Over the hills and far away
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jimf Oct 28, 2006 9:48 AM EDT |
What was he thinking? I don't really know Stallman's intent here. I hope he was merely making a point in jest, but, many won't see it that way. He's done more harm to his cause and the FSF here than any opponent of the GPL could have accomplished. Frankly, I don't care any more. 'Saint iGNUcius' indeed, I've written him off as a formerly brilliant mind who's now just a nut. |
| jdixon Oct 28, 2006 10:05 AM EDT |
Wasn't Daniel Lyons the first person to call him that? If so, one can hardly blame him for accepting his opponents' labels and wearing them with pride. |
| jimf Oct 28, 2006 10:10 AM EDT |
> accepting his opponents' labels and wearing them with pride Well, yeah, I can and do blame him. It's really a Forrest Gump "stupid is as stupid does" situation. |
| SamShazaam Oct 28, 2006 4:11 PM EDT |
RMS has used this personae before. It is just an amusing way of explaining his point. This is also how he got the nickname of the mad monk. I did prefer his other robes though. I take it that you did not like the joke. Don't forget to bring your sense of humor. |
| jimf Oct 28, 2006 4:18 PM EDT |
> RMS has used this personae before Oh yes, and it has created the persona of a zealot in the eyes of many. That he doesn't realize that, or just doesn't care, or perhaps even believes it himself at this point says volumes to me. A > bring your sense of humor. There's a time for humor, and we're way past that. |
| Libervis Oct 28, 2006 5:50 PM EDT |
Why am I not surprised jimf was the one who started this thread? Your animosity goes beyond disagreement and you are deliberately holding back your sense of humor here in order to exploit the opportunity for your cause which is apparently, time and again, discrediting of RMS. Why else the need to post this? If you don't like him can't you just keep it to yourself since apparently you don't have anything of value to say on it. You're coming very close to being a resident RMS-bashing troll. |
| jimf Oct 28, 2006 6:07 PM EDT |
I certainly not suprised to see Libervis springing to defend his hero. I'm not the one calling myself 'Saint iGNUcius' here. RMS is damning himself. But then, your mindless worship of the man wouldn't allow you to see that. |
| Libervis Oct 28, 2006 6:18 PM EDT |
Thank you for your typical response. I could have written that response to myself alone and signed it with your nickname without anyone noticing. It's just that mundane by now. We've been through it before and no matter what you'll always go back to your old rhetoric. Yeah I am a sheep RMS worshipper that can't think for myself. Are you happy now? No.. why would you be? Why do you need to start an inflammatory thread like this? What is your point? What the heck is driving your restless animosity towards the only guy who had the guts to swim upstream for the sake of freedom when everyone else was jumping on the NDA bandwagon? Because he makes a "saint" joke? Man, get over it! |
| jimf Oct 28, 2006 8:01 PM EDT |
I repeat, Frankly, I don't care any more. 'Saint iGNUcius' indeed, I've written him off as a formerly brilliant mind who's now just a nut. You are entirely entitled to continue to worship. |
| tuxchick2 Oct 28, 2006 8:26 PM EDT |
Saint iGNUcius is an old joke. Would you be happier if RMS was completely humorless and incapable of poking a little fun at himself? |
| dinotrac Oct 29, 2006 2:32 AM EDT |
TC - The quality or RMS's humor may be right up there with his songwriting (We do all remember a littly ditty called , I believe, Free the Software?), but, humor is better than no humor. If the revolutionary army could adopt Yankee Doodle Dandy, the (mostly) taciturn one can adopt St iGNUcius, with, one hopes, some small sensitivity to who's listening. |
| Libervis Oct 29, 2006 3:54 AM EDT |
Jimf, saying that he has done more harm than good for the cause and using this *joke* as an sample of reasoning why is just entirely off the mark. In fact, it is a lie to say that. He has *created* the cause you are talking about, pretty much. Where were you back in those days? Even more so where was Linus, ESR and the whole party? I'm not for worshipping anyone. But I indeed am for giving respect where it really is due, at the very least. You fail at that. If I were in Stallman's place I would wear a more "marketable" image so to speak because I don't believe good image breaks the cause of freedom. I'd have a nice haircut, maybe even wear a suit and look all polished and professional. But that's me, and this is him. His style and image should definitely not be taken as more important than his actions and the content of his talks. And you seem to promote a total prejudice based on that alone, the appereance, the image and the style. Not a very open minded thing to do. |
| dcparris Oct 29, 2006 1:43 PM EDT |
Well, Lyons goes out of his way to paint the picture of RMS as an 'out-of-touch' looney zealot. Stalman is an eccentric individual who is widely assumed to have some sort of disorder. It is publicly known that Stallman has carpel-tunnel syndrome, which is why he can't hack like he used to - a point Lyons omits in his editorial. That RMS refers to smelling flowers as "nasal sex" simply has nothing at all to do with Free Software. So the guy likes to smell flowers - what's wrong with that? Here is the bottom line. Stallman is a strange, but brilliant man. We are not required to like him, to like his strange behavior, or even to agree with him on various points. But we should not allow his personality - or attacks on it - to distract us from the real issue - users' freedom. Of course, if you have never seen "A Beautiful Mind", I think its lessons apply here. Some of the students saw the good professor as a freak - and treated him like one. He was very fortunate that his friends at the University were a bit more open-minded, and that his wife decided to stick with him through thick and thin. Anyone who knows my background knows that I hold a belief system that directly contradicts his own - for the most part. We might agree on treating others with respect, but that is about as far our agreement will take us. While I disagree with him on various important issues, and I agree that his behavior is strange, I still see the value in his willingness to stand for software freedom for all users. Like Libervis, I might do things differently, and my approach might even be more palatable. But I'm not Stallman. Bottom line, if we are going to judge the man's philosophy about software licenses, judge it on its merits, not the man's eccentricities. There is a statue here in Charlotte of an eccentric old man who used to stand out at an intersection and direct traffic - even though there was a traffic light doing the real work. Who knows, maybe there will be a statue raised in honor of RMS one day. I'll leave us with this thought. How would you prefer your ideas to be judged? Yours truly, The Outcast |
| incinerator Oct 30, 2006 4:19 AM EDT |
jimf: The St. IGNUcious of the Church of Emacs act is a staple in RMS speeches. He brings that one very often. Clueful computer geeks are usually able to correctly judge it as a piece of geeky hacker humour more or less immediately. It is possible that clueful computer geeks are able to get the humour in RMS' jokes better and more often than non-geeks, as well. It seems you don't understand hacker humour. I'll let the others draw their own conclusions. |
| jdixon Oct 30, 2006 6:20 AM EDT |
> It seems you don't understand hacker humour. Oh, I think jimf understands that it's supposed to be humorous. He just doesn't agree that it is. Instead, he finds it offensive. I agree with him, actually. But knowing that Stallman is undoubtedly an atheist and doesn't share my views, I can overlook it. I'm glad it appeals to someone, but I'm sure the subset of people it appeals to is a very small minority. |
| incinerator Oct 30, 2006 6:31 AM EDT |
to cite jimf: "I hope he was merely making a point in jest, but, many won't see it that way."
I fail to see how one can not see it as a joke. Secondly, jimf never said he was offended by that act. How could one possibly be offended by that act, anyways? |
| jdixon Oct 30, 2006 7:17 AM EDT |
> How could one possibly be offended by that act, anyways? Most Christians, especially Roman Catholics, take sainthood rather seriously. |
| dcparris Oct 30, 2006 8:09 AM EDT |
To some extent, Stallman's act can be seen as farcical. Some Christians, however, will certainly find his 'church of emacs' as offensive, a mockery, if you will, of God and the Church. I couldn't bring myself to do that, but he's certainly free to do it if he wants. Stallman raised his "St. IGNUcious" persona in a private e-mail once, with an inquiry as to my sense of humor. I can laugh at that, simply because I don't see him so much attempting to mock the church as just having fun. He doesn't share my belief in God and is just being creative. In familiar company, I make parodies of well-known hymns. For example, my daughter will tell me that I "need help". I typically respond with the old spiritual, "All My Help is Coming From the Lord". Sometimes, I follow the original theme as much as possible, but adlibbing with various alternate words or phrases. It's frequently a spur-of-the-moment thing - no plans or rehearsing the words. I mean, honestly. Nasal sex? Have you ever smelled a rose? Isn't it tantalizing? Isn't it wonderful? Isn't the idea of 'nasal sex' absolutely hilarious? What's the advertisement with the girls talking about some product (yogurt or something?) as if it was better than a good night's rest, or sex or their favorite meal? But RMS gets tossed into the looney bin for 'nasal sex'? I would be more concerned if he were stripping naked in public while smelling the flowers, but that is simply not the case. Lyons deserves whatever he gets. It all comes back to this. The GPLv3 debate is mostly centered around the Tivoization issue. If you want to control the hardware you own, then you need to consider whether or not the GPLv3 (or any license) is the best approach to ensure that. Stallman's behavior, odd as it may be, has little bearing on that issue. |
| Scott_Ruecker Oct 30, 2006 9:31 AM EDT |
Quoting:It all comes back to this. The GPLv3 debate is mostly centered around the Tivoization issue. If you want to control the hardware you own, then you need to consider whether or not the GPLv3 (or any license) is the best approach to ensure that. Stallman's behavior, odd as it may be, has little bearing on that issue. I agree completely but he has to realize that doing things like this that can and will be mis-interpreted. It will be used to cloud the real issue which is the GPLv3 and how it handles the hardware issue. |
| jdixon Oct 30, 2006 9:37 AM EDT |
> I agree completely but he has to realize that doing things like this that can and will be mis-interpreted. I believe he does. I think he considers those who would misunderstand it to be lost causes. |
| incinerator Oct 30, 2006 10:05 AM EDT |
"Most Christians, especially Roman Catholics, take sainthood rather seriously." Might be. I still think you're being oversensitive. Everyone shouted "Freedom of Speech!!!" when those Danish painters created carricatures of Mohamed and the muslims got deeply upset about it. But RMS doing his St. IGNucius act is a no-can-do? |
| Scott_Ruecker Oct 30, 2006 10:10 AM EDT |
Quoting:But RMS doing his St. IGNucius act is a no-can-do? Come on now, everyone has their own beliefs and interprets the events they see differently but you have to know what kind of response you are engendering when you say that? |
| jdixon Oct 30, 2006 10:46 AM EDT |
> But RMS doing his St. IGNucius act is a no-can-do? Where did I say that? The question was: >> > How could one possibly be offended by that act, anyways? To which I responded: > Most Christians, especially Roman Catholics, take sainthood rather seriously. Saying that Christians in general might be offended by his actions is not denying him the right to take them. It's recognizing that his actions might be viewed negatively by a significant percentage of the population. Freedom of speech does not mean that other people have no right to be offended by your speech. or that they will not act accordingly when they are. Some folks (the Dixie Chicks come to mind) still have to learn that lesson. I don't count Stallman among them. I think he knows the negative effects of this "act", but that he doesn't care. |
| jimf Oct 30, 2006 11:28 AM EDT |
I have nothing personal against RMS. Heck, I'd probably like the guy in a social setting. I do have a problem with a personality who has thrust himself into the limelight with his 4 point 'theory' of how software should be ethically handled. People here who accuse me of attacking Stallman personally, are simply obfuscating to avoid looking at what RMS is really 'saying', his influence with the FSF, and how he uses his 'persona' to spread his view of the truth. Honestly, looking at RMS's 4 freedoms, they are simply an extension of basic socialist tenants. Bill stole DOS, and Richard stole from Socialist theory. He can now say, with a clear conscience, "I am not a communist". Right, it's not Communist, it's Socialist. Last I checked, most of the world is not. Now that's not necessarily bad in itself, but certainly not anything that should be accepted lock stock and barrel, without careful thought, but, one can easily see why many users like this approach. 'Free' is a compelling tag line for anyone. RMS furthers spins this by at one point stating that 'other ways of dealing with programming and software can be ethical', and in the next breath that "proprietary software is evil". Apparently, even RMS is unsure of his ethical parameters. Truth is that RMS's four 'rights' are one mans view of what RMS perceives as 'truth', but, he expects everyone else to recognize and agree with that view 'unequivocal'. While there is more than an element of truth in his original concept, Partial truths sold as absolute facts are on a very slippery slope indeed. Not that he original Idea was negligible, but, it would appear that this 20 year old mind fart, the resulting FSF, and, GPLv2 has been RMS's sole contribution, and, he's since made a career by milking it for everything he can get out of it. Add that to his propensity to expand the original 'software' theory to include 'hardware', and yes, he's really opened himself to serious legitimate criticism. Excuse me if I don't bang the drum for him. |
| incinerator Oct 30, 2006 12:38 PM EDT |
Well, I actually grew up in a (former) communist country. All my family have their roots there. The four software freedoms have absolutely nothing to do with that, not even remotely. They're more libertarian than any socialist doctrine could ever be. One might or might not agree with RMS' ideas, but "helping your neighbour" isn't socialist, it's common sense. One doesn't have to be a socialist or communist to believe in common sense. Ironically, the four software freedoms a la RMS, as well as the GPL, have their foundation in copyright. Copyright as it exists in the western hemisphere is actually a very anti-socialist thing. In a socialist economy, property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. That usually means state or collective ownership of the means of production. A socialist system usually tries to achieve the state of communism, in which private property is almost non-existant. In copyright terms that woud mean the rights to all works subject to copyright would be collectively owned or owned by the state. The collective could dictate the terms of use for these copyrightable works, they could make it free or non-free. That's not what RMS is after, he wants software to be free, and he needs "capitalist" copyright legistlation in order to make that possible. You could summarise it in a term: "Digital Commons". Now, the idea of a Commons isn't socialist, either. It's much older than that, coming from the middle ages. The concept of a Commons doesn't collide with the concept of private property, either. It simply means that everyone has certain rights to exercise regarding that particular item of property. Labelling people being "just a nut" because of that might seem a wee bit far-stretched. If you are offended by RMS' Church of Emacs act, well ok. I'm not religious, I'll never know how it feels to be "victium" of a joke on a religious topic (but I'm sure there are jokes about atheists, too). Using that particular issue against him isn't very effective though, is it? On that basis you could simply dismiss any differing opinion just because the person voicing it happens to follow a different religion than you do. |
| jimf Oct 30, 2006 12:58 PM EDT |
libertarian= "proprietary software is evil", LOL, I don't think so. RMS has simply taken the GRU act of the early 70's and is using it to further his one view of reality. A clever, but flawed ethical construct and you all buy into it. Sorry, been there, seen that. If RMS wants to revive his act, I'd suggest that he put in his application at Southpark. I understand they need a replacement for Chef... Come to think of it, I'm not sure that Chef didn't have more than a bit of RMS in the role. The original GPL., as applied to 'software' has been a somewhat reasonable and successful license. For the most part, it's done right by Linux. But, I have real problems thinking that GPL was the only license under which Linux would have been successful. I see no reason why other FOSS license modes would not have worked as well or better, and embodied just as much ethical concern. Sad to say, I also find it difficult to believe that GPL or any FOSS would have been successful if MS and other large Corporations had been at all ethical in their treatment of customers, and, competent in their software development. I really see the advancement of FOSS not so much as the success of Linux, but rather as the failure of Corporate proprietary vendors. I think we see the truth of this with the continued popularity of Apple, who is undoubtedly the best of the proprietary bunch. |
| number6x Oct 30, 2006 1:32 PM EDT |
"Honestly, looking at RMS's 4 freedoms, they are simply an extension of basic socialist tenants. Bill stole DOS, and Richard stole from Socialist theory. He can now say, with a clear conscience, "I am not a communist". Right, it's not Communist, it's Socialist. Last I checked, most of the world is not" The GPL and the four freedoms are about as socialist as "We The People" or "E Pluribus Unum". Sure RMS has strong beliefs in Freedom, ownership of works through copyright, and personal responsibility to a community. He also has strong beliefs in the right to own guns and the personal responsibilities that come with those rights. With rights for individuals come the burden of responsibilities towards the others around you. If you don't want to be burdened with the responsibiliies, don't expect to be granted the rights. I should add that the art of FUD is, in part, the art of pushing people's buttons in order to get them to react emotionally. For instance, what if I were to describe school prayer as 'socialist'. You'd probably think of me as a whacko. But if you look at the effort to support school prayer as an effort to inject a layer of government beuaracracy between parents and their children, an effort to lessen the role of the parents and the family in a child's moral education, and to create a government supported program to teach a standard morality to our American children. Then school prayer sounds much less appealing. Heck, we could have a capaign against school prayer that ask's the question: "Who do you think should teach our children about God? Government beuaracrats and government beuaracracy , or parents and family?" It's pretty easy to make even very conservative ideas sound very socialist. Even so, if we ever do pass laws for school prayer, I'd hate to see the prayer that gets approved by some committee in D.C. for our children! It'll be completely non-committal, and have corporate sponsorships included. I think that that's one of the movements like LBJ's "great society". Well intentioned, but the solution delivered by government will have very little to do with the original visions and desires. |
| jimf Oct 30, 2006 1:47 PM EDT |
> The GPL and the four freedoms are about as socialist as "We The People" or "E Pluribus Unum". Absolutely. And as I said 'not necessarily bad in itself'. Basically, I agree with most of the words, but, I really hate the spin. And including hardware in GPL3 is way beyond his original charter. The equivalent of a political power grab, without anyone's permission. > With rights for individuals come the burden of responsibilities towards the others around you. Nor do I take issue with that. |
| tuxchick2 Oct 30, 2006 2:13 PM EDT |
Power grab? Pray tell how he will force anyone to use GPL3, or prevent anyone who uses it from modifying it? Be honest- you just plain don't like RMS, and are groping for ways to explain something in rational terms that is purely emotional. He's a nut, a communist, a no-longer brilliant man. what's next, big dumb poopybutt? I don't care if you like RMS or not, but I do take exception to plain old character assassination. |
| jimf Oct 30, 2006 2:28 PM EDT |
> Pray tell how he will force anyone to use GPL3 Actually, I doubt he will, but that doesn't mean he isn't trying to do exactly that from within his FSF shell. > Be honest- you just plain don't like RMS Untrue, I just don't like his song and dance. 'character assassination'???, I'm not the one doing the shuffle. |
| Libervis Oct 31, 2006 10:01 AM EDT |
Oh my, jimf you're so full of FUD that I doubt it's even worth responding. You've lied once in the original thread and you continue to do so. I might be flamed to be so direct with you here, but I don't care really. I'm sometimes just tired of playing a nice guy when that apparently doesn't work, and with you it doesn't. I can say it nicely and you'll respond the same way. You have no freaking idea what you're talking about my friend. Who are you to claim four freedoms are just one mans view of how software should ethically be handled when thousands and even millions of people have not only seen sense in this, but are enjoying the fruits of exactly the availability of those four freedoms. It is incredible how you can bring yourself to downplay this as much as you do. And now you try to smudge everyone's eyes by linking four freedoms to socialism. Would you dare and observe the effect of these ideas and see what exactly is socialist about it? Wasn't capitalism supposed to be about free market, a level playing field where everyone is equally free to make their own business in the market? Wasn't it about freedom? And what is proprietary software doing to this free market? You've seen it and unless you're just going to bluntly ignore it, you'll know that proprietary software is the system that naturally leads to monopolies because it is in itself about a monopoly over a piece of code. That is its basic characteristic. And then observe the market being created by Free Software as governed by the four freedoms principle. Tell me which of the two is closer to the capitalist ideal of free market? It is exactly those four freedoms which are restoring, believe it or not, capitalism as it was made to be. If anything, Free Software is the closes to fair capitalism as anything gets! I am hence at this point not afraid to say that I believe in capitalism, only not the corrupt version prevalent today (which isn't an ideal capitalism at all). As a capitalist, I believe in Free Software because only if we have a market where Free Software reigns can I compete fairly with everybody else, either as a developer, distributor, designer or anything else. |
| nalf38 Oct 31, 2006 11:50 AM EDT |
I think RMS has a GNUpoleon Complex. Here's some more fuel for the fire: Stallman Joy: Sometimes you feel like GNUt.... Well, sometimes you just feel like a GNUt. Ralph GNUder: splitting the vote so the bad guy wins every time. Stero: cluelessly playing the fiddle while his kingdom burns to the ground. Foregon GNUmp: "Life is like a DRM-infected box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get (to play it on)." Marvin GNUay: I 'Hurd' It Through The Grapevine (that GNU would scarcely exist without the Linux kernel.) GNU2: "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For (in the latest GPL3 draft)" GNUeen: AGNUther GPL3 Draft Bites the Dust. SiGNUnd Freud: sometimes a Tivo is just a Tivo. GIMBY: (There's a) GNUt In My Backyard (and it's RMS). Donald GNUmsfeld: We're winning the War on DRM...not. George GNUsh: We're fighting them on their Tivos so we don't have to fight them on our laptops. Dick CheGNUy: We must destroy Microsoft because Bill Gates has DRMs. zealots come on both sides of the argument. |
| jimf Oct 31, 2006 11:57 AM EDT |
"you're so full of FUD", "You've lied", "I might be flamed"??? And, I'm the one being fudish??? Lol Libervis, you're so predictable. The original GPL license in conjunction with Linux has been a very successful hedge against the infringement of other unethical interests (mainly Large Corporate interests). I'm not arguing that. I am saying that RMS has codified a very complex issue into a 4 phrase litany which vastly oversimplifies the issues involved, and by chanting them over and over has convinced people like yourself that this is god's word and the 'only' true and ethical path. That's the real lie. If you say that by not completely accepting the 4 'freedoms' and 'Richards interpretations' of them is unethical, and will loose of all our freedoms as users, that's the true 'FUD'. > what is proprietary software doing to this free market Sorry, I can't buy that. It's not the proprietary software, but, those unethical Corporate interests that are the problem. I know too many one man shops that deal in an entirely ethical and appropriate way with their customers to condemn 'proprietary' out of hand. It can be a legitimate business service, and should be a 'choice', though it might not be my first one. > I believe in capitalism, only not the corrupt version prevalent today Absolutely! I just don't believe that the RMS litany is the only, or even necessarily the best, way to defeat those forces. |
| dcparris Oct 31, 2006 1:44 PM EDT |
gnalf38: You should submit that as an article, assuming that's your material. |
| Libervis Oct 31, 2006 3:43 PM EDT |
jimf: Quoting:"you're so full of FUD", "You've lied", "I might be flamed"??? You call that an argument? Quoting:I am saying that RMS has codified a very complex issue into a 4 phrase litany which vastly oversimplifies the issues involved, and by chanting them over and over has convinced people like yourself that this is god's word and the 'only' true and ethical path. Ever heard of a concept of "reference"? RMS nor anyone else ever claimed that four freedoms are explaining the whole of the issue. If that was so then GNU.org site wouldn't need so many essays written on the subject. By saying what you're saying you're once again proving that you are FUDing indeed. Four freedoms are a mere foundation, guidelines by which we build further. I could just as well simplify it even further and say that there is only one rule for everything in life: to have freedom and allow others to have it as well. This certainly wont explain everything there is to explain about freedom and how to live by this principle, but it is a fundamental principle from which we start. Same is with four freedoms. Stallman merely wanted to establish a principal base, a foundation of his philosophy. This base is what countless essays have been written by him and others, and a whole license was created to reflect these fundamentals in a legal system. And these fundamentals are nothing but about freedom of the computer user. Quoting:Sorry, I can't buy that. It's not the proprietary software, but, those unethical Corporate interests that are the problem. And what do you think created proprietary software concept in the first place?? Duh! Quoting:I know too many one man shops that deal in an entirely ethical and appropriate way with their customers to condemn 'proprietary' out of hand. You don't have to condemn people just because you condemn proprietary software. Just because these one man shops are honest in what they do doesn't diminish the fact that their license diminishes basic computer users freedoms over their own property. In a pre-corrupted world, such licenses would be frowned upon as unthinkable. I own my computer and now they'd like me to agree that I can't control what I run on it? Wtf? So yeah, these honest to heart one man shops may not be bad people, but even good people can fall to doing bad things, something without even realizing it. If you would be open minded enough you'd be able to make a distinction between people and their practices. If good people do bad things, does that make bad things good? |
| dinotrac Oct 31, 2006 4:49 PM EDT |
>If you would be open minded enough you'd be able to make a distinction between people and their practices. If good people do bad things, does that make bad things good? If you would be open minded enough, you'd be able to make a distinction between things that you don't like and bad things. One man shops selling proprietary software of their own design and making don't diminish anybody's freedom. They can't. They don't have the power. They can't force you to use their software or their services. Period. End of discussion. You may not like what they do, but it is not a bad thing to feed your family while meeting a need in the marketplace. Writing and supporting software is not starving widows and children, it is not stealing candy from babies and it is not blowing up buildings. It is feeding your family by writing and supporting software. |
| jimf Oct 31, 2006 4:54 PM EDT |
> You call that an argument? As much as yours. > created proprietary software concept in the first place So now we go the chicken and the egg controversy... And that last paragraph is just more spin... It's obvious that you're incapable of even knowing what an open mind is. Go back to your mantra if it gives you release. Just don't chant it at me. |
| helios Oct 31, 2006 5:42 PM EDT |
I also find it difficult to believe that GPL or any FOSS would have been successful if MS and other large Corporations had been at all ethical in their treatment of customers, and, competent in their software development. I really see the advancement of FOSS not so much as the success of Linux, but rather as the failure of Corporate proprietary vendors. Jim, that is absolutely brilliant... And great minds think alike. '-) My boss made somewhat the same observation and is quoted in the "soon to be published" finale of my two part article. My apologies, but Corporate insisted on review and Blue Pencil if necessary. He is emailing it to me by 9 EST tonight. should be sometime between 7 and 8 in the am Standby Scott...coming to you. Really Jim...that is profound. h |
| dek Oct 31, 2006 5:43 PM EDT |
Is this discussion going anywhere? All I'm seeing is a lot of arguments both for and against Stallman and his actions but no one's really listening very hard. Might it not be time to agree to disagree and move on before a full-fledged flame war breaks out? I know, I know, I'm one who loves flame wars but this isn't really a good subject. What Stallman has done has affected a lot of change in the world and I respect that far too much to want to see it diminished by a flame war. So how about it, folks? Kiss and make up or agree to disagree? ;-) Just wondering...... DonK . edit one: Oh crap! I crossed posts with helios who makes some good points. . . . Guess this thread isn't dead yet! |
| jdixon Oct 31, 2006 6:13 PM EDT |
> Guess this thread isn't dead yet! Now appearing for your Halloween entertainment: "The thread that wouldn't die!" :) |
| dinotrac Oct 31, 2006 6:18 PM EDT |
dek - Stallman seems to bring out the worst in everyone, supporters and detractors alike. It's a funny thing, too. Stallman is guilty, at most, of being sincerely blunt about his world view. I don't think I've ever read anything from him that was nasty in the way that his "supporters" can be. I think the man is eccentric, and, in some ways, out of touch, but he's also brilliant and has earned respect even when we don't agree with him. For some of us, that's more often that others, but what the hey. |
| jimf Oct 31, 2006 6:18 PM EDT |
> > Guess this thread isn't dead yet! For me it's definitely finished... |
| dcparris Oct 31, 2006 6:42 PM EDT |
> I don't think I've ever read anything from him that was nasty in the way that his "supporters" can be. Oooh! You must have been reading my mind. I was thinking about this just yesterday, although focused on Stallman and those who have criticized him over the past several months. I don't know that I would call him 'gracious', but he rarely actually attacks his opponents when he speaks/writes. He almost always sticks to the issue at hand. I have never seen him attack people the way Lyons attacked him. |
| dinotrac Oct 31, 2006 7:00 PM EDT |
Rev - At worst, RMS can be accused of being occasionally bone-headed. That puts him in pretty good company. |
| incinerator Nov 01, 2006 12:45 AM EDT |
Well, it wasn't us rms fanbois who start calling him a nutter, was it? Amazing how jimf now suddenly pulls back and sez "sheesh, you nasty fanbois hacking me apart. Just because I don't agree with rms' view". Wigglewigglewiggle, and I don't mean jimf's toes. And behold, suddenly the fanbois take all the blame. Jimf, that was absolutely brilliant you should go into politics, I'd even vote for you if I was allowed to. Imagine, you could be the next dubbyah, yay! It's amazing how people tend do forget what's been written at the beginning of this thread. It would be so easy to recall, all you'd need is to scroll to the top of this page. You anti-rms folks seems to have a very convoluted view on the history of free software. According to your point of view, free software was nothing more than one or two people sitting in a dark, wet dungeon hacking some code together noone would use. Then ms came along, then linux came along and suddenly everything changed? Bah, is PCs all you know? Folks have been using GNU tools on their Sun/SGI/DEC/HP/NeXT/yni workstations long before the Linux kernel became barely usable. At work, I've got a Sun Sparcstation 20 on my desk, running SunOS 4 (yeah, that's the stuff before Slowlaris), the latest kernel compiled in 1994. Guess what, it comes with GNU Emacs, gcc and lots of other GNUddies. It's GNU software that has been keeping this machine in a usable state for all these years. |
| jimf Nov 01, 2006 1:20 AM EDT |
As far as Stallman, He put himself up on a pedestal a long time ago, and has been playing the 'nut' ever since. If anyone in any way questions his credibility, a dozen of you 'fanbois' (your word, not mine) come raging out of the woodwork. Makes it pretty difficult to have a discussion of any sort when everyone is convinced they have god's word. > Folks have been using GNU tools on their Sun/SGI/DEC/HP/NeXT/yni workstations long before the Linux kernel became barely usable. None of it went anywhere until Linux took it up. So was it GNU or was it Linux? I guess you're to be praised for your skill at recycling. Have fun with your green screen. |
| incinerator Nov 01, 2006 1:52 AM EDT |
Yeah, right. Insulting a person by calling him a nutter is a very effective way of questioning his credibilty, isn't it. If you were after a serious discussion about RMS's credibility you would never have started this thread the way you did. Nah, just keep on trolling. No clueful person will ever answer to a thread you start again. What a shame that I did not realise you're just a clueless troll in the first place. Oh and btw, I don't have a problem labelling myself an RMS fanboi, I admire the man. "None of it went anywhere until Linux took it up": durkadurkaidonthaveacluejihad. I was using GNU tools on my Amiga back in the early nineties. For some software that never went anywhere it was quite usable actually. How about you giving some example of your theory about the early history of GNU software, huh? |
| dinotrac Nov 01, 2006 2:26 AM EDT |
>was using GNU tools on my Amiga back in the early nineties Ummmm.....GNU tools have been around for a good while, but they haven't existed in a vacuum. Prior to the big explosion in Linux use in the mid-nineties, few people used,. cared about, or knew about GNU tools. That statement would be true if every single user of every single UNIX box anywhere in the world was toted up. |
| jdixon Nov 01, 2006 7:47 AM EDT |
> I have never seen him attack people the way Lyons attacked him. RMS has his flaws, but he's a good person. Based solely on what I've read by him, I don't think I can say the same for Lyons. > Insulting a person by calling him a nutter is a very effective way of questioning his credibilty, isn't it. I think we can all agree that Stallman's behavior is at the extreme edge of what most people would consider "normal", and sometimes goes over that edge. That should do nothing to detract from his accomplishments. The GPL and the GNU project allowed Free Software to be where it is today. Without him and his work, there would be no Linux distributions as we know them. That said, without the Linux kernel, we'd still be stuck with the Hurd project and the BSD's. It is the combination of the Linux kernel and GNU which got us where we are today; not either one by itself. This disagreement between the kernel developers and the FSF is something that needs to be resolved. We don't really have the manpower to fork the entire GNU project. I'm open to suggestions; I have no idea how to resolve it. :( |
| nalf38 Nov 01, 2006 7:58 AM EDT |
dcparris: it's all mine. feel free to quote. |
| jimf Nov 01, 2006 11:14 AM EDT |
incinerator, You say that the 4 'freedoms' are not socialistic in nature. I think I owe you a serious response on that one. I have to point out that the GPL amounts to a closed system, or collective if you will. Code is written, GPL'd, and not allowed to be used with anything else, but can be used by anyone within that (collective) system. If we're talking concepts, I don't know how else you can classify it other than socialist derived. Frankly, I could care less what label you put on it, nor am I attaching any stigma to it. If you want a closer approximation of a Libertarian license, then I suggest you look at the BSD license which doesn't have those restrictions. |
| number6x Nov 01, 2006 2:00 PM EDT |
Jimf, Credit cards also form this same kind of system. You must opt in to this credit card 'collective'. Only members of the 'collective' accept and process the credit cards. Does that mean that a big chunk of the USA's consumer economy is socialist. It's not a completely closed system. GPL can share code under the BSD or similar licenses, or in the public domain. A copyright holder can release their code under a commercial license as well as the GPL. But the GPL software does try to create a rather open ended community. I stand by my view that the GPL is about as socialist as 'We the People' or 'E Pluribius Unum'. |
| jimf Nov 01, 2006 2:16 PM EDT |
> Credit cards also form this same kind of system I'm sure that banks would find that amusing. One important difference here. Not every user can become a credit card member. The main one being current possession of propriety or money (just try and get one without that). With GPL, the ability to use the system is automatic and anyone can use it. Yes, GPL can share code with other systems, but only under very specific conditions, and, it always stays GPL'd. > I stand by my view that the GPL is about as socialist as 'We the People' or 'E Pluribius Unum'. True, but perhaps not the way you think. The Founding Fathers were pretty socialist for their time :D |
| incinerator Nov 02, 2006 1:07 AM EDT |
"I have to point out that the GPL amounts to a closed system, or collective if you will" The system is not that isolated, actuallty. You can always dual-license a piece of work you claim copyright on. See mysql, qt etc. for examples. Once derivative works and contributions come into play, things get more tricky though. Of course it is a collective system, but your conclusion that this makes the GPL and the four software freedoms socialist has no merits. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons As you can see, the concept of "collective" ownership of property has been around virtually forever. Actually, the legal concept of private property was created much later than the concept of the commons. Socialism is a theory established during the beginnings of the Modern Times. Just because a certain system of ownership or utilisation of property has collective characteristics doesn't mean it is socialist. Labelling any of these systems socialist just because they have a collective aspect does not constitute a valid conclusion. Unless you have factual evidence that such a system is based on socialist or communist ideas, labelling it such is non-sense. The concept of the four software freedoms is a very new one. I have yet to see any credible evidence that it's explicitly or implicitly based on socialist or communist ideas. Thus, anyone labelling that concept as socialist or communist either does - not have a clue about history and political theory, or - deliberately uses these terms in order to discredit the idea of the four software freedoms. Unless you can present credible evidence that RMS et al. actually have formalised the concept of the four software freedoms by referring to socialist/communist/marxist/leninist/stalinist/maoist/castroist/whatever ideas, I won't take your claim seriously. |
| Libervis Nov 02, 2006 2:52 AM EDT |
dinotrac: Quoting:You may not like what they do, but it is not a bad thing to feed your family while meeting a need in the marketplace. Writing and supporting software is not starving widows and children, it is not stealing candy from babies and it is not blowing up buildings. It is feeding your family by writing and supporting software. Yes, I don't like what they do because I believe it is bad. And I wont bend that belief just because I may consider this person to generally be a good one. That's what I was talking about and not that everyone else must absolutely share my belief. Now why do I still believe it is bad? The license may be something people first have to accept, but does that make the license terms any less bad than they are, any less freedom restrictive once agreed upon? I would be willing to bet that most people using such restrictive software didn't read the license and don't exactly know what they're agreeing to. This weakens the argument that they've fully willingly given up their freedom. Quoting:but it is not a bad thing to feed your family while meeting a need in the marketplace I have to respond to this directly because this is not something you can do only by writing proprietary software, and I think you know it. You can make money writing Free Software that fills a need in the marketplace as well. The model may be different, but that't it. You'll still have to invest in marketing just as much as you'd have to if it was proprietary. Lone programmers often strive to get their software anywhere. With Free Software they are at least able to build upon the strenghts of the community and code they share which considerably eases things up for them. As for jimf, so long and thanks for all the fish. You're on my ignore list. If anyone looks over jimf's posts and sees pretty much all the ingredients of the "good old" FUD and twisting, you'd be right to think that's what it is. That was no way to start nor continue the discussion jimf. |
| dinotrac Nov 02, 2006 7:31 AM EDT |
I would be willing to bet that most people using such restrictive software didn't >read the license and don't exactly know what they're agreeing to. I would bet that you are wrong when talking about one person shops providing proprietary software as they tend to be serving business clients rather than the consumer market. But, so what? One person shops don't have market power. As to free software, some people can make money off of that, but not everybody can. Not that it matters. You are free to dislike people feeding their families doing something that is legal and has no effect on you whatsoever. As to limiting anybody's freedom by doing so, you are equally free to continue being dead solid wrong. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!