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

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

#151

Post by lettergram » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 4:22 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…

We already have business models that work with intellectual material. Think Locals, Patreon, substack, youtube, etc.

There's no reason you cannot make a living by simply creating a payment method where you get the game + code. Yes, people will copy it. FAR from all people will. In the game add a pay/subscribe/support button. Frankly, I suspect you'll get more money; the game will be spread further and people will be willing to pay. You can even create a "bug bounty" program, where people can pay for bug fixes. Alternatively, have people "pre-pay" for new releases and send the code. There's plenty of alternatives.

That said, I do understand the view, but take a step back..

Stallman's point is that it's unethical to have closed source code running on your hardware. Effectively, you cannot understand, manipulate, update the underlying code. If I purchase a book, I can modify it. If I buy a car I can modify it. If I buy a song, I can modify it. Why can I not modify the software I purchased?

In terms of meaningful improvements, everyone considers licensing. Every company I've ever worked at, every code base, every project is evaluated, etc. It's taken seriously, something that was not done prior to the FSF. I'm currently writing this comment on hardware I can modify, with software I can modify. I don't even have closed sourced video drivers.. So I really don't see your point.

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

#152

Post by buzzard1 » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 4:22 AM UTC

epgui wrote: post #139

colordrops wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "tying people down, strapping them into their chairs so that they can't do anything that hurts themselves -- makes things worse, not better." Stallman could have been talking about censorship and deplatforming here and it still would have made sense. His (and my) generation seem to care a lot more about idealistic freedoms than we do now as a society.

There’s nothing wrong with idealistic freedoms or rights in a vacuum. Of course we don’t live in a vacuum, and most non-trivial and realistic situations are about finding the balance between different freedoms or rights, not about their boolean existence.

No post body was provided.

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

#153

Post by Karrot_Kream » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 4:22 AM UTC

t-3 wrote: post #97

na85 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you're letting your personal beliefs/circles affect your view on the FOSS ideology. Free software has nothing to say for or against commercial software. Commercial software doesn't need to be proprietary. I was there in the late 90s and early 2000s too and it was a minority (of proponents, many opponents would slander FOSS as a form of socialism) that somehow equated open software with socialism.

We're talking free as in libre here, not free as in beer.

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

#154

Post by giantrobot » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 4:25 AM UTC

jrm4 wrote: post #47

alanbernstein wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?"

> I compare it do "how garbage would desktops be if Linux wasn't around to provide useful pressure?"

In what world does Linux on the desktop provide "useful pressure" to anyone? The only Linux "desktop" that has provided any pressure on the desktop to Microsoft and Apple is ChromeOS. ChromeOS is decidedly not a "Linux desktop". If Google flipped ChromeOS to Fuchsia tomorrow it would provide the same pressure with zero Linux.

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

#155

Post by csdreamer7 » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 4:27 AM UTC

Around the 8 and 9 min mark RMS talks about old hardware losing software support, like 32 bit systems. I am a kernel developer and the kernel removes code for a lot of older systems all the time (often lesser known 32bit ARM systems).

Phoronix reported that 5.18 removed the Andes NDS32 CPU arch code. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-51...

The reason they do this is because a lot of these systems can break as the internal kAPIs change all the time and the users will not know since the embedded custom distro of software + kernel is not upgraded. Support can be broken for these arches for years until someone gets these systems second hand and posts about them, but may not care to fix it or it is cheaper to replace it.

RMS calls this a major issue, specifically 32-bit support in Ubuntu. I do not agree. My last 32 bit computer died a long time ago after the battery died years ago. It was a Gateway so getting replacement parts would be difficult. I also was never able to get it to run Linux. Aside from my brother-in-law finding his old laptop no one I know uses 32 bit computers (well except for myself with my Pi Zero: ARM v6, which I used once).

It just feels like the wrong battle to pick when Linux's biggest competitor is forcing practically all PCs to use a bootloader signed with their key. Major vendors can choose to refuse to allow users to install their own key. They are already locking CPUs (Ryzens) to their brand of motherboards with a builtin fuse provided by AMD. He of course talks about it-it just feels like the 32 bit part distracts from it.

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

#156

Post by Karrot_Kream » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 4:27 AM UTC

malthuswaswrong wrote: post #140

na85 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I honestly can't conceive of what this "Serious FSF" that you imagine would look like? Well mostly it would look like an FSF that doesn't eat toejam on camera, and instead of giving the same tired lecture about the 4 freedoms, they actually go out and do productive things like put on workshops for college students to install trisquel or whatever. Instead of wasting countless hours sponsoring dumb stuff like the GNU…

>Are you unaware that the Free Software Movement is a political movement first and foremost? Bingo. It is a political movement. One rooted in idiotic ideologies that no thinking person takes seriously. Communism was defeated by taking the few valid points of Marx and addressing them. The 98% stupidity was easy to refute and discard when the 2% valid points were accepted and addressed.

Well... I think it also took a cold war between two economic systems, multiple hot wars in Asia, and the maturation of social democracy to do so but yeah your point stands.

(Love your username btw)

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

#157

Post by thebigman433 » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 4:27 AM UTC

nicce wrote: post #143

thebigman433 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon Musk is buying Twitter to increase his wealth, mindshare, and influence. He does not actually care about free speech, and its naïve to think that he is buying the platform for "altruistic" reasons. He is also the lead of a company that has seemingly fired an employee for posting about their publicly available features, and is also facing one of the biggest labor lawsuits ever in the state of California. He is a…

He could make his own platform, but the users matter. With users, there is influence. In old times, you used to buy the news paper company to get influence. > He is a billionaire who has built huge amounts of wealth by exploiting people, and he wants to control the flow of information and build his wealth even more. I wonder if we find a billionaire from the top 20 wealthiest who hasn’t at some level

> I wonder if we find a billionaire from the top 20 wealthiest who hasn’t at some level

No absolutely not. Id even say that you wont find more than a handful of billionaires who havent built their wealth on exploitation.

Its such a massive amount of wealth to have, it is virtually always precluded by harming others. The only exceptions I can think of are company founders who got exceedingly lucky, and even then you could definitely stretch the definition of exploitation to include them too.

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

#158

Post by Beltalowda » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 4:28 AM UTC

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?

What am I supposed to say to that? Proprietary software is not slavery, or even anywhere close to it, even if we accept the argument that it is unethical. I find this entire analogy unhelpful.

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

#159

Post by buzzard1 » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 4:32 AM UTC

chx wrote: post #144

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…

And I think far too many people are missing why Stallman should be, to use a popular term, cancelled. Toxic people shouldn't have a voice because then all sorts of people will decide to not get involved in a community where such people can be leaders. Trust me in this, I should know :(

No post body was provided.

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

#160

Post by andai » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 4:34 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…

When you buy a game from Jason Rohrer, you get the source code too. (It's also on GitHub.) What you're actually buying is an account on the official multiplayer server (which is also open source).

I thought this was a really interesting model.

Maybe it wouldn't work so well with singleplayer games. However, there's a similar example with the sprite editor / animation software Aseprite, which is open source but you have to compile it yourself, so it's cheaper for most people (in terms of time and effort) to just buy it for $15.