Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My Talk at Microsoft

stallman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 248 posts

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#101

Post by gnode »

Smithalicious wrote: post #26
duckerude wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of non-free software is written in Javascript and runs on webpages. If you want to avoid using non-free software you have to disable Javascript on many websites. Ideally the Javascript would be freed, but making it optional might be a more feasible goal.

I think this is a really weird reductionist take. Yes, if you don't run code, you also don't run nonfree code, but I'm skeptical that that "make people run less code" should be a goal of a free software movement...

Given that a major criticism of closed source software is that it can contain adverse behaviour which is practically un-auditable, running less code is the minimal implementation of don't run closed source software.

For some, open source software isn't just seen as a "nice to have", but the only way to avoid a society where freedoms are limited by dependence on software which works against us by design.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#102

Post by feb »

jacquesm wrote: post #90
Zhyl wrote: post #5

>Publicly take back Microsoft's attacks on copyleft made in the 2000s. Ballmer called the GPL a "cancer". Allchin called it "un-American". (from the "Suggestions I gave to Microsoft" section) This is something I agree with. I don't think that Microsoft are likely to apologise for EEE [1] as that is likely just considered 'business' and part of the zeitgeist; neither do I think that Microsoft necessarily needs to endo…

I'd be happy with a donation to the FSF roughly equivalent to all the money they made by scare tactics against Linux on the server, including their backhanded funding of the SCO lawsuit.

And the money to "standardize" the ISO docx format.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#103

Post by PyroLagus »

badpun wrote: post #95
kuu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about proprietary HTML ? CSS ?

HTML and CSS are content, not software (they're not executables) - they're like DOC or PDF.

> HTML and CSS are content, not software (they're not executables) - they're like DOC or PDF.

Well… https://keithclark.co.uk/labs/css-fps/

You could also argue that DOCs and PDFs are software.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#104

Post by freeone3000 »

cameronbrown wrote: post #50
dhruvmittal wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They should, however, be a bit more repentant about starting a McCarthy-esque red scare against all things open source. Especially since we're still suffering from it. There are enough project & program managers who see the words "open source" on an engineering document & send us back to build or buy some alternative.

I can understand their perspective, especially if they're non technical. Much of the time they see open source as some ragtag community project that has no real support so they believe in terms of risk, it can seem lower to build or buy.

Are they that wrong? What real support does an npm module have?

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#105

Post by thelazydogsback »

TheDong wrote: post #43
xiaodai wrote: post #25

Free software is difficult. I have a family and young kids to feed. I can't work for FREE. I have open-source packages that are "free", but that's my hobby or a living. If you get a professorship at a university then you can flog free software, but it doesn't work for the other 99.99999% of the population. Sigh. I wish open-soure software is funded like universities. European Union funds some software, but more shoul…

Many people get paid to write free software. Some people write free software and sell it (for example, some paid android and iphone apps have their code available under the GPL, but still make money). There are many companies, including facebook/google/etc, that employ kernel developers who primarily write free software. There are companies that follow the opencore model, and many of their developers only work on the…

> There are many companies, including facebook/google/etc, that employ kernel developers who primarily write free software

We pay eventually -- in this case the "free" software is paid for with a loss of freedom elsewhere, in this case by giving up your private information and fulfilling our role as as "consumers" using their code.

There are many that would rather actually pay in a transparent fashion.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#106

Post by yebyen »

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #76
Iv wrote: post #21

> Implement an anonymous internet sales platform that doesn't require Javascript, using GNU Taler (taler.net). That seems like a potentially super important project yet it does not have a wikipedia page. That's abnormal! It was even discussed here in 2017! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15274110

I would've preferred he phrase it something like "using something like GNU Taler," so that it doesn't look like he's shilling for his own product.

I've been in the too-awkward position of suggesting a solution "like" one that I have made, knowing already that there is some specific reason why my solution won't ultimately be the one that is accepted. Arguing this way results in a stunted discussion, giving away the foregone conclusion that my specific solution is obviously unsuitable for some reason or other, and is therefore not worthy of our consideration at all. (But we have a lot to learn from it, and we should have this discussion before putting it aside.)

It's better to not go down that rhetorical road. If they haven't heard of your solution, let them evaluate it and come to their own conclusions about whether this specific solution doesn't meet their needs for some reason or other. Don't plant that seed, especially if you would consider it a favorable outcome for your particular solution to be used.

I don't know anything about Taler, but I assume he didn't say "something like GNU Taler" on purpose, for just the same reason that he doesn't work on some other project like Taler, because there's no specific alternative that he can recommend which is at least as good in all ways, from at least his own perspective.

Writing "something like GNU Taler" is almost a suggestion to fork the project, when we haven't even talked about what particular characteristics of Taler would make it a favorable choice, and what benefits. If, in the end, it's better or cheaper for them to build their own whatever it is, better than it would be to work with you on your project, they'll have no trouble coming to that conclusion on their own.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#107

Post by isostatic »

freeone3000 wrote: post #104
cameronbrown wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can understand their perspective, especially if they're non technical. Much of the time they see open source as some ragtag community project that has no real support so they believe in terms of risk, it can seem lower to build or buy.

Are they that wrong? What real support does an npm module have?

What support do you get by buying a non-open source module?

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#108

Post by souterrain »

> Help make the web usable with Javascript deactivated.

I agree with RMS here, in that user privacy is aligned closely with user freedom. I also believe the Internet is losing ground on this point.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#109

Post by Sacho »

kuu wrote: post #12
incompatible wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stallman doesn't want to run proprietary software on his computer, and that includes proprietary Javascript.

What about proprietary HTML ? CSS ?

Quote from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html

> It is theoretically possible to program in HTML and CSS, but in practice this capability is limited and inconvenient; merely to make it do something is an impressive hack. Such programs ought to be free, but CSS is not a serious problem for users' freedom as of 2019.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#110

Post by jccalhoun »

Zhyl wrote: post #5

>Publicly take back Microsoft's attacks on copyleft made in the 2000s. Ballmer called the GPL a "cancer". Allchin called it "un-American". (from the "Suggestions I gave to Microsoft" section) This is something I agree with. I don't think that Microsoft are likely to apologise for EEE [1] as that is likely just considered 'business' and part of the zeitgeist; neither do I think that Microsoft necessarily needs to endo…

I still have a creative commons communist shirt I bought when I saw it on BoingBoing https://boingboing.net/2005/01/06/more-gates-creative.html

They were created in response to Bill Gates comment that people who want to weaken or eliminate intellectual property laws were "some new modern-day sort of communists" https://boingboing.net/2005/01/05/bill-gates-free-cult.html

Post reply on HN