5 ms·

I think you missed his point, and mine. His solution is simply that the real world is broken and needs fixing, which it sorely does. If you want that Star Tre

by meaty 14y ago

I think you missed his point, and mine. His solution is simply that the real world is broken and needs fixing, which it sorely does. If you want that Star Trekky future, throw the corporations out who want to partition everyone into markets like cattle. Then build stuff for the good of humanity, not for cash. Oh wait - there's GNU already in that space. Jobs, Bezos, Disney just worked out how to sell shit, not respect our freedoms or improve the world.

jiggy2011 14y ago
That is a tricky issue and comes down to financing riskier innovation. It is worth remembering that GNU originally existed as a way to clone a non free system in a way that made it free. A lot of open source development is also done or funded by corporations to help build commoditize the parts they need in order to create platforms for software and media that are in many cases fairly walled garden. Stallman and the like may have produced fine C compilers and text editors but it would seem unlikely for them to come up with something like the iPhone.
- meaty 14y ago
  I think you overestimate the importance of the smartphone. A free smartphone is still tied to a non free network and to be honest, isn't required for humanity to function. It's an accessory, not a necessity. If they disappeared overnight, the world would still turn. The same is not true for the text editor and compiler.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    The same could be said about most pieces of technology. If emacs disappeared tomorrow the HN server would probably be crushed under the weight of angsty developers but stuff would still keep happening. It's not like GNU developed the first C compiler or text editor either, Stallman seems to believe the priority should be on developing free alternatives to things that have already been made (i.e the risk taken) by a proprietary company. This is reflected in the FSF "high priority" list: http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/ http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/ If you want a Star Trek future you need to develop all the little pieces of technology that are required incrementally.
  - schiffern 14y ago
    >A free smartphone is still tied to a non free network You know what else is a non-free network? The entire internet. Clearly humanity would still turn if computers didn't exist at all, but I would argue that the internet has been directly responsible for more social change than the text editor and the compiler. If you want to trivially argue that the text editor and compiler are prerequisites for the internet, then I would point out that James Maxwell should deserve far more credit than either Steve Jobs or Richard Stallman. >The same is not true for the text editor and compiler. Now I know you're joking.
    - vacri 14y ago
      Given that the internet is dependent on the text editor and the compiler, you can't separate them like that.
      - schiffern 14y ago
        Sure you can. In fact, I preemptively responded to that argument in my post. >>If you want to trivially argue that the text editor and compiler are prerequisites for the internet, then I would point out that James Maxwell should deserve far more credit than either Steve Jobs or Richard Stallman. More importantly, I don't think that's what meaty was saying, since that statement is so trivial that it's meaningless. C'mon, give him a little credit!
        vacri 14y ago
        I don't think it's that trivial an argument - firmware is being constantly modified to help the internet expand and secure itself, and software is in the same boat; the same cannot be said of Maxwell's work. While Maxwell was foundational, it's hardly in the state of flux that code is in.
- laumars 14y ago
  "Stallman and the like may have produced fine C compilers and text editors but it would seem unlikely for them to come up with something like the iPhone." Actually they did, it was called 'Openmoko' and it was released before the iPhone (albeit there wasn't much between the two). It wasn't just an open source smart phone OS, but also open hardware as well. Sadly it never took off: partly because iOS (and later, Android) were busy reshaping the mobile landscape; and partly because corporations started adopting Linux for mobile OSs which dragged many of the hacker crowd away from independent set ups. As to whether Openmoko would have succeeded if it was conceived a couple of years earlier; or whether it such a project was too ambitious without corporate backing, i don't know. But for a while there was an a community driven smart phone available to buy.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    I googled that and one of the first results was "OpenMoko Train Wreck", a video showing how clunky the phone was and how poor the UI is (teeny tiny software keyboard etc). Looked more like a replacement to early versions of Windows mobile. I suppose the question is why is this, is it just that the folks who are driven to open source development don't have a sense for aesthetics and convenient UIs?
    - meaty 14y ago
      Yes this is true, but to be 100% honest, it wasn't finished. If you remember very early Android prototypes, they were in about the same place.
    - bct 14y ago
      It's a matter of resources. It was a very ambitious project, and they didn't have the funding behind it that Apple and Google do.
    - sherjilozair 14y ago
      > I suppose the question is why is this, is it just that the folks who are driven to open source development don't have a sense for aesthetics and convenient UIs? No. They do have a sense of aesthetics and convenient UIs. Ubuntu is an example. Open Source follows the trial-and-error iterative approach. If the project has enough momentum, the end is bound to be near-perfect, having gone through so many iterations and decisions by the users itself. However, the problem with Open Source + Hardware is that hardware is too slow and unnatural for iterative development.
- ippisl 14y ago
  Currently , there's some open source research into neglected diseases. This is certainly a high risk project. I hope it succeeds. I could imagine open source would work well for non-profits, some of them doing high risk projects(like the green revolution, or gates's work). It's also possible it would work well for university research(maybe with some change of universities operation models). Open source is relatively new. Maybe it will take time to see what kind of high risk projects it's good for.
theorique 14y ago
Well, one could argue that they improved the world in certain focused ways. For example, Amazon and Apple have raised the bar in online sales, delivery logistics, smartphones, tablets, and personal computers. This doesn't absolve them from the fact that some of their revolution has taken place behind a paywall. But to say that they haven't improved the world because it didn't happen perfectly, is not quite correct. My life - and that of many of my peers - is substantially better due to the actions of Amazon and Apple.
- freshhawk 14y ago
  "is substantially better" That's ... not the normal definition of "substantial". Your life is materially more convenient, probably much much more so. The argument here is that the small and widely distributed negatives inherent in that model affect social things that are literally "substantial" and the gain in individual convenience is a poor tradeoff.
  - theorique 14y ago
    All I mean that I can point to several specific ways in which my life is improved ("materially more convenient", if you prefer) because of the actions of these companies. I'm not sure what specifically you mean by "small and widely distributed negatives", but the balance of convenience against cost is something that each customer decides. If being a customer of Apple, Amazon (or whoever) is perceived as a net benefit, people become a customer. If not, then they don't.
    - freshhawk 14y ago
      But the argument was that they "improved the world", not that they were a good cost/benefit tradeoff for each individual consumer. One of those has to take negative externalities (aka social/legal consequences or the "small and widely distributed negatives" I was referring to) and the other does not. You don't get a "star trek future" by trading freedom for micro-improvements in convenience.
- zem 14y ago
SkyMarshal 14y ago
You're apparently not keeping up with the times, Stallman is imminently practical and realistic: http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/richard-stallman-software-patents/ http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/richard-stallman-softwa... There's also the whole GPL, one of, if not the, most widely used software licenses in the world.
pavel_lishin 14y ago
> His solution is simply that the real world is broken and needs fixing, which it sorely does. That's not a solution, that's a problem.

by meaty 14y ago

jiggy2011 14y ago

That is a tricky issue and comes down to financing riskier innovation. It is worth remembering that GNU originally existed as a way to clone a non free system in a way that made it free. A lot of open source development is also done or funded by corporations to help build commoditize the parts they need in order to create platforms for software and media that are in many cases fairly walled garden. Stallman and the like may have produced fine C compilers and text editors but it would seem unlikely for them to come up with something like the iPhone.

meaty 14y ago
I think you overestimate the importance of the smartphone. A free smartphone is still tied to a non free network and to be honest, isn't required for humanity to function. It's an accessory, not a necessity. If they disappeared overnight, the world would still turn. The same is not true for the text editor and compiler.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  The same could be said about most pieces of technology. If emacs disappeared tomorrow the HN server would probably be crushed under the weight of angsty developers but stuff would still keep happening. It's not like GNU developed the first C compiler or text editor either, Stallman seems to believe the priority should be on developing free alternatives to things that have already been made (i.e the risk taken) by a proprietary company. This is reflected in the FSF "high priority" list: http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/ http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/ If you want a Star Trek future you need to develop all the little pieces of technology that are required incrementally.
- schiffern 14y ago
  >A free smartphone is still tied to a non free network You know what else is a non-free network? The entire internet. Clearly humanity would still turn if computers didn't exist at all, but I would argue that the internet has been directly responsible for more social change than the text editor and the compiler. If you want to trivially argue that the text editor and compiler are prerequisites for the internet, then I would point out that James Maxwell should deserve far more credit than either Steve Jobs or Richard Stallman. >The same is not true for the text editor and compiler. Now I know you're joking.
  - vacri 14y ago
    Given that the internet is dependent on the text editor and the compiler, you can't separate them like that.
    - schiffern 14y ago
      Sure you can. In fact, I preemptively responded to that argument in my post. >>If you want to trivially argue that the text editor and compiler are prerequisites for the internet, then I would point out that James Maxwell should deserve far more credit than either Steve Jobs or Richard Stallman. More importantly, I don't think that's what meaty was saying, since that statement is so trivial that it's meaningless. C'mon, give him a little credit!
      - vacri 14y ago
        I don't think it's that trivial an argument - firmware is being constantly modified to help the internet expand and secure itself, and software is in the same boat; the same cannot be said of Maxwell's work. While Maxwell was foundational, it's hardly in the state of flux that code is in.
laumars 14y ago
"Stallman and the like may have produced fine C compilers and text editors but it would seem unlikely for them to come up with something like the iPhone." Actually they did, it was called 'Openmoko' and it was released before the iPhone (albeit there wasn't much between the two). It wasn't just an open source smart phone OS, but also open hardware as well. Sadly it never took off: partly because iOS (and later, Android) were busy reshaping the mobile landscape; and partly because corporations started adopting Linux for mobile OSs which dragged many of the hacker crowd away from independent set ups. As to whether Openmoko would have succeeded if it was conceived a couple of years earlier; or whether it such a project was too ambitious without corporate backing, i don't know. But for a while there was an a community driven smart phone available to buy.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  I googled that and one of the first results was "OpenMoko Train Wreck", a video showing how clunky the phone was and how poor the UI is (teeny tiny software keyboard etc). Looked more like a replacement to early versions of Windows mobile. I suppose the question is why is this, is it just that the folks who are driven to open source development don't have a sense for aesthetics and convenient UIs?
  - meaty 14y ago
    Yes this is true, but to be 100% honest, it wasn't finished. If you remember very early Android prototypes, they were in about the same place.
  - bct 14y ago
    It's a matter of resources. It was a very ambitious project, and they didn't have the funding behind it that Apple and Google do.
  - sherjilozair 14y ago
    > I suppose the question is why is this, is it just that the folks who are driven to open source development don't have a sense for aesthetics and convenient UIs? No. They do have a sense of aesthetics and convenient UIs. Ubuntu is an example. Open Source follows the trial-and-error iterative approach. If the project has enough momentum, the end is bound to be near-perfect, having gone through so many iterations and decisions by the users itself. However, the problem with Open Source + Hardware is that hardware is too slow and unnatural for iterative development.
ippisl 14y ago
Currently , there's some open source research into neglected diseases. This is certainly a high risk project. I hope it succeeds. I could imagine open source would work well for non-profits, some of them doing high risk projects(like the green revolution, or gates's work). It's also possible it would work well for university research(maybe with some change of universities operation models). Open source is relatively new. Maybe it will take time to see what kind of high risk projects it's good for.

theorique 14y ago

Well, one could argue that they improved the world in certain focused ways. For example, Amazon and Apple have raised the bar in online sales, delivery logistics, smartphones, tablets, and personal computers. This doesn't absolve them from the fact that some of their revolution has taken place behind a paywall. But to say that they haven't improved the world because it didn't happen perfectly, is not quite correct. My life - and that of many of my peers - is substantially better due to the actions of Amazon and Apple.

freshhawk 14y ago
"is substantially better" That's ... not the normal definition of "substantial". Your life is materially more convenient, probably much much more so. The argument here is that the small and widely distributed negatives inherent in that model affect social things that are literally "substantial" and the gain in individual convenience is a poor tradeoff.
- theorique 14y ago
  All I mean that I can point to several specific ways in which my life is improved ("materially more convenient", if you prefer) because of the actions of these companies. I'm not sure what specifically you mean by "small and widely distributed negatives", but the balance of convenience against cost is something that each customer decides. If being a customer of Apple, Amazon (or whoever) is perceived as a net benefit, people become a customer. If not, then they don't.
  - freshhawk 14y ago
    But the argument was that they "improved the world", not that they were a good cost/benefit tradeoff for each individual consumer. One of those has to take negative externalities (aka social/legal consequences or the "small and widely distributed negatives" I was referring to) and the other does not. You don't get a "star trek future" by trading freedom for micro-improvements in convenience.
zem 14y ago

SkyMarshal 14y ago

You're apparently not keeping up with the times, Stallman is imminently practical and realistic: http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/richard-stallman-software-patents/ http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/richard-stallman-softwa... There's also the whole GPL, one of, if not the, most widely used software licenses in the world.

pavel_lishin 14y ago

> His solution is simply that the real world is broken and needs fixing, which it sorely does. That's not a solution, that's a problem.