Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stallman Clarifies Position RE:Gnome & .Net

Posted by Hemos on from the making-things-clear dept.

RMS ? has sent The Register an email in which he corrects their 'inaccurate' representation of his stance on the GNOME & .NET issue. He states, "I am pretty sure something was garbled in the quotation which has me asking Miguel to 'explain himself to us', because those words would be explicitly confrontational, and I did not have any wish to do that."

12 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. RMS? Confrontational??!! Naw! by Jay+Maynard · · Score: 1, Troll

    those words would be explicitly confrontational, and I did not have any wish to do that.

    Uhm, RMS...since when do you not wish to be confrontational? Your whole approach is confrontational.

    --
    Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
  2. The road of .net by base3 · · Score: 1, Troll

    is the road of destruction. Icaza is either a fool or a sellout for getting in bed with Microsoft.

    --
    One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
  3. Re:The snowball effect.... by dj28 · · Score: 3, Troll

    I've said from day one that The Register cannot be trusted. They are fanatics and 90% of the time they get the story wrong or sensationalize it to the point that it is completely wrong. I still don't understand why slashdot links to anything on The Register. They have proven time and time again that the stories posted on their site don't reflect fact. I think slashdot links to them becuase most of the time the stroke the ego of the open source/linux zealots.

  4. Why are we paying any attention to RMS? by T-Ranger · · Score: 0, Troll
    What, exactly, has RMS (and for that matter, the FSF) brought to the table in the last decade? They may have very well written a license that other people have used, and the did develope a free replacement to the unix/posix toolkit. But that was in the 80s.

    What has the FSF done for us today, and more importantly, what are they going to do for us tomorrow?

    1. Re:Why are we paying any attention to RMS? by T-Ranger · · Score: 0, Troll
      Youve proven my point. The so called GNU project has more or less forced GNOME to say that since GNOME uses the GPL. Or, put another way, they are alies. You cant take credit for your alies works. Being an ally of a good cause is itself usefull, but in the last decade FSF/GNU has only become allies to usefull projects.

      My point is that RMS/FSF/GNU has, under there own roof, produced negligable amounts of usefull code in the last decade.

    2. Re:Why are we paying any attention to RMS? by tannhaus · · Score: 0, Troll

      RMS and the FSF do nothing for us. That is why the gnu/linux thing gets to me so much. It's linux...not gnu/linux. Even Linus Torvalds, the man that holds the Linux trademark, has stated that.

      Sure, linux used gnu when it first came out, and still does use it. But, linux incorporates a lot of stuff into it. If we have a c# compiler in our distribution, should we be forced to call it Microsoft GNU/Linux ?

      Gnu wouldn't be anywhere today if it wasn't for linux. I sometimes think linux would be better off without gnu though. What if the Intel c++ compiler was vamped up and used in x86 distributions instead of gcc. We'd automatically have programs running up to 30% faster.

      Sure, emacs is gnu. But, I no longer use emacs. I use kwrite. I hope we see stuff like this happening more and more in the future: projects surpassing GNU and finally silencing RMS.

      He provided a lot for linux when it was starting out, but he shouldn't sit there and take credit for linux or for the open source movement. He's riding on the coattails of linux.

  5. Re:The snowball effect.... by Cruciform · · Score: 1, Troll

    Yeah, I don't even read the Register any more... The only time I end up there is to follow links to articles which usually end up being refuted by someone mentioned in them. Heh.

  6. Re:Straight from the horse's mouth.... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Open source rejects his ideals of freedom.

    Uh, no. I see you have bought into Stallman's propaganda. Please tell me what part of the Open Source Definition doesn't meet the Free Software Definition.

    Stallman doesn't like Open Source for two reasons:

    1) It dilutes his power,
    2) It doesn't use the confusing word "free", which Stallman clings to with religious fervor, and
    3) It dilutes his power.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  7. "Ideals of freedom"? by GCP · · Score: 0, Troll

    RMS's ideals of freedom don't impress me as being very ideal, or very free.

    Freedom is when you give someone something, and they can do what they like with it because now it's theirs. Lots of good people in the open source community give such gifts. I appreciate it a great deal and try to return the favor.

    RMS's "ideals" are of the coercive sort: you are free to do what he tells you you can do. It is a license, not a gift.

    --
    "Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
  8. Re:Straight from the horse's mouth.... by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 0, Troll

    Well, duh! Of course RMS isn't going to explain why "free software" is confusing to many people, has been abused by Large Evil Northwest Software Corporations, and has a negative meaning to some people. Sure, "Open Source" isn't perfect. Some people think that "Open" means you can look in through the windows even we mean that the door is open. And yeah, we would have liked to be able to assert a certification mark on it, but neither does RMS have a trademark on free software. At least we have "OSI Certified" approval for people's Open Source Software.

    I highly encourage you to think for yourself, and not believe RMS's lies about OSI. The basic difference is that, though we, too, have read Chomsky, we don't believe him. We don't think that you have to say "Freedom" in order to sell freedom to people, and RMS does. "Freedom" is not a magic incantation. People can be free without ever saying or knowing the word "Free" or "Freedom".

    We have never rejected freedom, as he claims; just "Freedom" as a talisman.
    -russ

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  9. Re:Straight from the horse's mouth.... by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 1, Troll

    Trolling?? How do you idiots get moderator points? Let's try this again (at some point you'll run out):

    Well, duh! Of course RMS isn't going to explain why "free software" is confusing to many people, has been abused by Large Evil Northwest Software Corporations, and has a negative meaning to some people. Sure, "Open Source" isn't perfect. Some people think that "Open" means you can look in through the windows even we mean that the door is open. And yeah, we would have liked to be able to assert a certification mark on it, but neither does RMS have a trademark on free software. At least we have "OSI Certified" approval for people's Open Source Software.

    I highly encourage you to think for yourself, and not believe what RMS says about OSI. The basic difference is that, though we, too, have read Chomsky, we don't believe him. We don't think that you have to say "Freedom" in order to sell freedom to people, and RMS does. "Freedom" is not a magic incantation. People can be free without ever saying or knowing the word "Free" or "Freedom".

    We have never rejected freedom, as he claims; just "Freedom" as a talisman.
    -russ

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  10. Re:Straight from the horse's mouth.... by Arandir · · Score: 0, Troll

    Isn't "freedom" the word that two bit dictators use to justify the the arrest and execution of academics?

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned