5 ms·

I feel for you. Stallman seems to think we all live in some free love hippie commune where we can all just give source code away. The world doesn't work like th

I feel for you. Stallman seems to think we all live in some free love hippie commune where we can all just give source code away. The world doesn't work like that and his fundamentalist attitude doesn't take people's need to eat lunch into account. You can't deny his skill and the great work he's done. Free software has its place in this world but so does proprietary code too. This rider while not being supremely high maintenance is riddled with superfluous explanations and liberally sprinkled with his own politics. Just write a damn list and get it over with. Save your speeches for the events, not the rider.

bad_user 15y ago
Stallman has an uncanny ability to predict the future in regards to our industry. Everything he predicted has happened already or it will. Trusted computing? It is here, it is popular and because of Apple it is also considered cool. It doesn't matter that the device you paid for is not your property anymore, people love shiny. Also, trusted computing got rejected by the market when Microsoft tried it, but now Microsoft is back on the horse and this time they'll succeed, because hey, we'll do anything for the sake of our grandmas, including giving up liberties for our future children. Building proprietary lock-in on top of open-source? Yep. Before 2001 when OS X got released, Linux was the future of computing in our eyes. Fast forward 11 years later, go to any software-related conference and you'll see 85% of all software developers with a MacBook in their lap. Basically OS X destroyed Linux's chances on dominating the future desktop. Uncompetitive advantages by any means necessary, including patents (which is something new)? Yep ... Java may be GPL.v2, but Oracle can kick the living crap out of you by using their patents and trademarks on it. On the whole, Sun releasing OpenJDK was nothing more than a publicity stunt of a dying company, just like the JCP was, to give the illusion of an open standard. The world doesn't work like that and his fundamentalist attitude doesn't take people's need to eat lunch into account. I think he earned the right to behave like a fundamentalist. You can agree or disagree with him, but if you do disagree, you should give a more detailed answer than "the world doesn't work like that". Because in fact the world does work like that. People have always helped each other in return for favors or for the greater good. The emphasis on individuals and individual gains is rather new and our economy is the one that resists, but considering the depression we are in, our economic systems don't really do a good job apparently ;-) You may not feel it now, even though it's 2011, but our lives and the lives of our children will depend greatly on software functioning for us. When certain software will stop functioning for individuals, make no mistake about it, that will be life-threating. Also, software companies can yield great control over our lives and can do great damage already. Remember when Google was the underdog just 11 years ago? Look at them now ... with a push of a button they can delete you from the Internet. Proprietary software pays the bills, but that doesn't mean it isn't a really big socio-political problem that needs to be fixed, sooner rather than later. So yeah, keep buying iPhones, but when the shit hits the fan Stallman will be there to teach you again why it was a bad idea; or he'll be dead with nobody to take his place.
- X-Istence 15y ago
  Why is it so bad that corporations can use open source software to build better software on top of? If the license allows for this, then so be it.
- glaurent 15y ago
  > Basically OS X destroyed Linux's chances on dominating the future desktop. Yeah, because the constant feuds within the Linux community, the failure to settle on a common desktop platform, the crowd of "I-want-to-write-yet-another-irc-client" devs, and the utter lack of appreciation for end-user needs all have nothing to do with it. What Stallman in particular and the Linux community in general fails to understand is that a broken or badly designed software for which you have the source is more of a prison to the user than a well-made, closed source one. Before you flame me, I've been part of the Linux community from 1995 to 2008, and I dare say I was more than an annecdotic contributor. I still support the idea of free software, but community development simply doesn't scale.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    Considering the huge progress that was made in the 90'ties on Linux and the lack of progress done after OS X came, I think it is safe to assume that OS X played a major role here. Software needs resources to get created and lots of it. As a company or as an individual, you can't sink time and resources into software that isn't at least popular. You can try to invest in something, but sooner or later resources dry out, priorities change, etc, etc... Desktop Linux seems to me that it was created by stitching obsolete software and quick hacks together with glue and spit. Even broken as it is, I still marvel at how functional it is for me. And even unpopular as it is, there are some normal people using it, which goes to show that it isn't totally broken or insane. broken or badly designed software for which you have the source is more of a prison to the user than a well-made, closed source one. I don't agree there - having the source is a huge advantage, even if you aren't capable of modifying it. Just as with cars, you don't necessarily have to go to the parent company and you don't have to fix it yourself. You can always choose a local shop for repairing and tunning. community development simply doesn't scale I wonder why are you saying that, when server-side Linux and related software is such a huge hit. You can also point out to some desktop software that is free software, that is sponsored and yet community driven and that is usable. That's Firefox and it's the reason why we came out eventually from the dark-ages of IExplorer's domination.
gaius 15y ago
Stallman's ideas on economics are predicated on every programmer getting a $1M grant from the MacArthur foundation, and another $1M from the Takeda foundation. That's how he can afford to do what he does.
DanBC 15y ago
>riddled with superfluous explanations How do you know they are superfluous? How do you know they weren't added over the years as they became needed after people did stuff?
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  Do you really think the parrot thing wasn't superfluous? Did he have to mention that? The whole thing with the tea was totally unnecessary. Just say "hey, if you want me come speak I'll need x, y, and z amenities". Do I care why he needs it? Very doubtful. Did he have to infuse his politics in the rider? Not really. That's just being a diva. He really thinks highly of himself. If youre an RMS fan, that's cool but how can you honestly defend that thing. Make a list. Not everything on it needs an explanation. I wish I could put it another way but my whole argument boils down to this: "C'mon. Really? Just c'mon"
mcherm 15y ago
You say: "The world doesn't work like that..." People who have FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED THE WORLD are in a position to critique the ways that the world works. A few decades ago, everyone agreed that "Open Source" (giving away code) just wasn't how the world worked. And RMS changed that. (Not alone, but he was a vital seed for that change.) So he's got every right to speak up on the subject.

bad_user 15y ago

Stallman has an uncanny ability to predict the future in regards to our industry. Everything he predicted has happened already or it will. Trusted computing? It is here, it is popular and because of Apple it is also considered cool. It doesn't matter that the device you paid for is not your property anymore, people love shiny. Also, trusted computing got rejected by the market when Microsoft tried it, but now Microsoft is back on the horse and this time they'll succeed, because hey, we'll do anything for the sake of our grandmas, including giving up liberties for our future children. Building proprietary lock-in on top of open-source? Yep. Before 2001 when OS X got released, Linux was the future of computing in our eyes. Fast forward 11 years later, go to any software-related conference and you'll see 85% of all software developers with a MacBook in their lap. Basically OS X destroyed Linux's chances on dominating the future desktop. Uncompetitive advantages by any means necessary, including patents (which is something new)? Yep ... Java may be GPL.v2, but Oracle can kick the living crap out of you by using their patents and trademarks on it. On the whole, Sun releasing OpenJDK was nothing more than a publicity stunt of a dying company, just like the JCP was, to give the illusion of an open standard. The world doesn't work like that and his fundamentalist attitude doesn't take people's need to eat lunch into account. I think he earned the right to behave like a fundamentalist. You can agree or disagree with him, but if you do disagree, you should give a more detailed answer than "the world doesn't work like that". Because in fact the world does work like that. People have always helped each other in return for favors or for the greater good. The emphasis on individuals and individual gains is rather new and our economy is the one that resists, but considering the depression we are in, our economic systems don't really do a good job apparently ;-) You may not feel it now, even though it's 2011, but our lives and the lives of our children will depend greatly on software functioning for us. When certain software will stop functioning for individuals, make no mistake about it, that will be life-threating. Also, software companies can yield great control over our lives and can do great damage already. Remember when Google was the underdog just 11 years ago? Look at them now ... with a push of a button they can delete you from the Internet. Proprietary software pays the bills, but that doesn't mean it isn't a really big socio-political problem that needs to be fixed, sooner rather than later. So yeah, keep buying iPhones, but when the shit hits the fan Stallman will be there to teach you again why it was a bad idea; or he'll be dead with nobody to take his place.

X-Istence 15y ago
Why is it so bad that corporations can use open source software to build better software on top of? If the license allows for this, then so be it.
glaurent 15y ago
> Basically OS X destroyed Linux's chances on dominating the future desktop. Yeah, because the constant feuds within the Linux community, the failure to settle on a common desktop platform, the crowd of "I-want-to-write-yet-another-irc-client" devs, and the utter lack of appreciation for end-user needs all have nothing to do with it. What Stallman in particular and the Linux community in general fails to understand is that a broken or badly designed software for which you have the source is more of a prison to the user than a well-made, closed source one. Before you flame me, I've been part of the Linux community from 1995 to 2008, and I dare say I was more than an annecdotic contributor. I still support the idea of free software, but community development simply doesn't scale.
- bad_user 15y ago
  Considering the huge progress that was made in the 90'ties on Linux and the lack of progress done after OS X came, I think it is safe to assume that OS X played a major role here. Software needs resources to get created and lots of it. As a company or as an individual, you can't sink time and resources into software that isn't at least popular. You can try to invest in something, but sooner or later resources dry out, priorities change, etc, etc... Desktop Linux seems to me that it was created by stitching obsolete software and quick hacks together with glue and spit. Even broken as it is, I still marvel at how functional it is for me. And even unpopular as it is, there are some normal people using it, which goes to show that it isn't totally broken or insane. broken or badly designed software for which you have the source is more of a prison to the user than a well-made, closed source one. I don't agree there - having the source is a huge advantage, even if you aren't capable of modifying it. Just as with cars, you don't necessarily have to go to the parent company and you don't have to fix it yourself. You can always choose a local shop for repairing and tunning. community development simply doesn't scale I wonder why are you saying that, when server-side Linux and related software is such a huge hit. You can also point out to some desktop software that is free software, that is sponsored and yet community driven and that is usable. That's Firefox and it's the reason why we came out eventually from the dark-ages of IExplorer's domination.

gaius 15y ago

Stallman's ideas on economics are predicated on every programmer getting a $1M grant from the MacArthur foundation, and another $1M from the Takeda foundation. That's how he can afford to do what he does.

DanBC 15y ago

>riddled with superfluous explanations How do you know they are superfluous? How do you know they weren't added over the years as they became needed after people did stuff?

billpatrianakos 15y ago
Do you really think the parrot thing wasn't superfluous? Did he have to mention that? The whole thing with the tea was totally unnecessary. Just say "hey, if you want me come speak I'll need x, y, and z amenities". Do I care why he needs it? Very doubtful. Did he have to infuse his politics in the rider? Not really. That's just being a diva. He really thinks highly of himself. If youre an RMS fan, that's cool but how can you honestly defend that thing. Make a list. Not everything on it needs an explanation. I wish I could put it another way but my whole argument boils down to this: "C'mon. Really? Just c'mon"

mcherm 15y ago

You say: "The world doesn't work like that..." People who have FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED THE WORLD are in a position to critique the ways that the world works. A few decades ago, everyone agreed that "Open Source" (giving away code) just wasn't how the world worked. And RMS changed that. (Not alone, but he was a vital seed for that change.) So he's got every right to speak up on the subject.