Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you gain from being rude?
Negative karma points, apparently.
And how does it feel when you get negative karma?
Richard Stallman's Computer Setup
201–210 of 262 posts
Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup
#202Earlier 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.
Well... I still own (and use, once every couple weeks) a car that runs on ethanol and has an analog electronic injection. The radio is, most probably, its smartest part ;-)
It can be examined and changed, but it's not as easy as recompiling its engine.
Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup
#203Are there really no other fully free systems available on the market by now?
The bios seemed to be his only sticking point about not using other hardware. Maybe something like coreboot might fill that need now?
Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "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…
>They should have the freedom to not give back. What GPL does is force developers to release their code.
They only have to release their code if they are using someone else's GPL licenced code. They are totally free not to use GPL licenced code, we can argue the semantics of 'freedom' until the cows come home but nobody is forced to use someone elses GPL licenced code.
>A BSD license benefits the market and end user,
It benefits the proprietary market, and if you want your code to be able to be used in proprietary projects then yes, BSD is indeed a great choice. I don't see how the end user is better served by BSD than GPL.
However, many developers pouring hundreds of hours into code they then release as open source do not have any intention of having that code end up in proprietary projects. They want the code to remain open so that they as end users will be able to recieve any enhacements done to their source code. And given the vast popularity of the GPL licence, particularly for open source applications then I'd say it's serving it's purpose.
And don't take me wrong, I think programmers releasing BSD licenced code are extremely generous, and I personally think BSD/MIT style licenced code is a better choice for single purpose library/framework/component style code where there's little risk of proprietary forks.
At the end of the day GPL is about the source code and any further enhancements to it being made available to recipients, and this is what has made it so popular. And while that means it can't be used by proprietary code projects, we have ample proof that it's a licence through which lots of companies chose to cooperatively develop open source code, likely due to the very fact that all distributors of that source code is legally bound to release any enhancements.
Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I'd agree that much of the foundations of modern computing were built upon some form of free software, I disagree that it's primarily Stallman's work. For one thing, OS X is based upon FreeBSD and Mach, neither of which are affiliated with the FSF. And I'd argue that the foundations of Google and Facebook are PHP, Apache, Python, etc. which are also not FSF. Of course it's a difficult exercise to try to imagine…
"I disagree that it's primarily Stallman's work. For one thing, OS X is based upon FreeBSD and Mach, neither of which are affiliated with the FSF. And I'd argue that the foundations of Google and Facebook are PHP, Apache, Python, etc. which are also not FSF." OS X used all the major GNU tools, and was built with GCC. Without his creation you wouldn't have been able to build OS X. The foundations of Google and Faceboo…
It actually doesn't use all of the major GNU tools it uses very few of them.
GCC and the build chain is about all I can think of off the top of my head. Most of the userland is from FreeBSD.
And GCC and the build chain are quickly being replaced.
Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
In cases like this, I prefer to equate Stallman's idea of freedom to Illich's idea of conviviality--a convivial empowers the user, and gives her the ability to mold it and use it as she sees fit. If you just distribute only a binary, you aren't distributing a convivial tool. When we lose control of the tools we use, ultimately we lose some of our freedom.
Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I disagree that it's primarily Stallman's work. For one thing, OS X is based upon FreeBSD and Mach, neither of which are affiliated with the FSF. And I'd argue that the foundations of Google and Facebook are PHP, Apache, Python, etc. which are also not FSF." OS X used all the major GNU tools, and was built with GCC. Without his creation you wouldn't have been able to build OS X. The foundations of Google and Faceboo…
It actually doesn't use all of the major GNU tools it uses very few of them. GCC and the build chain is about all I can think of off the top of my head. Most of the userland is from FreeBSD. And GCC and the build chain are quickly being replaced.
GCC is the most significant piece. So your point is that nearly all modern software is built on top of GNU, but some only use a small portion of the GNU stuff. I think you agree with my original point ;)
Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Sartre's relevance or value depends on the relevance or value his arguments, not his age or affiliations or sex life. It happens that I think he was full of steam, but it wouldn't make him any better simply to be a woman, or young.
[deleted]
Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Sartre's relevance or value depends on the relevance or value his arguments, not his age or affiliations or sex life. It happens that I think he was full of steam, but it wouldn't make him any better simply to be a woman, or young.
I think what I was trying to get at is that when I was younger, I looked up to certain bearded "wise men" and professors as archetypal "guides" or role models or whatever, but that was a mistake. Now that I am a bit older, I realize that it was wrong for me to look up to such men while ignoring others because by emulating the "wise man" directly I might have "skipped" a very important stage in a man's life: adulthood, when you're strong, aggressive, competitive, and otherwise awesome.
It is my philosophy that one should go through all stages in life in order, otherwise one will never be happy, though timing is not as important as order. I've seen old people get bitter and resentful when they see youth partying and going out -- because they themselves had never done so when they were young.
One of my favorite quotes from Nietzsche (though this guy also had a messed-up/nonexistent sex life): "Man is something to be surpassed, but only a buffoon thinks that man can be overleapt." Surpass but don't skip.
Re: Richard Stallman's Computer Setup
#210>doesn't use internet
Linus Torvalds warned you: This man is insane.