5 ms·

Richard Stallman on Bill Gates: "It's not the Gates, it's the bars"

25 points by nickb 18y ago

swivelmaster 18y ago
I stopped reading after it turned into a rant about how all software should be free. While I understand and agree with some of the complaints about Microsoft, the extreme 'commercial software is bad' position is kind of ridiculous.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- logjam 18y ago
  You must not have read very carefully, because nothing in that article said anything about "commercial" software being bad. His points about Gates and his unethical and harmful business tactics are right on the money.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Commercial software largely means proprietary, especially in the area of web applications. It can have APIs and interact with other programs much the way Windows does, but it is proprietary nonetheless.
    - tx 18y ago
      ... which I consider a major loophole in GPL. If google is using a single line of GPL'ed software in their "Big Table" implementation, I demand to see the source, even though it's not "distributed" to my computer. Matt, free software is the major reason why PG, YCombinator, YouTube and Google are possible: this is why starting a software company is so cheap these days. Without it you'd be paying "enterprise-grade" fees for shit like a web server, operating system, complier, editor, bug tracker and commercial libraries for reading every imaginable file format or speaking any kind of protocol, plus a thousand other software things an average business needs to exist. Perhaps Stallman sees something you don't, partly because you take it for granted.
      - mattmaroon 18y ago
        You're assuming it's an either/or proposition. I never said that. I love free software, we use it for many things at Draftmix, and I own a ton of websites myself, none of which are hosted on Windows. I think it's had a hugely positive impact on the world, and I hope that some day my startup can contribute back. But that doesn't mean proprietary software is evil. There's a place for both, and Stallman doesn't see that. He can't because his religion blinds him to it. Free software is often better for a given task, and would still be preferable if it were equal. But I like Photoshop a hell of a lot better than GIMP and Windows or OSX (for my laptop anyway, not so much for servers) much better than Linux. Free software still clearly lags behind proprietary in some cases, and always will. There's plenty of room for both. And it's quite a large error on your part to assume I take it for granted.
        bayareaguy 18y ago
        It's ironic that the biggest obstacle to Stallman's idea of free software is his own stupid use of the word "free", so I feel I have to ask but do you mean free as in "without charge" or free as in "unencumbered"? Given that this is Hacker News, it's perhaps important to keep in mind that Stallman has nothing against commercial software. The whole "free" issue for him has to do with restrictions on the right of people to hack and redistribute their hacks.
        krschultz 18y ago
        No, the issue for Stallman is for the software to be open and stay open. There are many places where the GPL put limitations on what YOU CAN DO with the software. His whole "rights for the people" is a side effect of "rights for the software". By free he means the SOFTWARE is free, not the people using it are free to do what they want. There is a reason the BSD people complain like hell about GNU and the GPL. In my view, the BSD is 'free' software i.e. you can do what you want with it, and the GPL is 'shared' or 'collective' software i.e. you can change it, but you have to share all your changes.
        18y ago
  - swivelmaster 18y ago
    Okay, then it's a matter of word choice. He actually was talking about 'proprietary' software. "But Gates didn't invent proprietary software, and thousands of other companies do the same thing. It's wrong, no matter who does it." That is an outrageous statement.
    - gwniobombux 18y ago
      Why? Could you elaborate? Just like Stallman actually explains, why he thinks proprietary software wrong.
      - KirinDave 18y ago
        The problem with Stallman's statements here is that he makes arguments that are essentially non-sequiturs. He argues that code ought to be open because it is the best situation for all parties involved, which seems more-or-less on the money (although there are edge cases where it may not be true, as ESR pointed out). But this leads him to a militant, legally questionable and altogether obnoxious philosophy that all code therefore must be free, because otherwise it will all collapse into some sort of dystopian future and a black hole where all information is censured and controlled. But this wasn't the case when Stallman started his activist efforts, and it's not the case now. There is lots of free software and lots of for-pay software and some intersection of the two, and the world seems fairly happy with this situation. And there's really no evidence that the GNU approach has been solely or even significantly responsible for this state of affairs! It really seems like the market has understood the value of open source outside of Stallman's framework for it for quite some time. From a free-market perspective, the two kinds of software fill different market requirements. Often times closed-source software pioneers an approach, makes an initial profit, and proves a demand which open source efforts then methodically fill. This makes a lot of sense, when you think about it.
        mojuba 18y ago
        code ought to be open because it is the best situation for all parties involved He usually emphasizes that it's the best situation for users, and as far as I can tell never mentions software makers in this context. What he says essentially is software must evolve like an academic discipline. In academia, everything is open and accessible for everyone, so that you can take any one's work, improve it and share your improvement with others in the same manner. That's the way academia worked for centuries, and in fact it worked that way in all political systems. Note that Stallman is not pushing Computer Science as an academic discipline - not at all. Instead, he says all software must be free as in academia, as I understand it, and there is a reason for that, he says: proprietary software "divides" us like no other product or service we may buy. (Well, you'd add music, video and all kinds of copyable goods to the list of things that "divide" us, but notice that they became cheaply copyable thanks to computers and software.) So, what's wrong with his point in principle?
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  It's his religion, and no matter how mathematically intelligent he may be, he's as blind to rational thought in that area as the most zealous Imam. There are different types of intelligences, and it seems pretty obvious that he is incredibly strong in some and weaker than the average Wal-Mart shopper in a few.
  - tx 18y ago
    He seems to dislike Gates more than you dislike him, yet he managed to avoid personal insults against Bill's intelligence, despite his own limited (according to you) mental capacity.
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      I don't dislike him at all. I consider him the computer science version of a communist. Well meaning, but misguided and suffering from a severe case of tunnel vision. Saying he has limited mental capacity has a little different connotation than what I meant. Perhaps I didn't express it well. He would appear to be genius-level intelligent in certain regards (math/logic type) and the opposite in others (social, if his Craigslist personals and appearance are any indication). The free software thing is sort of a mixture of the two.
      - asimjalis 18y ago
        Also you managed to insult Imams and Wal-Mart shoppers for no particular reason, even though as far as I know neither takes a position on open source versus closed source software.
        bayareaguy 18y ago
        The selection of software at Wal-Mart is probably limited to closed source.
  - jrockway 18y ago
    I don't think you understand arguments. When you are arguing for a cause, taking a "reasonable" middle ground doesn't get you anything. You have to argue for the extreme, so that the other side agrees to meet you half way. Then you get what you really want. (If they met you half way to your half way, then you'd not be satisfied.) RMS needs to say "all non-Free software should go away" so that some of it will.
rplevy 18y ago
It's important to ask whether society benefits from proprietary source code whether it be controversial claims to patents on genetic data or software. Proprietary ownership of code harms society by limiting farmers, scientists, end users from having their rightful freedom and flexibility. The short term benefit to individuals gained by selling licenses does not excuse the resulting restriction of freedom, because it is viable to make money on free software. Stallman is an idealist who bases his demands on what an ideal world should be like. The case for software freedom (including the case for its economic viability) has been made repeatedly, most notably by Stallman. But the anti-freedom argument has never been convincingly spelled out, to my knowledge.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  The "anti-freedom argument" (which should actually be called the pro-proprietary argument, because nobody sane is against free software) is fairly simple: there can be both and both can coexist peacefully. We can (and do) have Linux and Windows, and use them for different things. The market and individuals decide which is better for what task. Some people say Ubuntu is finally a usable desktop OS for average Joe. Even if that's true, it took how many decades for free operating systems to reach that mark? They're at least 20 years behind in crossing the line (though perhaps now gaining ground rapidly). The financial incentive enabled by proprietary software gives us things like Photoshop (sorry, GIMP still sucks) and Illustrator, Flash, Windows or OSX. Certainly nobody would suggest that the open source community be legally prevented from making a Photoshop or Outlook or IE competitor. So why can't we have both and let the market decide? Why must proprietary be evil?
  - rms 18y ago
    >Why must proprietary be evil? Because rms says so
  - bayareaguy 18y ago
    Why must proprietary be evil? Personally I think it's a mistake to argue along the lines of good/evil. The biggest problem with both proprietary and free software actually lies in the ignorance of the people who license and deploy either form without understanding the consequences, especially the technical and legal ability to access data and historic documents.
billroberts 18y ago
I don't agree with Stallman. Like probably most HN readers, I use a lot of Free/Open Source software - Linux, MySQL, Rails... and it's incredibly valuable. However I don't expect all software to be free, and to a large extent many major bits of open source software are 'market distortions' created by the big commercial IT companies. Eg OpenOffice is largely StarOffice, bought by Sun and open sourced, mainly in order to (IMHO) piss off Microsoft. Writing good software takes time and skill (as we all know) and I don't think it's unreasonable that the people who do it should be able to charge end users for their efforts. Expecting all software to be written by public employees or in people's spare time is unrealistic.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- HansF 18y ago
  The gpl explicitly allows you to charge for your software.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    But forcing you to open source it prevents you from being able to, generally.
  - bayareaguy 18y ago
    While true, there is the problem with the GPL that it allows your competitors to leverage your own efforts against you. That's suicide for dumb resellers of commodity applications. But the successful open source companies have proven that for more complex things you can easily make plenty of money if you dual-license your software and use the distribution the GPL allows to build up an established brand.
froo 18y ago
Whether you hate Bill Gates for his business dealings with Microsoft or not is a matter of opinion. One thing we can thankfully all agree on, is Bill is sorely lacking in his ability to successfully dodge food... http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gallery/2008/jan/31/billgates?picture=332309801 http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gallery/2008/jan/31/bil... ... at least Steve Ballmer does a pretty good job at it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S30WdoEHCH4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S30WdoEHCH4
ComputerGuru 18y ago
I stopped reading the second I reached this: Gates' philanthropy for health care for poor countries has won some people's good opinion. The LA Times reported that his foundation spends five to 10% of its money annually and invests the rest, sometimes in companies it suggests cause environmental degradation and illness in the same poor countries. I've just lost all my respect for Richard Stallman. He's a total ass if he thinks he can make FSF look good by bashing the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation by spreading what qualifies - by Stallman's own definition - as FUD. Update: http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/richard-stallman-expert-in-the-art-of-fud/ http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/richard-stallman-expert-in-the...
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Lol. You definitely won't win many points by bashing the guy who is doing more to cure the worst disease in the impoverished world (malaria) than all of the governments of the planet combined. At least, not by bashing him for doing that.
- Tichy 18y ago
  So as long as you donate a percentage of your income to a good cause, it doesn't matter how you made that income? Like if you run a serial killer business or the Mafia, you are still good, as long as you donate to cancer research? Not a judgement about Bill Gates Foundation vs Stallman, I don't know much about it, just questioning your logic. My qualified opinion from reading lots of crime novels and watching mainstream Hollywood movies is that publicly donating to good causes is established standard practice for villains. (Again, not saying BG is a villain - being able to donate to good causes is one good motivation for trying to hit it big with a startup).
  - ComputerGuru 18y ago
    Gates didn't steal his money - he made it a way that Richard Stallman happens to disapprove of... there's a big difference. Gates took his capitalist profits and put them to good use treating malaria in 3rd world countries - doesn't smell like the mafia or organized crime to me; but what do I know.
pavelludiq 18y ago
You know that a lot of the famous idealist of the past have been laughed at for being diluted and not in touch with reality. RMS is not blind, he just sees what he wants to see. He knows the reality and knows that a lot of people laught at him for some reasons, but doesn't care. Look at him, he doesn't give up, he pushes harder and harder. I don't support his extremist ideas, im a more moderate free software fan, but his impact has been mainly positive. Did he cost any real harm to technology? Are his ideas killing jobs, destroying businesses? No, they are just supplying alternatives. We are now more ahead, if we didn't have free software. We may not be extreme as RMS, but we get pushed by a complete nutcase to do good. Im pretty sure RMS doesn't have any illusions and knows that he can never win completely, but he sees that he has positive effect and just goes on. P.S. Gimp sucks, but Photoshop's prise tag sucks more.
- swivelmaster 18y ago
  Photoshop is worth it if your business depends on it. Gimp wastes your time. It takes a few weeks to work off the price of Photoshop vs the time you'd lose trying to get Gimp to work properly.
edw519 18y ago
rms should stick to software. He'd make a lousy district attorney. Of all the evil Microsoft did to the world, "prosecuting" them for writing propietary software is an unwinnable argument. Instead of presenting arguments against illegal monopolistic practices he chooses the one thing Microsoft did that most people agree with: creating IP. And by arguing against IP, he disqualifies himself from attacking Microsoft's biggest crimes: hijacking others' IP. The U.S. government couldn't get Al Capone on any of the big stuff, so they went after tax evasion to put him away. At least that was also a crime.
- Create 18y ago
  At least that was also a crime. Ah yes, those were the days my Friend...
ctkrohn 18y ago
It's a little strange to attack the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for only giving away 10% of it's wealth per year and investing the rest. They give away a far larger proportion of their endowment than most other foundations. Notably, they recently announced that they intend to give away all their wealth within 50 years of Bill Gates' death. This is much different from other foundations funded by personal wealth: think of the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Carnegie Foundation, etc. that have effectively become self-perpetuating entities.
tlrobinson 18y ago
Bash Microsoft, and all proprietary software: ✓ Refer to DRM as Digital "Restrictions" Management: ✓ Point out the Linux kernel is one "small" part of the GNU operating system: ✓

25 points by nickb 18y ago

I stopped reading after it turned into a rant about how all software should be free. While I understand and agree with some of the complaints about Microsoft, the extreme 'commercial software is bad' position is kind of ridiculous.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
logjam 18y ago
You must not have read very carefully, because nothing in that article said anything about "commercial" software being bad. His points about Gates and his unethical and harmful business tactics are right on the money.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Commercial software largely means proprietary, especially in the area of web applications. It can have APIs and interact with other programs much the way Windows does, but it is proprietary nonetheless.
  - tx 18y ago
    ... which I consider a major loophole in GPL. If google is using a single line of GPL'ed software in their "Big Table" implementation, I demand to see the source, even though it's not "distributed" to my computer. Matt, free software is the major reason why PG, YCombinator, YouTube and Google are possible: this is why starting a software company is so cheap these days. Without it you'd be paying "enterprise-grade" fees for shit like a web server, operating system, complier, editor, bug tracker and commercial libraries for reading every imaginable file format or speaking any kind of protocol, plus a thousand other software things an average business needs to exist. Perhaps Stallman sees something you don't, partly because you take it for granted.
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      You're assuming it's an either/or proposition. I never said that. I love free software, we use it for many things at Draftmix, and I own a ton of websites myself, none of which are hosted on Windows. I think it's had a hugely positive impact on the world, and I hope that some day my startup can contribute back. But that doesn't mean proprietary software is evil. There's a place for both, and Stallman doesn't see that. He can't because his religion blinds him to it. Free software is often better for a given task, and would still be preferable if it were equal. But I like Photoshop a hell of a lot better than GIMP and Windows or OSX (for my laptop anyway, not so much for servers) much better than Linux. Free software still clearly lags behind proprietary in some cases, and always will. There's plenty of room for both. And it's quite a large error on your part to assume I take it for granted.
      - bayareaguy 18y ago
        It's ironic that the biggest obstacle to Stallman's idea of free software is his own stupid use of the word "free", so I feel I have to ask but do you mean free as in "without charge" or free as in "unencumbered"? Given that this is Hacker News, it's perhaps important to keep in mind that Stallman has nothing against commercial software. The whole "free" issue for him has to do with restrictions on the right of people to hack and redistribute their hacks.
        krschultz 18y ago
        No, the issue for Stallman is for the software to be open and stay open. There are many places where the GPL put limitations on what YOU CAN DO with the software. His whole "rights for the people" is a side effect of "rights for the software". By free he means the SOFTWARE is free, not the people using it are free to do what they want. There is a reason the BSD people complain like hell about GNU and the GPL. In my view, the BSD is 'free' software i.e. you can do what you want with it, and the GPL is 'shared' or 'collective' software i.e. you can change it, but you have to share all your changes.
        18y ago
- swivelmaster 18y ago
  Okay, then it's a matter of word choice. He actually was talking about 'proprietary' software. "But Gates didn't invent proprietary software, and thousands of other companies do the same thing. It's wrong, no matter who does it." That is an outrageous statement.
  - gwniobombux 18y ago
    Why? Could you elaborate? Just like Stallman actually explains, why he thinks proprietary software wrong.
    - KirinDave 18y ago
      The problem with Stallman's statements here is that he makes arguments that are essentially non-sequiturs. He argues that code ought to be open because it is the best situation for all parties involved, which seems more-or-less on the money (although there are edge cases where it may not be true, as ESR pointed out). But this leads him to a militant, legally questionable and altogether obnoxious philosophy that all code therefore must be free, because otherwise it will all collapse into some sort of dystopian future and a black hole where all information is censured and controlled. But this wasn't the case when Stallman started his activist efforts, and it's not the case now. There is lots of free software and lots of for-pay software and some intersection of the two, and the world seems fairly happy with this situation. And there's really no evidence that the GNU approach has been solely or even significantly responsible for this state of affairs! It really seems like the market has understood the value of open source outside of Stallman's framework for it for quite some time. From a free-market perspective, the two kinds of software fill different market requirements. Often times closed-source software pioneers an approach, makes an initial profit, and proves a demand which open source efforts then methodically fill. This makes a lot of sense, when you think about it.
      - mojuba 18y ago
        code ought to be open because it is the best situation for all parties involved He usually emphasizes that it's the best situation for users, and as far as I can tell never mentions software makers in this context. What he says essentially is software must evolve like an academic discipline. In academia, everything is open and accessible for everyone, so that you can take any one's work, improve it and share your improvement with others in the same manner. That's the way academia worked for centuries, and in fact it worked that way in all political systems. Note that Stallman is not pushing Computer Science as an academic discipline - not at all. Instead, he says all software must be free as in academia, as I understand it, and there is a reason for that, he says: proprietary software "divides" us like no other product or service we may buy. (Well, you'd add music, video and all kinds of copyable goods to the list of things that "divide" us, but notice that they became cheaply copyable thanks to computers and software.) So, what's wrong with his point in principle?
mattmaroon 18y ago
It's his religion, and no matter how mathematically intelligent he may be, he's as blind to rational thought in that area as the most zealous Imam. There are different types of intelligences, and it seems pretty obvious that he is incredibly strong in some and weaker than the average Wal-Mart shopper in a few.
- tx 18y ago
  He seems to dislike Gates more than you dislike him, yet he managed to avoid personal insults against Bill's intelligence, despite his own limited (according to you) mental capacity.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    I don't dislike him at all. I consider him the computer science version of a communist. Well meaning, but misguided and suffering from a severe case of tunnel vision. Saying he has limited mental capacity has a little different connotation than what I meant. Perhaps I didn't express it well. He would appear to be genius-level intelligent in certain regards (math/logic type) and the opposite in others (social, if his Craigslist personals and appearance are any indication). The free software thing is sort of a mixture of the two.
    - asimjalis 18y ago
      Also you managed to insult Imams and Wal-Mart shoppers for no particular reason, even though as far as I know neither takes a position on open source versus closed source software.
      - bayareaguy 18y ago
        The selection of software at Wal-Mart is probably limited to closed source.
- jrockway 18y ago
  I don't think you understand arguments. When you are arguing for a cause, taking a "reasonable" middle ground doesn't get you anything. You have to argue for the extreme, so that the other side agrees to meet you half way. Then you get what you really want. (If they met you half way to your half way, then you'd not be satisfied.) RMS needs to say "all non-Free software should go away" so that some of it will.

rplevy 18y ago

It's important to ask whether society benefits from proprietary source code whether it be controversial claims to patents on genetic data or software. Proprietary ownership of code harms society by limiting farmers, scientists, end users from having their rightful freedom and flexibility. The short term benefit to individuals gained by selling licenses does not excuse the resulting restriction of freedom, because it is viable to make money on free software. Stallman is an idealist who bases his demands on what an ideal world should be like. The case for software freedom (including the case for its economic viability) has been made repeatedly, most notably by Stallman. But the anti-freedom argument has never been convincingly spelled out, to my knowledge.

mattmaroon 18y ago
The "anti-freedom argument" (which should actually be called the pro-proprietary argument, because nobody sane is against free software) is fairly simple: there can be both and both can coexist peacefully. We can (and do) have Linux and Windows, and use them for different things. The market and individuals decide which is better for what task. Some people say Ubuntu is finally a usable desktop OS for average Joe. Even if that's true, it took how many decades for free operating systems to reach that mark? They're at least 20 years behind in crossing the line (though perhaps now gaining ground rapidly). The financial incentive enabled by proprietary software gives us things like Photoshop (sorry, GIMP still sucks) and Illustrator, Flash, Windows or OSX. Certainly nobody would suggest that the open source community be legally prevented from making a Photoshop or Outlook or IE competitor. So why can't we have both and let the market decide? Why must proprietary be evil?
- rms 18y ago
  >Why must proprietary be evil? Because rms says so
- bayareaguy 18y ago
  Why must proprietary be evil? Personally I think it's a mistake to argue along the lines of good/evil. The biggest problem with both proprietary and free software actually lies in the ignorance of the people who license and deploy either form without understanding the consequences, especially the technical and legal ability to access data and historic documents.

billroberts 18y ago

I don't agree with Stallman. Like probably most HN readers, I use a lot of Free/Open Source software - Linux, MySQL, Rails... and it's incredibly valuable. However I don't expect all software to be free, and to a large extent many major bits of open source software are 'market distortions' created by the big commercial IT companies. Eg OpenOffice is largely StarOffice, bought by Sun and open sourced, mainly in order to (IMHO) piss off Microsoft. Writing good software takes time and skill (as we all know) and I don't think it's unreasonable that the people who do it should be able to charge end users for their efforts. Expecting all software to be written by public employees or in people's spare time is unrealistic.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
HansF 18y ago
The gpl explicitly allows you to charge for your software.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  But forcing you to open source it prevents you from being able to, generally.
- bayareaguy 18y ago
  While true, there is the problem with the GPL that it allows your competitors to leverage your own efforts against you. That's suicide for dumb resellers of commodity applications. But the successful open source companies have proven that for more complex things you can easily make plenty of money if you dual-license your software and use the distribution the GPL allows to build up an established brand.

froo 18y ago

Whether you hate Bill Gates for his business dealings with Microsoft or not is a matter of opinion. One thing we can thankfully all agree on, is Bill is sorely lacking in his ability to successfully dodge food... http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gallery/2008/jan/31/billgates?picture=332309801 http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gallery/2008/jan/31/bil... ... at least Steve Ballmer does a pretty good job at it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S30WdoEHCH4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S30WdoEHCH4

ComputerGuru 18y ago

I stopped reading the second I reached this: Gates' philanthropy for health care for poor countries has won some people's good opinion. The LA Times reported that his foundation spends five to 10% of its money annually and invests the rest, sometimes in companies it suggests cause environmental degradation and illness in the same poor countries. I've just lost all my respect for Richard Stallman. He's a total ass if he thinks he can make FSF look good by bashing the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation by spreading what qualifies - by Stallman's own definition - as FUD. Update: http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/richard-stallman-expert-in-the-art-of-fud/ http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/richard-stallman-expert-in-the...

mattmaroon 18y ago
Lol. You definitely won't win many points by bashing the guy who is doing more to cure the worst disease in the impoverished world (malaria) than all of the governments of the planet combined. At least, not by bashing him for doing that.
Tichy 18y ago
So as long as you donate a percentage of your income to a good cause, it doesn't matter how you made that income? Like if you run a serial killer business or the Mafia, you are still good, as long as you donate to cancer research? Not a judgement about Bill Gates Foundation vs Stallman, I don't know much about it, just questioning your logic. My qualified opinion from reading lots of crime novels and watching mainstream Hollywood movies is that publicly donating to good causes is established standard practice for villains. (Again, not saying BG is a villain - being able to donate to good causes is one good motivation for trying to hit it big with a startup).
- ComputerGuru 18y ago
  Gates didn't steal his money - he made it a way that Richard Stallman happens to disapprove of... there's a big difference. Gates took his capitalist profits and put them to good use treating malaria in 3rd world countries - doesn't smell like the mafia or organized crime to me; but what do I know.

pavelludiq 18y ago

You know that a lot of the famous idealist of the past have been laughed at for being diluted and not in touch with reality. RMS is not blind, he just sees what he wants to see. He knows the reality and knows that a lot of people laught at him for some reasons, but doesn't care. Look at him, he doesn't give up, he pushes harder and harder. I don't support his extremist ideas, im a more moderate free software fan, but his impact has been mainly positive. Did he cost any real harm to technology? Are his ideas killing jobs, destroying businesses? No, they are just supplying alternatives. We are now more ahead, if we didn't have free software. We may not be extreme as RMS, but we get pushed by a complete nutcase to do good. Im pretty sure RMS doesn't have any illusions and knows that he can never win completely, but he sees that he has positive effect and just goes on. P.S. Gimp sucks, but Photoshop's prise tag sucks more.

swivelmaster 18y ago
Photoshop is worth it if your business depends on it. Gimp wastes your time. It takes a few weeks to work off the price of Photoshop vs the time you'd lose trying to get Gimp to work properly.

edw519 18y ago

rms should stick to software. He'd make a lousy district attorney. Of all the evil Microsoft did to the world, "prosecuting" them for writing propietary software is an unwinnable argument. Instead of presenting arguments against illegal monopolistic practices he chooses the one thing Microsoft did that most people agree with: creating IP. And by arguing against IP, he disqualifies himself from attacking Microsoft's biggest crimes: hijacking others' IP. The U.S. government couldn't get Al Capone on any of the big stuff, so they went after tax evasion to put him away. At least that was also a crime.

Create 18y ago
At least that was also a crime. Ah yes, those were the days my Friend...

ctkrohn 18y ago

It's a little strange to attack the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for only giving away 10% of it's wealth per year and investing the rest. They give away a far larger proportion of their endowment than most other foundations. Notably, they recently announced that they intend to give away all their wealth within 50 years of Bill Gates' death. This is much different from other foundations funded by personal wealth: think of the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Carnegie Foundation, etc. that have effectively become self-perpetuating entities.

tlrobinson 18y ago

Bash Microsoft, and all proprietary software: ✓ Refer to DRM as Digital "Restrictions" Management: ✓ Point out the Linux kernel is one "small" part of the GNU operating system: ✓