http://digg.com/linux_unix/Richard_Stal ... e_Software
Can't wait to read the comments!
Please Digg our interview with Richard Stallman
Moderators: snarkout, Patrick, dann
Please Digg our interview with Richard Stallman
Last edited by Patrick on Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ego contemno licentia
-
Tsuroerusu
- Posts: 2551
- Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 8:51 am
- Location: Silkeborg, Denmark
- Contact:
Re: Please Digg our interview with Richard Stallman
I'm just glad we got the ignorant-ass GNOME guys (Not all GNOME guys of course, but the ignorant ones specifically) who still claim that Qt is non-free put in their place!Patrick wrote:http://digg.com/linux_unix/Richard_Stal ... e_Software
Can't wait to read the comments!
"Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love. This is the eternal rule."
- Siddhattha Gotama (Buddha), founder of Buddhism.
WE won... the listeners, that is. Man, that was entertaining.Snarkout wrote:Who won the shouting match? I've yet to listen to it - my ipod was busted for about a week (technically libgpod was busted for about a week, but still...) so I'm still catching up on all my 'casts.
The best price for ring-side seats I ever paid!
-
brakthepoet
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 2:48 pm
The other distro he mentioned besides Ututo was gNewSense. They're stripping the non-free stuff out of Ubuntu.
Man, RMS does come across as a jerk sometimes. I can understand if you think a question is loaded and you want to point it out and rephrase it without any assumptions or presuppositions, but telling people they're confused and that their question doesn't make any sense is anything but a diplomatic way of stating that, and asking for an argument instead of a discussion. He comes across as almost mechanical. Passionate, but lacking any sort of social skills or any concept of compromise. His sort of responses makes it pretty difficult for other people to relate to you and your ideas.
I mean, for all the fuss he made about being interrupted and not being allowed to answer a question, he had no problem interrupting Linc multiple times before Linc had a chance to finish or even rephrase the question he was asking, and he interrupted Dann and Pat a couple of times, too. Demanding that people use his own vocabulary in his own way is a bit annoying, too. It reminds me of politically correct people who want to control words in such a way to favor their argument instead of arguing using reason.
If I remember correctly, he made a distinction between Tivo following the letter of the law of the GPL, but effectively getting around it, yet he says he has no problem with people restricting the functionality of software, except that he wants it to be open, ignoring that this means that you only have no problem with the restricting of software if you effectively allow people to get around it, which means you're effectively against any restriction that is meaningful in any way. A bit of a double standard in how he phrases these things. He should just say he's against any restriction, instead of suggesting he's not against it so long as you can remove the restriction.
I mean, for all the fuss he made about being interrupted and not being allowed to answer a question, he had no problem interrupting Linc multiple times before Linc had a chance to finish or even rephrase the question he was asking, and he interrupted Dann and Pat a couple of times, too. Demanding that people use his own vocabulary in his own way is a bit annoying, too. It reminds me of politically correct people who want to control words in such a way to favor their argument instead of arguing using reason.
If I remember correctly, he made a distinction between Tivo following the letter of the law of the GPL, but effectively getting around it, yet he says he has no problem with people restricting the functionality of software, except that he wants it to be open, ignoring that this means that you only have no problem with the restricting of software if you effectively allow people to get around it, which means you're effectively against any restriction that is meaningful in any way. A bit of a double standard in how he phrases these things. He should just say he's against any restriction, instead of suggesting he's not against it so long as you can remove the restriction.
Vim is beautiful
Agreed. As a professional software engineer I can't really buy into his argument regarding non-free programming being morally wrong. I don't want to look for a different profession if I can't be paid to write free software. That is nonsensical IMHO. I mean I'm a big proponent of open source and use it quite a lot in both my personal and professional computing activities, and I respect what the free software movement is trying to achieve, but its far too extreme for my tastes . If someone writes proprietary software for a living because he *is* a programmer and loves it, then more power to him. I personally feel that the open source movement makes a ton of pragmatic and economic sense.
However, many companies have intellectual property tied up in their products and it doesn't make competitive sense to provide a "free" solution. I think RMS was hinting at this type of development as "custom software," but I didn't really follow where he was going on that one.
Great interview though. But I think I'll replay the Pat V. interview another 1,000 times before I listen to it again
However, many companies have intellectual property tied up in their products and it doesn't make competitive sense to provide a "free" solution. I think RMS was hinting at this type of development as "custom software," but I didn't really follow where he was going on that one.
Great interview though. But I think I'll replay the Pat V. interview another 1,000 times before I listen to it again
Then we come to the whole "free" as in freedom issue.
I don't mind paying for software. Programmers need to eat, too. However, when I pay for software I want to buy it, not lease/rent it. When I buy it and it's mine, I want to use it the way I to use it. If that means installing it on a dozen PCs I own, or alter some code to make it run a particular way, then I want to be able to do so without breaking the law.
This goes the same for a CD I buy, a DVD or mountain bike, for that matter. If I want to remove the seat that came with my mountain bike and put a gold sparkle banana seat on it, then I should be able to. If I want to loan it to my neighbor to take it for a ride, then I should be able to do that too. You get the idea.
That's where, I think, many people get confused over the term "free software".
I don't mind paying for software. Programmers need to eat, too. However, when I pay for software I want to buy it, not lease/rent it. When I buy it and it's mine, I want to use it the way I to use it. If that means installing it on a dozen PCs I own, or alter some code to make it run a particular way, then I want to be able to do so without breaking the law.
This goes the same for a CD I buy, a DVD or mountain bike, for that matter. If I want to remove the seat that came with my mountain bike and put a gold sparkle banana seat on it, then I should be able to. If I want to loan it to my neighbor to take it for a ride, then I should be able to do that too. You get the idea.
That's where, I think, many people get confused over the term "free software".
Until someone makes a banana seat copying machine your mountain bike falls below RMS's radar.
To be fair I think linc was going out of his way to push RMS's buttons, and to the degree I understand any of what RMS says, I understood what he was trying to say re hardware versus software. I am, however, far more "open source" than I am "free" by what I understand RMS's definition to be - meaning I think that F/OSS stuff is wonderful, and I'm extremely happy to have it available, but I do not think "Free software" is an essential human right. When you start comparing closed source software to human rights violations in dictator nations, there's something seriously fucked up with your POV.
That, and I'm a greedy dickhead who uses The Bad Codecs.
To be fair I think linc was going out of his way to push RMS's buttons, and to the degree I understand any of what RMS says, I understood what he was trying to say re hardware versus software. I am, however, far more "open source" than I am "free" by what I understand RMS's definition to be - meaning I think that F/OSS stuff is wonderful, and I'm extremely happy to have it available, but I do not think "Free software" is an essential human right. When you start comparing closed source software to human rights violations in dictator nations, there's something seriously fucked up with your POV.
That, and I'm a greedy dickhead who uses The Bad Codecs.
Shared pain is lessened, shared joy is increased; thus do we refute entropy.
--Spider Robinson
--Spider Robinson
Well, the number of people who agree with RMS can quickly be ascertained with a quick count on how many people start to use GnewSense, or that other Brazilian distribution I think. There's not too many at the moment.
I simply can't imagine the quality of free software being nearly as good as it is without professional, paid developers working on it. Most of us make compromises. I'll use nVidia right up until someone makes a graphics card with open source drivers that's not too expensive. I'll use closed codecs for convenience, though I'll write emails and when possible I'll put pressure on websites to use open ones when possible. I'm pretty fond of the letter that basically reads, "This company's products and services works for me, why don't yours?" I already bought a pcHDTV card because they're very good to the linux community. Slowly this will become more common, and companies who want to get that extra market share will increasingly look to provide open drivers. Let's face it, most of our families and some of the companies we work for look to people like us for advice on these things. It's not a good idea to ignore us completely.
I simply can't imagine the quality of free software being nearly as good as it is without professional, paid developers working on it. Most of us make compromises. I'll use nVidia right up until someone makes a graphics card with open source drivers that's not too expensive. I'll use closed codecs for convenience, though I'll write emails and when possible I'll put pressure on websites to use open ones when possible. I'm pretty fond of the letter that basically reads, "This company's products and services works for me, why don't yours?" I already bought a pcHDTV card because they're very good to the linux community. Slowly this will become more common, and companies who want to get that extra market share will increasingly look to provide open drivers. Let's face it, most of our families and some of the companies we work for look to people like us for advice on these things. It's not a good idea to ignore us completely.
Vim is beautiful