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.'"
Cygwin (Score:3, Interesting)
Gimp on Windows is useful (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Free apps on non-free OS (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Free apps on non-free OS (Score:3, Interesting)
Cue the standard replies of "but the money will be made up in service!". That's what India is for. And anyways it ignores the reality that most organizations (and individuals) are trying to reduce their IT spending to $0, and they'll do whatever they can to achieve that.
Libre on non-free environments (Score:5, Interesting)
However there isn't a policy regarding what tool sets individual shell users can install. It's interesting to browse various
The point is, at least with mainstream IT people most already see and understand the value and quality of open source or free software.
Re:What RMS really means with GNU/Linux is... (Score:4, Interesting)
The good part of this is that its an active sign of respect for others background and culture. Language is an important of a person's identity.
The bad part is that there are insane laws that nitpick on what a person can and cannot do, in the name of protecting the French language. An example of thi is fineing a business if the French part of the signs is not so much larger than the English. It got to the point where common sense and respect for another got forgotten. The whole issue started to be about the motivation and maturity of the people involved.
This is the same with the term "GNU/Linux". People over look your message and just see how immature you are at nitpicking.
Contrary theories, little evidence presented. (Score:3, Interesting)
So, I'll believe that users actually move to freedom because of free software on non-free OSes when I see random phone poll survey data that confirms this. So far, all I read are theories about how users would behave.
Therefore I will have to ask some of my survey-conducting friends how I would go about doing this in a way that would produce reliable data on which to build an informed opinion. Perhaps there has already been a study of this.
Re:Stroke for RMS (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm. (Score:5, Interesting)
I was slightly skeptical about this, until I realized that I actually followed this path, more or less. Back in the day when OS/2 was still around, I was using that over DOS/Win3.1, and eventually NT, as I couldn't afford a box that would run that, but it turned out for the better. I had tried Linux once, and found it too hard to get anything done with (remember this was like 92-93, and I had never used anything *nix before): it was interesting, but I wasn't familiar with any of the applications, so I couldn't do much.
Of course, if OS/2 is remembered for one thing, it's the overflowing of native applications, by which I mean there were few. So eventually, I started using "EMX" (iirc) ports of *nix applications: emacs, gcc, (La)TeX, bash, ghostscript. After awhile (and putting up with some deficiencies), I realized that I was no longer really using OS/2. I was trying to use Linux. So, I got that infomagic set of "modern" distros (like redhat 4, debian something ancient, slackware, and a copy of sunsite and tsx). I've never looked back.
It's been interesting over the years to see the application base grow by leaps and bounds; the open culture for Free Software is really what Linux has created, and what has in turn driven its success. OS/2 never had it. HURD was too idealist to gather momentum. The BSD's seem to have a different focus. All the other OS's drive a purely commercial culture: Windows, MacOS, PalmOS, Symbian, the commercial Unices, etc.
So perhaps... perhaps... if you transform the other OS's into a semblance of Linux (or other "Free" OS, I guess, but let's be realistic here), once people are familiar with the software, you can switch the OS and give them the full experience, and not only will they fall right in, they'll be happier, because everything works as it should.
This, I believe, is what Microsoft should truly fear.
Geez, RMS is kind of a loon. (Score:3, Interesting)
So now coders hired to do proprietary work are unethical too?
He cites ingredients on food packaging -- but he knows perfectly well that a mere list of ingredients cannot be used to duplicate the food. It's misleading.
And now he's also open to the idea that the government should force all software makers to publish their source code? That's creepy.
Also, he should just acknowledge that "free as in speech" software almost always winds up as "free as in beer" too. It's kind of dishonest to pretend otherwise.
It's pretty informative to read RMS in his own words.
Rumor mill (Score:3, Interesting)
Please include you rampant unsubstantiated speculations below.
Re:I admire RMS for his consistency. (Score:3, Interesting)
Do note, however, that he considers a law requiring all software to be "libre" to be the same thing as product labeling, a law with tremendous public support. It's difficult to find anyone who will argue that the law is an infringement on the rights of the producer to label their product as they see fit.
Keep in mind that RMS is not a "libertarian", he fully believes in the use of government force for things he likes, which is why he does not reject such a law. He only says he's not calling for one now.
The scene in the movie _Revolution OS_ where Torvalds and the Linux show organizers present RMS with a large donation to the Free Software Foundation is very, very illuminating.
Bob-
'Free speech' - wrong analogy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Free apps on non-free OS (Score:3, Interesting)
Some time ago, it was revealed that Microsoft's Orlando Ayala, a top Microsoft executive for foreign sales, distributed a memo instructing that "Under NO circumstances lose against Linux[sic]." [usatoday.com]. Microsoft has a slush fund to pay for big would-be customers' licenses. Microsoft was prepared to use some of this money to reduce the cost of licensed Microsoft proprietary software for the city government of Munich, Germany. The same article also mentions sharply discounted or free training for city workers, or allowing teachers "to use Microsoft software purchased for the workplace at home for no extra charge".
Support with proprietary software is always a trap, of course, because you have to convince the proprietor to do what you want done (you can't do it for yourself no matter how skilled a programmer you are, no matter how talented your hired help is). But Munich was offered a support contract which included "Windows XP [support] for six years -- a year beyond the five-year base contract, and [Microsoft] said the city could skip the next Office upgrade, too".
The cost of locking someone in now pays off in spades down the road when people are less likely to even consider alternatives. Microsoft knows this, hence they are willing to do what it takes to get large clients. The city government of Munich ended up going with a GNU/Linux system instead, but reducing the sale price to $0 is definately on the menu.
How I joined the free world (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in '96 ("the year of the Intranet") I accidentally ended up getting paid to do web development work with Perl on Windows. I wasn't then, nor am I now, really a programmer (still less a hacker); I just happened to be a little better at abstract reasoning than anybody around me at the time.
I had never heard of the free software movement or the GPL, and the term "Open Source" hadn't even been coined. It's hard to imagine now how different the IT world was less than a decade ago. I chose Perl because it was free as in beer. At the time, it hadn't even occurred to me that you could apply the other meaning of the word "free" to software.
Then one day, while avoiding work, I was browsing through the documentation for Perl, and came across the following:
At the time I was a union delegate in a big multinational company, so I knew in intimate detail the awful nature of the institution. I hated my job, didn't know anybody who didn't hate theirs, and despaired of ever finding a vocation that I wasn't ashamed of.
Reading the GPL, and then going to the GNU website [gnu.org] and devouring everything there was a life-changing experience. RMS demonstrated that it was possible to make a living without compromising on ethics, and for the first time in my life I felt that there was a place for me in the world, if not as a genious hacker, then at least by applying the same moral principles to whatever field I had an aptitude for.
I stopped using proprietary software myself. Over time, I stopped installing proprietary software for my friends, and now I run a business supporting free software.
It all started with running a free program on a non-free operating system. If the free world had enforced strict border controls, on the dubious logic that more people would migrate if they weren't allowed to visit, I wouldn't be a part of it now, and my life would be a lot poorer for it.
At this time of the year it is worth stopping to remember this crazy guy with long hair and wild ideas about helping your neighbour, and how he changed the world.
Thanks RMS!
an impressive interview (Score:1, Interesting)
In this interview Stallman produces a better argument: the GNU prefix stands for "freedom", so its use emphasizes what he considers the most important advantage or attribute of GNU/Linux over competing systems.
I could be imagining things, but Stallman seems more logically focused and less prone to pettiness, personal rivalries, and wishful thinking (with regards to Hurd) in this interview than in others from him I've read. Of course, he is still open to the criticism that his "freedom" means whatever he says it means, especially since he has to devote several minutes at the beginning of each lecture explaining the concept to newcomers. But at least he's been consistent, making only tactical changes in his stance (such as the LGPL, encouraging free software on Windows).
One issue the interviewer missed is the area of "software as service". Companies such as Google, Amazon, and eBay are becoming increasingly important, and although they all use free or open source operating systems, their application code is closed and proprietary. I know that Stallman has addressed this in the past, but it's worth continuing discussion because this may become the most important delivery model for business-oriented software in the future.