5 ms·

Its a fact that Linus doesn't even care about open source[0]. Then how will he be caring about software freedom? Hope, someday, we shall have GNU Hurd ready.

by pksadiq 11y ago

Its a fact that Linus doesn't even care about open source[0]. Then how will he be caring about software freedom? Hope, someday, we shall have GNU Hurd ready. Anyway, GNU guix is getting better. [0] http://www.techrepublic.com/article/linux-creator-linus-torvalds-doesnt-really-care-about-open-source/ http://www.techrepublic.com/article/linux-creator-linus-torv...

lolidaisuki 11y ago
He used to care, sadly doesn't anymore.
tdsamardzhiev 11y ago
Indeed. He simply uses it because it's the best software development model. I think open source could use more people like him, though. P.S. Man, how I love downvotes without any arguments whatsoever.
- cyphar 11y ago
  I didn't down-vote you, but I'll explain why I don't like his view on free software. Free software is chiefly concerned with user freedom, to ethically treat users of your software. The GPL is the standard example of a free software license, and its purpose is to in perpetuity make sure that all users of your original code will always be able to use it in freedom. You may notice I didn't reference a "development model". In my opinion, development models are secondary to ethical issues such as user freedom. Yes, it turns out that the "bazaar" model of software development works pretty well, but that doesn't mean that you couldn't have a "cathedral" free software project. The problem with the "open source" movement is that there is no question about morals and ethics. It's just "here are 10 criteria which will give you good code, but if you find a better way to get good code, more power to you". It's plainly obvious when it comes to issues like vendor lock-in why "open source" doesn't have enough of a moral backing to explain why vendor lock-in is unacceptable. If the code is good quality, why are you complaining about vendor lock-in? I wish we had more people like Stallman who will bring attention to the important issue here, the issue of user freedom. Proprietary software hasn't been vanquished yet, and it's not going without a fight.
cyphar 11y ago
I just read that article and it's slightly depressing: > Between the launching of Linux and today, we've waded through decades of free and open source holy wars, but Torvalds' first instinct was right: Software doesn't want to be free, necessarily. It just wants to be open enough that developers can get to work with a minimum of fuss. sigh No, some of us do care about user freedom and are seriously worried about the recent attacks on user freedom done by companies like Amazon.
ashitlerferad 11y ago
At least some of the Linux developers care about software freedom: https://sfconservancy.org/linux-compliance/ https://sfconservancy.org/linux-compliance/ https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/ https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/

by pksadiq 11y ago

lolidaisuki 11y ago

He used to care, sadly doesn't anymore.

tdsamardzhiev 11y ago

Indeed. He simply uses it because it's the best software development model. I think open source could use more people like him, though. P.S. Man, how I love downvotes without any arguments whatsoever.

cyphar 11y ago
I didn't down-vote you, but I'll explain why I don't like his view on free software. Free software is chiefly concerned with user freedom, to ethically treat users of your software. The GPL is the standard example of a free software license, and its purpose is to in perpetuity make sure that all users of your original code will always be able to use it in freedom. You may notice I didn't reference a "development model". In my opinion, development models are secondary to ethical issues such as user freedom. Yes, it turns out that the "bazaar" model of software development works pretty well, but that doesn't mean that you couldn't have a "cathedral" free software project. The problem with the "open source" movement is that there is no question about morals and ethics. It's just "here are 10 criteria which will give you good code, but if you find a better way to get good code, more power to you". It's plainly obvious when it comes to issues like vendor lock-in why "open source" doesn't have enough of a moral backing to explain why vendor lock-in is unacceptable. If the code is good quality, why are you complaining about vendor lock-in? I wish we had more people like Stallman who will bring attention to the important issue here, the issue of user freedom. Proprietary software hasn't been vanquished yet, and it's not going without a fight.

cyphar 11y ago

I just read that article and it's slightly depressing: > Between the launching of Linux and today, we've waded through decades of free and open source holy wars, but Torvalds' first instinct was right: Software doesn't want to be free, necessarily. It just wants to be open enough that developers can get to work with a minimum of fuss. sigh No, some of us do care about user freedom and are seriously worried about the recent attacks on user freedom done by companies like Amazon.

ashitlerferad 11y ago

At least some of the Linux developers care about software freedom: https://sfconservancy.org/linux-compliance/ https://sfconservancy.org/linux-compliance/ https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/ https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/