4 ms·

> Thank God Stallman helped all of those sick kids with Malaria in Africa with by giving them GIMP and GCC. >Way better than the billions of dollars and thousa

> Thank God Stallman helped all of those sick kids with Malaria in Africa with by giving them GIMP and GCC. >Way better than the billions of dollars and thousands of vaccinations Bill and Melinda Gates gave to them. RMS and the free and open source community have given way more billions of dollars and jobs that Gates ever has. Let me explain. Many governments have switched to Gnu/Linux and are saving billions of dollars each year for the last ten years such as Brazil ($1 billion per year http://www.brazzil.com/2004/html/articles/mar04/p107mar04.htm http://www.brazzil.com/2004/html/articles/mar04/p107mar04.ht...). Given that many governments have switched to gnu/linux and free and open software, that's billions of dollar saved each year for the last 5 to ten years. Those are billions that can be spent on health, education, employment and more, it's an invaluable gift to humanity. I know Bill Gates fortune doesn't exceed $50 billions so I'll let you do the math. RMS and the free software world have given way more to the world than Bill Gates ever will. And Free Software will continue to give while Bill's fortunes will soon be over. > In all seriousness, if we're going to argue the ethics of charging for software,at the end of the day who has done more good? See above. > Bill Gates who made himself rich, gave thousands of people jobs, created products that made the lives of millions of other people easier Free and Open Source software give millions of jobs too. I'd say even more especially with the internet. Do you think Google could have been done without Gnu/Linux when they needed to install thousands of servers and didn't have yet the money to pay licenses? How about the internet? It's all free/open source software, a way bigger revolution than the PC which was a boring work machine before for most people. > When I compare the more calculus of capitalism and propreitary software against Stallman's dogmatism, it's obvious to me that capitalism is utlimately more moral and does more good Well, think and try to calculate again. Gates' done way less.

tzs 16y ago
Dead people can't use free software. Nothing you've cited comes anywhere near matching or exceeding the good the Gates Foundation as done with its global health initiatives.
rick888 16y ago
"Many governments have switched to Gnu/Linux and are saving billions of dollars each year for the last ten years such as Brazil" It's funny how you can make the argument about money that "would have been spent". Many open source zealots (and Stallman himself) talk about how the software industry can't equate piracy to dollars people would have spent. Why should this be any different? Software licenses are also a very small part of the entire cost. The biggest costs are support (this is how most open source companies make their money). Even if governments had saved as much money as you want us to believe, I seriously doubt it would go into healthcare, education, and employment. "Do you think Google could have been done without Gnu/Linux when they needed to install thousands of servers and didn't have yet the money to pay licenses?" There are other variants of unix that have even less restrictive licenses. BSD comes to mind. Gnu/Linux was a means to an end. "It's all free/open source software, a way bigger revolution than the PC which was a boring work machine before for most people." Most users don't use a variant of linux on their desktop. Microsoft brought computers in every home and made computers "interesting". "Well, think and try to calculate again. Gates' done way less." Gates has proof that he has helped the poor with billions of dollars. Stallman has possibilities and no direct proof of anything.
- jodrellblank 16y ago
  Stallman has possibilities and no direct proof of anything. Stallman is the guy who pushed the asteroid and watched it sail harmlessly past. In alternate reality, Gates is the guy on the ground helping the survivors clean up after the asteroid hit. Metaphorically, of course. Stallman's good is causing unknown amounts of freedom restriction and consequent problems to not ever have happened - which isn't really tangible.
  - rick888 16y ago
    "Metaphorically, of course. Stallman's good is causing unknown amounts of freedom restriction and consequent problems to not ever have happened - which isn't really tangible." Without Stallman and the GNU, we would still have just as much software on the market. Many of the people and companies would have most likely released it under the BSD license (or public domain). ..and like I said. I still don't buy it. Piracy causes unknown amounts of damage to commercial software companies. If the community comes to terms with this, I might be more apt to come to terms with the amount of unknown "good" Stallman has done.
ciupicri 16y ago
By the way the estimated cost of Red Hat 7.1 (not RHEL) is 1 billion dollars, so it's comparable with funds of the Gates foundation. [1] [1] http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/redhat71-v1/redhat71sloc.html http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/redhat71-v1/redhat71sloc.html
tzs 16y ago
The link you cite for your numbers does not support your numbers. In fact, the link has almost nothing to do with what you are citing it for. Did you by any chance paste in the wrong link?

tzs 16y ago

Dead people can't use free software. Nothing you've cited comes anywhere near matching or exceeding the good the Gates Foundation as done with its global health initiatives.

rick888 16y ago

"Many governments have switched to Gnu/Linux and are saving billions of dollars each year for the last ten years such as Brazil" It's funny how you can make the argument about money that "would have been spent". Many open source zealots (and Stallman himself) talk about how the software industry can't equate piracy to dollars people would have spent. Why should this be any different? Software licenses are also a very small part of the entire cost. The biggest costs are support (this is how most open source companies make their money). Even if governments had saved as much money as you want us to believe, I seriously doubt it would go into healthcare, education, and employment. "Do you think Google could have been done without Gnu/Linux when they needed to install thousands of servers and didn't have yet the money to pay licenses?" There are other variants of unix that have even less restrictive licenses. BSD comes to mind. Gnu/Linux was a means to an end. "It's all free/open source software, a way bigger revolution than the PC which was a boring work machine before for most people." Most users don't use a variant of linux on their desktop. Microsoft brought computers in every home and made computers "interesting". "Well, think and try to calculate again. Gates' done way less." Gates has proof that he has helped the poor with billions of dollars. Stallman has possibilities and no direct proof of anything.

jodrellblank 16y ago
Stallman has possibilities and no direct proof of anything. Stallman is the guy who pushed the asteroid and watched it sail harmlessly past. In alternate reality, Gates is the guy on the ground helping the survivors clean up after the asteroid hit. Metaphorically, of course. Stallman's good is causing unknown amounts of freedom restriction and consequent problems to not ever have happened - which isn't really tangible.
- rick888 16y ago
  "Metaphorically, of course. Stallman's good is causing unknown amounts of freedom restriction and consequent problems to not ever have happened - which isn't really tangible." Without Stallman and the GNU, we would still have just as much software on the market. Many of the people and companies would have most likely released it under the BSD license (or public domain). ..and like I said. I still don't buy it. Piracy causes unknown amounts of damage to commercial software companies. If the community comes to terms with this, I might be more apt to come to terms with the amount of unknown "good" Stallman has done.

ciupicri 16y ago

By the way the estimated cost of Red Hat 7.1 (not RHEL) is 1 billion dollars, so it's comparable with funds of the Gates foundation. [1] [1] http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/redhat71-v1/redhat71sloc.html http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/redhat71-v1/redhat71sloc.html

tzs 16y ago

The link you cite for your numbers does not support your numbers. In fact, the link has almost nothing to do with what you are citing it for. Did you by any chance paste in the wrong link?