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

Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

richard.stallman.usesthis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 262 posts

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#121

Post by bluekeybox »

ldesegur wrote: post #27
rudiger wrote: post #15

You have to give the guy some credit; Stallman believes in the free software movement, fights for it, and refuses to compromise his rights or values.

Richard Stallman is to software what Jean-Paul Sartres was to philosophy during his time and still now. JPS like RMS was living through his convictions and ideas to the point of refusing the Nobel prize because it would have tinted his motivations. RMS would do the same without any questions. Don't get them wrong: these people are not fanatic, they are just living and breathing a cause they started for a good reason.…

Don't forget that Sartre supported Stalin (and that Orwell despised him for that).

The more I live, the more I realize that old men without or with messed up sex lives are not to be trusted as gurus or guides in life.

It's the Pied Piper of Hamelin all over again.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#122

Post by Lagged2Death »

DanBlake wrote: post #96
rudiger wrote: post #15

You have to give the guy some credit; Stallman believes in the free software movement, fights for it, and refuses to compromise his rights or values.

Does he have the same moral reservations for other devices in his life? ie; what car does he use and own? All (modern) cars accept software updates which is his definition of a computer. Most modern televisions, dvd players, routers and even some microwaves/refrigerators can take firmware updates also. Genuinely curious about the above - Not being a troll, just wondering how far the man really takes his beliefs. Does…

Does he have the same moral reservations for other devices in his life?

Do you have perfect moral consistency in everything you do? I don't. I'd guess that it's not even possible, let alone human nature.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#123

Post by slowpoke »

ugh wrote: post #66
slowpoke wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you want to create a proprietary fork you can do it Why should you be allowed to take away the Freedoms of others? The one thing the GPL restricts is your Freedom to restrict the Freedom of others. That's the foundation of copyleft: your rights stop where mine begin, and that includes being granted the four Freedoms of software as defined by the FSF. In an ideal world, we would not need the GPL. Everyone would have…

But can you not at least understand that many people don't understand why those four Freedoms have to be assumed as given? The disagreement is not about how to best make sure the four Freedoms are respected, it's not about implementation. It's about whether the Freedoms are Freedoms at all. That tends to get lost when all everyone always talks about is licenses (i.e. implementation details).

>But can you not at least understand that many people don't understand why those four Freedoms have to be assumed as given?

No, I can't. I fundamentally don't understand why you would keep source code secret, why you would deny me the right to change it or to redistribute copies. It's utterly incomprehensible to me.

On the contrary, I believe the burden of proof as to why we should deny people these Freedoms lies on the side of the advocates or proprietary software, and thus far I haven't seen any compelling argument.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#124

Post by mike-cardwell »

Shamanmuni wrote: post #97
mike-cardwell wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has to compromise at some point. He can refuse to stick non-free software on his computer, but he can't refuse to benefit from the use of non-free software in the computers of the cars and planes that he uses for travel, and he can't refuse the non-free software that was used in the manufacture of many of the products he uses every day.

So, what's your point? That he shouldn't fight for free software because it's difficult? Imagine the world in the 80's, when there wasn't a free as in freedom OS; rms knows about compromise when there are no alternatives, he just doesn't want a non-free OS in a non-free computer when there are free alternatives. We usually call it coherence.

The claim: "Refuses to compromise"

My response: "Is forced to compromise in the following cases"

I don't know how you managed to form your bizarre interpretation of what I said. I like the guy. I admire his ideals and approach and agree with his goals.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#125

Post by ugh »

slowpoke wrote: post #123
ugh wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But can you not at least understand that many people don't understand why those four Freedoms have to be assumed as given? The disagreement is not about how to best make sure the four Freedoms are respected, it's not about implementation. It's about whether the Freedoms are Freedoms at all. That tends to get lost when all everyone always talks about is licenses (i.e. implementation details).

>But can you not at least understand that many people don't understand why those four Freedoms have to be assumed as given? No, I can't. I fundamentally don't understand why you would keep source code secret, why you would deny me the right to change it or to redistribute copies. It's utterly incomprehensible to me. On the contrary, I believe the burden of proof as to why we should deny people these Freedoms lies on…

You have to change perspective: Why don’t have I a right to keep my source code secret?

When I open an ice cream parlor you don’t have a right to know my recipe†. Why does that change with software?

Your argumentative work has to start there. You can’t just steamroll critics by saying “But the Freedoms are and should be Freedoms”.

—

† That right is of course limited: My right to keep the recipe secret is not absolute. I have to adhere to certain health and safety regulations, being able to keep the recipe secret does not override those regulations.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#126

Post by marekmroz »

syawaworht wrote: post #68
ldesegur wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Richard Stallman is to software what Jean-Paul Sartres was to philosophy during his time and still now. JPS like RMS was living through his convictions and ideas to the point of refusing the Nobel prize because it would have tinted his motivations. RMS would do the same without any questions. Don't get them wrong: these people are not fanatic, they are just living and breathing a cause they started for a good reason.…

I don't mean to belittle RMS's achievements, but as a general point, I don't think that simply adhering to conviction is courageous. It's the easy way out. It's the way that doesn't address the greys in reality, for the sake of simplicity of what you believe in. You are not tested in your decisions, because you have already refused to make any.

> Adhering to conviction is the easy way out.

Sounds legit.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#127

Post by Shamanmuni »

dalke wrote: post #77
natesm wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As the FSF would point out, the free software movement is different from open source. They point this out and it's philosophically true, but are there actually any licenses that meet the definition of "open source" but not the definition of "free software" (or vise versa)? All of the ones that people actually use (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT, ISC, and Apache, I think that basically covers it) appear to pass both DFSG and O…

Going through the list of licenses which the FSF considers not-free but which are listed on opensource.org as "open source": NASA Open Source Agreement 1.3 (NASA 1.3), Reciprocal Public License (RPL 1.5). I'm hard pressed to think of something which can be considered free software but not open source. My point though is that you commingled the free software movement with open source efforts. Google etc. could have im…

Your distinctions in reality are pretty meaningless, you can be an open source guy using the GPL (look at Linus) or a free software guy using BSD. Both movements overlap enourmously, and the differences between them are very small compared to the rest of the software ecosystem. I wish we could stop all the silly infighting and see that we are all heading in the same direction.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#128

Post by rhizome »

julian37 wrote: post #101
DanBlake wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does he have the same moral reservations for other devices in his life? ie; what car does he use and own? All (modern) cars accept software updates which is his definition of a computer. Most modern televisions, dvd players, routers and even some microwaves/refrigerators can take firmware updates also. Genuinely curious about the above - Not being a troll, just wondering how far the man really takes his beliefs. Does…

Does he have the same moral reservations for other devices in his life? Yes, as far as I know. ie; what car does he use and own? All (modern) cars accept software updates which is his definition of a computer. I am pretty sure he doesn't drive, but this is what he had to say on the topic: So, what about cars? Free cars would mean you are free to modify them and redistribute copies. Well, as for the modification, you…

In fact, to equate cars and computers in this manner is to commit a Category Error. They simply don't share very many properties (save that they are both sold for money).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#129

Post by spenrose »

Stallman reminds me more of Steve Jobs than anyone else does:

   - 70's wunderkind
   - simple, clear belief about what computing should be
   - realized his vision, creating permanent improvement enjoyed directly or indirectly by every computer user
   - uncompromising in his determination to control his environment
Personally I believe he has some major blind spots -- so did Jobs. The failure of this community to hold him in comparable regard is just that, a failure.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#130

Post by ceol »

diminish wrote: post #103
ceol wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should you be allowed to take away the Freedoms of others? No one's freedom is being taken away when you create a proprietary fork. They are not forced to use your software, and the original is still intact. You do not automatically have a right to someone else's creation. I don't mind paying for software, and I don't mind if they don't let me see their code the same way I don't mind when my local restaurant do…

..and let me guess, you don't mind the company doing the proprietary fork, sue/threaten the open source forking guys, use software patents as a weapon/threat against open source developers. and you don't mind getting someone else's work, and giving nothing back. In short your freedom is an egoistic tactic where you take, use and even abuse but dont care. There are people like RMS who think otherwise; they want a worl…

That's quite the extrapolation. When did I ever say I don't mind those things? I mind them very much. I also mind being forced to do something. I can make a proprietary fork and still give back; when are those two things mutually exclusive?

In your quest for "freedom", you're endorsing a license that forces people to do something. Isn't that the very antithesis of freedom?

Post reply on HN