4 ms·

The number of naysayers here is saddening, if not surprising. At the risk of sounding like RMS, you simply cannot say in the same breath that you honestly value

The number of naysayers here is saddening, if not surprising. At the risk of sounding like RMS, you simply cannot say in the same breath that you honestly value the FSF and then go onto declare that you still buy into Windows. Although many of you use GNU/Linux daily, it seems that most have failed to truly understand the value, the very significant importance, that the GNU project and the FSF represent in our world. In fact, if more people actually internalized what computing freedom means, and what the technology landscape could one day look like, then GNU/Hurd would already be finished, it would look like Windows 10, and there would be far fewer proprietary software apologists on Hacker News, dismissing this post.

valdiorn 11y ago
> you simply cannot say in the same breath that you honestly value the FSF and then go onto declare that you still buy into Windows. Join us over here in the gray area, mate...
Delmania 11y ago
>The number of naysayers here is saddening, if not surprising. At the risk of sounding like RMS, you simply cannot say in the same breath that you honestly value the FSF and then go onto declare that you still buy into Windows. Only a Sith speaks in absolutes. Very few people can, or want to live like RMS and never compromise on their beliefs. Most of us have responsibilities or hobbies that require us to manage our time. The negativity is a reflection that Linux works great until it doesn't. An update disables your network card, your GPU doesn't fully run under linux, an update to GCC removes your ability to update a port. At some point, people get tired of having to fix things and just want the OS to work out of the box. That being said, there are plenty of free software projects that do work well on Windows, such as Emacs and Firefox. >Although many of you use GNU/Linux daily, it seems that most have failed to truly understand the value, the very significant importance, that the GNU project and the FSF represent in our world. It's Linux, not GNU/Linux; only RMS calls it that because he's a poor marketer. Speaking of which, the FSF does not realize the value it brings to people. It's not free software. The trend for most people is they simply do not care, because the FSF is terrible at marketing. If people do not respond to your campaign, it's not valuable. The value of the FSF is not in freedom, it's in protecting people's choice. It's in ensuring that there are alternate products, such as Linux, Emacs, Firefox, etc that people can use if they want to avoid the consequences of using proprietary software. >In fact, if more people actually internalized what computing freedom means, and what the technology landscape could one day look like, then GNU/Hurd would already be finished, it would look like Windows 10, and there would be far fewer proprietary software apologists on Hacker News, dismissing this post. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The Hurd project is a (poorly managed) volunteer effort, and is suffering the usual fate. The issue is not with supply, there are plenty of well qualified people who could focus on Hurd and get it done, but they won't because it's not worth their time. Trying to incentivize people with freedom only goes so far. At some point, the hierarchy of needs changes, and people don't want spin their wheels on something that offers them no tangible benefit. The FSF would do well to understand why the linux kernel. won.
- robgibbons 11y ago
  No. It is called GNU/Linux. Linux is the kernel, not the operating system. You can believe that only RMS calls it this, but you're lying if you go around telling other people. And "Only a Sith speaks in absolutes" is itself an absolute statement.
  - Delmania 11y ago
    > No. It is called GNU/Linux. Linux is the kernel, not the operating system. You can believe that only RMS calls it this, but you're lying if you go around telling other people. I enjoy it when people feel the need to educate me on things I know. However, insisting on it being called "Gnu/Linux" is being pedantic; to the vast majority of the world, it's Linux. If you go around calling it GNU/Linux, and trying to educate people on the why it's called that, you're going to lose a lot of people because you're missing the forest (a free operating system) for the trees (the individual components.) The FSF suffers from poor marketing. Your mission would be better served by people who understand how to get people to care rather than pointless nitpicking of facts. >And "Only a Sith speaks in absolutes" is itself an absolute statement. The actual quote is "deals in absolutes". For good understanding of why this is not a contradiction, read this: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080228110259AAn3ebo https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080228110259A...
    - robgibbons 11y ago
      I enjoy it when people feel the need to educate me with Yahoo! Answers.
norea-armozel 11y ago
>In fact, if more people actually internalized what computing freedom means, and what the technology landscape could one day look like, then GNU/Hurd would already be finished, it would look like Windows 10, and there would be far fewer proprietary software apologists on Hacker News, dismissing this post. Not to be mean but have you tried even creating a toy kernel yourself with modern tools? Now imagine doing that in the 1980s when none of those tools existed (it's why bison exists for programming language construction and the like). It doesn't matter how many people you throw at a project if the scope of it is as generalized as an operating system tool kit and kernel then it's going to take a long time to build it and longer still to extend support for it to newer hardware (especially in light of how many modern motherboards and peripherals have blackboxed firmware that's patent encumbered). And that's just the technical limitations. When you factor in the problem of managing different groups, keeping them on target for features to be released and bugfixes, egos to be checked/soothed, and so forth then you got a problem that would make the creation of the US Constitution seem easy. Ultimately, I think folks like you are the classic true believers that don't have much in the way of understanding people. You demand people to comply to your ideologies even if their lives are lessened by it. You demand that each person wears a hair shirt just for the sake of it. And that for me isn't something I can see working. Anarchists tried that crap in the 19th century and it failed terribly (and I'm an anarchist today). Purism is cute and it's nice when you write about in essays, but it's not how you get real people with irrational beliefs, subjective one-off experiences, and divergent goals to adopt and apply your ideology. You start on the basics and you yourself show others how that works out in those basic situations. Before you demand others to apply your specific approach to Free Software ask yourself if it actually adds immediate value their lives. If not then your approach fails to be useful or effective. And your purity for its own sake is a weak excuse for actual results. /rant

valdiorn 11y ago

> you simply cannot say in the same breath that you honestly value the FSF and then go onto declare that you still buy into Windows. Join us over here in the gray area, mate...

Delmania 11y ago

>The number of naysayers here is saddening, if not surprising. At the risk of sounding like RMS, you simply cannot say in the same breath that you honestly value the FSF and then go onto declare that you still buy into Windows. Only a Sith speaks in absolutes. Very few people can, or want to live like RMS and never compromise on their beliefs. Most of us have responsibilities or hobbies that require us to manage our time. The negativity is a reflection that Linux works great until it doesn't. An update disables your network card, your GPU doesn't fully run under linux, an update to GCC removes your ability to update a port. At some point, people get tired of having to fix things and just want the OS to work out of the box. That being said, there are plenty of free software projects that do work well on Windows, such as Emacs and Firefox. >Although many of you use GNU/Linux daily, it seems that most have failed to truly understand the value, the very significant importance, that the GNU project and the FSF represent in our world. It's Linux, not GNU/Linux; only RMS calls it that because he's a poor marketer. Speaking of which, the FSF does not realize the value it brings to people. It's not free software. The trend for most people is they simply do not care, because the FSF is terrible at marketing. If people do not respond to your campaign, it's not valuable. The value of the FSF is not in freedom, it's in protecting people's choice. It's in ensuring that there are alternate products, such as Linux, Emacs, Firefox, etc that people can use if they want to avoid the consequences of using proprietary software. >In fact, if more people actually internalized what computing freedom means, and what the technology landscape could one day look like, then GNU/Hurd would already be finished, it would look like Windows 10, and there would be far fewer proprietary software apologists on Hacker News, dismissing this post. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The Hurd project is a (poorly managed) volunteer effort, and is suffering the usual fate. The issue is not with supply, there are plenty of well qualified people who could focus on Hurd and get it done, but they won't because it's not worth their time. Trying to incentivize people with freedom only goes so far. At some point, the hierarchy of needs changes, and people don't want spin their wheels on something that offers them no tangible benefit. The FSF would do well to understand why the linux kernel. won.

robgibbons 11y ago
No. It is called GNU/Linux. Linux is the kernel, not the operating system. You can believe that only RMS calls it this, but you're lying if you go around telling other people. And "Only a Sith speaks in absolutes" is itself an absolute statement.
- Delmania 11y ago
  > No. It is called GNU/Linux. Linux is the kernel, not the operating system. You can believe that only RMS calls it this, but you're lying if you go around telling other people. I enjoy it when people feel the need to educate me on things I know. However, insisting on it being called "Gnu/Linux" is being pedantic; to the vast majority of the world, it's Linux. If you go around calling it GNU/Linux, and trying to educate people on the why it's called that, you're going to lose a lot of people because you're missing the forest (a free operating system) for the trees (the individual components.) The FSF suffers from poor marketing. Your mission would be better served by people who understand how to get people to care rather than pointless nitpicking of facts. >And "Only a Sith speaks in absolutes" is itself an absolute statement. The actual quote is "deals in absolutes". For good understanding of why this is not a contradiction, read this: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080228110259AAn3ebo https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080228110259A...
  - robgibbons 11y ago
    I enjoy it when people feel the need to educate me with Yahoo! Answers.

norea-armozel 11y ago

>In fact, if more people actually internalized what computing freedom means, and what the technology landscape could one day look like, then GNU/Hurd would already be finished, it would look like Windows 10, and there would be far fewer proprietary software apologists on Hacker News, dismissing this post. Not to be mean but have you tried even creating a toy kernel yourself with modern tools? Now imagine doing that in the 1980s when none of those tools existed (it's why bison exists for programming language construction and the like). It doesn't matter how many people you throw at a project if the scope of it is as generalized as an operating system tool kit and kernel then it's going to take a long time to build it and longer still to extend support for it to newer hardware (especially in light of how many modern motherboards and peripherals have blackboxed firmware that's patent encumbered). And that's just the technical limitations. When you factor in the problem of managing different groups, keeping them on target for features to be released and bugfixes, egos to be checked/soothed, and so forth then you got a problem that would make the creation of the US Constitution seem easy. Ultimately, I think folks like you are the classic true believers that don't have much in the way of understanding people. You demand people to comply to your ideologies even if their lives are lessened by it. You demand that each person wears a hair shirt just for the sake of it. And that for me isn't something I can see working. Anarchists tried that crap in the 19th century and it failed terribly (and I'm an anarchist today). Purism is cute and it's nice when you write about in essays, but it's not how you get real people with irrational beliefs, subjective one-off experiences, and divergent goals to adopt and apply your ideology. You start on the basics and you yourself show others how that works out in those basic situations. Before you demand others to apply your specific approach to Free Software ask yourself if it actually adds immediate value their lives. If not then your approach fails to be useful or effective. And your purity for its own sake is a weak excuse for actual results. /rant