SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 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.