Slashdot Mirror
LinuxDevCenter Interviews RMS
prostoalex writes "LinuxDevCenter interviews RMS.
Interesting that Stallman supports the free software projects ported to proprietary operating systems: 'Porting free applications to nonfree operating systems is often useful. This allows users of those operating systems to try out using a few free programs and see that they can be
good to use, that free software won't bite them. This can help people overcome worries about trying a free operating system such as GNU/Linux. Many users really do follow this path.'"
I am extremely glad that I was able to try open-source apps on Windows. By trying out Mozilla, and then Thunderbird, and then apps like The Gimpe and OpenOffice, I felt confident enough to make the switch. And once I had my primary files running in the software (like mail in Thunderbird on Windows) making the transition was almost flawless. And because the stuff I was using was already familiar, being productive on Linux helped overcome the learning hiccups.
Random Musings
When I first read RMS' comments 15 years ago, I thought he was a crackpot. I worked for a large computer vendor (Wang) and could not comprehend the concepts he espoused.
Now I have aged and benefitted first hand from the freedom of software. Now I comprehend what he is trying to say and I recognize the benefit of open source software.
With that said, he still come across as a crackpot who is so entrenched in his views he will not budge. However, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Without gcc there would be a lot less free software.
"No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
FB: Would you accept a federal law in the United States to enforce the distribution of source code with every type of software?
RMS: I am not calling for such a law as of now, but I think that would be a valid consumer protection measure--like requiring food products to publish the list of ingredients.
Of course, some software companies would object to this, just as some food companies resisted the requirement to publish the ingredients and nutritional information. The question should not be up to them.
I don't think it's the same at all. Publishing ingredients in food is a lot different from publishing source code. Publishing the sourcecode is like sending someone the blueprint schematics of your new machine, practically inviting them to make their own; whereas the ingredients label doesn't list in what quantities the ingredients were mixed in at, or what time, etc. I know Stallman simply made a poor analogy, but I think he truly believes it.
Having people use Mozilla, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, and other applications prior to switching/trying Linux has halped me convert more than a few to a more stable OS. Being able to do the basics and be comfortable doing those things, (surfing the net/email/irc) makes for a much happier and productive Linux newbie.
The mindset that porting open source software to proprietary operating systems is Bad(tm) is rediculous.You can't give something wings then chain it to the nest.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
RMS is one of the strongest people I have heard of. He stands firm, not even allowing an allusion to get past his quest for accuracy. When he corrected the interviewer, who said "free" but meant "gratis", I smiled and thought, "Way to go, Richard. Never let people get complacent."
That said, I disagree with him that all software must be libre. I don't like being told that I may not release my own work as I see fit. At the same time he is welcome to not use it as he sees fit.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Again RMS echos true wisdom. Flexibility and Interoperability are features users enjoy and do more good for society overall.
but I find RMS a bit militantly Free. I mean, I don't like the idea of having to use binary drives (for nvidia graphics cards, for example), but I would still prefer to have binary drivers than no 3d support at all. I think RMS should take the stance "I support only Free software, but users should have the choice". The fact is that some companies will never open up their driver source code, so users shouldn't be punished for it.
In the grand equation, our champions must, by definition, be absurd. Over time, this is the only possible way to nudge the median. RMS catches a lot of flack for his "purist" views, but stop and think how our shared mindspace would look without his a-priori input. If all people are endowed with an inalienable right to benefit from, and particapate in, our shared human technology, then the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We have been choked, screwed, and robbed by a greedy marketing monster, and are sorely in need of champions. "If no one tilts at windmills, the damn things will take over the world!"- christian simpleman
"If no one tilts at windmills, the damn things will take over the world!"- christian simpleman
A few years ago, before i started using Linux seriously, I started building an almost free/open Windows XP system. Here's the basic breakdown of the so-called free system:
Shell: http://www.bb4win.org/
Burning prog: http://www.burnatonce.com/
DC client: http://gempond.com/odc/
Graphics: http://gempond.com/odc/
IM: http://gaim.sourceforge.net/
Browser:
Mail: http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/
Office suite: http://www.openoffice.org/
et cetera...
But then it dawned on me: All these programs are avaliable under GNU/Linux.
That day was the day that i switched to Debian. I haven't looked back.
There is nothing surprising in reading that RMS supports the use of GNU tools on non-free kernels. Outside of the kernel, much of the original tools were developed on platforms such as Solaris. This was pretty necessary at the time because Linux wasn't yet mature and the Hurd was, well, pretty much where the Hurd is now.
If RMS criticized this idea he'd be a hypocrite.
RMS : That's GNU/Linux!
Me: Yep, brand-spanking new
GNU is pronounced with a hard G. If you listen to virtually any RMS speech on software freedom, you'll hear him explain how the name originated and a specific request that people not to call it the "new" operating system, as that may cause the type of confusion that you used in your joke. Part of being a philosopher king like RMS is having thought through pretty much everything, from the seemingly trivial to the profound.
That is so true. Seen it happen over and over again. Use Firefox and Thunderbird to move them into OSS tools for the internet. Then introduce OpenOffice and pretty soon the underlying OS is immaterial.
It's odd that it seems to take time to sink in that part of the value in OSS is that it comes bundled with all those goodies and there's no need to buy anything else. For instance (these are retail prices):
OEM pricing may vary as will the prices to big buyers. But even counting that where's the value? You still have to spend an insane amount of time keeping everything updated to combat the threat of the day and even that won't stop all the crap. It's insane. Get off Windows.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I think it's a shame that RMS insists on pushing this point, because it makes him look pretty stupid. Language is essentially democratic, insisting that it's being used "wrong" looks and sounds like pedantry.
And nobody likes a pedant.
--- These are not words: wierd, genious, rediculous
I love RMS!!!
Do pay attention. Across the span of years assholes like Gates, Jobs, and Ellison will be mere blips on the radar of history. RMS will be considered one of the cornerstones of computer technology.
Far from being a crackpot, RMS stands for exactly what is needed in terms of free software. The steadfast nature of his resolve is with a view to all possible attacks from within and without the free software movement.
The things that RMS says are sort of like the Bill of Rights. People try to mess with it, to rewrite it, to mess with it in a thousand ways - and RMS has always been right on the first try.
It's a pity that more do not see that plainly. In my view, RMS sees things with startling clarity. He already sees what you have not even begun to anticipate.
I apologize for being cryptic, but it's one of those things that you either "get" or you just don't.
From the interview:
FB: Would you sign and promote a petition or an initiative for free access to hardware specifications?
RMS: I'd endorse any sort of nonviolent democratic political activity to promote such a law.
Of course, such a law (like all laws) would have to be backed up by violence -- don't obey it, have your freedom or property taken away. I think it's disingenuous for RMS to claim the high road of "non-violence" while advocating exactly the opposite.
Except for this, I think his stances are in general very admirable.
Except when it comes to trademarks and commerical use of names.
Call that Canon copier a "Xerox machine" and the fine folks at both Canon and Xerox will insist you get it right. No different here - though "GNU" isn't, IIRC, a trademark, "Linux" is.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I can't speak for RMS, but maybe you can read his view as: "all drinking water in this world should be clean and safe for consumption". That would be the optimal situation. At the same time you realize, it will never happen (at least not any time soon), and you can't force the rest of the world to make it so.
Maybe RMS would like most if there was simply no need for free software to require GPL style license, just to keep it free.
But I think it ultimately boils down to how people regard works that can be mass reproduced with near-zero effort (music, software, pictures, designs, etc). For clarity: I'm not talking about requiring everyone to share music, idea's etc., I'm just talking about work that for some reason or another was released to the public. Some people will view such work as 'ideas, floating freely through space, free for everyone to grab from the airwaves', and other people will say 'my personal property, get your dirty hands off it'. I believe that is a fundamental divide, that may shift, but will never go away. As long as you have that divide, there will be copyrights, patents, and GPL style licenses to counter their effect.
Well according to stallman, even if a program is completely useful to you but is proprietary, he won't use it. If the equivalent program of it is free, but is so buggy/useless to you, he'll still advocate to use it simply because it is free.
In other words, to him it doesn't matter how useful a program is, if it's not free, he won't use it. The big example is using a proprietary program to control the source code of the linux kernel because according to Linus it allows him to be more productive and get things done faster. But because it's not free, stallman says he disagrees with Linus's judgement on using that proprietary program. He doesn't take into consideration the fact that with Linus making this decision, it causes the free alternatives to source control something to live up to. Basically saying, if you want to be used for your features instead of being that you're just free, this is the features you want to have and the ease of use that you want to have.
There will always be free and proprietary software. Some free software advocates like Stallman simply will say use this and this program because it is free. That doesn't really cause something to be popular among end users. Features and ease of use do that. Look how long it took to build a free web browser (mozilla and firefox) before end users would accept and use them. It was never because they were free, it was because they were useful to use over the proprietary alternatives and more secure, plus they were free.
Free and usefulness go hand in hand I think. Once open source authors realize that, like the Mozilla and Firefox developer teams realized, then we'll get good products like Mozilla, Firefox and Thunderbird. I think the future looks bright. Arrogance in the end never wins however.
My Gawd WTF...
Why don't you put the GIMP on a separate workspace? (Or does Windows still lack that simple feature?)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
This is humorous on one level. Let me comment on the serious level though. I think RMS was simply trying to avoid any confusion. I'm a lawyer, and before a witness testifies, I make certain they understand one thing very clearly - never answer a question you don't fully understand. 100% of the time, it is a mistake to give an answer to what you think or guess the question was driving at. The risk of being misunderstood, then later being branded a "liar" (and people do love to be vicious) far outweighs the risks associated with asking for clarification. It is the questioner's job to ask a clear question and if there is any part that is not understood - there is only one correct answer: "I don't understand the question." I'm also aware that interviewers/reporters for media of various kinds, practically always get facts wrong/misquote etc. My guess, RMS has been bitten in the past answering a question he thought was about X, when the questioner thought it was about Y. So, I don't hold it against him that he asked for clarification - it was the only thing he could do to ensure that his ideas were communicated clearly.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
As I pick up my jaw after reading his more than reasonable approach to porting Free software to proprietary platforms, I wonder why he allows this freedom, (to use your desired platform) but argues against using a best of breed code management system for the same reason.
Richard, I think you are getting a little hypocrytical. Either give us your familiar "Freedom or Death" line or give me the freedom to choose a proprietary path if that is most expedient to me. I don't really give a rats... which way you go, but as the voice of freedom in software, stop being confusing.
And yes I did read the next paragraph where Mr Stallman says effectively that such ports are a means to an ends. If so, then why is Linus' use of bitkeeper (i think) so heineous. If the open solution was as good if not better, for the purpose, then Linus will switch. In the same way users switch any application that better meets their needs. I can't see the difference between using bitkeeper or using MS Windows or using Debian Woody or any fully GPLed OS. Most people will use what works for them. Having the source code is a bonus.
And on that note a big Merry Christmas to all programmers who release under GPL. Whether you celebrate it or not, may it be merry. I do enjoy using your software with the freedoms it gives me.
A sig is placed here
To display how futile
English Haiku is
"but to suggest that all proprietary software is unethical, well that's just obnoxious."
Uh, that's the whole point of Free Software. You think it's somehow more ethical to sell someone software they can't use properly, or to lock them into updates and support, or to damage their business when they find the application they depend on is now unsupported, or just to put them through activation sequences, time-bombed software, spyware, proprietary formats, software audits or even harassing lawsuits just because you feel like being annoying to your customers.
Giving people freedom to use their software. Now that's ethical.
it's much more easy to "fight for freedom" when you have no children to feed and you can travel the world, sleep at expensive hotels, eat at fancy restaurants, and this is all paid by someone else.
Do you also whine about how not everyone who can sing gets to make music videos? Or that not everyone who plays hockey gets to do it for a living? Or that not everyone who plays the stock market gets to be a broker?
The way things are going software development is soon going to be an 'amateur' thing, with only talented amateurs getting picked up by corporations/schools/etc (see OSDL, etc.). Sure lots of people will still need to code the tools they need as part of their jobs, but it will only be part of their job.
Actually, perhaps a better analogy is to mathematics. Lots of people need to do math to do their jobs, but very few of them get paid to be mathematicians. And yes, most of their work is 'open source', unless they're at the NSA.
Why do all the RMS interviews (seems like one every week is posted to slashdot) have only questions like "Do you think Linus is bad for disagreeing with you in some way?" - why not ask him (and other smart technical people) questions like "What are you working on now or wish you had time to work on?" or "Where do you see the software industry going in the next 10 years?" or "What should people work on who want to make a difference?"
And this whole question of whether free software is good or not is such a waste of time. When somebody invented automatic door openers did people say "think of all the doormen who will be out of a job"? No, they said "isn't it great that these people are now free to find better jobs that contribute more to society". That's what I would say about people who used to spend all their time reinventing the wheel because all the previously invented wheels were proprietary. If Linux succeeds (i.e. is better than Windows and people switch) then the programmers at Microsoft will get to work on new and different things that haven't been done before (and maybe make money on them for the few years before the open source alternatives catch up).