Slashdot Mirror
Gnome Preliminary Election Results In
makapuf writes "First results of Gnome Board elections have been issued. They include some well known gnome hackers, Miguel & others, along with Tesla Gwyne, but RMS has not been elected. Remember this is only temporary and see the results on Gnotices. You can see RMS' responses of the application form."
> Now the world at large at least takes free software seriously, and Stallman has become as useful as a fire hydrant in the middle of a bike trail.
I must disagree with you here. Stallman, or at least his strong views on the purity of free software are needed more than ever.
Now people are recognising some of the benefits of available source code, they're not seeing the important difference between open source and free software (in GNU terms). And it's all being confused. People are going around thinking that just because it's publically developed, it's free.
We need the FSF as much as we always have, as a voice pointing out why the "viral" clause in the GPL is so important, and why the BSD license gives developers more freedom but doesn't necessarily transfer it to the end users.
- MugginsM
Okay, so take the example of the Linux kernel : it started as a project from a brilliant programmer geek for brilliant programmer geeks : RMS' message isn't very useful here (because of the small specialized audience) but I admit that it might be.
Then, Linux grew bigger and started to show-up on company radars (namely Novell) : when Linux was at that point, RMS was key to keeping it from being taken over by rapacious companies. Linus also said many times that the GPL was a natural choice. So I say bravo RMS : directly or indirectly, he kept Linux independent, and he still does.
Now, Linux has reached a critical mass : companies have vested interests in it, too many people have given time and effort to make it better, or simply to use it in solutions, it's not going to be adulterated by business thugs anymore. Nobody is going to take it over today. Does it need RMS' unbudgeable attitude to keep it safe ? heck no. What Linux needs now is $$$, and a steering committee able to make balanced decisions for the good of geeks as well as suits. At this point, RMS just drives businesses away, and even Linus admits that he steers clears of him for similar reasons (it's written in his book, quite bluntly).
I'm a programmer, I maintain open-source projects, and because I used to be a hot-headed teenage geek long ago, I still feel a pang of disgust in my stomack when I hear or read about businesses doing this or that with the information that wants to be free. But I'm old(er) now, and what my head tells me differs from what my stomack does : at some point in every major OSS project, businesses have to bring in cash to keep the ball going. It might feel disgusting, but it's the truth. RMS' head thinks the exact same way his stomack does, and that's stupid.
"We need the FSF as much as we always have, as a voice pointing out why the "viral" clause in the GPL is so important, and why the BSD license gives developers more freedom but doesn't necessarily transfer it to the end users"
You're 100% right, we need the FSF. But there is a major difference between the FSF and RMS : they acknowledge the importance of the business world, even if they don't often shout it out loud, and they strive to work with them *and* keep the spirit of the GPL intact, which is why they drafted the GPL 3.0 that Stallman hates so much, and why they try to distance themselves from Stallman.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
I would nearly compare it to environmentalists back in the seventies that wanted to banish all industrial activity because of the pollution. (Anyone recall GreenPeace back then?) They made it clear to the world that we were on the wrong track. The world now has taken a moderate standpoint to environmentalism.
I think that Stallman has done the same for opensource: the IT world now has embraced it but won't take it to the extreme.
History repeats itself in some form or another.
Note for potential flamers: I use the word "extremist" in the context of "someone with extreme viewpoints" not in the current context of "terrorist". Also I wish to note that I have nothing against environemntalists, they need to be there and I respect nature as much as I can.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
... and so on and so forth, but your post just keeps asserting that these things are all so important, without explaining why.
Sure it's a Good Thing that the FSF exists, and of course RMS deserves respect for the dogged exercise of his rights (as everybody always says nowadays). And if he and others like him can convince more people, then more power to 'em. But a lot of us know and understand the message, are not terribly convinced by it, and aren't planning on doing anything particular to promote it in the foreseeable future. In the marketplace of ideas, you win some and you lose some.
Incidentally, since you're evidently a supporter of the FSF and the free software concept, I'd like to advise you, probably for the umpteenth time, that RMS is an extremely poor ambassador for your cause. Let's once and for all be rid of the canard that it's everybody else's fault, because we're all just too lily-livered to cope with someone who is so strongly dedicated. RMS could be just as passionate without being such an insufferable jackass. It is possible to take a strong, principled stance, and nevertheless have some skills at diplomacy and just generally getting along with people. RMS's fans try to redefine his weaknesses as strengths, but that's just an argument born out of desperation, not to mention sheer baloney. He has simply failed to learn some lessons that his mother and kindergarten teacher should have taught him, and it is extremely damaging to the free software cause.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
That's the way it is now, but not the way it has to be. At some point in the future, if the world abandoned propretary software, and all software available was free (as in speech), corporate backing wouldn't be necessary. Why would we need the help of the industry if there were no proprietary file formats or network protocols to reverse engineer or sign NDA's for.
Sure, interaction with business on some level is necessary (businesses offereing tech support, etc.), but good software will happen with or without industry if it is universally accepted. And yes, we can still all get paid doing custom development for different companies (everything from web sites to customized POS systems). Stallman has said for years that that if the world consisted of all free software, we could still get paid, but not as much.
Please note I am not arguing whether these cases are good or bad, I'm simply arguing alternative scenarios that others had presented.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
with the election results being reported early before they are really known. Do we need this kind of story? Is the point just to make fun of RMS? This is one of the worst Slashdot stories ever.
In the past, pro-MS posters would generally get moderated down and flamed, whilst pro-Linux posters would generally get moderated up.
At the same time, a vocal minority would complain about this lack of balance. Fair enough.
But now, the pendulum has swung the other way. Fully. Now the balance is against linux and Free Software. You are part of the vocal majority.
I'd rather have NONE of the flaming and trolling, the karma-whoring and bigotry on EITHER side.
I came to Slashdot for intelligent discussion, about technical news and, specifically, about Free Software related happenings. The site has ALWAYS had a Free Software slant. Just because it's not written in lights at the top of page doesn't change that; but remember that Slashdot is part of the OSDN: Open Source Developers Network. "Open Source" may not be a drop-in replacement for "Free Software" but near as dammit. But it's not solely about Free Software, and I welcome that, and I don't troll or flame people talking about Microsoft products; in fact I try not to troll or flame anyone. If someone puts up an opinion, it's an invitation to a discussion, but most people here don't want to discuss, they just want to score points.
Your kind and many more like you make me want to go elsewhere.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
You may as well say "if the world abandoned that crazy hatred thing."
It may be nice to picture a world where everyone gets along and where everyone runs Free (tm) software, but it's not likely to happen, regardless of the involvement of RMS or anyone.
Corporate backing for software development includes such things as IBM paying developers to port free software to linux. It includes businesses having open sourced drivers written for their hardware. It includes college students writing code for open release as part of a project.
Corporate backing isn't all Microsoft and One True Way. Sometimes it's ugly coding and someone needs to be paid to write it in one fashion or another.
--- http://foo.ca
That's the way it is now, but not the way it has to be. At some point in the future, if the world abandoned propretary software, and all software available was free (as in speech), corporate backing wouldn't be necessary. Why would we need the help of the industry if there were no proprietary file formats or network protocols to reverse engineer or sign NDA's for.
*snort*
You can survive without eating, I presume? Corporate backing will still be necessary, and corporate support. The bad part about Stallman's vision is that he wants everyone to work a support role. I, for one, ain't interested.
I'm all for open-source; "free software" is just silly when it reaches this level of horse manure ("corporate backing wouldn't be necessary" indeed).
-f
Ni bhionn an rath achx mar a mbionn an smacht (There is no Luck without Discipline)