5 ms·

Asking out of curiosity, not to be cruel: I wonder if he's willing to use medical equipment that uses non-Free software? To my knowledge, his stated position ag

Asking out of curiosity, not to be cruel: I wonder if he's willing to use medical equipment that uses non-Free software? To my knowledge, his stated position against using non-Free software is pretty much absolute; but given that medical equipment's software is almost universally non-Free, taking that stance here would seriously endanger his ability to receive necessary medical care.

ladyanita22 3y ago
i'd bet many machines run on old Linux kernels with some shitty blobs and software on top.
- thallosaurus 3y ago
  I got a slight feeling that most equipment runs on windows. Could also be wrong.
  - andrewia 3y ago
    Windows is common from what I've seen. When I did a brief interview with Abbott Medical Devices in the 2010s, Windows experience was mentioned.
  - milianw 3y ago
    sadly there's also a lot of QNX :(
    - elromulous 3y ago
      Ah QNX, one of the few remaining vestiges of the microkernel. I know it's not foss, and I'm aware of mach, but QNX still holds a place in my heart.
  - skywal_l 3y ago
    From what I know in the industry, Windows for the UI and some real time OS for control like VxWorks. But things are changing and linux is getting some traction. The healthcare industry is very slow moving (as it should be).
    - ladyanita22 3y ago
      All this stuff is constantly moving, but I bet things in the future will be RT Linux plus some RTOS-drive microcontrollers for specific hardware and safety stuff. That's where everyone is heading to.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  Just installed a gas boiler that only has a 7 segment LCD to display the water temperature. Yet it runs Linux. And it takes 30 seconds to boot up.
  - ladyanita22 3y ago
    WTF I can't believe they put linux in there. Must be much fancier than a MCU-driven display.
elromulous 3y ago
Does that mean he doesn't drive/fly/ride in/on any cars/buses/trains/aircraft? Because the same applies to those.
- Gigachad 3y ago
  Stallman and the FSF has fairly arbitrary views on this stuff. Non free firmware running on microcontrollers is fine because it's part of the hardware. But if there is a firmware blob that gets copied over by the OS on boot, then it's not ok for unclear reasons. Results in a lot of stuff getting rejected for FSF certification despite being just as open practically as the certified stuff. A car probably just isn't seen as software to him if it's just the internal control systems. Maybe the entertainment system these days would be.
  - Xelynega 3y ago
    I think you have this a bit backwards. To my knowledge the FSF doesn't consider firmware blobs with no way to flash "part of certification" because it would be inoractical to do so. By definition "software you can't change" isn't "free"(as in speech, not beer), so I don't think it's an ideological line. So they either have to consider any device with unmodifiable software to be non-free(basically removing entire device classes), or be realistic and draw the line somewhere. "Can you modify the software on the device from the rest of the gnu software" is a line that matches up with their ideals fairly well IMO. Basically, Richard Stallman is well aware that cars are bundles of non-free software(see: https://jalopnik.com/richard-stallman-weighs-in-on-the-check-engine-light-5881544 https://jalopnik.com/richard-stallman-weighs-in-on-the-check...). He has voiced opinions that software controlling the brakes in your car should be FSF and not binary blobs that come pre-installed with no visibility.
- skrebbel 3y ago
  I think what it means is that if there were open source airplanes he’d take those, even at the cost of an enormous detour.
- debok 3y ago
  RMS is notorious for his willingness to go through quite a lot of inconvenience to stick to his free software principles. You can search his site for the word "ticket" to get an idea of how he feels about software systems in public transport.
thih9 3y ago
Note that it wouldn’t be him using (operating) the machines.
riffraff 3y ago
GNU existed without a kernel for a while, RMS did not stop using computers. If there is no free alternative you use what you can.
- usr1106 3y ago
  For a while? Wasn't GNU Hurd supposed to be the kernel? Just vague memories, didn't read up on it right now. Still not even close to ready. Linux is not a GNU project. But it's free software, so I suppose RMS could use it without major pain. Although he'd probably prefer Linux to use GPLv3.
  - erik_seaberg 3y ago
    GNU started with rewriting the Unix userland (especially GCC) years before announcing the Hurd effort. I think they developed and tested on BSD and SunOS, and later Linux (because they had nearly written the first distro, only without a kernel).
chaps 3y ago
The question is at least on his mind: https://www.gnuhealth.org/ https://www.gnuhealth.org/
randunel 3y ago
I remember Stallman claiming he would use non-free software if there was no alternative, providing an example of software use without alternative at some conference. His position isn't "absolute" to reject everything non-free, in his example he'd use Windows as long as there were no alternatives and usage had to be performed. Unfortunately, I can't find a link with this claim to share.
code_duck 3y ago
I don't believe that Stallman would give up his principles. I suppose one could investigate whether has ever been to an ER. My guess is that he would rather stand firm and die.
- code_duck 3y ago
  Not sure how people interpreted this, but it wasn't criticism or celebration of his misfortune. I intended to note that he is extraordinarily firm in standing by his beliefs and principles.
NhanH 3y ago
I will answer this assuming good faith, but this line of reasoning is very irritating since the answer (to me) is obvious. If RMS made a choice to use proprietary software, with the only alternative being his dead, there is absolutely no moral conflict, or even anything against his principle. The only issue could only ever arises if he claimed "Free Software is more important than human lives", which I am pretty sure not a claim he, or anyone, has ever made. It's basically the same principle as if you point a gun to my head and tell me to kill a puppy or get shot (and I'm certain you would shoot me). It's obvious which choice I would make, and I hardly see that as an evidence of my hatred for puppy.
- aragonite 3y ago
  > The only issue could only ever arises if he claimed "Free Software is more important than human lives", which I am pretty sure not a claim he, or anyone, has ever made. Valuing freedom (even in limited spheres) more than human lives is a pretty familiar American idea. For example, recall Patrick Henry's "give me liberty or give me death" and consider that he was talking about the prospect of being taxed without his consent, not enslavement. Also, recall Private Eightball from Full Metal Jacket: "Personally, I think, uh... they don't really want to be involved in this war. You know, I mean... they sort of took away our freedom and gave it to the, to the gookers, you know. But they don't want it. They'd rather be alive than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards."
  - erik_seaberg 3y ago
    Can modified firmware be used with human patients, or would somebody go to prison or lose his license to practice? Would hackers have to collaborate with a manufacturer before a device goes into certification?
    - mbakke 3y ago
      Arguably there should be laws mandating that medical equipment MUST be open for everyone to inspect, contribute, and share. That does not answer your question though. It goes both ways: if the doctor recognises that a firmware tweak may save your life, then she should be able to do so.
globular-toast 3y ago
Do people really think RMS is like a Jehovah's Witness or something? The man is about practically bringing the change he wants to see. He started his own damn Unix clone that we still rely on to this day and you liken him to religious nutters?
- l33t7332273 3y ago
  I think TempleOS shows that designing an operating system does not mean you can’t be a religious nutter.
INTPenis 3y ago
Younger folk might not remember that RMS actually once said that Word 5.0 was the best word processor he ever used. He's not unreasonable, he's just very adamant about software freedom.
rekado 3y ago
There are two common misunderstandings about free software: + the opposition against proprietary software does not mean that using proprietary software is immoral on its own. (Although you'll find plenty of people who will make this some sort of purity contest, rms is not one of them.) The moral evil that the free software movement address is to be forced or coerced to use proprietary software. The mere use of proprietary software only becomes a moral issue when it results in drowning out free software. Much like the widespread acceptance of proprietary mobile phone apps leads to cultural shifts that essentially force everyone to use said apps to participate in life. (See wechat in China.) + The second is addressed here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy//po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.tr-en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy//po/who-does-that-server-real... As others have pointed out, there is no moral dilemma here. The demand for computational autonomy is not a dogmatic, religious belief that conflicts with medical treatment of a disease.
belorn 3y ago
This topic was discussed a while back on HN since its a topic that comes up a few times. Karen Sandler, executive director of the Software Freedom Conservancy, has a pacemaker with wireless communication that runs non-free software with undisclosed source code. When it was discussed on HN a developer for such company also gave his views, including the tight regulations that covers medical devices. FSF gave Karen Sandler an reward for her work on this: https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/mar/26/sandler-fsf-free-software-award/ https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/mar/26/sandler-fsf-free-... "Richard Stallman, President of the FSF, presented Sandler with the award during a ceremony. Stallman highlighted Sandler's dedication to software freedom. Stallman told the crowd that Sandler's “vivid warning about backdoored nonfree software in implanted medical devices has brought the issue home to people who never wrote a line of code. Her efforts, usually not in the public eye, to provide pro bono legal advice to free software organizations and [with Software Freedom Conservancy] to organize infrastructure for free software projects and copyleft defense, have been equally helpful.”."

ladyanita22 3y ago

i'd bet many machines run on old Linux kernels with some shitty blobs and software on top.

thallosaurus 3y ago
I got a slight feeling that most equipment runs on windows. Could also be wrong.
- andrewia 3y ago
  Windows is common from what I've seen. When I did a brief interview with Abbott Medical Devices in the 2010s, Windows experience was mentioned.
- milianw 3y ago
  sadly there's also a lot of QNX :(
  - elromulous 3y ago
    Ah QNX, one of the few remaining vestiges of the microkernel. I know it's not foss, and I'm aware of mach, but QNX still holds a place in my heart.
- skywal_l 3y ago
  From what I know in the industry, Windows for the UI and some real time OS for control like VxWorks. But things are changing and linux is getting some traction. The healthcare industry is very slow moving (as it should be).
  - ladyanita22 3y ago
    All this stuff is constantly moving, but I bet things in the future will be RT Linux plus some RTOS-drive microcontrollers for specific hardware and safety stuff. That's where everyone is heading to.
londons_explore 3y ago
Just installed a gas boiler that only has a 7 segment LCD to display the water temperature. Yet it runs Linux. And it takes 30 seconds to boot up.
- ladyanita22 3y ago
  WTF I can't believe they put linux in there. Must be much fancier than a MCU-driven display.

elromulous 3y ago

Does that mean he doesn't drive/fly/ride in/on any cars/buses/trains/aircraft? Because the same applies to those.

Gigachad 3y ago
Stallman and the FSF has fairly arbitrary views on this stuff. Non free firmware running on microcontrollers is fine because it's part of the hardware. But if there is a firmware blob that gets copied over by the OS on boot, then it's not ok for unclear reasons. Results in a lot of stuff getting rejected for FSF certification despite being just as open practically as the certified stuff. A car probably just isn't seen as software to him if it's just the internal control systems. Maybe the entertainment system these days would be.
- Xelynega 3y ago
  I think you have this a bit backwards. To my knowledge the FSF doesn't consider firmware blobs with no way to flash "part of certification" because it would be inoractical to do so. By definition "software you can't change" isn't "free"(as in speech, not beer), so I don't think it's an ideological line. So they either have to consider any device with unmodifiable software to be non-free(basically removing entire device classes), or be realistic and draw the line somewhere. "Can you modify the software on the device from the rest of the gnu software" is a line that matches up with their ideals fairly well IMO. Basically, Richard Stallman is well aware that cars are bundles of non-free software(see: https://jalopnik.com/richard-stallman-weighs-in-on-the-check-engine-light-5881544 https://jalopnik.com/richard-stallman-weighs-in-on-the-check...). He has voiced opinions that software controlling the brakes in your car should be FSF and not binary blobs that come pre-installed with no visibility.
skrebbel 3y ago
I think what it means is that if there were open source airplanes he’d take those, even at the cost of an enormous detour.
debok 3y ago
RMS is notorious for his willingness to go through quite a lot of inconvenience to stick to his free software principles. You can search his site for the word "ticket" to get an idea of how he feels about software systems in public transport.

thih9 3y ago

Note that it wouldn’t be him using (operating) the machines.

riffraff 3y ago

GNU existed without a kernel for a while, RMS did not stop using computers. If there is no free alternative you use what you can.

usr1106 3y ago
For a while? Wasn't GNU Hurd supposed to be the kernel? Just vague memories, didn't read up on it right now. Still not even close to ready. Linux is not a GNU project. But it's free software, so I suppose RMS could use it without major pain. Although he'd probably prefer Linux to use GPLv3.
- erik_seaberg 3y ago
  GNU started with rewriting the Unix userland (especially GCC) years before announcing the Hurd effort. I think they developed and tested on BSD and SunOS, and later Linux (because they had nearly written the first distro, only without a kernel).

chaps 3y ago

The question is at least on his mind: https://www.gnuhealth.org/ https://www.gnuhealth.org/

randunel 3y ago

I remember Stallman claiming he would use non-free software if there was no alternative, providing an example of software use without alternative at some conference. His position isn't "absolute" to reject everything non-free, in his example he'd use Windows as long as there were no alternatives and usage had to be performed. Unfortunately, I can't find a link with this claim to share.

code_duck 3y ago

I don't believe that Stallman would give up his principles. I suppose one could investigate whether has ever been to an ER. My guess is that he would rather stand firm and die.

code_duck 3y ago
Not sure how people interpreted this, but it wasn't criticism or celebration of his misfortune. I intended to note that he is extraordinarily firm in standing by his beliefs and principles.

NhanH 3y ago

I will answer this assuming good faith, but this line of reasoning is very irritating since the answer (to me) is obvious. If RMS made a choice to use proprietary software, with the only alternative being his dead, there is absolutely no moral conflict, or even anything against his principle. The only issue could only ever arises if he claimed "Free Software is more important than human lives", which I am pretty sure not a claim he, or anyone, has ever made. It's basically the same principle as if you point a gun to my head and tell me to kill a puppy or get shot (and I'm certain you would shoot me). It's obvious which choice I would make, and I hardly see that as an evidence of my hatred for puppy.

aragonite 3y ago
> The only issue could only ever arises if he claimed "Free Software is more important than human lives", which I am pretty sure not a claim he, or anyone, has ever made. Valuing freedom (even in limited spheres) more than human lives is a pretty familiar American idea. For example, recall Patrick Henry's "give me liberty or give me death" and consider that he was talking about the prospect of being taxed without his consent, not enslavement. Also, recall Private Eightball from Full Metal Jacket: "Personally, I think, uh... they don't really want to be involved in this war. You know, I mean... they sort of took away our freedom and gave it to the, to the gookers, you know. But they don't want it. They'd rather be alive than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards."
- erik_seaberg 3y ago
  Can modified firmware be used with human patients, or would somebody go to prison or lose his license to practice? Would hackers have to collaborate with a manufacturer before a device goes into certification?
  - mbakke 3y ago
    Arguably there should be laws mandating that medical equipment MUST be open for everyone to inspect, contribute, and share. That does not answer your question though. It goes both ways: if the doctor recognises that a firmware tweak may save your life, then she should be able to do so.

globular-toast 3y ago

Do people really think RMS is like a Jehovah's Witness or something? The man is about practically bringing the change he wants to see. He started his own damn Unix clone that we still rely on to this day and you liken him to religious nutters?

l33t7332273 3y ago
I think TempleOS shows that designing an operating system does not mean you can’t be a religious nutter.

INTPenis 3y ago

Younger folk might not remember that RMS actually once said that Word 5.0 was the best word processor he ever used. He's not unreasonable, he's just very adamant about software freedom.

rekado 3y ago

There are two common misunderstandings about free software: + the opposition against proprietary software does not mean that using proprietary software is immoral on its own. (Although you'll find plenty of people who will make this some sort of purity contest, rms is not one of them.) The moral evil that the free software movement address is to be forced or coerced to use proprietary software. The mere use of proprietary software only becomes a moral issue when it results in drowning out free software. Much like the widespread acceptance of proprietary mobile phone apps leads to cultural shifts that essentially force everyone to use said apps to participate in life. (See wechat in China.) + The second is addressed here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy//po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.tr-en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy//po/who-does-that-server-real... As others have pointed out, there is no moral dilemma here. The demand for computational autonomy is not a dogmatic, religious belief that conflicts with medical treatment of a disease.

belorn 3y ago

This topic was discussed a while back on HN since its a topic that comes up a few times. Karen Sandler, executive director of the Software Freedom Conservancy, has a pacemaker with wireless communication that runs non-free software with undisclosed source code. When it was discussed on HN a developer for such company also gave his views, including the tight regulations that covers medical devices. FSF gave Karen Sandler an reward for her work on this: https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/mar/26/sandler-fsf-free-software-award/ https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/mar/26/sandler-fsf-free-... "Richard Stallman, President of the FSF, presented Sandler with the award during a ceremony. Stallman highlighted Sandler's dedication to software freedom. Stallman told the crowd that Sandler's “vivid warning about backdoored nonfree software in implanted medical devices has brought the issue home to people who never wrote a line of code. Her efforts, usually not in the public eye, to provide pro bono legal advice to free software organizations and [with Software Freedom Conservancy] to organize infrastructure for free software projects and copyleft defense, have been equally helpful.”."