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

171–180 of 248 posts

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#171

Post by blihp »

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…

The difference is that the front-end code runs on 'your' computer, the back-end code runs on 'their' computer. You typically don't care what point of sale software a store you are doing business with is running on their cash registers or the myriad of software run on the systems of the various manufacturers of the products it sells.[1] However, when you go to their web site(s) and it uses a bunch of minified, obfuscated code that runs on your computer... you should care about that.

The idea behind 'free' software was that you should have access to/control of the software running on your devices, not everyone else's. It was originally a pragmatic solution to a problem, not an abstract ideology that it's morphed into for some.

[1] It's up to the business in question to care about the software running on their computers.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#172

Post by srbby »

jraph wrote: post #167
srbby wrote: post #62

Linked from tfa: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft.html >we do recognize [Microsoft] as the company that has separated more users from their freedom than any other Is this still true in the age of the iPhone?

It's probably too vague a claim to prove or disprove. They could amend this sentence. Different companies have different impacts on software freedom that I'd be hard-pressed to compare. However, consider Microsoft Office, which is widely used, and has some network effects. If a friend uses an iPhone, that does not really impact me (where I live). In contrast, Microsoft even has impact on people who would consider not…

Two things that come to my mind from reading your response:

Why are we releasing this document in PDF format? Shouldn’t it be in docx or XPS? https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20110104-00/?p=11...

Why we don’t want you and your Android green bubbles in our iMessage chat https://www.fastcompany.com/90391587/why-we-dont-want-you-an...

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#173

Post by cycloptic »

duckerude wrote: post #151
danShumway wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The issue is that usually the manufacturer builds in capabilities to update the firmware, and then reserves for themselves the ability to modify and update that firmware, while intentionally denying that ability to the users. This puts the manufacturer in a position of power over people who use the product.

But if the firmware isn't modifiable by anybody (including the manufacturer) because the capability to update it was never built in the first place, then no capabilities are being withheld from the users of that product.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#174

Post by mda »

thelazydogsback wrote: post #105
TheDong wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No good deed goes unpunished eh.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#175

Post by jraph »

Jedd wrote: post #85
ChrisSD wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But MS were, at the time, against all things open source. Not just free software (although that did seem to get the full brunt of their ire).

> But MS were, at the time, against all things open source. This may or may not be the case, insofar as an organisation can be said to have a position on a vague notion. As per the article, rms is seeking that: "Publicly take back Microsoft's attacks on copyleft made in the 2000s. Ballmer called the GPL a "cancer"." I suspect rms doesn't care terribly much if MS were 'against all things open source' since no one real…

This is all about sending a message and clarify a position.

When someone in a marketing team of a company sends a message, they usually speak for the company, not for themself, except otherwise explicitly stated. So indeed, we can't expect a huge company like Microsoft have a uniform opinion on all things, but Microsoft as an entity stills sends a more or less coherent message if they take care of their communication.

And I would not blame someone understanding a statement from Ballmer for Microsoft's official stand if the statement was made when he was the head of the company and the company did not issue an apology or a clarification after the fact.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#177

Post by toast0 »

duckerude wrote: post #151
danShumway wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't know that I have a strong opinion on firmware, but I think there's a few points.

Distribution rights are a lot clearer with firmware on the device and a driver in code.

With firmware on the card, the interface between the kernel and the card is likely to be more well defined and thus easier to replace either side.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#178

Post by thelazydogsback »

srbby wrote: post #172
jraph wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably too vague a claim to prove or disprove. They could amend this sentence. Different companies have different impacts on software freedom that I'd be hard-pressed to compare. However, consider Microsoft Office, which is widely used, and has some network effects. If a friend uses an iPhone, that does not really impact me (where I live). In contrast, Microsoft even has impact on people who would consider not…

Two things that come to my mind from reading your response: Why are we releasing this document in PDF format? Shouldn’t it be in docx or XPS? https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20110104-00/?p=11... Why we don’t want you and your Android green bubbles in our iMessage chat https://www.fastcompany.com/90391587/why-we-dont-want-you-an...

> ...why not PDF...

Because it's pre-rendered and doesn't reflow, etc -- a very annoying format for anything other than as a target for printing.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#179

Post by Crinus »

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…

> 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.

He'd push for AGPL for that. Also Stallman doesn't like SaaS: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#180

Post by simion314 »

CJefferson wrote: post #166
simion314 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were you ever affected by the GPL3 vs GPL2 license? I am just wondering who is affected(not everybody makes kernels and drivers)

Readline is distributed only under GPLv3 nowadays. I worked on some software licensed only under GPLv2, where some authors are no longer available. GPLv2 and GPLv3 aren't compatible.

Thanks for you response but I am not understanding, you wanted to copy paste some code from a GPL2 project into a GPL3 one ?
Post reply on HN