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.
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.
An explaination in RMS' own words.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
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.
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.
As opposed to the insane amount of time learning and dicking around with Linux trying to get it to work properly? Or what about the tens thousands needed to pay programmers to develop Linux based apps that simply don't exist yet?
Your assumption that every (or even most) computer users simply email, surf the web, and print up pretty documents is wrong at best. Linux is not even remotely a possiblity for me and my business because we use apps that are not available (or even good counterparts) for Linux.
I don't respond to AC's.
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.
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
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?
Which is different exactly how from the insane amount of time learning and dicking around with Windows trying to get it to work properly?
"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.
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!