3 ms·

How I do my Computing

5 points by ari_elle 14y ago

endgame 14y ago
People mock rms for his stubbornness on many issues, but it's becoming increasingly clear that he simply saw further than the rest of us.
- stephenr 14y ago
  Care to elaborate?
  - endgame 14y ago
    DRM: His story, The Right to Read ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html ) would be one example. His vision is a bit more extreme, but we're heading in that direction. The default state for anything we electronically "buy" is now "indefinite rental, until the central server crashes/the company running it goes out of business/the company decides not to run that any more/..." We now have bookreaders which can have their contents remotely removed ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18ama... ). I know that they claim that feature's been disabled, but it's probably still there in the code. Besides, similar remote deletions are possible on other systems ( http://www.macrumors.com/2008/08/06/apples-ability-to-deactivate-malicious-app-store-apps/ http://www.macrumors.com/2008/08/06/apples-ability-to-deacti... , http://www.neowin.net/news/windows-8-apps-can-be-deleted-remotely-by-microsoft http://www.neowin.net/news/windows-8-apps-can-be-deleted-rem... ) Software Freedom: Back in the day, the GPL forced NeXT to release the source to its Objective-C compiler. There was a similar situation where CLISP had to go GPL because it used GNU Readline ( http://www.clisp.org/impnotes/faq.html#faq-gpl http://www.clisp.org/impnotes/faq.html#faq-gpl ). And then there are the various BusyBox GPL violations ( http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/10437.html http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/10437.html ) These days, the GPL is largely neutered because of two forces: the rise of BSD/MIT/WTFPL-licensed code and the rise of web services (because GPL'd code triggers on distribution). The AGPL was a response to the web-services loophole (just like GPLv3 was a response to the Tivoisation loophole), but it never really caught on. Here's what I fear. The next generation of technologists aren't going to know what they missed. They missed a world where you could easily mess with your machines. They missed a world where users and developers respected each other (When doom came out, iD software asked the community not to make mod tools for the shareware version. They didn't. DeHackEd, an exe-hacker for doom, would refuse to operate on known pirate versions.) They missed a world where you can run your own code on your own devices, and you didn't have to exploit a bug to do it. As with the recent discussion about DRM in HTML video, people are splitting hairs about mechanism and policy. Why are we talking about building the mechanisms when there is literally no policy that is good for the user? Further reading: "Richard Stallman was Right All Along" http://www.osnews.com/story/25469 http://www.osnews.com/story/25469 , and an old HN discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3417033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3417033
    - stephenr 14y ago
      Some people consider mit/bsd to be a more "free" licence as it doesn't force other people to do anything - they are free to use the code as they wish, as opposed to rms' view that we should all, always write code that is given away freely, and live on a communal stew made from our own toe jam
      - endgame 14y ago
        Regardless of your opinion of his personal hygiene, even with BSD-style you are not free to do as you wish. That's why there is a license and not just a renunciation of copyright. All the GPL asks is that if you distribute the code, you offer the source under the same terms that it came to you. Is that so wrong?
        stephenr 14y ago
        BSD/MIT give much more freedom to downstream developers than GPL - GPL makes demands about distribution of products that include the code. BSD/MIT don't make any such demands.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
michaelwww 14y ago
> One other advantage of this machine is that Windows has never supported it. I'm having trouble understanding how this is an advantage.

5 points by ari_elle 14y ago

People mock rms for his stubbornness on many issues, but it's becoming increasingly clear that he simply saw further than the rest of us.

stephenr 14y ago
Care to elaborate?
- endgame 14y ago
  DRM: His story, The Right to Read ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html ) would be one example. His vision is a bit more extreme, but we're heading in that direction. The default state for anything we electronically "buy" is now "indefinite rental, until the central server crashes/the company running it goes out of business/the company decides not to run that any more/..." We now have bookreaders which can have their contents remotely removed ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18ama... ). I know that they claim that feature's been disabled, but it's probably still there in the code. Besides, similar remote deletions are possible on other systems ( http://www.macrumors.com/2008/08/06/apples-ability-to-deactivate-malicious-app-store-apps/ http://www.macrumors.com/2008/08/06/apples-ability-to-deacti... , http://www.neowin.net/news/windows-8-apps-can-be-deleted-remotely-by-microsoft http://www.neowin.net/news/windows-8-apps-can-be-deleted-rem... ) Software Freedom: Back in the day, the GPL forced NeXT to release the source to its Objective-C compiler. There was a similar situation where CLISP had to go GPL because it used GNU Readline ( http://www.clisp.org/impnotes/faq.html#faq-gpl http://www.clisp.org/impnotes/faq.html#faq-gpl ). And then there are the various BusyBox GPL violations ( http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/10437.html http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/10437.html ) These days, the GPL is largely neutered because of two forces: the rise of BSD/MIT/WTFPL-licensed code and the rise of web services (because GPL'd code triggers on distribution). The AGPL was a response to the web-services loophole (just like GPLv3 was a response to the Tivoisation loophole), but it never really caught on. Here's what I fear. The next generation of technologists aren't going to know what they missed. They missed a world where you could easily mess with your machines. They missed a world where users and developers respected each other (When doom came out, iD software asked the community not to make mod tools for the shareware version. They didn't. DeHackEd, an exe-hacker for doom, would refuse to operate on known pirate versions.) They missed a world where you can run your own code on your own devices, and you didn't have to exploit a bug to do it. As with the recent discussion about DRM in HTML video, people are splitting hairs about mechanism and policy. Why are we talking about building the mechanisms when there is literally no policy that is good for the user? Further reading: "Richard Stallman was Right All Along" http://www.osnews.com/story/25469 http://www.osnews.com/story/25469 , and an old HN discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3417033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3417033
  - stephenr 14y ago
    Some people consider mit/bsd to be a more "free" licence as it doesn't force other people to do anything - they are free to use the code as they wish, as opposed to rms' view that we should all, always write code that is given away freely, and live on a communal stew made from our own toe jam
    - endgame 14y ago
      Regardless of your opinion of his personal hygiene, even with BSD-style you are not free to do as you wish. That's why there is a license and not just a renunciation of copyright. All the GPL asks is that if you distribute the code, you offer the source under the same terms that it came to you. Is that so wrong?
      - stephenr 14y ago
        BSD/MIT give much more freedom to downstream developers than GPL - GPL makes demands about distribution of products that include the code. BSD/MIT don't make any such demands.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

michaelwww 14y ago

> One other advantage of this machine is that Windows has never supported it. I'm having trouble understanding how this is an advantage.