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

Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

news.slashdot.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 623 posts

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

#91

Post by na85 »

kome wrote: post #83
na85 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I have done politics long enough to understand that centrism never pays, in the long run. People are thirsty of ideals and coherence, and the FSF has plenty of those. They are in for the long run. And I would even say: despite having 0 budget, they were immensely successful over time. Modern computing wouldn't be the same without Stallman & co.

>And I would even say: despite having 0 budget, they were immensely successful over time.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because from where I sit, Free Software had a bright spark at the beginning and slowly faded away into a miserable failure.

Apple sells a lot of laptops because they're really easy to use. The wifi "just works" and the battery life is excellent.

To a first approximation, zero people run fully-free stacks on their daily-driver laptops because they're not easy to use unless you're the kind of person who uses their 2005-vintage Thinkpad on Ethernet and AC power only.

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

#92

Post by worik »

booblik wrote: post #42
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…

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.

The question was: "In exactly which way is Stallman being inflammatory here? "

Nothing you say addresses that.

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

#93

Post by KennyBlanken »

makeitdouble wrote: post #54
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…

> Richard Stallman is one of the most influential and respected members of the movement If you really think so, I’d argue that his hardline position is then justified. To me Stallman doesn’t have any specific unfair advantage over anyone who would get on their soapboax and preach for a different approach. You or me could make blogposts and go talk to conferences, and rally people around a different approach. If we we…

As others have pointed out, the Right to Repair movement has achieved far more practical progress than Stallman has.

Stallman can't/won't even defend the GPL in court; others have had to organize outside the FSF to do so because the FSF is only interested in stroking its beards.

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

#94

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

oefrha wrote: post #80
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…

Okay, honest question, other than this impossible-to-quantify symbolic value, did FSF make any meaningful contribution/impact over the past two decades? They kept preaching their maximalist philosophy which seems increasingly convincing almost no one; their old flagships kept chugging along, some (or the majority) of them gradually losing relevance, thanks in part to GPLv3; no new hotness is joining the GNU umbrella…

Not really a counter to anything you've said, but just wanted to note that after two decades of fighting open source licensing for their widely popular VST audio plugin API, Steinberg finally did release under the GPLv3.

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

#95

Post by starwind »

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…

> they provide a useful extreme endpoint such that there can exist a reasonable "Overton Window" of Free/Open Source/ Whatever Software

Or, ya know, they could just stake out reasonable, nuanced positions that organizations could adopt or at least be a starting point for further developments

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

#96

Post by analog31 »

jrm4 wrote: post #45
charcircuit wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Free software also predates "free software." People circulated programs within the science and hobbyists communities, as early as those communities existed. And before there was software, the ham radio community thrived on shared and published designs.

With that said, I appreciate what Stallman has done, if nothing else, to shine light on what freedoms we're giving up, and on the contrasts between the different free and non-free models that are in use today.

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

#97

Post by t-3 »

na85 wrote: post #67
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

Free Software will never be palatable to the mainstream, because the mainstream rejects socialist ideas. I think the popularity of Linux has somehow obscured the ideological origins of the movement, which seemed much more overt in the late 90s/early 00's when I first got into it.

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

#98

Post by starwind »

tjader wrote: post #90
Beltalowda wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Stallman and the FSF see closed source software as unethical. Imagine if someone asked you for help and said "I don't see how to free my slaves while making a living, paying my rent, paying for my children's education". Would you tell them "You shouldn't have slaves, it's unethical" or would you try to help them find a way to run their business with fewer slaves, but still some?

Did you just compare Stallman and the FSF to the Abolitionist movement, and paid software to slavery?

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

#99

Post by KennyBlanken »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #94
oefrha wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, honest question, other than this impossible-to-quantify symbolic value, did FSF make any meaningful contribution/impact over the past two decades? They kept preaching their maximalist philosophy which seems increasingly convincing almost no one; their old flagships kept chugging along, some (or the majority) of them gradually losing relevance, thanks in part to GPLv3; no new hotness is joining the GNU umbrella…

Not really a counter to anything you've said, but just wanted to note that after two decades of fighting open source licensing for their widely popular VST audio plugin API, Steinberg finally did release under the GPLv3.

And what did Stallman or FSF have to do with that? The FSF won't even defend GPL violations in court. Others have had to organize efforts to do so.

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

#100

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

lovich wrote: post #82
Beltalowda wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Stallman seems like the kinda of guy who would tell you that you need to starve in the streets as long as you fit his version of ethics. All while he lives comfortably off the income of his own celebrity.

The hyperbole doesn't help. Stallman would not tell you that you need to starve in the streets. He is well away that most programmers get paid at least median income, and often much more, and they are normally people who can make choices in their lives, few of which will involve starving in the streets. You don't have to agree that the choices are attractive to acknowledge that they do not need to include starving in the streets.
Post reply on HN