8 ms·

Stallman comments on HN are so heated, in part, because a big part of his message is that developing non-free software is unethical. Not just wrong or misguide

by bm98 15y ago

Stallman comments on HN are so heated, in part, because a big part of his message is that developing non-free software is unethical. Not just wrong or misguided or foolish, but unethical. Morally wrong. What percentage of HN readers develop non-free software for a living, or for part of their living? So it hits a nerve, I think. And I am consistently drawn to Stallman threads on HN because people's reaction to this is so interesting.

recoiledsnake 15y ago
I think that attitude grew out of the extreme frustration with not being able to fix basic printer bugs in the printer drivers inspite of having the expertise to do it and waiting on the manufacturer who may or may not care enough to release fixes/enhancements. We take for granted the ability to being able to fix(or get fixed by 3rd parties) various physical things around us(you paid for the car, so it's yours to fix or break), so why not software? How would you feel if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of your car? Apple went one step ahead and did the equivalent of requiring to approve all accessories and anything to enhance your car. I may not agree with his conclusions, but I can understand his reasoning and that there is a method behind his (alleged) madness.
- jshen 15y ago
  "How would you feel if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of your car?" I don't think this analogy fits because there are open devices and people don't buy them. You don't buy them.
  - pyre 15y ago
    This is more along the lines of, what if all cars had locks on their hoods, but there was an 'open' car with no locks, but it was only a Pinto. Then people point to the Pinto and say, "See no one is buying it! No one cares about openness!" The real conclusion is the there are relatively few people that are willing to go extremely out of their way to remain on the side of open-ness. If there were two products that could compete at the same level, people may skew towards the open one.
    - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
      I don't think that can happen, though. The investment required to make something like the iPhone needs to be recouped somehow. If it were free, people would be able to clone it, reducing the ability for the original developer to create v2. I would drop my Apple household if I could have a free environment that worked as seamlessly as my Apple environment, not just for me but for my wife and kids as well. I am making a tradeoff between free (though I don't believe a free phone exists, no matter how open Google claims they are) and easy. I'm willing to make that tradeoff. Calling me immoral (RMS, not you :) is insulting. That said, I am grateful for everything RMS has accomplished ideologically. I use emacs daily, but more important, things like GNU/Linux exist thanks to his work. I just want nothing to do with him.
      - danssig 15y ago
        This is what frustrates me so much with all the rabid "ZOMG, they want to take over the world!!!" fear mongering against Apple. Is is so hard to believe that Apple has just found that most users want their machine to just work as easy as possible? Is it so hard to believe they are just doing what their customers want?
        loup-vaillant 15y ago
        It is. Their system could be just as usable if they gave you the root password. They could have provided the App Store by default, as a seal of approval, and let the users get their software from elsewhere as well. The garden is still walled, but you have a door for when you want out. Now without this App Store exclusivity, they probably wouldn't have been able to squeeze 30% out of the developers. But it wouldn't have affected usability.
        jshen 15y ago
        this adds complexity. Maybe you think that complexity is warranted, but you have to understand that there is a cost to it. You can always buy a product from someone else, or make your own if you think there is a demand that isn't being filled.
- onan_barbarian 15y ago
  I would be quite upset if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of my car without warning me. I might be considerably less upset if there were both "cars with locks on their hoods" and "regular cars without locks on their hoods" and if I was offered the choice between them. It's quite possible to support the choice between FOSS and commercial software, and think that FOSS is a great thing for people to develop, without deciding that people whole build closed-source software are "immoral". Don't like it? Don't buy it. I know this is a bit disingenuous and there are corner cases where it's hard to avoid closed-source. There are even a few cases where no amount of consumer choice (even, say, someone who avoids smartphones and 'cool gadgets') will allow you to escape closed source (e.g. government services available as closed-source software only or working only on platforms where you have to use closed source). The point still stands, broadly.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    You're talking about choice, but software platforms are natural monopolies and the winner takes all. Sometimes there is room for a second place in case you carve out a niche, but there is no room for a third place. So enjoy your freedom of choice, for now, but I remember a time when Microsoft was so strong that alternatives to Windows seemed destined to die. And alternatives would have died, if Microsoft had their way with Trusted Computing ... and personally I could see Microsoft banning Firefox because "it duplicates existing functionality". But hey, Apple is cool, right?
  - RyanMcGreal 15y ago
    What if it were a criminal offence to break the lock on your car's hood so you could fix the engine yourself? That's the world the Free Software movement struggles against.
- Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
  > How would you feel if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of your car? Interestingly cars are increasingly heading in this direction. The level of on-board electronics is raising the bar significantly on exactly who has the ability and equipment to service or fix a car. Even something as simple as resetting the service indicators often requires specialist equipment in newer models.
- danssig 15y ago
  >How would you feel if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of your car? Why would I care? I don't know anything about what's under the hood and I don't want to. You know what would be great about them locking the hood? If they do that they can't expect me to do maintenance things like pouring in oil, windshield wiper fluid or any of that stuff. The more "freedom" you have on a computer the more maintenance you have to do. Linux is the most "free" OS and it also takes the most effort to administrate. Every second I spend administering a computer is a second I'm spending on something I don't care about and doesn't get me any closer to what my business is about.
  - rdtsc 15y ago
    However you fail to see that if you can open the hood of the car so can a mechanic. You are free to go and sign a contract that is just between you and him, that says that you will not open the hood of the car, but they will on any sign of trouble. As soon as something is wrong, you call them and they will come and do maintenance for you. Congratulations, you just bought and installed Redhat Linux. Have problems configuring your software, call them up and they will be happy to help you. They are great, actually But then someone wants to fix their car but they don't have the money to pay a mechanic. Instead they have all the time they need, so they can read through manuals and try to fix things themselves. Congratulations, you just downloaded, installed and configured CentOS. Have fun playing with it, tearing its guts out, recompiling its kernel and doing whatever you want with it. Now you are focused on features. "Oh look, super user friendly interface! Never have to open the hood of my car". That is great! What about anti-features. Now that you can't open the hood of your car. One or two car manufacturers can start installing tracking systems that report your position, record all your conversations, all your phone calls, etc. Why? Well because maybe they were approached by the FBI or because they decided they could sell all this as marketing info to third parties. Now only that, there was legislation proposed to make it actually illegal to open the hood of your car. Think about that. You bought it, you open the hood, and police come to your door to arrest your for it.
    - nkassis 15y ago
      let's not forget that it would kill the entire car service industry in favor of the dealerships. Thinking of the financial impact on society as a result is already scary but it also doesn't let me choose between getting a cheaper oil change at quickylube or paying twice the price at my dealer. (You get to decide how valuable the dealer guarantee is).
tristanstraub 15y ago
I heard him talk last week in Zurich, and got a chance to ask him about those of us that work on what he termed as "custom software" for our clients, and whether this non-free software is bad. He was of the opinion that it does not involve the oppression of users, so is not ethically questionable. I think topic is still open for debate.
burgerbrain 15y ago
I develop non-free software for a living. My lively-hood, my standard of living, my hobbies (all very nice, and very expensive), all depend on it. 100%. And yet RMS was and continues to be a sort of software demi-god to me. I'm an atheist, but I'm expressing it with religious terms, so I don't use those terms lightly. RMS really is what I look up to and strive to achieve. No, I don't want to be him, but yes I do wish to match his philosophical purity. So when I say I think that people who knock on RMS because of their profession are in error, I'm also not speaking lightly.
zem 15y ago
but, however much it contributes to your living, do you genuinely believe that end-user restrictions are a good thing?
- danssig 15y ago
  Of course most anyone would be against them, but personally I think it's a consequence of how laws work and how word of mouth works. Remember the lady who bought coffee at McDonald's and managed to burn herself? She did that, but McDonald's was held responsible. The other example is Windows. For years and years it was known as a horribly unstable OS despite the fact that most of the failures were caused by poorly written 3rd party software. By locking things down more, Apple makes it harder for 3rd parties to make them look bad.
  - zem 15y ago
    citing the mcdonald's lady is a bad idea - it just shows that you don't know what that case was all about. see http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm fair point about apple benefiting from their restricted ecosystem, though note again that it's directly at the expense of their users' freedoms.
rdtsc 15y ago
I develop closed source software. Because it is a niche marketplace and releasing our software as open source would probably not work out very well in the end. However we couldn't develop our software without GNU software tools. Personally I support Stallman. He probably thinks what we are doing is morally wrong, so be it, I still support him because I think his ideas and philosophy changed computing world for the better. It doesn't have to be black and white and can be in between. We have GNU/Linux -- probably the best, server OS in the world. And it is FREE. Think about that. If anyone remembers what big Unix vendors would charge for it, you'd see how huge it is. Yeah Stallman is an extremist but I think every movement needs its extremists to push forwards. The ideals of the extremists are probably never realized fully but because they are there, the whole movement (including the moderate positions) moves forward.

by bm98 15y ago

recoiledsnake 15y ago

I think that attitude grew out of the extreme frustration with not being able to fix basic printer bugs in the printer drivers inspite of having the expertise to do it and waiting on the manufacturer who may or may not care enough to release fixes/enhancements. We take for granted the ability to being able to fix(or get fixed by 3rd parties) various physical things around us(you paid for the car, so it's yours to fix or break), so why not software? How would you feel if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of your car? Apple went one step ahead and did the equivalent of requiring to approve all accessories and anything to enhance your car. I may not agree with his conclusions, but I can understand his reasoning and that there is a method behind his (alleged) madness.

jshen 15y ago
"How would you feel if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of your car?" I don't think this analogy fits because there are open devices and people don't buy them. You don't buy them.
- pyre 15y ago
  This is more along the lines of, what if all cars had locks on their hoods, but there was an 'open' car with no locks, but it was only a Pinto. Then people point to the Pinto and say, "See no one is buying it! No one cares about openness!" The real conclusion is the there are relatively few people that are willing to go extremely out of their way to remain on the side of open-ness. If there were two products that could compete at the same level, people may skew towards the open one.
  - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
    I don't think that can happen, though. The investment required to make something like the iPhone needs to be recouped somehow. If it were free, people would be able to clone it, reducing the ability for the original developer to create v2. I would drop my Apple household if I could have a free environment that worked as seamlessly as my Apple environment, not just for me but for my wife and kids as well. I am making a tradeoff between free (though I don't believe a free phone exists, no matter how open Google claims they are) and easy. I'm willing to make that tradeoff. Calling me immoral (RMS, not you :) is insulting. That said, I am grateful for everything RMS has accomplished ideologically. I use emacs daily, but more important, things like GNU/Linux exist thanks to his work. I just want nothing to do with him.
    - danssig 15y ago
      This is what frustrates me so much with all the rabid "ZOMG, they want to take over the world!!!" fear mongering against Apple. Is is so hard to believe that Apple has just found that most users want their machine to just work as easy as possible? Is it so hard to believe they are just doing what their customers want?
      - loup-vaillant 15y ago
        It is. Their system could be just as usable if they gave you the root password. They could have provided the App Store by default, as a seal of approval, and let the users get their software from elsewhere as well. The garden is still walled, but you have a door for when you want out. Now without this App Store exclusivity, they probably wouldn't have been able to squeeze 30% out of the developers. But it wouldn't have affected usability.
        jshen 15y ago
        this adds complexity. Maybe you think that complexity is warranted, but you have to understand that there is a cost to it. You can always buy a product from someone else, or make your own if you think there is a demand that isn't being filled.
onan_barbarian 15y ago
I would be quite upset if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of my car without warning me. I might be considerably less upset if there were both "cars with locks on their hoods" and "regular cars without locks on their hoods" and if I was offered the choice between them. It's quite possible to support the choice between FOSS and commercial software, and think that FOSS is a great thing for people to develop, without deciding that people whole build closed-source software are "immoral". Don't like it? Don't buy it. I know this is a bit disingenuous and there are corner cases where it's hard to avoid closed-source. There are even a few cases where no amount of consumer choice (even, say, someone who avoids smartphones and 'cool gadgets') will allow you to escape closed source (e.g. government services available as closed-source software only or working only on platforms where you have to use closed source). The point still stands, broadly.
- bad_user 15y ago
  You're talking about choice, but software platforms are natural monopolies and the winner takes all. Sometimes there is room for a second place in case you carve out a niche, but there is no room for a third place. So enjoy your freedom of choice, for now, but I remember a time when Microsoft was so strong that alternatives to Windows seemed destined to die. And alternatives would have died, if Microsoft had their way with Trusted Computing ... and personally I could see Microsoft banning Firefox because "it duplicates existing functionality". But hey, Apple is cool, right?
- RyanMcGreal 15y ago
  What if it were a criminal offence to break the lock on your car's hood so you could fix the engine yourself? That's the world the Free Software movement struggles against.
Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
> How would you feel if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of your car? Interestingly cars are increasingly heading in this direction. The level of on-board electronics is raising the bar significantly on exactly who has the ability and equipment to service or fix a car. Even something as simple as resetting the service indicators often requires specialist equipment in newer models.
danssig 15y ago
>How would you feel if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of your car? Why would I care? I don't know anything about what's under the hood and I don't want to. You know what would be great about them locking the hood? If they do that they can't expect me to do maintenance things like pouring in oil, windshield wiper fluid or any of that stuff. The more "freedom" you have on a computer the more maintenance you have to do. Linux is the most "free" OS and it also takes the most effort to administrate. Every second I spend administering a computer is a second I'm spending on something I don't care about and doesn't get me any closer to what my business is about.
- rdtsc 15y ago
  However you fail to see that if you can open the hood of the car so can a mechanic. You are free to go and sign a contract that is just between you and him, that says that you will not open the hood of the car, but they will on any sign of trouble. As soon as something is wrong, you call them and they will come and do maintenance for you. Congratulations, you just bought and installed Redhat Linux. Have problems configuring your software, call them up and they will be happy to help you. They are great, actually But then someone wants to fix their car but they don't have the money to pay a mechanic. Instead they have all the time they need, so they can read through manuals and try to fix things themselves. Congratulations, you just downloaded, installed and configured CentOS. Have fun playing with it, tearing its guts out, recompiling its kernel and doing whatever you want with it. Now you are focused on features. "Oh look, super user friendly interface! Never have to open the hood of my car". That is great! What about anti-features. Now that you can't open the hood of your car. One or two car manufacturers can start installing tracking systems that report your position, record all your conversations, all your phone calls, etc. Why? Well because maybe they were approached by the FBI or because they decided they could sell all this as marketing info to third parties. Now only that, there was legislation proposed to make it actually illegal to open the hood of your car. Think about that. You bought it, you open the hood, and police come to your door to arrest your for it.
  - nkassis 15y ago
    let's not forget that it would kill the entire car service industry in favor of the dealerships. Thinking of the financial impact on society as a result is already scary but it also doesn't let me choose between getting a cheaper oil change at quickylube or paying twice the price at my dealer. (You get to decide how valuable the dealer guarantee is).

tristanstraub 15y ago

I heard him talk last week in Zurich, and got a chance to ask him about those of us that work on what he termed as "custom software" for our clients, and whether this non-free software is bad. He was of the opinion that it does not involve the oppression of users, so is not ethically questionable. I think topic is still open for debate.

burgerbrain 15y ago

I develop non-free software for a living. My lively-hood, my standard of living, my hobbies (all very nice, and very expensive), all depend on it. 100%. And yet RMS was and continues to be a sort of software demi-god to me. I'm an atheist, but I'm expressing it with religious terms, so I don't use those terms lightly. RMS really is what I look up to and strive to achieve. No, I don't want to be him, but yes I do wish to match his philosophical purity. So when I say I think that people who knock on RMS because of their profession are in error, I'm also not speaking lightly.

zem 15y ago

but, however much it contributes to your living, do you genuinely believe that end-user restrictions are a good thing?

danssig 15y ago
Of course most anyone would be against them, but personally I think it's a consequence of how laws work and how word of mouth works. Remember the lady who bought coffee at McDonald's and managed to burn herself? She did that, but McDonald's was held responsible. The other example is Windows. For years and years it was known as a horribly unstable OS despite the fact that most of the failures were caused by poorly written 3rd party software. By locking things down more, Apple makes it harder for 3rd parties to make them look bad.
- zem 15y ago
  citing the mcdonald's lady is a bad idea - it just shows that you don't know what that case was all about. see http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm fair point about apple benefiting from their restricted ecosystem, though note again that it's directly at the expense of their users' freedoms.

rdtsc 15y ago

I develop closed source software. Because it is a niche marketplace and releasing our software as open source would probably not work out very well in the end. However we couldn't develop our software without GNU software tools. Personally I support Stallman. He probably thinks what we are doing is morally wrong, so be it, I still support him because I think his ideas and philosophy changed computing world for the better. It doesn't have to be black and white and can be in between. We have GNU/Linux -- probably the best, server OS in the world. And it is FREE. Think about that. If anyone remembers what big Unix vendors would charge for it, you'd see how huge it is. Yeah Stallman is an extremist but I think every movement needs its extremists to push forwards. The ideals of the extremists are probably never realized fully but because they are there, the whole movement (including the moderate positions) moves forward.