Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters • Hacker News Board

Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters

#161

Post by dredmorbius » Tue, Jun 12, 2012, 10:01 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #160

dredmorbius wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too: proprietary solutions cannot (at a sustainable price point) compete with the quality of free. As someone noted -- there's a development model which shares the load among many eyes, and produces higher quality work as a result. There are a few other mechanisms at work, but the upshot is that for utility, and even a fair amount of specialized software, there's no longer a marketplace for the software itself.

>Too: proprietary solutions cannot (at a sustainable price point) compete with the quality of free. That depends entirely on the community behind the free solution, and what class of software it is. For instnance, I'm not aware of a FOS document management system which would compete with, say, Paperport or DevonThink (Windows and Mac systems, very proprietary).

I didn't say in all cases. Specialized, very high-value, and vertical tools particularly.

But generally the trend is that, starting with OS, development and management tools, and commodity software, Free Software is taking the financial value out of software sales.

For your example, OpenKM and LogicalDoc turn up for searches on "document management open source", though I couldn't say how they compete on functionality, scale, ease-of-use, stability, and/or management.

To shift spaces slightly: there's a pretty small market for proprietary Wiki software. Atlassian and Microsoft Sharepoint would be two that I'm aware of, though alternatives, especially MediaWiki, are very widely used (internal to the CIA even).

What's becoming more common is a service model based on free wiki software. Jimmy Wales has a startup based on offering MediaWiki pages, there's a similar offering based on TWiki that I'm aware of. I'm sure there are others. Similarly, blogging engines as-a-service. The software's free, but the service offering drives revenue.

Could be a way into the docs management market as well.

Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters

#162

Post by adavies42 » Tue, Jun 12, 2012, 10:29 PM UTC

indubitably wrote: post #158

adavies42 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

giflib is probably his most important project in terms of how many people use it gpsd is probably the project he's working on right now with the most potential for widespread use and importance forgeplucker http://home.gna.org/forgeplucker/ (oddly not linked at http://www.catb.org/~esr/software.html ) is probably the project he's working on right now that's the most interesting (and ironically something i expect RMS…

""" imgsizer: This is a nifty little HTML authoring tool that will generate correct Netscape-style WIDTH and HEIGHT parameters for each of your IMG tags on an HTML page. This will allow the text portions of the page to load much faster. Requires that you have either identify(1) or a recent file(1) and rdjpegcom(1) installed. The RPM is architecture-independent. Requires Python. """ Ok then.

huh? did you have a point?

Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters

#163

Post by danbmil99 » Tue, Jun 12, 2012, 11:23 PM UTC

Peaker wrote: post #149

danbmil99 wrote: post #139

I find this debate so very tedious. From a libertarian perspective, RMS's arguments are just utter bs. He's basically saying two independent parties have no right to enter into a contract that involves keeping secrets. That's what happens when you agree to a EULA. If you don't like the contract, don't accept it. People have no more right to "free software" in the RMS absolutist sense than they have right to free beer…

The parties aren't independent. People are utterly dependent on software. Net effects mean that people aren't free to choose the software that has the agreements they agree with. I think the question anyone should ask -- is what kind of society do we want to live in? One where everyone controls their computers and software, or one where the norm is to surrender control of this part of your life to third parties?

I think the open source movement (as opposed to the free software jihad of RMS) has worked exactly how the market should work. Some manufacturers are addicted to secrecy, DRM, draconian copy protection, and restrictive EULA's. The FOSS movement, responding to this reality, provides alternate versions of almost any type of software you care to use.

So why in the world would it be reasonable to force Microsoft, Apple, or anyone else to give you something they choose to withhold? Instead, speak with your pocketbook -- refuse to pay their tithe, and work with open software and/or with companies whose policies on this issue you accept and agree with.

TL; DR: Market forces are almost always more efficient and less prone to unintended consequences than top-down laws and regulations. Let the market work.

Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters

#164

Post by wnight » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 6:36 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #103

jgrahamc wrote: post #2

"The problem with it is the same problem with messianic religions in general; for people who are not flipped into true-believer mode by any given one, it will come off as at best creepy and insular, at worst nutty and potentially dangerous (and this remains true even for people attached to a different messianic religion)." I fit into neither of the caricatures of either a 'true believer' or someone scared of RMS. I s…

"it ensures that it stays open and that improvements are given back" Actually, this phrase can be understood in two ways: 1. I want to ensure that the software is improved and the improvements are shared. 2. I want to ensure that the if the software is improved, then improvements are given back. If it's not happening, I prefer it not to be improved or used. The difference between these two are the difference between…

"It's like one person giving to charities with no preconditions and another giving only to charities that support his political views. Both approaches are valid, but the latter doesn't have a base to feel morally superior to the former."

You give money to charities that do things you don't agree with? Weird.

Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters

#165

Post by thebear » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 9:33 AM UTC

In my book, a fanatic is someone who unleashes diatribes on people with whom he/she is pretty much in the same camp, apart from minor differences that outsiders don't even understand. I am reminded of "The Life of Brian" and the People's Front of Judea vs. the Judean People's Front.

Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters

#166

Post by dspeyer » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 2:01 PM UTC

cwp wrote: post #157

dspeyer wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do need RMS. Compromise is a dangerous game. Especially when the proprietary world doesn't compromise back (and it usually doesn't). How long could the free software movement have continued to mean anything if each year it had crept a little closer to the mainstream technological community?

Open source isn't a compromise between free software and proprietary software. It's a different philosophical basis for advocating the same practices.

The open source movement isn't. The "proprietary software is ok so long as not much is at stake and you weren't likely to tinker with it anyway" idea is.

Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters

#167

Post by lmm » Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 3:31 PM UTC

wnight wrote: post #164

smsm42 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"it ensures that it stays open and that improvements are given back" Actually, this phrase can be understood in two ways: 1. I want to ensure that the software is improved and the improvements are shared. 2. I want to ensure that the if the software is improved, then improvements are given back. If it's not happening, I prefer it not to be improved or used. The difference between these two are the difference between…

"It's like one person giving to charities with no preconditions and another giving only to charities that support his political views. Both approaches are valid, but the latter doesn't have a base to feel morally superior to the former." You give money to charities that do things you don't agree with? Weird.

What am I paying for when I give money to charity? Mostly, a sense of smug self-satisfaction - and I get more of that when I give to one without checking what they do, than when I've looked into it and found they support my political agenda.

Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters

#168

Post by Peaker » Thu, Jun 14, 2012, 1:25 PM UTC

danbmil99 wrote: post #163

Peaker wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parties aren't independent. People are utterly dependent on software. Net effects mean that people aren't free to choose the software that has the agreements they agree with. I think the question anyone should ask -- is what kind of society do we want to live in? One where everyone controls their computers and software, or one where the norm is to surrender control of this part of your life to third parties?

I think the open source movement (as opposed to the free software jihad of RMS) has worked exactly how the market should work. Some manufacturers are addicted to secrecy, DRM, draconian copy protection, and restrictive EULA's. The FOSS movement, responding to this reality, provides alternate versions of almost any type of software you care to use. So why in the world would it be reasonable to force Microsoft, Apple,…

Firstly, claiming RMS is a jihadist is a silly ad-hominem. RMS presents a coherent principled position, and fights for it.

Secondly, you might be forced to use Microsoft products, because your government, industry standard, or other is using proprietary Microsoft formats.

I think the question to ask is what the big-picture-effect of allowing/disallowing withholding source code from users would be. We should not use a narrow benchmark of "minimal government interference" or "maximum personal rights", but a "yields best overall outcome" benchmark.