9 ms·

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,

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.

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.