Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement • Hacker News Board

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#41

Post by skissane » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 2:49 AM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #22

dangom wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stallman has a vision that you and I should be typing our comments and playing our games from machines that are under our control, i.e., whereby we can inspect and modify all of the code that is running on them. That is not the case, and all Stallman is saying, is that this is bad for us. The Free Software Foundation was founded in 1985. From there since Free Software has only lost ground. I don't think Stallman woul…

> That is not the case, and all Stallman is saying, is that this is bad for us. Right, but to most people, that's still an extreme position. Because again, like 99.99% of games are non-free, and especially the way he phrased it is gonna come across as a crank. Stallman strikes me very much as the kind of person who communicates poorly, in an inflammatory way, and gives zero shits how much this bothers anyone else. Wh…

Aren't most activist movements led – to a great extent – by people who take rather maximalist positions? This is true in areas which have nothing to do with free software.

In a way, it is a form of society-wide bargaining. Ask for everything, get something. Ask for something, get nothing. Start big, end up small; start small, end up nowhere.

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#42

Post by booblik » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 2:50 AM UTC

dangom wrote: post #28

TulliusCicero wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is not the case, and all Stallman is saying, is that this is bad for us. Right, but to most people, that's still an extreme position. Because again, like 99.99% of games are non-free, and especially the way he phrased it is gonna come across as a crank. Stallman strikes me very much as the kind of person who communicates poorly, in an inflammatory way, and gives zero shits how much this bothers anyone else. Wh…

It's 2022 and it's close to impossible for you and me to own a computer that we control. Even the thought of owning a computer we control is now seen as "extreme". If we did go through hops to have a machine that we control, it'd be practically impossible to use it to communicate with our friends and family, because all of our communications go through third party servers that we do not control. In exactly which way…

This is because 99.99% of the population wouldn’t know what to do with such a device. Computers are consumer devices, they can’t be expected to meet demands for total user control without those users shooting themselves in the foot nonstop. This is the only logical way they can develop.

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#43

Post by charcircuit » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 2:51 AM UTC

jrm4 wrote: post #36

I really think far too many people are missing why Stallman and the FSF are so valuable. It's not that everyone should behave exactly like them; it's that they provide a useful extreme endpoint such that there can exist a reasonable "Overton Window" of Free/Open Source/ Whatever Software. I 100% support what they do and preach knowing FULL well I will likely never 100% do as they recommend. That's not actually a big…

Open source would still exist without Stallman and the FSF. There is a practical benefit to open source software and calling people / companies evil / unethical for not open sourcing everything is not as helpful as the FSF may think.

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#44

Post by alanbernstein » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 2:55 AM UTC

jrm4 wrote: post #36

I really think far too many people are missing why Stallman and the FSF are so valuable. It's not that everyone should behave exactly like them; it's that they provide a useful extreme endpoint such that there can exist a reasonable "Overton Window" of Free/Open Source/ Whatever Software. I 100% support what they do and preach knowing FULL well I will likely never 100% do as they recommend. That's not actually a big…

I like to think that a goal does not necessarily need to be achievable in order to be valuable.

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#45

Post by jrm4 » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 2:56 AM UTC

charcircuit wrote: post #43

jrm4 wrote: post #36

I really think far too many people are missing why Stallman and the FSF are so valuable. It's not that everyone should behave exactly like them; it's that they provide a useful extreme endpoint such that there can exist a reasonable "Overton Window" of Free/Open Source/ Whatever Software. I 100% support what they do and preach knowing FULL well I will likely never 100% do as they recommend. That's not actually a big…

Open source would still exist without Stallman and the FSF. There is a practical benefit to open source software and calling people / companies evil / unethical for not open sourcing everything is not as helpful as the FSF may think.

Considering Stallman's Free Software predates "Open Source" I'm not sure it actually would, or if it did, it would likely be less free.

And again, helpful to whom? Yes. Stallman's no diplomat or ambassador, but that's not the job he's trying to do.

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#46

Post by nighthawk454 » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 2:58 AM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #25

nighthawk454 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bit of a false dichotomy. Detesting anticheat doesn't mean you support none (and therefore enjoy rampant cheating). More probably, the point here is most anticheats are very invasive and harmful to privacy, while also degrading game performance and often being ineffective at preventing cheaters.

> More probably, the point here is most anticheats are very invasive and harmful to privacy, while also degrading game performance and often being ineffective at preventing cheaters. [Citation needed] at the last part. Of course they're not gonna prevent 100% of cheaters, but I have doubts that they don't do anything.

i think you may have misread it. no one claimed any absolute (in)effectiveness. my point was the % of cheating they do prevent is sometimes not enough to sufficiently improve the user experience, despite the large privacy tradeoffs. for example, queue for ranked in R6 Siege... saying "citation needed" on repeat is kind of lazy.

OP's point here was that anticheat - while necessary in practice - is particularly egregious at invading privacy and/or degrading the user's experience, which i think is fair to say goes against the free software ideal. the experience would certainly be worse without any anticheat, but that doesn't mean anticheat couldn't be better or isn't still very non-free.

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#47

Post by jrm4 » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 2:58 AM UTC

alanbernstein wrote: post #44

jrm4 wrote: post #36

I really think far too many people are missing why Stallman and the FSF are so valuable. It's not that everyone should behave exactly like them; it's that they provide a useful extreme endpoint such that there can exist a reasonable "Overton Window" of Free/Open Source/ Whatever Software. I 100% support what they do and preach knowing FULL well I will likely never 100% do as they recommend. That's not actually a big…

I like to think that a goal does not necessarily need to be achievable in order to be valuable.

Correct, this is why I relatedly believe the Linux Desktop is actually a ridiculously huge success. I don't compare it by percentage of market share, I compare it do "how garbage would desktops be if Linux wasn't around to provide useful pressure?"

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#48

Post by mr_johnson22 » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 2:58 AM UTC

Beltalowda wrote: post #24

cmeacham98 wrote: post #8

> “Well, first of all, I don't think there's anything bad about playing a game. Unless the game is non-free — then it's bad for you, if you play it. I get that Stallman's shtick is being as hardline as possible about free software, but it really feels like sometimes this hurts the free software movement. Imagine trying to bring in a normal, non-technical person who plays video games as one of their hobbies (describes…

A few years ago I saw an indie game developer recount his experience with Stallman[1]; he doesn't see how he can release his games as Free Software while making a living, pay his rent, pay for his children's education, etc. So he asked Stallman what to do about that. Stallman's reply? "You should not be making those games, it is unethical." To say that is non-constructive would be an understatement; it's just shuttin…

The real surprise is that Stallman restrained himself from telling the dev that having children is unethical.

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#49

Post by omoikane » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 2:59 AM UTC

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #19

Stallman reminds me of a character in a Greek tragedy. He ends up bringing in the very thing he is fighting against. He makes GPL to give users control over programs. Companies end up using GPL software to power server side software which ends up giving users even less control than proprietary on-device software. He makes GCC to break free of vendors dominating compiler development. IBM(through Redhat) ends up being…

Related, the reason why Clang was created is because GCC was specifically made to prevent it from being used with non-free software. You can find that quote around 3:17 of this talk: https://youtu.be/NURiiQatBXA?t=185

It turned out to be easier in the long run to write a compiler from scratch, than to work with GCC.

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#50

Post by ewzimm » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 3:01 AM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #30

dangom wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 2022 and it's close to impossible for you and me to own a computer that we control. Even the thought of owning a computer we control is now seen as "extreme". If we did go through hops to have a machine that we control, it'd be practically impossible to use it to communicate with our friends and family, because all of our communications go through third party servers that we do not control. In exactly which way…

By framing playing virtually all video games in existence as being "bad for you".

I think this can actually be a good tactic. If someone thinks of something like games as entirely good or bad, they will never understand the argument. Many people love alcohol but know it’s bad for them. Many people love games but know that digital restrictions work against them. It’s probably the easiest example to onboard people to the FSF’s ideas because the restrictions on games are so apparent.

I use plenty of proprietary software, but I also know it’s bad for me. Like someone who enjoys alcohol, I think the benefits are worth the negative effects, but whenever I can get the same benefits from free software, I prefer them. I keep one computer around that runs only free software, and it’s great. It’s a decade old, but gains on desktop software performance in the last decade have been slow.

Even Stallman gives one reason to use proprietary software: to make a free version of it. I’ll offer a liberal interpretation of that rule: most people work in technology need to use a wide variety of proprietary software to understand trends and developments in software paradigms, even if they are not directly copying it while using it.

And my prediction: one day, all software will become free. All proprietary software is only temporarily restricted. Future computers will be able to reverse-engineer any existing program and create code that is functionally identical. That still makes it harmful, but that harm will eventually end. We just have the responsibility to make better laws in the future. Most important is preserving political freedom, and software freedom will eventually follow.