Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Network World)   Richard Stallman, big brother, Stalin, government conspiracy, and free software: Yup, it's another Linux article   (networkworld.com) divider line
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

1390 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 15 Mar 2011 at 10:34 AM (11 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



64 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2011-03-15 10:46:15 AM  
This is what Linux enthusiasts actually believe.

 
2011-03-15 10:55:28 AM  
BumpInTheNight: This is what some generalists think some Linux enthusiasts actually believe.

FTFY -the douchey formatting
 
2011-03-15 10:59:45 AM  
Indeed, it actually is. I, personally, actually believe in this stuff. Call it what you will. Call it zealot-ism. Call it crazy. But I actually believe in the things the Stallman says. I respect the man and his voice is absolutely necessary in a greater IT world.

That said, it's not practical. It's not pragmatic. It's not flexible and dynamic and I can't support my family on "freedom," puppies, and "open source."

But I believe in what this man says, like a Mormon who thinks that is church leader is helping the world by spreading "God's word."

/Maybe that's wrong
//But I think it's right
///Not an alt for Linux_Yes
 
2011-03-15 11:01:37 AM  
I like Stallman and what he stands for, but 5 pages of his ranting
is just too damn much.
 
2011-03-15 11:07:56 AM  
Before agreeing to an interview with Network World, Stallman demanded that this article use his preferred terminology -- e.g. "free software" instead of "open source" and "GNU/Linux" instead of just "Linux." He also requested that the interview be recorded and that, if the recording were distributed online, that it be done so in a format that works with free software.

And here's where the line was crossed from enthusiast to zealot, when its not enough that you follow your chosen enlightened path but anyone with whom you associate must be forced into doing the same.

He's a lousy digi-vegan.
 
2011-03-15 11:08:49 AM  
Fat ugly girls that never get asked to dance always blame the band or the popular girls.
 
2011-03-15 11:08:55 AM  

timesten: BumpInTheNight: This is what some generalists think some GNU/Linux enthusiasts actually believe.

FTFY -the douchey formatting


There...now it's Stallman Approved(tm)

/thinks Stallman is just peeved Linus came out with a better kernel before HURD was ready
 
2011-03-15 11:12:33 AM  
I think the major difference here is that the Stallman's fear is being projected at the technology, not the society that uses it. In 1984, everyone was so afraid of those televisions not because they could listen in on a room, but because everyone knew that they were constantly monitored for deviations from acceptable thought and behavior. In TFA, the author talks about Stallman using email to conclude the interview after having poor reception with a friend's phone. But the same kind of security measures that prevent the computer from recording his message, coordinates, audio, and video are in the same vein as the ones that prevent that in his cell phone.

Now, Stallman has such a distrust for anything that isn't 100% open source. The article says the guy even has his own distinction called 'free software.' He views the common computer with the same exact distrust as the smartphone. I can understand where he comes from with his ideas that controlling an aspect of software is the same as controlling people, but I find the man's stance too hard line and uncompromising.

Yeah, often enough price mark-ups are too high and DRM too draconian. Still, a lot of people need money to eat and can't live off of flying around the world giving speeches. Besides, I don't mind if my bank uses software that isn't accessible and free to everyone.
 
2011-03-15 11:13:50 AM  
I respect the concept, but I am pretty sure Stallman is crazy and has been for some years. I don't mean like "wild and revolutionary in his viewpoints," I mean like crazy. Every time I read an interview with the guy, I cringe. This is actually one of the better ones.
 
2011-03-15 11:14:06 AM  

enry: timesten: BumpInTheNight: This is what some generalists think some GNU/Linux enthusiasts actually believe.

FTFY -the douchey formatting

There...now it's Stallman Approved(tm)

/thinks Stallman is just peeved Linus came out with a better kernel before HURD was ready


Hurd "was" ready? Hurd still isn't ready. Work started on it in 1984, IIRC. In that time, Microsoft went from a mid-range vendor with a big IBM contract to having 90% of the world's desktop market share. GNU's Hurd kernel is a non-issue in the world of computing, and probably never will be.

Stallman is a great cheerleader. Other than that, he's basically useless to the FOSS movement.
 
2011-03-15 11:20:14 AM  
summon linux_yes
 
2011-03-15 11:26:15 AM  

Bag of Hammers: Fat ugly girls that never get asked to dance always blame the band or the popular girls.


No girl that puts out is ugly.
 
2011-03-15 11:26:33 AM  

Marine1: enry: timesten: BumpInTheNight: This is what some generalists think some GNU/Linux enthusiasts actually believe.

FTFY -the douchey formatting

There...now it's Stallman Approved(tm)

/thinks Stallman is just peeved Linus came out with a better kernel before HURD was ready

Hurd "was" ready? Hurd still isn't ready. Work started on it in 1984, IIRC. In that time, Microsoft went from a mid-range vendor with a big IBM contract to having 90% of the world's desktop market share. GNU's Hurd kernel is a non-issue in the world of computing, and probably never will be.

Stallman is a great cheerleader. Other than that, he's basically useless to the FOSS movement.


Well it would have been ready if it weren't for those meddling kids and their "Linux". Nowait, it probably still be in the state it is today.

Actually, the UNIX market (and thus Hurd) would likely be dead if it weren't for the FOSS OSs. Linux represents most of this, though the BSDs do show up in a lot of embedded systems.

/you're right about Stallman, not that ESR is much better. Perens seems reasonable
 
2011-03-15 11:35:45 AM  

Dangl1ng: Indeed, it actually is. I, personally, actually believe in this stuff. Call it what you will. Call it zealot-ism. Call it crazy. But I actually believe in the things the Stallman says. I respect the man and his voice is absolutely necessary in a greater IT world.


His opinions only matter to the zealots like you that still invite him to conferences so he can pick his toes and ramble on about fake conspiracies.

/the winners ship code
 
2011-03-15 11:37:33 AM  
I went to see him give a talk about copyright in the digital age a few weeks ago, and as much of a fan of open source and the ideas of free software as I am, I still came away with the impression that he's completely farking retarded.

He spent 10 minutes in the middle of the talk giving us a lecture about how, once you've used a metal urn to brew coffee, you shouldn't ever use it for anything ever again because his tea tasted like coffee.

Oh, and he doesn't wash his hands after he's been to the toilet.
 
2011-03-15 11:39:33 AM  

enry: Marine1: enry: timesten: BumpInTheNight: This is what some generalists think some GNU/Linux enthusiasts actually believe.

FTFY -the douchey formatting

There...now it's Stallman Approved(tm)

/thinks Stallman is just peeved Linus came out with a better kernel before HURD was ready

Hurd "was" ready? Hurd still isn't ready. Work started on it in 1984, IIRC. In that time, Microsoft went from a mid-range vendor with a big IBM contract to having 90% of the world's desktop market share. GNU's Hurd kernel is a non-issue in the world of computing, and probably never will be.

Stallman is a great cheerleader. Other than that, he's basically useless to the FOSS movement.

Well it would have been ready if it weren't for those meddling kids and their "Linux". Nowait, it probably still be in the state it is today.

Actually, the UNIX market (and thus Hurd) would likely be dead if it weren't for the FOSS OSs. Linux represents most of this, though the BSDs do show up in a lot of embedded systems.


Without Linus Torvalds, the FOSS would have died around 1993
since Stallman could barely keep the EMACS project running
correctly, let let along get HURD up and running. Stallman
knows this, and his ego is such that he just won't let it go.
 
2011-03-15 11:43:52 AM  
Stallman and GPL both hold back open source today, compared to more liberal licenses.

As for back then, maybe Stallman deserves some credit for spearheading the FOSS movement, but I believe that if FOSS had simply been seen as an alternative to closed-source software rather than Stallman's holy war against it, things might have ended up a lot better even without a spearheader.
 
2011-03-15 11:53:49 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: Without Linus Torvalds, the FOSS would have died around 1993
since Stallman could barely keep the EMACS project running
correctly, let let along get HURD up and running. Stallman
knows this, and his ego is such that he just won't let it go.


Stallman takes credit for Linux too, and insists that everyone should all Linux "GNU/Linux", because apparently if some of the user-level tools that typically ship with an OS are owned by FSF, the OS is actually a GNU system.

Whenever some sanctimonious GPLer throws "GNU/Linux" at you, you know you're dealing with a loony.
 
2011-03-15 12:10:50 PM  

Dangl1ng: Indeed, it actually is. I, personally, actually believe in this stuff. Call it what you will. Call it zealot-ism. Call it crazy. But I actually believe in the things the Stallman says. I respect the man and his voice is absolutely necessary in a greater IT world.

That said, it's not practical. It's not pragmatic. It's not flexible and dynamic and I can't support my family on "freedom," puppies, and "open source."


Define "believe in". If it's impractical, not pragmatic, unrealistic, inflexible, and impossible to expand beyond the fringes of the real world, then what part do you believe in?

Sure, you can have a PC running 100% not-just-open-source-but-GPL'd software and it can surf the web, send email, store your images, maybe even print to certain brands of printers or halfway kinda-sorta utilize your NVIDIA GPU. That's great. But it doesn't achieve anything politically. It doesn't change any landscape.

The open-source movement can and has achieved a lot, but the Stallman wing of it is far beyond Mormonism - it's like those loony LDS compounds in Texas where the leader is "marrying" a bunch of 14 year olds.
 
2011-03-15 12:14:21 PM  

aerojockey: Stallman takes credit for Linux too, and insists that everyone should all Linux "GNU/Linux", because apparently if some of the user-level tools that typically ship with an OS are owned by FSF, the OS is actually a GNU system.


Oh come on. I'm not one that runs around calling it GNU/Linux but give credit where credit's due here. Stallman isn't big on trying to get credit because emacs and grep come with every Linux distro out there.

The compiler, shell, init system, text editors, libc, the whole suite of typical *nix tools. Those all had to be there for Torvalds system to do anything. Hell, had to be there just to make it possible.
 
2011-03-15 12:18:59 PM  
INB4LINUX_YES SOMEHOW
 
2011-03-15 12:21:59 PM  
Tilting at windmills.
 
2011-03-15 12:22:05 PM  

jbuist: aerojockey: Stallman takes credit for Linux too, and insists that everyone should all Linux "GNU/Linux", because apparently if some of the user-level tools that typically ship with an OS are owned by FSF, the OS is actually a GNU system.

Oh come on. I'm not one that runs around calling it GNU/Linux but give credit where credit's due here. Stallman isn't big on trying to get credit because emacs and grep come with every Linux distro out there.

The compiler, shell, init system, text editors, libc, the whole suite of typical *nix tools. Those all had to be there for Torvalds system to do anything. Hell, had to be there just to make it possible.


True; without Stallman's impetus to make open-source equivalents
to the AT&T-copyrighted Unix tools, Linus wouldn't have been
able to make the Linux kernel.

But, for Stallman to try and claim credit for the creation of
Linux is like a paper maker and a pen maker trying to claim that
they helped Herman Melville write MOBY DICK. Yes, without those
tools (pen & paper) a great work of literature would not
exist, but they had nothing to do with the actual act of
creation. He had a good 5 years to get some sort of open-source
kernel up and running, and he couldn't do it. Period.

His ego won't let him give Linus any credit for having achieved
anything, and it is quickly tarnishing his actual and substantial
contributions to the cause he espouses.
 
2011-03-15 12:22:12 PM  

Ringtailed79: INB4LINUX_YES SOMEHOW


he doesn't troll Linux threds.
 
2011-03-15 12:27:10 PM  

jonny_q: The open-source movement can and has achieved a lot, but the Stallman wing of it is far beyond Mormonism - it's like those loony LDS compounds in Texas where the leader is "marrying" a bunch of 14 year olds.


I'll give you that to a certain extent. Stallman is a purist. He practices open source in a pure form and his voice adds to the overall milieu when in a discussion of open source, software in general and technology at large.

And if I honestly believed in religion, specifically the Christianity practiced by the Mormons, I think that while I might have some contempt for the loonies of Fundamentalists LDS sects, I think I would still respect them because they are "keeping it real."
 
2011-03-15 12:40:23 PM  

Dangl1ng: jonny_q: The open-source movement can and has achieved a lot, but the Stallman wing of it is far beyond Mormonism - it's like those loony LDS compounds in Texas where the leader is "marrying" a bunch of 14 year olds.

I'll give you that to a certain extent. Stallman is a purist. He practices open source in a pure form and his voice adds to the overall milieu when in a discussion of open source, software in general and technology at large.

And if I honestly believed in religion, specifically the Christianity practiced by the Mormons, I think that while I might have some contempt for the loonies of Fundamentalists LDS sects, I think I would still respect them because they are "keeping it real."


There is a point, though, where strict adherance to any philosophical
dictum turns a corner from "keeping it real" to becoming a
replacement for reality. And while Stallman won't be out torching
Apple stores or ritualisticaly burning boxes of Windows 7 CDs any
time soon in protest, he is very much over the line to the point
where he would rather do without technologies with distinct
advantages simply because they are not free and open source.

That doesn't sound to me like a wholly sensible way to go, even
if in the general sense he has good ideas about technology not
being a closed-box that does things you don't understand.
 
wee
2011-03-15 12:49:49 PM  

Dangl1ng: I can't support my family on "freedom," puppies, and "open source."


I've made quite a lot of money over the last 18 years via open source software.
 
2011-03-15 12:51:29 PM  

enry: /thinks Stallman is just peeved Linus came out with a better kernel before HURD was ready


Fukushima will stop being radioactive before GNU HURD is stable.
 
2011-03-15 1:04:52 PM  
Honest question:

Since Stallman started on GNU's OS component (HURD) in 1984, how many different operating systems has Microsoft put out? I mean everything... MS-DOS, CE, NT, 9.x, 3.x, Midori/Singularity, etc.? How many branches (developed by Microsoft) have been developed? Anyone got a count?
 
2011-03-15 1:23:20 PM  
Here's a fun quote from an article that's linked to the one here on Fark:

"Forbes: Would it be ethical to steal lines of unfree code from companies like Microsoft and Oracle and use them to create a "free" version of that program?

Stallman: It would not be unethical, but it would not really work, since if Oracle ever found out, it would be able to suppress the use of that free software. The reason for my conclusion is that making a program proprietary is wrong. To liberate the code, if it is possible, would not be theft, any more than freeing a slave is theft (which is what the slave owner would surely call it)."

Also, a had a "lolno" moment when I was reading that article, they said he responded to the questions by email... IIRC, RMS doesn't even use email clients. He uses command line tools to read online content.
Man, this guy is nuts...
 
2011-03-15 1:33:44 PM  

jbuist: aerojockey: Stallman takes credit for Linux too, and insists that everyone should all Linux "GNU/Linux", because apparently if some of the user-level tools that typically ship with an OS are owned by FSF, the OS is actually a GNU system.

Oh come on. I'm not one that runs around calling it GNU/Linux but give credit where credit's due here. Stallman isn't big on trying to get credit because emacs and grep come with every Linux distro out there.

The compiler, shell, init system, text editors, libc, the whole suite of typical *nix tools. Those all had to be there for Torvalds system to do anything. Hell, had to be there just to make it possible.


Of these, libc is the only one that even remotely gives FSF a reasonable claim to "naming rights", and it's pretty weak. No one names a system after the shared library.

And get this: the only reason libc is in that position is because Stallman explicitly released it from LGPL obligations when it was dynamically linked against (otherwise it would have never surived as the main library). So his claim on naming rights is based largely on a library that doesn't adhere to the FSF's own, "lesser" license.
 
2011-03-15 1:51:30 PM  

Marine1: Honest question:

Since Stallman started on GNU's OS component (HURD) in 1984, how many different operating systems has Microsoft put out? I mean everything... MS-DOS, CE, NT, 9.x, 3.x, Midori/Singularity, etc.? How many branches (developed by Microsoft) have been developed? Anyone got a count?


I'll put it to you this way:

Duke Nukem Forever will see a release date before Hurd will.

And I just pre-ordered DNF.
 
2011-03-15 2:21:20 PM  

enry: Marine1: Honest question:

Since Stallman started on GNU's OS component (HURD) in 1984, how many different operating systems has Microsoft put out? I mean everything... MS-DOS, CE, NT, 9.x, 3.x, Midori/Singularity, etc.? How many branches (developed by Microsoft) have been developed? Anyone got a count?

I'll put it to you this way:

Duke Nukem Forever will see a release date before Hurd will.

And I just pre-ordered DNF.


Isn't it weird how all of these projects that were licensed to provide the creators with even a modicum of control have been produced at a much faster rate than the one that sees you as little more than a cog in a hive mind?

Strange, indeed.

There are several parts of that article that made me facepalm. He doesn't use an up-to-date laptop because all of the newer ones don't have completely free BIOS programs. The part about the Android phone that works in Europe, but not the US, because some stupid and basic detail is screwed up. How he didn't know what was going on with that project currently. The bit about rejecting Torvalds. Not using a cell phone or even owning one. Then there's the gem about how no one in the US government really wants to hear what he has to say.

"'In the U.S., awareness of free software has been almost completely pushed under the rug by open source. As a result, you'd never find people in any government position who'd want to talk to me,' he says."

Really? It's Open Source that keeps people from listening to you? It's not the facts about you looking homeless, rejecting even the slightest bit of compromise, having not produced anything of even the smallest value for nearly three decades, or how your ethos requires the world to scrap about 25 years and trillions of dollars worth of incredibly valuable technological innovation? Nah, couldn't be. It's all of those coders who say, "Yeah, I might want to get just a little recognition or control over what I make."

Why the Europeans constantly give him speaking engagements is beyond me. He's not a visionary. He's a mouth with a completely unrealistic set of thoughts attached.
 
2011-03-15 2:22:23 PM  
I never liked Stallman, because he thinks people have some kind of intrinsic right to the products of others, when in fact those rights are determined by the consenting agreement and trade between the parties.

I love me some open source, but mostly as an additional license term that just makes good business sense. It is perfectly moral and just to sell closed, non-free software. On the other hand, buying such software (or hardware), knowing full well beforehand that it was non-free, then biatching about it later is just acting like a baby.

When you make a consenting trade you enter in an agreement with the other party on their terms, if you don't like the terms then don't waste your money!
 
2011-03-15 2:40:50 PM  

BumpInTheNight: This is what Linux enthusiasts actually believe.



Linux users are the canary in the mine. sure, you don't have to worry yourself about anything. just be prepared to surrender your freedom bit by bit down the road.

and besides, i've used Windows for many years and moved to Linux when i realized its better in every way. (except gaming, but i don't game)
 
2011-03-15 2:42:08 PM  

spleef420: Ringtailed79: INB4LINUX_YES SOMEHOW

he doesn't troll Linux threds.



oh hell yes i do.
 
2011-03-15 2:46:31 PM  

Silentvoice: I never liked Stallman, because he thinks people have some kind of intrinsic right to the products of others, when in fact those rights are determined by the consenting agreement and trade between the parties.

I love me some open source, but mostly as an additional license term that just makes good business sense. It is perfectly moral and just to sell closed, non-free software. On the other hand, buying such software (or hardware), knowing full well beforehand that it was non-free, then biatching about it later is just acting like a baby.

When you make a consenting trade you enter in an agreement with the other party on their terms, if you don't like the terms then don't waste your money!



spoken by someone owned, no doubt.
 
2011-03-15 2:47:08 PM  
I believe in Stallman and his views 100%.

Now for some caveats:

Hardware manufacturers need the ability to closed-source their firmwares for the sake of compatibility, reliability, and security.
Motherboard manufacturers in particular simply don't have the resources to integrate an open bios into the ever changing and astronomically complicated hardware landscape while keeping up with the market. SLI? PCIe? Leave them be.
My Nvidia kernel modules are a welcome addition to my software stack (thanks, at least, for the friendly ABI, Nvidia!), and that Phoenix bios of mine works pretty damn well, closed as it may be.

Open media formats are great, but until the majority of media distributed uses those formats, we'll need proprietary codecs to convert that media to free formats.
Flash anyone?

User-friendly operating systems (i loathe to mention OSX) are simply a better choice for a large number of people who need introductions into computing.
Children, grandparents, the handicapped, management, etc... shouldn't need to get over the steep learning curve of building a complete system from source if they are still working on fundamentals like mousing, and touch typing.

Those caveats aside though, i agree 100%.
 
2011-03-15 2:51:07 PM  

Linux_Yes: Silentvoice: I never liked Stallman, because he thinks people have some kind of intrinsic right to the products of others, when in fact those rights are determined by the consenting agreement and trade between the parties.

I love me some open source, but mostly as an additional license term that just makes good business sense. It is perfectly moral and just to sell closed, non-free software. On the other hand, buying such software (or hardware), knowing full well beforehand that it was non-free, then biatching about it later is just acting like a baby.

When you make a consenting trade you enter in an agreement with the other party on their terms, if you don't like the terms then don't waste your money!


spoken by someone owned, no doubt.


You're gonna hate this thing...

Restrictive terms of service used by an evil corporate website.
 
2011-03-15 2:57:10 PM  

Pheonixus: I believe in Stallman and his views 100%.

Now for some caveats:

Hardware manufacturers need the ability to closed-source their firmwares for the sake of compatibility, reliability, and security.
Motherboard manufacturers in particular simply don't have the resources to integrate an open bios into the ever changing and astronomically complicated hardware landscape while keeping up with the market. SLI? PCIe? Leave them be.
My Nvidia kernel modules are a welcome addition to my software stack (thanks, at least, for the friendly ABI, Nvidia!), and that Phoenix bios of mine works pretty damn well, closed as it may be.

Open media formats are great, but until the majority of media distributed uses those formats, we'll need proprietary codecs to convert that media to free formats.
Flash anyone?

User-friendly operating systems (i loathe to mention OSX) are simply a better choice for a large number of people who need introductions into computing.
Children, grandparents, the handicapped, management, etc... shouldn't need to get over the steep learning curve of building a complete system from source if they are still working on fundamentals like mousing, and touch typing.

Those caveats aside though, i agree 100%.


WTF. "50% of the time, I agree with him 100%."
 
2011-03-15 3:02:57 PM  

Marine1: Why the Europeans constantly give him speaking engagements is beyond me. He's not a visionary. He's a mouth with a completely unrealistic set of thoughts attached.


Amen. I was in a Information Policy class when I was in Library school and we went to see him speak at Yeshiva University's law center. I was annoyed the the whole time. When we got to Q and A, I asked him if he thinks software could be free while content in it be under copyright or protected - he said no. I asked for clarification - using the example of an MMO game or an online database. He still said no. I asked him why content creators would want to make anything then and he gave some BS "Love of the game" argument. I said very bluntly "You're an ideologue, Sir." He was very displeased.
 
2011-03-15 3:27:49 PM  

the opposite of charity is justice: Before agreeing to an interview with Network World, Stallman demanded that this article use his preferred terminology -- e.g. "free software" instead of "open source" and "GNU/Linux" instead of just "Linux." He also requested that the interview be recorded and that, if the recording were distributed online, that it be done so in a format that works with free software.

And here's where the line was crossed from enthusiast to zealot, when its not enough that you follow your chosen enlightened path but anyone with whom you associate must be forced into doing the same.

He's a lousy digi-vegan.


WTF. Calling open source software "free software" isn't even making a political point, it's incorrect. Arguably open source software is philosophically free, but lots of software is offered free of charge that is NOT open source. Open source is the more ideological term, isn't it?
 
2011-03-15 3:34:53 PM  

Marine1: Linux_Yes: Silentvoice: I never liked Stallman, because he thinks people have some kind of intrinsic right to the products of others, when in fact those rights are determined by the consenting agreement and trade between the parties.

I love me some open source, but mostly as an additional license term that just makes good business sense. It is perfectly moral and just to sell closed, non-free software. On the other hand, buying such software (or hardware), knowing full well beforehand that it was non-free, then biatching about it later is just acting like a baby.

When you make a consenting trade you enter in an agreement with the other party on their terms, if you don't like the terms then don't waste your money!


spoken by someone owned, no doubt.

You're gonna hate this thing...

Restrictive terms of service used by an evil corporate website.


Godammit, you replied *and* quoted him. Having him on ignore, I only have to see that he posted. Then I can pretend that he's grown up and has something intelligent to say. That happy delusion is broken when you quote him and I can see that he's still a complete moron.
 
2011-03-15 3:36:41 PM  

Barakku: the opposite of charity is justice: Before agreeing to an interview with Network World, Stallman demanded that this article use his preferred terminology -- e.g. "free software" instead of "open source" and "GNU/Linux" instead of just "Linux." He also requested that the interview be recorded and that, if the recording were distributed online, that it be done so in a format that works with free software.

And here's where the line was crossed from enthusiast to zealot, when its not enough that you follow your chosen enlightened path but anyone with whom you associate must be forced into doing the same.

He's a lousy digi-vegan.

WTF. Calling open source software "free software" isn't even making a political point, it's incorrect. Arguably open source software is philosophically free, but lots of software is offered free of charge that is NOT open source. Open source is the more ideological term, isn't it?


Stallman is just Linux_yes's "bright" uncle.
 
2011-03-15 3:40:44 PM  

Barakku: the opposite of charity is justice: Before agreeing to an interview with Network World, Stallman demanded that this article use his preferred terminology -- e.g. "free software" instead of "open source" and "GNU/Linux" instead of just "Linux." He also requested that the interview be recorded and that, if the recording were distributed online, that it be done so in a format that works with free software.

And here's where the line was crossed from enthusiast to zealot, when its not enough that you follow your chosen enlightened path but anyone with whom you associate must be forced into doing the same.

He's a lousy digi-vegan.

WTF. Calling open source software "free software" isn't even making a political point, it's incorrect. Arguably open source software is philosophically free, but lots of software is offered free of charge that is NOT open source. Open source is the more ideological term, isn't it?


It's all crap. Just use what works. Right now, that's commercial software in the cases of most people.
 
2011-03-15 3:49:21 PM  
Someone needs to make an electric razor with a GNU license and give it to Stallman ASAP.
 
2011-03-15 4:11:26 PM  

MrEricSir: Someone needs to make an electric razor with a GNU license and give it to Stallman ASAP.


Are you crazy? That beard keeps the government from broadcasting brainwashing radio signals into his teeth. The next thing you know, he'll have to recharge the razor using electricity produced & carried by closed-source utility infrastructure components. It's all ties together.

/sarcasm.

However, I do have a question... would any of my fellow Farkers be surprised if he gave that explanation as to why he won't shave?
 
2011-03-15 4:17:54 PM  

RatOmeter: Marine1: Linux_Yes: Silentvoice: I never liked Stallman, because he thinks people have some kind of intrinsic right to the products of others, when in fact those rights are determined by the consenting agreement and trade between the parties.

I love me some open source, but mostly as an additional license term that just makes good business sense. It is perfectly moral and just to sell closed, non-free software. On the other hand, buying such software (or hardware), knowing full well beforehand that it was non-free, then biatching about it later is just acting like a baby.

When you make a consenting trade you enter in an agreement with the other party on their terms, if you don't like the terms then don't waste your money!


spoken by someone owned, no doubt.

You're gonna hate this thing...

Restrictive terms of service used by an evil corporate website.

Godammit, you replied *and* quoted him. Having him on ignore, I only have to see that he posted. Then I can pretend that he's grown up and has something intelligent to say. That happy delusion is broken when you quote him and I can see that he's still a complete moron.


If he's not just a spambot, he'll have to choose between posting here (and having all of his posts made property of Drew and having all of those "exploitive" license terms shoved down his throat) or following the Open Source ethos. If he can't choose, his head explodes. Everybody wins.
 
2011-03-15 6:18:06 PM  
I see Stallman still has no interest in using technology to actually solve the worlds' problems. He is so far out of touch and is completely unwilling to reconcile his idealistic delusions with any kind of reality.

Technology for him is just a platform to stand on to rant and get people to pay attention to his lunatic ramblings. This also conveniently pays the bills for him.

So a guy whose never made a living programming (no, AI lab doesn't count when it's practically your apartment) actually has useful opinions on the state of the programming industry? I think not. If he had his way, we'd all be using 10 year old laptops running nothing but emacs.
 
2011-03-15 6:36:48 PM  
Oh if you want some epic hilarity and have a few hours to kill, dig up his legendary flamewar with Theo de Raadt (OpenBSD creator) on the OpenBSD mailing list. It's so funny. If you thought he was annoying arguing the semantics of GNU/linux vs Linux, wait till you get a load of this...
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.