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

111–120 of 248 posts

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#111

Post by _ph_ »

yummybear wrote: post #6

> Help make the web usable with Javascript deactivated. I don't quite understand why that is a goal in itself. If it's due to accessibility why not ask to "Help make the web more usable for people with disabilities"? Maybe I'm missing something here.

I think we all know the pros and cons about running Javascript on web pages. But it becomes more and more obvious, that while Javascript gets abused for a lot of bad things, a modern web completely without scripting in web pages isn't feasible either.

Consequently, I consider this as something the GNU project failed to address. Why isn't there an official GNU webbrowser with a reasonable Javascript implementation? One where the browser and the JS engine would be free software and which could be seen as a reasonable platform for a modern web?

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#112

Post by arminiusreturns »

dhd415 wrote: post #31
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…

Frankly, I think that is a situation where Microsoft just voiced what was common practice in many places in the industry. I've worked on a variety of both commercial and widely-used open source software projects and in all cases, GPL-licensed code was forbidden after consultation with counsel because of the limitations it would have imposed either on the company itself or on the users of our software.

This is more due to bad lawyers not understanding things than gpl itself, especially considering agpl, apache2 etc. Usually because nobody takes the time to explain it to them. Using RedHat as an example tends to be the most productive with legal and the C's in my experience.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#113

Post by close04 »

simion314 wrote: post #39
close04 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of non-free software is written in Javascript Dropping JS will just lead to a lot of non-free software written in [something else]. It's not like non-free software will suddenly stop existing. You're not banning English because of the content that might use it. There must be a better approach to this than "I'm not running any code because some of it may be non-free".

It is server site rendering, use whatever you want to generate an html file and send it to the browser, most websites can do this (blogs,news, forums) then the small interactive interactions you can make them in JS using GPL/BSD whatever.

> then the small interactive interactions you can make them in JS

With JS enabled any site could potentially run non-free code so this has no benefits. As far as I can tell the proposed solution wasn't to develop some tech that ensures (somehow) that all functionality JS provides is transferred to something "free-only" but rather to give up that functionality entirely. That's not a solution, that's just running away from the problem.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#114

Post by swebs »

dhruvmittal wrote: post #19
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…

> 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.

You sure that's not just for GPL? I worked at a place that had a strict no-GPL policy due to the legal risks of non-compliance. LGPL and MIT software was fine though.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#115

Post by gnode »

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…

Something I wonder is whether productized software needs to exist as an industry in its own right. Maybe it is enough for software to be incidentally produced in the course of other industries. The Linux kernel is today developed mostly by those with a commercial interest in using and supporting it, such as Intel, Google, Samsung and IBM. LLVM is supported largely by Apple; Go by Google; React by Facebook.

Comparatively, science and mathematics, which software is arguably conceptually closer to, haven't ended as human endeavours for want of direct commercial exploitation.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#116

Post by falcolas »

jupp0r wrote: post #83
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.

If they don’t even know enough about open source (and are resistent to being enlightened), they shouldn’t be making this decision.

Devil’s Advocate - it’s not their job to educate themselves about the vagrancies of open source, it’s the developer’s (or more accurately tech lead’s) job to educate them about the particulars of a project, to prove that the project is healthy with good support today and will be healthy with good support tomorrow.

Without those assurances, and without investigating the project myself, I’d probably turn it down too.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#117

Post by falcolas »

isostatic wrote: post #107
freeone3000 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

A support contract, typically. Few people sell code alone. They sell code plus a contract to support that code.

Support contracts can be very lucrative.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#118

Post by danShumway »

duckerude wrote: post #8
yummybear wrote: post #6

> Help make the web usable with Javascript deactivated. I don't quite understand why that is a goal in itself. If it's due to accessibility why not ask to "Help make the web more usable for people with disabilities"? Maybe I'm missing something here.

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've always been a bit confused by this take, because the most likely alternative to having proprietary code in the front-end is to have proprietary code in the back-end.

It's not clear to me why I shouldn't tolerate closed-source Javascript that I can nonetheless inspect, archive, and edit on my own machine, but I should tolerate a closed-source SaaS backend that I can't inspect, archive, or edit.

Of course proprietary software limits freedoms, but does it limit freedom more than serverside logic? There are equal legal restrictions on both codebases, but I can't even exercise fair-use freedoms with code that I literally can't touch.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#119

Post by rerx »

richard_todd wrote: post #67
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…

Earlier he had said that we shouldn’t keep old grudges, so I was surprised he then turned around and asked for them to renounce statements from 20+ years ago, made by people that aren’t even there anymore. In my mind, .net core and vs code and countless smaller projects are a complete renunciation of their previous public statements. Maybe Stallman can’t see that because they MIT license those things, but why ask for…

Quoted for its WTF-factor:

> Perhaps his new-found peace with Linux is linked to yoga, a practice he said he has taken up after leaving Microsoft in 2014.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#120

Post by bernierocks »

isostatic wrote: post #107
freeone3000 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

It's usually included when you purchase a commercial license.

I work with a company that generally stays away from open source software, unless they have an in-house developer that can maintain it.

Most open source projects (unless it's backed by a huge company that also charges for support) are run by volunteers that have a day job. This means that support will be non-existent beyond what the developer(s) feel like and bug fixes/updates may or may not happen. This doesn't work that well when a company relies on this software for any critical task.

Post reply on HN