6 ms·

I asked an LLM, so I think I get it but could you try to mention what is meant with "Stallman was right"? The reason I'm asking you and not posting the LLM answ

I asked an LLM, so I think I get it but could you try to mention what is meant with "Stallman was right"? The reason I'm asking you and not posting the LLM answer is because it still feels a bit icky to post an LLM answer for everything I don't understand [1]. [1] Feel free to discuss this too, if you want. I'm developing my opinion on it.

progval 1y ago
Probably https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html , mentioned elsewhere in the thread.
- IsTom 1y ago
  I wish it was as absurd today as it was the first time I read it.
LambdaComplex 1y ago
Richard Stallman has spent basically his entire career trying to convince people that all software should be free as in freedom, so that people truly control the devices that they own--preventing things like Google being able to lock users out of the ability to install applications on a device that they purchased. Read up on the principles of the Free Software Foundation if you want all the details.
bigstrat2003 1y ago
Stallman has a long history of being very abrasive and ideological. He is the kind of guy who makes zero concessions for practicality, and he insists on prioritizing user freedom because he has always feared that otherwise users will be locked out of having the ability to truly control their computers. It's always been kind of easy to laugh at his crusade because of how zealous he is, and how absurd the scenarios he warns about seem to be. The thing is... he seems to have been right the whole time. Companies really do want to lock you out of controlling the devices you own, and do so at the first opportunity. So... Stallman was right.
- simoncion 1y ago
  > He is the kind of guy who makes zero concessions for practicality... Respectfully, this claim is incorrect. See this 2013 essay [0] for one example out of many where concessions are made to practicality. Folks who are unfamiliar with Stallman's writing and the general philosophy of the FSF and/or the GNU Project might find spending an hour or so reading through some of the essays here [1] (perhaps starting with this 1991 essay [2]) to be informative. [0] <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-prog...> [1] <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/essays-and-articles.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/essays-and-articles.html> [2] <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html>
  - bigstrat2003 1y ago
    From your link 0: > The question here is, is it ever a good thing to use a nonfree program? Our conclusion is that it is usually a bad thing, harmful to yourself and in some cases to others. If you run a nonfree program on your computer, it denies your freedom; the immediate wrong is directed at you. That is most certainly not making concessions for practicality in my book. So if anything, the citation you provided is IMO evidence for my claim.
    - simoncion 1y ago
      To continue with the text of the rest of the section (with the footnotes present in the original removed): If you run a nonfree program on your computer, it denies your freedom; the immediate wrong is directed at you. That does not mean you're an “evildoer” or “sinner” for running a nonfree program. When the harm you're doing is mainly to yourself, we hope you will stop, for your own sake. Sometimes you may face great pressure to run a nonfree program; we don't say you must defy that pressure at all costs (though it is inspiring when someone does that), but we do urge you to look for occasions to where you can refuse, even in small ways. If you recommend that others run the nonfree program, or lead them to do so, you're leading them to give up their freedom. Thus, we have a responsibility not to lead or encourage others to run nonfree software. Where the program uses a secret protocol for communication, as in the case of Skype, your own use of it pressures others to use it too, so it is especially important to avoid any use of these programs. But there is one special case where using some nonfree software, and even urging others to use it, can be a positive thing. That's when the use of the nonfree software aims directly at putting an end to the use of that very same nonfree software.
fzeindl 1y ago
I find Stallmans views are best summed up by this quote from him: “I could have made money this way, and perhaps amused myself writing code. But I knew that at the end of my career, I would look back on years of building walls to divide people, and feel I had spent my life making the world a worse place.”
Sammi 1y ago
In this case it worked out well as a rhetorical device to make you look it up and learn something. Sometimes leaving out something for the reader to wonder about is more powerful.

progval 1y ago

Probably https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html , mentioned elsewhere in the thread.

IsTom 1y ago
I wish it was as absurd today as it was the first time I read it.

LambdaComplex 1y ago

Richard Stallman has spent basically his entire career trying to convince people that all software should be free as in freedom, so that people truly control the devices that they own--preventing things like Google being able to lock users out of the ability to install applications on a device that they purchased. Read up on the principles of the Free Software Foundation if you want all the details.

bigstrat2003 1y ago

Stallman has a long history of being very abrasive and ideological. He is the kind of guy who makes zero concessions for practicality, and he insists on prioritizing user freedom because he has always feared that otherwise users will be locked out of having the ability to truly control their computers. It's always been kind of easy to laugh at his crusade because of how zealous he is, and how absurd the scenarios he warns about seem to be. The thing is... he seems to have been right the whole time. Companies really do want to lock you out of controlling the devices you own, and do so at the first opportunity. So... Stallman was right.

simoncion 1y ago
> He is the kind of guy who makes zero concessions for practicality... Respectfully, this claim is incorrect. See this 2013 essay [0] for one example out of many where concessions are made to practicality. Folks who are unfamiliar with Stallman's writing and the general philosophy of the FSF and/or the GNU Project might find spending an hour or so reading through some of the essays here [1] (perhaps starting with this 1991 essay [2]) to be informative. [0] <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-prog...> [1] <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/essays-and-articles.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/essays-and-articles.html> [2] <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html>
- bigstrat2003 1y ago
  From your link 0: > The question here is, is it ever a good thing to use a nonfree program? Our conclusion is that it is usually a bad thing, harmful to yourself and in some cases to others. If you run a nonfree program on your computer, it denies your freedom; the immediate wrong is directed at you. That is most certainly not making concessions for practicality in my book. So if anything, the citation you provided is IMO evidence for my claim.
  - simoncion 1y ago
    To continue with the text of the rest of the section (with the footnotes present in the original removed): If you run a nonfree program on your computer, it denies your freedom; the immediate wrong is directed at you. That does not mean you're an “evildoer” or “sinner” for running a nonfree program. When the harm you're doing is mainly to yourself, we hope you will stop, for your own sake. Sometimes you may face great pressure to run a nonfree program; we don't say you must defy that pressure at all costs (though it is inspiring when someone does that), but we do urge you to look for occasions to where you can refuse, even in small ways. If you recommend that others run the nonfree program, or lead them to do so, you're leading them to give up their freedom. Thus, we have a responsibility not to lead or encourage others to run nonfree software. Where the program uses a secret protocol for communication, as in the case of Skype, your own use of it pressures others to use it too, so it is especially important to avoid any use of these programs. But there is one special case where using some nonfree software, and even urging others to use it, can be a positive thing. That's when the use of the nonfree software aims directly at putting an end to the use of that very same nonfree software.

fzeindl 1y ago

I find Stallmans views are best summed up by this quote from him: “I could have made money this way, and perhaps amused myself writing code. But I knew that at the end of my career, I would look back on years of building walls to divide people, and feel I had spent my life making the world a worse place.”

Sammi 1y ago

In this case it worked out well as a rhetorical device to make you look it up and learn something. Sometimes leaving out something for the reader to wonder about is more powerful.