4 ms·

But that's not the argument RMS has made. The morality of RMS is an abstraction that is disconnected from empirical truth, just like any religion is. Maybe he

by javert 12y ago

But that's not the argument RMS has made. The morality of RMS is an abstraction that is disconnected from empirical truth, just like any religion is. Maybe he would have done some good (other than the software he's written) if he had actually made the argument that we need open source for privacy reasons.

Canada 12y ago
He did. Privacy is merely a byproduct of having the freedom to control your computer. We should all feel deeply offended at not having that control, if we know what's good for us. Looking at the current state of affairs, I'm starting to think RMS wasn't radical and fanatical enough!
- npizzolato 12y ago
  And you probably feel that way because you're deeply intimate with the inner-workings of computers and so having "control" means something to you. That's not true for most of the population. Let's replace "cars" with "computers" in the freedom slogan. I know nothing about cars, and to be honest, I don't really care to. Cars help me get from A to B, and I would gladly trade freedom to tinker with the inner workings of my car for greater convenience in accomplishing my goal (getting from A to B). I only have so much time in the day, and figuring out how my car works simply doesn't fit into the equation, and it wouldn't interest me even if it did. Now replace car with computer and you have a good idea of what an even larger portion of the population thinks.
  - userbinator 12y ago
    The difference between cars and computers is that people are still relatively still in control of their cars (and they should be if they're driving them...), and there isn't all that much variability in what cars can do - "get from A to B" - nor is there currently much that the manufacturers can do to interfere with that ability to "get from A to B". On the other hand, computers are how we communicate with and consume information from others; they are essentially how we view the world. Thus what power the companies-in-control have to limit, persuade, and otherwise manipulate the population who uses computers is far greater than what they can do with cars. To come back to the car analogy, if the manufacturers had the same type of power those making computers and their software did, they would be able to remotely control your car to make it go not where you want it to, disable it if you tried to drive to "non-approved/licensed" locations or if you attempted to drive faster than they allowed, carried more passengers than licensed for, etc. Of course, convenience and control are not disjoint either - and more control can also lead to greater convenience, as users customise the software they use to make their use of it more convenient.
- javert 12y ago
  > We should all feel deeply offended at not having that control, if we know what's good for us. No, we should all choose to use products and services that protect our privacy (potentially by being open source), and educate others to do the same. NOT "get deeply offended." Getting offended is what you do when someone goes against your RELIGION. That is why Stallman's message does not work: it is like a religion.

by javert 12y ago

Canada 12y ago

He did. Privacy is merely a byproduct of having the freedom to control your computer. We should all feel deeply offended at not having that control, if we know what's good for us. Looking at the current state of affairs, I'm starting to think RMS wasn't radical and fanatical enough!

npizzolato 12y ago
And you probably feel that way because you're deeply intimate with the inner-workings of computers and so having "control" means something to you. That's not true for most of the population. Let's replace "cars" with "computers" in the freedom slogan. I know nothing about cars, and to be honest, I don't really care to. Cars help me get from A to B, and I would gladly trade freedom to tinker with the inner workings of my car for greater convenience in accomplishing my goal (getting from A to B). I only have so much time in the day, and figuring out how my car works simply doesn't fit into the equation, and it wouldn't interest me even if it did. Now replace car with computer and you have a good idea of what an even larger portion of the population thinks.
- userbinator 12y ago
  The difference between cars and computers is that people are still relatively still in control of their cars (and they should be if they're driving them...), and there isn't all that much variability in what cars can do - "get from A to B" - nor is there currently much that the manufacturers can do to interfere with that ability to "get from A to B". On the other hand, computers are how we communicate with and consume information from others; they are essentially how we view the world. Thus what power the companies-in-control have to limit, persuade, and otherwise manipulate the population who uses computers is far greater than what they can do with cars. To come back to the car analogy, if the manufacturers had the same type of power those making computers and their software did, they would be able to remotely control your car to make it go not where you want it to, disable it if you tried to drive to "non-approved/licensed" locations or if you attempted to drive faster than they allowed, carried more passengers than licensed for, etc. Of course, convenience and control are not disjoint either - and more control can also lead to greater convenience, as users customise the software they use to make their use of it more convenient.
javert 12y ago
> We should all feel deeply offended at not having that control, if we know what's good for us. No, we should all choose to use products and services that protect our privacy (potentially by being open source), and educate others to do the same. NOT "get deeply offended." Getting offended is what you do when someone goes against your RELIGION. That is why Stallman's message does not work: it is like a religion.