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

271–280 of 292 posts

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#271

Post by quanticle »

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…

One thing you forgot to mention: the Kindle. Devices like the Kindle embody a set of restrictions that make The Right To Read [1] seem eerily prescient.

1. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#272

Post by quanticle »

glaurent wrote: post #252
bad_user wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Progress in software development is not linear. You quickly get the basics done, and then the devil in the details. Also, the Gnome vs. KDE feud didn't help one bit. That said, OS X being exactly what Linux dreams to be (Unix with a beaut…

In theory it's true, in practice it rarely is, since taking over a code base of any significant size is a very hard challenge. I've yet to encounter a situation like you describe, or even hear about one. When the software doesn't work, you replace it, source available or not.

Even if you're replacing the software, having the source allows you to ensure that your replacement is fully backwards compatible with the original, and, if it is not, enables you to implement a compatibility shim that fixes those issues.

That said, OS X being exactly what Linux dreams to be (Unix with a beautiful and useable UI, scriptable apps, reusable components, and a modern development platform), I know I'm not the only one to whom it provided a haven after years of Linux-induced frustration.

You can't just blame the Linux community, though. I agree that the community could do a lot of things better (especially with regards to UI development). However, one big obstacle the Linux community has to work against is hardware support. Windows is the dominant OS - manufacturers essentially subsidize Microsoft by providing Windows drivers for their product. Apple, by choice, writes OSX to only work on a very limited subset of devices that have been approved by Apple. Linux has neither of those advantages.

In theory, the fact that Linux is open should make it easier for programmers to make their own drivers and release those drivers to the community at large. In practice, because of many of the concerns that you've cited, proprietary drivers still outclass Linux drivers for a number of components, including WiFi, ACPI power management, and graphics.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#273

Post by demallien »

quanticle wrote: post #270
demallien wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that your reasoning only works for those capable of producing their own software. If I'm a normal user, my "freedom" is strongly limited by the fact that I will only ever have access to functionality provided by programmers - I can't produce it myself. And if you remove one of the big motivations for programmers to produce software, you have effectively reduced the freedom of end users - they will be a…

The problem is that your reasoning only works for those capable of producing their own software. That is entirely the point. One of the stated aims of the GPL is to ensure that everyone is capable of producing software. The GPL attempts to ensure that your software won't ever be redistributed in a form that takes away the user's capability to build on your code.

You're entirely missing my point - for 99% of the population of this planet, producing software is going to forever remain beyond their reach. You can give them all the freedom to do so that you wish, they are still going to remain incapable of actually doing so. The GPL is not un unmitigated good for the vast majority of users.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#274

Post by ethank »

jsavimbi wrote: post #225
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.

I rather thing you are either trolling or do not know the specifics on "for hire" work when it comes to either:

a) performing b) speaking c) creating value around information and how you disseminate it (RMS' case)

Riders are there to ensure every edge case is accounted for, especially with people who do things like this often. The apt comparison is how you keep your desk at work. What if you arrived tomorrow and someone had moved your keyboard around, changed your mouse and messed up the calibration of your monitor?

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#275

Post by loup-vaillant »

demallien wrote: post #273
quanticle wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that your reasoning only works for those capable of producing their own software. That is entirely the point. One of the stated aims of the GPL is to ensure that everyone is capable of producing software. The GPL attempts to ensure that your software won't ever be redistributed in a form that takes away the user's capability to build on your code.

You're entirely missing my point - for 99% of the population of this planet, producing software is going to forever remain beyond their reach. You can give them all the freedom to do so that you wish, they are still going to remain incapable of actually doing so. The GPL is not un unmitigated good for the vast majority of users.

I must agree with your main point, which is that the typical user just won't have the expertise nor the energy to dive in and modify the code, making the GPL much less useful for them.

There are two obvious ways to solve the problem: find a way to make developers make more software that is useful to end-users (basically the Apple route).

Or, find a solution so that end users themselves can modify their systems. That second route is currently close because of the ridiculous size of current systems. (The volume of a typical GNU/Linux distro is the size of a whole library, and Windows and MacOS are fare marginally better.) The obvious solution there is to reduce the size of our software. http://vpri.org/ is currently attempting to do an OS in 20,000 lines of code (a middle-sized book), and they are doing quite well.

Note that doing the "Let's Remove the Fat" route, if successful, will massively reduce the amount of necessary programming work. Plus, more of that work will be done by the end users themselves. That could have dire consequences if we don't prepare for it. (A similar example would be automatic Google cars driving truckers out of business –no pun intended.)

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#276

Post by andrewf »

chanux wrote: post #226
repsilat wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Android.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#277

Post by jrockway »

gjm11 wrote: post #240
glaurent wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he did change the system from the inside Yeah, no, not really. Linus did, by precisely following that advice : compromise and be practical. Yes, he couldn't have done it without rms's previous work, but without Linux, Free Software would have been all but forgotten by now. I'd also argue that one of the reasons why Linux is still at around 1% of the desktop market is similar : blindly following principles at the ex…

Without Linux, maybe Free Software would now be forgotten. Without RMS, maybe nothing like Linux would ever have existed. Both RMS and Linus changed the world; I'd argue they've both changed it considerably for the better. Why does it have to be just one or the other?

Because RMS doesn't comb his hair.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#278

Post by jrockway »

sjwright wrote: post #258
ordinary wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or how about you produce a module, I see the module, recognise that I could make it substantially better, but with a non-legligeable investment of time. I would like to be compensated for making the software better, or I'm simply not going to bother. I, as a developer, do not have the right to develop a module of software that uses a GPLed module of software, and then sell it as closed source (to stop someone else fr…

> granting access to it in exchange for money is not a feasible business model. There are other ways, though. Think along the lines of providing support. You could also sign a contract in advance, exchanging a GPL application for a mountain of cold hard cash. That's great, now all you need to do is find programmers willing to accept n dollars instead of n×100 dollars.

Lots of GPL-based companies, like RedHat and Best Practical, seem to be doing just fine with this.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#279

Post by FxChiP »

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…

> 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.

Everyone seems to like bitching about these sorts of things in the open source commmunity, yet no one seems to like doing anything about it.

Re: Richard Stallman’s rider

#280

Post by glaurent »

quanticle wrote: post #272
glaurent wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Progress in software development is not linear. You quickly get the basics done, and then the devil in the details. Also, the Gnome vs. KDE feud didn't help one bit. That said, OS X being exactly what Linux dreams to be (Unix with a beaut…

In theory it's true, in practice it rarely is, since taking over a code base of any significant size is a very hard challenge. I've yet to encounter a situation like you describe, or even hear about one. When the software doesn't work, you replace it, source available or not. Even if you're replacing the software, having the source allows you to ensure that your replacement is fully backwards compatible with the orig…

Even if you're replacing the software, having the source allows you to ensure that your replacement is fully backwards compatible with the original

Same answer : True in theory, very rarely practical in reality. The only thing that really matters is the spec of the data format used by the program.

You can't just blame the Linux community, though.

I agree, it's not just that, but it's the main reason. 15 years since the start of KDE and there's still no sign of a unified, viable platform. If there was one, hardware support would follow.

Post reply on HN