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

RMS: Beware of Contradictory “Support”

gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 101 posts

Re: RMS: Beware of Contradictory “Support”

#61

Post by emp_zealoth »

minipci1321 wrote: post #52
emp_zealoth wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've tried to use Octave, I really did. Passed few classes with projects made in Octave. Then I nearly failed some classes because of simple, reproductible bugs no one gave a flying fuck about. None of PCs I've installed the thing on could produce a fully working figure with subplots. For example in 5 subplots number 3 would not render at all. Or the plot would not export to png if you had too many data points. Octav…

> Unless people get off their high horses and actually fix broken shit the whole cult of free software is just delusional. I understand your frustration, but the cult of free software initially was about being able to fix the issue by oneself in any case involving software -- lots of us still value that aspect.

I too value being able to customise or mess with the software, but there is way too much insistence on "purity" than on providing working tools. I'm not a dev, I'm studying to be a mechanical/automation engineer. The "purity" circlejerk is completely orthogonal to me. Nobody I know uses free software for very long because right now is inherently broken - Libre Office will fail you, Octave will fail you, Gimp or ImageMagick will fail you, often with bugs that are known for YEARS. Linux will blow up in your face one way or another evenutally. Unless "un-broneness" is prioritised more I don't see free software going really big. (Tool/Product wise)

Re: RMS: Beware of Contradictory “Support”

#62

Post by emp_zealoth »

joelthelion wrote: post #54
emp_zealoth wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've tried to use Octave, I really did. Passed few classes with projects made in Octave. Then I nearly failed some classes because of simple, reproductible bugs no one gave a flying fuck about. None of PCs I've installed the thing on could produce a fully working figure with subplots. For example in 5 subplots number 3 would not render at all. Or the plot would not export to png if you had too many data points. Octav…

I don't get why people are still advocating Octave as a Matlab alternative. The real alternative is Python + Scipy. It's A LOT better than Matlab. Depending on your application domain, you might also want to look at R or Julia.

Genuine question: What do you use it for?

Re: RMS: Beware of Contradictory “Support”

#63

Post by letitleak »

joelthelion wrote: post #54
emp_zealoth wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've tried to use Octave, I really did. Passed few classes with projects made in Octave. Then I nearly failed some classes because of simple, reproductible bugs no one gave a flying fuck about. None of PCs I've installed the thing on could produce a fully working figure with subplots. For example in 5 subplots number 3 would not render at all. Or the plot would not export to png if you had too many data points. Octav…

I don't get why people are still advocating Octave as a Matlab alternative. The real alternative is Python + Scipy. It's A LOT better than Matlab. Depending on your application domain, you might also want to look at R or Julia.

> I don't get why people are still advocating Octave as a Matlab alternative.

Because it is the closest thing to a drop in replacement, which is what you need when taking a class or following a tutorial based on MATLAB. Trying to use a different language and follow along is a much more advanced challenge and can be borderline impossible for a MOOC with an autograder or a class with a dusty professor.

I wasn't very happy with octave and I wouldn't use it for an independent project.. but I can't say how much of that is the pesky little octave specific bugs and how much is that I wouldn't like MATLAB's syntax when it is perfectly implemented. I suppose I could make the same criticisms of R as much of its frustratingly odd behavior comes from its history in emulating an old proprietary language's syntax..

Re: RMS: Beware of Contradictory “Support”

#64

Post by danso »

joelthelion wrote: post #54
emp_zealoth wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've tried to use Octave, I really did. Passed few classes with projects made in Octave. Then I nearly failed some classes because of simple, reproductible bugs no one gave a flying fuck about. None of PCs I've installed the thing on could produce a fully working figure with subplots. For example in 5 subplots number 3 would not render at all. Or the plot would not export to png if you had too many data points. Octav…

I don't get why people are still advocating Octave as a Matlab alternative. The real alternative is Python + Scipy. It's A LOT better than Matlab. Depending on your application domain, you might also want to look at R or Julia.

It's been a long time since I've used Matlab (it was for a diff eq class), but isn't R, with vectors as its primary datatype, much more similar to Matlab than Scipy? Not that Scipy or Pandas is bad, but they have to work quite hard around the fundamentals of Python's syntax to emulate the same behavior of R/MATLAB.

Re: RMS: Beware of Contradictory “Support”

#65

Post by belorn »

dcgudeman wrote: post #9

I really appreciate what RMS has done as far as start a movement that I think has contributed greatly to the human existence but when he says things like "The basic point of the free software movement is that nonfree software is unjust and should not exist." I can't but seriously question his judgment. It's one thing to personally want to use free software, it's another to claim that nonfree software "should not exis…

Can you provide a single political movement that is fully optional in their goal.

Would a vegetarian say that if a person voluntarily buy animal factory meat, then there is nothing wrong with it.

Would a environmentalist say that if a person voluntarily buy a polluting car, then there is nothing wrong with the manufacturer selling it.

Would a anti-war activist say that if a person voluntarily join the military, then there is nothing wrong with war?

I am looking at a list of political movements, and I can't see a single one which would say that they are fine so long the thing they are working against is done voluntarily.

Re: RMS: Beware of Contradictory “Support”

#66

Post by wiz21 »

ashitlerferad wrote: post #55
wiz21 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. That's a question I often ask. From what I know, RMS got some money in the bank that allows him to live the way he chooses. That is : spare some of its time advocating and building the free software movement. He's also very charismatic (well, in its very own way, I must admit). He basically incarnates one thing : there's no compromise. He proves his position by shutting him off the proprietary world. And that's…

Eben has recently argued for combining code under GPL and GPL incompatible licenses, which could lead to the combination of code under GPL and proprietary licenses. I regard him as compromised by his corporate clients.

ouch, didn't know that... Would you care to give a link where this is explained ?

Re: RMS: Beware of Contradictory “Support”

#67

Post by wiz21 »

cocotino wrote: post #37
kiba wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The crazy old guy who turned out to be right when people do get screwed over. What he's good at doing is pointing out that certain things are not in our interest.

Everybody knows he's right. The question is not whether he's right, but whether it matters.

Yep, damn right. That's why it's so important that RMS says free software is political. As an ideology, it always matters as long as you like it.

People care about free software as much as they care about politics : only a few know enough to make a difference...

Re: RMS: Beware of Contradictory “Support”

#68

Post by wiz21 »

JohnStrange wrote: post #53
taneq wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's only so many times you can say "wow, that guy is such a nutjob" before it gets old and you stop bothering. I think free software as a concept is great, but everything I've ever read from RMS sounds psychotic.

That's weird, I have the exact opposite impression. Are you sure we're talking about the same guy? Everything I've ever read or heard from RMS sounded extremely consistent, logical, common sense and down to the earth to me. I always thought that people don't like him because he's stating some inconvenient truths about proprietary software and because they are pissed that they cannot use GPL'ed software for their clos…

The fact you don't understand the other guy shows that RMS is about politics muuuuuuch more than about software

Re: RMS: Beware of Contradictory “Support”

#69

Post by PeterisP »

legulere wrote: post #12

Or to paraphrase it: All other goals have to bow before the goal of everything being free software as defined by Richard Stallman. I also think that open source is nice, but by far it's not the most important thing there is to software.

Exactly, to claim that you support FSF, you should support the goal of FSF which is that the four freedoms of software are more important than having more/better/different software without some of those freedoms.

As RMS says, "I also think that open source is nice, but by far it's not the most important thing there is to software." is a valid viewpoint but it's against the goals of FSF (not mild support, but opposition), so RMS would kindly ask you to cease claiming any endorsement by FSF in this case.

Re: RMS: Beware of Contradictory “Support”

#70

Post by PeterisP »

legulere wrote: post #40
cpkpad wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or to paraphrase you: "I don't know how to read. Ouch. Big words hurt my brain. I know! It's too complex for me, so I'll mock it."

"Even worse, that grants nonfree software legitimacy." ⇒ "nonfree" software has no legitimacy, no matter what. This totally ignores that there might not be free software for that use case, the free software alternative might be worse (very often the case). This article totally ignores those concerns and thus depreciates them as less important. What you're doing is calling me an idiot, you could have at least tried to…

The article doesn't ignore those concerns, but it makes an explicit statement that yes, in their opinion "nonfree" software has no legitimacy, no matter what and even then using, creating and improving free software should be done instead of using the better non-free alternative.

What counter argument do you want? FSF explicitly states their position, which seems incompatible with your position, so they acknowledge that your position is what they want to fight against, you are their "political enemy" and ask you to not call yourself their ally/supporter or claim FSF endorsement, as some of the targeted companies do.

It's a statement of values and goals, which are obviously different for different people and organizations.

Post reply on HN