3 ms·

Respectfully, I disagree. One doesn't need the knowledge of a systems administrator to use free software instead of proprietary software. The Debian OS ships wi

Respectfully, I disagree. One doesn't need the knowledge of a systems administrator to use free software instead of proprietary software. The Debian OS ships with lots of free software to do practically everything you'd ever want to do on your computer. We are 90% of the way to a "Stallman-style" world being a realistic possibility for the 'average user'. Only a few key applications are missing or under-represented, which should be seen as an opportunity for new developers to cut their teeth on some valuable projects. There's more to it than an intelligence gap. There's a propoganda issue where people are being convinced that the subject matter is "too advanced" for them, which is a lie that would-be masters tell the people they wish to enslave. (this has been going on for centuries). But the intelligence gap does play a role and can be traced back to our neglected public education system and the greed of free market capitalism.

throwanem 10y ago
> One doesn't need the knowledge of a systems administrator to use free software instead of proprietary software. That's not my experience, nor is it reflected in what I hear from people who do still use Linux on their personal machines. Indeed, Dr. Stallman himself was unable to get VGA output working when he was on the stage at HOPE last month - in the end, the AV staff had to point a camera at his laptop. It's also unreasonable to conclude, from the experience of programmers who actually are prepared to invest considerable time and effort into reworking the software we use, that free software is at, or indeed, near, a point of readiness to support the needs of "average users". One of Dr. Stallman's examples was a comparison between Photoshop and the GIMP; although he chose not to cast it in precisely those terms, it was obvious to which software packages to which he referred. Unfortunately, this comparison, while well suited to the ideological requirements of the Free Software Foundation and those of Dr. Stallman's talk, is not well founded in fact; the reason Photoshop remains the de facto standard for image editing is not, as Dr. Stallman would have it, mere foolish and contemptible intransigence on the part of "average users", but rather because Photoshop has for many years had capabilities which the GIMP still fails even to approximate. Even in the realm of text handling, a task central to the requirements of any graphic designer and almost any other sort of user, today's GIMP falls far short of the mark set by a version of Photoshop from well over a decade ago. This sort of failure cannot be explained by a notional "intelligence gap", or by conspiracy theories around class warfare and capitalist propaganda. If a problem like this were of sufficient concern to the Free Software Foundation to be worth solving, solved it would be, and if achieving such a solution required some modification of an ideology which had proven too strict in its purity to address the needs of reality, such modification would have long since occurred. That it has not, and that fundamental issues of usability and functionality remain in the software FSF advertises as being ready in all respects to replace its proprietary alternatives, demonstrates that, for Dr. Stallman and his organization, ideological concerns are paramount, and outweigh to negligibility the concerns which matter to the same "average users" on whose behalf FSF partisans purport to work. The occasional populism of FSF rhetoric is thus exposed as nothing more than an empty claim, trivially made when convenient and just as trivially discarded when it conflicts with the weird, chilly ideological "hackers uber alles" elitism which, while appealing to few, is at least an honest expression of Stallman's and FSF's true position. Unfortunately, as I said before, the price of purity in such an ideology is irrelevance, and indeed irrelevance is precisely the position in which FSF finds itself today. As long as ideology remains paramount, this will not, indeed cannot, change.
- simbalion 10y ago
  Your arguments are not true, frankly. Examples: Regarding hardware support, there is no guarantee that a particular configuration of hardware and software is going to work just because you were forced to pay for it. "Improved Stability" is a lie that commercial software vendors have been spinning for years. I've been building computers for decades and even using brand name parts, compatibility issues, particularly with proprietary drivers, have often been a problem and that has continued to this day. At least in the case of Debian, there are now free generic drivers for many devices, which are not entirely worthless, which actually improves compatibility. Regarding The Gimp vs Photoshop, I've recently decided to ditch photoshop in favor of the Gimp and I am still learning so I can't speak as if I were a Gimp Expert, but based on things I've read from people who are, The Gimp is just as capable as Photoshop, but the toolset and workflow is slightly different (and that is intentional). There are some things missing that are represented in photoshop, for example inset shadows in photoshop are trivially easy to create, and in The Gimp require about 2 or 3 additional clicks. That isn't because photoshop costs $600, and it isn't why photoshop costs $600. Most of the $600 from each sale of photoshop is not going to the developers who create it. Stallman's "rhetoric" is extreme sometimes but so what, that just gives him character. If you set aside your personal whimpering and examine his points objectively, he is 100% right about everything. When there exists an unsolved problem, the _right_ answer is to program a solution. Buying closed-source proprietary solutions is not the right answer, not when you look at the grander scale and consider the long term social effects of these two options. Stallman is right, and I think when people don't like that it's because they're afraid of what it means.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    > If you set aside your personal whimpering and examine his points objectively, he is 100% right about everything. Well. What more could there possibly be worth saying?
    - simbalion 10y ago
      FWIW, I didn't mean that as an attack at you personally. But rather all of the folks I see who say his rhetoric is too extreme, or that giving up proprietary software would be too inconvenient. I apologize if I offended you.

throwanem 10y ago

> One doesn't need the knowledge of a systems administrator to use free software instead of proprietary software. That's not my experience, nor is it reflected in what I hear from people who do still use Linux on their personal machines. Indeed, Dr. Stallman himself was unable to get VGA output working when he was on the stage at HOPE last month - in the end, the AV staff had to point a camera at his laptop. It's also unreasonable to conclude, from the experience of programmers who actually are prepared to invest considerable time and effort into reworking the software we use, that free software is at, or indeed, near, a point of readiness to support the needs of "average users". One of Dr. Stallman's examples was a comparison between Photoshop and the GIMP; although he chose not to cast it in precisely those terms, it was obvious to which software packages to which he referred. Unfortunately, this comparison, while well suited to the ideological requirements of the Free Software Foundation and those of Dr. Stallman's talk, is not well founded in fact; the reason Photoshop remains the de facto standard for image editing is not, as Dr. Stallman would have it, mere foolish and contemptible intransigence on the part of "average users", but rather because Photoshop has for many years had capabilities which the GIMP still fails even to approximate. Even in the realm of text handling, a task central to the requirements of any graphic designer and almost any other sort of user, today's GIMP falls far short of the mark set by a version of Photoshop from well over a decade ago. This sort of failure cannot be explained by a notional "intelligence gap", or by conspiracy theories around class warfare and capitalist propaganda. If a problem like this were of sufficient concern to the Free Software Foundation to be worth solving, solved it would be, and if achieving such a solution required some modification of an ideology which had proven too strict in its purity to address the needs of reality, such modification would have long since occurred. That it has not, and that fundamental issues of usability and functionality remain in the software FSF advertises as being ready in all respects to replace its proprietary alternatives, demonstrates that, for Dr. Stallman and his organization, ideological concerns are paramount, and outweigh to negligibility the concerns which matter to the same "average users" on whose behalf FSF partisans purport to work. The occasional populism of FSF rhetoric is thus exposed as nothing more than an empty claim, trivially made when convenient and just as trivially discarded when it conflicts with the weird, chilly ideological "hackers uber alles" elitism which, while appealing to few, is at least an honest expression of Stallman's and FSF's true position. Unfortunately, as I said before, the price of purity in such an ideology is irrelevance, and indeed irrelevance is precisely the position in which FSF finds itself today. As long as ideology remains paramount, this will not, indeed cannot, change.

simbalion 10y ago
Your arguments are not true, frankly. Examples: Regarding hardware support, there is no guarantee that a particular configuration of hardware and software is going to work just because you were forced to pay for it. "Improved Stability" is a lie that commercial software vendors have been spinning for years. I've been building computers for decades and even using brand name parts, compatibility issues, particularly with proprietary drivers, have often been a problem and that has continued to this day. At least in the case of Debian, there are now free generic drivers for many devices, which are not entirely worthless, which actually improves compatibility. Regarding The Gimp vs Photoshop, I've recently decided to ditch photoshop in favor of the Gimp and I am still learning so I can't speak as if I were a Gimp Expert, but based on things I've read from people who are, The Gimp is just as capable as Photoshop, but the toolset and workflow is slightly different (and that is intentional). There are some things missing that are represented in photoshop, for example inset shadows in photoshop are trivially easy to create, and in The Gimp require about 2 or 3 additional clicks. That isn't because photoshop costs $600, and it isn't why photoshop costs $600. Most of the $600 from each sale of photoshop is not going to the developers who create it. Stallman's "rhetoric" is extreme sometimes but so what, that just gives him character. If you set aside your personal whimpering and examine his points objectively, he is 100% right about everything. When there exists an unsolved problem, the _right_ answer is to program a solution. Buying closed-source proprietary solutions is not the right answer, not when you look at the grander scale and consider the long term social effects of these two options. Stallman is right, and I think when people don't like that it's because they're afraid of what it means.
- throwanem 10y ago
  > If you set aside your personal whimpering and examine his points objectively, he is 100% right about everything. Well. What more could there possibly be worth saying?
  - simbalion 10y ago
    FWIW, I didn't mean that as an attack at you personally. But rather all of the folks I see who say his rhetoric is too extreme, or that giving up proprietary software would be too inconvenient. I apologize if I offended you.