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
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"
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
Agreed. A closer analogy to publishing food ingredients is probably publishing APIs and interface specifications.
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
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.
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
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
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!