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

151–160 of 262 posts

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#151

Post by eropple »

diminish wrote: post #105
corford wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're both free, just with different goals. The GPL gives freedom to the user of the software, the BSD license gives freedom to the developer of the software.

like the ultimate freedom Apple enjoys, sucking BSD licensed code freely, giving little back (except when enforced in case of khtml/webkit) and using software patents against others using open source software.

That's a very interesting reinterpretation you have there which happens to tragically overlap little with truth. Seriously, claiming that they "give little back (except when enforced)" is just plain untrue. You can go download PureDarwin right now if you want to see what is probably the bulk of their "BSD licensed code". Or go look at Apple's open-source page[1] for a list of highly not-[L]GPL projects for which Apple's modifications are available.

Like their sizable contributions to LLVM, which is NCSA-licensed. Or their whole-cloth release of Darwin under the APSL (a license that even the FSF agrees fits their definition of 'free'). Or their release of Bonjour (wholly in-house development, if I'm not mistaken) under the Apache license.

[1] - http://www.apple.com/opensource/

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#152

Post by mike-cardwell »

Shamanmuni wrote: post #149
mike-cardwell wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

My point is that non-free software is pervasive and impossible to avoid, even for people like RMS. That is all.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#153

Post by diminish »

ceol wrote: post #130
diminish wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

..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?

> "that forces people to do something."

that "something" is crucial to the argument; GPL forces people to open their sources to ensure the freedom to use/distribute is passed further down the chain and to the future. Think of a BSD-licensed device driver; if a company forks it and makes it proprietary, develops a different but new device and sells the device with the new driver; Neither the users nor I; the original developer will be able to benefit from the derivative work and will end up with an unusable new printer in case the company ends support or does not solve a specific problem. I, as the developer and many users will end up in need to re-invent the wheel and improve the old copyleft driver.

So I the original developer, in case I give away my code with BSD license, end up allowing a permission to someone who does not give the same to everyone (and to me).

That seems like her freedom to you, but it is the freedom for one to end the freedom for many and to the original developer, in the long term, especially considering we all live in the same ecosystem finally. If BSD was ethically/not forceably used by every fork-er, that would be ultimately the same idea with copyleft.

Everytime I am giving away some code, I face this dilemma (I have MIT/BSD contributions too). I don't want to strengthen abusers, and non-contributors.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#154

Post by hollerith »

nknight wrote: post #88
asto wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What sort of ultra-geek uses that sort of setup? The current generation of that notebook has a processor that runs at less than 1GHz! The only reason he gets away with it is that he mostly does mail on emacs from console. It's too minimalist for any present day software development work

I could do 99% of my job effectively on a ~200MHz Pentium with maybe 64MB of RAM. About the only thing that would really bite me is the occasional need to help the client team, which often means booting Windows in a VM and replicating their comparatively bloated development environment.

If you had to use the ~200MHz Pentium to buy something from Amazon though you'd be screwed :)

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#155

Post by prodigal_erik »

ugh wrote: post #125
slowpoke wrote: post #123

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? 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…

We can't really interact with ice cream on a higher level than would an animal, which is fine, that's all it's for. But software is a tool, and we learn from and improve our tools; that's what makes us human rather than mere consumers.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#156

Post by logain2006 »

spenrose wrote: post #129

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 c…

Wow. I think that's the stupidest thing I've heard in a while.

Yes, Steve Jobs, the guy who wants absolute control over every single device that he sells you FOR MONEY - on both software AND hardware level is JUST LIKE Stallaman.

I have to say, the quality of HN has gone so downhill recently, I might have to seek an alternative community.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#157

Post by dalke »

pooriaazimi wrote: post #104
nknight wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The iOS example was just to name one of many limitations of using GPL code. And is utterly irrelevant to the question that was asked. > No, for developers themselves. Dynamic vs. static linking mess etc. What mess? The requirements of the LGPL are clear, and in most cases quite trivial to meet. > But in reality, that doesn't happen a lot - to name a few on top of my head: Webkit, PostgreSQL, Minix, LaTeX, Mozilla's…

I'm sorry. Maybe the iOS app was irrelevant to his/her point. But I think most web startups would want to create iOS clients too, and that's how GPL might be a limitation to them. > I have to ask, do you actually work in the software industry? No, I'm just a student/programmer. I mean I'm not working in an IT department in a big company, so you've got a point there that I might not be realistic. > All you've done is…

"If Webkit was (pure) GPL, do you think Apple would even consider using it in the first place?"

You've got your history wrong. Apple created Webkit, so they never needed to make that decision. You meant to write "If KHTML was GPL ... " (BTW, the qualification 'pure' is meaningless here; LGPLv2 is not an 'impure' version of GPLv2.)

Steve Jobs has been anti-GPL since the NeXT days, with the Objective C contribution to gcc, so of course that's was a deciding factor for Apple. However, they could have chosen Mozilla as the basis, or purchased the technology from some other company. There's no evidence that without KHTML they would have done a "proprietary browser from scratch."

I do wonder if the LGPL for KHTML is what made WebKit be available in the first place, but that is not relevant for this discussion.

"If you go with a BSD-style license, much more people will use and incorporate that project ... and even if a small percentage of them contributes back, it's still good."

As far as I am aware of, there is no evidence for this assertion. I've been involved with BSD and GPL projects, and the license does not seems to affect the amount of feedback or amount of uptake. In any case, the percentage of good code feedback is usually minuscule; excepting a few large-scale projects. You can see evidence of that elsewhere. Quoting Tim Bird, ex-BusyBox developer "[I'm the] guy who lamented that the busybox lawsuits had never produced a single line of usable code added to the busybox repository."

Your comments here reflect optimism, but that optimism has little base in how software is actually developed.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#158

Post by ugh »

prodigal_erik wrote: post #155
ugh wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We can't really interact with ice cream on a higher level than would an animal, which is fine, that's all it's for. But software is a tool, and we learn from and improve our tools; that's what makes us human rather than mere consumers.

So substitute ice cream with hammers, axes, screwdrivers, pens, whatever. I don't see the point.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#159

Post by DanBlake »

bwarp wrote: post #145
namidark wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Awesome you still have that on the road. Im guessing you live in the south? Biggest difference I always notice about cali vs northeast is the amount of old cars on the road.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#160

Post by jeffreyg »

logain2006 wrote: post #156
spenrose wrote: post #129

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 c…

Wow. I think that's the stupidest thing I've heard in a while. Yes, Steve Jobs, the guy who wants absolute control over every single device that he sells you FOR MONEY - on both software AND hardware level is JUST LIKE Stallaman. I have to say, the quality of HN has gone so downhill recently, I might have to seek an alternative community.

If people were to pick one reason HN has 'gone downhill', disrespectful comment replies would top the list.

A controversial feature request- when a new account reaches a negative karma level within a certain period, HN will display all other usernames associated with the IP address of the throwaway.

Post reply on HN