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

161–170 of 262 posts

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#161

Post by logain2006 »

jeffreyg wrote: post #160
logain2006 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree. Disrespectful comments are just a symptom of the disease.

The disease is people saying unbelievably idiotic things, with no regard to fact or logic. Now, if no one were to post retarded bullshit like "Steve Jobs is so much like Stallman", it would be damn difficult for me to disrespect him/her.

PS - The mere fact that many people decided to downvote the obvious facts in my previous post just says this place has quickly managed to fill up with fucking idiots.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#162

Post by jballanc »

To understand Stallman, I highly recommend one read up on the history of Lisp Machines. Wikipedia's page is actually fairly decent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_machines

In particular, I think this passage give some key insight into how Stallman developed his philosophy:

> Around this time Symbolics (Noftsker's company) began operations – it had been hindered by Noftsker's promise to give Greenblatt a year’s head start, and by severe delays in procuring venture capital. Symbolics still had the major advantage that while 3 or 4 of the AI Lab hackers had gone to work for Greenblatt, a solid 14 other hackers had signed onto Symbolics. There were two AI Lab people who did not get hired by either: Richard Stallman and Marvin Minsky. Stallman, however, blamed Symbolics for the decline of the hacker community that had centered around the AI lab. For two years, from 1982 to the end of 1983, Stallman worked by himself to clone the output of the Symbolics programmers, with the aim of preventing them from gaining a monopoly on the lab's computers.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#163

Post by rhizome »

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.

By that token, asking RMS about cars in relation to his attitude towards computer would be akin to asking whether he lives in civilization or not, since everything from traffic lights to voting machines don't have open software at all. The category error is one of scale, not technical advancement.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#164

Post by rhizome »

logain2006 wrote: post #161
jeffreyg wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree. Disrespectful comments are just a symptom of the disease. The disease is people saying unbelievably idiotic things, with no regard to fact or logic. Now, if no one were to post retarded bullshit like "Steve Jobs is so much like Stallman", it would be damn difficult for me to disrespect him/her. PS - The mere fact that many people decided to downvote the obvious facts in my previous post just says this pla…

You're making it worse.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#165

Post by [deleted] »

logain2006 wrote: post #161
jeffreyg wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree. Disrespectful comments are just a symptom of the disease. The disease is people saying unbelievably idiotic things, with no regard to fact or logic. Now, if no one were to post retarded bullshit like "Steve Jobs is so much like Stallman", it would be damn difficult for me to disrespect him/her. PS - The mere fact that many people decided to downvote the obvious facts in my previous post just says this pla…

[deleted]

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#166

Post by rhizome »

Czarnian wrote: post #139
nikron wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are confusing free as in beer, and free as in speech. No one says you can't sell GPL software.

Not really. It's the cognitive dissonance of the Free Software Movement. Software is either free or it's not free. It's either restricted or it's unrestricted. It's either proprietary or it's open. Using hyper-capitalistic entities like Google and Facebook as a defense of the viability of free software is an interesting way to go. If anything, I'd argue they are almost perfect subversions of Free Software. Going a li…

You're not going to get very far defining your terms in binary.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#167

Post by ceol »

diminish wrote: post #153
ceol wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I appreciate your concern about "abusers" who use your code without giving back, but that's what I mean when I say GPL isn't advocating true freedom: They should have the freedom to not give back. What GPL does is force developers to release their code. I wouldn't consider that freedom, even if it's done in the name of protecting the ecosystem. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" and all that.

> 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.

How likely is that, though? If you release your code under GPL, they'll just write their own version and keep it proprietary. At least with BSD, you'll have the same base if you needed to rewrite their driver.

A BSD license benefits the market and end user, while a GPL license benefits other developers if they decide to use your code to begin with.

> 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.

I feel the same way, but I'd rather have code people can use without worrying about the license versus forcing other developers to adhere to my personal belief system. Your reason for using GPL sounds like the reason some publishers use DRM: They do not want to give abusers and pirates easy access to their product. With DRM, it only ends up hurting legitimate users while pirates illegally remove it. With GPL, it's not as clear-cut, but I'd imagine there are many projects who have used GPL'd code without releasing their source, while shops who abide by the license but don't want to release their code are forced to reinvent the wheel.

Again, I do appreciate your concern regarding code abuse. I certainly wouldn't like it if a company swiped by code and sold it as their own, but the chance of that happening is slim. I'm much more worried about the small startup who wants to use my library but doesn't want to release their code.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#168

Post by tzs »

slowpoke wrote: post #116
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…

>No one's freedom is being taken away when you create a proprietary fork. You're free to make forks for your own personal usage and never give anyone the source. You don't even have to tell anyone that you did. As soon as you share that software with anyone and refuse to hand over the source, and deny the recipient the right to modify and/or redistribute your program, you are taking away that person's Freedom. >You d…

So let me see if I have this straight. If I write some code and do not give it to you or anyone else, I have not taken anyone's freedom away.

However, if I give you a binary of the code, but do not give you source, I have taken your freedom away?

For that to make sense, there must be something you could do before I gave you the binary that you can no longer do. Please name what that thing is.

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#169

Post by bwarp »

DanBlake wrote: post #159
bwarp wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm in the UK!

Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup

#170

Post by reuser »

rhizome wrote: post #163
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.

By that token, asking RMS about cars in relation to his attitude towards computer would be akin to asking whether he lives in civilization or not, since everything from traffic lights to voting machines don't have open software at all. The category error is one of scale, not technical advancement.

Example of a category error (stolen from Ryle): you are handed both the left glove and the right glove, and you ask where the pair is. The pair is not a separate thing from the left glove and the right glove.

'Category error' does not mean a quantitative or scale difference at all.

Post reply on HN