Richard Stallman's Computer Setup • Hacker News Board

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#141

Post by tikhonj » Sat, Feb 04, 2012, 9:37 PM UTC

mike-cardwell wrote: post #86

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.

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.

First, his main argument is that the user of software should have the right to inspect and modify that software. So just benefiting indirectly from proprietary software does not seem a contradiction: his--and the user's--freedoms are not infringed by using things that may have been manufactured with proprietary software.

Secondly, he does not believe that certain classes of software (like in your microwave) need to be free because they are basically part of the hardware. I imagine that if he owns a car, it only has low-level control software for the engine which is basically the same but not, say, a proprietary GPS system.

In planes it is again not an issue: he doesn't own the plane, so even if it had fully free software he would not benefit. I imagine if he ever did get a plane, he would want one with free software, but that isn't particularly pertinent since he will never buy a plane.

So the things you pointed out are not infringements of his rights--they're infringements of the rights of the manufacturer or the plane company. Stallman tries to persuade people like that to stand up for their rights, but that is all he does.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#142

Post by dalke » Sat, Feb 04, 2012, 9:42 PM UTC

pooriaazimi wrote: post #83

dalke wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know all of these regarding software which is deployed on someone else's hardware (iOS, embedded, etc); I wanted to know why the GPL is a problem for someone doing a web startup, which is the original point you made.

Nowadays most web startups don't do just web clients, they tend to create native clients for each platform. A web startup for sharing photos will fail on iOS if they provide only a web app. And even if you're creating just a web client, AGPL might still bite you.

I call BS. Most web startups don't do web clients. nknight in this thread agrees with me. Do you have any evidence to back your claim, or are you making up this statistic?

I specifically pointed out that using AGPL "might be a problem", so your inclusion here looks like it's evading your original comment concerning the GPL and web startups I ask again, what limitations does the GPL license place on a web startup?

You linked to an earlier HN discussion. Neither it nor the linked-to page mentions iOS or iPhone development, which seems to be your main concern now. They look like the standard random points that appears in any discussion of BSD v. GPL, so you'll need to point out the real issues.

Then again, you said "GPL is not the greatest license, that's why they created LGPL (to remove some of its stupid restrictions)" which is completely wrong. The "Why you shouldn't use the LGPL" document from the FSF says "The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Lesser GPL for that library." Even the title alone should tell you that LGPL is not meant as successor or improvement to the LGPL.

This leads me to believe that you don't know the issues and are winging it.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#143

Post by tikhonj » Sat, Feb 04, 2012, 9:47 PM UTC

sek wrote: post #6

Well, not the best way to expand your horizon. When he would use things like the iPad from time to time, he would understand that convenience is the biggest threat to open source. Nobody cares how free Stallman's device really is. When he would speak for better open source devices, he would actually make progress. Right now is Shuttleworth advancing the free software movement to be accessible for everyone. Reminds me…

Actually, I can't help thinking a much larger issue is marketing and fashion. Nobody except a few large proprietary software companies (Apple, Microsoft) have enough leverage to market heavily to average consumers. Most people do not make heavily researched, purely rational decisions about what to buy: they just get whatever they saw in an ad or whatever is in the store. In both cases, thanks to the obscene amount of money Apple and Microsoft put into distribution and advertising (as well as some monopolistic behavior), the most readily available computers run either Mac OS or Windows. Ubunutu is, in large part, successful because they at least have some marketing. If they managed to get Ubunutu laptops into stores, people would probably buy them. But then Microsoft would go out of its way to crush them (witness the Linux netbooks of a little while ago).

Stallman did write some brilliant software some time ago. Now, unlike Linus, he is concentrating on social issues of free software rather than on programming. And his advocacy has doubtlessly increased the use of the GPL, which has had some very concrete beneficial effects. For example, my understanding is that WebKit is largely free because it was originally forked from KHTML.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#144

Post by potatolicious » Sat, Feb 04, 2012, 9:49 PM UTC

nknight wrote: post #54

pooriaazimi wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the linked HN discussion (and also the original FreeBSD.org article). As an example, You can't (technically) use GPL'd code inside your iOS application. GPL is not the greatest license, that's why they created LGPL (to remove some of its stupid restrictions) and even that wasn't enough...

> You can't (technically) use GPL'd code inside your iOS application. Web startups don't generally build iOS apps, they build web apps. > GPL is not the greatest license, that's why they created LGPL (to remove some of its stupid restrictions) and even that wasn't enough... Enough for whom? Microsoft? I know it's hard to believe, but some people do not have "allow companies to benefit from my work without giving back…

> "Web startups don't generally build iOS apps, they build web apps."

That's a silly distinction to make - we have been moving towards this for years now, and we're already there - we are in an age where a single web service can have many clients, beyond browsers.

I suppose Amazon.com isn't a web company because they have an iOS app. Nor Facebook. Nor Google. Nor AirBnb. Nor...

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#145

Post by bwarp » Sat, Feb 04, 2012, 9:49 PM UTC

namidark wrote: post #140

rhizome wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Except that cars contain thousands of microchips and pieces of software that run things like your radio, ABS, and other major systems in the car.

My 1978 Land Rover Series III doesn't have a single computer! It's the mechanical equivalent of the GNU project.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#146

Post by Xuzz » Sat, Feb 04, 2012, 9:50 PM UTC

tikhonj wrote: post #143

sek wrote: post #6

Well, not the best way to expand your horizon. When he would use things like the iPad from time to time, he would understand that convenience is the biggest threat to open source. Nobody cares how free Stallman's device really is. When he would speak for better open source devices, he would actually make progress. Right now is Shuttleworth advancing the free software movement to be accessible for everyone. Reminds me…

Actually, I can't help thinking a much larger issue is marketing and fashion. Nobody except a few large proprietary software companies (Apple, Microsoft) have enough leverage to market heavily to average consumers. Most people do not make heavily researched, purely rational decisions about what to buy: they just get whatever they saw in an ad or whatever is in the store. In both cases, thanks to the obscene amount of…

That's true for WebCore (the WebKit rendering engine), yes. But WebKit itself, actually, is BSD licensed and released just because Apple decided to release it. (About a year or so after WebKit was first publicly released, though, I think.)

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#147

Post by _feda_ » Sat, Feb 04, 2012, 9:51 PM UTC

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…

I think if ever a car was to be copied, the technology to allow it would have it's roots in today's 3D printers. Something that emulates the star trek emulator in a terribly rudimentary way isn't all that far off from what we have now with these technologies.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#148

Post by tikhonj » Sat, Feb 04, 2012, 9:52 PM UTC

lazerwalker wrote: post #24

thurn wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google and Facebook would never exist the way they do today without the free software movement. Both of them rely on a huge stack of open-source technology. Stallman's ideas are what makes it possible for a college kid to run a web startup today essentially for free.

I think sek's post was more along the lines of "but what has he done for me lately?" Right now, for every piece of open software that has enabled all kinds of world-changing good things, there's a dozen situations where open software is not a viable solution when compared to the closed alternatives for a wide variety of reasons, unless you're explicitly choosing to use only open software as a show of support for an i…

Have you ever listened to his talks? I have read a bunch of what he has written (mostly transcripts of talks) and did not get that impression. His main point is not that you are a "bad person" for using proprietary software--rather, it's more like you are the victim. Now, he does believe you should not use proprietary software, but because it's abusive and takes away your rights. Finally, I could see getting the impression that people publishing proprietary software are "bad", but that's a different story altogether.

Also, we're mostly developers here. Barring a few fields (things like .NET and iOS), free software is the best option for development. So while an artist using exclusively free software may be making a sacrifice, I have actually been much more productive on Linux/Emacs than I ever was on OS X or Windows. It's really a win-win situation.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#149

Post by Shamanmuni » Sat, Feb 04, 2012, 9:54 PM UTC

mike-cardwell wrote: post #124

Shamanmuni wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude, but it's not really much of a point to say "He doesn't refuse when there aren't viable alternatives". It's the same situation he was in the 80's with OS's, there wasn't a free OS for his computer, so he used a non-free one to code, a temporal compromise. When there's an alternative, even a very impractical one, he goes with that even though he could choose the other. So, "Refuses to compromise" is accurate, he refuses whenever he can.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#150

Post by bwarp » Sat, Feb 04, 2012, 9:56 PM UTC

BrainInAJar wrote: post #99

schraeds wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I bet he is still waiting to find a laptop that his free and open to replace is yulong

I'm surprised he even compromises on the CPU instead of using OpenSPARC or something

OpenSPARC is not open believe it or not. You still need a license to fab it or use it.

I went through this a while ago with someone who likes SPARC and wanted an implementation on FPGA.

Ended up with a licensed MIPS core because it was significantly cheaper on cells in the FPGA.