PDA

View Full Version : Richard Stallman was in Vienna



PartisanEntity
July 3rd, 2011, 10:44 AM
Richard Stallman held a lecture here in Vienna on Friday at the Technical University.

It was an interesting speech, yet the ideas were not new. He was talking about the dangers of proprietary software in comparison to the GNU-Linux model of free as in freedom, not as in beer.

The hall was packed full, but most of those who attended had already heard about Stallman and his ideas.

Although I have always found his ideas to be noble and of good intent, I am sad to say I find it hard for them to find acceptance amongst the masses.

He is an idealist and a purist, his ideas effectively prevent development and innovation for money and fame, which is unfortunately one of the driving forces for human achievement and innovation.

If I release my software under the GNU General Public License, I have to give up any control over the software, anyone could modify repackage and redistribute. In our modern software environment that would appear to be suicide to many developers.

These were also the main points raised after his speech during the Q&A session. Developers asked "How can we continue to earn a living with your model".

His answer was "Most of the development of software is made for companies that was custom proprietary code for their own use, that's where the money is and that's okay".

It also seems that he is somewhat annoyed that people refer to GNU-Linux operating systems as just "Linux". He said Linux is only part of the whole, and that the GNU operating systems and all its components were well in development before the linux kernel was developed and that by simply referring to these operating systems as "linux operating systems" you are giving only one small side all the credit for the years of work that went into GNU.

He also highlighted that Linus Torvalds doesn't care about Stallman's values and has been for some time now inserting proprietary code into the linux kernel which is dangerous for all involved and opens up the community so successful software patent lawsuits.

I have mixed feelings after having listened to his speech, even though his ideas are not new to me. Generally I was happy I invested those two hours though.

Bachstelze
July 3rd, 2011, 11:16 AM
If I release my software under the GNU General Public License, I have to give up any control over the software, anyone could modify repackage and redistribute. In our modern software environment that would appear to be suicide to many developers.

That's because the "modern software environment" (though that is in no way limited to software) is full of selfish jerks with a huge sense of entitlement. "I wrote this, therefore I should have complete control over it." Well, why should you? Doesn't seem obvious to me. "But that's what the law says!" Yeah, well, not so long ago, the law said a black person couldn't sit in the same bus as white pople. I ardently hope future generations will come to see our current copyright laws as the same sort of absurdities, though I don't expect to see it in my lifetime.

Also "We need to make a living!" Yeah, well, that doesn't give you a pass to trample others' freedoms. If you need such a pass to make a living, maybe you should change jobs. A lot of very fine people will pick up where you left, don't worry.

NMFTM
July 3rd, 2011, 03:37 PM
It also seems that he is somewhat annoyed that people refer to GNU-Linux operating systems as just "Linux". He said Linux is only part of the whole, and that the GNU operating systems and all its components...
Not this again, he needs to give it a break. "guh-new slash lin-ex" is 5 syllables whereas "lin-ex" is only 2. That's why people call it by it's shortened name.

Why not call it "GNU/Linux/XWindows/Gnome/LibreOffice/etc"? Eventually you have to cut the name off somewhere or it becomes ridicules. Also, nobody really uses an OS, they use programs. So the naming scheme is kinda pointless anyway. From what I understand, GNU is more of a toolkit and not an OS unless coupled with a kernal. What if I used half of the GNU programs (nano, cat, more, ifconfig, etc) rewritten to replace their proprietary Unix counterparts and replaced half of them with similar ones I had personally written? Would it be called "GNU/myname/Linux"? Or what if I took mixed a bunch of programs from GNU, OpenSolaris, FreeBSD, Plan 9, Minix, Irix, etc and used them in conjunction with the Linux kernal? Would I have to put each OS's name into the final product separated by slashes? That's too much.

He also highlighted that Linus Torvalds doesn't care about Stallman's values and has been for some time now inserting proprietary code into the linux kernel which is dangerous for all involved and opens up the community so successful software patent lawsuits.
I thought the proprietary code in question were only binary blobs that are designed to be easily removed for the sake of working with proprietary drivers, like the GPU drivers that Nvidia and AMD/ATI release.

Dry Lips
July 3rd, 2011, 03:48 PM
He also highlighted that Linus Torvalds doesn't care about Stallman's values and has been for some time now inserting proprietary code into the linux kernel which is dangerous for all involved and opens up the community so successful software patent lawsuits.


Is this true? Does any of you have a reference for this?

jerenept
July 3rd, 2011, 03:50 PM
That's because the "modern software environment" (though that is in no way limited to software) is full of selfish jerks with a huge sense of entitlement. "I wrote this, therefore I should have complete control over it." Well, why should you? Doesn't seem obvious to me. "But that's what the law says!" Yeah, well, not so long ago, the law said a black person couldn't sit in the same bus as white pople. I ardently hope future generations will come to see our current copyright laws as the same sort of absurdities, though I don't expect to see it in my lifetime.

Also "We need to make a living!" Yeah, well, that doesn't give you a pass to trample others' freedoms. If you need such a pass to make a living, maybe you should change jobs. A lot of very fine people will pick up where you left, don't worry.

Are you nuts? You're comparing segregation to software? Come back when reality hits you.

/posted by one of them "Mixed ancestry"

Spice Weasel
July 3rd, 2011, 03:53 PM
are you nuts? You're comparing segregation to software? Come back when reality hits you.

/posted by one of them "mixed ancestry"

+1

Bachstelze
July 3rd, 2011, 03:53 PM
Are you nuts? You're comparing segregation to software? Come back when reality hits you.

/posted by one of them "Mixed ancestry"

I'm not comparing anything. Both are problems, and the fact that the former is more serious than the latter doesn't mean the latter doesn't exist and no one should talk about it.

And no need to boast your "mixed ancestry", I'm mixed ancestry too and this is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

Bachstelze
July 3rd, 2011, 04:02 PM
And since this is about Stallman, he made that point long before I did.


Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh penalties they can threaten us with. Implicit in this approach is the suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of morality—yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these penalties as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.

This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.

It's elementary that laws don't decide right and wrong. Every American should know that, in the 1950s, it was against the law in many states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only racists would say sitting there was wrong.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html

jerenept
July 3rd, 2011, 04:04 PM
I'm not comparing anything. Both are problems, and the fact that the former is more serious than the latter doesn't mean the latter doesn't exist and no one should talk about it.

And no need to boast your "mixed ancestry", I'm mixed ancestry too and this is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

True...

On the topic, this guy (http://www.ties.org/deven/gnu-linux.html) pretty much sums up my beliefs on the Linux naming thing (and a lot of Free Software philosophies).

beew
July 3rd, 2011, 04:10 PM
Einstein didn't own the theory of relativity, anyone (who has the knowledge) can modify, improve it. Science is open source (at least the pure sciences), scientists still make a very good living.

On the other hand most programmers don't own their codes anyway, the corporate entities they work for do and the first condition for employment is to sign away your ownership of your own code, why aren't these people complaining about it?

nrundy
July 3rd, 2011, 04:13 PM
I agree with RMS philosophy and respect his purist ideal immensely. I also respect how he practices what he preaches to extremism. I think his purity and extremism is needed to advance the idea. But reality/practicality is best served by walking a middle ground. use as much free software as you can but also use proprietary software when it clearly is a better or necessary choice.

I don't think Ubuntu will ever overtake Windows unless it achieves this middle ground more effectively. Currently, the company that is practicing this "middle ground approach" is Google. Chrome, Android, etc. And they are very successful.

If Ubuntu moved more to the middle ground it would be more competitive with Windows.

USA laws are really messed up. They stifle innovation and cater to wealthy people at the expense of creativity and wider innovation. I don't see how that's going to change anytime soon.

Bachstelze
July 3rd, 2011, 04:13 PM
On the topic, this guy (http://www.ties.org/deven/gnu-linux.html) pretty much sums up my beliefs on the Linux naming thing (and a lot of Free Software philosophies).


Not because of the relative importance of the kernel to the overall system, but because "Linux" is the only term common in the names of all Linux distributions.

Not true. Every Linux distribution I know of uses the GNU userland. I think IBM once made an attempt at an OS that used the Linux kernel and some non-GNU userland (probably from AIX), but they quickly abandoned it.

That being said, I agree the whole name thing is silly. RMS is much more brilliant (and interesting) when he talks about the big issues of freedom and society. Generally I say Linux, unless the context doesn't make it clear what I am talking about, which happens very rarely.

Dr. C
July 3rd, 2011, 04:14 PM
True...

On the topic, this guy (http://www.ties.org/deven/gnu-linux.html) pretty much sums up my beliefs on the Linux naming thing (and a lot of Free Software philosophies).

The GNU / Linux name makes a lot of sense to distinguish it from Android. The latter can just as well be called "Linux" under the very same arguments. As for the 1999 article, it just serves to prove that RMS has yet again been proven right but only over a decade after the fact.

Spice Weasel
July 3rd, 2011, 04:15 PM
Not true. Every Linux distribution I know of uses the GNU userland. I think IBM once made an attempt at an OS that used the Linux kernel and some non-GNU userland (probably from AIX), but they quickly abandoned it.

http://distro.ibiblio.org/tinycorelinux/
http://alpinelinux.org/
and Android. (though it's arguable if that one constitutes "Linux", the other two are definitely Linux distributions that don't use the GNU userland.)

alaukikyo
July 3rd, 2011, 04:20 PM
Not this again, he needs to give it a break. "guh-new slash lin-ex" is 5 syllables whereas "lin-ex" is only 2. That's why people call it by it's shortened name.

Why not call it "GNU/Linux/XWindows/Gnome/LibreOffice/etc"? Eventually you have to cut the name off somewhere or it becomes ridicules.


http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#many

Bachstelze
July 3rd, 2011, 04:21 PM
http://distro.ibiblio.org/tinycorelinux/
http://alpinelinux.org/
and Android.

Fair enough, I think Stallman would agree that those should not be called GNU/Linux. ;)

NCLI
July 3rd, 2011, 04:31 PM
As long as we continue to require money/some other sort of tradeable material in order to live, developers need to be paid to live. Big companies will not throw huge amounts of money at something that can be redistributed without paying, and easily copied and rebranded by another company.

cgroza
July 3rd, 2011, 04:45 PM
As long as we continue to require money/some other sort of tradeable material in order to live, developers need to be paid to live. Big companies will not throw huge amounts of money at something that can be redistributed without paying, and easily copied and rebranded by another company.
You can take a look at Redhat and other similar companies, their revenues are not modest.
So the model works.

alaukikyo
July 3rd, 2011, 04:47 PM
Fair enough, I think Stallman would agree that those should not be called GNU/Linux. ;)

He agrees with it (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#justlinux) .

PartisanEntity
July 3rd, 2011, 04:48 PM
But reality/practicality is best served by walking a middle ground.

This has been my philosophy for some time now.

When I first started using Linux I went through a phase where I got rid of all my Windows and OSX machines and just used Linux.

Over time I realized that it would make the most sense to allow each operating system to show it's strengths.

My linux machine does the following:

- file server
- dlna multimedia server
- time capsule for my macbook and imac

My imac machine I use for my:

- web development work (although I could do a lot of it on the ubuntu machine I am simply acustomed to working with DreamWeaver, Coda, CSSEdit and BBEdit for example).
- graphic design work (photoshop, illustrator and flash)

My windows machine:

- for logging into the remote network at work when i need work files (its a windows only environment).

Although I find the ideas of RMS noble and appealing, I would not be able to do all my work if I stuck with GNU-Linux.

It really boils down to your needs. Some people will be able to remain fully operational and productive with GNU-Linux, others will need a combination and maybe a very small group will only be able to work on OSX or Windows.

But the middle path is best. Naturally I would like to support freedom and openness as much as possible and I am now considering becoming a paying member of fsfe.eu in order to assist them. But I do not think it will be possible to be a purist like RMS.

NCLI
July 3rd, 2011, 05:14 PM
You can take a look at Redhat and other similar companies, their revenues are not modest.
So the model works.

Read this (http://ianmurdock.com/linux/red-hat-enterprise-linux-is-proprietary/).

koenn
July 3rd, 2011, 06:12 PM
Read this (http://ianmurdock.com/linux/red-hat-enterprise-linux-is-proprietary/).

that's rather far-fetched and depends on what definition of proprietary you're going to use.


The point you were making earlier was that

Originally Posted by NCLI

... developers need to be paid to live. Big companies will not throw huge amounts of money at something that can be redistributed without paying, and easily copied and rebranded by another company.

The fact remains that even RedHat's Linux can be easily copied and rebranded by another company. CentOS and Oracle Unbreakable Linux are exactly that.
I'm quite sure RedHat employs developers, and that those people get paid.

There are also a couple of other models besides the RedHat model - companies paying developers to work on Open Source or companies allowing their employees to work on open source on company time (the Apache group members, IBM, Google, ...).



So "open source == starving developers" is simply false.
(most people figured that out 10 years ago)

bertbiker
July 3rd, 2011, 06:33 PM
Interesting stuff. I think redhat distributes (mostly) free software since the four essential Stallman freedoms are not violated:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Redhat cleverly makes profit from offering support on the licences they sell, but the source code remains free. If we want free software to become a serious threat to the big proprietary OSes such business model is the way to go!

KiwiNZ
July 3rd, 2011, 08:20 PM
The Stallman methods have really worked, since the 80's the growth of Linux on the desktop has been meteoric, by 2011 it has reached 1 %.

KiwiNZ
July 3rd, 2011, 08:26 PM
Redhat has done well, but it's much vaunted $1Billion worth is insignificant compared to Apples $223+Billion and MSFT's $219Billion worth.

unknownPoster
July 3rd, 2011, 08:30 PM
The Stallman methods have really worked, since the 80's the growth of Linux on the desktop has been meteoric, by 2011 it has reached 1 %.

I'm of the belief that people like Stallman do more to hurt the adoption of FOSS rather than help it.

Extremists of any kind do little to benefit their cause.

lucazade
July 3rd, 2011, 08:32 PM
The Stallman methods have really worked, since the 80's the growth of Linux on the desktop has been meteoric, by 2011 it has reached 1 %.

I prefer to stick at 1% of market share for other 30 years but to not lose the freedom that Stallman's method assured me to date.

KiwiNZ
July 3rd, 2011, 08:34 PM
I'm of the belief that people like Stallman do more to hurt the adoption of FOSS rather than help it.

Extremists of any kind do little to benefit their cause.

I can attest from my professional experience the "Stallman" attitude and actions have stopped Corporate transition plans.

koenn
July 3rd, 2011, 08:36 PM
The Stallman methods have really worked, since the 80's the growth of Linux on the desktop has been meteoric, by 2011 it has reached 1 %.

Linux did not exist before 1992.

Stallman is not involved in the propagation of Linux


Sounds like you're trolling, or are very poorly informed

KiwiNZ
July 3rd, 2011, 08:43 PM
Linux did not exist before 1992.

Stallman is not involved in the propagation of Linux


Sounds like you're trolling, or are very poorly informed

I was referring to the Stallman method, he has been going at it since around 1983.

Ever heard the saying "don't try and teach your grandparents to suck eggs" ?

koenn
July 3rd, 2011, 08:51 PM
Ever heard the saying "don't try and teach your grandparents to suck eggs" ?
I have now.
Not sure how it applies here, though.

unknownPoster
July 3rd, 2011, 08:54 PM
I prefer to stick at 1% of market share for other 30 years but to not lose the freedom that Stallman's method assured me to date.

I've yet to see any of this "freedom" in action. No one forces you to use any operating system. I doubt Stallman had anything to do with that.

lucazade
July 3rd, 2011, 08:56 PM
I've yet to see any of this "freedom" in action. No one forces you to use any operating system. I doubt Stallman had anything to do with that.

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

KiwiNZ
July 3rd, 2011, 08:56 PM
I have now.
Not sure how it applies here, though.

You made this comment to me " Sounds like you're trolling, or are very poorly informed"

Instead of issuing an infraction (COC Ref 'Attacks and derogatory terms of any kind are not welcome.' ) I decided to advise instead.

Mortesins93
July 3rd, 2011, 09:04 PM
I am not an expert but I guess that from what I heard and what I read in this thread I think it is possible to use fully open OSes without having starving developers, but the fact is why should a big company switch to this philosophy? What would it gain? The other problem in my opinion is that people associate computers with Windows and so because it has so many users softwares are going to be made for it and not for other OSes (an example is CAD which sucks in linux). But the biggest problem is that most people don't even know what open source means so it doesn't make a difference to them whether a program is open source or not as long as it works. Personally I like the open-source philosophy, but my main concern is if a software works or not, and if I have to spend too much time trying to figure out how to make an open source program work while the proprietary one works I'll just go for the proprietary one. But I think that if more people ask for open source, the market will offer open source.
Anyways, if you listen carefully to Richard Stallman, OSes are just a small part of his philosophy. Last Tuesday he was in Monfalcone, Italy (btw I don't know why he was here since it is such a small town) and I went to listen to him. His problems where much deeper than just open source OSes, he talked about censorship, about how cloud computing, phones and other stuff are a way to track us and how this violates our freedom and so on. I think he is right, but there is no way many people can adopt his way of life. I mean he says cell phones are bad, google is bad, facebook is bad, pay pal is bad, ebay is bad, amazon is bad and also cloud computing is bad. So I thought, if I can't use google how can I use the web? In my opinion this is too much.
However, I still have to say that his speech was very very interesting.

koenn
July 3rd, 2011, 09:11 PM
You made this comment to me " Sounds like you're trolling, or are very poorly informed"

Instead of issuing an infraction (COC Ref 'Attacks and derogatory terms of any kind are not welcome.' ) I decided to advise instead.

I appreciate that,
but I'd have to add that I think disagreement, pointing out wrong data or flaws in ones reasoning, and possibly calling out trolling (in general, if trolling were indeed the case) are normal occurrences in a forum exchange and don't constitute "attacks" or "derogatory terms".


This is probably not the place to discuss this further.

Bachstelze
July 3rd, 2011, 09:58 PM
I've yet to see any of this "freedom" in action. No one forces you to use any operating system.

They forbid you to use it unless you pay, same thing. And actually even when you pay, they forbid you to use it as well (e.g. Win XP's fourth installation when you can't use a phone).

bertbiker
July 3rd, 2011, 09:58 PM
Concerning Redhat vs. Apple or Microsoft revenue: the issue here is not how to make as much money as possible using a FOSS business model but how to get rid of digital restrictions management and proprietary document formats. Wouldn't it be much nicer if software business were more service oriented, consisting of many small firms where developers may make a decent living. A model in which user freedom is guaranteed instead of a few loaded multinationals telling us how we should use our computers. To this end powerful software with copyleft licences could be helpful. This is why ubuntu is such a blessing even when it doesn't always strictly adhere to free software principles. I think some pragmatism might ultimately give free software the upper hand... perhaps.

Dr. C
July 4th, 2011, 12:39 AM
Redhat has done well, but it's much vaunted $1Billion worth is insignificant compared to Apples $223+Billion and MSFT's $219Billion worth.

But what was Apple's most successful product ever? The iPod, a music player that has nothing to do with the Free vs Propriety approaches to software development. What made the iPod successful? Pirated music. Take a look at this link from Apple. (http://www.apple.com/ipodclassic/) Does anyone really believe that the typical iPod buyer can afford to purchase 40,000 songs from iTunes at $1 a song for say $40,000 or from other legitimate sources at even greater cost? So where are the 40,000 songs supposed to come from? A certain site in Sweden via bit-torrent maybe?

Now lets take a look at Microsoft. What is the real market share of Microsoft once the 42% piracy rate http://portal.bsa.org/globalpiracy2010/index.html is taken into account? How many of the pirates would pay for propriety software if software piracy were not an option or would they switch to the Free in more ways than one GNU / Linux? What will happen to the desktop software market and to Microsoft if 42% of Microsoft Windows users were to switch to GNU / Linux?

This is starting to look like both Microsoft and Apple are literally trapped between a river and on oncoming herd of stampeding GNUs and hoping for TPB to mount a waterborne rescue before they get trampled to death. Gnu's crossing the river in Masai Mara, Kenya (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scG3VeHFzVE&feature=related)

The Stallman model actually works economically now really well (it did not in 1984), as Red Hat is proving, and is not based on the widespread piracy of either software or music. Ironic that RMS does not like the term software piracy.

KiwiNZ
July 4th, 2011, 01:08 AM
But what was Apple's most successful product ever? The iPod, a music player that has nothing to do with the Free vs Propriety approaches to software development. What made the iPod successful? Pirated music. Take a look at this link from Apple. (http://www.apple.com/ipodclassic/) Does anyone really believe that the typical iPod buyer can afford to purchase 40,000 songs from iTunes at $1 a song for say $40,000 or from other legitimate sources at even greater cost? So where are the 40,000 songs supposed to come from? A certain site in Sweden via bit-torrent maybe?



That makes no sense, a terabyte hard drive could hold over 400,000 songs so does someone fill such?

Those figure are quoted as examples to give a visual perspective of the capacity.

One could say Bit-torrent a widely used App by open source is the primary supporter of pirating.

Dr. C
July 4th, 2011, 01:26 AM
That makes no sense, a terabyte hard drive could hold over 400,000 songs so does someone fill such?

Some people do. When TPB went down the traffic at the Amsterdam Internet exchange went went down by 30%. Piracy is huge for better or for worse.


Those figure are quoted as examples to give a visual perspective of the capacity.

An iPod's primary function is as a music player. Yes it can be used for other things, but music is the main reason for its success as a product.


One could say Bit-torrent a widely used App by open source is the primary supporter of pirating.

One cannot in most cases hold a manufacturer responsible for what their customers do with a product after it is sold, unless of course the manufacturer tires to control how the product is used after the sale. The latter is a totally different discussion.

kvant
July 4th, 2011, 01:57 AM
I prefer to stick at 1% of market share for other 30 years but to not lose the freedom that Stallman's method assured me to date.

Signed.

zekopeko
July 4th, 2011, 01:58 AM
But what was Apple's most successful product ever? The iPod, a music player that has nothing to do with the Free vs Propriety approaches to software development. What made the iPod successful? Pirated music. Take a look at this link from Apple. (http://www.apple.com/ipodclassic/) Does anyone really believe that the typical iPod buyer can afford to purchase 40,000 songs from iTunes at $1 a song for say $40,000 or from other legitimate sources at even greater cost? So where are the 40,000 songs supposed to come from? A certain site in Sweden via bit-torrent maybe?

Now lets take a look at Microsoft. What is the real market share of Microsoft once the 42% piracy rate http://portal.bsa.org/globalpiracy2010/index.html is taken into account? How many of the pirates would pay for propriety software if software piracy were not an option or would they switch to the Free in more ways than one GNU / Linux? What will happen to the desktop software market and to Microsoft if 42% of Microsoft Windows users were to switch to GNU / Linux?

This is starting to look like both Microsoft and Apple are literally trapped between a river and on oncoming herd of stampeding GNUs and hoping for TPB to mount a waterborne rescue before they get trampled to death. Gnu's crossing the river in Masai Mara, Kenya (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scG3VeHFzVE&feature=related)

The Stallman model actually works economically now really well (it did not in 1984), as Red Hat is proving, and is not based on the widespread piracy of either software or music. Ironic that RMS does not like the term software piracy.

This kind of delusional "reasoning" always makes me laugh. I mean your comment is literally just a bunch of wishful thinking sparkled with some "facts" from sources like the BSA which is all for DRM and tougher penalties for copyright infringement. I bet if I used the BSA stats to say how piracy is hurting the businesses and that more DRM and laws are needed to prevent it you would say how their stats aren't credible.

"Microsoft and Apple are literally trapped between a river and on oncoming herd of stampeding GNUs" , seriously? Let me inject some reality into your fantasy.

The only company that is slightly in a problematic situation is Microsoft. And people who are leaving Microsoft are largely going to Apple via OSX or iOS. And those that do go to Linux are largely going to Android which has no GNUs in its source code. Linux desktop market share has been hovering for years around the 1% mark for a reason.

Oh yeah and another thing. Red Hat has been growing for the past decade but nowhere the speed of Apple or Google or any other proprietary company out there. Red Hat is also not in the business of Linux desktops. So extrapolating economical viability of pure FOSS operating system based on a single company is being disingenuous a little.

Dr. C
July 4th, 2011, 02:19 AM
This kind of delusional "reasoning" always makes me laugh. I mean your comment is literally just a bunch of wishful thinking sparkled with some "facts" from sources like the BSA which is all for DRM and tougher penalties for copyright infringement. I bet if I used the BSA stats to say how piracy is hurting the businesses and that more DRM and laws are needed to prevent it you would say how their stats aren't credible.

"Microsoft and Apple are literally trapped between a river and on oncoming herd of stampeding GNUs" , seriously? Let me inject some reality into your fantasy.

The only company that is slightly in a problematic situation is Microsoft. And people who are leaving Microsoft are largely going to Apple via OSX or iOS. And those that do go to Linux are largely going to Android which has no GNUs in its source code. Linux desktop market share has been hovering for years around the 1% mark for a reason.

Oh yeah and another thing. Red Hat has been growing for the past decade but nowhere the speed of Apple or Google or any other proprietary company out there. Red Hat is also not in the business of Linux desktops. So extrapolating economical viability of pure FOSS operating system based on a single company is being disingenuous a little.

The BSA is right on the money about the piracy rates. Where they fail is in the unfounded assumption that in the absence of software piracy the pirates will purchase the propriety software rather than turn to the FLOSS competition. When they take the piracy rate, multiply it by the price of the pirated software and use the resulting sum as the "business loss" is where they loose credibility. That however does not detract from the fact that the piracy rate itself is sound. As for more restrictive DRM, it will only serve to accelerate the move to FLOSS since it only penalizes those who purchase the software not those who pirate it. Ditto for more restrictive copyright laws.

By the way if one wishes to promote GNU / Linux and FLOSS put the BSA anti piracy number on speed dial. There is nothing like a software audit by the BSA to motivate a company to go the FLOSS route.

Dustin2128
July 4th, 2011, 02:19 AM
That makes no sense, a terabyte hard drive could hold over 400,000 songs so does someone fill such?

Those figure are quoted as examples to give a visual perspective of the capacity.

One could say Bit-torrent a widely used App by open source is the primary supporter of pirating.
Eh? I know plenty of people with thousands and thousands of songs on their music devices, think they got them legitimately? I don't pirate stuff myself, 5GB of music ripped from CDs is good enough for me, but I'm in the minority. </piracy talk>

DZ*
July 4th, 2011, 04:26 AM
The Stallman methods have really worked, since the 80's the growth of Linux on the desktop has been meteoric, by 2011 it has reached 1 %.

FSF does not endorse any of the common Linux distributions (http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html). Perhaps you mean that the open source model has not been successful. How about Firefox?

prodigy_
July 4th, 2011, 04:52 AM
That's because the "modern software environment" (though that is in no way limited to software) is full of selfish jerks with a huge sense of entitlement. "I wrote this, therefore I should have complete control over it." Well, why should you? Doesn't seem obvious to me. "But that's what the law says!" Yeah, well, not so long ago, the law said a black person couldn't sit in the same bus as white pople. I ardently hope future generations will come to see our current copyright laws as the same sort of absurdities, though I don't expect to see it in my lifetime.

Also "We need to make a living!" Yeah, well, that doesn't give you a pass to trample others' freedoms. If you need such a pass to make a living, maybe you should change jobs. A lot of very fine people will pick up where you left, don't worry.

+1

I couldn't have said this better myself.

P.S. Overall, I find it amusing that people who use kernel that can't even be compiled without GCC, hate GNU or Stallman. Without Stallman there would be no Linux as we know it.

prodigy_
July 4th, 2011, 05:09 AM
He is an idealist and a purist, his ideas effectively prevent development and innovation for money and fame, which is unfortunately one of the driving forces for human achievement and innovation.
GPL doesn't prevent development for fame. Wikipedia will still know your name if you'll write some code worthy of mentioning.


If I release my software under the GNU General Public License, I have to give up any control over the software, anyone could modify repackage and redistribute.
Redistribute is the key word here. Nobody can close sources of your GPL-ed code even after modifying them.


One could say Bit-torrent a widely used App by open source is the primary supporter of pirating.
If you mean this BitTorrent (http://www.bittorrent.com/downloads), it's not open-source. At least not anymore.

Dr. C
July 4th, 2011, 05:43 AM
FSF does not endorse any of the common Linux distributions (http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html). Perhaps you mean that the open source model has not been successful. How about Firefox?

The economic argument in favor of FLOSS is an Open Source argument and not a Free Software argument. Free Software is about ethics and morals and one is prepared to accept economic loss as a result. This has been the RMS position all along since the 1980's.

In the mid 1980's when RMS started the GNU project the cost of developing Free Software was the same as the cost of developing Propriety Software while the economic return on Propriety Software per line of code was and still is far greater. Open Source of course did not exist in those days. The key difference is that each FLOSS that is released reduces the cost of developing more FLOSS to the point that today the cost to Canonical of developing Ubuntu can easily be 1/10000 the cost to Microsoft of developing Windows. Why because while Canonical may end up paying for say 0.01% of the code in Ubuntu, Microsoft has to pay for almost all the code in Windows. By the way that same argument applies to IBM, or Red Hat or Google or even the FSF itself. The vast majority of the code they release is actually written by others. How do you compete in the marketplace with a series of competitors whose relative costs are four orders of magnitude lower than yours and dropping even further by the day?

When RMS invented copyleft and the GPL, he ensured that the vast majority of FLOSS remains FLOSS and is of little use to a propriety software company like Microsoft.

It really makes little difference who writes the FLOSS. It is RMS who set the stampeding GNUs in motion, and they will trample propriety software companies to death sooner or later because of economic (Open Source) as opposed to ethical / moral (Free Software) arguments.

lucazade
July 4th, 2011, 08:07 AM
About the OS market share this is the analysys made by Gartner in April 2011:
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1654914

http://oi52.tinypic.com/a1tt29.jpg

zekopeko
July 4th, 2011, 01:36 PM
The BSA is right on the money about the piracy rates. Where they fail is in the unfounded assumption that in the absence of software piracy the pirates will purchase the propriety software rather than turn to the FLOSS competition. When they take the piracy rate, multiply it by the price of the pirated software and use the resulting sum as the "business loss" is where they loose credibility. That however does not detract from the fact that the piracy rate itself is sound. As for more restrictive DRM, it will only serve to accelerate the move to FLOSS since it only penalizes those who purchase the software not those who pirate it. Ditto for more restrictive copyright laws.

By the way if one wishes to promote GNU / Linux and FLOSS put the BSA anti piracy number on speed dial. There is nothing like a software audit by the BSA to motivate a company to go the FLOSS route.

Pirates will purchase software if it's convenient enough for them. People today have no problem buying music online while a decade ago they pirated it. Another example is Steam. Steam is widely successful exactly because it's convenient and nicely priced with plenty of sales. Another example are Netflix.

Companies have no problem spending money on legally purchased software if it fulfills their needs.

alaukikyo
July 4th, 2011, 01:44 PM
The Stallman methods have really worked, since the 80's the growth of Linux on the desktop has been meteoric, by 2011 it has reached 1 %.

Stallman wants people to realise the importance of computer freedom and not get as many users as possible by bundling distros with proprietary software for convenience .

alaukikyo
July 4th, 2011, 01:48 PM
Now lets take a look at Microsoft. What is the real market share of Microsoft once the 42% piracy rate http://portal.bsa.org/globalpiracy2010/index.html is taken into account? How many of the pirates would pay for propriety software if software piracy were not an option or would they switch to the Free in more ways than one GNU / Linux? What will happen to the desktop software market and to Microsoft if 42% of Microsoft Windows users were to switch to GNU / Linux?


that would not make much difference. sure they will switch to gratis software but thats not what rms has campaigned for .

zekopeko
July 4th, 2011, 01:49 PM
The economic argument in favor of FLOSS is an Open Source argument and not a Free Software argument. Free Software is about ethics and morals and one is prepared to accept economic loss as a result. This has been the RMS position all along since the 1980's.

Unforunantely for this argument morals and ethics to have an effect have to manifest in the real world. In the real world economics are king.

Just because RMS proclaimed that proprietary software is illegitimate doesn't make it so.


In the mid 1980's when RMS started the GNU project the cost of developing Free Software was the same as the cost of developing Propriety Software while the economic return on Propriety Software per line of code was and still is far greater. Open Source of course did not exist in those days. The key difference is that each FLOSS that is released reduces the cost of developing more FLOSS to the point that today the cost to Canonical of developing Ubuntu can easily be 1/10000 the cost to Microsoft of developing Windows. Why because while Canonical may end up paying for say 0.01% of the code in Ubuntu, Microsoft has to pay for almost all the code in Windows. By the way that same argument applies to IBM, or Red Hat or Google or even the FSF itself. The vast majority of the code they release is actually written by others. How do you compete in the marketplace with a series of competitors whose relative costs are four orders of magnitude lower than yours and dropping even further by the day?

You compete by offering functionality that your competitors do not. There is a reason Microsoft is dominant in the enterprise sector and today it has relatively little to do with their monopolistic position.

The funny thing is that those three companies you mentioned (IBM, Red Hat and Google) are all proprietary companies even if they use FOSS. Both IBM and Google use FOSS as the foundations for proprietary products they build on top. Red Hat for example forbids companies from distributing their patches under the threat of cancelling support contracts with them.


When RMS invented copyleft and the GPL, he ensured that the vast majority of FLOSS remains FLOSS and is of little use to a propriety software company like Microsoft.

RMS didn't invent copyleft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft).


It really makes little difference who writes the FLOSS. It is RMS who set the stampeding GNUs in motion, and they will trample propriety software companies to death sooner or later because of economic (Open Source) as opposed to ethical / moral (Free Software) arguments.

The funny bits is that the biggest Linux OS by marketshare in the hands of the consumers is Android which explicitly didn't want any GNU software in it.

Bachstelze
July 4th, 2011, 03:14 PM
Just because RMS proclaimed that proprietary software is illegitimate doesn't make it so.

Just because you proclaim it legitimate doesn't make it so, either. We can go on like that for a long time. :) In the end, as always in such arguments, no one will change their minds.

zekopeko
July 4th, 2011, 04:37 PM
Just because you proclaim it legitimate doesn't make it so, either. We can go on like that for a long time. :) In the end, as always in such arguments, no one will change their minds.

Actually it isn't me that is proclaiming it legitimate but centuries of copyright doctrine, economical development based on said doctrine, and today, will of the people as expressed via publicly elected representatives. Of course there are abuses of said legitimacy but that is something that needs to be addressed by society as a whole not just a small minority. Generally legitimacy comes from widespread acceptance of authority. The super majority of people have no problem with proprietary software.

I would just like to return to your previous post (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=11007498&postcount=2) simply to state that your thoughts expressed there (ignoring the hyperbole of equating slavery with proprietary software) are ridiculous. Authors have every right to make a living from their work. The only thing debatable is how far their copyright should extend.

Bachstelze
July 4th, 2011, 05:02 PM
Actually it isn't me that is proclaiming it legitimate but centuries of copyright doctrine, economical development based on said doctrine, and today, will of the people as expressed via publicly elected representatives.

Oh wow. Living in wonderland, are we? First, "centuries of doctrine" has to be the most dangerous argument ever. I won't begin to list all the injustices that were justified with it, anyone who knows a little history can make their own list. "Will of the people as expressed via publicly elected representatives" is a also a very funny point to make, when people all around the world are extremely dissatisfied with their governments.


Of course there are abuses of said legitimacy but that is something that needs to be addressed by society as a whole not just a small minority.

See answer below.


Generally legitimacy comes from widespread acceptance of authority. The super majority of people have no problem with proprietary software.

"Widespread acceptance of authority"? When millions of people are contesting that very authority every day by illegally downloading movies, music and software? You are a bit behind the times, it seems.


I would just like to return to your previous post (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=11007498&postcount=2) simply to state that your thoughts expressed there (ignoring the hyperbole of equating slavery with proprietary software) are ridiculous.

As always, you attack my point calling it ridiculous, but fail to explain how or why it fails. I say that the two situations are far more similar than you think, albeit, as I admitted on a later post that you conveniently omitted to quote, at different degrees. We have a corporate minority with powerful economic interests that trample others' freedoms with the benediction of the law. The fact that a different and arguably less important freedom is being attacked does not change the fact that it is.


Authors have every right to make a living from their work.

I never denied that. What I say is that they shouldn't be allowed to restrict the freedom of people to freely distribute their work just so they can make a living. If they can't find a way to make a living without restricting others' freedoms, it means their activity is not viable, and they should stop doing it.

disabledaccount
July 4th, 2011, 05:26 PM
It's amazing how people who claims to be ubuntu users and ubuntu/Linux community members are negating the value of fundamental ideas behind ubuntu/Linux/GNU.

jerenept
July 4th, 2011, 05:44 PM
It's amazing how people who claims to be ubuntu users and ubuntu/Linux community members are negating the value of fundamental ideas behind ubuntu/Linux/GNU.

Which ideas are those?

Spice Weasel
July 4th, 2011, 05:45 PM
It's amazing how people who claims to be ubuntu users and ubuntu/Linux community members are negating the value of fundamental ideas behind ubuntu/Linux/GNU.

Hello, GNU/Cultist!

PS: Software is not a religion.

Legendary_Bibo
July 4th, 2011, 05:47 PM
It's amazing how people who claims to be ubuntu users and ubuntu/Linux community members are negating the value of fundamental ideas behind ubuntu/Linux/GNU.

It's an OS, not a religion. Besides Ubuntu seems to be more commercial than one of the freedom fighters. I thought the fact that they include the "evil" proprietary software was a good enough indicator.

DZ*
July 4th, 2011, 05:54 PM
Ubuntu seems to be more commercial than one of the freedom fighters.

"commercial" attribute is not against FSF values: "we encourage people who redistribute free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) to charge as much as they wish or can" (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html)

Spice Weasel
July 4th, 2011, 05:57 PM
"commercial" attribute is not against FSF values: "we encourage people who redistribute free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) to charge as much as they wish or can" (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html)


Ubuntu GNU/Linux

Ubuntu provides specific repositories of nonfree software, and Canonical expressly promotes and recommends nonfree software under the Ubuntu name in some of their distribution channels. Ubuntu offers the option to install only free packages, which means it also offers the option to install nonfree packages too. In addition, the version of Linux included in Ubuntu contains firmware blobs.

Ubuntu's trademark policy prohibits commercial redistribution of exact copies of Ubuntu, denying an important freedom.


All of the GNU/Cultists who preach software freedom and use Ubuntu are hypocrites.

Bachstelze
July 4th, 2011, 05:59 PM
All of the GNU/Cultists who preach software freedom and use Ubuntu are hypocrites.

By that same logic, almost all those who are opposed to nuclear power and use electricity are hypocrites, since in a lot of countries, you are bound to have at least some of your electricity produced by nuclear power.

disabledaccount
July 4th, 2011, 05:59 PM
Which ideas are those?

Hello, GNU/Cultist!

PS: Software is not a religion.
It seems that You don't have basic informations about ubuntu project:
http://www.ubuntu.com/project

...i know it's much easier to call someone "cultist" - that makes Your world looking more stable and safe.

santaslittlehelper
July 4th, 2011, 05:59 PM
Is this true? Does any of you have a reference for this?
Here you go.
http://www.fsfla.org/svnwiki/selibre/linux-libre/

Spice Weasel
July 4th, 2011, 06:00 PM
By that same logic, all those who are opposed to nuclear power and use electricity are hypocrites.

The choice isn't 'use Ubuntu or don't use a computer at all' like the choice is with electricity.

jerenept
July 4th, 2011, 06:02 PM
"commercial" attribute is not against FSF values: "we encourage people who redistribute free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) to charge as much as they wish or can" (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html)

But Release (http://redhat.com/) the source (http://ubuntu.com/) so that we (http://centos.org/) can (http://scientificlinux.org/) redistribute (http://distrowatch.com/search.php?category=All&origin=All&basedon=Ubuntu&notbasedon=None&desktop=All&architecture=All&status=Active) it for free!!!!!!

Spice Weasel
July 4th, 2011, 06:06 PM
But Release (http://redhat.com/) the source (http://ubuntu.com/) so that we (http://centos.org/) can (http://scientificlinux.org/) redistribute (http://distrowatch.com/search.php?category=All&origin=All&basedon=Ubuntu&notbasedon=None&desktop=All&architecture=All&status=Active) it for free!!!!!!

You shouldn't have said that. Now some freetard is going to reply "but look at Redhat earning lots of money from support!!!1!1"

Well, guess what, that isn't selling software. That is selling support. Would Photoshop users buy support for that if it was open source? Yeah right. So selling free software doesn't work.

Bachstelze
July 4th, 2011, 06:13 PM
But Release (http://redhat.com/) the source (http://ubuntu.com/) so that we (http://centos.org/) can (http://scientificlinux.org/) redistribute (http://distrowatch.com/search.php?category=All&origin=All&basedon=Ubuntu&notbasedon=None&desktop=All&architecture=All&status=Active) it for free!!!!!!

Just saying, as a lot of people on this forum know, I do not agree with RMS and the FSF folks on this aspect. Basically I agree with them on the ideas, not on the implementation (I am on the BSD side in that regard). My idea is basically: whenever you can legally get your hands on something (e.g. buying a book or a music or sotware CD), you should be allowed to pass it along to anyone you want, but on the other hand no one should be forced to give you anything (e.g. the source code of a program you buy).

santaslittlehelper
July 4th, 2011, 06:18 PM
You shouldn't have said that. Now some freetard is going to reply "but look at Redhat earning lots of money from support!!!1!1"

Well, guess what, that isn't selling software. That is selling support. Would Photoshop users buy support for that if it was open source? Yeah right. So selling free software doesn't work.
Even if the fsf is not all that popularly around here I think you should think before calling people freetards. Not offend myself as I don't believe I would qualify to be a freetard. (awaits someone posting a link to rms picking his feet).

Bachstelze
July 4th, 2011, 06:20 PM
Just saying, as a lot of people on this forum know, I do not agree with RMS and the FSF folks on this aspect. Basically I agree with them on the ideas, not on the implementation (I am on the BSD side in that regard). My idea is basically: whenever you can legally get your hands on something (e.g. buying a book or a music or sotware CD), you should be allowed to pass it along to anyone you want, but on the other hand no one should be forced to give you anything (e.g. the source code of a program you buy).

In that way you can say RMS is a hypocrite, because he strongly advocates freedom for some people (freedom to redistribute software, etc.), but condemns the freedoms of others (freedom of developers to not release their source code if they don't want to). I say you should respect everyone's freedoms, even when they're not convenient for you.

jerenept
July 4th, 2011, 06:24 PM
Just saying, as a lot of people on this forum know, I do not agree with RMS and the FSF folks on this aspect. Basically I agree with them on the ideas, not on the implementation (I am on the BSD side in that regard). My idea is basically: whenever you can legally get your hands on something (e.g. buying a book or a music or sotware CD), you should be allowed to pass it along to anyone you want, but on the other hand no one should be forced to give you anything (e.g. the source code of a program you buy).


In that way you can say RMS is a hypocrite, because he strongly advocates freedom for some people (freedom to redistribute software, etc.), but condemns the freedoms of others (freedom of developers to not release their source code if they don't want to). I say you should respect everyone's freedoms, even when they're not convenient for you.

Did you just respond to yourself there?

Bachstelze
July 4th, 2011, 06:28 PM
Did you just respond to yourself there?

No, I continued my post because I thought of the second one after I posted the first one, and since it was not just a little correction, I decided to post a new one. I added the quote so people would know what I was referring to with "In that way"

alaukikyo
July 4th, 2011, 06:30 PM
All of the GNU/Cultists who preach software freedom and use Ubuntu are hypocrites.

people who want free speech but live in a country which oppresses free speech to a certain extent are hypocrites .

alaukikyo
July 4th, 2011, 06:31 PM
Hello, GNU/Cultist!

PS: Software is not a religion.

Hello Flaming/Troller

You seem to imply that ideals and morality can only come from religion but thats not true !

Spice Weasel
July 4th, 2011, 06:32 PM
hello flaming/troller

you seem to imply that ideals and morality can only come from religion but thats not true !

This software is a religious crusade! Everyone must switch to GNU/Linux and follow the words of Almighty Lord Stallman. Repeat After Me: Proprietary software is Satan!

http://images.ookaboo.com/photo/s/Richard_Stallman_by_Anders_Brenna_03_s.jpg

alaukikyo
July 4th, 2011, 06:39 PM
This software is a religious crusade! Everyone must switch to GNU/Linux and follow the words of Almighty Lord Stallman. Repeat After Me: Proprietary software is Satan!

http://images.ookaboo.com/photo/s/Richard_Stallman_by_Anders_Brenna_03_s.jpg

WTF


] [/I] Saint IGNUcius says: Some people don't realize that Saint IGNUcius is Saint IGNUcius's way of not taking himself too seriously. Therefore,



Warning: taking the Church of Emacs (or any church) too seriously may be hazardous to your health.

alaukikyo
July 4th, 2011, 06:42 PM
The choice isn't 'use Ubuntu or don't use a computer at all' like the choice is with electricity.

for some it is . for everyone uses their own personal computer and some have to share it with other people .



You shouldn't have said that. Now some freetard is going to reply "but look at Redhat earning lots of money from support!!!1!1"


well if the first freetard hadn't quit his job and started working on fully free operating system , you wouldn't be using ubuntu today .

Spice Weasel
July 4th, 2011, 06:44 PM
well if the first freetard hadn't quit his job and started working on fully free operating system , you wouldn't be using ubuntu today .

I'm not using Ubuntu. If I was, by now it would have been removed and replaced with a better operating system.

The sentence above the one quoted doesn't make any sense.

koenn
July 4th, 2011, 06:44 PM
Hello Flaming/Troller

You seem to imply that ideals and morality can only come from religion but thats not true !

don't lose sleep over it. It's just a canned response.
As soon as someone even hints as making a decision on what software he prefers based on anything else but strictly utilitarian criteria, someone will post "it's a tool, it's not a religion".

It's probably a bug in vbulletin or so.
Or a feature.

Bachstelze
July 4th, 2011, 06:44 PM
well if the first freetard hadn't quit his job and started working on fully free operating system , you wouldn't be using ubuntu today .

Or maybe they would but Ubuntu would be based on BSD like Mac OS X, or maybe someone else would have done it instead, or maybe... No one knows, such arguments are useless.

Legendary_Bibo
July 4th, 2011, 06:48 PM
for some it is . for everyone uses their own personal computer and some have to share it with other people .




well if the first freetard hadn't quit his job and started working on fully free operating system , you wouldn't be using ubuntu today .

Linus Torvalds isn't a freetard. He doesn't really much care for the zealots.

Spice Weasel
July 4th, 2011, 06:48 PM
As soon as someone even hints as making a decision on what software he prefers based on anything else but strictly utilitarian criteria, someone will post "it's a tool, it's not a religion".

It's probably a bug in vbulletin or so.
Or a feature.

That's not what he said. What he said was:


It's amazing how people who claims to be ubuntu users and ubuntu/Linux community members are negating the value of fundamental ideas behind ubuntu/Linux/GNU.

Bachstelze
July 4th, 2011, 06:52 PM
Linus Torvalds isn't a freetard. He doesn't really much care for the zealots.

Still he made it GPL. And he said "I don't care what you make with Linux as long as you give me the source." Seems close enough to me.

alaukikyo
July 4th, 2011, 06:52 PM
The sentence above the one quoted doesn't make any sense.


suppose you are 14 years old and do not own a personal computer and share the computer with one adult who want to use websites that only work in proprietary flash and devices that make use of a non-free blobs in the kernel . you have the option of using windows or using a distro which is composed mostly of free software but contains non-free software .

Spice Weasel
July 4th, 2011, 06:54 PM
suppose you are 14 years old and do not own a personal computer and share the computer with one adult who want to use websites that only work in proprietary flash and devices that make use of a non-free blobs in the kernel . you have the option of using windows or using a distro which is composed mostly of free software but contains non-free software .

I thought that Linux > Windows because it's so awesome and lightweight that it can be easily be booted from a CD or USB drive?

Bachstelze
July 4th, 2011, 06:55 PM
suppose you are 14 years old and do not own a personal computer and share the computer with one adult who want to use websites that only work in proprietary flash and devices that make use of a non-free blobs in the kernel . you have the option of using windows or using a distro which is composed mostly of free software but contains non-free software .

Also works if you want to use Flash yourself. It's either use Flash or don't watch this video that you may have paid for.

prodigy_
July 4th, 2011, 06:56 PM
Red Hat for example forbids companies from distributing their patches under the threat of cancelling support contracts with them.
Yeah, and SL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Linux) and CentOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS) simply don't exist...

/facepalm


centuries of copyright doctrine
Oh, maybe we should also respect millennia of slavery doctrine then? And yes, copyright and slavery do have very much in common. For both deprive us of our basic freedoms.


Authors have every right to make a living from their work.
Sure, just not at the cost of my freedom of information exchange. If money is their primary concern, let them pick another occupation. For people who care only about money can never create anything useful.

Dustin2128
July 4th, 2011, 06:56 PM
Oh joy. Stallman bashing. Look, you don't have to agree with his ideals, but he contributed in a huge way to current FLOSS operating systems and free software.

jerenept
July 4th, 2011, 06:57 PM
suppose you are 14 years old and do not own a personal computer and share the computer with one adult who want to use websites that only work in proprietary flash and devices that make use of a non-free blobs in the kernel . you have the option of using windows or using a distro which is composed mostly of free software but contains non-free software .

Um, do what I did.
1) Install Ubuntu.
2) Use Ubuntu.
3)???
4)Profit.

Spice Weasel
July 4th, 2011, 06:58 PM
Oh joy. Stallman bashing. Look, you don't have to agree with his ideals, but he contributed in a huge way to current FLOSS operating systems and free software.

Code contributions: Uh, well, I guess he made Emacs by himself. Wait, isn't that it?
Licensing/free software/open source/whatever: BSD.

So what did he do himself apart from make a text editor and train an army of LY to do his bidding?

Legendary_Bibo
July 4th, 2011, 07:01 PM
Code contributions: Uh, well, I guess he made Emacs by himself. Wait, isn't that it?
Licensing/free software/open source/whatever: BSD.

So what did he do himself apart from make a text editor and train an army of LY to do his bidding?

Ninja'd me :P

RiceMonster
July 4th, 2011, 07:03 PM
Code contributions: Uh, well, I guess he made Emacs by himself. Wait, isn't that it?

gcc as well, which is pretty crucial to FOSS weather you like it or not.

Spice Weasel
July 4th, 2011, 07:06 PM
gcc as well, which is pretty crucial to FOSS weather you like it or not.

While I agree, GCC still wasn't stable until 1991.

Dustin2128
July 4th, 2011, 07:07 PM
Code contributions: Uh, well, I guess he made Emacs by himself. Wait, isn't that it?
Licensing/free software/open source/whatever: BSD.

So what did he do himself apart from make a text editor and train an army of LY to do his bidding?
Gcc as ricemonster said. And emacs is the best operating system out there ;). Those are the top two contributions I can think of at the moment, but they are a huge, huge, massive boon to free software- gcc being one of the best compilers there is.

alaukikyo
July 4th, 2011, 07:09 PM
Oh joy. Stallman bashing. Look, you don't have to agree with his ideals, but he contributed in a huge way to current FLOSS operating systems and free software.


pro-proprietary-tards will never realise that .

RiceMonster
July 4th, 2011, 07:10 PM
While I agree, GCC still wasn't stable until 1991.

So?

Spice Weasel
July 4th, 2011, 07:11 PM
So?

How many people were working on it at that point?

alaukikyo
July 4th, 2011, 07:11 PM
Um, do what I did.
1) Install Ubuntu.
2) Use Ubuntu.
3)???
4)Profit.

well the discussion was about "GNU/cult" and being an hypocrite if you use ubuntu but follow the ideals of GNU .

RiceMonster
July 4th, 2011, 07:14 PM
How many people were working on it at that point?

How many people work on Linux? It doesn't matter; he initiated it.

alaukikyo
July 4th, 2011, 07:14 PM
Linus Torvalds isn't a freetard. He doesn't really much care for the zealots.

ignorance at its max.

so you are an idiot who thinks linus wrote the whole operating system in 1991 ? :facepalm

jerenept
July 4th, 2011, 07:14 PM
pro-proprietary-tards will never realise that .

pro-usability-tards like stuff to work, Linux, BSD ,Windows, GNU/Free, Proprietary, all mean nothing (or very little) to us.

Spice Weasel
July 4th, 2011, 07:15 PM
well the discussion was about "GNU/cult" and being an hypocrite if you use ubuntu but follow the ideals of GNU .

Who else but members of cults claim to be followers?

alaukikyo
July 4th, 2011, 07:15 PM
Or maybe they would but Ubuntu would be based on BSD like Mac OS X, or maybe someone else would have done it instead, or maybe... No one knows, such arguments are useless.

except that rms convinces the university to stop donating code to a proprietary Unix and separate it and release it as free software .

Legendary_Bibo
July 4th, 2011, 07:18 PM
ignorance at its max.

so you are an idiot who thinks linus wrote the whole operating system in 1991 ? :facepalm

You were talking about who started it. I never said Linus wrote the whole thing. Learn to comprehend.

alaukikyo
July 4th, 2011, 07:18 PM
I thought that Linux > Windows because it's so awesome and lightweight that it can be easily be booted from a CD or USB drive?

that is totally irrelevant ?? did you read my post and not understand it ?

Spice Weasel
July 4th, 2011, 07:19 PM
that is totally irrelevant ?? did you read my post and not understand it ?

Lord Stallman would probably tell you to use a GNewSense live cd when you need to use your parents' PC rather than have your software freedoms violated by proprietary operating systems.

prodigy_
July 4th, 2011, 07:20 PM
pro-usability-tards like stuff to work, Linux, BSD ,Windows, GNU/Free, Proprietary, all mean nothing (or very little) to us.
I'll translate: collar and chains all mean nothing as long as food comes 3 times a day. But you're right. Way too many people indeed think like this. Which is sad.

overdrank
July 4th, 2011, 07:22 PM
Closed for review.