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

Richard Stallman’s rider

secure.mysociety.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 292 posts

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#221

Post by X-Istence »

bad_user wrote: post #213
billpatrianakos wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel for you. Stallman seems to think we all live in some free love hippie commune where we can all just give source code away. The world doesn't work like that and his fundamentalist attitude doesn't take people's need to eat lunch into account. You can't deny his skill and the great work he's done. Free software has its place in this world but so does proprietary code too. This rider while not being supremely hig…

Stallman has an uncanny ability to predict the future in regards to our industry. Everything he predicted has happened already or it will. Trusted computing? It is here, it is popular and because of Apple it is also considered cool. It doesn't matter that the device you paid for is not your property anymore, people love shiny. Also, trusted computing got rejected by the market when Microsoft tried it, but now Microso…

Why is it so bad that corporations can use open source software to build better software on top of? If the license allows for this, then so be it.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#222

Post by officemonkey »

maximusprime wrote: post #201
Mvandenbergh wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much like Steve Jobs, RMS is a visionary. Most visionaries aren't necessarily pleasant people in any conventional sense, they can be peremptory, irritatingly specific and detailed in their demands.

Please don't compare the two. Steve Jobs created a massive company. Thousands of jobs. He created products we all love and use. Stallman just goes around ranting mad rants at people.

Comparing the two is a bit like comparing Thomas Paine to Thomas Edison.

Stallman created a movement. A movement that largely predicted the ways technology and society interact. I think in 100 years people will still using the GPL. I can't say that about the iPod.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#224

Post by glaurent »

bad_user wrote: post #213
billpatrianakos wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel for you. Stallman seems to think we all live in some free love hippie commune where we can all just give source code away. The world doesn't work like that and his fundamentalist attitude doesn't take people's need to eat lunch into account. You can't deny his skill and the great work he's done. Free software has its place in this world but so does proprietary code too. This rider while not being supremely hig…

Stallman has an uncanny ability to predict the future in regards to our industry. Everything he predicted has happened already or it will. Trusted computing? It is here, it is popular and because of Apple it is also considered cool. It doesn't matter that the device you paid for is not your property anymore, people love shiny. Also, trusted computing got rejected by the market when Microsoft tried it, but now Microso…

> Basically OS X destroyed Linux's chances on dominating the future desktop.

Yeah, because the constant feuds within the Linux community, the failure to settle on a common desktop platform, the crowd of "I-want-to-write-yet-another-irc-client" devs, and the utter lack of appreciation for end-user needs all have nothing to do with it.

What Stallman in particular and the Linux community in general fails to understand is that a broken or badly designed software for which you have the source is more of a prison to the user than a well-made, closed source one.

Before you flame me, I've been part of the Linux community from 1995 to 2008, and I dare say I was more than an annecdotic contributor. I still support the idea of free software, but community development simply doesn't scale.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#225

Post by jsavimbi »

ethank wrote: post #70

This is one of the least crazy and nicest riders I've ever read.

> This is one of the least crazy and nicest riders I've ever read.

If it were written by a spoiled, tantrum-prone twelve-year old. The whole thing reads as a set of instructions to the babysitter. My senses tell me that rms has an additional rider for his hosts as it applies to bath time as well.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#226

Post by chanux »

repsilat wrote: post #182
BrandonM wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't referring to the name GNU/Linux ; I was specifically refuting the comment I quoted. The funny thing is that the comment effectively justifies RMS's insistence on using GNU/Linux . Because so many refer to the entire distribution as Linux , a lot of people fail to realize the hugely-important role that GNU software plays in Linux systems. Linux is still useful without KDE, but the functionality provided by GN…

> the functionality provided by GNU is critical and would require a large effort to replace This isn't really true. You could just grab your userspace from a BSD, or Plan9Port. Clang and LLVM do well enough to replace GCC on most important architectures.

I would like to see someone go make a free operating system without using a single GNU piece. Just for the kicks.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#227

Post by demallien »

bad_user wrote: post #216
nimblegorilla wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree totally. The most frustrating part about Stallman's "free software" is that he has to control how everyone else uses it. Linux people don't even get the freedom to name their own operating system.

he has to control how everyone else uses it One of the goals of free software is to allow you to use it for any reason whatsoever, and I don't know if you realize what this actually means, or maybe you are to young, but once upon a time you couldn't use Visual Basic to create a Microsoft Office competitor. If by usage you mean the copy-left behavior of GPL, I think it's only fair for a software author to demand whate…

I think it's only fair for a software author to demand whatever the fuck he wants from the software he wrote

Like, a fee of $50, for example? I would say that your position is diammetrically opposed to Stallman's stated goal. But it's not your fault, the GPL is also in opposition to Stallman's stated goals. He went from having the high ideal that software should always be open, to trying to force other people to think the same thing, thereby actually limiting how people use software.

We will forever wonder now whether we could have had all of the benefits of OSS without copyleft. But I for one would have much more respect for Stallman if he had instead supported BSD-style open licenses, and tried to convince others that open source was the way to go, rather than trying to control people's behaviour through the threat of legal actions.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#228

Post by bad_user »

glaurent wrote: post #224
bad_user wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stallman has an uncanny ability to predict the future in regards to our industry. Everything he predicted has happened already or it will. Trusted computing? It is here, it is popular and because of Apple it is also considered cool. It doesn't matter that the device you paid for is not your property anymore, people love shiny. Also, trusted computing got rejected by the market when Microsoft tried it, but now Microso…

> Basically OS X destroyed Linux's chances on dominating the future desktop. Yeah, because the constant feuds within the Linux community, the failure to settle on a common desktop platform, the crowd of "I-want-to-write-yet-another-irc-client" devs, and the utter lack of appreciation for end-user needs all have nothing to do with it. What Stallman in particular and the Linux community in general fails to understand i…

Considering the huge progress that was made in the 90'ties on Linux and the lack of progress done after OS X came, I think it is safe to assume that OS X played a major role here.

Software needs resources to get created and lots of it. As a company or as an individual, you can't sink time and resources into software that isn't at least popular. You can try to invest in something, but sooner or later resources dry out, priorities change, etc, etc...

Desktop Linux seems to me that it was created by stitching obsolete software and quick hacks together with glue and spit. Even broken as it is, I still marvel at how functional it is for me. And even unpopular as it is, there are some normal people using it, which goes to show that it isn't totally broken or insane.

    broken or badly designed software for which 
    you have the source is more of a prison to the user 
    than a well-made, closed source one.
I don't agree there - having the source is a huge advantage, even if you aren't capable of modifying it. Just as with cars, you don't necessarily have to go to the parent company and you don't have to fix it yourself. You can always choose a local shop for repairing and tunning.

    community development simply doesn't scale
I wonder why are you saying that, when server-side Linux and related software is such a huge hit.

You can also point out to some desktop software that is free software, that is sponsored and yet community driven and that is usable. That's Firefox and it's the reason why we came out eventually from the dark-ages of IExplorer's domination.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#229

Post by bad_user »

demallien wrote: post #227
bad_user wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

he has to control how everyone else uses it One of the goals of free software is to allow you to use it for any reason whatsoever, and I don't know if you realize what this actually means, or maybe you are to young, but once upon a time you couldn't use Visual Basic to create a Microsoft Office competitor. If by usage you mean the copy-left behavior of GPL, I think it's only fair for a software author to demand whate…

I think it's only fair for a software author to demand whatever the fuck he wants from the software he wrote Like, a fee of $50, for example? I would say that your position is diammetrically opposed to Stallman's stated goal. But it's not your fault, the GPL is also in opposition to Stallman's stated goals. He went from having the high ideal that software should always be open, to trying to force other people to thin…

     Like, a fee of $50, for example?
Well yes, since you mentioned it, I think that's the author's right.

Having the opinion that all software should be free, that doesn't mean I want to force people into doing it, as that is indeed in opposition with the idea of freedom.

     through the threat of legal actions
What threats? The only threats I'm seeing from FSF are in response to GPL-violations. If a software author chose GPL, that was his right and it doesn't mean you can relicense it as BSD.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#230

Post by 4ad »

boyter wrote: post #157
angus77 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's taken from all the software available in the repos, not the software that's actually installed on people's systems. For instance, the pie chart shows slices for both Gnome and KDE. How many people have both installed on their systems? Or neither? Now compare that to how many people have none of the GNU software on their systems.

I would imagine (purely anecdotal) if you take just installed software then the GNU percentage increases as its generally installed on most systems. I would also imagine in the Linux/BSD world the number of people running without GNU software is in the very low single digits. It's really difficult to determine the relative importance of one software project at this level over another they reliant on each other. The L…

Actually in BSD/UNIX people generally don't use the GNU tools, except, maybe for gcc on BSDs (UNICES have their own compilers). We believe GNU tools are of very poor quality.
Post reply on HN