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

Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

news.slashdot.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 623 posts

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#581

Post by ddingus »

vharuck wrote: post #547
maratc wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just those where the people involved have opposing goals. This describes every competition ever; person A wants the winner to be A, but person B wants the winner to be B. Should we stop doing doping tests at Olympic games, as it's an application of (non-free) technology to a social problem?

Medical tests are only part of the solution there. They would be worthless without the more important component: a trusted third-party tester. As we've seen with DMCA takedowns on YouTube, an automatic third-party arbiter ends up favoring one side. Usually the one who learns to game it.

And or the ones funding it.

That dynamic is exactly why so many people oppose electronic voting, electronic court "guidence" and other similar things.

People are super messy, complicated and the strength of automation coupled with the allure of doing less work is the root cause for an awful lot of unnecessary grief, despite let's say for discussion, the best of intent.

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#582

Post by ddingus »

maratc wrote: post #553
vharuck wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Medical tests are only part of the solution there. They would be worthless without the more important component: a trusted third-party tester. As we've seen with DMCA takedowns on YouTube, an automatic third-party arbiter ends up favoring one side. Usually the one who learns to game it.

The imaginary solution works reliably in 100% cases, but the available solution works only in 99%. Should we accept that practical solution in the interim, or should we dismiss it and fall to a "perfect solution fallacy"?

False choice.

What we can do put process in the mix.

The available solution coupled with time tested, production proven ways and means is about as good as we can get. And that is not very good, but it is livable and people value that a whole lot more than is given credit for.

Bad things are gonna happen no matter what, right?

Humans doing the messy human works are important. It ain't cheap. Never was, and for sure isn't now. But when we do that work, people do get options and overall harm is reduced, but more importantly, consent, acceptance, compliance all go up.

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#583

Post by gsinclair »

lelanthran wrote: post #557
meragrin_ wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others" How is that not always going to end up being "free of charge"? Someone is always going to end up redistributing it without charge.

> "The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others" > > How is that not always going to end up being "free of charge"? Someone is always going to end up redistributing it without charge. If you redistribute it. Doesn't mean you cannot sell your own software and allow the user to have the source code. The GPL allows the end-user to redistribute it, for free if they want, but it's essentially a non-supported,…

> It is pointless to argue that the movement, if successful, will result in software development being a non-paid activity, because not only is that not a goal for the movement, it's not even a concern for them. Hence, the argument is irrelevant.

That is incredibly false. It is always legitimate to argue implications.

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#584

Post by mcarlin »

expropriator wrote: post #556
GiorgioG wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I never pay for anything on the Web, because I cannot pay anonymously. Wow. My first thought upon reading that is that seems quite extreme. Having said that, it just shows you how normalized it's become to track all transactions.

I ask myself how he pays for his servers. Does it count if another person does it? Apparently, he connects to the internet over an other person. I think that's a real issue. If you have enough power that other persons do the stuff for you, it doesn't mean it's a way in which other persons can do it as well.

I'm very much not a fan of RMS, but here's one way you can square that circle:

He and you could both live by the principle that you do as much to fit your principles as you feasibly can.

If you have someone to help you get online anonymously for free, you do that. If you need to pay to be online, you do that instead.

If you can get by in life without buying things and being tracked, you do that. If you can't do that, because it's not the life you can imagine living, you don't.

The more important the principle (to you), the more you sacrifice to implement it.

Low-to-no military spending is important enough to me that I won't work for a defense contractor. It's honestly not important enough for me to purposefully earn less than the taxable minimum (and thus pay no taxes, and thus pay no military money).

And of course by evidence, "Anonymous internet" is important enough to RMS to live an ultra-hippie life, but not important enough to use no internet at all.

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#585

Post by Tao331 »

teddyh wrote: post #515
BashiBazouk wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not anymore than any other technology he disparages: it's proprietary and steals your information, which is all likely true. But if he is using open source free software as a replacement, shouldn't he have tested and fixed said software? Isn't that his entire shtick? High minded ideals are great and all but at the end of the day the software needs to work and on that day it did not...

> But if he is using open source free software as a replacement, shouldn't he have tested and fixed said software? You can’t put the onus on him to personally write and fix all software he uses. He has written quite large amounts of software, so I’d say he’s done more than his share. He is still, if only tangentially, involved in some software, and you could perhaps reasonably criticize him if he were using, say, Ema…

> you could perhaps reasonably criticize him if he were using, say, Emacs to do his presentation, and there was a bug preventing him.

Emacs doesn't have video conferencing yet?

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#586

Post by smackeyacky »

joosters wrote: post #306
smackeyacky wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It amazes me that the very first personal computer I had was effectively useless without being able to write your own software. It wasn"t an Apple ][ but they encouraged software development, it was a huge part of 8 bit culture. 40 years later, trying to get something running on a modern Mac is painful, and they gatekeep it with Xcode and a variety of user hostile features. They have become what they despised in that…

40 years later, trying to get something running on a modern Mac is painful Right click on app, select ‘open’. If you get a prompt warning about an unknown developer, pick the option to run the app anyway. Getting angry about a prompt that you only ever see once (it won’t prompt you again) seems extreme.

It goes a little deeper than that. I'm not talking about running stuff somebody else built, I'm talking about using my own machine for my own purposes (i.e. writing a program for myself) which Apple have decided to make increasingly difficult. Examples:

Being forced to use XCode to sign .NET assemblies before they will run. You can build and run a self contained .NET program on literally anything from a Pi to a multi-processor rack server running Windows or Linux and it just works. Not on a Mac though, gotta jump through Apple hoops before that happens.

Apple deciding that your new iPhone isn't allowed to talk to your old Mac.

Being forced to use a Mac to do iPhone development, despite XCode being the runt of the litter of development environments.

Weird, old, crippled BSD for an operating system? Why not! Having to install a package manager as a seperate thing just to install boring stuff that comes with most Linux distributions. Why don't apple install Homebrew by default? Why do they pour so many resources into making the UI shiny instead of producing a modern OS?

Is your company using Docker for deployment? Why not give you a Mac which has the worst Docker development experience of any of the major OSs. What a wonderful idea.

They hate developers.

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#587

Post by Jarwain »

feanaro wrote: post #575
Jarwain wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not freedom in general that's useless, but specifically freedom when that software relies on an upstream service to do things. Your argument sounds like it is against the use of software that requires such an upstream service in the first place, which is a fair stance to take. The Problem is when that upstream service is Necessary for whatever you are trying to do. Like in circumstances where interaction and col…

That is partially my argument, but not entirely. I'm rather arguing that even if you're using upstream services, you still want to have full and total control and ownership of the device you're using the upstream service from. In fact, I find it a total jump in logic and a fallacy to conclude that I don't want or need freedom on my own device just because I'm a heavy user of upstream services. How does that even remo…

I think the idea isn't about whether you would Want or Need freedom/control/ownership of your device; it's about the value of that freedom when an application depends on a closed upstream service versus if all the functionality is captured by the app running locally.

I personally think that its important to have that control and freedom for its own sake, but I understand the sentiment that "if my data is getting shipped off Anyways to some unfree system then why bother? I can't make the same guarantees around privacy and security as I can with a fully libre application"

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#588

Post by ece »

kmeisthax wrote: post #512
sneak wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Agreed, but this is such a low bar that even iOS meets it. Apple has never attempted to restrict users' ability to compile and run source code. In fact, for almost a decade now the automatic signing in Xcode will sign and provision your compiled code, even if you didn't have a verified and paid-up developer account. The first two sentences are false. Apple only lets iOS run signed apps. Self-built apps must be sign…

If it was actually illegal to sell computers that refused to allow self-compiled code, like the RMS comment proposes, what I stated in my original comment would be Apple's legal defense. Said hypothetical law would just mandate that Apple continue handing out provisioning profiles for self-compiled code. It would not mandate that Apple not have a code signing or provisioning regime at all; you would need a different…

If this self provisioning profile can't use all APIs on the native OS and doesn't allow alternate OSes, it still allows plenty of room for Apple to keep doing anti-competitive, user-lockin, censorship and anti-consumer things.

Apple has deleted dev accounts for pointing out pitfalls in App Store moderation, and removed an app to let you check if an iPhone was jailbroken.

iMessage and iOS are equally capable of locking in users, one with network effects, and the other with the only apps that work with other Apple products. Unlocked bootloaders would allow more fair consumer choice.

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#589

Post by shagie »

chmod600 wrote: post #231
oceanplexian wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he would just say “I told you so”. To play a game I need to be running non-free hardware, to run a non-free OS (Windows 11) to run closed source software, that connects to a non-free server, that spies on me in proprietary ways to prevent cheating.

At a certain point it's a game appliance (e.g. Nintendo Switch) rather than a computer. Stallman would probably say that's fine. The problem is mixing purposes to the point where most people don't even have access to a free computing system.

Other than the functionality of the phone itself, what practical difference is there between the iPhone and the Nintendo Switch?

What has Stallman said about walled gardens and app stores?

Maybe a GCW Zero or an OUYA or similar (and yes, I'm aware of the current status of the system). Fortunately, because these are linux or android based and thus open source, you still have the freedom to compile your own kernels for them.

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#590

Post by jamiek88 »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #541
zach_garwood wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's using free as in free speech, not free as in free beer.

This quote is almost useless unless you know its origins. I think it comes across as a bit disrespectful of the people you're aiming it at because most won't know what the hell you're getting at unless they look it up.

I felt stupid for the longest time with this phrase. Even after looking it up. Until I knew the history more I didn’t get it.

The confusion comes from the fact that beer generally isn’t, well, free!

Post reply on HN