6 ms·

Perhaps Stallman and the FSF are right? We can fork Firefox, but I agree with many other commenters that a fork isn't sufficient. It is the underlying concept

by sounds 9y ago

Perhaps Stallman and the FSF are right? We can fork Firefox, but I agree with many other commenters that a fork isn't sufficient. It is the underlying concept I am trying to shine a light on: software should serve the user. When Mozilla becomes user-hostile, we can establish new guards for our future security. But if we, the software writers, become user-hostile, then there will be no one left.

Xylakant 9y ago
The fundamental problem is that the software that serves the user needs to be paid for. If every FF user would chip in a small sum, that might work, but people would rather switch to chrome.
- sounds 9y ago
  That's a common misconception: software that is Libre can be bought and sold. It just comes with the source code. (Libre is not the same as Gratis.)
  - Xylakant 9y ago
    It’s not a misconception. Firefox could be sold, the problem is that nobody would buy it. Opera tried to sell a browser, people stuck with the cost-free alternatives. People would rather use chrome than pay for FF.
figurehe4d 9y ago
Do people actually think Stallman was wrong?
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  Stallman's issue is that he comes across as a fundamentalist extremist, and most of his suggestions require making huge sacrifices to one's quality of life. Take Stallman's own website[1]. It is mostly text. While this makes it fast, it doesn't make it readable at all. And finding specific stuff is nearly impossible. Yeah, there is a search feature, but is extremely rudimentary and very user-hostile. If it were up to Stallman, the entire Internet would look and work like this. This was OK in 1990. It no longer is. Sorry. [1]https://stallman.org/ https://stallman.org/
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - gradstudent 9y ago
    I think Stallman's website says more about Stallman's design sensibilities than it does about the ability of plain text to be readable or for search to be effective.
    - SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
      Like the progression from http://www.motherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://www.motherfuckingwebsite.com/ to http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/.
      - mrob 9y ago
        Low contrast text is a downgrade. https://bestmotherfucking.website/ https://bestmotherfucking.website/ is a true upgrade.
        SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
        Agreed, I knew there were more but didn't want to find the rest.
  - gkya 9y ago
    Wut? That's his website and he makes it however he likes. I haven't ever heard him telling people to make websites with default HTML layouts or not use interactivity or better search tools etc. WRT websites his opinions regard the tracking they force upon the users and the closed-source-ness of them. Maybe you should read things before you link them, eh?
    - village-idiot 9y ago
      I think the website is a bad example, but the above characterization of Stallman being a fanatic who is blind to other's needs is not incorrect. There have been multiple cases with him recommending people forgo having working software and hardware if it isn't 100% free. That might be the ideologically pure stance, but it's also massively impractical. As a true believer he just does not understand that the vast majority of the users just want to do work with their equipment, and that choosing to forgo working drivers for some abstract right to modify that 99.9999% of users will never exercise is just utter nonsense. Also, Stallman is a grade A asshole. I've met him, and he is a deeply unpleasant man to be around.
- krapp 9y ago
  Stallman is right about some things, but not everything. He's right that proprietary software can be used for malicious purposes or evil intent, but he's incorrect that it must be.
  - monob 9y ago
    I'm saving you a t-shirt for when you finally see the light.
  - naasking 9y ago
    > He's right that proprietary software can be used for malicious purposes or evil intent, but he's incorrect that it must be Perhaps it must be simply because if it can be misused, it inevitably will be. Therefore, Stallman is correct.
    - krapp 9y ago
      That's an argument that can be just as easily applied to FOSS software, yet I see no one in the FOSS community warning against the slippery slope of evil that is free software.
      - naasking 9y ago
        No it can't. FOSS can't be misused to take away a user's access to the software and data produced by said software. Other types of misuse isn't relevant because FOSS can't do anything about them.
        krapp 9y ago
        >No it can't. FOSS can't be misused to take away a user's access to the software and data produced by said software. Other types of misuse isn't relevant because FOSS can't do anything about them. You're moving the goalposts now. You claimed that if proprietary software can be misused, it will be, and therefore therefore Stallman is right about all proprietary software being malicious - yet it's precisely those types of misuse you now want to deem irrelevant which underpin the entire moral argument behind the free software ethos. The argument has never been that proprietary software is immoral merely because the code isn't free, but that the code not being free is what allows those other abuses to occur.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  Stallman puts himself forward as an authority on the best way to use the internet, even though doesn't actually use the internet in any recognizable way.[1] He comes off like an internal combustion engine designer who has never been in a car, declaring himself a traffic flow expert. [1] "I generally do not connect to web sites from my own machine, aside from a few sites I have some special relationship with. I usually fetch web pages from other sites by sending mail to a program (see https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/womb/hacks.git https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/womb/hacks.git) that fetches them, much like wget, and then mails them back to me. Then I look at them using a web browser, unless it is easy to see the text in the HTML page directly. I usually try lynx first, then a graphical browser if the page needs it (using konqueror, which won't fetch from other sites in such a situation)." (https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html)

by sounds 9y ago

Xylakant 9y ago

The fundamental problem is that the software that serves the user needs to be paid for. If every FF user would chip in a small sum, that might work, but people would rather switch to chrome.

sounds 9y ago
That's a common misconception: software that is Libre can be bought and sold. It just comes with the source code. (Libre is not the same as Gratis.)
- Xylakant 9y ago
  It’s not a misconception. Firefox could be sold, the problem is that nobody would buy it. Opera tried to sell a browser, people stuck with the cost-free alternatives. People would rather use chrome than pay for FF.

figurehe4d 9y ago

Do people actually think Stallman was wrong?

enraged_camel 9y ago
Stallman's issue is that he comes across as a fundamentalist extremist, and most of his suggestions require making huge sacrifices to one's quality of life. Take Stallman's own website[1]. It is mostly text. While this makes it fast, it doesn't make it readable at all. And finding specific stuff is nearly impossible. Yeah, there is a search feature, but is extremely rudimentary and very user-hostile. If it were up to Stallman, the entire Internet would look and work like this. This was OK in 1990. It no longer is. Sorry. [1]https://stallman.org/ https://stallman.org/
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- gradstudent 9y ago
  I think Stallman's website says more about Stallman's design sensibilities than it does about the ability of plain text to be readable or for search to be effective.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
    Like the progression from http://www.motherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://www.motherfuckingwebsite.com/ to http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/.
    - mrob 9y ago
      Low contrast text is a downgrade. https://bestmotherfucking.website/ https://bestmotherfucking.website/ is a true upgrade.
      - SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
        Agreed, I knew there were more but didn't want to find the rest.
- gkya 9y ago
  Wut? That's his website and he makes it however he likes. I haven't ever heard him telling people to make websites with default HTML layouts or not use interactivity or better search tools etc. WRT websites his opinions regard the tracking they force upon the users and the closed-source-ness of them. Maybe you should read things before you link them, eh?
  - village-idiot 9y ago
    I think the website is a bad example, but the above characterization of Stallman being a fanatic who is blind to other's needs is not incorrect. There have been multiple cases with him recommending people forgo having working software and hardware if it isn't 100% free. That might be the ideologically pure stance, but it's also massively impractical. As a true believer he just does not understand that the vast majority of the users just want to do work with their equipment, and that choosing to forgo working drivers for some abstract right to modify that 99.9999% of users will never exercise is just utter nonsense. Also, Stallman is a grade A asshole. I've met him, and he is a deeply unpleasant man to be around.
krapp 9y ago
Stallman is right about some things, but not everything. He's right that proprietary software can be used for malicious purposes or evil intent, but he's incorrect that it must be.
- monob 9y ago
  I'm saving you a t-shirt for when you finally see the light.
- naasking 9y ago
  > He's right that proprietary software can be used for malicious purposes or evil intent, but he's incorrect that it must be Perhaps it must be simply because if it can be misused, it inevitably will be. Therefore, Stallman is correct.
  - krapp 9y ago
    That's an argument that can be just as easily applied to FOSS software, yet I see no one in the FOSS community warning against the slippery slope of evil that is free software.
    - naasking 9y ago
      No it can't. FOSS can't be misused to take away a user's access to the software and data produced by said software. Other types of misuse isn't relevant because FOSS can't do anything about them.
      - krapp 9y ago
        >No it can't. FOSS can't be misused to take away a user's access to the software and data produced by said software. Other types of misuse isn't relevant because FOSS can't do anything about them. You're moving the goalposts now. You claimed that if proprietary software can be misused, it will be, and therefore therefore Stallman is right about all proprietary software being malicious - yet it's precisely those types of misuse you now want to deem irrelevant which underpin the entire moral argument behind the free software ethos. The argument has never been that proprietary software is immoral merely because the code isn't free, but that the code not being free is what allows those other abuses to occur.
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
Stallman puts himself forward as an authority on the best way to use the internet, even though doesn't actually use the internet in any recognizable way.[1] He comes off like an internal combustion engine designer who has never been in a car, declaring himself a traffic flow expert. [1] "I generally do not connect to web sites from my own machine, aside from a few sites I have some special relationship with. I usually fetch web pages from other sites by sending mail to a program (see https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/womb/hacks.git https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/womb/hacks.git) that fetches them, much like wget, and then mails them back to me. Then I look at them using a web browser, unless it is easy to see the text in the HTML page directly. I usually try lynx first, then a graphical browser if the page needs it (using konqueror, which won't fetch from other sites in such a situation)." (https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html)