Stallman on the Linux Action Show
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
The problem with RMS is that he is the founder of the FSF and is the main figurehead. When he says stuff like this, it also represents the FSF. I'm sure there are members of the FSF (both in his office and community) that have children and disagree with him.
Let's just put this on the table. Yes, I know that anything can reproduce whether it is a human or a plant. The reality of us as humans is that we are part of a society that builds communities and we are social creatures. We may get happiness from having a child love us or a good friend who will back you up when you need him or her.
The impression that many of us get is that Stallman puts software above humans. This is not my words but his as Stallman said himself in the video. He is selfish and self centered and he believes humans should stop reproducing because it wastes resources. It has been known that Stallman was abused as a child and is a self hating Jew, but the reality is that we need to treasure human life because that is who we are. In the bigger picture, computers and code are nice to have and are great tools. Thats all they are... tools used by humans who are passionate about life itself.
Its also hypocritical of him to want to end proprietary companies when it is those companies like Google and Oracle that are paying the FSF (https://www.fsf.org/patrons) so he can not only eat and pay his bills, but travel around the world wasting fossil fuels powering jets running on proprietary software. He complains that a child wastes human resources but he himself doesn't hesitate to waste them.
The more and more I hear this guy talk, the more of a joke he is. The free software initiative is very important to current and future development of computing, but I would NEVER support him. Oh and btw he supports pedophilia. Hates children but somehow supports them when they are naked.
I am a translator!
A self hating Jew, huh? He is an atheist.
The problem with having kids, we are hopelessly overpopulating mother Earth. Unless we stop growing and start de-growing, quality of life will go down to almost nothing within a couple lifetimes.
But Stallman is a jerk to talking that way to people. I don't support his way of talking and his way of... not washing himself. He looks and sounds like an idiot. In order to like him you have to listen to him on the radio or read his books.
I would just like to add some thoughts about Richard Stallman and said
interview in Linux Action Show.
First of all, I believe that Richard and the FSF are fighting for a
moral and ethical dillema, something that belongs to the field of
Philosophy, not Economics, Computer Science and the likes.
If you read carefully all that the GNU Project and the FSF Foundation
has to say, with an open heart, you will understand what it is all
about. Just try to understand what Richard has to say when he speaks
about MIT lab and what happened there in the 70s. He wants software code
to be open to everyone, and to be protected against proprietaryship. He
states that software that people learn to use and depend on, has power
over them, so that is why it should be available for everyone to see,
and a policy to keep it that way (the GPL and similar licenses). He
wants the user to have power over the computer, and not the opposite.
He is not a messiah, he does not have all the answers, nor is trying to
have all the answers. He is just acting as a philosopher, he has found a
problem and he is showing you the solution for this problem. Other
problems require other solutions.
If you started working for the companies that do proprietary code,
before you learned about the evil behind it, and having sympathy for the
libre movement, understanding why it is unethical to do it, there is no
way that you can use the "feed the children" argument to make you become
ethical. Why people can't admit they are being unethical? It is very
hard to accept criticism or to understand that we are not 100% ethical
beings, we do things because sometimes we are too weak to try another
path, and usually having people that depend on us make us much more
prone to avoid risk.
What is unacceptable, in my opinion, is people claiming that they
support the Free Software movement, but believing that it is ethical to
work against it because they have children to feed. Really, Stallman
never said that he prefer children dieing, he said that there are other
ways to feed your children other than working with software at all, so
he can't agree with any ethics behind doing it. But if there really was
no other way, of course, as a good person, he would say that our lack of
ethics means nothing compared to the hunger, and that human beings might
do anything to survive. There is absolutely no reason that would turn
something unethical into something ethical, it is just morally accepted
because we can understand the state of despair that would make someone
break ethics, like stealing food to eat.
What Stallman wants to accomplish, is not making everyone turn sides and
become true supported of the Free Software movement. He wants people to
understand why it is unethical not to free the software, and to
influence people and companies to support this change. He wants the new
kids to grow up in a world that will support that freedom, so they can
have a choice and find jobs that will not work against it, before having
children and using them as leverage to unclaim their lack of ethics in
the software world.
I believe all this people that get so offended by Richard Stallman are
mostly people that are making a living from the companies that don't
support free software, and can't take criticism, that is why they get so
flamed and angry, because they can't live with the idea that they are
not being ethical. If they were more prone to humanistic sciences, maybe
they would understand that being ethical or unethical not necessarily
make a person bad, the human being is flawed and we should embrace
change and forgiveness. Nobody is perfect and even Richard is not a
completely ethical human being, I am sure that he did a lot of unethical
stuff, just like everyone else, but his job is to spread the word about
the Free Software movement and teach people about ethics in the software
world, he is not a saint, a guru or a messiah, and he can't let people
argument against what he has to say with fallacies and lack of
comprehension of Philosophy.
Feeding children has nothing to do with being for or against free
software, it is a personal problem that require personal decisions, just
don't try to kill all the movement by saying that kids are more
important than free software, so that is why we should all embrace
proprietary software because that is the best way to feed them. This is
absolutely not true. People that think this way are also being very
hypocritical, because if we really want to talk about children welfare
being above all, let's start discussing the capitalist world and how it
spreaded poverty around the globe, and how you all don't care about all
those starving babies in Africa when you are just caring about your own
children. I wonder if the guys that are angry with Richard would donate
all their excess money and possessions to feed that african children
that they find so important, while accusing Richard of hating them.
Stallman's views on natality have absolutely nothing to do with the Free Software Foundation, which exclusively deals with software.
About his life (but, again, who cares?): he is atheist (anyway, he can have interesting opinions about religions), he is not attracted to children (anyway, he can have interesting opinions about pedophilia) and he does not smoke weed (anyway, he can have interesting opinions about drugs). I do not know whether he was abused as a child but I have never heard of that (reference needed).
Stallman does not "put software above humans". Quite the opposite: he puts the humans' freedoms above anything else and in all relevant areas of life. Nowadays, computing is parts of almost everybody's life and takes more and more importance.
Then, I do not see why accepting donations from an entity would mean supporting this entity. On the contrary, I clearly understand that these donations advance the free software cause. Where is the hypocrisy?
As I already wrote to you, rms does not earn a dime from the FSF. Same thing for the money he raised at the end of his talks. He makes a living from those inviting him to give talks.
As for his ecological print, I am quite sure he is not happy about it. Nevertheless, his ecological print, which is unavoidable to give talks all over the world, should be compared to the contribution he brings to society by promoting free software in this way. I consider the output positive.
I read somewhere he was called a self hating Jew after canceling speeches at Israeli universities in the past.
If his organization didn't have the corporate money, he would have no money. If you say he receives no money, then why is he the head of it and where is his other sources of income? I think you are denying the truth. Google and Oracle put the money in his pocket so he can fly around badmouthing them. He would then have to follow his own advice and take an "ethical" factory job right? Oh wait... doesn't that factory make proprietary products? :-)
We have discussed, in this forum, why rms almost had to cancel his talks in Israel to give speaks in Palestine. He wanted to do both but had to choose between only giving talks in Palestine or not giving any talk at all. He chose the former solution, which obviously better advances the free software cause. It turns out that, in the end, a solution was found and rms *did* give the planned talks in Israel as well:
* https://www.fsf.org/events/20110721-cvc-haifa
* https://www.fsf.org/events/20110722-fds-jaffa
Why couldn't he choose by himself to give talks in both countries? Because his trips are *not* funded by the FSF but by the people/organizations inviting him. Stallman is the president of the FSF. As such he does not receive any money from the foundation. He is benevolent. The FSF has employees (e.g., its current executive director: John Sullivan) but rms is *not* among them. This is the truth.
As for accepting donations from companies that the FSF does not support, I have already answered in my last message.
I am a translator!
Stallman didn't give his planned talks in Israel - he planned on speaking at universities but the Palestinians who were paying for his accomodation requested that he cancel the talks. They did allow him to talk in places which aren't affiliated with the Israeli government.
Wow, I took some time to listen to the podcast linked a few postings ago.
Maaaaan, Stallman, you need to smoke less off this strange weed every morning.....
Don't get me wrong...
From a puristic standpoint many of the things he rises are valid but in the end they do not stand up the practical life.
He is not really a prophet as one stated before. He is more some sort of fundamentalist and extremist.
What all his point of view really lacks: Pratical approaches to solve the known issues !
I can also rise valid points which needs to be changed ASAP:
- There should be no nuclear power plants
- No one in the world should starve from hunger while other peoples produce car fuel from food.
- Most people in so-called modern society are wasting way to much energy. We should reduce our ecological foot print.
- We should not waste fossil fuels anymore.
- We should get rid of the massive usage of plastic.
- We should live more self-sufficient and work in local companies in our community.
- We should ride everywhere by bicycle instead of taking the car.
I could go on for hours with this but in the end: Those points are worthless unless I have a solid approach on how to change things.
I found one comment also funny here: That people are not motivated by money.
Well then...from what are they motivated ?
Don't get me wrong: I would love to spent my time on more useful things than sitting in the office for 5x9 hours each week.
May be teaching children or working on free software but since I have to pay morgage, utility bills and so on, what do you thinks "motivates" me ? Well...pure money !
Even worse: I earn my few bucks at a company which writes propritary software. Unethical...I should drop this job immediatly and try to get a different job....but wait....I simply need to get one of this jobs out there where I write free software.....but where are those jobs ?
The sad truth is simple: Idealists and fundamentalist often share the same thing which I call real-world perception disorder.
Stalman sounds as if the FSF put freedom of software about pretty much anything. Sorry, this does drive my boat. Every decision we do in real live, has some result. Thankfully in the end everyone has to choose for him-/herself.
Enough written,
D$
Please read the thread (I know, it is long).
Stallman proposes "a solid approach on how to change things": write free software. As it was discussed in length in this thread, many people do make a living in this way. In fact, free software related businesses are thriving at a tremendous pace while the rest of the occidental economy is suffering. Stallman himself started, alone, to implement this practical solution in 1984. You cannot deny that he has largely succeeded since, today, you can work with a 100% free operating system... or do *you* suffer from a "real-world perception disorder"?
As for getting motivated by money, ask quidam (Trisquel's leader) whether he believes he will make more money with Trisquel than with any other job exploiting his technical skills. I see a difference between "making a living" and "getting motivated by money".
I suffer from no perception disorder as I see both sides of the argument. Those who blindly follow the free software initiative without questioning it when appropriate have the issues. I know you and I will go back and forth in this thread until the server crashes, but I have said many times that I support the FSF and the majority of its beliefs.
I just don't support Stallman. Remember when Steve Jobs died and Stallman said that the software world is a better place without him? The same can be said about him as it will allow a younger and more modern voice to represent the cause. People aren't mad at free software because of its views, they just think Stallman is a preacher who cannot backup his views with concrete ways to fix them. He would rather be childish and simplistic and say "you are bad because I say you are" in his unrealistic utopian perspective of how things should be in his head.
If you want another voice for free software, then check out the lectures from Eben Moglen.
I am a translator!
I agree with this - I think Stallman has extreme views on topics unrelated to software which can be easily used to dismiss his views on free software and thus he is a bad spokesperson for the FSF. For example, he shouldn't have mentioned not bringing children to the world as a solution to global warming on the Linux action show. Also, he shouldn't give talks that are funded by extremist organisations (such as Palestinian groups that demand that he boycott Israeli universities) as that paints him (and thus also the FSF) in a bad light.
El vie, 23-03-2012 a las 12:50 +0100, name at domain escribió:
> Hardly extreme views...
>
> Check out:
> http://www.stallman.org/
>
> for much more!
It is said clearly that what is written in his personal blog represents
him, not the FSF or GNU. So, there is no point for critizing his
opinions on other points when talking on him in the free software
context. It is dirty. In fact, it's a good thing express your ideas,
although it is not common sine most of people be afraid of doing it and
is easier beeing cool repeating and making well-working jokes which
always work. On the other side, "hardly extrem" ideas, instead, can show
you the frontiers that you never guessed, never mind if you share them
or not at any moment of your life, of course including first time you
hear about it.
I find it peculiar how you constantly accuse rms of unsupported claims whereas for the entire thread you have successfully failed to provide ones of your own. E.g. Jobs was evil because he created the "whatever the cost - just make me look cool" lifestyle => no Jobs => the software world is better. Note that rms explicitly stated he's not happy about Jobs dying, just about him leaving the "scene". He provided a rational and logical explanation which you may disagree with but can't call it "...it's so because it is".
I am curious, which part of the philosophy would the "young modern leader" change? Would you suggest redefining the 4 definitions of the free software? Would you remove the copyleft clause from the GPL? Or maybe you just want the same statements but with a different atmosphere. Ballmer-like jumping around screaming things or Jobs-like smelling your own farts, "the future is now" propaganda?
Or Stallman-like where he eats stuff of his own foot? Now on a more serious note, I welcome you to this discussion so feel free to read my responses and others before before getting too offended.
The young and modern leader would still follow the 4 freedoms and everything free software stands for. I was taking it from the perspective of presentation and representation of the free software initiative. Ruben is younger than Stallman, so in your claims, he wouldn't be as good due to his age? That's bullshit.
Sorry, I didn't feel offended - rather irritated by some claims and I may have got a little carried away. But now that I've got it out of my system I'm pretty cool actually.
As a matter of fact I even tend to agree with you, I'd however restate the claim a little. I don't find anything wrong about Stallman, but I also recognize the fact that he's not here forever and that it is important that there are personalities strong enough to successfully take over his work until the FS community reaches a critical mass and goes on by itself in the long run (maybe it already has and there is no issue?).
The issue I have with the age is not that I don't recognize young people. I am young myself and I support free software locally so it'd be silly to state that it can't work at the same time. However as a young person I know that young people tend to be hot blooded, fight just for the sake of fighting and loose the grip of the fundamental ideas, treating them as some minor details in the way of having fun.
Therefore I was curious if you meant young as "the new generation to take over" (which I find OK and even important) or just young so that they make the freedom cool enough for others to give a damn about it.
I don't think freedom is "cool", nor do I think it should be advertised as such.
Em 20/03/2012 14:44, name at domain escreveu:
> I suffer from no perception disorder as I see both sides of the
> argument. Those who blindly follow the free software initiative
> without questioning it have the issues. I know you and I will go back
> and forth in this thread until the server crashes, but I have said
> many times that I support the FSF and the majority of its beliefs.
>
> I just don't support Stallman. Remember when Steve Jobs died and
> Stallman said that the software world is a better place without him?
> The same can be said about him as it will allow a younger and more
> modern voice to represent the cause. People aren't mad at free
> software becuase of its views, they just think Stallman is a preacher
> who cannot backup his views with concrete ways to fix them and would
> rather be childish and simplistic and say "you are bad because I say
> you are" like a bitter child.
Stallman has never said anything that resembles "you are bad because I
say you are" in any of those speeches and papers he wrote. What is your
agenda? If you know someone that can represent better free software, why
don't you introduce him to other people so they can decide for
themselves who represents them better?
You are not a true supporter, because you are not presenting us anything
that will help the cause, you just want to demote Stallman for personal
reasons. There is absolutely no way that what you are doing can be
considered helpful. There are a lot of people working against free
software that already have your views and opinions about Stallman, and
keep focus on that to invalidate all the valid reasons we have, and they
have nothing to do with how Stallman speaks or thinks. His manifesto is
not only his anymore.
Well, money is the key to all of this.
Most people new to Free Software (or even open source for that matter) don't understand how development really works.
Most major Free Software Projects are made one of two ways.
1: They are mass charity movements wherein huge groups of people donate to the project. Most of the people donating, ironically, are typically the mega-corporations, excluding obviously Microsoft and Apple. While some crowd funding does exist for small projects by individuals, and while individuals can donate to the major projects; major projects are mostly supported by donations by mega-corporations that would rather run Free Software instead of Windows and Mac. Also, they like to offer Free Software alternatives to their users. Such as domain registrars that like to do in house server services. They'd rather run GNU/Linux. Very little 'popular' Free Software programs are really made by hobby programmers in their proverbial bedrooms. Even if they started off as a small project done by a single person; once it escalates to a decent level of active and advanced development; it's typically a done by a team funded by a charity funded by big business.
2: Sometimes companies will re-license their old proprietary stuff as Free Software. If I'm understanding correctly, Open Office.org was once Star Office. An entire office suit didn't just fall from the sky. Making old proprietary software Free Software by re-licensing it might make it more popular. As such, and especially if the community is in need of the programs (such as an office suit,) it will grab a lot of attention. The programmers might actually make more money through donations than through selling proprietary copies.
From my understanding, the donations to the charities often mostly go to paying programmers to program. If I'm understanding right, non-profit means the organization doesn't make a profit but the programmers do. And, as said before, I think programmers get paid more a less the same money to program regardless as to whom they are programming for.
A programmer can work on Libre Office or work on microsoft office. Either way, the programmer does not own the copyright of his or her work. The contracts the programmer signs for the job cedes the copyright to the publishers. Whether the publisher is a Free Software charity or a proprietary mega cooperation; the programmer usually doesn't get to keep the copyright either way.
This is why the whole debate about 'being paid and feeding our children' is a wild goose chase and not a practical argument for most major software projects.
As Stallman has said, most programming jobs are Free Software ethics compatible and are custom software jobs.
As for the small amount left over (which is what what people here and on the radio show are debating about,) the programmer could make more or less the same amount of money by working for Free Software charities as for proprietary companies. They could make about as much developing Libre Office as they could for microsoft office. In both cases, they do not own the copyright for their own work.
And, in both cases, they are programming because they are being funded. This is key here, because it means that the major motivating factor for people programming for major software projects is the same whether its Free Software projects or proprietary projects. The major motivating factor, in both cases, is money.
And, as said before, in the area of Free Software; the money is mostly coming from mega-corporations also. Most major Free Software Projects are either developed by, or have heft donations and support from, Google and Intel. As much as people criticize their ethics (and rightly so) in other fields of computing; they (along with the Java Company{I think called Sun Java}) are the major Free Software developers/funders as far as I can tell.
The key to keeping Free Software Free Software is to do what Stallman does, preach the Free Software message.
The key to getting high quality Free Software Projects off the ground and up to date is to get mass mega-corporation sponsorship. Or, get the project donated to you (re-licensed to be Free Software) from a proprietary company.
Also, if it's going to be a big hit; funding from mega-corporations can be generated. Look at the Android Operating System. It's a great example as to how smoothly and how quickly a Free Software (or at least mostly [at its core]) project can be lifted up if there is genuine interest in its development.
There are other ways free software developments are funded. Consider the Linux kernel (but you could actually take any large application): most of the developments is made by people employed by companies interested in having a good Linux kernel. For instance, a company selling hardware wants a kernel exploiting the hardware at its full potential (e.g., Intel develops the driver for its graphic chipsets, Texas Instruments for their ARM chips, Broadcom for their Wifi chips, etc.). Google builds Android upon Linux and employs kernel hackers to achieve its goals. A company in the server market wants the best possible kernel to be competitive (e.g., IBM is among the top-10 contributors, Oracle develops Btrfs, etc.). Red Hat and Novell actually are the greatest contributors to the last versions of Linux kernel. Take a look at the statistics. The page includes a ranking and mentions that more than 200 companies were involved in the development of Linux 3.3.
There are other ways free software developments are funded. Consider the
Linux kernel (but you could actually take any large application): most of the
developments is made by people employed by companies interested in having a
good Linux kernel. For instance, a company selling hardware wants a kernel
exploiting the hardware at its full potential (e.g., Intel develops the
driver for its graphic chipsets, Texas Instruments for their ARM chips,
Broadcom for their Wifi chips, etc.). Google builds Android upon Linux and
employs kernel hackers to achieve its goals. A company in the server market
wants the best possible kernel to be competitive (e.g., IBM is among the
top-10 contributors, Oracle develops Btrfs, etc.). Red Hat and Novell
actually are the greatest contributors to the last versions of Linux kernel.
Take a look at the statistics. The page includes a ranking and mentions that
more than 200 companies were involved in the development of Linux 3.3.
I just read this Stallman interview and it was one of his better ones where he was very clear in his views and behaved himself: http://bit.ly/GCyeOm
Btw I'm sorry to use the short url, but the original one had a _ in it which means this current forum system will not recognize it as a link.
I am a translator!
He mentioned Trisquel :D
It's when reading the interviews of RMS that I realise his genius. Look at how he answers, how everything he says clarifies things. Instantly ethical issues are separated from technical and legal ones, everything complicated is quickly analysed and explained in a simple way. He isn't afraid to tell you when he does an educated guess and when he just doesn't want to answer all together, which is something I've rarely ever seen happen with philosophers, especially the second. Everything this man has to say about software is gold.
I am a translator!
I know this thread is supposed to be dead but...
The problem I see with Stallman is that while he wants users to use free distros he doesn't offers methods for developers of software that primarily targets desktop users to make money (without relying on donations).
This was the problem with Stallman's response in the interview. The interviewer asked him how to continue making money from developing a game if it becomes free software and Stallman simply said "I hope you can find a way to make money developing custom software for a client" (don't kill me if I got the quote wrong :) ). Now I understand that you can earn money making custom software for a client (e.g. a billing system for a client), but this still doesn't address the desktop problem.
The fact that Mozilla's browser makes most of its money from a partnership with Google shows that the free software model has a problem with answering the question how to earn money developing free software designed for desktop users. Since Mozilla's market share is declining I doubt Google will be as generous with them in a few years time.
It is impressive that GNU/Linux has a lot of free software, however many programmes do not have a graphical user interface which a non technical user will be able to use. For example, there are a few very good command-line download managers (Axel and Aria2), but they do not have decent graphic user interfaces. Also, video editing can be done via FFMpeg and Mencoder but they require learning how to use the software and neither has a decent graphic user interface. In addition, several basic word and board games are not available with a graphic user interface to GNU/Linux users under a free license such as scrabble and (a non-network version of) monopoly.
There is also the problem that many free software developers make desktop software that is not needed, such as multiple browsers using the same rendering engine which do not serve a different purpose (e.g. Dooble and Arora), and multiple competing desktop environments that lack polish (e.g. Xfce's keyboard switcher doesn't work after restarting the computer, LXDE doesn't support adding hardware sensors to the panel yet, both Xfce and LXDE do not support setting universal proxy server via GUI etc). It would be better if instead of developing redundant competing software the developers would make existing GNU/Linux software more newbie friendly (e.g. by adding a graphic user interface to good command line programmes). It should be noted that this problem isn't unique to free software on the desktop and exists in other free software projects as well, e.g. the Openmoko Neo Freerunner has many distros most of which are not fully functional or polished.
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 11:01:09 +0200 (CEST)
name at domain wrote:
>
> The problem I see with Stallman is that while he wants users to use free
> distros he doesn't offers methods for developers of software that primarily
> targets desktop users to make money (without relying on donations).
>
He did say crowd funding is beginning to work elsewhere in the
interview. The economic models document linked earlier in this thread
covers a range of methods for making money out of free software. The
fact that free software development would be less lucrative was a
given from the outset. Free software is an ethical choice and one
should not compare the financial size, models or profitability of an
ethical industry with the unethical precursor. One does not say that
ending slavery was a wrong choice because slavers and slave owners
made less profit when it was abolished. The ethics of the situation
are the primary matter.
> The fact that Mozilla's browser makes most of its money from a partnership
> with Google shows that the free software model has a problem with answering
> the question how to earn money developing free software designed for desktop
> users. Since Mozilla's market share is declining I doubt Google will be as
> generous with them in a few years time.
I would expect Mozilla as a community effort to be more likely than a
proprietary undertaking to change the product in response to this
market pressure before that becomes a problem. They are intrinsically
more connected to their users.
>
> It is impressive that GNU/Linux has a lot of free software, however many
> programmes do not have a graphical user interface which a non technical user
> will be able to use. For example, there are a few very good command-line
> download managers (Axel and Aria2), but they do not have decent graphic user
> interfaces. Also, video editing can be done via FFMpeg and Mencoder but they
> require learning how to use the software and neither has a decent graphic
> user interface. In addition, several basic word and board games are not
> available with a graphic user interface to GNU/Linux users under a free
> license such as scrabble and (a non-network version of) monopoly.
>
> There is also the problem that many free software developers make desktop
> software that is not needed, such as multiple browsers using the same
Free software is strong for what has been the user base of its early
adopters. Development of a free desktop started years behind the
proprietary solutions and it has made significant progress in catching
up. If you consider Gnome 3 and Unity you can see that it is about to
make the necessary step of overtaking the proprietary solution. The
fact that free software currently lags is being addressed.
Free software is a marketplace not a product line. There is no grand
coordinating master plan. Inevitably free software won't write a
clone of every proprietary game. In terms of applications
slipstreaming a proprietary design is probably a bad move, you end up
inheriting the design flaws. In any event it's free software's aim to
overtake proprietary software, so simply playing catchup is rather
missing the point - we have to be an order of magnitude or more better
to dislodged the incumbents. The fact that we have got so far in such
a relatively short time with fewer resources than proprietary software
bodes well for the future. That we aint there yet is a given,
proprietary software is still allowed.
--
Andrew Lindley <name at domain>
I am a member!
In reference to your question about making money. Stallman's concern is not money. His concern is freedom. He is not against profiting from free software although isn't the best person to answer that particular question. You need to ask the people who are making a living from free software or companies which have carved out a niche and develop free software.
I don't agree with you. The way you put it is more or less like this:
"Stallman claims you mustn't write proprietary software, but nobody really
knows how to make it work in practice".
Free software development isn't really a niche. RMS claims that the most of
the software that is developed is free, and I can confirm this from my
experience. The software I wrote while doing it professionally was free and
so were all of the programs written in my company (they weren't copylefted,
but they were still free). And, surprisingly, we all got paid for our job.
Don't get tricked into thinking of the free software as of a unicorn of the
software land. It's here, and it's doing great!
I am a member!
In reference to your question about making money. Stallman's concern is not
money. His concern is freedom. He is not against profiting from free software
although isn't the best person to answer that particular question. You need
to ask the people who are making a living from free software or companies
which have carved out a niche and develop free software.
I don't agree with you. The way you put it is more or less like this: "Stallman claims you mustn't write proprietary software, but nobody really knows how to make it work in practice".
Free software development isn't really a niche. RMS claims that the most of the software that is developed is free, and I can confirm this from my experience. The software I wrote while doing it professionally was free and so were all of the programs written in my company (they weren't copylefted, but they were still free). And, surprisingly, we all got paid for our job.
Don't get tricked into thinking of the free software as of a unicorn of the software land. It's here, and it's doing great!
I am a member!
I didn't mean to imply free software was a niche. We were referring to him and there aren't many people or companies who control everything.
Free software development with the GPL is nice, but Apache 2.0 has been the hot guy on the block for a while now.
Apache 2.0 is free software compatible, compatible with the GPLv3, and allows linking to more libraries than GPL. It also allows changes to be published in a different licence and integration with proprietary software if needed. It also can be used with GPL code without the GPL "infecting it" and there is no requirement to release the source code which many corporations like.
Overall, it is considered more "corporate friendly" than the GPL and even the FSF recommends it for small projects over the GPL if the work is short. Heck, it is recommended over BSD and MIT for its "legalize" in protection of copyright and patents.
Free software development with the GPL is nice, but Apache 2.0 has been the
hot guy on the block for a while now.
Apache 2.0 is free software compatible, compatible with the GPLv3, and allows
linking to more libraries than GPL. It also allows changes to be published in
a different licence and integration with proprietary software if needed. It
also can be used with GPL code without the GPL "infecting it" and there is no
requirement to release the source code which many corporations like.
Overall, it is considered more "corporate friendly" than the GPL and even the
FSF recommends it for small projects over the GPL if the work is short. Heck,
it is recommended over BSD and MIT for its "legalize" in protection of
copyright and patents.
Are you all still going on about this?
I think it's t3g who holds the unpopular view here. As for you I think you should just recognize that the position of this community is that of rms, and you stand the chance of one of us at a Microsoft conference for convincing anyone here to agree with you.
I haven't read the entire thread, so if I'm not in the loop here, just ignore me, sorry.
I thought the thread hit the archives as well and it wasn't me that brought it back either. As for your post, my "view" was very polarizing with many people on this thread where some agreed with me and some did not in how much of a jerk RMS was during this interview. That will happen with discussions like this and you are more than welcome to read the entire thread when you have some free time to get caught up to speed.
I thought the thread hit the archives as well and it wasn't me that brought
it back either. As for your post, my "view" was very polarizing with many
people on this thread where some agreed with me and some did not in how much
of a jerk RMS was during this interview. That will happen with discussions
like this and you are more than welcome to read the entire thread when you
have some free time to get caught up to speed.
Is anyone still able to view or download this from the given link by thread starter.
I keep getting a 35kb file for all the direct download options on that page.
I was able to watch it. Cannot do so (am at work), but was able to launch the video and it was streaming at proper speed.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
--- On Mon, 7/9/12, name at domain <name at domain> wrote:
> From: name at domain <name at domain>
> Subject: Re: [Trisquel-users] Stallman on the Linux Action Show
> To: name at domain
> Date: Monday, July 9, 2012, 10:18 AM
> Is anyone still able to view or
> download this from the [http://www.jupiterbroadcasting.com/17822/richard-stallman-gnulas-s20e10/
> given link] by thread starter.
>
> I keep getting a 35kb file for all the direct download
> options on that page.
>
streaming does not work for me, so wanted to download it. very curious to watch, as it has lead to the longest thread on Trisquel forum.
There are direct download links, e.g. http://www.archive.org/details/RichardStallmanGnulasS20e10
В 16:18 +0200 на 09.07.2012 (пн), name at domain написа:
> Is anyone still able to view or download this from the
> [http://www.jupiterbroadcasting.com/17822/richard-stallman-gnulas-s20e10/
> given link] by thread starter.
>
> I keep getting a 35kb file for all the direct download options on that page.
I get the same behavior with Linterna Mágica. The strangest thing is
that if I copy the extracted link and pass it to wget I get the right
file. [1] [2] The only logical explanation is they sniff the user-agent
string, but then it is a mystery why wget does not trigger this....
Turns out they return the 35/37KB file on some user-agents. [3] Seems
their user-agent sniffing logic is a poor job. ;)
[1]
$ wget --spider
"http://blip.tv/file/get/Jupiterbroadcasting-RichardStallmanGNULASS20e10231.m4v"
Spider mode enabled. Check if remote file exists.
--2012-07-10 08:11:49--
http://blip.tv/file/get/Jupiterbroadcasting-RichardStallmanGNULASS20e10231.m4v
Resolving blip.tv... 74.122.174.250
Connecting to blip.tv|74.122.174.250|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found
Location:
http://j1.video2.blip.tv/7430010534036/Jupiterbroadcasting-RichardStallmanGNULASS20e10231.m4v [following]
Spider mode enabled. Check if remote file exists.
--2012-07-10 08:11:49--
http://j1.video2.blip.tv/7430010534036/Jupiterbroadcasting-RichardStallmanGNULASS20e10231.m4v
Resolving j1.video2.blip.tv... 198.78.208.254, 192.221.103.254,
207.123.56.126
Connecting to j1.video2.blip.tv|198.78.208.254|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 666395814 (636M) [video/mp4]
Remote file exists.
[2]
$ wget -O RMS_linux_show.mp4
"http://blip.tv/file/get/Jupiterbroadcasting-RichardStallmanGNULASS20e10231.m4v"
--2012-07-10 08:12:07--
http://blip.tv/file/get/Jupiterbroadcasting-RichardStallmanGNULASS20e10231.m4v
Resolving blip.tv... 74.122.174.250
Connecting to blip.tv|74.122.174.250|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found
Location:
http://j1.video2.blip.tv/7430010534036/Jupiterbroadcasting-RichardStallmanGNULASS20e10231.m4v [following]
--2012-07-10 08:12:07--
http://j1.video2.blip.tv/7430010534036/Jupiterbroadcasting-RichardStallmanGNULASS20e10231.m4v
Resolving j1.video2.blip.tv... 198.78.208.254, 192.221.103.254,
207.123.56.126
Connecting to j1.video2.blip.tv|198.78.208.254|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 666395814 (636M) [video/mp4]
Saving to: `RMS_linux_show.mp4'
0% [ ] 548,544 1.31M/s
[3]
$ wget --spider --user-agent "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
rv:1.9.2.16) Gecko/20110927 IceCat/3.6.16 (like Firefox/3.6.16)"
"http://blip.tv/file/get/Jupiterbroadcasting-RichardStallmanGNULASS20e10231.m4v"
Spider mode enabled. Check if remote file exists.
--2012-07-10 08:13:39--
http://blip.tv/file/get/Jupiterbroadcasting-RichardStallmanGNULASS20e10231.m4v
Resolving blip.tv... 74.122.174.250
Connecting to blip.tv|74.122.174.250|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 301 Moved Permanently
Location: http://j-mirror.video2.blip.tv/Potatono-OOPViews677.mp4
[following]
Spider mode enabled. Check if remote file exists.
--2012-07-10 08:13:39--
http://j-mirror.video2.blip.tv/Potatono-OOPViews677.mp4
Resolving j-mirror.video2.blip.tv... 74.122.173.250
Connecting to j-mirror.video2.blip.tv|74.122.173.250|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 301 Moved Permanently
Location:
http://j42.video2.blip.tv/5560010393798/Potatono-OOPViews677.mp4
[following]
Spider mode enabled. Check if remote file exists.
--2012-07-10 08:13:40--
http://j42.video2.blip.tv/5560010393798/Potatono-OOPViews677.mp4
Resolving j42.video2.blip.tv... 198.78.208.254, 192.221.103.254,
207.123.56.126
Connecting to j42.video2.blip.tv|198.78.208.254|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 38370 (37K) [video/mp4]
Remote file exists.
lembas' link is legit. Of course if you want YouTube, it is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=radmjL5OIaA
I watched this show last night (episode 200, called "GNU/Linux Action
Show"), as well as episode 201 (where the hosts also discuss RMS for a
lengthy segment).
I found the host on the left, Bryan Lunduke, to be of such a kind of
person that I do not believe I can watch this show ever again.
Through the show I did learn about some comments made by RMS in the
mid-2000s regarding pedophilia and necrophilia, that they should be
legalized so long as all parties involved are okay with it and not
frowned upon to the extent they are today. :-(
These comments have significantly changed my opinion of RMS as a
person. However, my feelings on free software have not changed.
Yet, I am at this place now where I find it very difficult to move
forward with either the FSF or GNU because of Stallman.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
On 07/09/2012 07:14 PM, name at domain wrote:
> lembas' link is legit. Of course if you want YouTube, it is at
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=radmjL5OIaA
>
I'm not going to repeat what I said in heavy detail in other posts, but you are not alone in dislike of Richard Stallman. He is an out of touch, selfish, controlling, and insensitive person who uses the FSF as a way to pay his flights so he can give speeches on how proprietary software is evil. Of course he gives these speeches to those who follow his viewpoints, so it is a waste of money. They are generally to small groups, at a university, or some small country.
He would never speak at a major conference like Google I/O because of his hatred of capitalism. We wouldn't be invited and even in the rare chance that he was allowed to speak, I highly doubt anyone would take him seriously. His "cred" dates back to many years ago from forming the FSF and the GNU programming tools. Lately though, he is just some rambling bum.
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 22:57:06 +0200 (CEST)
name at domain wrote:
> I'm not going to repeat what I said in heavy detail in other posts,
> but you are not alone in dislike of Richard Stallman.
Well, for not wanting to repeat it you wasted a lot of lines for
"remembering" it.
It is not my intention to restart flames, but I cannot consider your
comments towards "freedom without the need of freedom" appropiate. The
point is also that although your answers could be more or less
realistic (without knowing the content), they don't answer the questions
that other users asked you, but are so large that it is boring, highly
time-consuming to read your "heavy detailed" messages.
I cannot guess a way you could measure your words so a constructive
conversation could be developed. Maybe some one could start a
crowd-funding for adding a feature to the forum consisting that people
can vote for decreasing or even increasing reputation of a user. If
more of a 40 % (?) of active forum users chose to decrease
reputation to some one, a flag could be displayed with the text:
"Warning: This user could be just trolling."
Few things:
1. I didn't bring this thread back from the dead. I am flattered that it is still considered important and people are still commenting on it. I'm overly flattered that I am considered a valuable member on this forum to keep it from being stale. I mean... there isn't a new release of this distro on the horizon any time soon so many of you simply need a little entertainment.
2. People paying to implement a karma like system? It is very hypocritical to call me childish when thats what that type of system is. It is a passive aggressive way of sticking by your guns and personal opinon on a person or topic. It reminds me of school. Are you scared? Am I bully to you? Maybe people like you need this type of system to make you feel better because you are threatened. Or it could be your Aspbergers.
3. The problem isn't with the FSF entirely, but their mascot. He's a dick. End of story.
> Few things:
>
> 1. I didn't bring this thread back from the dead. I am flattered that it
> is
> still considered important and people are still commenting on it.
You talk as a politician. But ok, you are in your right of deciding what
people think that it is important. You are also in your right of calling
your friends to the Trisquel forum for increasing the number of people
giving you the reason (I'm not saying you did it).
> I'm
> overly
> flattered that I am considered a valuable member on this forum to keep it
> from being stale. I mean... there isn't a new release of this distro on
> the
> horizon any time soon so many of you simply need a little entertainment.
I don't consider entertainment the fact of wasting time for avoiding that
some one continue talking against free software values.
> 2. People paying to implement a karma like system? It is very hypocritical
> to
> call me childish when thats what that type of system is. It is a passive
> aggressive way of sticking by your guns and personal opinon on a person or
> topic. It reminds me of school. Are you scared? Am I bully to you? Maybe
> people like you need this type of system to make you feel better because
> you
> are threatened. Or it could be your Aspbergers.
Do you have a better idea? The situation is, here we value and promote
freedom of software users, since it is the mission of Trisquel (Trisquel
is not an open source project but a free software project). And someone is
talking against that way, for example, talking bad of people trying to
communicate free software ideas. Most of people doesn't want to employ
their time for answer your long comments, but it is a problem because you
talk occasionally against free software ideas.
> 3. The problem isn't with the FSF entirely, but their mascot. He's a dick.
I cannot see any difference between the opinion of free software of FSF
and the opinion about free software of their president. It would be a bit
stupid. If you some case where FSF stated a different opinion or
procedural method different to what RMS does, please, point me to it.
You usually say that you are with one part but not with other one, but
this could be not compatible. However, that way it seems you have a
moderated opinion, if one doesn't know the background.
> End of story.
The point about managing trolls is that it is difficult to not answer
them, when they assert that they have the reason. It makes difficult for
me the solution to point 2.
I'm not going to repeat what I said in heavy detail either (and I am tired of providing links you ignore), but:
- Richard Stallman is *not* "using the FSF as a way to pay his flights". His flights are paid by who is inviting him to give a talk. And rms uses these talks to raise quite a lot of money for the FSF (auction, sell of goodies, etc.).
- "Richard Stallman would never speak at Google I/O" because he would never be invited in the first place. If he would, I strongly believe that he would go and speak... about the privacy problems Google+ raise, the even greater problem of SaaS (Google Docs being the best example), etc. When you are subversive, you are not invited anywhere. I assume you would prefer Stallman not to be subversive. I certainly would not. The large companies already are far too powerful (politically) and people need to take the power back. It will never happen if you only consider talks "authorized by" Google and other mega-corporations.
- Richard Stallman has spoken numerous times to very large audiences (for instance, the LinuxWorld Summit as displayed in the movie "RevolutionOS"). Besides, I really do not like the tone of your sentence "small groups, at a university, or some small country" (maybe because I am an academics in a country that is not the USA, hence probably "small" in your way of thinking).
- Richard Stallman does not "hate capitalism", the economic theory (but I assume you make a confusion between "Republicans" and "Capitalism").
- Richard Stallman should be "taken seriously". Do you remember who wrote, in 1983, that he would start alone a complete operating system (not only "programming tools") that would be free? It is not only a technical performance but a political one too.
- Today, the free software movement counts tens (hundreds?) of thousands of developers. Thousands for the GNU project alone. The movement lacks people like rms brilliantly explaining (you write "rambling" but it looks useful since you keep on pretending he says things he does not) the ethical motivations that started it all. The Free Software movement is not technical but, yes, ethical, social and political.
In response to Danny and Magic -
1. I have never asked friends of mine to create an account on here to support me in my viewpoints. They are random people who I do not know that either support me.or not on their own acccord. I'm not trying to get people to take sides. That is not my goal.
2. Magic talked about RMS going to Google's conference only to badmouth them. With Google focusing on their Google + network and cloud based services, he would come off as disrespectful. There's a reason why companies support the EFF and Linux Foundation more than the FSF. They are less cultish, don't have out of touch leaders, and choose not to jeopardize progression of the industry and commerce.
3. Software as a service is the future. With everything pretty much online these days, it helps guarantee monthly reocurring income. The old model had.you buy it once and you were set. I may not fully support SaS as a consumer, but I can see its value for a profit based business.
> --- On Fri, 7/13/12, tegskywalker wrote:
> 3. Software as a service is the future. With everything
> pretty much online these days, it helps guarantee monthly
> reocurring income. The old model had.you buy it once and you
> were set. I may not fully support SaS as a consumer, but I
> can see its value for a profit based business.
That's why free software needs to kill it. We need powerful, reliable alternatives to being always online, always indebted, always required to pay more to maintain what we already had.
Free/Libre software is the only solution to this problem, and it's the way things should go.
There will always be "rebels" on the outside who desire to give people freedom, rather than enslavement. I pray to be one of them.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires