Slashdot Mirror
ZNet interviews Richard Stallman
ProgressiveCynic writes "ZNet has just published an interview with Richard Stallman. Much of the interview will be review for Slashdot folks, intended to introduce ZNet's audience to the free software movement, but many interesting bits remain including a discussion on the outlawing of free software, patents as applied to literature, and this quote: 'I'm a Liberal, in US terms (not Canadian terms). I'm against fascism.'"
RMS > You could not run free applications on such a system (sic, trusted computing). If you did figure out how, and told someone, that could be a crime.
In other words. You Must Pay the Microsoft Tax.
Wow, RMS was rather lucid in this interview. I'm impressed.
Who will guard the guards?
In an otherwise informative article, I learned that Mr Stallman is yet another person doesnt know what the hell fascism is (nor do most people who throw around the term "Bush Regime"). :rolleyes:
I quote RMS
"Fascism is a system of government that sucks up to business and has no respect for human rights. So the Bush regime is an example, but there are lots of others. In fact, it seems we are moving towards more fascism globally."
If you're going to throw the F word around at least learn what it means. Fascism has little to nothing to do with business, instead it is about the state or more specifically the ruler. It is a pragmatic form of government when it comes to business. If anything, it functions under a permanent war economy with the major industries cooperating. In other words, it is a centralized economy that still retains private property and freedom of commerce.
The US and other countries today are not fascist nor resemble anything like a fascist nation. Does big business run the country? Yes. Do politicians suck up to it? Yes. Is this a good thing? NO! But its NOT fascism. To call it such is at the least a bit ignorant.
Does anyone care? Probably not, but I have to try.
PS:
I'll have some ridiculous replies accusing me of being a Bush supporter (hardly).
I noticed another post referring to RMS sharing his ideas with Noam Chomsky, while I admire both men as intellectuals, I'm afraid the greatest threat to liberals and democrates of all spots and stripes is that we are our greatest enemies. We don't jump to the conclusion that we are right, rather we tend to list to the left and circle ideologies and problems, canvassing them from all sides and in all lights. Come vote time we tend to fragment into camps warring as much with each other as with the neocons. Chomsky has in recent federal elections siphoned off votes that might have helped elect a Democratic President.
Maybe in America as in Canada we need to put aside our petty differences and vote en bloc to push the neocons out of power before the definition of facism RMS casts at America today becomes applicable in the U.S. and in Canada.
I'll now dismount my soapbox and return to fretting about the present Federal election at home.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
Free software has a much better chance of working than Communism (yes, I know, it has never been truly implemented, etc). Unlike a government for a country, not everyone has to be in on it. If you live in a "communist" nation, you fall under communist rule. However, free software and non-free software can mix. People can use one, or the other, or both. Provided that there is a critical mass of people in the free software community, and there is, we should be just fine.
If you're saying Linus could've written all of the GNU programs himself, you're way off mark. The truth is, they needed each other, and both communities put in a ton of work, hence GNU/Linux. No, it isn't short, and it isn't catchy, but it is hardly a power grab or anything similar.
JP: But is there still an ethical issue if there is no alternative? If, say, there is no free software way of doing a particular job, for ZNet for example?
RMS: One can live without doing those jobs.
Very easy to say if you've never had a "real" job, as RMS's bio makes it clear he has not. By "real" job, I mean a job in which you are required to meet deadlines imposed by customers and to produce end products specified by customers, otherwise your business fails. When your whole working life has been spent in a succession of pure research environments, with no contact with other people outside the research environment, you'll naturally assume that research is all, and all the other software engineers working on customer-driven projects are the minority. Sad to say, that ain't the case.
JP: What criteria? How can one decide such a thing?
RMS: If you absolutely must do a particular job then you should contribute to the creation of a free replacement. If you are not a programmer, you can still find a way to contribute--such as by donating money so others can develop it.
That's a nice ideal. However, it's worth noting that there are cases (such as the recent fork of XEmacs) in which people *have* thrown money and development time at GNU projects and got nothing but disappointment. Linux is another example - the reason we're using GNU/Linux instead of GNU/Hurd is that RMS and the whole GNU kernel team were fundamentally unable to develop a working Hurd kernel in the time that a single Finnish student could write the first-draft Linux kernel. They spent FIVE YEARS on Hurd and had literally nothing working at the end of that time that anyone could use.
Frankly, if I was running a business and I had to keep my family fed, there's no way in hell I'd be relying on GNU to develop the tools I needed. Their track record is simply appalling. If the tool exists then I'll use it (GCC, for example), but if the tool doesn't already exist then only an idiot would pay GNU to write it for them, bcos they've already proved their inability to do work to time. The only way I'd trust GNU to do it would be to hire the relevant GNU engineers directly and impose penalty clauses. Donations to a project and hope that they do what I need them to do? No way.
Grab.
James P. Barrett
Either you don't work in the software industry or you work for Microsoft (or you're still in school) but you apparently don't have the slightest idea how the real world works.
When you get a work working on software, it statistically *never* is writing one of those things that ends up in a box in your local shop.
Writing software is fiddling with an application that's internal to the company you are currently working for or which ends up embedded in the entrails of some sort of device (or of a web site).
This you can absolutely do with free software and you can often liberate tools that you created while working on your main product.
As for working freelance, it's something else entirely. But most such customizing jobs are subcontracted to large service firms, not individuals.
Or you can specialize in working with small companies in which case you'll have the same problem every budding entrepreneur has, whether he sells software services or diapers: finding customers.
Welcome to the real world (you should have taken the other pill).
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Seriously, man. ESPECIALLY in this day and age, it takes BALLS to be absolutely a hundred percent no holds barred no bullshit 100% DEDICATED to the exact letter of What You Belive Is True. It might be "socially awkward" or "a career impairment" but this is, I firmly believe, the one possible instance in which a Dungeons & Dragons Paladin grade Lawful-lawful Good-good Dedication To Cause is actually - in some capacity - having a positive impact on the lives of many.
That his intensity of focus could also make him an object of ridicule is a natural side effect of said dedication. i doubt I'd be able to talk to the guy about software or legal issues for more than a handful of syllables before the punching instinct kicked in, but where would modern software be if it weren't for GNU and the GPL?
So I guess nothingness = zero for the non-technical persons, but actually 1 (one) for the /. crowd?
The problem is that "0" and "NULL"/"placeholder" have been confused with the base 10 digits.
Ever wonder why, when you count to 10, that "10" takes 2 digits, while all the others only take nine?
When looking at a number system, remember that you are really counting off the number of unique combinations. The decimal number system consists of 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 - that's 10 combinations that only require 1 digit.
But, for "people" counting, we discount the first combination: "0" and start at 1. And that's where the problem is. Furthermore, we use "0" as a placeholder, so that we end up with "10", "100" or "1,000". When you count in any other base, you start at 0.
So, what we should have is "1-10" being counted as "0-9" and an additional "null" character, so that "10" (11 in "normal" parlance) might be written as "1_" or "1*"
Just silly. But, inertia will probaby stop us from ever fixing this inanity.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I know I'll be slammed for that, but it's hard to say it any more clearly
Massively offtopic, but this issue really ticks me off.
Reality is that in most cases, a vote for an independent candidate is a wasted vote.
Oh cut it out. This line of thought is why the US is stuck electing Republicrats every election. The only wasted vote is one that isn't cast.
Sure, vote for someone outside of the major two parties and you won't "win" in the present loaded system. But you do throw your weight behind the numbers who have indicated that they aren't happy with Red and Blue but want someone else in. More importantly, you've thrown your weight behind a particular party or ideology, and as the numbers grow, more people can shake the "I must vote for one of the two main parties" mentality and vote for another viable party. Sure, it won't happen in one election, but if people vote for who they want rather than following the catchy "you're throwing your vote away" mentality, then the country as a whole will be much better off and it'll finally elect a capable representative leader.
The whole logic of saying that because you won't "win" in one election you should vote for the best of the worst two is not only counterintuitive but is entrenching the present political stranglehold. All I can say is stop it. Stop repeating the "third party is a wasted vote" lie because gullible people keep believing it, and you keep getting rubbish government as a result. Don't you think you deserve better than the best of the worst two? Aren't you all sick of electing one of two fratboys offered up each election?
The Wikipedia entry for Facism is currently flagged "The neutrality of this article is disputed."
If you read through the discussion you'll see claims that facism is incorrectly being tied with right wing politics
And for that American Heritage Dictionary definition;
A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism
The dictionary.com refrence which also lists the American Heritage Dictionary as its source has something quite different
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
I want a neutral argument here, but that second definition doesn't have the "liberal spin" to it. In other words, you don't see extreme right or merging of state and business leadership, but instead the traditional definition of facism, which has a dictator with total control over the government and the economy.
Interpret this as you will, but I see here a case where information does not equal truth. There are so many facts to choose from, that people pick the ones that suit them best. If you hate Bush, you pick the first definition, and count the ways in which Bush is worse than Hitler. If you support Bush, you pick the second one and accuse the smelly hippies of spreading misinformation.
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
I'm a Conservative, in US terms (not Canadian terms). I'm against fascism.
Why point out the fact that he is liberal? Can only liberals hate fascism? I don't go around saying "I'm a Conservative, I hate Socialism" That seems awefully insensative for a "Liberal"
I like to code, lots of people do. I like to play around with features of languages. But in the end, I've got to eat. And that means doing a job. And no-one's going to pay me to do what I like. They want the rather dull account chaseup reports written, or send out "special offer" SS messages to a group of customers. Sometimes my work is fun, but sometimes there are things I don't like doing, but I trade my time and skills for their money.
This guy should go and do 5 years in a real computer department sometime.
I think you are being unfair here: RMS clearly says that there is another valid reason to keep using non-free software for the time being: "If you participate in development of the free replacement for a program, then you can excuse temporarily continuing to run it."
No hypocrisy here. Please use appropriate and objective quotes before accusing someone.
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
Fascism isn't likely to recur? To quote from above:
"Fascism is associated with one or more of the following characteristics: a very high degree of nationalism, economic corporatism, and, after attaining political control of a country, a powerful, dictatorial state that views the nation as superior to the individuals or groups composing it."
I think that is a very apt description of the current government of the People's Republic of China. Don't let labels fool you: even their rhetoric is more nationalist than socialist.
Voting for the president in America is a waste of time because the president is elected by the electoral college not the people who go to the booths. Go and punch the card if it makes you feel better, but in the end your vote doesn't mean anything, and it never has.
Welcome to reality.
And it's modded Insightful?!
How about acknowledging you don't know jack-all about what RMS does for a living? And instead of an apparently unsupported assumption of what his classroom is like (because, as far as I know, he's never taught a full-term accredited course) just make it clear you have strong views on what you think he is like in person, and that you disagree with his views?
In short: Talk about the ideas & ideals, not your fictional life for the person espousing the ideas & ideals.
(Oh, and public vowel-movements are unseemly; the paragraph is the writers friend!)
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Seriously, man. ESPECIALLY in this day and age, it takes BALLS to be absolutely a hundred percent no holds barred no bullshit 100% DEDICATED to the exact letter of What You Belive Is True. It might be "socially awkward" or "a career impairment" but this is, I firmly believe, the one possible instance in which a Dungeons & Dragons Paladin grade Lawful-lawful Good-good Dedication To Cause is actually - in some capacity - having a positive impact on the lives of many.
Are you arguing that anyone who is "100% dedicated" to the exact letter of his/her own belief system is "lawful good" because it takes "balls" to be that way? I really think you happen to like him only because he's dedicated to an unpopular cause *that you happen to like*. There are plenty of fanatics out there (and, yes, I claim that RMS is a fanatic) who are just as fervent, if not more so, than RMS is.
Is RMS willing to die for his belief? Is he willing to kill for it? If the answer to both of those is, "no," then how can you claim that he's "100% dedicated"? It would mean that he values his life and the lives of others higher than his own Truth(TM).
Other fanatics aren't as "weak" as he is in that regard. Take, for example, the thousands of Muslim mujahideen who fervently believe that killing infidels is God's work. They believe 100% that Islam will dominate the world and that anyone who resists should die, including you and me. I'm a gay man. How do you think I feel about muslims who want Islamic law over me (and are willing to kill and/or die to make sure that it happens)?
Take, for example, Randall Terry. He is the most infamous anti-abortion activist in the USA. He openly pines for theocracy (and he uses that particular word). Here's what he said about abortion providers: "When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you and we will execute you." How's that for "dedicated"? Is RMS willing to take power and execute the producers of non-free software? Sounds a little less than "100% dedicated" to me.
Take, for example, PeTA fanatics. Not only do they want total veganism, but also total animal liberation. This means that ANY type of animal research used for medicine and health would be banned. This means that any child whose life could be saved through animal products would have to die. Is RMS willing to sacrifice childrens' lives for the cause of free software? PeTA fanatics will respond to this message by denying that animal research is beneficial in any way at all. Of course, it's trivial to dispute that claim with abundant evidence, but why should evidence matter to a fanatic? If mere evidence is going to sway you from the Truth(TM) then you're not "100% dedicated", are you?
My point here is not to bash the groups that I happen to despise, but to point out that what you seem to be supporting is fanaticism. There are millions of things in the world that you can get excited about and millions of worthy causes that need your attention. Pick a few that you happen to like, and exploit your own unanswered question of, "Why am I here?" as the impetus to do good works in the world. But the people who decide that there is ONE and ONLY ONE cause worth championing, at the expense of all other causes, at the expense of all reason and evidence, and at the expense of others' lives, liberty, and property? Those are people to be exposed, denigrated, and ignored. They are not worthy of respect as they are dangerous, self-indulgent assholes.
If you want the most direct form of the value judgement, then here it is, and I make no apology for it:
Fanaticism is evil.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
You've hit on something very important.
I have no other choice
The major party candidates know you think that way. John Kerry and Al Gore both ran campaigns betting that you'd hold your nose and vote for them rather than vote for someone you actually agreed with and believed could make a difference.
I particularly enjoyed many anti-war activists who signed a petition saying that they were voting for Kerry, but expected him to change his position on the war after they had helped elect him, or risk losing their support in the 2008 election. Kerry didn't care that people were holding their nose for him because a vote is a vote, no matter why it was cast.
Scenario:
Let us assume node_3 is a traditional liberal, who often sides with the Democrats. I am a candidate for the Democratic party, who knows that he(she?) and many others will vote for me no matter what my positions are. No amount of lobbying by node_3 and others like him(her) will ever change my mind because I already have their vote. I will instead devote my energies to change my platform to suit those who may not vote for me (likely making me more conservative). That is, by saying outright that you will vote for me, because voting for an independent is "wasting my vote", you have lost your only hold on my issue positions.
This scenario has been the core strategy of the DLC, a centrist Democratic party group, since the late 80s. This can be modeled as a game of chicken with you declaring before the game even starts that you will swerve.
My point is that we're going to have to crash a few times before the Democrats get their shit together. Sooner or later, they'll start swerving.
Oh, brother. Even HE can't see that liberal and conservative are both just two sides of the same worthless coin. All hope is lost.
You bring up an interesting pair of possibilities for a "businessman" who wishes to create custom software:
Possibility #1: Hoard and hide the software, in hopes of attaining "competitive advantage". Watch in horror as your competitors duplicate the software, but with better programmers, thus gaining better competitive advantage than you did. Try to stop them by spending tens of thousands of dollars on patent issues, only to have the entire market brand you as a vicious slug, and get buried by your own bad P.R. (while a court invalidates your patent as "obvious" and all your money ends up wasted).
Possibility #2: Release the software open source, so that your competitors better programmers end up improving YOUR software and you both benefit from it with no additional expense. Also, gain a great deal of good P.R. in the bargain.
Hmm...
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Surprise! Despite most people claiming to have a political slant, the majority of Americans don't know shit about politics. I live in Texas and I can promise that many self defined conservatives here are just as ignorant as your friend.
Its not that one side is smarter than the other or something- both parties have mostly idiots as supporters (who then happen to elect mostly idiots to Washington D.C). Once you learn that both parties are composed of people who really don't know about politics, then you can finally reach Political Nirvana (aka you never talk about politics again with people because you know its a waste of time).
Open Source Sushi
Well, I can see I haven't helped you get over yourself. You're still thinking of whatever "code" you've got laying around as a competitive advantage, instead of a little do-it-yourself software you wrote to help you sell hamster food.
So, since you're doing the "number 1, number 2" thing, let me respond in kind:
1. You USED to be an "enterprise class developer". You didn't get bored, you got laid off or fired. You got creamed in the dot-com crash. Call it what it is.
2. You're a "real-world business user" who sells hamster food from your little shop. You don't count. Nobody would notice it if you DID open-source anythin, so hoarding your code affects nobody. Counterexamples people can provide you with, of enormous businesses like IBM, Novell, and I.D. Software (to name only three of hundreds) that use and support open-source dwarf your example in their relative importance. You are, therefore, insignificant -- by your own admission. Your opinion, by extension, is similarly insignificant.
3. Being a nobody who is completely insignificant, you nevertheless discount the activities of a company (ID Software) that has tens of millions in revenue and is extremely significant in their field. I find that remarkable. You really are a big doofus, aren't you?
You're a tiny little krill shrimp (you know what those are, Mr. Pet Food Salesman, now, don'cha?) waving his tiny little feelers at a giant rock lobster! "I'm important!" you yell. "I'm a bigtime business person! And I don't like open source!" To which the rest of us say, "Did you hear something? Like a little squeaking noise? Must be my ears..."
Seriously, GET OVER YOURSELF before you embarass yourself any further.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!