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.'"

Comments

Tides of change

[tedgyz]

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.

Libre on non-free environments

[merc]

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.

However there isn't a policy regarding what tool sets individual shell users can install. It's interesting to browse various /home directories on the largest of the UNIX servers and see 500 people with their own individual copies of emacs, vim, bash, etc.

The point is, at least with mainstream IT people most already see and understand the value and quality of open source or free software.

Dog with a bone (was Re:Tides of change)

[mankey wanker]

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.

Not surprising

[jdavidb]

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.

Re:Free apps on non-free OS

[Lachek]

I can't really tell by your post whether you have a problem with this development or not, but let me remind you: what used to be a hobby turned into a profession before it once again morphed into a hobby. In the beginning of time, the only way to make money off of writing software was if you wrote specialized software for one or perhaps a couple of enterprise sites. All other software, including much of the software developed by IT giants, was free-as-in-beer. People thought the notion of paying for software was ridiculous, before it was commodified.

Now, finally, the hobbyists and enthusiasts have started to catch up with those who made billions by commodifying what's essentially nothing but pancake recipes, and get booed as by the masses as economy-shattering un-American commies. There was never a viable business model in cranking out fancy text editors in VB and charging $9.99 for each installation to begin with, no more than there was a viable business model in "developing web-driven eTailing and interactive marketing solutions" in the 90s.

I have nothing but respect for software developers, but if someone can do something as well as you - except for free, and in their spare time - you have no right to complain while you are in a market-driven economy. There are plenty of business that will pay good money for an in-house system developer, to do the sort of work that software people got paid to do before commodification took place.

Re:Cygwin

[anagama]

• I don't think he would understand the question. He seemed to be having a tough time at it.

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.

How I joined the free world

[mdavids]

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:

The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.

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!