Slashdot Mirror
BBC interview with RMS
An anonymous reader submitted an interview with RMS running over at the BBC. Doesn't really say much of anything
that you haven't heard before but it's a nice little interview, and its
not like much else is happening today :)
Uh, I count 31 instances of "free" or "freedom" in that interview. Is anyone else getting a strange blind spot in their brain when they hear or read those words? The word means so many things to so many people that we're in serious danger of it losing all meaning, and simply becoming a synonym for "good", which is pretty much the way politicians and industry use it already.
Perhaps the FSF could consider coming up with a new angle. I mean, I'm marching firmly behind the Freedom Flag, but it seems like we're slipping into a weird Braveheart parallel universe when two sides rush headlong into battle, both screaming "Freeeeeedom!" at the top of their lungs.
There are other words, and other concepts that represent the FSF's ideals. Open. Shared. Community. Perhaps we could embroider some of those words onto our flag for a while, just until the Freedom Fad blows over.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
This story is hilarious... I half expected to see it posted so we could get in our usual Microsoft bashing in for the day...
As I write this, they still don't have that wehavethewayout.com web site working yet.
Also, be sure to check out wehavethewayin.com site....
RMS and others have not yet brought up the underlying reason that Open Source is so important in the OS and in common large "container" type applications.
:)
If you view a computers running environment as a software universe, with rules which govern its operation just like the laws of physics govern our physical universe, then it becomes a lot more obvious why closed source is really, really bad.
Unlike the physical universe, the rules in a computer environment can change. If you can't trust the person who is controlling the properties of the universe (the OS provider), and you can't change the environment yourself, then you are at the mercy of that person, group, or company. Imagine if there were no God, and Bill was controlling the universe. He could and would simply make everyone who didn't agree with him have to breath water instead of air and we would all quickly asphyxiate. The same thing is true of the OS. It is simply too much power to place in the hands of any one company, person, or organization. Thus the solution is to have it be completely open with everyone working together to ensure that no one person abuses the rest of us.
This philosophy should be extended to all container-model software applications. Apache is better than IIS because it is a container for web services (SOAP, CGI, mod_*, HTTP, etc...) and those services are not directly provided by the container. Just like in the case of IIS, any product that becomes popular is quickly either purchased and absorbed (often by less-than-honest means) by the owner of the container, or choked off and killed because it is a threat.
This is my problem with Weblogic, IIS, Microsoft's OS and any other system where I am writing code dependant on someone else's proprietary idea of how I should get things done. I simply don't trust anyone unless they trust me first.
This philosophy can even be extended to entertainment with very little modification. Our real problem with the RIAA and MPAA is that we can't trust anyone with the power to dictate what we are allowed to see and hear because they abuse it. They abused it when they started brainwashing us to listen to their idea of what was good music and by restricting and controlling the artists that produced that music. They are like the OS of the music industry.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any container model is absolute power over the contained objects. OS, J2EE, Web Services, Entertainment, News and the list goes on.
Free the source in all cases, not just the OS.
Of course, when you start applying this to government you get the whole Democratic system and we all know how terrible that turned out...
Imagine if anyone who wanted to could just plug into the kernel CVS tree and change the current distribution source to fit their proprietary purposes. That's why there is a governing body of people with the ability to decide what does and does not belong in the kernel. Thus: a republic.
So we have come full circle peeps: Let's create a on-line open-source republic with independent governing bodies for every single container system out there, from open source to government.
Hell, I just solved the worlds problems... time for a coffee break.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
This post is above normal temperature, but I hope that it doesn't catch on fire, because i have a point to make.
Many people points out that not only does RMS think all software should be free, but we should be required by law to make our software free. I agree with RMS. People have a right to choose what type of software they want to use. But people have no right to choose what type of license they want to apply. We must replace all propriety software with free software, or at least software that let users have the freedoms to learn, modify, and verify them. Propreity software is the reason why we have spyware and backdoors in the market today.
RMS is not a zealot but a persistent man. It is not his beliefs but his principles. I don't have a problem with RMS living his life the way he wants to live it too. Besides, I like the way he shoves this "freedom" down people throat. If anyone want to use closed source and proprietary formats, then you better stayed out of my machines and networks. I don't want your virus and cancer and I especially don't like your doc and htm. I hate how you extend and embrace the standard and then claim to be compatible with me. If you are compatible, show me your source.
An idea doesn't belong to anybody.
No other property in existence has an explicit lifetime attached to its ownership. Intellectual 'property' is not property.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop