3 ms·

It is fashionable, but for good reasons.

alerighi 5y ago
For no good reason to me. Stallman predicted years ago things that only now are getting the attention of people, most notably the fact that with proprietary software it's the software that controls the user and not vice versa: just see the recent news, for example we now discuss about the control that Apple has on the store, or the fact that it's legitimate to scan the user internal memory and reporting to the police, something Stallman again predicted years ago. I think that in the end he is right. In a world where software is becoming more and more part of our lives, and not something for a couple of nerds like in the 80s, it's fundamental to embrace the free software, if we want to be free and not slaves of corporations like Apple, Google or Microsoft. Of course the media is against Stallman: it's the same media that is controlled by the companies that makes billions with proprietary software at the expenses of the users! Unfortunately most technicians don't understand the message of Stallman, that is not about money (free software != you don't pay for it) or about convenience (some proprietary programs are better than free ones and vice versa), but about something more important, democracy, that in the world we are transitioning to cannot exist if the software is a small oligarchy of 5 gigants.
- Permit 5y ago
  > Of course the media is against Stallman: it's the same media that is controlled by the companies that makes billions with proprietary software at the expenses of the users! I've been struggling with putting my thoughts into words regarding this point. There are two points that I want to make: 1. The idea you expressed is so clearly and obviously incorrect that it's surreal to see it on Hacker News. The American media conglomerates are not owned by Apple, Google or Microsoft. (This point is boring and probably not worth spending much time on) 2. The idea you expressed is so frequently posted in other contexts that I wish we had a separate word for it in English. There is this tendency for people (especially in conspiracy-focused groups) to make this same argument. I usually see it as some variation of "follow the money" or "who profits" followed by an extremely tenuous connection between some action and a profit-motive. These arguments usually treat companies (eg. Microsoft) or entire industries (eg. the media) as homogeneous entities with a single-minded focus on profit. In reality, these companies and groups are comprised of individuals with orthogonal and conflicting motivations (many of which have nothing to do with profit). The moment you realize this, ideas like "The American media manufactured a campaign against Richard Stallman so Microsoft could sell more copies of Microsoft Office" seem ridiculous. Whoever runs NBC does not have their paycheck tied to profits over at Microsoft. I wish I could more concisely express this idea.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    "Follow the money where your preconceived idea takes you"?
  - alerighi 5y ago
    You have a limited view of what the free software movement is. It's not all about software (despite the name), but most generally a movement that wants to go into the direction of a decentralized and more open internet, where all central entities, not only software companies, but also record companies, publishing houses, banks, and news companies, will become obsolete. It's a fact that news companies are lobbying against the freedom of the internet, just take a look at article 13 of the EU copyright law (that of course the EFF, FSF and Stallman did a campaign against). Other than that, typically free software, takes privacy and anti tracking more seriously. If you use Firefox for example, out of the box most trackers, that are the things that make newspaper earn money for each click, are blocked by default. Of course it's easier to just pay Google a percentage on the money earned trough ads and user tracking because you are sure that they will never allow blocking of them in their proprietary browser. While Firefox, a software developed by the community, you can't control, there is no company to pay to make the software go in the direction of your interests.
  - caslon 5y ago
    Sure is pretty plausible that the bigwigs of American media don't make stupid investments. It would be rational, even, if all of them had investments in technology. In fact, it's almost a sure thing that any of them with any investments have large portions of their wealth in technology stocks.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    > These arguments usually treat companies (eg. Microsoft) or entire industries (eg. the media) as homogeneous entities with a single-minded focus on profit. In reality, these companies and groups are comprised of individuals with orthogonal and conflicting motivations (many of which have nothing to do with profit). Well, it's not necessary that the whole org "thinks" this way - it's enough that those who are to exert the necessary influence, do so - in this case, Satya Nadella: > "In fact, this morning, I was reading a news article in Hacker News, which is a community where we have been working hard to make sure that Azure is growing in popularity and I was pleasantly surprised to see that we have made a lot of progress..." The relevant URL[0] no longer works, this one [1] does. [0] https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-corp-msft-q1-201 https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-corp-msft-q1-201 [1] https://c.s-microsoft.com/en-us/CMSFiles/TranscriptFY19Q1.docx?version=9b6b3c05-370b-0bd1-2c5f-1c9518f903b7 https://c.s-microsoft.com/en-us/CMSFiles/TranscriptFY19Q1.do...

For no good reason to me. Stallman predicted years ago things that only now are getting the attention of people, most notably the fact that with proprietary software it's the software that controls the user and not vice versa: just see the recent news, for example we now discuss about the control that Apple has on the store, or the fact that it's legitimate to scan the user internal memory and reporting to the police, something Stallman again predicted years ago. I think that in the end he is right. In a world where software is becoming more and more part of our lives, and not something for a couple of nerds like in the 80s, it's fundamental to embrace the free software, if we want to be free and not slaves of corporations like Apple, Google or Microsoft. Of course the media is against Stallman: it's the same media that is controlled by the companies that makes billions with proprietary software at the expenses of the users! Unfortunately most technicians don't understand the message of Stallman, that is not about money (free software != you don't pay for it) or about convenience (some proprietary programs are better than free ones and vice versa), but about something more important, democracy, that in the world we are transitioning to cannot exist if the software is a small oligarchy of 5 gigants.

Permit 5y ago
> Of course the media is against Stallman: it's the same media that is controlled by the companies that makes billions with proprietary software at the expenses of the users! I've been struggling with putting my thoughts into words regarding this point. There are two points that I want to make: 1. The idea you expressed is so clearly and obviously incorrect that it's surreal to see it on Hacker News. The American media conglomerates are not owned by Apple, Google or Microsoft. (This point is boring and probably not worth spending much time on) 2. The idea you expressed is so frequently posted in other contexts that I wish we had a separate word for it in English. There is this tendency for people (especially in conspiracy-focused groups) to make this same argument. I usually see it as some variation of "follow the money" or "who profits" followed by an extremely tenuous connection between some action and a profit-motive. These arguments usually treat companies (eg. Microsoft) or entire industries (eg. the media) as homogeneous entities with a single-minded focus on profit. In reality, these companies and groups are comprised of individuals with orthogonal and conflicting motivations (many of which have nothing to do with profit). The moment you realize this, ideas like "The American media manufactured a campaign against Richard Stallman so Microsoft could sell more copies of Microsoft Office" seem ridiculous. Whoever runs NBC does not have their paycheck tied to profits over at Microsoft. I wish I could more concisely express this idea.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  "Follow the money where your preconceived idea takes you"?
- alerighi 5y ago
  You have a limited view of what the free software movement is. It's not all about software (despite the name), but most generally a movement that wants to go into the direction of a decentralized and more open internet, where all central entities, not only software companies, but also record companies, publishing houses, banks, and news companies, will become obsolete. It's a fact that news companies are lobbying against the freedom of the internet, just take a look at article 13 of the EU copyright law (that of course the EFF, FSF and Stallman did a campaign against). Other than that, typically free software, takes privacy and anti tracking more seriously. If you use Firefox for example, out of the box most trackers, that are the things that make newspaper earn money for each click, are blocked by default. Of course it's easier to just pay Google a percentage on the money earned trough ads and user tracking because you are sure that they will never allow blocking of them in their proprietary browser. While Firefox, a software developed by the community, you can't control, there is no company to pay to make the software go in the direction of your interests.
- caslon 5y ago
  Sure is pretty plausible that the bigwigs of American media don't make stupid investments. It would be rational, even, if all of them had investments in technology. In fact, it's almost a sure thing that any of them with any investments have large portions of their wealth in technology stocks.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  > These arguments usually treat companies (eg. Microsoft) or entire industries (eg. the media) as homogeneous entities with a single-minded focus on profit. In reality, these companies and groups are comprised of individuals with orthogonal and conflicting motivations (many of which have nothing to do with profit). Well, it's not necessary that the whole org "thinks" this way - it's enough that those who are to exert the necessary influence, do so - in this case, Satya Nadella: > "In fact, this morning, I was reading a news article in Hacker News, which is a community where we have been working hard to make sure that Azure is growing in popularity and I was pleasantly surprised to see that we have made a lot of progress..." The relevant URL[0] no longer works, this one [1] does. [0] https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-corp-msft-q1-201 https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-corp-msft-q1-201 [1] https://c.s-microsoft.com/en-us/CMSFiles/TranscriptFY19Q1.docx?version=9b6b3c05-370b-0bd1-2c5f-1c9518f903b7 https://c.s-microsoft.com/en-us/CMSFiles/TranscriptFY19Q1.do...