microsoft Research is the most prolific non-university academic CS research lab in the world. The people that work there are all truly brilliant. (disclosure: I did an internship there this summer)

This isn't about Microsoft Research, this is about Microsoft products. This is a completely irrelevant point. MSR is a fine institution which is a great place for academic papers, they don't generally develop products for Microsoft.

Re: Richard Stallman answers Reddit's top 25 questions.

#220

Post by _pi »

Yoshino wrote: post #209
_pi wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There are few OSS projects that have done anything more than steal ideas from commercial software in terms of innovation. Programming languages are the only place I can think of that OSS is cutting edge. Surely you're joking? Outlook is a crappy email client. Mutt which is older than I am, handles mail better than Outlook does, I hate using Outlook. It means archiving my mail every month (several accounts over sever…

> Not to mention compiz/beryl had desktop effects before any other operating system. You’re joking, right? Mac OS X has always had some sort of desktop effects. Hardware accelerated Quartz Extreme was part of 10.2 in 2002. And Exposé was introduced in 2003… All before Compiz/beryl.

You're right OSX did have Quarts and expose before linux did. I was talking about Microsoft Operating systems but I wasn't clear enough.
Post reply on HN