8 ms·

I view Richard Stallman's attitude to this as though he has set himself up as some kind of social/technological guinea-pig for the general public good. Yes, he

by ktizo 15y ago

I view Richard Stallman's attitude to this as though he has set himself up as some kind of social/technological guinea-pig for the general public good. Yes, he is fanatical in several senses, especially nasal and botanical, by all accounts ( read Stallman does Dallas: http://stallman.org/articles/texas.html http://stallman.org/articles/texas.html ). But the day that Stallman cannot get on the internet, without compromising his own set of restrictions, is the day when it is literally impossible to have dominion over any computational objects that you think you own. [edit] for clarity, I thought about this, added the qualifier computational, and am not including abacuses ;)

fleitz 15y ago
Last time I checked iOS (the router OS) is not free, he probably does violate his own principles connecting to the Internet. Rms is like a vegan always preaching some moral high ground and always violating it whenever it becomes inconvenient.
- ktizo 15y ago
  oh noes! we are doomed! Run for the hills, we might get a better view. (yes, you are no doubt correct. I do still view him as an unusual type of rare bearded canary that has decided to take up residence in the coal mine through some form of altruistic bloody-mindedness) [edit] Plus, whatever you may think of him, he is bloody smart.
  - fleitz 15y ago
    He may have a high IQ but I wouldn't call him smart. If he was that smart people would be using his system instead of Gates and Jobs system. Gates and Jobs are smart, he's a loud mouth with a PhD. Listening to RMS talk about Windows and iOS is like listening to Tenenbaum lecture Torvalds on how monolithic kernels are a thing of the past. His system fails to fundamentally solve problems people actually have. I'm sure RMS's systems perfectly solve RMSs problems, and that's great if you're a self-centered pretentious asshole focused solely on your own needs. Unfortunately, if you're a regular joe with average needs his system doesn't solve very many of your problems. Gates and Jobs wisely recognized that catering to the needs of others is actually better for society than focusing solely on one's own needs. Software freedom for the vast majority of people is having their spreadsheet save them hours of manual calculations so they can catch their kids ballet recital. Freedom is a tradeoff, that's why we don't live in a society ruled by natural law.
    - antihero 15y ago
      I don't know, GNU is fantastic, and one of my main issues with Linux is that it has so many binary blobs and non-free software that are required for it to run on most machines. And as far as what "most people need", "most people" would do fine with a copy of LibreOffice and Firefox running on Ubuntu or whatnot.
      - fleitz 15y ago
        Yeah thats most of my issues with Linux mostly binary blobs and not the fact that my laptop won't wake up from sleep, I have to screw around everytime I plug in a projector. LibreOffice works great as long as I don't have to open any Word docs that use change tracking, or spreadsheets that involve calculations, or god forbid a powerpoint with anything but rudimentary graphics. It's a panacea I don't know why anyone would waste 2 billable hours on paying money to avoid the embarrassment of having to fuck around with your operating system for 15 minutes while you attempt to make a presentation. It's not 1994 anymore, people expect computers to work and it reflects poorly when they don't. And what am I saving this $300 for? For the privilege of being able add the code that should have been there in the first place.
        eliasmacpherson 15y ago
        Stallman's GNU quest began in response to a binary blob printer driver that he had no option but to suffer under, because it was closed source. The issues you describe are attributable to what's between the keyboard and the chair. Try getting a standard mac to work with the majority of projectors, without any adapters. The LibreOffice issues you are having are due to an arms race where Microsoft break compatibility with their previous formats each release. You have to learn to use the computer you have properly or you will embarrass yourself with it. This is true for all operating systems. Not everything is going to work exactly as you suspect, at least you're in a position to do something about it on your own linux machine. That's never going to be the case with the competition. Give it another 100 years, whose software is still going to be around, Stallman's, Jobs' or Gates'? It's not as feature complete, but it has greater longevity.
        15y ago
- jholman 15y ago
  As michael_michael and I replied to your other comment, you have obviously failed to actually read the article in question, and are drawing conclusions without basis, when you claim that using internet routers violates his own stated principles. RMS is precisely NOT like that type of vegan (not that I think that this is at all typical of vegans, either). If indeed you think that kind of consistency is the highest good, you should hold RMS in very high regard indeed.
- jmillikin 15y ago
  "I don't need to worry about what software is in a kiosk, pay phone, or ATM that I am using. I hope their owners migrate them to free software, for their sake, but there's no need for me to refuse to touch them until then."
- justauser 15y ago
  If you're referring to Cisco, it's IOS. You're right though that the odds of him not touching something like IOS or JUNOS or IronWare border on close to impossible.
  - wtn 15y ago
    He meant to say "IOS", it's just that iOS autocorrects those characters.
    - whatusername 15y ago
      The joys of Original Operating System Names. Cisco IOS, IBM i, Apple iOS. Not to mention: iRMX, IRIX, IOS-XR.
- downx3 15y ago
  How rude. Sometimes idealism isn't practical. Idealism is a goal, not an absolute.
- batista 15y ago
  As this guy, Momus, wrote: Perhaps the problem is actually with the idea of hypocrisy itself -- the idea that consistency is a greater virtue than whatever virtue an inconsistent man might be talking about, and that personal life and public policy must always be girded up and gridded up to resemble each other. Let me put an alternative point of view. Someone living in a castle, and owning a castle, could very usefully speak about post-materialism. Someone paying five figure utility bills would be in a very good position to talk about -- and act on -- the theme of energy wastage; they would be an expert on it, and have a vested interest in change, and actually have the possibility to make changes on a scale a pauper huddled over a candle could only dream of. Ad hominem: There are many reasons a charge of hypocrisy might be reactionary and counter-productive. First of all, the hypocrisy mindset pays too much attention to people's personal lives and too little to their programmatic or ideological outlook. If someone is a visionary, or is trying to solve a widespread problem, it's likely that his personal life will reflect the problem whereas his policies will reflect the solution. It would then be pretty stupid to accuse him of saying one thing and doing another -- especially if everyone were pretty much in the same boat, at least until an alternative infrastructure is set up. A charge of hypocrisy might well be a pre-emptive strike designed to stymie future solutions to universal problems. Consistency above correctness: Consistency is the hobgoblin of petty minds. Wanting things to be less complex, and wanting people and societies to be without internal contradictions is understandable, but small-minded. It ignores the fact that it is often only by sinning ourselves that we can learn exactly why sinning is bad. At a certain point we are all saying one thing and doing another. This is, apart from anything else, a sure sign of our complexity, and of our capacity to rise above our current way of living and search for alternatives, no matter how deeply we're mired. Allow it, brothers! Give me moral perfection or give me corruption: We often strike down people with a spotted reputation only to replace them with people who are unapologetically evil. We hate to be preached at so much that we ignore the sermons we need to hear and prefer unalloyed corruption. At least it's consistent, right? At least there's no hypocrisy there! At least change is taken off the agenda! Thank Christ "hypocrisy" has absolved us of the need to feel wrong, and to make a painful change! 100 people in a room: There are 100 people in a room, all doing A Bad Thing. They know it's a bad thing, a thing that will damage the room and everyone in it, but they can't stop. Suddenly a Visionary makes a powerful and moving speech. "We must stop doing The Bad Thing!" he says. His speech is effective: everyone stops. Except the Visionary himself, who keeps doing it. This, however, is a minor detail: the room is a better, safer place. Instead of 100 people doing The Bad Thing, only one is doing it. Suddenly a Commentator gets up. "Suckers!" he shouts. "You've stopped doing The Bad Thing, but the man who made you stop still does it! You've been had... by a hypocrite!" Soon everyone in the room is doing The Bad Thing again. But tell me, please, who has damaged the room more, the Visionary or the Commentator? Who has the best chance of helping the room?
b1daly 15y ago
But this idea of having dominion over any computational object (or really any object) is a fantasy. Are you going generate your own electricity riding your generator bike (powered by veggies from your garden) as you code? That's where I think his ideals go off the rails, their totality beyond common sense. FOSS of various flavors is cool. Of course it's not really free though. It's created by people in the context of an advanced technological society which has numerous components, many necessary, for it's existence.
- knewter 15y ago
  You could...use solar power. Your idea of 'beyond common sense' seems pretty limited in scope. And the F in FOSS isn't about price, it's about liberty. This is the very first thing anyone involving themselves in a discussion on FOSS should be aware of, and I feel sure that you knew that. What was the point of this comment?
  - b1daly 15y ago
    I was refering to the concept of "total dominion" over our computing devices, and trying to illustrate that this a hopeless goal. Yes, you could generate your own power, live in total isolation off the grid, attempt to make everything in your life yourself. You would fail, but you could try. But even in this, you are not free from being subject to the laws that govern where you live. This is an old debate: where should peoples freedom of behavior be controlled to the extent that it impinges on others' "freedom." This is where RMS loses me. His concept of freedom does not seem to include the concept that people should be free to conduct business in accordance with the laws of the land. In the US we are currently free to create and distribute FOSS if we want. Isn't that enough freedom? It's not totally free (in the liberty sense) but there is still a lot of freedom to do as one please with anything that you create (if its "original"). I happen to think that there are real problems with copyright now. The concepts behind the laws were derived before digital technology, and were always intended to address the commercial exploitation of original works. Not what individuals did. We have a situation now where the copyright laws are being enforced against individuals making copies of works for personal, non-commercial reasons, which feels unjust to me. I think part of the intensity behind the MPAA's legal attacks is the perception that if they give an inch, people will take a mile. And the legal foundation of copyright would be undermined by "facts on the ground." Changing the copyright laws to reflect current technology seems like a good idea.

by ktizo 15y ago

fleitz 15y ago

Last time I checked iOS (the router OS) is not free, he probably does violate his own principles connecting to the Internet. Rms is like a vegan always preaching some moral high ground and always violating it whenever it becomes inconvenient.

ktizo 15y ago
oh noes! we are doomed! Run for the hills, we might get a better view. (yes, you are no doubt correct. I do still view him as an unusual type of rare bearded canary that has decided to take up residence in the coal mine through some form of altruistic bloody-mindedness) [edit] Plus, whatever you may think of him, he is bloody smart.
- fleitz 15y ago
  He may have a high IQ but I wouldn't call him smart. If he was that smart people would be using his system instead of Gates and Jobs system. Gates and Jobs are smart, he's a loud mouth with a PhD. Listening to RMS talk about Windows and iOS is like listening to Tenenbaum lecture Torvalds on how monolithic kernels are a thing of the past. His system fails to fundamentally solve problems people actually have. I'm sure RMS's systems perfectly solve RMSs problems, and that's great if you're a self-centered pretentious asshole focused solely on your own needs. Unfortunately, if you're a regular joe with average needs his system doesn't solve very many of your problems. Gates and Jobs wisely recognized that catering to the needs of others is actually better for society than focusing solely on one's own needs. Software freedom for the vast majority of people is having their spreadsheet save them hours of manual calculations so they can catch their kids ballet recital. Freedom is a tradeoff, that's why we don't live in a society ruled by natural law.
  - antihero 15y ago
    I don't know, GNU is fantastic, and one of my main issues with Linux is that it has so many binary blobs and non-free software that are required for it to run on most machines. And as far as what "most people need", "most people" would do fine with a copy of LibreOffice and Firefox running on Ubuntu or whatnot.
    - fleitz 15y ago
      Yeah thats most of my issues with Linux mostly binary blobs and not the fact that my laptop won't wake up from sleep, I have to screw around everytime I plug in a projector. LibreOffice works great as long as I don't have to open any Word docs that use change tracking, or spreadsheets that involve calculations, or god forbid a powerpoint with anything but rudimentary graphics. It's a panacea I don't know why anyone would waste 2 billable hours on paying money to avoid the embarrassment of having to fuck around with your operating system for 15 minutes while you attempt to make a presentation. It's not 1994 anymore, people expect computers to work and it reflects poorly when they don't. And what am I saving this $300 for? For the privilege of being able add the code that should have been there in the first place.
      - eliasmacpherson 15y ago
        Stallman's GNU quest began in response to a binary blob printer driver that he had no option but to suffer under, because it was closed source. The issues you describe are attributable to what's between the keyboard and the chair. Try getting a standard mac to work with the majority of projectors, without any adapters. The LibreOffice issues you are having are due to an arms race where Microsoft break compatibility with their previous formats each release. You have to learn to use the computer you have properly or you will embarrass yourself with it. This is true for all operating systems. Not everything is going to work exactly as you suspect, at least you're in a position to do something about it on your own linux machine. That's never going to be the case with the competition. Give it another 100 years, whose software is still going to be around, Stallman's, Jobs' or Gates'? It's not as feature complete, but it has greater longevity.
      - 15y ago
jholman 15y ago
As michael_michael and I replied to your other comment, you have obviously failed to actually read the article in question, and are drawing conclusions without basis, when you claim that using internet routers violates his own stated principles. RMS is precisely NOT like that type of vegan (not that I think that this is at all typical of vegans, either). If indeed you think that kind of consistency is the highest good, you should hold RMS in very high regard indeed.
jmillikin 15y ago
"I don't need to worry about what software is in a kiosk, pay phone, or ATM that I am using. I hope their owners migrate them to free software, for their sake, but there's no need for me to refuse to touch them until then."
justauser 15y ago
If you're referring to Cisco, it's IOS. You're right though that the odds of him not touching something like IOS or JUNOS or IronWare border on close to impossible.
- wtn 15y ago
  He meant to say "IOS", it's just that iOS autocorrects those characters.
  - whatusername 15y ago
    The joys of Original Operating System Names. Cisco IOS, IBM i, Apple iOS. Not to mention: iRMX, IRIX, IOS-XR.
downx3 15y ago
How rude. Sometimes idealism isn't practical. Idealism is a goal, not an absolute.
batista 15y ago
As this guy, Momus, wrote: Perhaps the problem is actually with the idea of hypocrisy itself -- the idea that consistency is a greater virtue than whatever virtue an inconsistent man might be talking about, and that personal life and public policy must always be girded up and gridded up to resemble each other. Let me put an alternative point of view. Someone living in a castle, and owning a castle, could very usefully speak about post-materialism. Someone paying five figure utility bills would be in a very good position to talk about -- and act on -- the theme of energy wastage; they would be an expert on it, and have a vested interest in change, and actually have the possibility to make changes on a scale a pauper huddled over a candle could only dream of. Ad hominem: There are many reasons a charge of hypocrisy might be reactionary and counter-productive. First of all, the hypocrisy mindset pays too much attention to people's personal lives and too little to their programmatic or ideological outlook. If someone is a visionary, or is trying to solve a widespread problem, it's likely that his personal life will reflect the problem whereas his policies will reflect the solution. It would then be pretty stupid to accuse him of saying one thing and doing another -- especially if everyone were pretty much in the same boat, at least until an alternative infrastructure is set up. A charge of hypocrisy might well be a pre-emptive strike designed to stymie future solutions to universal problems. Consistency above correctness: Consistency is the hobgoblin of petty minds. Wanting things to be less complex, and wanting people and societies to be without internal contradictions is understandable, but small-minded. It ignores the fact that it is often only by sinning ourselves that we can learn exactly why sinning is bad. At a certain point we are all saying one thing and doing another. This is, apart from anything else, a sure sign of our complexity, and of our capacity to rise above our current way of living and search for alternatives, no matter how deeply we're mired. Allow it, brothers! Give me moral perfection or give me corruption: We often strike down people with a spotted reputation only to replace them with people who are unapologetically evil. We hate to be preached at so much that we ignore the sermons we need to hear and prefer unalloyed corruption. At least it's consistent, right? At least there's no hypocrisy there! At least change is taken off the agenda! Thank Christ "hypocrisy" has absolved us of the need to feel wrong, and to make a painful change! 100 people in a room: There are 100 people in a room, all doing A Bad Thing. They know it's a bad thing, a thing that will damage the room and everyone in it, but they can't stop. Suddenly a Visionary makes a powerful and moving speech. "We must stop doing The Bad Thing!" he says. His speech is effective: everyone stops. Except the Visionary himself, who keeps doing it. This, however, is a minor detail: the room is a better, safer place. Instead of 100 people doing The Bad Thing, only one is doing it. Suddenly a Commentator gets up. "Suckers!" he shouts. "You've stopped doing The Bad Thing, but the man who made you stop still does it! You've been had... by a hypocrite!" Soon everyone in the room is doing The Bad Thing again. But tell me, please, who has damaged the room more, the Visionary or the Commentator? Who has the best chance of helping the room?

b1daly 15y ago

But this idea of having dominion over any computational object (or really any object) is a fantasy. Are you going generate your own electricity riding your generator bike (powered by veggies from your garden) as you code? That's where I think his ideals go off the rails, their totality beyond common sense. FOSS of various flavors is cool. Of course it's not really free though. It's created by people in the context of an advanced technological society which has numerous components, many necessary, for it's existence.

knewter 15y ago
You could...use solar power. Your idea of 'beyond common sense' seems pretty limited in scope. And the F in FOSS isn't about price, it's about liberty. This is the very first thing anyone involving themselves in a discussion on FOSS should be aware of, and I feel sure that you knew that. What was the point of this comment?
- b1daly 15y ago
  I was refering to the concept of "total dominion" over our computing devices, and trying to illustrate that this a hopeless goal. Yes, you could generate your own power, live in total isolation off the grid, attempt to make everything in your life yourself. You would fail, but you could try. But even in this, you are not free from being subject to the laws that govern where you live. This is an old debate: where should peoples freedom of behavior be controlled to the extent that it impinges on others' "freedom." This is where RMS loses me. His concept of freedom does not seem to include the concept that people should be free to conduct business in accordance with the laws of the land. In the US we are currently free to create and distribute FOSS if we want. Isn't that enough freedom? It's not totally free (in the liberty sense) but there is still a lot of freedom to do as one please with anything that you create (if its "original"). I happen to think that there are real problems with copyright now. The concepts behind the laws were derived before digital technology, and were always intended to address the commercial exploitation of original works. Not what individuals did. We have a situation now where the copyright laws are being enforced against individuals making copies of works for personal, non-commercial reasons, which feels unjust to me. I think part of the intensity behind the MPAA's legal attacks is the perception that if they give an inch, people will take a mile. And the legal foundation of copyright would be undermined by "facts on the ground." Changing the copyright laws to reflect current technology seems like a good idea.