LinuxDevCenter Interviews RMS 321
prostoalex writes "LinuxDevCenter interviews RMS.
Interesting that Stallman supports the free software projects ported to proprietary operating systems: 'Porting free applications to nonfree operating systems is often useful. This allows users of those operating systems to try out using a few free programs and see that they can be
good to use, that free software won't bite them. This can help people overcome worries about trying a free operating system such as GNU/Linux. Many users really do follow this path.'"
Free apps on non-free OS (Score:5, Insightful)
Tides of change (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I have aged and benefitted first hand from the freedom of software. Now I comprehend what he is trying to say and I recognize the benefit of open source software.
With that said, he still come across as a crackpot who is so entrenched in his views he will not budge. However, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Without gcc there would be a lot less free software.
Ingredients? (Score:4, Insightful)
RMS: I am not calling for such a law as of now, but I think that would be a valid consumer protection measure--like requiring food products to publish the list of ingredients.
Of course, some software companies would object to this, just as some food companies resisted the requirement to publish the ingredients and nutritional information. The question should not be up to them.
I don't think it's the same at all. Publishing ingredients in food is a lot different from publishing source code. Publishing the sourcecode is like sending someone the blueprint schematics of your new machine, practically inviting them to make their own; whereas the ingredients label doesn't list in what quantities the ingredients were mixed in at, or what time, etc. I know Stallman simply made a poor analogy, but I think he truly believes it.
Definately makes switching easier (Score:2, Insightful)
software wants to be free (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ingredients? (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. A closer analogy to publishing food ingredients is probably publishing APIs and interface specifications.
I admire RMS for his consistency. (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, I disagree with him that all software must be libre. I don't like being told that I may not release my own work as I see fit. At the same time he is welcome to not use it as he sees fit.
Bob-
RMS knows. (Score:1, Insightful)
I like freedom... (Score:4, Insightful)
Tilting at windmills (Score:4, Insightful)
Open software on a closed kernel (Score:3, Insightful)
Shell: http://www.bb4win.org/ [bb4win.org]
Burning prog: http://www.burnatonce.com/ [burnatonce.com]
DC client: http://gempond.com/odc/ [gempond.com]
Graphics: http://gempond.com/odc/ [gempond.com]
IM: http://gaim.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
Browser:
Mail: http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/ [mozilla.org]
Office suite: http://www.openoffice.org/ [openoffice.org]
et cetera...
But then it dawned on me: All these programs are avaliable under GNU/Linux.
That day was the day that i switched to Debian. I haven't looked back.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stroke for RMS (Score:5, Insightful)
Me: Yep, brand-spanking new
GNU is pronounced with a hard G. If you listen to virtually any RMS speech on software freedom, you'll hear him explain how the name originated and a specific request that people not to call it the "new" operating system, as that may cause the type of confusion that you used in your joke. Part of being a philosopher king like RMS is having thought through pretty much everything, from the seemingly trivial to the profound.
True (Score:3, Insightful)
That is so true. Seen it happen over and over again. Use Firefox and Thunderbird to move them into OSS tools for the internet. Then introduce OpenOffice and pretty soon the underlying OS is immaterial.
It's odd that it seems to take time to sink in that part of the value in OSS is that it comes bundled with all those goodies and there's no need to buy anything else. For instance (these are retail prices):
OEM pricing may vary as will the prices to big buyers. But even counting that where's the value? You still have to spend an insane amount of time keeping everything updated to combat the threat of the day and even that won't stop all the crap. It's insane. Get off Windows.
Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is... (Score:4, Insightful)
And nobody likes a pedant.
Dog with a bone (was Re:Tides of change) (Score:5, Insightful)
Do pay attention. Across the span of years assholes like Gates, Jobs, and Ellison will be mere blips on the radar of history. RMS will be considered one of the cornerstones of computer technology.
Far from being a crackpot, RMS stands for exactly what is needed in terms of free software. The steadfast nature of his resolve is with a view to all possible attacks from within and without the free software movement.
The things that RMS says are sort of like the Bill of Rights. People try to mess with it, to rewrite it, to mess with it in a thousand ways - and RMS has always been right on the first try.
It's a pity that more do not see that plainly. In my view, RMS sees things with startling clarity. He already sees what you have not even begun to anticipate.
I apologize for being cryptic, but it's one of those things that you either "get" or you just don't.
Re:True (Score:4, Insightful)
As opposed to the insane amount of time learning and dicking around with Linux trying to get it to work properly? Or what about the tens thousands needed to pay programmers to develop Linux based apps that simply don't exist yet?
Your assumption that every (or even most) computer users simply email, surf the web, and print up pretty documents is wrong at best. Linux is not even remotely a possiblity for me and my business because we use apps that are not available (or even good counterparts) for Linux.
Re:Free apps on non-free OS (Score:5, Insightful)
When this happens (when Microsoft insists on not losing a sale, so they distribute Windows and Office to a big customer at no fee), if there is no mention of software freedom, the proprietor will get what they want. Focusing on price instead of freedom is a trap because you are tossing aside the only thing free software can compete on for something that plays into the hands of proprietors.
Re:Free apps on non-free OS (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, finally, the hobbyists and enthusiasts have started to catch up with those who made billions by commodifying what's essentially nothing but pancake recipes, and get booed as by the masses as economy-shattering un-American commies. There was never a viable business model in cranking out fancy text editors in VB and charging $9.99 for each installation to begin with, no more than there was a viable business model in "developing web-driven eTailing and interactive marketing solutions" in the 90s.
I have nothing but respect for software developers, but if someone can do something as well as you - except for free, and in their spare time - you have no right to complain while you are in a market-driven economy. There are plenty of business that will pay good money for an in-house system developer, to do the sort of work that software people got paid to do before commodification took place.
Re:I like freedom... (Score:3, Insightful)
The users choice includes not purchasing hardware that requires unfree drivers.
Re:Tides of change (Score:4, Insightful)
RMS: Proprietary software is unethical, because it denies the user the basic freedom to control her own computer and to cooperate.
Here's the problem. Not many people care about controlling their computer in the sense that he's blabbing on about. They want to use it. Stallman and others find it more fun to ignore that fact. If a person wants to control their computer, they can bang out code and get the results they want. The computer isn't some mystical realm in which we must adhere to philosophies and Lockeian ideals of natural rights because it's simply irrelevent. People freely choose what goes on their hard drive and it shouldn't be put upon programmers to freely release their code if they don't want to. Even entertaining the idea of forcing code to be opened is disgusting. Should we then ban secrets? Along with freedom of speech is the right to remain silent and the right to maintain your livelihood as long as it doesn't harm others. That right is stronger than the right to know about buffer overflows in your email program.
RMS (briefly) forgot what freedom means (Score:3, Insightful)
FB: Would you sign and promote a petition or an initiative for free access to hardware specifications?
RMS: I'd endorse any sort of nonviolent democratic political activity to promote such a law.
Of course, such a law (like all laws) would have to be backed up by violence -- don't obey it, have your freedom or property taken away. I think it's disingenuous for RMS to claim the high road of "non-violence" while advocating exactly the opposite.
Except for this, I think his stances are in general very admirable.
Re:Tides of change (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't want to go off-topic in this thread, but this is one of the things that I was going to say about the Opera v. Firebird portion of another thread today (I think others may have already made the point anyway). I value that Firebird is free. Opera is really great (although there are a few flaws I have found in it over time) but it is not free.
It really makes all the difference in the world. I can wait for Firebird to become as kick ass as Opera - it is very close already.
Frankly, there are very few instances where proprietary software beats free software, esp when it comes to desktop use. I am not saying none, I am saying few. But I also think there are many instances where free software beats proprietary software. And I think it's getting better for the free side of the equation all the time.
Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Except when it comes to trademarks and commerical use of names.
Call that Canon copier a "Xerox machine" and the fine folks at both Canon and Xerox will insist you get it right. No different here - though "GNU" isn't, IIRC, a trademark, "Linux" is.
Re: I also admire RMS for his consistency. (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't speak for RMS, but maybe you can read his view as: "all drinking water in this world should be clean and safe for consumption". That would be the optimal situation. At the same time you realize, it will never happen (at least not any time soon), and you can't force the rest of the world to make it so.
Maybe RMS would like most if there was simply no need for free software to require GPL style license, just to keep it free.
But I think it ultimately boils down to how people regard works that can be mass reproduced with near-zero effort (music, software, pictures, designs, etc). For clarity: I'm not talking about requiring everyone to share music, idea's etc., I'm just talking about work that for some reason or another was released to the public. Some people will view such work as 'ideas, floating freely through space, free for everyone to grab from the airwaves', and other people will say 'my personal property, get your dirty hands off it'. I believe that is a fundamental divide, that may shift, but will never go away. As long as you have that divide, there will be copyrights, patents, and GPL style licenses to counter their effect.
Re:RMS (briefly) forgot what freedom means (Score:3, Insightful)
freedom versus innovation (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words, to him it doesn't matter how useful a program is, if it's not free, he won't use it. The big example is using a proprietary program to control the source code of the linux kernel because according to Linus it allows him to be more productive and get things done faster. But because it's not free, stallman says he disagrees with Linus's judgement on using that proprietary program. He doesn't take into consideration the fact that with Linus making this decision, it causes the free alternatives to source control something to live up to. Basically saying, if you want to be used for your features instead of being that you're just free, this is the features you want to have and the ease of use that you want to have.
There will always be free and proprietary software. Some free software advocates like Stallman simply will say use this and this program because it is free. That doesn't really cause something to be popular among end users. Features and ease of use do that. Look how long it took to build a free web browser (mozilla and firefox) before end users would accept and use them. It was never because they were free, it was because they were useful to use over the proprietary alternatives and more secure, plus they were free.
Free and usefulness go hand in hand I think. Once open source authors realize that, like the Mozilla and Firefox developer teams realized, then we'll get good products like Mozilla, Firefox and Thunderbird. I think the future looks bright. Arrogance in the end never wins however.
Re:Gimp on Windows is useful (Score:2, Insightful)
Why don't you put the GIMP on a separate workspace? (Or does Windows still lack that simple feature?)
Re:Cygwin (Score:5, Insightful)
This is humorous on one level. Let me comment on the serious level though. I think RMS was simply trying to avoid any confusion. I'm a lawyer, and before a witness testifies, I make certain they understand one thing very clearly - never answer a question you don't fully understand. 100% of the time, it is a mistake to give an answer to what you think or guess the question was driving at. The risk of being misunderstood, then later being branded a "liar" (and people do love to be vicious) far outweighs the risks associated with asking for clarification. It is the questioner's job to ask a clear question and if there is any part that is not understood - there is only one correct answer: "I don't understand the question." I'm also aware that interviewers/reporters for media of various kinds, practically always get facts wrong/misquote etc. My guess, RMS has been bitten in the past answering a question he thought was about X, when the questioner thought it was about Y. So, I don't hold it against him that he asked for clarification - it was the only thing he could do to ensure that his ideas were communicated clearly.
Re:I admire RMS for his consistency. (Score:3, Insightful)
The way I see it, is he believes proprietary software to be morally bad, and that he wants people to choose the morally good mechanism of free software. But I've never heard him say that you should not have the right to choose non-free software, and I believe the reason you don't have a citation is that there isn't one.
RMS? A pragmatist? (Score:2, Insightful)
Richard, I think you are getting a little hypocrytical. Either give us your familiar "Freedom or Death" line or give me the freedom to choose a proprietary path if that is most expedient to me. I don't really give a rats... which way you go, but as the voice of freedom in software, stop being confusing.
And yes I did read the next paragraph where Mr Stallman says effectively that such ports are a means to an ends. If so, then why is Linus' use of bitkeeper (i think) so heineous. If the open solution was as good if not better, for the purpose, then Linus will switch. In the same way users switch any application that better meets their needs. I can't see the difference between using bitkeeper or using MS Windows or using Debian Woody or any fully GPLed OS. Most people will use what works for them. Having the source code is a bonus.
And on that note a big Merry Christmas to all programmers who release under GPL. Whether you celebrate it or not, may it be merry. I do enjoy using your software with the freedoms it gives me.
Re:True (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is different exactly how from the insane amount of time learning and dicking around with Windows trying to get it to work properly?
Re:Geez, RMS is kind of a loon. (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh, that's the whole point of Free Software. You think it's somehow more ethical to sell someone software they can't use properly, or to lock them into updates and support, or to damage their business when they find the application they depend on is now unsupported, or just to put them through activation sequences, time-bombed software, spyware, proprietary formats, software audits or even harassing lawsuits just because you feel like being annoying to your customers.
Giving people freedom to use their software. Now that's ethical.
Top ranked amateurs (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you also whine about how not everyone who can sing gets to make music videos? Or that not everyone who plays hockey gets to do it for a living? Or that not everyone who plays the stock market gets to be a broker?
The way things are going software development is soon going to be an 'amateur' thing, with only talented amateurs getting picked up by corporations/schools/etc (see OSDL, etc.). Sure lots of people will still need to code the tools they need as part of their jobs, but it will only be part of their job.
Actually, perhaps a better analogy is to mathematics. Lots of people need to do math to do their jobs, but very few of them get paid to be mathematicians. And yes, most of their work is 'open source', unless they're at the NSA.
Lousy questions (Score:3, Insightful)
And this whole question of whether free software is good or not is such a waste of time. When somebody invented automatic door openers did people say "think of all the doormen who will be out of a job"? No, they said "isn't it great that these people are now free to find better jobs that contribute more to society". That's what I would say about people who used to spend all their time reinventing the wheel because all the previously invented wheels were proprietary. If Linux succeeds (i.e. is better than Windows and people switch) then the programmers at Microsoft will get to work on new and different things that haven't been done before (and maybe make money on them for the few years before the open source alternatives catch up).