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

Richard Stallman on Bill Gates: "It's not the Gates, it's the bars"

news.bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 73 posts

Re: Richard Stallman on Bill Gates: "It's not the Gates, it's the bars"

#61

Post by bayareaguy »

HansF wrote: post #42
billroberts wrote: post #13

I don't agree with Stallman. Like probably most HN readers, I use a lot of Free/Open Source software - Linux, MySQL, Rails... and it's incredibly valuable. However I don't expect all software to be free, and to a large extent many major bits of open source software are 'market distortions' created by the big commercial IT companies. Eg OpenOffice is largely StarOffice, bought by Sun and open sourced, mainly in order…

The gpl explicitly allows you to charge for your software.

While true, there is the problem with the GPL that it allows your competitors to leverage your own efforts against you. That's suicide for dumb resellers of commodity applications. But the successful open source companies have proven that for more complex things you can easily make plenty of money if you dual-license your software and use the distribution the GPL allows to build up an established brand.

Re: Richard Stallman on Bill Gates: "It's not the Gates, it's the bars"

#62

Post by bayareaguy »

mynameishere wrote: post #45
ComputerGuru wrote: post #17

I stopped reading the second I reached this: Gates' philanthropy for health care for poor countries has won some people's good opinion. The LA Times reported that his foundation spends five to 10% of its money annually and invests the rest, sometimes in companies it suggests cause environmental degradation and illness in the same poor countries. I've just lost all my respect for Richard Stallman. He's a total ass if…

And: Also announced was the decision to "... spend all of [the Trust's] resources within 50 years after Bill's and Melinda's deaths http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_and_Melinda_Gates_Foundati... Most foundations exist eternally to provide welfare for social workers. I'll credit Gates for preventing that. Stallman didn't do basic research on the matter. Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, and the rest, offer you software that g…

Stallman doesn't have any problem with you laying down 40 dollars for a million man-hours of work if that's what you want to do.

He has more of a problem that your choice to do so contributes to the likelyhood that a billion others will have to pay for something when that is not their choice.

Think about how much money Microsoft is getting from people and organizations who don't want their stuff, but pay for it anyways because that's the only option they know. Do you think that kind of business is ethical?

Re: Richard Stallman on Bill Gates: "It's not the Gates, it's the bars"

#63

Post by mojuba »

KirinDave wrote: post #57
Herring wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is lots of free software and lots of for-pay software and some intersection of the two, and the world seems fairly happy with this situation. Noone was arguing that closed source isn't profitable. "Proprietary software exists" isn't an argument for it's existence & many are unhappy about it. > >Often times closed-source software pioneers an approach, makes an initial profit, and proves a demand which open sou…

> Noone was arguing that closed source isn't profitable. "Proprietary software exists" isn't an argument for it's existence & many are unhappy about it. There is definitely slippery-slope rhetoric in the GNU propaganda. Thus far, no slope has existed. That's all I meant to say. > I hope you're not saying OSS isn't innovative. I am not saying this, but it is historically true that lots of different fields have been pi…

It is also true historically that people who innovate often are forced to close their code, which otherwise they'd quite possibly be happy to open. It's more often companies that put restrictions rather than engineers themselves.

Re: Richard Stallman on Bill Gates: "It's not the Gates, it's the bars"

#64

Post by jrockway »

mattmaroon wrote: post #5
swivelmaster wrote: post #2

I stopped reading after it turned into a rant about how all software should be free. While I understand and agree with some of the complaints about Microsoft, the extreme 'commercial software is bad' position is kind of ridiculous.

It's his religion, and no matter how mathematically intelligent he may be, he's as blind to rational thought in that area as the most zealous Imam. There are different types of intelligences, and it seems pretty obvious that he is incredibly strong in some and weaker than the average Wal-Mart shopper in a few.

I don't think you understand arguments. When you are arguing for a cause, taking a "reasonable" middle ground doesn't get you anything. You have to argue for the extreme, so that the other side agrees to meet you half way. Then you get what you really want. (If they met you half way to your half way, then you'd not be satisfied.)

RMS needs to say "all non-Free software should go away" so that some of it will.

Re: Richard Stallman on Bill Gates: "It's not the Gates, it's the bars"

#65

Post by swivelmaster »

bayareaguy wrote: post #62
mynameishere wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And: Also announced was the decision to "... spend all of [the Trust's] resources within 50 years after Bill's and Melinda's deaths http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_and_Melinda_Gates_Foundati... Most foundations exist eternally to provide welfare for social workers. I'll credit Gates for preventing that. Stallman didn't do basic research on the matter. Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, and the rest, offer you software that g…

Stallman doesn't have any problem with you laying down 40 dollars for a million man-hours of work if that's what you want to do. He has more of a problem that your choice to do so contributes to the likelyhood that a billion others will have to pay for something when that is not their choice. Think about how much money Microsoft is getting from people and organizations who don't want their stuff, but pay for it anywa…

It's not a question of ethics. It's capitalism. It's not like buying the software hurts anybody, you're just spending money. You could make the same arguments about a lot of things, including the US auto industry, Nintendo, and Hollywood.

Hollywood films were imposed upon European countries after WW2 as a way to spread American ideas and culture, and it's partially because of that that Hollywood has been able to get so big. So now is it unethical that people 'have' to spend money on big blockbusters because they don't live in a big enough market to make indie films worth showing?

Or similarly, would you say the US car business is unethical because it was involved in strategically eliminating trains in various parts of the country so more people would drive cars?

(Look the Nintendo one up if you're confused, it's from the NES/SNES days.)

If this was about food and we were all being forced to buy McDonalds because McDonalds forced everyone else out of business, then I'd agree that we should be up in arms. But this is software. Or rather, it's JUST software. Computers would cost a lot of money with or without Windows.

Re: Richard Stallman on Bill Gates: "It's not the Gates, it's the bars"

#66

Post by pg »

jrockway wrote: post #64
mattmaroon wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's his religion, and no matter how mathematically intelligent he may be, he's as blind to rational thought in that area as the most zealous Imam. There are different types of intelligences, and it seems pretty obvious that he is incredibly strong in some and weaker than the average Wal-Mart shopper in a few.

I don't think you understand arguments. When you are arguing for a cause, taking a "reasonable" middle ground doesn't get you anything. You have to argue for the extreme, so that the other side agrees to meet you half way. Then you get what you really want. (If they met you half way to your half way, then you'd not be satisfied.) RMS needs to say "all non-Free software should go away" so that some of it will.

Depends who your audience is. If you're trying to convince smart people, arguing for extremes will make them think you're a fool.

And incidentally, if you find yourself trying to convince audiences of stupid people, you may want to stop and ask yourself whether you want to be spending your life that way.

Re: Richard Stallman on Bill Gates: "It's not the Gates, it's the bars"

#67

Post by swivelmaster »

gwniobombux wrote: post #10
swivelmaster wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, then it's a matter of word choice. He actually was talking about 'proprietary' software. "But Gates didn't invent proprietary software, and thousands of other companies do the same thing. It's wrong, no matter who does it." That is an outrageous statement.

Why? Could you elaborate? Just like Stallman actually explains, why he thinks proprietary software wrong.

Sorry, I started to write a more details explanation of my position last night but was interrupted and closed the browser.

Stallman is suggesting that software should be free because people shouldn't have to pay for it, and so that anyone can modify it.

In theory that sounds great, but the truth is that capitalism has driven most of the software that actually enhances the lives of the majority of people who have computers. Look at the differences between Gimp and Photoshop (or even Paint Shop Pro), or between Impulse Tracker and Logic Pro. (IT wasn't free, actually, but it was really cheap!) Software that people pay for is usually better, and far more useful.

I tried using Gimp at my company for a while to save us money, and I was practically pulling my hair out after ten minutes. It sucks. It really, really sucks. It does a lot of cool things, but it's buggy and it's difficult to use.

If Adobe wasn't rich because they sell their software, their software wouldn't be nearly as good. Same with most other software companies.

Now if it wasn't proprietary, most of the advantages of being able to sell it would go out the window. If everyone had the source code to Photoshop, Photoshop would be nearly worthless. And then everyone would go off and add features when they could, and each feature would only be usable to the person who wrote it. There's no reason to make it usable if you're writing it for yourself.

And that's how Photoshop could become Gimp.

Re: Richard Stallman on Bill Gates: "It's not the Gates, it's the bars"

#68

Post by swivelmaster »

pavelludiq wrote: post #21

You know that a lot of the famous idealist of the past have been laughed at for being diluted and not in touch with reality. RMS is not blind, he just sees what he wants to see. He knows the reality and knows that a lot of people laught at him for some reasons, but doesn't care. Look at him, he doesn't give up, he pushes harder and harder. I don't support his extremist ideas, im a more moderate free software fan, but…

Photoshop is worth it if your business depends on it. Gimp wastes your time. It takes a few weeks to work off the price of Photoshop vs the time you'd lose trying to get Gimp to work properly.

Re: Richard Stallman on Bill Gates: "It's not the Gates, it's the bars"

#69

Post by parenthesis »

swivelmaster wrote: post #67
gwniobombux wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Could you elaborate? Just like Stallman actually explains, why he thinks proprietary software wrong.

Sorry, I started to write a more details explanation of my position last night but was interrupted and closed the browser. Stallman is suggesting that software should be free because people shouldn't have to pay for it, and so that anyone can modify it. In theory that sounds great, but the truth is that capitalism has driven most of the software that actually enhances the lives of the majority of people who have comp…

I think Ardour and Rosegarden would be fairer comparisons with Logic Pro. But your point still stands that it was programs like Logic, Cubase, ProTools, Studio Vision that made the market and between them figured out which features should be available and how they should be presented to the user.

Re: Richard Stallman on Bill Gates: "It's not the Gates, it's the bars"

#70

Post by bayareaguy »

swivelmaster wrote: post #65
bayareaguy wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stallman doesn't have any problem with you laying down 40 dollars for a million man-hours of work if that's what you want to do. He has more of a problem that your choice to do so contributes to the likelyhood that a billion others will have to pay for something when that is not their choice. Think about how much money Microsoft is getting from people and organizations who don't want their stuff, but pay for it anywa…

It's not a question of ethics. It's capitalism. It's not like buying the software hurts anybody, you're just spending money. You could make the same arguments about a lot of things, including the US auto industry, Nintendo, and Hollywood. Hollywood films were imposed upon European countries after WW2 as a way to spread American ideas and culture, and it's partially because of that that Hollywood has been able to get…

In any form, taxation without representation is tyranny.
Post reply on HN