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

A short critique of Stallmanism

jancorazza.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 203 posts

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#151

Post by smonff »

jcora wrote: post #136
labster wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, I get it, they're both socialists and all. But Bernie is the opposite of what OP describes. Stallman is a purist, Sanders is a realist. Stallman fights to keep "GNU/" attached to "Linux", while Sanders talks about the fake news coming to people on Facebook's closed platform.

The sentiment of this comment is correct. Free software should be an integrated part of a wider movement for emancipation, and only harms itself by being so pedantic and hermetic. However, I don't really have a problem with insisting on the name GNU/Linux, and that's why I didn't even mention it in particular: I believe it's simply a matter of being fair and technically precise.

>Free software should be an integrated part of a wider movement for emancipation

This is actually what FSF claims to do as far as I understand. GPL is a law hack.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#152

Post by smonff »

throwaway729 wrote: post #2

> it is not a solution for people to simply stop using e.g. Gmail. I strongly disagree with this part. For example, if you think the primary problem with GMail is user privacy, then the only solutions are legal or technical. And the legal framework required to protect privacy for GMail users is utterly draconian -- to the point that Google would probably just shutter the service. The problem with Stallman's approach…

>The problem with Stallman's approach is only that his purism doesn't scale.

That's why there are some organisations that fight for the right for people to buy a computer without Windows installed-by-default and get the money reimburse if they opt-out of the OS package.

Isn't there an hardware company called puri.sm by the way?

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#153

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast »

Fnoord wrote: post #123
cbdfghh wrote: post #72

IMHO, Stallman made two mistakes: 1. He moved into politics (which is in my HO, one of the failure points of a lot of tech people. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but certain people have more talent at politics than others, and certain people have more talents at code than others). He's a great programmer, and could have pushed the FSF community directly by committing and improving code. And even if he can't code…

> What new coding projects were they involved in since HURD started (OK. Replicant.)? "New" is difficult to assess. I'd say: GPLv3, Libreboot (fork of Coreboot). But it depends on what you find important. A starting point is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation#High_... > 2. He doesn't let the FSF be larger than him. > Who's their 2nd in command? Fallacy, easily disproven at https://en.wikiped…

> I'd say: .... Libreboot

Didn't libreboot start outside the FSF, then come inside, and is now trying to get out?

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#154

Post by phjesusthatguy3 »

phpnode wrote: post #130
gkya wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, want it or not GNU/ is a big part of Linux distros, at least until a distro with an alternative userland and c library makes it to the top. And even then most of open source has some GNU somewhere in the foundation.

The insistence that Linux be called GNU/Linux when even Linus calls it Linux is exactly the kind of behaviour that alienates people who would otherwise align with them. There is also no requirement that a Linux distribution includes any GNU software at all, should we refer to them as e.g Busybox/Linux?

Is there an OS that uses Linux as the kernel but then no GNU software on top of that? It would be interesting to see, at least.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#155

Post by bonoboTP »

jprzybyl wrote: post #102
matthewmacleod wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there? I would believe that there are many who don't care, or many who are dismissive at a rather shallow level. But I'm not aware of having seen a good, intellectual critique of "free" software.

I personally like free software. (My personal stance lines up the most with the Debian Social Contract.) However, OpenBSD (my second choice of system) does not , and they've been vocal in the past. https://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#43 It's pretty simple - freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose. That includes in a proprietary environment. That includes whatever you want it to includ…

What are you talking about? You can use the software however you wish. Even "in a proprietary environment" (like you can run LibreOffice in Windows).

What you mean is probably copyleft licensing which is only a subset of free software licenses. Copyleft means that you cannot redistribute the software and its derivatives unless you give the freedoms down the road to your clients/users as well.

However, there are free software licenses that aren't copyleft too.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#156

Post by phpnode »

phjesusthatguy3 wrote: post #154
phpnode wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The insistence that Linux be called GNU/Linux when even Linus calls it Linux is exactly the kind of behaviour that alienates people who would otherwise align with them. There is also no requirement that a Linux distribution includes any GNU software at all, should we refer to them as e.g Busybox/Linux?

Is there an OS that uses Linux as the kernel but then no GNU software on top of that? It would be interesting to see, at least.

Isn't android effectively that?

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#157

Post by tscs37 »

phjesusthatguy3 wrote: post #154
phpnode wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The insistence that Linux be called GNU/Linux when even Linus calls it Linux is exactly the kind of behaviour that alienates people who would otherwise align with them. There is also no requirement that a Linux distribution includes any GNU software at all, should we refer to them as e.g Busybox/Linux?

Is there an OS that uses Linux as the kernel but then no GNU software on top of that? It would be interesting to see, at least.

I think Android does that.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#158

Post by Fnoord »

GFK_of_xmaspast wrote: post #153
Fnoord wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What new coding projects were they involved in since HURD started (OK. Replicant.)? "New" is difficult to assess. I'd say: GPLv3, Libreboot (fork of Coreboot). But it depends on what you find important. A starting point is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation#High_... > 2. He doesn't let the FSF be larger than him. > Who's their 2nd in command? Fallacy, easily disproven at https://en.wikiped…

> I'd say: .... Libreboot Didn't libreboot start outside the FSF, then come inside, and is now trying to get out?

> Didn't libreboot start outside the FSF, then come inside, and is now trying to get out?

Yup, drama, long story. The question was though:

> What new coding projects were they involved in since HURD started (OK. Replicant.)?

Looking at the original question: former packages qualify, as long as they're new. When does this 'new' qualify though? Perhaps not here because of Libreboot being based on Coreboot.

As soon as a project joins GNU though, it becomes "GNU Name" and it is officially a new project.

Development of Hurd was started in 1990. So we're looking at least from 1991. A list of current GNU packages is available at [1] and [2]. Of note, I suppose GNOME qualifies.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GNU_packages [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU#Components

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#159

Post by tscs37 »

greyman wrote: post #14

> Stallman's rhetoric is filled with this problematic logic on all layers: from trying to correct other people's terminology Yes, this is my main obstacle accepting RMS. In my opinion, he took the word "free", made a term "free software", and described it in accordance with his agenda, while what he advocated only partially conforms to the meaning of the word "free" or "freedom". There are certainly licenses offering…

I think "Free Code" encompasses the ideology that ""free software"" wants to be much better and more efficiently than ""free software"".

"Free Code" means the code is free as in free beer. You can get it, consume it and share it with friends. Once tasted, you can start a brewery and imitate the flavor if you want.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#160

Post by paulddraper »

gkya wrote: post #119
labster wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, I get it, they're both socialists and all. But Bernie is the opposite of what OP describes. Stallman is a purist, Sanders is a realist. Stallman fights to keep "GNU/" attached to "Linux", while Sanders talks about the fake news coming to people on Facebook's closed platform.

Well, want it or not GNU/ is a big part of Linux distros, at least until a distro with an alternative userland and c library makes it to the top. And even then most of open source has some GNU somewhere in the foundation.

> until a distro with an alternative userland and c library makes it to the top

Not that it invalidates your point, but it has happened.

Alpine Linux (e.g. Docker) and Android

Post reply on HN