131–140 of 165 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GNU would have gone nowhere without Linux. Do you really think GNU/Hurd would have taken over?
Gnu over a BSD kernel could have. Linux was there at the right time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's just what the world needs. More bikeshedding You pretty much summed up one of the two biggest issues at why the FSF has not had a larger impact on the world. The organization makes issues over these kinds of details and then paints it into a "us vs. them" situation. It seems to have little interest with trying to work with people, and more insistent on making sure you follow it's dogma. The other issue is th…
The FSF has had a massive impact on the world. The constant discussion of how they should be presenting their message should be in the dictionary under bikeshedding. Maybe it isn't the way they're presenting their message; maybe you just don't agree with them.
I mostly agree with the FSF position and have defended Stallman on these pages many a time, donate a little bit to the Free Software Conservancy... but I have to agree with Delmania that the FSF does crap on in an adolescent manner at times. Like making pet nicknames and always using them (eg the 'Swindle'). The way the arguments are presented, it's like preaching to the choir - name-calling and in-jokes aren't exactly a dispassionate presentation of philosophy, and aren't going to win many friends who aren't already inclined that way to begin with.
Stallman argues that the name-calling is actually maturity-in-disguise, and that humour is needed in fighting oppression[1]. However, he's wrong about that, and even if he was right, it's shithouse, clumsy humour that is made for the choir, not for the wider audience.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.en.htm...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is GNU/Linux. Claiming that Linux is the most important part of the system is rewriting history (the GNU project started almost a decade before Linux was created).
GNU would have gone nowhere without Linux. Do you really think GNU/Hurd would have taken over?
So I don't agree that "GNU would've gone nowhere". If GNU had a kernel before Linus made Linux, then Linux would've gone nowhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gnu over a BSD kernel could have. Linux was there at the right time.
Honesty, Linus has been more important than Linux. Linux was just a student's side project. Linus is a force.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I'm very well that they refer to philosophical differences. But they are both talking about the same damn software. Not the same philosophy, but the same software. This is something everyone agrees about, not just Bruce Perens. This is also the official position of OSI, not just Bruce Perens': that open source is just another name for free software.
That is not true, because every free software is open source, but not every open source software is free. (this is me oversimplifying to make a point)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd like to note that GitLab not only is doing an awesome job with the FSF, but they are also themselves embracing free software tools for their internal work. They're switching from Slack to Mattermost[0], from Google Analytics to Piwik[1], looking for a free software commenting software to replace Disqus[2]. [0]: https://about.gitlab.com/2015/08/18/gitlab-loves-mattermost/ [1]: https://about.gitlab.com/2015/11/27/g…
I don't think there's any OSS solution that can rival Disqus right now. Discourse comes closest in terms of features but it actually redirects the users to the forum when it is embedded, instead of allowing commenting inline on the blog/site. Bad UX :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I'm very well that they refer to philosophical differences. But they are both talking about the same damn software. Not the same philosophy, but the same software. This is something everyone agrees about, not just Bruce Perens. This is also the official position of OSI, not just Bruce Perens': that open source is just another name for free software.
That is not true, because every free software is open source, but not every open source software is free. (this is me oversimplifying to make a point)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not true, because every free software is open source, but not every open source software is free. (this is me oversimplifying to make a point)
It's not that simple. Open source implies the source is out there for anyone to study. Free software is not necessarily free of charge and readily available. Nothing prevents you from paywalling a GPL program as long as you distribute sources to legitimate users on request. Free as in freedom, not as in beer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that simple. Open source implies the source is out there for anyone to study. Free software is not necessarily free of charge and readily available. Nothing prevents you from paywalling a GPL program as long as you distribute sources to legitimate users on request. Free as in freedom, not as in beer.
Open source as formally defined by the OSI is also not necessarily free of charge and readily available to everyone. The GPL of course is an open source license, some revisionist tendencies to use "open source" to refer only to non-GPL-family licenses notwithstanding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's still paranoia at the end of the day. Consistent paranoia, thoughtful paranoia, but still, ultimately, paranoia. I think what bothers people about Stallman (or at least, what bothers me about him, and extrapolating) is that he takes a moralistic approach. Non free software isn't a non optimal thing to be fixed for well-thought-out reasons X, Y, and Z, it is an Evil , and you are Wrong for perpetuating it.
It's not paranoia if proprietary software companies do take advantage of you. And they do.