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.'"
Question is, does he support projects such as CygWin?
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
I know this is OT. But I thought of a way to give RMS a stroke (or a facial tic at the vary least):
:)
:)
.. Happy Holidays
Me: Boy I sure like my Linux system
RMS : That's GNU/Linux!
Me: Yep, brand-spanking new
RMS: No, no, no! That's GNU G-N-U. GNU/Linux..
Me: GNU/Linux? What's that?
RMS: GAH! It's what you have installed!!
Me: Oh, you mean Linux
RMS: GNU/Linux!!!
*** Repeat ad infinitum
Bonus pts if you actually say Linux OS by the Red Hat people
Merry Chr.. er
"This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
My wife actually is using Gimp under Windows now because she prefers its interface to Photoshop. ;-)
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
I was going to make a comment on the Hurd, but rms beat me to it.
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
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.
...just what he has explained one thousand times in everyone of his conferences.
Quoting and interview by Federico Biancuzzi:
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
Quote:
:)
Some GNU utilities such as df and du do not follow the POSIX spec unless you set the environment variable POSIXLY_CORRECT. Normally GNU df and du print disk space figures in units of k. POSIX says to print disk space figures in units of 512 bytes. If you set POSIXLY_CORRECT, GNU df and du do that. (My original plan was to name it POSIX_ME_HARDER.) I would guess that very very few users set POSIXLY_CORRECT.
Good to see RMS has a sense of humour. I got a nice chuckle out of that comment
-Laxitive
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.
An explaination in RMS' own words.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
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
Yep, it's great that RMS sez we can port GNU stuff to the operating systems we have now, rather than having to wait until GNU Hurd thunders into view. Or does it only run on the Itanium?
Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
I work in a large corporate environment that uses VMS, Tru64, AIX, HP/UX and large scale IBM mainframe systems such as MVS. The corporate policy is basically that open source is strictly forbidden, but only as far as being installed as a system tool--only "supported" products can be installed.
/home directories on the largest of the UNIX servers and see 500 people with their own individual copies of emacs, vim, bash, etc.
However there isn't a policy regarding what tool sets individual shell users can install. It's interesting to browse various
The point is, at least with mainstream IT people most already see and understand the value and quality of open source or free software.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
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.
As I said the other day, Stallman himself is the perfect example of using free software on proprietary OS'es. That's how the GNU project started, and today they still make reasonable efforts to keep their software portable.
A lot of people dismiss and mock RMS, but he already asked and answered a lot of these questions himself many years ago. Maybe it would help some people to periodically read through some of his writings. (I know reading things you don't agree with or like is unpopular with many around here.) RMS has made intelligent decisions on a lot of these issues.
Another thing that comes up all the time around here is selling free software, which seems to confuse a lot of people but was handled by RMS a long time ago, too.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
While I can understand that logic, I can also understand the contrary logic of "doing nothing is easier than doing something" where users merely become more used to running non-free software because their computer came with non-free software and their friends are running non-free software, so they stick with what they "know". If more free software is better than less free software, then running The GIMP, OpenOffice.org, or Firefox on Microsoft Windows would be better than exclusively using their proprietary counterparts, but the question is whether users actually move to freedom.
So, I'll believe that users actually move to freedom because of free software on non-free OSes when I see random phone poll survey data that confirms this. So far, all I read are theories about how users would behave.
Therefore I will have to ask some of my survey-conducting friends how I would go about doing this in a way that would produce reliable data on which to build an informed opinion. Perhaps there has already been a study of this.
Digital Citizen
I was slightly skeptical about this, until I realized that I actually followed this path, more or less. Back in the day when OS/2 was still around, I was using that over DOS/Win3.1, and eventually NT, as I couldn't afford a box that would run that, but it turned out for the better. I had tried Linux once, and found it too hard to get anything done with (remember this was like 92-93, and I had never used anything *nix before): it was interesting, but I wasn't familiar with any of the applications, so I couldn't do much.
Of course, if OS/2 is remembered for one thing, it's the overflowing of native applications, by which I mean there were few. So eventually, I started using "EMX" (iirc) ports of *nix applications: emacs, gcc, (La)TeX, bash, ghostscript. After awhile (and putting up with some deficiencies), I realized that I was no longer really using OS/2. I was trying to use Linux. So, I got that infomagic set of "modern" distros (like redhat 4, debian something ancient, slackware, and a copy of sunsite and tsx). I've never looked back.
It's been interesting over the years to see the application base grow by leaps and bounds; the open culture for Free Software is really what Linux has created, and what has in turn driven its success. OS/2 never had it. HURD was too idealist to gather momentum. The BSD's seem to have a different focus. All the other OS's drive a purely commercial culture: Windows, MacOS, PalmOS, Symbian, the commercial Unices, etc.
So perhaps... perhaps... if you transform the other OS's into a semblance of Linux (or other "Free" OS, I guess, but let's be realistic here), once people are familiar with the software, you can switch the OS and give them the full experience, and not only will they fall right in, they'll be happier, because everything works as it should.
This, I believe, is what Microsoft should truly fear.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
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.
So now coders hired to do proprietary work are unethical too?
He cites ingredients on food packaging -- but he knows perfectly well that a mere list of ingredients cannot be used to duplicate the food. It's misleading.
And now he's also open to the idea that the government should force all software makers to publish their source code? That's creepy.
Also, he should just acknowledge that "free as in speech" software almost always winds up as "free as in beer" too. It's kind of dishonest to pretend otherwise.
It's pretty informative to read RMS in his own words.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
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.
Please include you rampant unsubstantiated speculations below.
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...
I respect rms, and believe that he has done some very important things for the software world (creating the GPL is at the top of a long list). But his ideals are only slightly about 'freedom' and his constant questioning of everyone else's ethics is tiring. He cares about the freedom of the consumer, but not the producer - he wants to force producers of software to play by his rules. The Open Source movement, for all that rms flames their ethics, is actually much more concerned with freedom - they try to support the freedom of software consumers, but recognize that software producers should be able to do what they want with their creations, including keeping the source to themselves (dumb as that may be technically). Personally, I prefer Open Source for technological reasons, but at this point there are things that I cannot do with it (pro-quality music apps are lacking at this point, for example). Would it really be more free for me to not use my computer for these things because GPL software isn't available yet? Some of you will now suggest that I write these programs myself - is it more free for me to spend time on that rather than just using programs that already exist? What the FSF people forget (and the OSI seems to remember) is that, for non-programmers, computers are tools, used to accomplish a job (other than programming). Comparisons to free speech vs. free beer miss the point. Does rms believe we should all have free hammers?
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
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.
Back in '96 ("the year of the Intranet") I accidentally ended up getting paid to do web development work with Perl on Windows. I wasn't then, nor am I now, really a programmer (still less a hacker); I just happened to be a little better at abstract reasoning than anybody around me at the time.
I had never heard of the free software movement or the GPL, and the term "Open Source" hadn't even been coined. It's hard to imagine now how different the IT world was less than a decade ago. I chose Perl because it was free as in beer. At the time, it hadn't even occurred to me that you could apply the other meaning of the word "free" to software.
Then one day, while avoiding work, I was browsing through the documentation for Perl, and came across the following:
At the time I was a union delegate in a big multinational company, so I knew in intimate detail the awful nature of the institution. I hated my job, didn't know anybody who didn't hate theirs, and despaired of ever finding a vocation that I wasn't ashamed of.
Reading the GPL, and then going to the GNU website and devouring everything there was a life-changing experience. RMS demonstrated that it was possible to make a living without compromising on ethics, and for the first time in my life I felt that there was a place for me in the world, if not as a genious hacker, then at least by applying the same moral principles to whatever field I had an aptitude for.
I stopped using proprietary software myself. Over time, I stopped installing proprietary software for my friends, and now I run a business supporting free software.
It all started with running a free program on a non-free operating system. If the free world had enforced strict border controls, on the dubious logic that more people would migrate if they weren't allowed to visit, I wouldn't be a part of it now, and my life would be a lot poorer for it.
At this time of the year it is worth stopping to remember this crazy guy with long hair and wild ideas about helping your neighbour, and how he changed the world.
Thanks RMS!
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).