241–250 of 291 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is there anything these guys like? Stallman and Gnu are extremists People fighting for human rights have always been labeled extremists, it's not a particularly original idea you had there.
Calling the fight for "free software" as defined by the FSF a matter of human rights is a bit of a stretch, eh?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It pains me to say it but he is a Luddite. A Luddite would argue that the technology (NB: not the implementation or design but the very concept) takes something away from quality, morality, and/or spirituality of life. Thus, Luddite Stallman would refuse any help from anyone using any kind of handheld communication device including walkie talkies, free software laptops over wireless access points, etc. Stallman is…
Luddites were not against the technology. They were against a specific kind technology that in their view harmed them and a society in whole. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-rea...
Luddites rose up against the abusive practices of businesses which happened to involve new technology. Similarly, FSF is warning about abusive practices of today's businesses involving technology.
Honest question: in many cases, how can you _not_ have a backdoor? Obviously, it depends on what kind of software you're writing, but pieces like this seem to have this utopian goal of software that "just works", independent of any human except its user. In reality though, other humans are always necessary — whether to explain how to use the technology, to do something that can't be done through the software, to fix…
All your questions have a single answer, which FSF is arguing for: Free Software. No, seriously: > In reality though, other humans are always necessary — whether to explain how to use the technology, You can do that through good UI design, manuals, tutorials and support (possibly paid support). > to do something that can't be done through the software, to fix the software This doesn't mean the people doing this have…
Also, Open Source is not an answer to the last question. The majority of software users don't have the technical expertise to evaluate the safety of a given OSS, even if there's a community established around making recommendations — but even then, that's a trust relationship too.
Edit: maybe I should be more open minded. How is OSS a substitute for trust? Is it a redirection of trust to a group whose interests are aligned with yours? How do you facilitate that network without putting too much burden on the user? Are there any good examples of working OSS that involves non-technical end users?
> Updated: $Date: 2019/08/17 09:55:24 $ Are those $ signs an Emacs limitation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Picking a random point: DRM is malware. It is extra software with the only purpose to limit what I can do. Of course there is no alternative as long as consumers accept it. And consumers don't care since it all seems to work.
Say you want to send data to an untrusted destination and want the data to be read-only and non-copyable. DRM is the solution. That's not malware, it's part of the threat/loss prevention model for certain kinds of data. There are plenty of issues with DRM from a practical and philosophical level. But I think calling it malware is disingenuous. Alice doesn't cede her rights over her data by transmitting it to Bob, and…
The reason it's accepted is because the average consumer has no idea how technology works and how badly they are being fucked. They are too stupid to be market participants. The modern gaming market is a market for lemons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All your questions have a single answer, which FSF is arguing for: Free Software. No, seriously: > In reality though, other humans are always necessary — whether to explain how to use the technology, You can do that through good UI design, manuals, tutorials and support (possibly paid support). > to do something that can't be done through the software, to fix the software This doesn't mean the people doing this have…
Maybe it has something to do with the domain I work in, or maybe it's just a problem with how software is done, but the expectation in my industry that there ought to be a relationship that comes along with the software. Also, Open Source is not an answer to the last question. The majority of software users don't have the technical expertise to evaluate the safety of a given OSS, even if there's a community establish…
It absolutely is a problem with how software is done. A decade or more ago, back before everything turned from a product into a SaaS subscription, you could buy software, and any relationship was strictly optional.
> How is OSS a substitute for trust? Is it a redirection of trust to a group whose interests are aligned with yours?
I should have said more and not just dropped a term, sorry. OSS is not a substitute for trust in general; trust is a desirable quality. But it is a refinement of trust (per the usual "trust but verify" approach), and also potentially a redirection - you have an option to base your trust not just on promises of the software provider, but also on the opinions of other people who looked into it, and who give you more reasons to trust them.
> How do you facilitate that network without putting too much burden on the user?
Open Source helps with that by allowing communities of users with knowledge about the inner workings to form. These communities naturally connect to other communities. It's not effortless, but humans in general are good at navigating this. OSS isn't a necessary thing here, but it's very helpful.
Linux on the desktop is a real mental harm for the user.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Copyright infringement is undoubtedly a malicious act... You're seriously trying to argue that people who commit copyright infringement do so maliciously, i.e. with the intent of harming the copyright holder? That seems... novel. And not very plausible. If true, however, it would be much more effective to ignore the work altogether, thus denying the copyright holder both direct income and free publicity. > Any kind…
> subverts their control over their own device The owner owns their device, yes but they don't always own the data on the device. DRM, for all its faults, is an attempt to reconcile to reconcile the two conflicting requirements.
Owning a resource means that you get to decide how the resource is consumed, i.e. used up. This is exclusive only to the extent that scarce resources cannot be put to two conflicting uses simultaneously, so active use by anyone else would prevent the owner from consuming the resource as they choose. Data, however, is not scarce; it can never be used up. There is no possible conflict between the "owner" and any other user, which makes the claim of ownership meaningless. No matter what anyone else might do with the data, the "owner" still has it and can use it however they wish.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely this. There are real issues worth real discussion, both on this post and their related Apple post. But these are the posts of a conspiracy theorist instead; they don't enable any sort of rational discussion.
How is that? All the claims are strictly true. They just carry a moral judgement some people disagree with, and most people don't care about. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's enumeration of facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Luddites were not against the technology. They were against a specific kind technology that in their view harmed them and a society in whole. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-rea...
In this sense, calling Stallman a Luddite is a compliment and recognition of the validity of his point of view. Luddites rose up against the abusive practices of businesses which happened to involve new technology. Similarly, FSF is warning about abusive practices of today's businesses involving technology.