4 ms·

The point of "doing your computing" is the concept of freedom within the Free Software movement. According to RMS, "freedom is having control over your life".

The point of "doing your computing" is the concept of freedom within the Free Software movement. According to RMS, "freedom is having control over your life". "In a computer system there are just two possibilities: either the user controls the program or the program controls the user". So, "doing your own computing" is "having control over your life", and thus, having freedom.

Touche 10y ago
My point, that I didn't articulate well, is that over time everything is going to be computing. Some day your pants will have a CPU in it. Do you not have control over your life if proprietary pants software cools your legs when it's hot? So it seems that the definition of "what is software" has to constantly be redefined OR the whole Free Software thing becomes more and more a luddite idea.
- Delmania 10y ago
  > Do you not have control over your life if proprietary pants software cools your legs when it's hot? Do you have the source code to firmware on the chip in the pants? Can you install a custom version? That would be consistent with the FSF's viewpoint. They want the user to have full access and control over the software he uses in all devices he uses.
  - 0xcde4c3db 10y ago
    To put a bit of a finer point on it: Stallman has said (paraphrasing; I'm having trouble finding a good source) that self-contained embedded firmware/microcode without an update mechanism isn't "software" in a sense relevant to the Free Software movement. Rather, it's equivalent to a hardwired state machine, and we can judge its behavior as a single object, notwithstanding what its architecture looks like internally.
    - Touche 10y ago
      When did he say this? In the 80s when he established the FSF or recently when the issue came up? This is my entire point, over time the definition of "software" has to be re-evaluated to justify the existence of this ethos; if one man defines what is "software" under this philosophy it doesn't feel like a real philosophy at all.
      - Natanael_L 10y ago
        From his site: https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html However, if I am visiting somewhere and the machines available nearby happen to contain non-free software, through no doing of mine, I don't refuse to touch them. I will use them briefly for tasks such as browsing. This limited usage doesn't give my assent to the software's license, or make me responsible its being present in the computer, or make me the possessor of a copy of it, so I don't see an ethical obligation to refrain from this. Of course, I explain to the local people why they should migrate the machines to free software, but I don't push them hard, because annoying them is not the way to convince them. Likewise, I don't need to worry about what software is in a kiosk, pay phone, or ATM that I am using. I hope their owners migrate them to free software, for their sake, but there's no need for me to refuse to touch them until then. (I do consider what those machines and their owners might do with my personal data, but that's a different issue, which would arise just the same even if they did use free software. My response to that issue is to minimize those activities which give them any data about me.) That's my policy about using a machine once in a while. If I were to use it for an hour every day, that would no longer be "once in a while" — it would be regular use. At that point, I would start to feel the heavy hand of any nonfree software in that computer, and feel the duty to arrange to use a liberated computer instead. Likewise, if I were to ask or lead someone to set up a computer for me to use, that would make me ethically responsible for its software load. In such a case I insist on free software, just as if the machine were mine. As for microwave ovens and other appliances, if updating software is not a normal part of use of the device, then it is not a computer. In that case, I think the user need not take cognizance of whether the device contains a processor and software, or is built some other way. However, if it has an "update firmware" button, that means installing different software is a normal part of use, so it is a computer.
  - Touche 10y ago
    Over time this will be unsurmountable; you'll not have the time to audit everything you contact (it all can be software and you not even know it). The only solution is to live an isolationist lifestyle.
    - ybx 10y ago
      The idea is that we'll verify things as a community; not necessarily that we each have to individually audit things
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Remember that rms mainly opposes the distribution of proprietary software. His main goal has always been to have enough FOSS written to satisfy the needs of users, allowing them to avoiding having to choose between performing some task or keeping their rights.
- marssaxman 10y ago
  I draw exactly the opposite conclusion: over time everything is going to be computing, yes, and so the whole Free Software thing becomes more and more a fundamental, essential, political idea. If the objects and systems surrounding you are controlled by software, then your personal freedom to make your own personal choices is determined by your ability to control the software that controls your environment.

Touche 10y ago

My point, that I didn't articulate well, is that over time everything is going to be computing. Some day your pants will have a CPU in it. Do you not have control over your life if proprietary pants software cools your legs when it's hot? So it seems that the definition of "what is software" has to constantly be redefined OR the whole Free Software thing becomes more and more a luddite idea.

Delmania 10y ago
> Do you not have control over your life if proprietary pants software cools your legs when it's hot? Do you have the source code to firmware on the chip in the pants? Can you install a custom version? That would be consistent with the FSF's viewpoint. They want the user to have full access and control over the software he uses in all devices he uses.
- 0xcde4c3db 10y ago
  To put a bit of a finer point on it: Stallman has said (paraphrasing; I'm having trouble finding a good source) that self-contained embedded firmware/microcode without an update mechanism isn't "software" in a sense relevant to the Free Software movement. Rather, it's equivalent to a hardwired state machine, and we can judge its behavior as a single object, notwithstanding what its architecture looks like internally.
  - Touche 10y ago
    When did he say this? In the 80s when he established the FSF or recently when the issue came up? This is my entire point, over time the definition of "software" has to be re-evaluated to justify the existence of this ethos; if one man defines what is "software" under this philosophy it doesn't feel like a real philosophy at all.
    - Natanael_L 10y ago
      From his site: https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html However, if I am visiting somewhere and the machines available nearby happen to contain non-free software, through no doing of mine, I don't refuse to touch them. I will use them briefly for tasks such as browsing. This limited usage doesn't give my assent to the software's license, or make me responsible its being present in the computer, or make me the possessor of a copy of it, so I don't see an ethical obligation to refrain from this. Of course, I explain to the local people why they should migrate the machines to free software, but I don't push them hard, because annoying them is not the way to convince them. Likewise, I don't need to worry about what software is in a kiosk, pay phone, or ATM that I am using. I hope their owners migrate them to free software, for their sake, but there's no need for me to refuse to touch them until then. (I do consider what those machines and their owners might do with my personal data, but that's a different issue, which would arise just the same even if they did use free software. My response to that issue is to minimize those activities which give them any data about me.) That's my policy about using a machine once in a while. If I were to use it for an hour every day, that would no longer be "once in a while" — it would be regular use. At that point, I would start to feel the heavy hand of any nonfree software in that computer, and feel the duty to arrange to use a liberated computer instead. Likewise, if I were to ask or lead someone to set up a computer for me to use, that would make me ethically responsible for its software load. In such a case I insist on free software, just as if the machine were mine. As for microwave ovens and other appliances, if updating software is not a normal part of use of the device, then it is not a computer. In that case, I think the user need not take cognizance of whether the device contains a processor and software, or is built some other way. However, if it has an "update firmware" button, that means installing different software is a normal part of use, so it is a computer.
- Touche 10y ago
  Over time this will be unsurmountable; you'll not have the time to audit everything you contact (it all can be software and you not even know it). The only solution is to live an isolationist lifestyle.
  - ybx 10y ago
    The idea is that we'll verify things as a community; not necessarily that we each have to individually audit things
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Remember that rms mainly opposes the distribution of proprietary software. His main goal has always been to have enough FOSS written to satisfy the needs of users, allowing them to avoiding having to choose between performing some task or keeping their rights.
marssaxman 10y ago
I draw exactly the opposite conclusion: over time everything is going to be computing, yes, and so the whole Free Software thing becomes more and more a fundamental, essential, political idea. If the objects and systems surrounding you are controlled by software, then your personal freedom to make your own personal choices is determined by your ability to control the software that controls your environment.