El Reg published a story that quotes GNU evangelist and free-software advocate saying just about what we would expect him to say today about the current state of technology:
LinuxGNU firebrand Richard Stallman says Windows and Mac OS are malware, Amazon is Orwellian, and anyone who trusts the internet-of-things is an ass. In a column for The Guardian, Stallman preaches to the non-technical masses about the evils of proprietary software and vendor lock-in, and how closed-door coding facilitates clandestine deals with nation state spy agencies."What kinds of programs constitute malware? Operating systems, first of all," Stallman testifies.
"Apple systems are malware too: MacOS snoops and shackles; iOS snoops, shackles, censors apps and has a backdoor.
"Even Android contains malware in a non-free component: a back door for remote forcible installation or de-installation of any app."
Stallman references a a Bloomberg report in saying Microsoft "sabotages" Windows users by disclosing vulnerabilities to the NSA before patches are released. It isn't just Windows and MacOS that Stallman brands malware: Barbie dolls, smart TVs, and cars also earn his ire thanks to the potential for marketers to secretly pry on a child's worst fears or listen in to lounge room conversations.
I'm not sure that I'm going to worry about Barbie dolls listening on conversations, but I understand his concerns. I have often wondered about the expansion of sophisticated computer technology into all aspects of life, such as in HDTVs and cars. The possibilities for abuse are many, and we have learned over recent years governments are not immune from exploiting vulnerabilities to commit serious crimes and violations of our civil liberties.
[Editor's Comment: Original Submission]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:58AM
But but Amazon makes a Linux distro. Nobody who uses Linux could ever be evil. The GNU cancer inside Linux spreads to the user and kills any evil.
(Score: -1, Informative) by Magic Oddball on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:46AM
Amazon creates an Android distro; given Android forked the Linux kernel several years ago and has been developing it independently, it doesn't qualify as a Linux distro in even the loosest sense.
(We really need a "not even wrong" moderation option...)
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:07AM
No, we need an Ignorant moderation just for you.
http://aws.amazon.com/amazon-linux-ami/ [amazon.com]
It's a Linux distribution based on Red Hat Enterprise and specifically designed for Elastic Compute Cloud.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:13AM
Ooooooh! BITCHSLAP!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:04AM
It's a Linux distribution based on Red Hat Enterprise and specifically designed for Elastic Compute Cloud.
[flamebait]
Redhat based, and redhat=malware so Amazon is still "Orwellian".
Or is it too early in the day to talk about the "init" system which must not be mentioned?
[/flamebait]
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:01AM
Let's all listen to the man who snacks on things from his feet. [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:04AM
When did you stop eating your own shit?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:27AM
So what?
RMS has got some issues, probably a form of pica. [wikipedia.org] Big deal, its got nothing to do with his profession.
Gandhi was a perv, forcing his 17 and 18 year old grand nieces to sleep naked with him on a regular basis for bizarre 'celibacy tests.'
That doesn't undo all the good things he accomplished.
Don't take sex advice from Gandhi and don't take nutrition advice from RMS.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by DuganCent on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:01AM
Richard Stallman's opinion doesn't matter.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:06AM
Dick Stall Man is an old smelly neckbeard. He's not young and metrosexual like me!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bart9h on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:08AM
Unfortunately, it doesn't.
If it did, we wouldn't have all the NSA spying we have today.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:31AM
Indeed, I can't see the NSA implementing their apparatus ontop of HURD.
(Score: 2) by cykros on Thursday May 28 2015, @03:19AM
Indeed, or even their sound card.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:09AM
His "free" Lemote laptop was built by communists from the Communist Party Of China.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:55AM
(Score: 5, Interesting) by jmorris on Tuesday May 26 2015, @04:22AM
Kinda says something, not sure what, when no mainstream PC maker will publish the inner secrets of how it actually works. Of course since pretty much all 'mainstream' PC hardware involves NDA agreements with either Intel or AMD and both absolutely forbid revealing some bits as do the chipset makers and even though Intel and AMD are revealing some of the details of their video hardware they keep other parts very closed.
I remember when you could, for a low enough price every serious user paid, buy total details on their computer. Not just API interfaces, not even BIOS calls, full register level programming details and complete electrical schematics. Yes, you can get the hell off my lawn now.
Tandy was really good. I still have the CoCo Technical Reference books somewhere. It was complete enough I could implement my own toy OS with iron level support for more of the hardware than the stock Microsoft ROM. The PC (sorta) compatible Tandy1000 had a fricking three ring binder for its tech reference manual with good enough detail I could track down and fix a fried logic gate. Even the Commodore 64 had a tech manual that fully disclosed just how crappy CMB truly was... the darned think had unused hardware ignored by the substandard software and not even brought out to the back panel.
Makes one wonder what sort of things could be done if on of the major hardware makers returned to full disclosure. Or would we all be shocked and appalled by how crappy things really are under the hood. The bug infested mess most ACPI implementations expose is probably a clue as to what horrors are being kept from view.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @06:24AM
There are government mandated back doors. That is what they are hiding.
Better to keep society in the feminist police state it is trapped in.
(Score: 5, Funny) by c0lo on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:09AM
The following have been part of the Stupid Hackathon Project [stupidhackathon.com]
The tongue in cheek announcement of the GNU tools as SaaS [github.io] project
GNU pricing project on GitHub [github.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:34AM
Bill Gates tell me what to do!
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:52AM
sorry I only listen to people who have Money (Score:-1, Offtopic)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25, @05:34PM (#187837)
Bill Gates tell me what to do!
Now I have heard of moderation abuse, and I have been sceptical, but how in the hell could this possibly be Offtopic???
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @10:06PM
Given the number of people I know who argue that I only use Linux because I'm jealous of Bill Gates' money, perhaps "informative" would be a better mod.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:52AM
Microsoft is not just sabotaging windows. Despite some of their recent (PR) gestures towards open software, they're allegedly up to their old tricks of spreading FUD about open source software by having affiliate companies exaggerate and open source bugs as much as possible. "VENOM", "Logjam", etc ... think the security researchers came up with those media friendly names?
Oh well, I guess it's still better than "Get the Facts".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday May 26 2015, @12:50PM
Oh good damned Lord....really? Are you REALLY gonna blame your bugs on "teh ebil M$" over the simple fact that "many eyes" is a provable myth, is that really your position?
Face the facts Nerdfest, when Google started using the Linux kernel in Android and ChromeOS they painted a giant fucking bullseye on Linux. You wanted millions of users? You got it sparky, along with the legion of malware writer looking to exploit them. Linux has NOT, I repeat NOT been properly vetted nor had too damned much of the code audited, see Heartbleed and Shellshock, 2 of the most used pieces of Linux code on the planet. Linux was able to skate by on security by obscurity for so long because server admins? They tend to be really smart guys with degrees that only run the least permissions and watch every byte of code they run.....that is a lousy target for a malware writer as even if they manage to get the code in it won't stay long, making it a low value target. Now home users, the majority of which have no damned clue what is supposed to even be running on their device? Now THAT is a big juicy steak of a target!
So if you think things are bad now you ain't seen nothing yet, and "teh ebil M4" isn't gonna have a damned thing to do with it, you can thank Google (along with all those "IoT" devices you been cheering) for making anything Linux worth taking a big old bite of.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Tuesday May 26 2015, @04:50PM
If you read what I said, you'll notice that I'm not blaming them for the bugs, I'm blaming them for 'marketing' them, to try and cause distrust of FOSS. It is fair game as there have been a couple of serious bugs, but they are in a somewhat glass house (especially given the near certainly of back-doors), or they would be if FOSS developers had the millions in marketing dollars to spread feat about Windows bugs.
Feel free to continue your rant though, just be aware that the people who discovered the bugs (a Google researcher for HeartBleed, I think) didn't *name* them "Heartbleed" or "ShellShock". Have a look into who did.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday May 28 2015, @01:42AM
They didn't have to "market" shit, bugs like Heartbleed and Shellshock cost billions to clean up and anytime you cost billions when you fuck up? It IS gonna be big news friend, that is the kind of shit that grabs headlines.
Besides you want to give Linux bad press you don't need bugs, all you have to do is look at its self appointed "prophet" RMS who thinks its perfectly acceptable to yank off his socks on stage and eat some toe funk [youtube.com] like some crazy bum. Can you even imagine Cook, Nadella, or Torvalds doing anything so fucking disgusting on fricking stage no less? If I was trying to sell a company a MSFT OS over Linux all I would do is show a clip of Nadella presenting along with a list of his accomplishments and then that video of RMS along with his quotes about being a "squatter" and how "voluntary" pedophilia is okay and just say "now which person would YOU like bringing publicity about the operating system YOUR company is gonna be using?". Bet I'd be cashing the check before the presentation was over, and I wouldn't need any "corporate conspiracy" from "teh ebil M$" to pull it off either.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @02:53AM
over the simple fact that "many eyes" is a provable myth
It's not a myth. The simple fact is that the code is available to all, so there will, in all likelihood, be some people who look at the code. Not everyone, and the detection of bugs and exploits isn't perfect by any means, but it's more probable than not that people will look at the code. Before you bring up your straw man about the "is-ought fallacy", know that merely saying that some people will likely look at the code and that this is better than being beholden to a company producing proprietary software is not an example of that. Pointing to some well-known and dangerous exploits does not disprove this point, either, because no one has made any claims of perfection. Proprietary software has had all sorts of horrible exploits, bugs, and backdoors, and you don't even have the freedom to check the code, meaning that that possibility is not even there; you're beholden to some greedy company who will likely cooperate with the government willingly or quickly do so under threat of force. Free Software is about freedom and not practical benefits, but it has those practical benefits as well.
Microsoft, Google, Apple, Sony, etc. are *all* quite evil; not just Microsoft. Their business practices are harmful to users, and proprietary software is more dangerous than ever in this suspicious-less spying age where computers are ubiquitous.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:59AM
Heartbleed is a security bug disclosed in April 2014 in the OpenSSL cryptography library.
Shellshock, also known as Bashdoor, is a family of security bugs in the widely used Unix Bash shell.
Neither of these have anything to do with Linux. They are userland programs and libraries. Bash can run on Windows as can OpenSSL. You might as well blame Microsoft for Flash bugs.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 5, Informative) by boltronics on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:57AM
The Register link posted is just commentary on this Guardian article [theguardian.com] - and bad commentary at that.
From the Register article:
Stallman makes a valid if perhaps less hyperbolic point; that many commercial software houses are notoriously focused on time-to-market and at best bolt security checks on at the end of development, if at all.
The dash for cash also means patching is patchy. Vendors rarely pay much attention to shuttering security vulnerabilities created as a result of the bolt-on security ideology, and pay less still to discovering holes in their products.
There are of course many exceptions, with large and small organisations running bug bounties and working to harden code.
This falsely assumes that Stallman is talking about bugs in the software. He's not talking about bugs, but deliberate and intentional anti-features built into these products by design. For example, a Barbie doll that sends your voice recordings to the cloud is an obvious privacy issue, but it was designed to work that way. It's not something they just haven't gotten around to patching out yet.
Same deal with video streaming applications that prevent saving. And those backdoors and DRM built into operating systems are certainly no accident. Darren Pauli missed the point completely.
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:02AM
This comparison has probably has made before, but it just occurred to me who Stallman reminds me of:
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/179381 [poetryfoundation.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by b on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:17AM
I'm not sure that I'm going to worry about Barbie dolls listening on conversations
From a linked article [theguardian.com], this is actually a legitimate concern.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @04:59AM
In Soviet Russia, Barbie confides in you!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by mTor on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:42AM
I've been following RMS' writings for years and have enjoyed reading his points of view. Not necessarily because I agree with him, but because he's so far "out there" and he provides a very different point of view from what you see of other writers and average technology people in general.
Richard has amassed a large collection of his "grievances" with various companies and he keeps a list of reasons of why you shouldn’t use products of various companies. Here's one for Amazon [stallman.org], Apple [stallman.org], Facebook [stallman.org]. What's shocking is how short and terse his list of anti-Google arguments is [stallman.org]. It's almost as if he doesn't want to see the evil in Google. You'd think he'd mention gross privacy violations, google's enormous collection of tracking data on everyone and so on. But no, RMS doesn't mention any of that. I often wonder if that's because Google (through Googlers) gives FSF so much money each year.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:16AM
You'd think he'd mention gross privacy violations, google's enormous collection of tracking data on everyone and so on.
Like this? "Gmail was planned from the start as a massive surveillance system, to make psychological profiles not only of Gmail users but of everyone who sends mail to Gmail users."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:36AM
He should put all of his criticisms of Google on that page.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @11:25AM
It is probably easier if you just Google it.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:59AM
What's shocking is how short and terse his list of anti-Google arguments is.
This is the "Horizontal Strategy" from the Warring States Period in China! Brilliant! The evil of evil is my evil! Or, we ally with the soul-less corporation that has "don't be evil" as it's motto, turn that against the older (Think "Chi" state) evil that then must say that they disagree with that, and so further our claims to establish a new dynasty. So everything that the Fearless Leader has predicted has come to pass. The forces of proprietary software have done exactly as expected. Now is the time for the people who make the code to own the code, for the people who use the code to own the code! From each according to their ability, to each according to their need!! Kropotkin is alive and well in free software. (Although, it was actually the anarchist Proudhon who said that particular bit. Or maybe Louis Blanc? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need [wikipedia.org] Oh, heck. Absolute right of authorship, moral right, not copyright. )
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:39AM
Some people think that RMS is far out, that his fears are so unrealistic that we have no reason to take him seriously.
To those, I can only say: Here is another name to check out. This guy is even further out than RMS: Edward Snowden.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:03AM
So Snowden wants to abolish currency? Interesting.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @11:23AM
Needing to use pieces of paper or metal to incentivize people to do useful and necessary things demonstrates a critical flaw in the human race. Ideally, we wouldn't need such a thing at all, and I hope by some miracle that we eventually grow out of this.
So that view is not wrong.
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:57PM
Because you hope it and call it a critical flaw makes it a critical flaw and thus it should be stopped?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @03:03AM
You don't see how needing to create some pieces of paper and pieces of metal and using them as a medium of exchange in order to create an incentive for people to do useful and necessary things demonstrates a flaw in humanity? If we can't do anything without our silly and arbitrary system of economics, then how is that not flawed? What if we did not need such silly things? That sounds much better and more efficient to me.
I didn't say it should be stopped. I said that it's a shame that it's necessary. I don't see it changing in the near future, but I hope it does change eventually.
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Wednesday May 27 2015, @04:25AM
You are assuming we can't do anything without it. Evidence (see many FOSS projects or people volunteering) exists contrary to that. The rewards of being paid are what motivate those who would not do it for free. They then exchange it for food, living, and entertainment. Some of them even save some of it. We are animals. Even trained circus animals do it for the rewards.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday May 27 2015, @11:33PM
Look at it this way: the possession of large amounts of these pieces of paper enables people to get away with the mass murder and slavery of other members of our species. Who does this enabling? Why, us of course!
I for one enjoy living in such a society. /sarcasm
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Thursday May 28 2015, @12:38AM
You do not think that would stop in a world without money do you? We did that long before we had money. Hell, where do you think Neanderthal went?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by wantkitteh on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:11AM
RMS doesn't do himself any favours with his hyperbolic delivery, his wild off-topic rants and his reputation as something of a nutcase. That doesn't make his message any less true. Application distribution channels built into an OS that can "revoke" (read: delete) installed software without your consent *do* take away the right you earned when you acquired your hardware to run whatever you damn well please on your computer - small print be damned!
That includes software that's failed it's code-signing check - the assumption that no alteration to a software package could ever ever be anything other than malicious is quite atrocious. I had to modify a server address in a file inside the app bundle for a game on my Mac, redirecting it to a new community-run server now the game has been abandoned by it's original publisher. Result: code-signing check failed, Gatekeeper says no. Action taken: Gatekeeper disabled. Ok, given the way people use software and their computers today, enforcing code signing by default is not a bad thing, but any OS that enforces it without an opt-out will never find it's way onto any computer I own.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:53PM
RMS is not far out. He is absolutely correct in everything. The best possible software is, and always will be, open source.
The problem is that RMS professes an austerity that few want to embrace or even accept. It's the same with the environment. We all acknowledge a need to reduce consumption but few are willing to give up their profligate and cushy lifestyles.
RMS expresses what we all know and believe but, for the sake of convenience, pretend does not really exist.
It's too bad for us.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Refugee from beyond on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:55PM
RMS is like Cassandra. He "sees the future" but nobody believes him.
Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday May 26 2015, @09:23PM
I agree with Stallman on a lot of shit, but wouldn't say that he is "absolutely correct in everything."
Here are criticisms from the OpenBSD folks (who wrote a song [openbsd.org] about him):
We release our software in ways that are maximally free. We remove all restrictions on use and distribution, but leave a requirement to be known as the authors. We follow a pattern of free source code distribution that started in the mid-1980's in Berkeley, from before Richard Stallman had any powerful influence which he could use so falsely.
We have a development sub-tree called "ports". Our "ports" tree builds software that is 'found on the net' into packages that OpenBSD users can use more easily. A scaffold of Makefiles and scripts automatically fetch these pieces of software, apply patches as required by OpenBSD, and then build them into nice neat little tarballs. This is provided as a convenience for users. The ports tree is maintained by OpenBSD entirely separately from our main source tree. Some of the software which is fetched and compiled is not as free as we would like, but what can we do. All the other operating system projects make exactly the same decision, and provide these same conveniences to their users.
Richard felt that this "ports tree" of ours made OpenBSD non-free. He came to our mailing lists and lectured to us specifically, yet he said nothing to the many other vendors who do the same; many of them donate to the FSF and perhaps that has something to do with it. Meanwhile, Richard has personally made sure that all the official GNU software -- including Emacs -- compiles and runs on Windows.
That man is a false leader. He is a hypocrite. There may be some people who listen to him. But we don't listen to people who do not follow their own stupid rules.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @02:59AM
Meanwhile, Richard has personally made sure that all the official GNU software -- including Emacs -- compiles and runs on Windows.
Makes sense to me. Expose proprietary software users to other options and they might see the importance of Free Software. GNU software is Free Software and will remain so, so I'm not really seeing the problem here. I guess they think it's because it means someone has to be using proprietary software to get it on Windows, but those people may never have realized the value of Free Software, and exposing them to it may help out in the long run.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @03:08AM
The best possible software is, and always will be, open source.
Open source isn't the same as free software.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @11:23AM
Not really.
RMS has been fighting the good fight since the early 80's. He has saved more people from atrocities than anyone else. Good deeds over the long term count for a lot more than good done once. This does not mean Snowden is not a hero.
Snowden has done all he could, and he will not be hired by NSA (or a sister agency) ever again to get more evidence of state-sponsored terrorist activities.
RMS has done so much good for so long and he is not finished yet. He will continue to inspire many more people and open their eyes to the harm that has been done to them.
Its about time the world put a 500 foot tall statue of RMS some place it will be seen and people learn about his good work and why his work is so important.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:46PM
How is the parent troll?
Remember, Troll != Disagree
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @11:27AM
+1 Snowden karma whoring.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:06AM
Submerge!
http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=7599&cid=187300 [soylentnews.org]
Hairyfeet Special Task Force, Social Justice Warriors Division, Internet Sanity Patrol, Div. One, Unit 4. End Transmission.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mtrycz on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:34AM
I really don't get the sarcastic tone of the article, since it even links to many of the facts that RMS points at. Moreso that it comes from a magazine that should at least have the basic understanding on tech.
The basic fact that the first fucking word of the article is corrected just reeks of the fact that mr. Darren Pauli is ignorant of the matter, and should refrain from writing about shit.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:52AM
My quarrel is not with RMS's view of the disease, it's with his prescription. He would have all software conform to his definition of "free", which he claims has no proper translation in English when it fact it does. The word he refuses to use is "public". He wants all software to be public. That wouldn't solve the problem. IMHO, it'd actually make things worse. As it stands, the copyright incentive makes it possible for people to create systems that don't have the flaws he outlines, and to make money on such a thing if customers find such systems more attractive. Under his proposed solution, software tends only to get produced as a loss-leader, or under a patronage system. There are other flaws with his proposed solution, such as the fact that giving ordinary citizens the "freedom to modify the software" is kind of like giving ordinary citizens the "freedom to perform surgery on their own family members". Most people just aren't qualified or desirous of performing such endeavors. It's of virtually no practical use to anyone; but over the years we've seen that RMS hates practical arguments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @09:29AM
He would have all software conform to his definition of "free", which he claims has no proper translation in English when it fact it does. The word he refuses to use is "public".
That's not a bad suggestion, though the word does have according to Wiktionary misleading meanings "Officially representing the community; carried out or funded by the state on behalf of the community."
As it stands, the copyright incentive makes it possible for people to create systems that don't have the flaws he outlines, and to make money on such a thing if customers find such systems more attractive.
LOL what? It's the "copyright incentive" system that has created the monstrosities he criticizes... And people don't vote with their money because they're dumb and uninformed. But it's not OK to rob or rape a child simply because they can't defend themselves.
It's [free software] of virtually no practical use to anyone
Wow, we delve ever deeper into the lala land. In case you haven't noticed, free software is taking the world by storm. You're using it every single day. Too bad you don't realize it.
Do some reading buddy, start with free software adoption. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @10:49AM
Maybe that's why so much recent software is garbage though :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:42PM
Maybe its not :P
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:12PM
Top-level AC here. You didn't just pull my quote out of context. You literally modified it with brackets to change the meaning. The antecedent of "it's" isn't Free Software. It's *the ability modify the software*. There was even an analogy to surgery that drove the point home. This isn't even a subtle rhetorical point. It's just a Burning-man sized straw-man you're torching up there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @09:38AM
You mean, as in "GNU General Public License"?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Tuesday May 26 2015, @11:06AM
I'm amazed by how RMS got so many things right, and yet he never seemed to anticipate companies exploiting free software by using it to build walled gardens. The not-free universe took everything RMS stands for and spent his life building, and used it to create walled gardens, the ultimate not-free platform for locking up software and content. Apple and Google have ruthlessly exploited open source to make billions in profit. Facebook and others are wrappers on top of open source. These companies give back a little, but not much, and recently we've had a slate of badly-funded but critical open source projects with show-stopping bugs. Love them or hate them, Microsoft has built out its own platform and not just expoited free software. (Except for that TCP/IP thing a while back.) But company after company has taken free software and built something that is completely opposed to the philosophy of free software. I don't think the utopian world of RMS is possible. Someone like him can occasionally opt out of the system, but everyone else has to make a living doing something. We can't all opt out of making a living. But it is ironic and sad that everything RMS spent decades advocating and sacrificing for has been taken by corporations to build walled gardens.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @12:20PM
He did, and that's what GPLv3 sought to correct. Unfortunately, it came too late.
I always wondered though: are companies that refuse to release the source of their Android forks violating the GPL?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:18PM
I think there is little he could've done to prevent walled gardens. It's not something overseen but the lesser of two evils. https://gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html [gnu.org]
Looks like Android is Apache 2.0 (not copyleft) for the other parts and GPL (copyleft) for Linux so it depends: If they modified the kernel, they must share their changes (when they distribute) however if they only changed the other parts, then they are not required by law to do so.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday May 26 2015, @04:49PM
Well but a walled garden implies some form of DRM which means closed source and or hardware locks, and Stallman is likely advocating none of them. In fact when I attended one of his conferences he had an XO laptop with a bolted on replacement keyboard (the XO looked like the sinclair spectrum, keyboard wise), which at the time was likely the most open laptop hardware out there.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @06:05AM
What about systemd?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @06:07AM
What is stallmans opinion of built-in vnc server and bus/ram snoop Intel AMT/VPro/VT?
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday May 27 2015, @11:38PM
RMS is the crazy prophet cum savior that we need and don't deserve. I don't like him personally, but I respect the work that he does and the necessity of that work.
Make no mistakes, he's crazy, but what he does is very important for all of us. I hope that he lives to see his dreams fulfilled, both for his sake and my own: a world in which all software is free, free as in free speech and not necessarily free as in free beer.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!