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

151–160 of 248 posts

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#151

Post by duckerude »

danShumway wrote: post #118
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'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 propriet…

That's something of a recurring issue with the philosophy. They also think that moving proprietary firmware into read-only memory is an acceptable solution, but I don't really understand why from a consequentialist point of view.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#152

Post by srbby »

rerx wrote: post #119
richard_todd wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ballmer practising yoga is not something I would've wanted to picture in my head

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#153

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

jacquesm wrote: post #94
richard_todd wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ballmer is an opportunist, pure and simple. When it suited him Linux was a cancer, and when it no longer suited him he 'loved Linux'. If the wind should ever change Linux will for sure be a cancer again.

> Ballmer is an opportunist, pure and simple.

You say that as if it were a condemnation. Everybody who runs a business is an opportunist, pure and simple.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#154

Post by humanrebar »

Iv wrote: post #141
AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

GNU Taler is not a product. It is a GNU project. You can use it full-features for free.

A product is something produced. It doesn't need to be for sale. That's merchandise.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#155

Post by jacquesm »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #153
jacquesm wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ballmer is an opportunist, pure and simple. When it suited him Linux was a cancer, and when it no longer suited him he 'loved Linux'. If the wind should ever change Linux will for sure be a cancer again.

> Ballmer is an opportunist, pure and simple. You say that as if it were a condemnation. Everybody who runs a business is an opportunist, pure and simple.

To a coarse approximation, yes. But very few people would go to the lengths that Ballmer was prepared to go to. In a more just society these guys would be behind bars rather than pretending to be philanthropists.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#156

Post by asdfman123 »

Iv wrote: post #18
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 do believe we are coming in an age where reputation is going to be increasingly important to companies. Those that change their opinions based on the hype and the short term profits are going to only have features and price as sales arguments whereas a company with a strong reputation and clear values will be able to charge a premium. I have no doubt that Microsoft is in the first category, but a company that would…

Microsoft also used to be a company whose growth depended on maintaining the Windows monopoly over the PC market, so everything they did helped underscore that.

Now they are trying to compete in the cloud, and the dynamics are different. They know Windows servers aren't going to beat out Linux servers. They need to use honey instead of vinegar to win people over.

It's a different company with different revenue streams, thus a different approach.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#157

Post by PeterStuer »

thomasz wrote: post #132
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The legal risks of non-compliance" are the exact FUD the old Microsoft spread. If someone doesn't follow the GPL then they don't have a right to reproduce the software and can be liable for copyright infringement, which is the same as any software license proprietary or otherwise. That someone wouldn't be liable if they distribute the source for their modifications doesn't increase the risk, it decreases it by provi…

It is way, way, way easier to ensure that you follow a commercial license.

Trying to figure out exactly which production licenses were needed to be in compliance used to be a recurring nightmare back in the day when I did B2B bespoke system rollouts. A licensing guide, not the license itself but the document trying to explain which licenses have to be acquired under which circumstances, could run well over 100 pages. Microsoft had licensing specialists that the channel could call for help, but if you called them twice or more for the same case you would never get the same answer twice. It was that complex, their own specialists couldn't make heads from tales on it.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#158

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

jacquesm wrote: post #155
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ballmer is an opportunist, pure and simple. You say that as if it were a condemnation. Everybody who runs a business is an opportunist, pure and simple.

To a coarse approximation, yes. But very few people would go to the lengths that Ballmer was prepared to go to. In a more just society these guys would be behind bars rather than pretending to be philanthropists.

> But very few people would go to the lengths that Ballmer was prepared to go to.

Larry Ellison? Scott McNealy? I'm sure I could think of others if I had the time. Ballmer was merely the most visible because MS was at the top of the food chain at the time.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#160

Post by fortran77 »

> I am no easy mark for those who want me to change my views.

This is an absolute lie. I know for a fact he has cancelled talks he's agreed to after being contacted by various factions of activists.

Post reply on HN