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.'"

Comments

Can you tell he's a programmer?

[John Nowak]

RMS: The basic idea of the Free Software Movement is that the user of software deserves certain freedoms. There are four essential freedoms, which we label freedoms 0 through 3.

I wonder how many Znet readers are confused out of their minds as to why he'd start with zero.

Re:Can you tell he's a programmer?

[TubeSteak]

To Me, Nothingness is:
Void
Null
Cipher
Zero
Nothing
Jersey

So I guess nothingness = zero for the non-technical persons, but actually 1 (one) for the /. crowd?

Is that what you're trying to say?

Re:Can you tell he's a programmer?

[John Nowak]

What the heck are you talking about? You can't assign zero to nothingness.

Re:Can you tell he's a programmer?

[zaguar]

The same amount that have used GRUB?

Re:Can you tell he's a programmer?

[mcrbids]

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.

Re:Can you tell he's a programmer?

[doddi]

Maybe he means freedom zero as in no freedom.

Re:Can you tell he's a programmer?

[CloakedMirror]

I'm not sure how serious you are trying to be here, but the reason for starting with 0 (zero) in our arrays has nothing to do with the number of combinations of single digits. When we supply an array element designator what we are really doing is supplying the offset from the starting point of the array; hence the first item in the array is at offset zero, the second item is at offset one, etc. It has nothing to do with the "count" of items in the array, except that the last element will always be designated as one less than the size of the array.

Disclaimer: Some of these concepts may not be true in the programming language you use. If that is the case then it is because the authors of the language have hidden that detail from you.

Re:Can you tell he's a programmer?

[MPHellwig]

Your existents dictates otherwise ;-)

Re:Can you tell he's a programmer?

[bfields]

The problem is that "0" and "NULL"/"placeholder" have been confused with the base 10 digits.

No, they're the same thing. Given the decimal representation of an integer, d_nd_{n-1}...d_1d_0, its value is

d_n * 10^n + d_{n-1} * 10^{n-1} + ... + d_1 * 10^1 + d_0 * 10^0

So, for example, 1024 is 1 * 1000 + 0 * 100 + 2 * 10 + 4.

Doesn't everything work out nicely when you use 0 as the placeholder?

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*".

Do you also pine for the days of roman numerals?

Re:Can you tell he's a programmer?

[simon_hibbs2]

The problem is rooted in the difference between counting things and enumerating them. If you are counting a row of people, you might start by pointing at the person on the far left and saying 'one', then the next person to the right and saying 'two', etc. However you are not actualy assigning them labels. You could count from right to left and it would be just as valid. People don't realy have any limitation in the number of labels we can assign. Missing out 'zero' as a label to use to assign to thkings costs us nothing, and conveniently allows us to sometimes labels as a shortcut to counting things as a bonus. Computers do have a shortage of labels. An 8-bit numeric varable can only store 256 different values. If you want to count 256 things with it, you have to use 'zero' as a valid label and using it for the 'first' object being counted avoids the problem of having to use binary mathematical operations to use 'zero' for 256. Simon Hibbs

Re:Can you tell he's a programmer?

[elrous0]

I wonder how many Znet readers are confused out of their minds as to why he'd start with zero.

I'm sorry, but as a loyal, God-fearing American I refuse to use any number invented by them A-Rabs.

-Eric

Re:Can you tell he's a programmer?

[Just Some Guy]

When you count in any other base, you start at 0.

No, I don't. You might, but very few other people do. "1" in hex doesn't magically become "0x0" - it becomes "0x1".

Offsets? That's a different store (for base 10 and others), but counting starts at 1 for everyone but programmers.

Re:Can you tell he's a programmer?

[eightball]

Don't you worry, zero was a concept in other place first.

Also, I find your pseudo-Americanism not very funny.

Re:Can you tell he's a programmer?

[eightball]

Sorry, I meant that it was not apt, the lack of humor came from that. You need more than the tiniest mote of truth to build a joke around.

Of course it is fashionable to believe the worst of alot of people you have never met, especially if they live in a certain country.

Re:Can you tell he's a programmer?

[rsborg]

I'm sorry, but as a loyal, God-fearing American I refuse to use any number invented by them A-Rabs.

Don't worry; it wasn't invented by them, yet another set of brown people that Americans generally confuse with Arabs (and consequently irrationally hate).

Re:Can you tell he's a programmer?

[Hurricane78]

> No, they're the same thing.

They're NOT! The point is that 0 is actually a value while NULL is UNDEFINED/NOTHING7N(OT)I(N)L(IST). So if you count a stack of cds you have NULL to start with because you haven't started to count. Then you point your finger to the top of the stack saying "0" which is you *first* POSITION where you can point your finger. Then you move it one cd down and say "1" which is the *second* position.

Of course you can forget those extra states of your "variable" most of the time. But when they are relevant and you forget them you get a mess.

I am no expert in the number theory, but i think the best way is to think "floating point". Then if your finger just started to move down from 0 you get 0.1, then 0.2 and so on. and there is always a value in between two other values, no matter how exact you define them.

So you can even say that 0 is the first element of all values if you don't have a NULL or anythign similar.

I guess the whole thing comes from the variabel pointers. As we all know NULL there means that it does not point anywhere. But when it points somewhere and that value is 0 then it is defined and on its first possible state in the list of possible states.

So much for it... maybe i reapeated a bit too much but better too clear than too blurred.

Re:Can you tell he's a programmer?

[ultranova]

They're NOT! The point is that 0 is actually a value while NULL is UNDEFINED/NOTHING7N(OT)I(N)L(IST). So if you count a stack of cds you have NULL to start with because you haven't started to count. Then you point your finger to the top of the stack saying "0" which is you *first* POSITION where you can point your finger. Then you move it one cd down and say "1" which is the *second* position.

Incorrect. When you start counting something, you first initialize whatever variable you are using to 0, to indicate that you have this far counted 0 CDs; before that it is in undefined state, which may or may not be 0/NULL. When you point your finger to the first CD, you increment the variable to 1, then to 2, etc.

Please do not confuse position in array with amount of elements in it.

I guess the whole thing comes from the variabel pointers. As we all know NULL there means that it does not point anywhere. But when it points somewhere and that value is 0 then it is defined and on its first possible state in the list of possible states.

Really ? From stddef.h:

#define NULL 0

A pointer being NULL means that it points to memory address zero, in programming languages where you can examine pointer values. In languages where you can't (Java, for example) the question of pointer's value is invalid, since it has no "value" (at least in a numerical sense) - it simply points somewhere or nowhere.

So much for it... maybe i reapeated a bit too much but better too clear than too blurred.

I don't think that you need to fear being too clear ;).

Re:Can you tell he's a programmer?

[crazyphilman]

Uhhhh.... No.

In mathematics, where these concepts originated, 0 means literally "none". When you are counting, the first combination, 0, means "I don't have any yet". Then, when you get one thingy, you have 1.

In computer science, by tradition, we count starting with the zeroth element, which makes no sense whatsoever. It's probably related to an implementation detail when the first compilers were written in assembler, and it may have been more efficient to start loops with a zeroth iteration. Now it's entrenched in tradition and everybody counts arrays, loops, etc, starting with 0.

Microsoft, being "nuts to you" types, started letting you count from 1, which confused the hell out of the issue because they let you count from 0 or 1 in the same language, as a matter of personal choice. This leads to all sorts of "interesting" maintenance nightmares. Did the consultant count from 0 or 1 this time? Was he consistent, even within the same program module? Ugh.

So, your analysis is flawed and you are incorrect.

Re:Can you tell he's a programmer?

[CapnGrunge]

Mayans can claim prior art, from America (the continent).

Re:Can you tell he's a programmer?

[Thomas Charron]

But you CAN use a Cypher in New Jersey..

Re:Can you tell he's a programmer?

[Q2Serpent]

> A pointer being NULL means that it points to memory address zero.

Wrong - a NULL pointer is a pointer that is assigned the value zero after it has been converted to the pointer type, but the actual bit pattern stored is up to the implementation. It does not have to be all zeroes in memory or registers, and it does not have to refer to address zero.

NULL is defined to zero because when the compiler sees it converted to a pointer type, it does the "right thing" (which doesn't have to mean storing a zero in memory):

    void *foo = NULL;
    void *foo = 0;

Please read the C standard, sections 6.3.2.3 and 7.17.

Re:Can you tell he's a programmer?

[Hurricane78]

> Incorrect. When you start counting something, you first initialize whatever variable you are using to 0, to indicate that you have this far counted 0 CDs; before that it is in undefined state, which may or may not be 0/NULL. When you point your finger to the first CD, you increment the variable to 1, then to 2, etc.

I a way, this was what i meant. ;) But i saw NULL as a *non-initialized* state of the variable
Something like

class Something { public static int x; }
int y = Something.x;

in java should set y to NULL because y is NULL.

>Really ? From stddef.h:
> #define NULL 0

Of course my code above is an abstraction because in fact a place in memory always has a certain value stored inside. Maybe we see things different because i work mostly with languages where variable states NULL, UNDEFINED, NEGATIVE_INFINITE, POSITIVE_INFINITE are pretty normal even when they do not exist in memory and are defined trough special values or whatever.

I like this level of abstraction pretty much because it makes code cleaner (from my pov of course).
So i see NULL as a result of a variable reading output of a uninitialized variable and 0 as a value in an initialized variable.

> Please do not confuse position in array with amount of elements in it.

Did I?

There is a slight but *very* relevant difference between your "When you point your finger _to_ the first CD" and "Then you point your finger _to the top_ of the stack [...] Then you move it _one cd_ down".
That is: In my "model" you never point _to_ a cd, but on the position _between_ two cds. This is because when you also can point your finger to 0.5, 0.3 or 0.9 cds (some of your _to_s) then 1.0 cds is clearly at the bottom of the first cd box and at the top of the secons.
So for the 0 your finger is on the top of the first cd.

So you count the way that when your finger passes 1.0 you can say "1 cd".

But whatever... i lost the plot... ;)

By the way: I like to think in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_numbers

Re:Can you tell he's a programmer?

[maxpublic]

yet another set of brown people that Americans generally confuse with Arabs (and consequently irrationally hate).

And yet another socialist scumbag painting every American with his bigoted brush.

Max

Re:Can you tell he's a programmer?

[True Grit]

Of course it is fashionable to believe the worst of alot of people you have never met, especially if they live in a certain country.

Hate to break it to ya' Eightball, but I've met real Americans whose answer to Eric's statement would be "Damn straight!", and mean it. And yes, I'm an American.

Re:Can you tell he's a programmer?

[elrous0]

I've met real Americans whose answer to Eric's statement would be "Damn straight!"

I have literally heard the statement "If the King James version of the Bible was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!" made seriously by a minister in front of his congregation. And the scary part was, the congregation clapped.

And so ends my "and that was the last time I set foot in a Southern Baptist church" story. People who've never lived in the South think I'm joking when I tell it.

-Eric

Re:Can you tell he's a programmer?

[eightball]

Which is why I said more than the tiniest mote of truth. That is where I essentially said, yes there are probably small numbers of people who might believe it, but hardly enough to say anything significant about the culture.
To give a counter/similar example: I may be able to find some number of Germans who look back at the third reich with nostalgia, however I don't think that says anything significant about German people in general. Given a group of people you are always going to find a handful of nutbars.

Pay the Toll

[rodgster]

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.

Re:Pay the Toll

[FireFury03]

Wow, RMS was rather lucid in this interview.

I think he started showing his insanity when he suggested that everyone should boycott any hardware with closed specs such as nVidia chips.... I guess he'll be going back to working on a PDP-11 then coz there's no way in hell he'll find a modern computer which has published specs for all it's hardware. It's a nice idea in theory, but really (at the moment) there is no option but to accept a certain amount of closed hardware.

Re:Pay the Toll

[16K Ram Pack]

That's idiocy. Millions of businesses run apps they've built themselves or bought/downloaded from elsewhere.

If Microsoft introduced something that meant I couldn't compile my own apps or buy/download from small vendors, they'd see an even greater flight to Linux.

Re:Pay the Toll

[John Nowak]

He didn't say to avoid ALL closed hardware -- Just nVidia specifically, because it is such a crucial component which can be very difficult to support.

Re:Pay the Toll

[FireFury03]

He didn't say to avoid ALL closed hardware -- Just nVidia specifically, because it is such a crucial component which can be very difficult to support.

When calling for a boycott of a company because of their business practices, it seems somewhat wrong to only boycott that one company and say it's ok to buy from other people who have exactly the same business practices.

There isn't a huge amount of choice amoungst half-decent graphics hardware, and whilest nVidia don't open their specs they _are_ some of the easier devices to get working because their binary drivers are quite reasonable - it seems more worthwhile to target hardware manufacturers in markets where there is more choice in the first place - I can think of a few good examples in the 802.11 sector for one.

Re:Pay the Toll

[linefeed0]

Actually their binary drivers are really crashy historically. There was this bug in all of the 3xxx releases, and most releases through the 4xxx could lock up when X was trying to do certain things (large copies from offscreen seemed to do the trick). I don't even know if the latter was ever fixed because I switched from my old tnt2 to an ATI r200-based card with open-source drivers.

Re:Pay the Toll

[linefeed0]

I should also mention that I've heard from the horse's mouth (a Microsoft engineer that spoke to my operating systems class in college) that MS knows third-party drivers cause most of their kernel crashes (at least in 2000/XP). If Linux is made by hardware vendors to rely on binary drivers, where exactly does that leave its stability advantage?

Also, yeah, that link is wrong in the above comment, it was a bug with the same symptoms but nvidia-caused, not an s/390 specific bug. Unfortunately I can't find a message discussing it on lkml because nvidia had it quietly fixed without ever admitting it was there.

Re:Pay the Toll

[sstidman]

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.

Well, no, I don't think paying the Microsoft tax is the heart of the issue. If we were all forced to pay the MS tax one time before we could use our new hardware to our hearts content, that would really suck but would not be nearly as bad as the situation some corporations are trying to create - where you can't use your computer freely at all, legally anyway.

Re:Pay the Toll

[Shakrai]

I should also mention that I've heard from the horse's mouth (a Microsoft engineer that spoke to my operating systems class in college) that MS knows third-party drivers cause most of their kernel crashes (at least in 2000/XP). If Linux is made by hardware vendors to rely on binary drivers, where exactly does that leave its stability advantage?

Actually this is a very important point that I hope doesn't get overlooked in this discussion. Even going back to Win95/98 I think the lions share of the stability issues could legitimately be blamed on hardware drivers. Who here doesn't remember the lovely "house of PCI cards" effect with Win95?

So if Linux starts relying on vendor supplied binary drivers then how would the community protect the stability and security of the OS? What would the Linux version of Microsoft's signed/certified drivers be?

Re:Pay the Toll

[BokLM]

So if Linux starts relying on vendor supplied binary drivers then how would the community protect the stability and security of the OS? What would the Linux version of Microsoft's signed/certified drivers be?
That would be NO binary drivers. You use binary drivers at your own risks.

Re:Pay the Toll

[FireFury03]

Actually their binary drivers are really crashy historically

I'm aware of the problems with the nVidia drivers (I've been waiting on them fixing a bug with interlaced modes for about 2 years), but there's not a lot of hardware choice if you want good performance 3D, and nVidia chipsets are one of the few that do happen to work under Linux. Buggy support is better than no support.

Re:Pay the Toll

[Peter La Casse]

Wow, RMS was rather lucid in this interview. I'm impressed.

RMS interviews often impress me. Even in the areas where I disagree with him, RMS is consistent, backing up his opinions with well-reasoned arguments. In this interview, I was especially impressed when he said "I need to think about that a bit more before giving a final answer." We need more thinking-before-speaking.

Re:Pay the Toll

[Shakrai]

That would be NO binary drivers. You use binary drivers at your own risks.

Then I guess I can wait until that brand spanking new video card is obsolete before I can use it in X, because it'll take that long to reverse engineer it and write drivers that can do half the stuff the vendor supplied drivers can.

Let's be real. We all can't take that stand of principal and lock ourself out of a lot of options. Kudos to those who can but "use them at your own risk" is not a good enough answer for most people.

Re:Pay the Toll

[BokLM]

You can't find anything about it on lkml because no one care about it, it's their problem. No one wants to waste time debugging a binary module for which you don't have the sources.

Re:Pay the Toll

[FireFury03]

If Linux is made by hardware vendors to rely on binary drivers, where exactly does that leave its stability advantage?

I think I need to clarify my point: binary drivers are a Bad Thing (it's debatable whether they're better/worse than _no_ drivers, but I'll leave that discussion for now). My point was that if you're boycotting a manufacturer because you disagree with their business practices then why should it just be that one manufacturer - surely you have the same problem with other manufacturers employing the same business practices?

And if you are going to boycott a single manufacturer it might make more sense to do it in an area of the market where there's more choice between closed drivers and open drivers rather than aiming for a market where there aren't many open devices to use _instead_ of the device you're boycotting.

Another problem is manufacturers removing perfectly good well-supported devices from the market (whether they are supported through openness or reverse engineering) and replacing them with closed devices for cost reasons - it seems very difficult to put pressure on the manufacturers to keep making the old devices. A good example of this is Intersil stopping manufacture of the well supported Prism GT 802.11g chipset and replacing it with the Prism Javalin (softmac) chipset which isn't supported at all. Reverse engineering hardware is a lot of work and it's wasted if the hardware you reverse engineered is obsolete by the time you've got a working driver. (It should be noted that the hardware I'm talking about isn't obsolete because it lacked functionality, it's obsolete because the manufacturer invented something marginally cheaper).

Re:Pay the Toll

[cowbutt]

When calling for a boycott of a company because of their business practices, it seems somewhat wrong to only boycott that one company and say it's ok to buy from other people who have exactly the same business practices.

Not really; if a boycott can get nVidia to change their policies and behaviour, it would set an example to many other companies, because nVidia is viewed, rightly or wrongly, as something of a leader. Certainly, they were one of the first hardware manufacturers to go down the binary-only-driver route for Linux. It can be interpreted that ATI's recent actions in also going binary-only (rather than their previous policy of providing useful documentation to the XFree/Xorg project) are simply following nVidia's lead.

Re:Pay the Toll

[BokLM]

Then I guess I can wait until that brand spanking new video card is obsolete before I can use it in X, because it'll take that long to reverse engineer it and write drivers that can do half the stuff the vendor supplied drivers can.

Let's be real. We all can't take that stand of principal and lock ourself out of a lot of options. Kudos to those who can but "use them at your own risk" is not a good enough answer for most people.

Then the answer is : stop buying shit ! If the vendor doesn't want to give the specs for the things YOU BUY, then don't buy it.

Re:Pay the Toll

[arose]

You should listen to some of his speeches, he's very convincing if you're not fixated on appearance.

Re:Pay the Toll

[CoderBob]

I agree with your sentiment, but I think the point RMS is making is that every computer needs a graphics chip of some form to drive the display, and that nVidia is a major player. 802.11 is a wireless spec and not necessary in the sense that graphics chips are. Most people could get away with a regular 10/100 NIC, and the wireless is just a convenience.

Granted, I love my wireless, but not having wireless wouldn't stop me from using the computer. Having no display adapter would.

Re:Pay the Toll

[ultranova]

I should also mention that I've heard from the horse's mouth (a Microsoft engineer that spoke to my operating systems class in college) that MS knows third-party drivers cause most of their kernel crashes (at least in 2000/XP).

How, exactly speaking, is it "hearing from horses mouth" that a Microsoft engineer says that most of Windows's problems are actually some third parties fault ?

"It wasn't my fault, it was that other guys fault ! And you can trust it to be true, since I said it was !"

Re:Pay the Toll

[ultranova]

Granted, I love my wireless, but not having wireless wouldn't stop me from using the computer. Having no display adapter would.

Use textmode and hack Mesa to output ASCII art ;).

Re:Pay the Toll

[Blakey Rat]

Uh, what video card are Linux users supposed to be using? Matrox?

Re:Pay the Toll

[John Nowak]

Hey, don't ask me man, ask RMS, I own a Powerbook!

Re:Pay the Toll

[msaavedra]

He didn't say to avoid ALL closed hardware -- Just nVidia specifically

This is a topic of great interest to me, because I hate proprietary drivers but also want a decent video card to use in linux. I refuse to buy nVidia cards, but what other modern options are there? Stallman mentioned that there is a video card company that releases their specs, but I don't know which one he's talking about. Maybe his information is outdated. I have a Matrox g400 in one system and an ATI Radeon 9250 in another, and both of these have good Free drivers. Neither of these is exactly a speed demon, but it seems Matrox and ATI have both kept their specs hidden in subsequent releases. Does anyone know the best video card with usable Free drivers?

Re:Pay the Toll

[True Grit]

Does anyone know the best video card with usable Free drivers?

For 3D hardware acceleration, the answer is *no one*. Contrary to popular belief, the 3D acceleration component of ATI's cards has never been "Free", i.e. no internal specs or driver source code on their 3D hardware engine, just as with Nvidia. *No* company with competitive 3D acceleration hardware has opened up their specs. For 2D there are older cards, some from Matrox, that have their specs open, but they're really open only because they're so old and obsolete (no 3D).

Until the graphics market ends up defining some standard interface to a video card's features, and the technology race stabilizes enough to allow the card makers to put most of the driver intelligence on the card rather than in a software-based driver, I don't see any opening up of the video cards in the near future. Too much of their card's hardware internals can be seen from the driver source, and they don't want their competitors to see that.

Re:Pay the Toll

[True Grit]

If we were all forced to pay the MS tax one time

I'm not sure if I understand you. With "trusted computing", your computer is only trusted if its running (proprietary) Windows, so for everyone wanting to use Linux/BSD this is far worse than having to pay for Windows when you buy your machine even if you never use it. If Microsoft's idea of TC were mandated, it would make all open source operating systems unusable, never mind the issue of open source applications on Windows.

mod parent down, absuing "Read the rest..." system

[John Nowak]

The subject says it all really...

Re:I've actually met him.

[MikeCapone]

I don't know if this long anon post contains true things or not, but I have to admit that it was an interesting read.

Liberals

[maggard]

For those puzzled, RMS's Liberal comment is in reference to Canada's Liberal party.

Re:Liberals

[Bazzalisk]

To be honest in the current political climate it would be hard to find someone in Europe who wouldn't be considered liberal in the USA - the current US polirtics make Genghis Khan's wealth redistribution policies look positively progressive - and Mussolini would be considered practicaly a commie!

Re:Liberals

[LizardKing]

For those puzzled, RMS's Liberal comment is in reference to Canada's Liberal party.

Whoever transcribed the interview, or RMS himself if the interview was conducted via email, should have written "liberal" with a small "l". In political writing a capitalised word like Liberal indicates a party, while the lowercase form indicates a theory or dogma. For example, Conservative would imply the political party when speaking about UK politics, whereas conservative would imply the political theory. Exceptions include political theories such as Marxism, which are named after an individual and should of course be capitalised.

Re:Liberals

[eraserewind]

Why the smiley? They ARE a right wing party. Have been for 10 years or however long.

Re:Liberals

[iworm]

Marxism should be capitalised? Nationalised, surely...?

Re:Liberals

[Markus_UW]

Aye, it's like that in Canada too, our Tories (conservatives) are way lefter than the entire US political spectrum. It sounds like from what he's talking about, he almost wants the word Libertarian, though... you know, with the whole "the government should stay the hell out of business" thing... P.S. I hate Canada's Liberal Party... Grr...

Re:Liberals

[gvibes]

Liberal has pretty much been equivalent to our current concept of libertarian for much of history. See, e.g. Hayek's tome on "liberalism," The Road to Serfdom.

Re:Liberals

[RevAaron]

Yes, generally you would capitalist Marxism. You would not capitalize (I write "capitalist" first, heh) socialism, anarchism, libertarian, communism, etc, unless if was in reference to a specific party. While I made this mistake in a post in this thread, another great (and contentious) example is Randism, the minarchist capitalist ideal of the followers of Ayn Rand.

Re:Liberals

[RevAaron]

I'll admit to being somewhat puzzled... Not because I didn't know he was refering to Canada's Liberal party, but I guess I don't know the difference. The Liberal party seems to be close enough to the Democrats in the US, but evidentally that's not the case? Or rather, RMS, like many liberals, doesn't really feel that the Democrats represent him either. Maybe that's the point, in a sneaky way, but I doubt it. Insight?

Re:Liberals

[RevAaron]

I quit.

Funny comment, I suck. Thank you for playing, and have a great day!

Though, there are plenty of Marxists out there who don't believe in a nationalized economy, at least not in the sense that the state owns everything... but still, your comment ruled. when I figured it out... ;P

Re:Liberals

[ceoyoyo]

And in general English writing for that matter. Proper nouns are capitalized (Marx, Liberal Party of Canada) while other words are not (liberal philosophy, socialist economic system).

I suspect RMS really did mean "liberal" though, and not "Liberal Party." He's alluding to the fact that a liberal in the US would probably qualify as a pretty extreme right wing viewpoint in Canada. Canadian liberals are usually considered evil socialists in the US.

As RMS says, he's an American liberal -- he's against fascism (an extreme rigth wing political system). To be a Canadian liberal he'd have to believe in things like health care for everybody and feeding poor people. Although our Liberals are too busy buying votes and paying off their business cronies to do much of that these days.

Re:I've actually met him.

[TubeSteak]

I think it's a fairly obvious troll
The first result is from encyclopediadramatica.com
http://www.google.com/search?q=RMS+has+a+phobia+of +water

Good Article but...

[Gr1mm-R34p3r]

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).

Re:Good Article but...

[mqduck]

You're basically right, but saying that fascism is a hyper-repressive form of capitalism is a much better summary than alot of people know. And I would say that Bush truely is a fascist, but that of course doesn't make the nation so. The thing is, there's no clear dividing line between fascism and "regular" capitalism.

Re:Good Article but...

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

"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."

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

""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."
-- American Heritage Dictionary

Even though there are no clear definition of Fascism there is definititly clear that corporatism - the merging of big business and the state - are part of Fascism.

US today are leaning more and more towards fascism. Not many likes it - but its the sad truth.

Re:Good Article but...

[ozmanjusri]

Fascism has little to nothing to do with business

Fascism and corporatism are closely linked.

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.

So cut out all that drama queen eye rolling, and quit supporting Bush. He's a fascist.

Re:Good Article but...

[Fred_A]

Umberto Ecco's list is a good starting point as well.

Fits well with a disturbing number of current western regimes...

Re:Good Article but...

[tetromino]

Nah, the US is not fascist.

First, because it is still a democracy (although Diebold is doing its best to undermine that). And second, because there is no systematic merger of business and government -- rather, certain businesses (RIAA, MPAA, oil, defense, etc) are one of the several special interest groups that the government pays too much attention to. Trial lawyers are another such group. So are fundamentalist Christians. So are mothers who want you to "think of the children". So are the gun-loving folks. So are the anti- and pro-abortion activists. So are the farmers. None of them has a monopoly on government attention - yet.

What you see with Halliburton and Enron is good old-fashioned cronyism and corruption. It's nowhere near the type of horror that most countries in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East went through sometime in the past 50 years.

Re:Good Article but...

[Thundertje]

Your definition of corporatism is incorrect, corporatism propagates that government takes in consideration the position and wishes of interests groups. And that's not just Big Business, it also includes unions, civilrightgroups, small business et cetera.

There's the difference between formal corporatism as it is in my country (The Netherlands) with special councils/commissions were representatives of interest groups take seat, it's in the constitution IIRC.
And then there's informal corporatism, where the less organised interest groups are powerless against big organised organisations like corporations, like the US.

Re:Good Article but...

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

My definition is more the original meaning. What you are talking about are neo-corporatism which is alive and kicking in Netherlands and my own country Sweden.

""neo-corporatism" refers to social arrangements dominated by tri-partite bargaining between unions, the private sector (capital), and government. Such bargaining is oriented toward (a) dividing the productivity gains created in the economy "fairly" among the social partners and (b) gaining wage restraint in recessionary or inflationary periods."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

For example Sweden has no minimun wage. Instead the unions and the corporations have agreements as what they see as reasonable wages for labor. As soon as one employee are part
of the unions in a corporation they have to abide by those agreements for all employees. The different egreement in the different business sectors thus controls the minimum wage within that sector.

What I am talking about is corporatism when the goverment are so dependent on certain business that they give them large input in how the legislation is done - basically witout letting the opposing side have any input in the matter.

Re:Good Article but...

[node 3]

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.

Absolutely false. What you've described is, in fact, the definition of Fascism.

"Fascism should more properly be called Corporatism, because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
-- Benito Mussolini

Although the term "Fascism" is commonly met with revulsion, the ideals of Fascism are alive and well. In fact, there are people who openly support Fascism, whether they accept the title of Fascist or not.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
-- Sinclair Lewis (1935)

Vice President Henry A. Wallace warned quite often of the dangers of Fascism in America.

"With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."
-- US Vice President Henry A. Wallace

He also defined it in the classical, Mussolini sense:

"If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are enthusiastically supporting the war effort."

-- US Vice President Henry A. Wallace, "The Danger of American Fascism," New York Times, 1944.

Re:Good Article but...

[gallir]

> And second, because there is no systematic merger of business and government

Lol, lol, freaking lol, funny, moderate my parent up: +1000 Funny.

Re:Good Article but...

[mcvos]

You're basically right, but saying that fascism is a hyper-repressive form of capitalism is a much better summary than alot of people know.

Not really. Fascism is pretty orthogonal to capitalism. Stalinism was also a form a fascism (and some people consider it a better example of it than nazism). Fascism is first and foremost about a Great Leader (Bush isn't exactly a great leader, although some like to see him that way). Then the inner circle that's still above the law (that would probably be his gang of advisors and supporters who helped him into office and have been rewarded by him with various important functions that they're really not all that suitable for, or with big benefits for their companies). After that, the government, and its need to control society (homeland security anyone?). Then there is the nation itself, and its obvious importance above all other nations in the world, its destiny as leader of blah. You get the idea.

So has Bush turned the US into a fascist state? Not really -- not completely, at least -- but it certainly has some tendencies in that direction. Capitalism has nothing to do with it, however. It's just that much of his inner circle comes from a Big Oil background or other big corporations.

Re:Good Article but...

[MadMartigan2001]

"it is a centralized economy that still retains private property and freedom of commerce."

Hmm, Myabe it's just me, but that sentence just does not add up. How can you have freedom of commerce in a centralized economy?

Seems to me that a qualifier is needed. ie,

freedom of commerce within the confines of acceptable activity as defined by the facist regime

However, that pretty much throws any real freedom out the door.

Re:Good Article but...

[sstidman]

What's with the constant ad hominem attacks on Slashdot? If you disagree, then fine, please give some supporting facts and debate the issue. We might all be able to learn something from you. But just ridiculing someone ... how is that an "insightful" argument? What has happened to the Slashdot moderation system?

Re:Good Article but...

[smchris]

To call it such is at the least a bit ignorant.

Does anyone care? Probably not, but I have to try.

Me too. You don't need extermination camps to be fascist. The issue was perhaps most recently arguing in the question of labeling apartheid South Africa fascist.

I quote from Ebenstein, Today's Isms, 5th ed, p. 115 (because I'm old and I took PoliSc 101 a long time ago):

"[T]he principle elements of the fascist outlook:

(1) Distrust of reason
(2) Denial of basic human equality
(3) Code of behavior based on lies and violence
(4) Government by elite
(5) Totalitarianism
(6) Racialism and imperialism
(7) Opposition to international law and order"

Discuss and contrast

Re:Good Article but...

[Maljin Jolt]

Franklin Roosevelt's words of November 4, 1938, are worth recalling: "If American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land." Freedom and liberation are an unending task.

Umberto Eco (c) 1995

Re:Good Article but...

[clear_thought_05]

Lol, lol, freaking lol, funny, moderate my parent up: +1000 Funny.

How is this insightful?

Re:Good Article but...

[16K Ram Pack]

Go on, what the citation for that Mussolini quote? Like, the year it was said, or the pamphlet it was written in?

English or Italian will suffice.

Re:Good Article but...

[plebeian]

To play the devils advocate... One could count the DOD as an organization that has a monopoly on government attention. Especially now that it has been authorized to spy upon American Citizens. Politicians seam incredibly unwilling to question the defense department.... I wonder why?

Re:Good Article but...

[carbomb46]

Yes, Bush leans right towards fascism, but during the Clinton administration, people were talking about America turning into a communist country. America is a two (or more) party system, it's the balance between the left and the right that is important.

Re:Good Article but...

[EvilNight]

I'm in agreement, but I'd like to point out something I think is rather important.

Fascism as we have seen it in the past is not likely to recur. We're all familiar with it, and after WWII it isn't likely to be tolerated when it appears. What is likely to happen, however, is the emergence of a different (modern, if you like) form of fascism that is not immediately recognizable as such. I don't think this has happened yet, but it is certainly a possibility.

I do think that the current political and economic climate in the USA has become more closed and dogmatic lately, which is not a good sign. I don't suppose it's any worse than the kinds of things that were happening when Nixon was in office, so calling it fascist is probably premature. It does bear watching closely, however.

Check up on how Germany became fascist sometime. The chain of events that led them into fascism is not all that dissimilar from some of our own social and political movements. We're just lucky enough to have an environment that is less tolerant of them, for now at least. Most Germans certainly weren't fascists... they simply allowed it to happen. That's the mistake we can't afford to repeat.

Eternal vigilance, and all that...

Re:Good Article but...

[s20451]

It's not just Slashdot. Just look at any political blog on the left or right -- there is no debate, just constant character assassination and sarcastic comments.

Rhetoric is dead; the Internet killed it.

Re:Good Article but...

[s20451]

The power in the word "fascist" is that it is strongly associated with the brutal national socialist regimes in Germany and Italy.

But what you're saying is that most people are fascists if the definition is suitably relaxed. Similarly, you might read a medical textbook and recognize that you are suffering from "symptoms" of various disorders. It is not impossible to meet some of the criteria of being a "fascist" and still support constitutional rights, which are they keys to democratic government.

Re:Good Article but...

[sstidman]

It's not just Slashdot. Just look at any political blog on the left or right -- there is no debate, just constant character assassination and sarcastic comments.

Sigh...I wish I could disagree with you, but if I did I would be wrong. It really is very sad. Oddly enough, many of the folks who seem unable to avoid these character assassinations are frequently intelligent people, they just get so emotionally overcharged and have such little self-control that they refuse to see any truth in the arguments of their opponents. Very sad, especially their lack of the ability to admit fault.

Re:Good Article but...

[Shakrai]

And I would say that Bush truely is a fascist,

As much as I hate the man that comment is really stupid. Bush is a fascist? Bush has never stepped one foot outside of public opinion. Witness his "have it both ways" stances on stem cell research, the Dept. of Homeland Security that he initially opposed, campaign finance reform, etc, etc. It's hard to call him a fascist when he hasn't issued a single veto and when everything is run by the political wing. Fascists don't really care what public opinion thinks.

Re:Good Article but...

[deKernel]

First off, the DOD is a government agency so it does not fall under the same definition. If you don't understand why, I don't think I have the skills to better describe it to you.

Second, the "spying" has always been done in times of war. Don't believe me, check the facts during the WWII. You might want check out what the previous administration constituted. They were fully documented as spying on internal calls were the NSA is only tapping calls from certain regions of the world coming into the US.

Re:Good Article but...

[justins]

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.

Uh... haven't you spent two paragraphs describing the same thing? I'm not being facetious: you really haven't presented much of a contrast. "Permanent war economy" would be a fine subtitle for all those snazzy CNN and Fox graphics about the "War Against Terror".

Re:Good Article but...

[MrCopilot]

Dude,I'm blown away by your arguement.

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.

Your definition is reasonable, (quick check, yeah close enough.) Now reread that paragraph, Sounds like "US" to me. And Yet after typin those words you write

The US and other countries today are not fascist nor resemble anything like a fascist nation.

Hunh?

To call it such is at the least a bit ignorant.

I'll agree it may be open to interpretation, but RMS is far from ignorant to suggest that the F-word interpretation is valid. He is not alone and the facts and figures of life (especially that bit about permanent war economy) support his view.

I'll have some ridiculous replies accusing me of being a Bush supporter (hardly).

No actually most people go through stages, kinda like the stages of grief. You can start at any stage but we all end up at the same place. Amazed at the competence involved in acquiring wealth at the same time bewildered by the total ineptitude of actual governing a country.

These guys have very clear ideas of how they wanted to change the government. Wouldn't it be nice if there were some of those guys on the left.

Re:Good Article but...

[justins]

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism [wikipedia.org]

Oooooh, I'm convinced. Ha.

Re:Good Article but...

[MrCopilot]

Ding, We have a winner.

And the winner in "Proving conclusively the U.S. is in fact facist"

.,.,..,.smchris (464899)

Nice work. I don't feel so well.

Re:Good Article but...

[arose]

Someone should add modern images to the soundtrack of this short, it would be quite scary.

Re:Good Article but...

[bogado]

This post is not a rant, it contains my personal points of view of the electoral process in the USA. I do not know every detail and I may be mistaken, I am not afraid of being wrong and you people can and I would thank if you do point out my errors. All this is based on my knowledge obtained throght the midia and other sources (including slashdot and other blogs on the net).

"First, because it is still a democracy"

It is? Are you sure? Do you vote for your president? I mean directly, not for a commission to vote for you. Do you have a easy mean to anyone to run for president? Will the media give you a fair way of reaching your potential voters if you're not from the two main parties?

The last I heard, I may be wrong here, to be able to run for president in the US you have to be able to convince each of the states that you are indeed a candidate. This alone requires an incredible amount of resources and successfully eliminates many of the "third parties".

If it wasn't hard to be able to become a candidate, the electoral process is intrinsically complicated and made from the ground up to stimulate people not to vote. Also the media in the US don't pay much or even any attention to candidates that do not come from the "holly duo" parties.

Also in the end people don't even vote directly, each state has a number of representatives that vote for you. There were a few cases where the president were not chosen by a majority, including Bush if I am not mistaken.

A real democracy is where the people can stir the government, it is as real as an utopia. But there a lot of things that the US can do if they want to be the "democracy champion" and push "democracy" down of everyone throats. For instance Brazil, it has a single and simple way of voting that is unique and electronic (as of now it is not open source, but we have little reasons to doubt it). Everyone in the country has to vote, I do not agree with this aspect, but it does make voting accessible to the poorest and even to illiterate people. There are hundreds of parties, a few of them are more widely known, and in every election there at least three of them that have a chance of wining. There was even one instance where a first-timer won the election (it proved to be a mistake and he was a free rider and was impeached shortly after with a great popular movement).

Well I am sure someone will think this is a "troll", but I am assure that this is not anti-American. I am not my self anti-American or anti-nothing. I believe that every nation has a lot of bad and a lot of good, and there is no "good" or "evil" in terms of nations. many Americans are already complaining about all the bad that is happening there, I just wished they had more voice.

Re:Good Article but...

[quanticle]

Hmm, Myabe it's just me, but that sentence just does not add up. How can you have freedom of commerce in a centralized economy?

The way I've always read it is as such: while communism outlaws private enterprise, fascism seeks to take over the portions of the economy that are considered "vital to the state" while allowing private enterprise to fill in any gaps not covered by state production. In practice this means that the government will take over most of the large industrial producers and convert them to war production, and leave scraps for consumer goods.

Re:Good Article but...

[mandoman23]

> Has anyone heard the expression "Liberalism is facism with velvet gloves"?

Re:Good Article but...

[Anonymous Coward]

America in the 21st century is lucky enough to have 20th century Germany as an illustrative example. The current admistration carefully works the PR to avoid comparisons, plus the widespread parroting of inane cliches such as Gowdin's 'law' prevent people from closely examining uncomfortable parallels. Extra-legal camps for political enemies, domestic surveillance without legal process (and incredibly, the 'leader' insisting it as his right!), absolving major corporations of convicted crimes, foreign wars of aggression with little, no or constantly shifting justification, a media which clamours to repeat government-distributed talking points almost verbatim, you're a lot closer than you think. The difference is half a century's experience in effective marketing and PR.

Re:Good Article but...

[ak3ldama]

someone mod parent up

Re:Good Article but...

[Shihar]

Check up on how Germany became fascist sometime. The chain of events that led them into fascism is not all that dissimilar from some of our own social and political movements. We're just lucky enough to have an environment that is less tolerant of them, for now at least. Most Germans certainly weren't fascists... they simply allowed it to happen. That's the mistake we can't afford to repeat.

I agree, check up on how Germany became fascist some time and realize that the US could never go down that road. The US constitution is far too strong to allow any sort of true fascism to creep up. You couldn't give a president dictatorial powers even if 70% of the nation wanted to. In order to change the constitution, it takes a super majority of the population to agree to any such changes. Amending the constitution is damn hard and the only way to significantly change the governing structure of the US.

If you tried to legally bring about some fascist state, you would then need to get past the hundreds of NGOs that do nothing but obsesses over civil and political liberties. Further, you need to deal with the fact that American culture is deeply rooted in certain ideals in freedom and have the power to remove any government every four years. Not only would you have to amend the constitution, but you would have to remove sections of it are so deeply rooted in American culture that the idea that they could ever be removed is laughable. The poor dumb bastard that suggests changing any amendment in the bill of rights is going to be lynched.

Trying to achieve a fascist state illegally (IE, not amending the constitution) is utterly impossible. The secret service would turn on any president that tried to stay past his term. If the secret service didn't do it, the police would. If the police didn't, the people would. If the people didn't, the military would. People don't understand how key the US military is to preserving the US democracy. The US military is built from the ground up to follow the constitution first and foremost. Hell, during the Katrina disaster the US military refused to enter the city and provide order despite the begging of the mayor because it is forbidden by the constitution.

All this also utterly ignores the fact that the number of immigrants obtaining citizenship in the US is orders of magnitudes higher then many parts of Europe. An immigration bill is trying to be kicked through to set up to increase border security to reduce illegal immigration. It almost failed because a large minority wanted to add a measure that would legalize the status of many current illegal immigrants. That is not the actions of a fascist state in the making.

People. Yes yes, we all hate Bush. Don't worry as he is on his way out. Take a breather. He isn't a fascist, and fascism isn't at hand. The nation is not descending into any shape or form of fascism. The civil and political liberties that US citizens have blow most nations out of the water. The tolerance that US has for immigration puts most of Europe to shame. The US is one of the oldest democracies in the world and isn't going anywhere. At worst, it will elect a moderate Republican to office next election. No, that isn't fascism, it is just irritating. I am not saying current policies are good, but calling them fascist is like calling a proposal to raise spending on social security communist. It is stupid.

Re:Good Article but...

[jedidiah]

Except there has been NO declaration of war, or other genuine declaration of hostilities that also imply a possible end condition. This isn't just a problem with the "war on terror", there are also no defined criteria that would indicate when we should withdraw from Afghanistan or Iraq.

          A state of war ends.

          Otherwise it's just dressed up fascism.

Re:Good Article but...

[Doctor Faustus]

The poor dumb bastard that suggests changing any amendment in the bill of rights is going to be lynched.
Flag burning amendment?

Also, repealing the second amendment isn't in favor, but it isn't the sort of thing that gets you laughed at, either.

Re:Good Article but...

[jedidiah]

No, what he's stumbled upon is the reason that fascism can get traction.

Lots of stupid short sighted people make decisions that they percieve to be self-enriching. The end result is that a few people at the top of the pyramid end up benefiting from those little decisions far more than everyone else. Eventually, those at the top can eventually start ignoring "the little guy" altogether and take power.

Most people aren't fascists as such, but they are willing pawns.

It's the prisoners dillema on a grand scale.

Re:Good Article but...

[zardo]

Damn, you sound so convinced, next thing you know they'll be calling Bush Hitler. Wait, they're* already doing that.

(rolls eyes)

* liberals

Re:Good Article but...

[zardo]

Personally I don't see the relevance of this discussion. Fascism was invented by Mussolini, he coined a term for his style of governance, while you could really assign any number of labels to his his WW1 government, Fascism has earned a bad rep because it was adopted by Hitler and the nazi's.

So instead of calling America what it is, corporatized (like most other western nations including most of Europe) or Nationalist (because after all, we really ARE #1), you want to associate George W. Bush with Hitler, flag him as a liar, and stick all sorts of corruption to him and the GOP, nevermind that the media is distinctly aligned AGAINST him making it impossible for him to be a dictator.

By your own definition, the DNC could even more accurately fit the bill. It's less of a stretch to pin the communist label onto the DNC, in my opinion, with all their support for public services, retirement and health care, and their desire for authoritarian rule over corporations for environmental and social stratification, redistribution of wealth. Fascism and Communism have a lot in common, although Communism is often associated with Stalin, Hitler operated much the same as Stalin.

Although once again, I personally see this as completely irrelevant. Whatever fascism meant to mussolini probably has very little relevance in today's world. It's all about the global marketplace, power comes in the form of technology and production these days, not military power (although the two often go hand in hand, history has shown that even the most high-tech economy can't always win battles). If you know anything at all you aught to know how the world economy operates. Corporate subsidies going to Airbus and Boeing are huge, and then there is the fine line between corporate subsidies and government contractors (or maybe not so fine?????). The auto makers in Japan wouldn't have been able to get off the ground in America if it weren't for corporate subsidies (and American auto makers wouldn't be able to STAY on the ground if it weren't for them). The Mitsubishi corporation built the Japanese fighter planes during WW2, these days it builds everything and provides a good living for hundreds of thousands of Japanese people.

The plus and minuses of corporatism are debatable, but there is no denying the fact that every country in the world participates in corporate subsidies. Everybody aught to feel a bit of pride in their own country. Does that make them all fascist? I guess so!

So lets here it from you Node3, your quotations describe just about every modern country in the world, no?

Re:Good Article but...

[doc modulo]

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.

Let's ask someone who created a fascist government shall we?

Mr. Mussolini, how do you define fascism?

  "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

Re:Good Article but...

[al912912]

""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." -- American Heritage Dictionary

Even though there are no clear definition of Fascism there is definititly clear that corporatism - the merging of big business and the state - are part of Fascism.

Well no. As you can see from your definition fascism IS a system of gvernment that excercises a dictatorship of the extreme right.. that's fascism. The other stuff is just stuff TYPICAL in fascist contries, but the same word typical states it as not necessary. So, that means we could have a fascist country without corporatism and, therefore, it is not an integral part of fascism, although it is TYPICALLY brought along with the movement.

On the other hand, I have been reading people stating that the world is shifting towards fascism, but in reality left wing parties are winning elections all throughout Latin America and Europe, which has always had a good amount of socialism in many countries. Maybe the only big countries where a that can be seen as remarkably right wing are the US and Russia, but that can be easily equalled with China, UK and France.

Re:Good Article but...

[stinerman]

Only on /. can you get modded down for the truth.

Re:Good Article but...

[Hosiah]

Nah, the US is not fascist...First, blah, balh,...Second, blah, blah,...

"And even if we did have all of those things, it still wouldn't be a Fascism because you have to have a dictator named Mussolini. And even if we 'elected' a president named Mussolini, it still wouldn't be a Fascism because he'd wear brown leather boots and Mussolini was a black leather boot kinda guy. And even if President Mussolini WORE black leather boots, it still wouldn't be a Fascism because Mussolini's bootheels were 3.7689 centimeters thick and our President's bootheels would be only 3.7588 centimeters thick..."

Besides, bad things only happen in other countries - it says so right here in the Weekly World News. Now get your ass in the kitchen and get me a beer, dingbat!

Re:Good Article but...

[RevAaron]

No worries man, I'm with you. I consider myself to be on the libertarian radical left, but even I would say that the Bush Administration isn't fascist. The key feature a fascist regime is coercion of the population through force, the US (generally) lacks this. The bourgeois democracy exerts control primarily through propaganda. The US still has mostly free elections, more so than it did through a lot of its past.

Admitting that Bush isn't a fascist doesn't mean you believe in him. Maybe if I'm lucky some schmuck will tell *me* I'm a Bush supporter.

Re:Good Article but...

[Brandybuck]

You ought to do more than just post some definitions of fascism, you ought to READ them as well. You see, the US does not fit those definitions. Not even close. Individuals and groups are more powerful thant the "nation", no question about it. Our entire legal system from Constitution on down is based on it. There is no political control of the country, because the "losing" party still wields considerable power in the Congress and Senate. While we do have some economic corporatism, so does the rest of the world.

"Fascism" is a pejorative used by the left when they're too lazy to put forward a rational argument. That RMS used it is a sign he's lazy too, at least with regards to non-software issues.

Re:Good Article but...

[RevAaron]

The US was meant, from the beginning, to be a bourgeois democracy, rather than something closer to a true democracy. I think it was James Madison or Alexander Hamilton who said "those who own the country should rule it. That is what we have here now, and have had since the beginning. Even those who would usually balk at reading something from a self-described leftist should at least read the beginning of Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States," which for me fortunately or unfortuantely blew away all of my propagandistic ideas that the "founders" were libertarian idealists.

Re:Good Article but...

[Brandybuck]

Why does everyone keep quoting the Wikipedia definition? Why? Why? Why?

Not just one half hour ago, I was reading a post to the Jimmy Wales story, where a Wikipedia apologist said that it should not be considered a reliable source of information.

Re:Good Article but...

[RevAaron]

Don't worry man, I'm with you. Anyone else interested in the fascinating truth, check out "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." Sort of the defacto history on the subject.

Re:Good Article but...

[petrus4]

It's hard to call him a fascist when he hasn't issued a single veto

He didn't issue vetoes in the past because with DeLay as House majority leader, he didn't need to...everything he wanted went through. Now that DeLay has been removed, however, we may possibly see one or two at least.

Bush's cronyism is not robust. Having different people in the same manner as organs in a body works fine as long as said people are there. If they get removed for whatever reason however, that is essentially a part of the governmental machine which has been lost. The loss of DeLay has been a mortal wound for Bush politically, and it is not one I expect him to recover from.

Re:Good Article but...

[Dread_ed]

"dictatorial state that views the nation as superior to the individuals or groups composing it."

Your logic fails you and proves you false.

You state that Bush is a fascist, however, if the last condition were true things would progress differently.

Take gay-rights of all kinds, or the whims of the democratidc party. Bush feels that these things are detrimental to the nation. Yet he is powerless in many ways to prevent the advance of either agenda. A dictatorial state would not knuckle under to ideas from groups or individuals that it felt were contradictory to the health of the nation. The nation, being superior, could just order the incarceration or death of those who oppose it.

"Fascism and corporatism are closely linked"

This may be true, but corporatism and business are two different things. Since you are fond of quoting "authoratative sources" lets try Meriam Webster on "corporatism."

"the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising some control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction

While corporate interests are influential with the government, it is but one of many suitors. However corporatism is not present in the USA. When all the companies in the US are annexed by the US government then you can start complainig in this category. That is what corporatism means, BTW. It dosen't mean that corporations have influence with government. Nor does it talk about affinity between government and business, nor the presence of powerful corporations. It is the government control of corporations and the integration of society into a dual corporate structure. See the definition above. This is a far cry from your refutation of the previous poster. he invoked the word business...you amplified that innocent word into the concept of corporatism which is entirely different. Either you are being intillectually dishonest in your equation of these two things or you just dont know what the hell you are talking about. Either way you lose credibility.

As for strong nationalism...I think with the high degree of anti-American sentiment from the Americans on this very website you can see that it is not present.

If you think that all these characteristics are represented by the government, or even by Bush (flawed as he may be) you are severley deluded.

Or maybe you should look at some different sources for you definition of fascism. Meriam webster for instance...

political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

That seems to jibe with history and sensible peoples definition of what fascism is. It may not, however, provide support for your vitriolic and somewhat melodramatic political sentiments.

Re:Good Article but...

[benjamindees]

support constitutional rights, which are they keys to democratic government.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

Re:Good Article but...

[mqduck]

1) I meant that he's a fascist ideologically. Like I said, the government and nation aren't.

2) Fascists don't care about public opinion? Have you ever heard of a man named Joseph Goebbels?

Re:Good Article but...

[ceoyoyo]

I expect the good people of Germany, and of Europe in general, were rather confident in Germany's republican system prior to Hitler getting himself elected dictator too.

Realistically, that trick probably wouldn't work all that well in the US. But consider this. Realistically you have a choice between two parties. Yes, independants can run, but they rarely get more than a few percent of the vote. Why? It's expensive to run a campaign. The independents who do run tend to be either independently wealthy or supported by special organisations. However, they've demonstrated that they simply can't compete with candidates supported by the established parties, with corporate money.

So... you have a situation where realistically you need the support of corporate America to successfully be elected to high political office. Hm.

Just because there isn't a de facto dictator doesn't mean you've got a real democracy.

This isn't a problem unique to the US either. EVERY democracy seems to have this disease to a greater or lesser extent. Maybe it's because they didn't anticipate the development of marketing and TV.

My suggestion would be to eliminate any campaigning that costs money. No advertisements. You can go out door knock, but you've got to do it yourself. Rallys? Have to be in public areas, no refreshments. But how will we find out the candidate's platform, you say? Televised debates held by and paid for by the nation, giving equal, free, airtime, and the old fashioned way -- go to the rallys.

Re:Good Article but...

[maxpublic]

Fascism doesn't have to sprout from the extreme right of the political spectrum - that's nothing more than pseudo-liberal bullshit. Fascism only needs extremism, which is equally prevalent on both the right AND the left. I can imagine a fascist state based on extreme environmentalism just as easily as I can imagine a fascist state stemming from extreme fundamentalist religious roots.

Max

Re:Good Article but...

[ceoyoyo]

Hear you got modded down. For all the mods who are denial, the poster is correct. Germany was a democracy in the interwar period and Hitler was elected in democratic elections (elections with no unusual irregularities, I might add).

How's that old saying go... the price of freedom is eternal vigilance?

Re:Good Article but...

[ceoyoyo]

Oh my. Those quotes are really, really scary. Prophetic even. I got goose bumps when I read the Sinclair one.

Maybe it's time to start building the spaceship and founding a hidden colony somewhere.

Re:Good Article but...

[maxpublic]

The only people who honestly think that the U.S. has become a 'totalitarian' state are loons desperately in need of some serious meds. If they can't tell the difference between the U.S. and a dictatorship then they don't have a credible hold on reality - not the sort of person you pay any serious attention to.

Max

Re:Good Article but...

[MrCopilot]

First mistake, ignore and dismiss the malcontents as insane.

Do not listen to the reasons they feel this way, do nothing about the percieved sense of eroding liberties and values. Also pay no attention to the news, World News, Red Cross, Amnesty International, ACLU, and the rest of those tree-hugging hippie pinko commies. Worked so well as early as the late 60s or indeed as late as the early 70s.

Re:Good Article but...

[s20451]

Democracy is equally about choosing your leaders and about individual rights. A nation that allows its citizens to elect the government, but that punishes free speech, is not a real democracy (for how can leaders be elected wisely if nobody is allowed to criticize them?).

So a weak definition of a "fascist" could be someone who supports the close relationship between government and business. However, if that person also agrees with the rights granted by the constitution, that person is not a "fascist" in the national socialist sense.

Re:Good Article but...

[EvilNight]

We won't go down the same road. There are plenty of roads leading to worse places that no one has been down before. It is possible for a form of societal repression to appear that can exist despite these changes, and it won't look like the kind of fascism we all know and love. History and human nature guarantee it'll happen eventually. We'll probably have a different name for it when it does happen. That doesn't mean it'll be less dangerous when it gets here. While I'd like to believe you, I think you woefully underestimate the laziness of most Americans. Most people won't lift a finger until well after it is too late, just like every other nation in history. People have not changed. At least we'll stand a better chance of throwing it off than other countries if it does happen.

Re:Good Article but...

[heson]

+5 Funny I dont know what kind of moron you are by that expression is an oxymoron.

Re:Good Article but...

[mandoman23]

> Once again, in English, please? I am certain you were trying to communicate something. BTW I am a 142IQ moron

Re:Good Article but...

[zerofret]

Comparing a person or group of persons whom you disagree with to Hitler and the Nazis does nothing to convince me of the correctness of your position. To be honest, I feel the Hilter references are only brought out when you have no rational arguement to support your position.

If you want to convince me your position is the superior one, leave the facist references out of the debate. Try to present a well reasoned position and you'll have a much better chance of bringing me over to your viewpoint.

Bush Govt Fascist

[majjj]

" JP: A definition would help here too. 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. " RMS shares ideas with Noam Chomsky.

Re:Bush Govt Fascist

[John Nowak]

If you honestly think words and choice of language do not dictate thoughts, I'd suggest you read some Chomsky.

Re:Bush Govt Fascist

[node 3]

Yes, like Chomsky, RMS thinks that words dictate thoughts.

Are you denying a link between words and thoughts?

That's why he's so insistant that we always use the word "freedom". If we don't say "freedom", we won't think "freedom".

No, he suggests that if we call it "Open Source" instead of "Free Software", we won't be explicitly emphasizing the "Free(dom)" aspect of the software.

Re:Bush Govt Fascist

[brpr]

Except that, erm, Chomsky has never suggested that words and choice of language "dictate" thoughts. And indeed denies any link between his linguistics and political work.

Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[cheekyboy]

Go to prisonplanet.com, its podcasts for 15th Dec has a interview with him too.

Now yo'all stop voting for the 2 parties , vote independant, and no neo-cons any more.

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[John Nowak]

If you could post a link, I'd appreciate it. For the life of me I can't find it.

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[node 3]

Now yo'all stop voting for the 2 parties , vote independant, and no neo-cons any more.

Reality is that in most cases, a vote for an independent candidate is a wasted vote. Sorry, I really hate that it's true, but it is.

Presumably, one of the two major candidates is more preferable to the other (the lesser of two evils, or the evil of two lessers, if you want).

If you have a choice at the cafeteria of day-old lasagne, or wiener-wraps, you can vote for "Filet Mignon" (or "Falafel", if you don't eat meat) all you want, but you won't get it. You instead get whatever you're told you get (since you've "thrown away" your vote).

Of course, in between lunches, you can campaign for better choices, you can promote your ideals of what a cafeteria lunch should be like, but if your choice isn't on the menu, you can't actually vote for it.

In the case of Nader, he actually was on the menu... sort of. It would be like having the choice of lasagne, wiener-wraps, or pizza, where the cafeteria is out of pizza.

It's called reality, and sometimes it really, really sucks, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Now, if you are referring to local races, or even federal races, where the independent or third-party candidate has an actual chance (ie: your cafeteria actually does have pizza available), then by all means, vote for the independent candidate!

If all I had to do was vote for the independent candidate, and that candidate would have an actual chance of winning, I'd do it in a heartbeat, but that's not the way it works. It's not up to me, it's up to everyone else, and everyone else sure as hell won't play along.

Or, put simply, even if Gore and/or Kerry aren't up to your standards, even if you believe they'd support corporations as well, and (in the case of Kerry), believe he'd continue the war in Iraq, do you honestly believe we wouldn't be better off, even just a little bit, than we are now with them instead of Bush? And don't you think that with Gore (or Kerry) in office, it'd be just that much easier to elect an even more liberal, less corporate, politician in office?

If so, then why throw away your vote?

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[tehdaemon]

"Reality is that in most cases, a vote for an independent candidate is a wasted vote. Sorry, I really hate that it's true, but it is."

In most cases a vote for a Republicrat is also a wasted vote. I live in Utah. The Republican candidate[1] will win here regardless of who I vote for, Republican, Democrat or independant. This situation applies to at least half of the nation.

Why shouldn't I vote for Filet Mignon when what I am going to get is day-old lasagne no matter how I vote? (even If I would prefer stupid wiener-wraps?)

The solution is actually discussed in The Federalist No. 10. Bonus points[2] to whoever posts a summary.

[1]context is presiential elections. congress/local may be different..

[2]not redeemable for actual karma...

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[OverflowingBitBucket]

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?

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[node 3]

This line of thought is why the US is stuck electing Republicrats every election. The only wasted vote is one that isn't cast.

No, the reason we are stuck electing "Republicrats" every election is that our system is at equilibrium only when there are two parties.

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?

Yes, I am, but I have no other choice. The time for you Nader-ites to make a difference is before the election. Convince the Dems (your closest allies) to pick the most liberal candidate they can. Once the die is cast, once the public sees the choice is Dem A or Rep B, then all you can do is siphon votes from the only party that will give you even the slightest chance of getting your way.

Look, I believe doors should work like on Star Trek. But if I pretend like doors work that way, I'll just smash my nose everywhere (except the grocery store, I suppose). An intelligent person would accept the fact that reality trumps ideology. If you want doors to work like on Star Trek, get out there and do something about it, but when you walk up to a door that's not automatic, treat it as such.

Likewise, although I'd love a more democratic Presidential election system, I understand that reality is that it's a two-party game. If I want a liberal candidate, the time for me to act to change minds is every day. Right now, for example. But in the polls, my choice is Republican or Democrat.

How do you expect a third party candidate to win an election if you don't change the attitudes of the people during the intervening years? If you go into the election knowing you're going to lose (and if you don't realize that, you are extremely delusional), then you must realize that you're going to siphon votes from the real candidate that is closest to your ideals. By demanding the perfect, you are sabotaging your best hope.

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[node 3]

Why shouldn't I vote for Filet Mignon when what I am going to get is day-old lasagne no matter how I vote? (even If I would prefer stupid wiener-wraps?)

When that's the case, you are correct. In that situation, it's really just a one-party system.

But it doesn't change my point. A vote for Nader (for example) is wasted no matter what. It's just that in Utah, so is a vote for Kerry.

At that point, you still need to make your voice heard, and it's important to vote for other reasons, so you could argue about the definition of "wasted". For clarity, I'll define my meaning in that the primary purpose of a vote is to get your candidate of choice elected. A secondary use (but orders of magnitude less useful if your candidate has a chance of winning) is to "make your voice heard".

However, had the Nader-ites voted Dem (their closest allies), the last 5 years would have been markedly different, even if not idyllic.

Put more simply, had the Nader voters in 2000 voted for Gore, they would be happier today than they are now. Why would you vote for a "perfect" that you can't have, when you could make a difference and vote for a "better" that you actually can have? (yes, in your case, you're sorta screwed either way)

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[Peter La Casse]

Absolutely. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Someone else might be ok with that on their conscience, but not me.

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[bfields]

Yes, I am, but I have no other choice. The time for you Nader-ites to make a difference is before the election. Convince the Dems (your closest allies) to pick the most liberal candidate they can.

Also note that a national election is a process of compromising with 100 million of your fellow citizens, and the fact is that by the time we get down to the final 2 choices, they're both going to be pretty middle-of-the-road. I'll be an activist on the issues, but when it comes time to vote I'd rather be a part of the real process, and that means accepting compromises.

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[fossa]

You should know that when you enter the voting booth, you control but a single vote. No election has ever been decided by a single vote. Our vote counting cannot even resolve a single vote. In other words, when it comes down to it, at the moment of voting your single vote is completely and utterly irrelevant.

The best way to game the system is to attempt to convince large numbers of people to vote for "the other guy". That may indeed have an impact (though not likely, unless you have some major media outlet to use). But that does not change the fact that when you enter the booth, it's only a single vote. Use some intelligence: vote for who you think is the best.

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[smooth wombat]

No election has ever been decided by a single vote.

Er, not totally correct. See this link and this link for how elections have been decided by one vote.

The second link references some items from the first link but adds others to the list. The lists contain elections decided by one vote for things like admittance to the Union and who would become president as well as mayoral and sentorial elections decided by one vote.

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[armb]

> > 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.

Nope. A vote cast on a rigged machine with no audit trail is equally wasted.

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[Iago515]

You are both missing the point. It isn't the presidential election you should be talking about, but more for the congressional elections. Presidents, in the end, come and go after a maximum of 8 years, but members of congress can stay on for decades without really having to worry about opposition for many (most) of them. In reality a president only has as much power as Congress will allow and since they have no fear of losing their positions, they can do what they want.

What really needs to happen is American politicians need to be afraid of the electorate, only then will they try and do what is best for them. Because I'm Canadian, I'll use Canada as an example, but a lot of other parliamentary democracies work the same way. In 1984, the Liberal Party of Canada was in power with a majority of seats 147-103-32, but the government, even with a new leader, was considered old and needing change (long story short), the Progressive Conservative Party came to power with a majority of 211-40-30-1 and subsequently won in 1988 with 169-83-43, by 1993, the situation had changed with a vast majority of Canadians being royally pissed off at the PC party and the Liberals came back into power with a majority of 177-2 (yes, the PC Party went from 169 down to 2 seats)-9-52-54 (includes two new parties).

Unfortunately for Canada, the PC party splintered after this election and its descendant(s) have a. Not been able to get their acts together and b. have been perceived as moving too far right, especially religiously, for the Canadian public. If that hadn't happened, then there would have been another major shift last year back towards them. This had lead the governing party to become arrogant and take Canadian people for granted (you could argue that that changed in 2004, though with the coming to power of Paul Martin and the subsequent minority government).

OK, maybe you won't buy this, but Americans should really throw head first the members of the House and Senate out of there at least once every 15 years (probably more often for the House) and the president will realise that the people can't be taken for granted. Other than that, there are a lot of advantages of having a two party system, which most countries really are (even if more than one party exists and does get some power (read: NDP in Canada, Greens in Germany, Liberals in the UK, etc.)

Canadian Elections in the '80s and '90s

Other Canadian Federal Elections

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[Risen888]

However, had the Nader-ites voted Dem (their closest allies), the last 5 years would have been markedly different, even if not idyllic.

Put more simply, had the Nader voters in 2000 voted for Gore, they would be happier today than they are now. Why would you vote for a "perfect" that you can't have, when you could make a difference and vote for a "better" that you actually can have? (yes, in your case, you're sorta screwed either way)

What a load of horseshit. All the "Nader-ites" did vote Democratic last year, including me. And those were wasted votes.

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[accessdeniednsp]

If parent weren't an AC, I'd say mod parent up but...
oh what the hell,

MOD PARENT UP! :)

But yes, the AC has explained exactly what I've tried to tell people for years now, has have my cluefull friends.

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[stinerman]

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.

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[FrangoAssado]

Sorry, I can't resist:

On [this] world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said Ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. (...)"

- Douglas Adams, "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish"

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[OverflowingBitBucket]

I'm running late for work so it'll be a while before I can get back to this thread. Longer reply coming at the end of the day. I beg to differ on the "have no other choice" comment but I'll elaborate on that later.

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[alan.briolat]

This is one of those "I wish you could mod a comment up to +6, Insightful" comments. Its stupid to what lengths people will go to defend their viewpoint that a vote that isn't for one of the 2 main parties is a wasted vote. In its current form of people being convinced that is the case, it isn't really democracy at all. I would say only 2 types of votes are wasted - those not cast, and those cast without sincerity. Voting for the lesser of too evils is a waste - democracy isn't about "winning", its about the composition of the government reflecting the views of the population.

Also, for ANYONE of the mentality of "its just one vote, it doesn't matter", you do not understand democracy at all. If 50 million people say the same thing, thats about 1/3 of your voters NOT voting for who they agree with (based on the population of the US).

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[node 3]

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.

The problem is that, by the national convention, the candidate is chosen, and that candidate will not swerve either.

In other words: From the day after the election to the primaries, I can make a difference, lobby for liberal democrats (there are many) and liberal ideals. But once the candidate is chosen, I cannot change who that person is.

Between the three choices, a DLC Dem, a NeoCon Rep and a super-cool Independent, and let's say the odds are (as they usually are), something like 50.00-50.00-0.00 (rounded to the nearest hundredth), my next four years are going to either be DLC or NeoCon. Voting "none of the above" will not shield me from the effects of whoever wins.

The time to make a difference is in-between elections (a time that Nader was consipicuously silent!). Sure, Kerry might be able to more or less "count on" my vote, after the election he can still gain or lose my approval, and even President Bush is not immune to poor approval numbers. Successful mainstream Dems might be more willing to compromise than we'd like, but they are still liberal, and will still support things that this current president and congress are tearing down on a daily basis.

The only reason to "pass" on the liberal candidate today is in the hopes of gaining an even more liberal candidate tomorrow. But how many four-year cycles will this take? I'll take a string of OK liberals now over a really good one in 20 years.

And on the topic of playing chicken, by putting yourself on the fringe, why on Earth would a candidate court your vote? There are far more votes on the right for him to seek, and the DLC exists for the very purpose of seeking those votes. You think you're punishing them for not being liberal enough, but you risk pushing them further to the right.

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[stinerman]

From the day after the election to the primaries, I can make a difference, lobby for liberal democrats (there are many) and liberal ideals.

I'm glad you do.

Between the three choices, a DLC Dem, a NeoCon Rep and a super-cool Independent, and let's say the odds are (as they usually are), something like 50.00-50.00-0.00 (rounded to the nearest hundredth), my next four years are going to either be DLC or NeoCon. Voting "none of the above" will not shield me from the effects of whoever wins.

A study was done in the UK a few years ago asking the question "Would you vote for the Liberal party (now the Lib Dems) if you thought they had a chance of winning?" The study showed a majority of people would vote for them, if they thought there was any chance of them winning an election.

And on the topic of playing chicken, by putting yourself on the fringe, why on Earth would a candidate court your vote?

I vote for whomever I feel is most in line with my political philosophy, regardless of party. I really don't care if they win or lose, just so long as I'm satisfied that I voted my conscience. I don't really see much difference between most Democrats and Republicans. They don't argue much over policy, but over implementation details.

You think you're punishing them for not being liberal enough, but you risk pushing them further to the right

You, like the DLC, believe that voters' interests can be put on a chart and deduced. You can't say if Kerry moves more to the right, he will win more votes. People vote on more than just issue positions. Bush won because people thought that he was "a nice guy". I know people who were liberal minded who voted for Bush because "Kerry was a flip-flopper". Perhaps if someone stood up for what they believe in, even if it was unpopular, they'd get some votes for integrity.

I actually hope the Democrats tack to the right, as that might end up being what is needed for a strong 3rd party to emerge. Like I said before, I'm willing to allow the Republicans to run the country into the ground if it means some real reform in my lifetime. Just look at what has happened in the last few years when one party dominates all 3 branches of government. They'll hang themselves given enough time.

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[OverflowingBitBucket]

Nope. A vote cast on a rigged machine with no audit trail is equally wasted.

Indeed. A most excellent exception, I stand corrected. Please mod parent up. This is another incredibly important thing in any kind of real representative democracy, ensuring that the process of voting and counting itself is fair. Lots of relevant stuff here.

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[OverflowingBitBucket]

... Douglas Adams quotation ...

Exactly. Reassuring to see someone armed and ready with this one. :) For some similar relevant quotes, try The Simpsons ("Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos") and Futurama, where the two opposing candidates are "John Jackson" and "Jack Johnson", and are clones. I think South Park had something similar as well, but I'm not as familiar with it.

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[OverflowingBitBucket]

This is one of those "I wish you could mod a comment up to +6, Insightful" comments.

Cheers. :)

Its stupid to what lengths people will go to defend their viewpoint that a vote that isn't for one of the 2 main parties is a wasted vote. In its current form of people being convinced that is the case, it isn't really democracy at all.

At the moment I'd say the US does not resemble a democracy at all. Hence my comments about the choice between two fratboys. It wouldn't be so bad if it was a choice between the two most capable candidates in the US, but the roster is rarely anything resembling that. I wonder why people don't question the process by which the "main" candidates are selected. Would you even put any of the last batch of candidates for the last US election in the top 1% of most suitable people to lead the US? If not, there are close to three million people more suited to the position! Don't people have just a little problem with this?

I would say only 2 types of votes are wasted - those not cast, and those cast without sincerity. Voting for the lesser of too evils is a waste - democracy isn't about "winning", its about the composition of the government reflecting the views of the population.

I'd say that a vote for a candidate that the voter doesn't really want is worse than no vote at all. All such a vote does is make it harder for a legitimate candidate to get in. Thus the "a third party vote is a wasted vote" comment is a very, very dangerous one for a representative democracy.

Also, for ANYONE of the mentality of "its just one vote, it doesn't matter", you do not understand democracy at all. If 50 million people say the same thing, thats about 1/3 of your voters NOT voting for who they agree with (based on the population of the US).

Exactly. One vote on its own doesn't do a lot, but 50 million people with just one vote do matter.

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[OverflowingBitBucket]

No, the reason we are stuck electing "Republicrats" every election is that our system is at equilibrium only when there are two parties.

I'm wondering if you could define equilibrium for me in this context as I am not sure I am completely following it.

Yes, I am, but I have no other choice.

But you do. You have just convinced yourself that you must vote for the lesser of two evils rather than who you want. You're looking at the result of the next election only and deducing that since the two incumbents are probably going to win, you should vote for the one that screws you over the least. This is somewhat myopic. Today, I worked a full day for the local Uni and got nothing apart from the loss of eight hours of my time. Same as the day before. However, I do it as I know in a few days time, I'll receive payment for it. You can get a payoff for voting sincerely, it just might not be at the next election. When candidate X gets 1% at the next election, 2% at the one after, and 8% at the next one, people are going to start paying attention to that candidate, as well as others. And if enough people went with what they believed, it wouldn't take so many election cycles. Do you want to perpetuate the problem or contribute to its solution?

The time for you Nader-ites to make a difference is before the election.

Interesting that you consider me a Nader-ite. I haven't revealed my political cards, though I guess I'd rather be mistaken as a Nader-ite above a Bush-ite or Kerry-ite. My position is simply to allow people to be able to realistically vote for the party they actually want, and to get better political candidates out of it in the process. This means a lot of voting reform, and it won't be an easy process or a quick one. It will also be much nicer if this is achieved through peaceful elections rather than through a violent civil war after the continually encroaching government takes things just a little too far one day.

Convince the Dems (your closest allies) to pick the most liberal candidate they can. Once the die is cast, once the public sees the choice is Dem A or Rep B, then all you can do is siphon votes from the only party that will give you even the slightest chance of getting your way.

Why should I be interested in the Dems? They show as much interest as listening to the people as the Repubs. How about I vote for the people who are most willing to represent me. I don't think I can count the Dems or Repubs as allies. Not at all.

Look, I believe doors should work like on Star Trek. But if I pretend like doors work that way, I'll just smash my nose everywhere (except the grocery store, I suppose). An intelligent person would accept the fact that reality trumps ideology.

Your analogy isn't. The situation discussed is analogous to a hopeless cause, which I agree with. But to imply that the political situation is hopeless and it isn't worth trying is defeatist. How about doing what I'm doing, and trying to convince people to take the steps they need to solve this horrid problem? It would make my day, week, and whole freaking month if you looked at what I've said and thought, hey, maybe I can make a difference, stopped with the "it's hopeless" and "wasted vote" mindset and spent some time convincing your friends that you can make a difference. If enough people can be convinced, the problem can be solved, and we'll all be much better off.

If you want doors to work like on Star Trek, get out there and do something about it, but when you walk up to a door that's not automatic, treat it as such.

I'd rather spend my time convincing people to break the duopoly deadlock both before elections and at elections, rather than fighting for a cause and then doing something contrary to it when it matters the most.

But since Star Trek doors are cool, let's talk doors.

Suppose doorways became a matter of national significance. Almost everyone wants to invest in research to get the cool Star Trek doors. A few do

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[OverflowingBitBucket]

Absolutely. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Someone else might be ok with that on their conscience, but not me.

Well, I'd have to day conscience plays a part in voting for me, but it is more of an influencing factor, rather than a primary one.

The main thing for me is to make it really clear that I will only vote for a good party or candidate. I'm not interested in what someone says about the other candidate, or other people placing a value on my vote. I know what it is worth, and I'll vote for a good candidate. I convince others to do the same as well. Want my vote and the votes of people who have my ear? Be a good representative. That's the only way.

The second thing is to aim for the best long-term solution. Two-party duopolies don't bother me so long as both of the parties are good. If they aren't good, just entrenched, I'll do what I can to break their hold. That includes voting for a better candidate that won't win over and over, so it is crystal clear that there is support for another candidate beyond the big two. And maybe one say my contribution will lead to change.

Interesting...

[Chaffar]

Non-free software is basically antisocial.

An interesting use of the word antisocial... Reading Stallman's comments about the Open Source movement (or the Open Source campaign as he puts it), the vocabulary and tone he uses wouldn't be out of place in Marx's Communist Manifesto. Just like Karl's work though, you can't help but agree with every argument he gives, yet you know deep down inside that it just won't work :(

Well at least I'm doing my part running Lin ^H^H^H GNU + Linux...

Re:Interesting...

[John Nowak]

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.

Re:Interesting...

[sowellfan]

But from reading what Stallman says, I get the feeling that he doesn't believe in a person's freedom to produce non-free software. I'm all for free software and the success of the GNU project - the geek in me likes it, and it'd be cool to have the skills to contribute to it. On the other hand, while we're talking about all of these different types of freedom (as in beer, as in freedom, freedom's #0 thru #3, etc.), I want to ensure that people have the freedom to be an asshole and not share their software, if they don't want to share it.

Re:Interesting...

[psymastr]

"Karl's"??? What the hell?

Non-English speaker have a question

[johnsonlam]

Can anyone please kindly tell me, what's the different of "Liberal" between US and Canada? I live in Asia and know less about this. Thanks in advance.

Re:Non-English speaker have a question

[John Nowak]

This definition has some holes in it, but "liberal" in the US means left-leaning (more centralized government, welfare state, etc), whereas liberal in Canada and Europe and most other places means the same thing as "conservative" means in the US (or used to mean anyway), including smaller government, lower taxes, less government control, pro-business, etc. It is even confusing in the US, with the "Libertarian" party conforming to strict conservative ideas -- conservative in the classical-US sense, not the current big government, pro-war definition. I should also note that the "left" in the US is much more like the "center" or even "right" in many other countries.

Re:Non-English speaker have a question

[16K Ram Pack]

Originally, liberals (including those in the UK) believed in liberty in both economic and social terms.

The term liberal has been corrupted by those who support big government in a financial sense and small government in a social sense. Generally non-earners, or beneficiaries of government. This is true in the UK where the Liberal Democrats are basically left-wing, and the USA where people declare themselves as liberals where they believe in more government.

Many people who declare themselves as liberals are basically socialists.

If you hear the term "libertarian", it's because they can't use the word liberal, even though they are in its original sense.

Re:Non-English speaker have a question

[PhaserBlast]

A Liberal in Canada is one belonging to a Liberal Party (www.liberal.ca). Other major Canadial parties are the Conservative Party (www.conservative.ca), and New Democratic Party (NDP) (www.ndp.ca), and Bloc Quebecois (www.blocquebecois.org), a Quebec separatist party. Of these, NDP is the most liberal, Liberals are somewhere in the middle and Conservatives are somewhat conservative, and Block Quebecois is all over the map, depending on the issue.

In the U.S. a liberal is someone of liberal (free) political views. These exist in Canada too, of course, though you'd call them as people with "liberal views" rathen than just "liberal".

Re:Non-English speaker have a question

[16K Ram Pack]

The libertarian party is not "conservative" but "liberal" in its classic sense.

Conservatives normally believed in things like tradition, supporting national business, religion and so forth. Classic liberals believe in minimal involvement by the state in people's lives. Bush is conservative, but not libertarian (no libertarian would support the shocking debts that Bush is running up).

Re:Non-English speaker have a question

[CrazyDuke]

Originally, conservatives (including those in the UK) believed in liberty in both economic and social terms.

The term conservative has been corrupted by those who support a supplicant government in a financial sense and authoritarian government in a social sense. Generally non-earners, or beneficiaries of weathy parents and government subsidies. This is true in the UK where the Conservatives are basically right-wing, and the USA where people declare themselves as conservatives where they believe in more government.

Many people who declare themselves as conservatives are basically fascists.

If you hear the term "libertarian", it's because they have been cowed into believing the word liberal is evil, even though they are in its original sense.

Re:Non-English speaker have a question

[Singletoned]

"This definition has some holes in it, but "liberal" in the US means left-leaning (more centralized government, welfare state, etc), whereas liberal in Canada and Europe and most other places means the same thing as "conservative" means in the US (or used to mean anyway), including smaller government, lower taxes, less government control, pro-business, etc. It is even confusing in the US, with the "Libertarian" party conforming to strict conservative ideas -- conservative in the classical-US sense, not the current big government, pro-war definition. I should also note that the "left" in the US is much more like the "center" or even "right" in many other countries."

In Europe, liberal is more about social issues than economic/governmental. It's about anti-war, pro-choice, anti-prohibition, anti-censorship. There is some economic sides to it as well with HIGHER taxes (definitely not lower, as you said), and pro-welfare state. In fact your description of a euro-liberal sounds like it has nothing at all to do with European liberalism.

Re:Non-English speaker have a question

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

There's social-liberalism which are more about social issues (many socialdemocratic parties in europe are more or less social-liberal) and then its neo-liberalism which is more like the US libertarian party and wants less welfare and lower taxes.

Re:Non-English speaker have a question

[LizardKing]

There is some economic sides to it as well with HIGHER taxes (definitely not lower, as you said), and pro-welfare state.

Not true. Liberal political theory promotes a "rolling back" of the state so that it interferes in the life of citizens as little as possible. This doesn't preclude a welfare state, far from it, however it does suggest having one that does not rely on excessive taxation. the reason the conservatism of Thatcher and Bush has become known as "neo-liberalism" is because it has adopted the principle of rolling back the state. The difference is that this rolling back is geared towards the benefit of business rather than the individual.

Re:Non-English speaker have a question

[16K Ram Pack]

I'm not sure that I agree with you in terms of Conservatives. From what I know of the UK Conservatives in the 20th century, they have mostly been low-taxation but quite often lacking in the personal freedom area. The Thatcher era certainly introduced more fiscal freedoms, but introduced quite a lot of social restrictions on individuals. That said, Blair has been far worse. I refrain from using terms like "right wing" because it fails to describe anything. It is used variously to describe everyone from the John Redwood/Alan Duncan types who are basically laissez-faire capitalists to neo-nazis (many of whom are actually economic socialists).

Libertarians have chosen that word to distinguish themselves from non-liberal liberals. The ones I know understand what liberal meant in it's original sense, but know that they will be misunderstood if they use it.

That said, I've even heard a few high-tax supporters trying to declare themselves as "libertarian".

Re:Non-English speaker have a question

[Anonymous Coward]

This definition has some holes in it, but "liberal" in the US means left-leaning (more centralized government, welfare state, etc), whereas liberal in Canada and Europe and most other places means the same thing as "conservative" means in the US (or used to mean anyway), including smaller government, lower taxes, less government control, pro-business, etc. It is even confusing in the US, with the "Libertarian" party conforming to strict conservative ideas -- conservative in the classical-US sense, not the current big government, pro-war definition. I should also note that the "left" in the US is much more like the "center" or even "right" in many other countries.

That's interesting - in the UK liberal means "centre", with a slight lean to the left. While conservative is "right". So in the US I thought the republicans are "right" (the equivalent of our conservatives) and the democrats are "left" (the equivalent of our old labour party, although they're pretty much "right" now). Is that correct?

Re:Non-English speaker have a question

[dc29A]

whereas liberal in Canada and Europe and most other places means the same thing as "conservative" means in the US - Uh? Not even close. Liberal in Canada = Socialist orientation, gay rights, state run healthcare, free education, yadda yadda yadda. Conservatives in Canada = No gay rights, privatized healthcare, importance on "family values", religion, etc.

Re:Non-English speaker have a question

[smallpaul]

This definition has some holes in it, but "liberal" in the US means left-leaning (more centralized government, welfare state, etc), whereas liberal in Canada and Europe and most other places means the same thing as "conservative" means in the US (or used to mean anyway), including smaller government, lower taxes, less government control, pro-business, etc.

That isn't true of Canada. There are several kinds of Liberals in Canada. Big-L Liberals are members of the Liberal party, as Big-R Republicans are members of the American Republican party. This party has a progressive ideology but tends to govern in a centrist manner, similar to Britain's Labour or America's Democrats ("an end to welfare as we know it", "don't ask, don't tell", etc.). Small-L liberal could mean one of several things in Canada, just as it does in the US:

• social liberals, who are in favour of reducing governmental envolvement in personal choices like marriage, drug use, etc.
• Progressive liberals, who are in favour of using government finances to "free" people from poverty.
• Classic liberals, who would reduce government control in general (now more often called Libertarians or neoliberals).

I do not believe that the classic liberal sense of the term is particularly prevalent in Europe and I know it is not in Canada. In Canada, Liberal means "a political party willing to adopt any ideology that will allow it to stay in power."

Re:Non-English speaker have a question

[gedhrel]

Your definition of "European liberal" does not describe those parties and groups in Europe who identify themselves as "liberal". Quite the opposite.

The main difference is that in the US, "liberal" appears to be a perjorative term :-)

Re:Non-English speaker have a question

[kalidasa]

In the current political environment in the US, liberal means simply Democrat, conservative means Republican. The old ideological meanings are completely gone. Historically, though, those who are more sympathetic to labor and social welfare in the US are called liberals, those who are more sympathetic to business interests (which in the US means the military-industrial complex) are called conservatives.

Today, a political conservative in the US is opposed to taxes (not just high taxes, but taxes tout court - no conservative politician since 1980 has ever said that there is a minimum acceptable tax rate) and social spending, opposed to affirmative action (programs that try to compensate for historic discrimination against "racial" and ethnic minorities by adjusting hiring and school admission criteria to account for the more limited opportunities those minorities have had to meet such criteria), opposed to legalized abortion in any circumstance and at any stage (a few do allow exceptions for the life of the mother, and a few others allow exceptions in cases of incest or rape), and any form of birth control that is effective after conception, opposed to extending the legal advantages reserved for married straight couples to gay couples (and to allowing those couples to formalize their relationships through civil union, let alone marriage) - indeed, I think one could easily argue that they favor discrimination against gays. Conservatives in the US reject most of the social and political developments of the 1960s: most of the support for the current occupation of Iraq is from people who think the problem in Vietnam was that the war protestors and liberals in Congress (and that oh-so-liberal president, Richard Nixon) didn't let the Army do their jobs and finish off the Viet Cong. Conservatives tend to be hawks, and isolationist when it comes to international cooperation, but interventionist when it comes to trade and military security. Conservatives tend to favor broadening the powers of the police, military, and executive branch to make it easier for them to do what they want to do. Conservatives are opposed to any form of nationalized health care or national health insurance; they are pro-oil and anti-alternative energy (the budget for energy conservation research at the Department of Energy was just cut by nearly 16%, while fossil fuel research was increased). They oppose most consumer protection legislation, most environmental legislation. Basically, they want to roll things back to the 1950s, and so strictly speaking are reactionaries, not conservatives. The one thing I will grant them is that this administration, at least, is not racist, though some of their supporters are. It's worth noting that many of the President's supporters are strongly criticizing him for sending out Christmas cards that say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas," and have a quote from the Old Testament, not the New - as though this is not the most Christian of presidents since Jimmy Carter.

Liberals - well, a liberal is anyone who supports any view a conservative opposes, or opposes any view a conservative supports. The liberals (the Democrats, mostly) have simply given up any attempt to define the political debate in the US. They aren't in favor of social welfare any more, they're simply in favor of smaller cuts. They aren't in favor of gay marriage, only in favor of granting some rights to gay couples. They aren't in favor of maintaining affirmative action until it solves the problems it was intended to address, they're in favor of slowing the rollback. They favor skewing tax cuts to lower income taxpayers, not raising them on higher income taxpayers (in the US, the maximum income tax rate is 35%). They basically favor preserving the status quo of 1979, maybe adding public health care for children, a few education programs, and letting gay couples register with the government so they can share each other's health insurance.

If you're British, it might help you to understand that we Americans would consider Tony Blair a pretty fierce "liberal"; a "conservative" is what we would call Nick Griffin. No, I'm not kidding.

Re:Non-English speaker have a question

[Rocketship Underpant]

You're confusing Liberals with liberalism. Most informed Canadians, at least as far as I can tell, understand liberalism to be closer to its classic meaning of more freedoms. The Liberal party, on the other hand, has drifted well left of centre politically (but continues to be regarded as a centrist party because of the existence of extreme-left parties).

Re:Non-English speaker have a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone please kindly tell me, what's the different of "Liberal" between US and Canada?

Sure. The US uses imperial, while Canada uses metric Liberals. Given the current political climate, the conversion factor is 1 US liberal = 4.546 CAN liberal.

Of course, that number is expected to change in January when Canada has its federal election .

Re:Non-English speaker have a question

[Hosiah]

"left" in the US is much more like the "center" or even "right" in many other countries.

It makes more sense after you're read Orwell: "Freedom is Slavery" "Ignorance is Strength" "Conservative is Liberal"

Re:Non-English speaker have a question

[Gorshkov]

whereas liberal in Canada and Europe and most other places means the same thing as "conservative" means in the US (or used to mean anyway), including smaller government, lower taxes, less government control, pro-business, etc.

Wow - it's not hard to tell that you haven't spent much time in Canada. Politically, "Liberal" means to the left ... although economically, it means to the right.
In Canada, the Liberal Party is very socialistic - they believe in big government in a VERY big way, and essentially don't trust individuals to do what government can do for them.

As far as the political spectrum is concerned, the Convervative Party is economically about where the Democrates are in the states, but more socially conservative. The Liberals are to the left of that, and the NDP (New Democratic Party) even further to the left.

Essentially, the center in Canada is a bit to the left of the Democrats, and occupied by the Liberals, with the Conservatives to the right and the NDP to the left.

Re:Non-English speaker have a question

[CrazyDuke]

Not exactly what I expected, I must say. I expected something along the lines of failing to call the conservative British party the Torries. ...or perhaps something along the lines of an appeal to emotion. Well, my point was to reflect an argument to highlight logical fallacies and stereotypes in the argument by flipping it to appear from "the other side" with the same structure. My point was to give you a chance to analyze your own argument in a critical light, rather than trying to further it. I've basically resorted to this because coming across a person with a political opinion that is still rational is hard to come by these days.

The statement I took issue with:
"The term liberal has been corrupted by those who support big government in a financial sense and small government in a social sense. Generally non-earners, or beneficiaries of government. ... and the USA where people declare themselves as liberals where they believe in more government."

While the current employment situation in the United States isn't exactly stellar, even if all the unemployed people where Democrats, they would not make up the majority of the party. As for beneficiaries of the government, be careful with this, if someone drives on a public road they can be considered "beneficiaries of the government." And again, if you mean all people who's income is primarily from government subsidies, they still would not make up the majority of the party. As for Democrats and big government, one of the rallying cries from the Democrats in the past few years has been that the government is too big and intrusive. Perhaps you are taking issue with what parts of the government should be how big and what they should be intrusive about?

As for the Labour Party and Blair, well, to be honest, I don't know alot about British politics. My impression of them is that they are similar to the "New Democrat" (neoliberal) component of the Democrat party in the United States, while the British Liberal Democrats are more of the liberal component of the United States Democrats (and perhaps some of the United States 3rd parties). My impression of the Torries is that they are a rather spread spectrum of components of "that side" for lack of a better term; while the American Republicans tend to have an enforced party line.

"I refrain from using terms like "right wing" because it fails to describe anything."

I agree, and try to follow. However, engaging in somewhat intelligent discussion with people seems to require it, otherwise I am forced to explain my personal definitions and elaborations to people I talk to. "Left wing," "right wing," "liberal," "conservative," etc are amorphous in the United States and mean different things to different people.

As for Libertarians, while I like the party and agree with most of the platform that I know about, I have spotted an undercurrent, of believe it or not, authoritarianism in some "members." Humor me. There is a form of authoritarianism that basically says that there are no rules so as long as one doesn't cross the rulers or the party line. The rulers can do anything they want to the ruled. The Oceania government in 1984 comes to mind. I have run across and argued with some of these people. They do exsist; and typically fancy themselves to be a member of "The Party" that gives them rights over others and they have the rightous obligation to enforce the party line, as they see it, on others. Typically they are primarily Republican voters that vote Libertarian as a way of punishing the Republicans for not being malicious enough, though. And yet, they believe they are Libertarians because they feel they are entitled to do what they want to others without interference.

Thankfully, I haven't seen this in the party leadership, although I do know of one pundit that expouses these views. Yeah, I know, everyone has their nuts.

Re:Non-English speaker have a question

[johnsonlam]

Thanks John Nowak, explain in detail.

Thought it was ZD Net

[Mr. Flibble]

I misread the title, and thought it was Ziff Davies and not Znet. As soon as I saw that an image flashed through my mind: "John Dvorak endorses Richard Stallman's philosphy as hell has frozen over."

Scary that.

Free as in Freedom

[Quirk]

The bio of RMS is available online.

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.

Re:Free as in Freedom

[John Nowak]

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Re:Free as in Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS on Chomsky:
"I don't have as complete and overall philosophy as he does. I agree with some of the things he says. I've seen things that he said that I didn't agree with. But certainly what he says about the engineering of consent seems valid. Recently Chomsky gave a speech about what it means to oppose terrorism which I was very impressed by, because he essentially said that we should put an end to terrorism, and that includes the terrorism against the US but also the terrorism committed by the US... and I agree." --Richard Stallman, November 2001
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/rms-zer0111/index.en. html

Re:Free as in Freedom

[cowbutt]

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.

Be very careful who you vote for if you do so; the UK tried that in 1997 in order to get rid of the Conservative government of the previous 18 years.

Re:Free as in Freedom

[gowen]

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Russell was smart, but Yeats was a better writer:

The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Re:Free as in Freedom

[brpr]

Chomsky has in recent federal elections siphoned off votes that might have helped elect a Democratic President.

How has he done that? He's never stood as a candidate, and in the last election he suggested that people who didn't live in states with a large Democrat majority voted for Kerry and not for Nader.

Fascism?

[julesh]

Did RMS really just call George W Bush a fascist?

I'm not, like, imagining that, am I?

Re:Fascism?

[Archtech]

If it struts like a Fascist and blusters like a Fascist...

Re:Fascism?

[Lifewish]

Did a student just get visited by the feds for requestion Mao's Red Book from the university library? Did a toddler just get refused access to a plane on the basis that their name was on the ultrasecret no-fly list? Did my favourite guitar tab site just drop offline thanks to the unprecedented powers being granted to Big Business?

I wouldn't call Bush a fascist because I don't think he's bad enough for it not to be a waste of a good label, but I can see how other people could disagree.

RMS

[vectorian798]

When RMS came to speak here at Cal I was not too impressed. He was interesting, entertaining, but the guy seemed (this especially came out in the Q&A session at the end) like a ranting madman rather than a proper spokesman for GNU. ZD must have REALLY edited the interview's transcript to get it into the form that's been put up on the site.

I am not trying to just get points by being the odd one out here, but seriously - do you really expect the general public to accept free software let alone programmers? Given the shaky prospect of let's say...making a living, for example, I doubt it will be accepted broadly.

I agree that the FLOSS model has led to much innovation. But the story ends there - I for one, won't be spending my life without a job, contributing to free software (although I might do it as a side-hobby). The argument that one can 'modify' software or do custom jobs to make money is idiotic. Do you seriously think there is a market there? Often, people claim that (as pointed out in 'The Magic Cauldron' by ESR) over 95% of software is not for sale (so called 'custom' jobs), but it is ridiculous to expect programmers to bank on the availability of such jobs, especially because they don't get much attention. Also, how is that figure calculated? Total number of lines, discrete tasks, etc. Furthermore, most freelance work or custom applications don't pay well compared to salaried jobs.

There are strengths to OSS, as well as weaknesses. I find Linus's view of OSS much more acceptable than those of the Stallman (GNU).

Re:RMS

[Fred_A]

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).

Re:RMS

[16K Ram Pack]

I think you may be confusing what ESR means by "custom jobs". He doesn't mean small one-offs. He's referring to in-house jobs, that is, salaried workers doing work for a company's internal systems, as distinguished from packaged applications sold in multiple copies. My guess is that his numbers on this are probably about right.

Free software can work in a financial sense. Some businesses are making money from it - mostly by selling support services for their free software. Other businesses utilise it, and in the process, give something back - Google sponsor some Firefox guys, Apple contribute to BSD, IBM have made numerous contributions. A lot of the free software development is in the enhancement by other people (for instance, I used a component that a developer had written and contributed my own changes back).

I do agree with you about Linus, though. The guy's a pragmatist. When RMS says that if there isn't free software to do a job, then it's not worth doing, he's living in his own private ivory tower. No business can operate in this way. They have to get the job done. If there's not a free alternative, then what should they do? Write it themselves?

Re:RMS

[gallir]

> When RMS came to speak here at Cal I was not too impressed.

Shit. RMS and FSF got only few hours left.

Re:RMS

[popeyethesailor]

I agree with your basic premise - we *could* use free software. However, most decision-makers dont think like you do; and chances of sharing your tools are also "statistically never" as you put it, if you live in the real world. Unless they include the tools developed in non-working hours.

Re:RMS

[spectecjr]

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).

Funny... nearly every single job I've had in the computer industry has been working on software that ends up in a box in your local shop (or the equivalent - one was working on the control software for a mass spectrometer).

Just 'cos you chose to work in the boring, unglamorous world of customizing someone else's software, doesn't mean that the rest of us did.

Re:RMS

[Fred_A]

Ok, I might have overdone it a bit, however most of us do use free software heavily at work : gcc, apache, perl, python, Linux, *BSD etc.

Of course if you're stuck writing end user software for Windows, it's not as likely to happen, but on the server side, the free software is there, even on the Windows side (or so I hear at least, I can say I've brushed with it much those past years, but the people I know seem to use Perl routinely).

Now of course if you want to use OOo instead of MS Office, it it much more difficult to sneak past the PHB.

And releasing the tools, well, it happens. Rarely. Which is a bit of a shame for a number of useful housekeeping tools (things like what Perl started as) that aren't core things and of no special interest to the company that hoards them.
Nowadays, they do get out sometimes. But certainly not often enough which is a pity. Hopefully as the PHBs finally understand (not embrace, just understand) the concept of free software, it will happen more frequently.

On my side I still manage to switch a number of small companies ( 10 users) to Linux desktops on a fairly regular basis without much trouble. They are much more flexible than the large ones and understand the benefits much faster.
They still need Windows for accounting though. Haven't found a way around that (and before someone suggests it, Wine isn't a way around that, neither is using a native but uncertified package).

Re:RMS

[Just Some Guy]

Nice troll. However, I hear idiocy like this a lot in Real Life, so for the record:

do you really expect the general public to accept free software let alone programmers?

Yes. A lot of people are using Firefox these days, and OpenOffice has been getting a lot of press.

But the story ends there - I for one, won't be spending my life without a job, contributing to free software

I make a lot of money writing Free software. My employer is the largest consumer of my work, but he has the wisdom to realize that other people can also use my work (which isn't directly related to the industry we work in) without any cost to him. Everybody wins!

The argument that one can 'modify' software or do custom jobs to make money is idiotic. Do you seriously think there is a market there?

My paycheck seems to imply exactly that.

Often, people claim that (as pointed out in 'The Magic Cauldron' by ESR) over 95% of software is not for sale (so called 'custom' jobs), but it is ridiculous to expect programmers to bank on the availability of such jobs, especially because they don't get much attention.

It's ridiculous for them to bank on 95% of the job market? That's not exactly restricting your employment opportunities.

I find Linus's view of OSS much more acceptable than those of the Stallman (GNU).

I'm sure you do. Of course, RMS believes in Free software and isn't particularly interested in OSS, so I doubt even he would argue with you.

For bonus points: name RMS's BitKeeper. You know, the time where he bet the farm on closed software and got bitten hard by the decision. Because if there isn't one, then it would mean that his ideals are a lot more pragmatic and long-term than Linus's.

Re:RMS

[David Gerard]

"Furthermore, most freelance work or custom applications don't pay well compared to salaried jobs. " In IT, this is so very much not the case. I'm a contractor for the buckets of cash.

Re:RMS

[bfields]

Often, people claim that (as pointed out in 'The Magic Cauldron' by ESR) over 95% of software is not for sale (so called 'custom' jobs), but it is ridiculous to expect programmers to bank on the availability of such jobs, especially because they don't get much attention.

You'd rather bank on the other 5%?

I don't believe ESR's numbers either--he's just not reliable. But there *are* plenty of people making a living writing free software. Most of the Linux kernel community does these days, for example.

Re:RMS

[istartedi]

If most software isn't boxed, then how can it possibly oppress anybody? Answer: either more software is boxed than the FS zealots will admit, or the importance of the boxed software is out of proportion with that which is not boxed. Either way, the FS zealot argument falls apart. Either boxed software is an important piece of turf in the battle, or it isn't. Minimizing its importance is a "Jedi mind trick" that FS zealots like to use, but it only works on the weak.

It's almost as bad as the "you can sell support" argument; but must... restrain... self...

Re:RMS

[MrCopilot]

When RMS came to speak here at Cal I was not too impressed. He was interesting, entertaining, but the guy seemed (this especially came out in the Q&A session at the end) like a ranting madman rather than a proper spokesman for GNU. ZD must have REALLY edited the interview's transcript to get it into the form that's been put up on the site.

RMS comes off best in print to the people who do not know him. He seems like a fanatic because he is about some things he feels are of the utmost importance. In written responses he tends to edit himself to a less madman-like rant.

I personally like a little nutjob in my geniuses. Maybe that's just self-justification though.

I agree that the FLOSS model has led to much innovation. But the story ends there -

Not a student of history, I see. Look around at the IT Landscape today. Now think back to 1980. The story is being written right now. You can be an author or a critic but you can not deny its impact. Take a cruise on over to IBM's website, Apple's, What do you see. Take a look in your devices around the house Router,TIVo, Hot Tub etc...

I for one, won't be spending my life without a job, contributing to free software (although I might do it as a side-hobby).

I for one won't either. Hobby, try model airplanes. Contribute to free software because it serves a purpose. In my case my job requires me to use tools (now OSS tools, Thank me very much) I contribute to those tools to further my productivity, and I write free software that operates electronic controls that we manufacture. And I will never go back to the OLD way. The improvements that I have seen in just 3 years in both my productivity and better OSS are astounding.

Furthermore, most freelance work or custom applications don't pay well compared to salaried jobs.

This statement leads me to believe you have never had either. Custom Apps can be expensive as hell plus don't forget those awesome support contracts. Nothing better than a Webserver running apache with custom webapps and a yearly suppport contract (unless you can only write buggy webapps.)

There are strengths to OSS, as well as weaknesses.

Hmm weakness. Lets see, weakness. Right you can't hide your bugs. You can't hide unfair practices. You cannot create proprietary formats. You can however Sleep soundly at night, and wake up a part of a community. Sometimes wacky, sometimes overly political, overzealous, down right rude, almost uniformly amazingly insightful and clever.

Re:RMS

[Tracy Reed]

The argument that one can 'modify' software or do custom jobs to make money is idiotic. Do you seriously think there is a market there?

er...I modify and do custom jobs to make money and do quite well at it. There is definitely a market. A big one even.

My company:

http://copilotconsulting.com/

The website is sparse at the moment but I've already got more than enough word of mouth business.

Re:RMS

[incabulos]

On my side I still manage to switch a number of small companies ( 10 users) to Linux desktops on a fairly regular basis without much trouble. They are much more flexible than the large ones and understand the benefits much faster.
They still need Windows for accounting though. Haven't found a way around that (and before someone suggests it, Wine isn't a way around that, neither is using a native but uncertified package).


The best way I have found to get around the hurdle of business software that needs windows ( whether a local package or an abomination written using ActiveX that needs IE ) is to use a single windows server with Citrix to serve the desktop / apps out to Linux/unix desktops via their native ICA clients. Yes, it involves paying the microsoft tax, installing non-Free ( as in speech, though free in the beer sense ) software on linux/unix systems ( ICA client ), and gives a more complex environment to support ( metaframe system resouces, licensing, regular windows crashing, viruses & security holes, etc ) but its the best compromise I've found.

From the users point of view they dont even need to know anything about citrix or windows - they launch the software by the desktop icon, which transparently establishes a citrix session, launches the app on the windows server, and directs its display to the local system.

That way the business can still move forward with the goal of replacing every other component with Free Software despite having the legacy windows apps to contend with. Once your linux environment has been in place and stable for some time, there should be a higher chance you can persuade the company to drop the last of the proprietary windows software and move to either a linux version of the same product ( likely to exist at some point even though it may not do so yet ), or a 100% Free Software equivalent with a data migration plan.

Re:RMS

[Fred_A]

In the cases I typically deal with, there really is just one Windows machine remaining for accounting. Other users don't need to access it (or if they really do, VNC usually is good enough) so going through the hassle of a Citrix server is overkill.

It could however be a decent enough solution for a number of cases indeed. In a lot of cases, there just isn't a way around using a proprietary piece of kit unless you actually want to spend the money and wait the few years to build a whole industry around a free Linux solution.
Most small companies will of course dismiss the idea fairly quickly.

Re:RMS

[Fred_A]

"If most software isn't boxed, then how can it possibly oppress anybody? "

Well, while it's in the box, obviously it can't do any oppressing, however, as soon as it comes out and starts roaming, then the opression begins.

Easy to understand really.

Re:GNU/LINUX

[John Nowak]

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.

Ivory towers and actually working

[Grab]

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.

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously have no clue about what your talking about.

Millions of people depend and use GNU software everyday. Why do you think that RMS tries to tell you to say: "GNU/Linux" and not just "Linux".

This is because not only do you use GNU for their compiler the most common userland tools and programs in Linux are almost wholey GNU.

GNU Bash, GNU tar, Gnome, CVS, GTK, Gimp, Glibc There are literally hundreds of GNU programs used around Linux distros.

Hell if you don't like Gnome GNU has a entire other desktop system to choose from.. Window Maker + GNUStep.

Try to remove all GNU software from your Linux system and see how far you get.
http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/

People go: Oh, why don't you just call it Apache/GNU/Linux since you have lots of apache-sponsored applications?

Well the thing is is that without Apache you'd still have a working OS. Apache isn't the only Free web server around...
Without GNU there would be no workable Linux distro.

If you use Linux for a living you depend on GNU and GNU Software to do it.

Even if you don't use Linux and use something like Solaris.. Solaris userland is crap. Best way to improve Solaris for day to day use as a workstation and server is to install a bunch of GNU software on it. And it's similar situation for the BSD's although it's not nearly as bad.

Hell even Apple uses GCC to build OS X.

To say GNU software as unsucccessfull.. your completely wrong.

In fact the GNU project is one of the most successfull software projects ever created. It's wildly successfull.

The goal was to create a Free software OS for using Free software for Freedom-liking individuals.

Just taking GCC.. It's one of the most ubiquious development tools ever created. Probably the most popular software compiling suite ever created. You can build C programs, fortran programs, Java programs, C++ programs, ada programs. It works on VAX, on x86 variants, on POWER/PPC varients, and pretty much every other hardware platform created in modern times.

Apple, IBM, Redhat, and many other companies put development time and money into it.

Think about it. They give it away for no-cost and for Free.

If that is not successfull then tell me what is?

So what if nobody uses the kernel, almost every other peice of software that was ever created or ever joined that project is used buy buches of people.

GNU/Linux is the 2nd most common OS anywere. It's used in everything from super computers to wrist watches to toasters.

Go back in time on Google groups and you can find usenet postings from when GNU was just starting and you'll find people saying stuff like: "that RMS is entertaining and has lovely ideas about software, but nobody is ever going to make a compiler like $LONG_FORGOTTEN_COMPILER and give it away for free!"
or
"Well GNU is funny stuff, but no way it will ever come close to $DEAD_OR_DYING_UNIX_VERSION in terms of capabilities, much less convince developers to work for free, what a wacko!"

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

When reading RMS bio I see several referenses to that I would call real jobs.

By your definition many people I know has no real job even though they been empleyed many years by large corporations. However since none of them has been in a position to casue their Top500 corporation to fail - they must not had had a real job. :-)

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[trollable]

Hard to answer because I see your post as pure flamebait...
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
So you're clearly excluding almost every one...
you'll naturally assume that all the other software engineers working on customer-driven projects are the minority.
AFAIK, most software projects are not customer-driven. Please provide links.
there's no way in hell I'd be relying on GNU to develop the tools I needed.
Why would you? On which software editor do you rely?
Their track record is simply appalling.
Their track record is simply amazing. In a few years, they have come with a major complete operating system that is a direct competitor of Microsoft and Apple.
only an idiot would pay GNU to write it for them, bcos they've already proved their inability to do work to time.
You mean Microsoft?
The only way I'd trust GNU to do it would be to hire the relevant GNU engineers directly and impose penalty clauses.
Wanna contract? There is plenty of FOSS-oriented firms that will offer you that. Just contact them. Of course, the price will be much higher than a donation. After all, this is for a "real" job.

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[SolitaryMan]

no way in hell I'd be relying on GNU to develop the tools I needed

RMS does not say that you must pay GNU to develop something. Find whatever team you like (it is about FREEDOM, see?), pay them to develop a software (or enhance an existing free one) and release it to "free wild". Your possible benefit is that if your software is really good, than people will continue to develop it at no cost (at least at no cost to you). In this way you can make a world-class product at the cost of startup.

And linux kernel *is* free software, even though Linus didn't mean it to be that way.

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[Phillip2]

"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."

RMS is no doubt aware of the pressures that people are under. As he says, if you
send someone a word doc, you are pressuring them to give up their freedom. Which
is true enough. If you are working in the environment then you may indeed end up
giving up some of your freedom.

Most of us are willing to make these compromises, because they make the rest of
our life easier. Stallman has remade his life so that he does not.

"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."

You give two examples, XEmacs and Hurd. One of which produced some perfectly usable software in common usage--the fork is unfortunate, but there you have it.
Hurd you are right about, of course. Two examples? The rate of failed software projects in industry is at least 50% -- that is 50% of software developed never gets used. Most of it disappoints the customers. Pretty much all of it breaks at one stage or another.

In this light, your two examples fail to convince me that Gnu's "track record is appalling".

Besides, if you read the interview, he wasn't suggesting that you donate cash to Gnu. It is not, and never has been, a software house. If you ask them, "will you write this piece of software that I really need", then they are likely to say no.
There are many other programmers who will do this for you.

Phil

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[ArwynH]

I think you're getting things mixed up. He never said you have to hire GNU programmers to write free programs, just that you could hire someone to do it. Be it your child-hood friend, a local software company or your well-tried IT sweatshop in India. Providing the company releases the code under the GPL (or another Free licence) the result will be the same.

This is actaully one of the major pluses with FOSS. If a company wants to add feature X to programm Y under the proprietary model then they had to bug program Y's developers to add the feature and hope that other companies did the same or it might never see the light of day. Under the FOSS model however they can ask ANYBODY to do it for them and thus guarantee that their feature will be implemented.

The company I work for are gradualy moving onto OSS for that reason. Features we need are not available or are buggy in commercial offerings and they are too slow at add fixing/adding them. It works out both cheaper and faster to hire someone else to enhance OSS offerings to suit our needs.

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[Tarwn]

I'm not necesarally disagreeing or agreeing with you, just disagreeing with your points.

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
So you're clearly excluding almost every one...

Do you work in the real world? IS/IT Developers develop (or find and configure) software for their customers (ie, other people who work for the company). Developers at software houses are even more obvious. Network admins, systems admins, dba's, etc all generally have deadlines to produce the goods to their 'customers', whether they be actual customers, coworkers, or other departments in their company/organization. Tech support does it. Hell, I did it in a car for five years delivering pizza.
The word "Customer" covers a lot more than it's literal definition these days. I may not care for that definition much, but I do have to admit that it exists and is in popular use.

AFAIK, most software projects are not customer-driven. Please provide links.

Care to provide numbers? In House development is generally customer driven, for sale software development is customer driven, etc. Many open source projects may be just a guy/gal with no deadlines and no expectations coding a project, but the big ones have release deadlines, user groups, bugs to fix, etc. those users are just as much customers as the people in the marketing department that have decided they need a brand new website.

Their track record is simply appalling.
Their track record is simply amazing. In a few years, they have come with a major complete operating system that is a direct competitor of Microsoft and Apple.

I once built a driver, therefore I will take take credit for having written Windows. The point being that writing a portion of something used in a system does not make a developer or organization the maker of said system. The word for that is contributor. Or developer of a seperate piece of software.

only an idiot would pay GNU to write it for them, bcos they've already proved their inability to do work to time.
You mean Microsoft?

It's unfortunate, but there is no argument here to pick apart. Rather than supply an actual argument you fall back on poking the finger at Microsoft. Good job. And note that before you point your finger at my last point, the comment I made was in direct support of an argument, not a standalone random statement.

---

I think the original author did have some valid points and in a couple cases took some arguments a little far. I agree with several other posters that have pointed out that Linux would not be what it is today without GNU tools/software. But I also agree with the original poster that most of what I have read on Stallman gives me the feeling of an academic. I still recall randomly running into a mailing list for a project he was working on. For the hell of it I started reading. He spent days trying to hold back a pre-release beta because there were still outstanding bugs. The purpose of that particular pre-release beta was to gather more bug information and get real users using it to gather that information. Instead he wanted to wait until there were no (some class) bugs in it before doing the pre-release. Most of his responses came off as childish.

I support the idea of open source and if I had 4-6 more hours in the day I would probably contribute more, as it is I have only made modifications to existing projects rather than take on the responsibility of being a team member or such for one. But I have to say I don't actually like RMS. I find him to be somewhere between a whiny kid and a wild-eyed, "The End Is Nigh" madman. Someone that inspires the fans (and fanatics) that already exist, but doesn't provide the non-fans with a lot of inspiration beyond, maybe, sidling away a little to give him space, just in case

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[Grab]

Somewhat flamebait, admittedly. ;-) But also something I feel strongly about, bcos I don't think RMS has any place making *his* flamebait comments.

Why would you? On which software editor do you rely?

I quote "If the tool exists then I'll use it..."

So you're clearly excluding almost every one...

If you work in software and you *don't* need to produce anything for customers (whether internal or external) or produce anything within an agreed timeframe, AND you get paid for doing that - please let me know, because I want a job there! In the real world, every software engineer has a job to do: someone's told them what it is, and someone's got expectations of when it'll be done. If you're lucky enough to have your own software house then you need to take a guess at what your customers want and when they want it, but don't be under any illusions: if you don't meet these two requirements then you'll lose their business.

In a few years, they have come with a major complete operating system that is a direct competitor of Microsoft and Apple.

But the OS kernel was NOT produced by GNU - hence "GNU/Linux". GNU on their own were incapable of developing a "complete operating system" in any timely manner. If Linux hadn't arrived, maybe Hurd would have appeared sometime around now, perhaps. Who knows? One thing for sure though, FOSS would be at least 5 years behind where it is now if we'd been relying on RMS and GNU exclusively.

As an organisation of hobbyists and amateurs, I have a great deal of respect for GNU. As an organisation of professional engineers, GNU is a dead loss.

Grab.

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[Grab]

You've missed the "free software" and "open-source software" distinction.

OSS I'm 100% in favour of. The intention of OSS is to produce open-source replacements for closed-source software that will be used because they are of superior quality and significantly cheaper. To that end, the ability to find/fix your own bugs is intended to lead to superior quality. OSS doesn't say that closed-source software *shouldn't* exist, simply that they will replace mass-market closed-source software wherever possible. And OSS also allows for closed-source software to exist where it's fulfilling a specific niche - again, we're talking about how to do the job better/faster/cheaper, and measuring on quality.

"Free software" though has a political angle which I don't agree with. OSS is about getting the job done. RMS though has explicitly said that if you can't do the job with free software then you shouldn't be doing that job! In other words, simply using closed-source software is immoral. As far as I'm concerned, that's crap - if we're talking rights, then no-one has a right to say "you shouldn't be working and making a living bcos you're using closed-source software".

Grab.

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[16K Ram Pack]

From what I understand, The whole Gnu thing is about a bunch of tools, including GCC.

I also understand that you don't need Gnu tools to run Linux. That they are development tools which are optional.

I understand that the Gnu tools may have helped to make Linux by providing a compiler, but then, we all stand on the shoulders of giants. Did RMS use any tools for compiling/documenting/editing? In which case, where is the accreditation for those?

Ultimately, Linux could have been compiled with something other than GCC. It wasn't a necessity.

Why does RMS insist on calling it Gnu/Linux, if there's no Gnu in there?

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[trollable]

The word "Customer" covers a lot more than it's literal definition these days.

If you want to call "customers" your colleagues and users, fine for you.

AFAIK, most software projects are not customer-driven. Please provide links.

Care to provide numbers?

On all the projects I participated, only one was driven by a customer (BTW, it was a failure). If you mean we should care about customers and asking them to participate, I wholy agree.

The point being that writing a portion of something used in a system does not make a developer or organization the maker of said system.

In the FOSS world, it does.

It's unfortunate, but there is no argument here to pick apart.

There is but it is well summarized: software projects fail, being FOSS or proprietary. Microsoft, Apple and the free software community all have a lot of projects that fail. The question is: if today I have a new project to start, will I use free or proprietary libs? what kind of developpers will I hire? what kind of companies will I contract? No definitive answer; that will depend on the project. But in some cases, it will be cheaper, faster and better to go with FOSS.

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[ArwynH]

I am well aware of the distinction between Free Software and OSS. However what I said aplies to both, so I didn't think in making a distinction.

As for politics and Rights, well.. RMS has the right to believe what he wants. He also has the right to preach those beliefs. Just as you have a right to voice yours. Niether of you have the right to force your beliefs on each other. He has no right to force you to use Free software and you don't have the right to force him to use 'non-Free' software.

The problem is that he believes you, as a user of non-free software, are forcing him to use the said non-free software. By attaching a word document, you are forcing the reader to use word. By streaming video in RealMedia format you are forcing people to use RealPlayer.

Is the anwser for both parties to use only Free software? Well that's one way. The other is to use standard platform-independant formats for data interchange. That way neither party is force to use the others tool of choice.

As for morallity of it all... I tend towards RMS's view, but I'm far less fanatical about it. At home I'm 100% Free, at work I do what my employer asks. Naturaly I push FOSS at every opertunity and grumble when I have to use non-free software, but I'll use it. Kindof like wearing cloths that are made in chinese/african sweat-shops that utilise child labour. You don't want to buy it because it'll be supporting something you don't believe in and/or despise, but on the other hand it will get pretty chilly if you don't.

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[masdog]

Perhaps I am missing the distinction here. Isn't there "Free Software" that is closed source? And isn't there Open Source Software that you have to pay for?

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[trollable]

In the real world, every software engineer has a job to do: someone's told them what it is, and someone's got expectations of when it'll be done.

So you mean professional developpers. FYI, it also applies to the FOSS professional developpers. Developpers in FOSS companies are in the same situation than proprietary software companies. They have deadlines, QA, ...

if you don't meet these two requirements then you'll lose their business.

Agreed. But that applies to both proprietary and free software and in exactly the same terms.

In a few years, they have come with a major complete operating system that is a direct competitor of Microsoft and Apple.

But the OS kernel was NOT produced by GNU - hence "GNU/Linux"

By "they", I mean the FOSS community. BTW, what do you call GNU?

One thing for sure though, FOSS would be at least 5 years behind where it is now if we'd been relying on RMS and GNU exclusively.

I agree a single person could not do every thing ;) For the GNU side, I can not answer before knowing what you call GNU. BTW, in '92 there was already a dozen of free kernels. The community has focused on Linux but would have surely choose another one if Linux didn't fit the bill.

As an organisation of professional engineers, GNU is a dead loss.

How many professional engineers are working at "GNU"? What is a dead loss when:
1) you didn't pay anything
2) you get something better (IMHO) than the other products you had to pay for?
Honnestly, if I look at the amounts of money I spent on proprietary software and on free software and what I got, I know which one is the clear winner. BTW, this is not (only) a question of money.

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[arose]

Perhaps I am missing the distinction here. Isn't there "Free Software" that is closed source?

Do you mean Freeware? That's not Free Software, just free software. There's a handy diagram on this page

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[mdielmann]

While all that you said is true, it still doesn't give RMS (or you) the right to insist that I call Linux GNU/Linux. Hell, under the GPL, I could repackage everything distributed by GNU, give them whatever arbitrary names I wanted, and distribute that with my own (renamed) version of Linux. Now give me a good reason (and ego-stroking isn't a good reason) for why I should take a simple and descriptive name and make it longer and unwieldy. And giving credit where it's due is pretty flimsy because anyone who actually cares about where their software comes from already know about the preponderance of GNU software included with most, if not all, Linux distros.

I'm all for RMS, you, or anyone else insisting we should change the OS name to include GNU. That's what freedom is. Just don't assume that I have to do so.

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[Grab]

OK - sorry, it looked like your previous post was missing the FS/OSS difference.

RMS is absolutely entitled to use whatever software meets his belief system. And if I needed to send him a document, it would be in a format that he had ready access to - RTF, plain text, PNG, whatever. But what file formats I use myself, and the software I choose to use to read them, are my own choice. And if I send an RTF file to RMS, I'll use whatever program I choose, whether it be Word, OpenOffice or whatever. When RMS then tells me (and the rest of the software-creating world) that we shouldn't be doing our jobs bcos we're not using his software, that's where he can get off.

I agree with you (and RMS!) that interoperability of software is essential, and open data formats are vital in that. Without interoperability, we get held back from efficient working. But ultimately, what I want is efficient working, and whether this is best done with FOSS or closed-source is dependent on which of them will let me do what I need with my data. RMS's philosophy doesn't care about that, though - he *only* wants open data formats because it allows the use of free software to read them. Whether the open data formats allow me to work more efficiently is immaterial to him, even if it's a nice side-effect. That's where FS crashes and burns, as far as I'm concerned.

Grab.

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[Grab]

Developpers in FOSS companies are in the same situation...

Sure. But if the FOSS *companies* are not the prime movers, you're SOL. If you're relying on hobbyists, you'll likely get a very good solution - but in that hobbyist's time, not yours. (Unless you pay them. ;-) As someone working on his own pet projects, this is an entirely reasonable situation. You can't *force* a hobbyist to do what you want - you have to wait for them to do it in their own free time, and see what they come up with.

But then it becomes arrogance of the highest order for the leader of a bunch of hobbyists (and, to be fair, a few engineers professionally employed on it) to tell us that anyone not using their software is behaving immorally! Never mind whether their software actually does what we want...

BTW, what do you call GNU?

That's a good point. The GNU site lists over 4000 programs affiliated with GNU, most of which are not in any way related to the OS. So let's restrict ourselves to the parts of GNU which are related to the OS. This basically gets us down to the kernel and the support structures (shell, etc). Maybe GCC could be included as well, although that's dubious.

How many professional engineers are working at "GNU"?

Buggered if I know! And by working at "GNU" this would have to only include those paid to work on GNU projects, not professional engineers working on GNU projects on a hobbyist basis.

But that's where the problem lies. As an organisation of hobbyists, it's achieved wonders. But GNU (or its leader, RMS) can't realistically say "we're going to do this" and have the same credibility as the head of a professional company saying "we're going to do this". Sure, professional companies spout vapourware too. But professional companies at some point get taken to task for it, whereas FS still has the hobbyist (and academic) attitude that you can slip dates as much as you want and it doesn't matter. If you want professional-level credibility, that kills you.

Grab.

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[trollable]

You can't *force* a hobbyist to do what you want

Agreed. But this has nothing to do with the license. If you want some warranty, you have to pay. Nothing as a free lunch. Just contract a FOSS company.

it becomes arrogance of the highest order for the leader of a bunch of hobbyists (and, to be fair, a few engineers professionally employed on it) to tell us that anyone not using their software is behaving immorally!

You're interpreting. RMS says: use free software, he doesn't say you should this particular piece of software. This is a moral stand, not a technical one. So he is in his role to say that and there is no arrogance.

But GNU (or its leader, RMS) can't realistically say "we're going to do this" and have the same credibility as the head of a professional company saying "we're going to do this".

But he doesn't say that (AFAIK). OTOH, FOSS companies do say things like that and in general will do. IMHO, RedHat and al have some kind of professional-level credibility. Anyway, you don't need credibility, you need visibility. In most cases (but not always), FOSS give you more visibility than proprietary software. You know what you have, you know what you will have, you know how it behaves and you know you will be able to fix if needed. You don't know what the future development will be but this is the same for proprietary software. Which one has more visibility? GNU GCC or MS CC?

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[Blakey Rat]

Yes, but you're UTTERLY MISSING THE POINT.

Let's review:

Stallman is saying that your company should *never* use proprietary software.

The Interviewer asks, "what if there is no open source alternative to the software my business needs?"

Stallman replies, "then you don't need to do that."

The Interviewer presses on and asks, "What if I really *do* need to do that?"

Stallman says, "You can donate money to GNU programmers to get it done."

Then the poster, here on Slashdot, points out that despite many people donating a lot of money and time into XEMacs, the product has been disappointing. What guarantee is there that GNU programmers can get the work done? Especially when they've had at least one high-profile project, HURD, completely fail.

See how none of this has anything to do with what you replied?

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[Tarwn]

Concerning the word customer: You missed the second sentance there. I don't really care for the usage, but calling users, etc "customers" has been common in a lot of circles for a little while now. I was just pointing out that under that more general definition, nearly all software is customer-driven (if we don't include ourselves for personal projects). If it makes you feel more comfortable, then replace the phrase customer-driven with user-driven. I would hope that you would agree that most software is indeed user-driven, even if the intended user is oneself.

I still disagree that writing a portion of a system allows the writer to claim that they were the creator of the larger, pre-existing system that there piece is being used in. Even if we are talking about a piece of software that is actually public domain with a completely open copyright, I could not consider myself as having created a piece of software after I download it and add a few new components. I may have created a collection of pre-existing software or pre-existing software and my own contributions, but I cannot claim that I am the creator of the original software.

I do not disgaree with your last statements. I use FOSS software and libraries and I also use proprietary software. Where I disagree the most is with Stallmans comments that the original poster was disagreeing with:

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.

This and comments similar to this are part of the issue I have. I have software problems that aren't even close to being solved by available FOSS software. heck, I have problems that the available proprietary software is about 4-5 years behind on. Should I sink $200k-$500k into custom development (in either cash or time) of manufacturing software that I need or should I depend on cheaper, proprietary solutions that can scale to new devices and new sizes for a mch lower price tag? I choose to go with proprietary software, but according to Stallman I should have spent the money/time or consider it a job not worth doing.
Sorry for the long and somewhat general example, but wanted to clear up what I was supporting from the original parent poster.

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[petrus4]

You're interpreting. RMS says: use free software, he doesn't say you should this particular piece of software. This is a moral stand, not a technical one. So he is in his role to say that and there is no arrogance.

This is complete bullshit. Stallman is probably the single most self-righteous, flagrantly narcissistic individual I've ever heard of. Go and read his "words to avoid" screed on gnu.org where he basically outlines exactly how people should think, as but one example. The amount of credit he has repeatedly demanded where Linux is concerned is similarly outrageous.

Stop defending the man...he doesn't deserve it.

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[trollable]

he basically outlines exactly how people should think
Stop defending the man...

Are you telling me how I should think?
;)
Being in Europe, I met RMS only twice. The guy is strange. But not so much if you consider the fact he is a US citizen. And he is really less strange than Scott McNeally, ESR, Bill Gates and GWB :D
j/k

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[dbIII]

Why do you think that RMS tries to tell you to say: "GNU/Linux" and not just "Linux".

To raise the profile of GNU - he said as much with the original silly LiGnuX suggestion after he stopped pretending he'd never heard of linux in each interview. Linux has very little to do with RMS - he is interested in other things (as his comment to the gcc developers to stop putting in linux optimisations because it wouldn't help the hurd showed). The GPL is what he's pushing, and to a lesser extent GNU software - linux is only involved in this in that it is a poster child example for the GPL.

Listen to what he says about the GPL , he knows his stuff and software developed by GNU (he knows some of his stuff - although with the emacs fork it was clear that he was either forgetful, wasn't keeping track of what was going on, or was not gving strictly factual replies in his emails) but linux and federal politics really are not things he has taken the time to find out much about.

Perhaps an accomplished if grumpy staffroom politicion is exactly what we need on occassion - so long as you remember that is their role. Niether RMS nor GNU has put together a linux distribution, so by the current way of doing things they don't get to name it - just as Apple should get ignored if they tried to rename "Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy" after it became a bestseller and they found out it was typed out on a Mac.

RMS has some good ideas - but we don't need a hero to follow slavishly on every issue. I for one will continue to use passwords, to use ID badges where appropriate, and consider getting recognition for other buggers efforts (OBE) to be very bad form even if it may be at the heart of MIT staffroom politics.

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[ArwynH]

I wouldn't say it's the *only* reason, but it's the main one. I don't think anyone will agrue with you if you say Free Software should be efficient and easy to use. FS proponents just view that efficiency secondary to Freedom.

In a way it's just a fight for equality. We want to be able to do the same things you can do with non-free software with Free software.

As for RMS, he is an activist. Activists tend to paint a much more black & white picture than it actually is. They also tend to simplify what they preach to make it easier to put thier message across. The majority of FS supporters whould probably agree that efficiency and freedom go hand in hand and in-efficient software is not a pleasure to use Free or not. We just think sometimes it better to suffer with in-efficient Free software if it will lead to efficient free software in the future.

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[masdog]

I don't know if I should thank you or continue to look confused. Damn these abstract concepts. :o)

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[quux4]

Excellent summation, and I thank you for it. I also note that no one bothers to answer the actual question! (What guarantee is there that GNU programmers can get the work done?")

But, given your clear lucid thinking and refusal to be sidetracked by the usual /. Jedi mind tricks of arguing tangential issues, I'm guessing you may have a throbbing headache now ...

Re:How does he stay alive?

[Anonymous Coward]

He draws a $32000/year salary from the FSF. Traveling expenses are typically paid for by the conferenses he speaks at.

Bull

[16K Ram Pack]

Fascism is nothing to do with "sucking up to business".

Fascism is the belief in nation over individual. This can include protecting special business interests, particularly those who provide some sort of symbiotic support for government (like political supporters or businesses which will wholeheartedly co-operate with government), but it is much more general than "sucking up to business".

RMS is a terrible representative of the free software movement. He preaches to the converted, instead of winning hearts and minds.

Re:Bull

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

You sir - are wrong!

Fascism is per definition about politicians sucking up to corporations.

RMS has taken the free software movement here - who other could have done it ?

Re:Bull

[16K Ram Pack]

that of "Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."

and

"The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad... For the Fascist, everything is within the State and... neither individuals nor groups are outside the State... For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative... Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual."

That's what Benito Mussolini said, the guy who led a party of fascists. Of course, you could take the earlier 1890 definition, which was the name taken by a group of left-wing revolutionary socialists (again, nothing to do with big business).

Fascism may include support for certain businesses, but that is not its aim. The support for particular businesses is more about those businesses providing political support for the higher aim of state control.

Now, you, Stallman and whoever can have your own opinion about what it means. But if you want to declare that fascism means support for big businesses, then I'll declare that democracy means a system of government where it is from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need. OK?

I have history to back up my assertion (including one who led a party that called itself Fascists) and you have none.

Re:GNU/LINUX

[slack-fu]

maybe not by himself but with a crack team of hyper-caffinated cyborg ninja-monkeys linus could have broken through bills impenatrable kung-fu block of cash mongering

Re:Take a look at this

[SolitaryMan]

Take a look at this article, based on real-world fascism study. (The link to the original study can be found there).

I can sorta agree that what article outlines is not exactly what _I_ understand as fascism too, but it confirms, that it is a rather controversial term and RMS's usage of this term is reasonable enough.

I love RMS.

[solios]

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?

Re:I love RMS.

[mwheeler01]

So Mother Theresa was only maybe chaotic good? Or Ghandi was sort of more lawful neutral? How about Churchill's dedication to, uhm, I don't know, saving all of England/The World? Or maybe the Framers' dedication to freedom from tyrany? These didn't - in some capacity - have a positive impact on the lives of many? Sure the above had many detractors but I bet if you put Mother Theresa, Ghandi, Churchill, Washington and RMS in one room they'd all look at RMS and whisper to each other, 'this guy is craaaazy.'

Re:I love RMS.

[Jearil]

That... was really offtopic. In no way was the GP mentioning in any discouraging way any other person in history who was extraordinarily dedicated to a good cause, he was merely reflecting on this one man. Why would you try to twist his statement to be some sort of redicule towards Ghandi? That's like saying "Well, you dotated your charity money towards prizes for greater mathematical achievements.. but by doing so you denied giving money to these charities for cancer children. Therefor, you hate children and do not care that they have cancer."

I would agree with the GP that RMS is a very unique individual. Of the people alive today, he's one of the few balls-to-the-walls dedicated to his ideals. Every time I read an interview or statement by RMS I stop and laugh and think to myself "damn this guy is crazy.. that's so awesome." And I'm glad he his. I'm glad he got people together to follow some of his crazy rantings and actually build the GNU tools, which I use every day.

I for one think we need more whackos like this. They're funny, mostly harmless, and end up bringing some good to the world.

Re:I love RMS.

[Maxo-Texas]

Mother Teresa had some really twisted "you must suffer" shit going on. I would not classify her as good. The lady was seriously warped in some ways.

However she and RMS were/are both very driven towards a goal unlike most of us. My only goal is to be free by the time I'm 50 to decide what I really want to do (which seems to be nothing except lead an idle existence).

Re:I love RMS.

[petrus4]

but where would modern software be if it weren't for GNU and the GPL?

Probably happily using one or more of the BSDs, I expect. ;)

Stallman's lemmings forget about the existence of the BSDs and try to imply that if it wasn't for Stallman, open source in general would not exist...which is entirely untrue. It is, however, exactly what Stallman wants people to think.

Re:GNU/LINUX

[Fred_A]

"without linux, who knows if GNU would have lived on or even still existed (how would HURD have turned out?). without GNU, linus could have found many replacements for GNU, or maybe he could have written his own."

Without GNU, there would be no Linux.
There wasn't any alternative before Linux to the GNU tools and there still isn't. Event back then, it was common to replace vanilla Unix tools with the GNU stuff on a freshly unpacked station or server.

Rewriting all the GNU stuff to get something useable would have set the project back by years and it very likely never would have taken off since the basic kernel wouldn't have immediately been useable (or maybe as a drop in replacement for the Minix kernel or something equally useless).

No GNU, no Linux, no Linux, no GNU (at least not for a while), hence GNU/Linux (GNU was there first after all).

Got it now ?

GNU vs. Marx

[tetromino]

Free Software and Marx have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Marx was a social critic who (correctly) surmised that the workers of his day were unfairly exploited, but then used voodoo economics and bad Hegelism to go off on a wild apocalyptic-cult trajectory.

By contrast, Free Software is not a cult, and it is not a "scientific" view of history. It is simply a proposition that one of the inalienable rights of Homo sapiens -- along with the right to free speech, free press, and democratic elections -- is the right to freely use one's computer. (Granted, computer use is not in the usual list, but if Locke, Rousseau, and Jefferson had computers, I am sure they would have put Free Software in the rights of man.)

Marxism belongs to the general category of apocalyptic cults (like belief in rapture and the singularity).

Free Software belongs to the general category of campaigns for a specific rights (like womens' suffrage and the civil rights movement).

Re:GNU vs. Marx

[Burb]

If Locke, Rousseau, and Jefferson had computers, I am sure they would have put Free Software in the rights of man

I marvel at your ability to put 21st century thought processes into the minds of long-dead 18th century philosophers. Much as I admire Free Software, I don't really think that statement stands up to scrutiny.

Re:GNU vs. Marx

[skubeedooo]

Yes, but GPL blurs the distinction. Relative to other licenses (and esp public domain) it takes away some free will, but many believe this generates more value for the community, directly because of this removal of free will. Compare with a government who outlaws murder; it is the removal of some free will to benefit the community as a whole.

Re:GNU vs. Marx

[vertinox]

Marxism belongs to the general category of apocalyptic cults (like belief in rapture and the singularity).

Hey now... That small cult you call Marxism almost caused the world to end several times in a nuclear brimstone type of scenario... Korea War, Cuban Crisis, when the Soviet missle system claimed that the US was attacking in 1980 something etc.

So don't discount apocalyptic cults.

And leave the singularists out of this... You can knock the transhumanists all you want, but the singularity is real and is happening right now.

By 2007 we will have "instant on" computers, Intel Macs, and the Nintendo Revolution. If that aint a herald of the singularity I don't know what is.

Re:GNU vs. Marx

[Tony]

Communism is 100% government only in the way democracy is 100% government-- everyone is involved. Communism is the sharing of all equally, and hopefully voluntarily. In the ideal commune, there would be no government at all, and the the strong would protect the weak, and all would share equally in work and play and reward.

Of course, this can't work, because human nature fucks it up every time. Greed, jealousy, hate, greed, lust, greed, sloth, and greed always get in the way.

I think you are confusing communism with socialism, a common mistake due to the way the the USSR and China have claimed to be communist, while really being socialist.

Strangely, the United States is looking more and more like the worst parts of the '50s socialist USSR, with secret laws that citizens aren't allowed to know, the ability to make anyone disappear without fair trial, the gulags where "enemies of the state" are sent to be tortured, etc.

Are *your* papers in order?

Re:In other news

[daverabbitz]

Why is the Parent not modded funny, someone please mod it up.

Time to move on

[FishandChips]

The roots of Linux lie a long while ago now. Isn't it about time we all moved on?

The Hairy Ranter aspects of Linux, these days, aren't a net positive. They keep Linux in the image of a previous generation. They foster the image of a cult and they politicize all discussion. This is not helpful. Folks want computer software, not an invitation to man the barricades in Paris 1968.

If these old war horses took up painting or playing the violin for a few hours a day instead of re-running yesterday's battles in black and white the world might be a happier place. And a lot more folks might be drawn into an open-minded comparison of pay-for and no-pay software. Yes, technically, it is GNU/Linux. But the world knows it as Linux. There is no turning back now.

Re:Time to move on

[gr8_phk]

"Yes, technically, it is GNU/Linux. But the world knows it as Linux."

Actually, most people have heard of Linux but don't really know what it is. Why do I say this? Becasue if they knew what it really is, more of them would be using it. My wife will likely switch to Linux in the near future, but only because I use it on my computer and she now sees what it really is - mostly the same as what she's using without the spyware and viruses. Had I not installed it myself and showed it to her, she'd be skeptical. There are one or two commercial apps that she occasionally uses that don't have (good) free equivalents yet, but the security issues are really starting to get her attention. At any rate, if it were not for me showing her what GNU/Linux really is, she would not really it an option. Having heard about it and really knowing what it is are not the same thing. The world really doesn't know much about it.

Re:Time to move on

[dbIII]

The roots of Linux lie a long while ago now. Isn't it about time we all moved on? The Hairy Ranter aspects of Linux

The Hairy Ranter came in late and hung his banner on the bandwagon that he'd previously been putting down every time he condescended to notice it, he said it was taking effort away from his project - hurd, which he said would be better in all respects.

People who do good things don't have to be perfect and don't have to be followed slavishly on every issue. Technically it is linux, people from other projects don't get to name it. Listen to RMS on the topics that he is involved in, listen to others on other topics.

I'll stop ranting myself here before I get too hairy.

non-free formats

[jonastullus]

Once I put my coat over a camera before giving my speech, when I learned it was webcasting in RealPlayer format.

though i agree with much of what he says, this guy never ceases to amaze me.

i think during the last 10 years he's grown a little more sour than he was before all this (GNU) linux "controversy". i certainly sympathize with the GNU project on being underrepresented in the public awareness, but RMS will not change this only by acting sullen!

i'd like it if a majority of home users used free software, but his position on the alternative is more than crass:

Q: [...]if there is no alternative? If, say, there is no free software way of doing a particular job [...]
RMS: One can live without doing those jobs.

what kind of an attitude is that? no wonder the OpenSource movement was founded, because confronted with this attitude or even affiliation few companies would consider adopting GNU Linux.

well, i'm glad that RMS is applying himself so productively to a worthy cause; i'd just hope that he'd go for a slightly more pragmatic way of spreading the idea of freedom. putting your coat over cameras might otherwise be perceived as slightly "coockoo"

jethr0

Re:non-free formats

[16K Ram Pack]

Stopping filming because you don't like Real Player makes you look like a giant size ivory-tower dwelling idiot. Everyone has to compromise to some degree, even presidents and kings. However, you can compromise in small ways, to gain in bigger ways, the old "losing the battle to win the war".

The answer to free software is for more of it to be written to deal with tasks people want to do every day. There's still no free software database that replaces MS Access for functionality (I've tried OOo Base, and it's not close).

Re:non-free formats

[joebutton]

> Q: [...]if there is no alternative? If, say, there is no free software way of doing a > particular job [...] > RMS: One can live without doing those jobs. > > what kind of an attitude is that?

A realistic and commendable one.

Re:non-free formats

[16K Ram Pack]

I wouldn't normally waste my time with insulting ACs, but perhaps you'd like to tell me where the report or form designer in Postgres are.

Re:non-free formats

[Just Some Guy]

i think during the last 10 years he's grown a little more sour than he was before all this (GNU) linux "controversy". i certainly sympathize with the GNU project on being underrepresented in the public awareness, but RMS will not change this only by acting sullen!

To the contrary, I think he's gaining the confidence of someone who's winning his struggle. Given that there are perfectly adequate F/OSS streaming video systems (Theora, Dirac), why should he support someone's choice to go with a closed equivalent?

i'd just hope that he'd go for a slightly more pragmatic way of spreading the idea of freedom.

I think RMS is supremely pragmatic. I would be able to watch a video in a F/OSS codec, but a RealPlayer file is nearly worthless to me. Given that pretty much everyone can use one format, and many people can't use the other, I don't see why it was bad to boycott the closed version.

Re:non-free formats

[Asic Eng]

his was a quick, clever and visible way for RMS to get his point about Software Freedom across to the masses.

Which would be what? That freedom of press matters less than freedom of software?

This was a quick, clever and visible way for RMS to get his point about Software Freedom across to the masses.

It's always hard to say whether these techniques work - it's possible they do, for some people. However we also know, that they cause at least a few others to think less of him and his ideas. (See posts above for examples.)

Re:non-free formats

[16K Ram Pack]

Because those are going to get an user to quit using MS-Access?

Users build databases in MS-Access. They can do it quickly, and until the F/OSS community can replace it with something offering better value, they won't switch. For a lot of small/medium enterprises, it's an important tool.

I know businesses using it, and for what they need, it works fine. Small (20mb) databases which are for non-core functions and a small (5) user base. In many cases, they do some of their own maintenance and reporting. They don't need stored procedures, replication or transactions for that.

Re:non-free formats

[16K Ram Pack]

So, in summary, MS Access is better than any F/OSS product when you apply it in the problem space it is most suited to. Not much to argue, I admit. However, you must admit it isn't saying anything useful.

Forget the technical superiority/inferiority. Access (and you can extend this to Dbase/Paradox as a general class of small, desktop databases) is a very useful tool for businesses. My original point about Access was how it is, as an example, a tool that people use. I'm not saying that it's the best tool or the best approach (I once tried to talk someone out of using it for a 300-user system), although I've helped a few people set up and they, as end users write their own reports and modify queries.

I've set up some LAMP things, and I agree about scaling/flexibility. I do wonder if LAMP may hold the key to replacing Access, though. A simple to use web-based, 3rd party hosted database solution where users can easily design database structures/reports etc, with built in security and the benefit of sharing the database regardless of client software or location.

F/OSS versus Closed source

[Zombie Ryushu]

I can accept that not all software will be Open Source. I can even accept that someday, Linux may become obsolete and be replaced by an Operating system no one has seen yet or exists yet.

Regaurdless of whatever RMS's feelings may be, its important that F/OSS Survive. The ideals of F/OSS are democratic and transparent. The closed source software industry routinely violates many rights of people.

Now. There is a larger problem here. Its a Freedom vs. Control debate. Here is the issue. Most Americans really don't support tolerance or pluralism. They just sort of pretend to. There is opression in the world. The commercial software industry, as it is today, is just one example of it.

What most Americans support is a very dilluted Christian Theocracy. Working to change that and open things up and reform things is goiing to be extremely difficult. But, Western civilization has both a history of openness and reform, and control and repression.

Richard Stallman reminds me...

[OneSmartFellow]

of many of the 'intellectuals' which come out of MIT. Full of great ideas, and convction for them, but lacking some fundamental understanding of the 'real world'.

I know I'll be slammed for that, but it's hard to say it any more clearly

Re:Richard Stallman reminds me...

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

I'm not saying he's not wrong now and then, but the man has achieved a lot for someone lacking ... understanding of the 'real world', don't you think?

I'd say that practice has proven his ideas sound and quite applicable in the real world.

Re:Richard Stallman reminds me...

[Peter La Casse]

Richard Stallman reminds me of many of the 'intellectuals' which come out of MIT. Full of great ideas, and convction for them, but lacking some fundamental understanding of the 'real world'.

His analysis of the 'real world' seems quite insightful to me. Would you provide an example?

Re:Richard Stallman reminds me...

[Gunfighter]

If by "lacking some fundamental understanding of the 'real world'" you mean "no redeeming social graces", then I think you're probably correct. When RMS came to visit us at a local GLUG (GNU/Linux Users Group) meeting, he stood on stage poorly delivering (public-speaking-class-wise) his well prepared presentation. All the while, he stood there picking his nose and lining the boogers up on the table next to his laptop. That was a few years back. Has he improved any since?

If not, I honestly think the FSF would be best served by keeping RMS out of the public eye and bringing a front [wo]man on board to smile for the cameras and act as Head Cheerleader. Perhaps a CS/IS geek with a communications background and bubbling over with rhetoric-type-stuffs?

Re:Richard Stallman reminds me...

[TeknoHog]

I'd say that practice has proven his ideas sound and quite applicable in the real world.

Right on! Most of this Free Software stuff is basically the scientific method applied to computing. History tells that science didn't achieve much of anything while its practice was restricted to an elite of clergymen and alchemists. Modern science took off around the time of Galilei, Newton and other whose open rational arguments eventually won the fight against the 'closed source' of church.

Re:Richard Stallman reminds me...

[vertinox]

Full of great ideas, and convction for them, but lacking some fundamental understanding of the 'real world'.

Sadly, the majority of humans lack all of those.

Re:Richard Stallman reminds me...

[Empty Yo]

I've heard this argument many times among my friends who claim I'm a utopian and, thus, readily dismissable because utopia's supposedly can't exist in this 'real world' you cite.

If there is one truth, it is that the world of man is constantly changing and if it is capable of change, then it is capable of being changed. Changing it may require enormous effort and conviction, but changing it is definitely possible and the fact we are typing this correspondence on a computer rather than scratching it on a rock with a stick is testament to the amount of change is possible. My question to you, then, is this:

"If the world is capable of being changed and our actions each help affect that change ... then what world is it that you are helping to build?"

Ideals have made as many changes to the world you live in as have more commonly cited social forces like greed. We have a more or less egalitarian society because folks with ideals hit the streets to fight for civil rights, women's rights, worker's rights, gay rights, etc. Without those very idealistic people, our world would be extremely different than it is now. Don't deride Stallman for having a utopic vision for us all, deride the folks who believe that the 'real world' doesn't involve ideals and striving for betterment for us all. Their apathy is what keeps the struggle hard.

Re:Richard Stallman reminds me...

[aeoo]

No slam intended, but I disagree with you completely. I think RMS has a superb, clear-sighted grasp on the so-called 'real world'. His thinking is lucid. His language is plain and easy to follow even for a dog, never mind a human being. His actions are plain, straightforward and fearless. He has a decent sense of humor and makes jokes about himself from time to time. He really understands very thoroughly the subtle dynamics of human relationships. I would venture to say that he is one of the truly few people who actually understand themselves.

I'm sure he has some flaws, but from what I can see, he is either the most or one of the most intelligent, sincere and truly compassionate beings on this dusty planet.

It is very unfortunate that people uncritically acquiesce to the miseries so much so, that they use the state of misery as a validation of reality, such that if it's not miserable, it's a dream, but if it is miserable, it must be real. With this kind of mindset, a certain self-fulfilling prophecy comes to pass...

Truth is, all beings have immense power sealed within their hearts. This power surpasses the atomic bomb and even the Big Bang. We do not have to kowtow to anyone. Period. Stand tall and act from your highest right every single second -- to do anything less than this is death -- a life not worth living.

If I have to be designated "a criminal" for exercising basic software freedoms, then so be it. If my family should be killed for it, so be it. If I am killed or tortured for it -- so be it. Because life of bondage is no life at all -- it is death. And what's the point of having a family for a corpse? Family only means something to someone who is alive.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not perfect and I am not a zealot. I run Windows every day, both at home and at work. And I am wrong and RMS is right. That's all there is to it. I am wrong and he's right. You are not likely to find me attacking RMS just because I use Windows, because I can recognize my own wrongness, even if I have no strong desire to change it. I can praise someone who criticizes me, and this doesn't bind me in any way.

Re:Richard Stallman reminds me...

[nEoN nOoDlE]

I think the "real world" eventually warps itself around their vision.

Re:Richard Stallman reminds me...

[Peter La Casse]

The first half of your post is unintelligible; the interview did indicate that his economic opinions are pretty sensible. In addition, being an enormous cockfucking knob goblin indicates that a person does, in fact, fundamentally understand the real world.

Help ZNet - register

[efuzzyone]

After reading the article I am really worried about software patents and treacherous computing. Please help ZNet migrate to free software by registering and showing your support at the following link. http://znet.2y.net/zbb/index.php

Re:Help ZNet - register

[LiquidCoooled]

That BBS doesn't appear to be linked to znet apart from in content.
Could you please supply or create a direct link from the http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm website for everyones convenience.

Privacy aware folks should tread carefully before registering information to an unknown source.
(But you all knew that of course...)

Re:Help ZNet - register

[LiquidCoooled]

My apologies,
The link supplied by the parent poster is infact linked within the original ZNet website.

In the top 3 lines of description, the bottom one is:

ZNet is exploring the possibility of using free software. To help, visit New ZNet and introduce yourself.

With the link specified.
(Very difficult to spot on first glance though)

RMS - Who will replace him?

[tqft]

Many good, bad and trollish things have been said about RMS and he has done his share of stirring (which I think is good).

But who will replace him? Nobody lives forever (unless the medical boffins crack the longevity thing).

How would you recognise the person that you want to be the lead visionary of the FSF? An idealist? A pragmatist? A software engineer? Someone with a reputation as an uber coder?

Does DVD Jon fit the bill? Too young and too "controversial"? No political rep.

Linus? Probably doesn't care enough about politics.

Bruce Schneier? On too many watch lists?

There are probably at least a million people who would be good at the job and I have no clue (cue trolls) who they might be.

By vote on a /. or other internet poll?

Paid up members of the FSF will probably decide. If you don't care for the FSF ideals this may not be a problem, if you do care but aren't a member - sorry you don't count.

Sucks doesn't it.

Or will the political visionary thing die or "fork" when RMS isn't there to be the lightning rod to cop the abuse hurtling from all directions.

Personally I wouldn't take the crap he deals with every day and the frustration at some of the idiocy in the world he deals must be enormous.

Re:RMS - Who will replace him?

[Anonymous Coward]

So long as it's not ESR, I don't care ;)

Re:RMS - Who will replace him?

[David Gerard]

If RMS was hit by a bus tomorrow, Bradley Kuhn would probably cover in the first instance.

If Linus was hit by a bus tomorrow, you know the kernel would tick along just fine while they found the perfect feature-nazi with excellent technical taste.

Re:RMS - Who will replace him?

[beforewisdom]

Many good, bad and trollish things have been said about RMS and he has done his share of stirring (which I think is good).

But who will replace him? Nobody lives forever (unless the medical boffins crack the longevity thing).

Those on the Debian gnu/linux platform already enjoy the use of virtualRMS ( last I checked still in "unstable" har har ).

A few more upgrades, like AI, memory storage etc then we will never have to worry about who will replace RMS. We will each have a copy

Re:RMS - Who will replace him?

[petrus4]

A few more upgrades, like AI, memory storage etc then we will never have to worry about who will replace RMS. We will each have a copy.

Mine would be subjected to *massive* reprogramming. ;-)

Re:RMS - Who will replace him?

[Dread_ed]

A movement with a good idea behind it will outlive its creators without worrying about who will carry the torch.

Sure planning for the future is important, but if what you are advocating is powerful enough and important enough it will thrive on its own. Opposition will galvanize the supporters. Any infringement on the original tenents will be seen as an overture to outright heresy.

You see it all the time with religions and political movements. The heads are interchangable, it's the message that matters and, ultimately, endures.

Why should such a fantastic idea as the freedom of software and the right of self determination with regard to your media be any different?

Re:RMS - Who will replace him?

[Slashdiddly]

Lawrence Lessig

Re:How does he stay alive?

[spectecjr]

As in who pays for RMS' living and traveling expenses? Donations to the FSF? Someone with insight please comment. I think in many ways RMS is brilliant, but how has he paid his bills promoting FOSS for the last 20+ odd years?

In 1990, he was awarded a $240,000 fellowship by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
In 2001, he won an $268k Takeda Award for Techno-Entrepreneurial Achievement for Social/Economic Well-Being.

He ain't exactly hurting for cash. That's just the awards he has won. He makes most of his cash from speeches and personal appearances.

Which is cool, you know, if you're a superstar and can make money that way. But most programmers aren't, and can't.

Re:Yes, really hates fascism...

[Bazzalisk]

Oh come on!

A Fascist is someone who believes that society shoudl resemble a bundle of sticks! (possibly with an axe in it)

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Extreme right? Odd. Hitler originated from the social workers party (NSDAP)...

Yeah, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy, I guess?

Re:GNU/LINUX

[geminidomino]

Ok, who wants to start a project to port the FreeBSD userbase to linux, just to piss off these GNUts?

Re:GNU/LINUX

[geminidomino]

That should, of course, say "userSPace."

RMS wants to outlaw non-free software

[greggman]

a discussion on the outlawing of free software

If you'd actually read RMS maybe you'd know his goal is to outlaw non GPLed software.

What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned. RMS

Re:RMS wants to outlaw non-free software

[16K Ram Pack]

Right. Against fascism. "high-paying ones are banned". Not fascist at all.

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.

Re:RMS wants to outlaw non-free software

[Just Some Guy]

And no-one's going to pay me to do what I like.

Then you're not very good at it, or you're really bad at marketing yourself.

Sorry.

No matter how niche your preferences are, somebody somewhere will finance them if you can make a business case for it. Don't extrapolate your own lack of initiative or creativity to everyone else, because many of us make good livings doing exactly what we enjoy.

Re:RMS wants to outlaw non-free software

[16K Ram Pack]

As you know so much more about marketing than me, how about you find someone to finance my project to write a Linux clone of Mr Do. I'll need a budget of about $25 million, and about 10 years to develop it, during which I really don't want to make any progress reports.

I'll give you 10% when you find someone to finance it.

What's the name of the software company you are running?

Re:RMS wants to outlaw non-free software

[Just Some Guy]

As you know so much more about marketing than me, how about you find someone to finance my project to write a Linux clone of Mr Do.

I've already found my financier - your own is up to you.

I'll need a budget of about $25 million, and about 10 years to develop it, during which I really don't want to make any progress reports.

So, you're saying that you want to write video games for Linux. That's the first step. The next step is to contact various game houses to see if your skills match their needs, and sell them on the project. Failing that, find a venture capitalist who shares your vision (or at least thinks he could make money off it). If they buy it, yay - you're on your way to your dream! If they don't, then maybe it's time to re-evaluate your dreams, career goals, and professional abilities.

Re:RMS wants to outlaw non-free software

[leomekenkamp]

Do you mean to say that according to RMS, 'banning' equals 'outlawing'? Or is that your definition?

Re:RMS wants to outlaw non-free software

[16K Ram Pack]

So what you are saying now is that you actually can't do exactly what you want to do, that you have to "re-evaluate your dreams", which was sorta my point. That you can't always do exactly what you want, because what you offer isn't always what someone wants.

Re:RMS wants to outlaw non-free software

[Loundry]

Earlier you claimed this:

No matter how niche your preferences are, somebody somewhere will finance them if you can make a business case for it.

Later, you claimed this:

If they buy it, yay - you're on your way to your dream! If they don't, then maybe it's time to re-evaluate your dreams, career goals, and professional abilities.

Why should he have to re-evaluate his dreams if it's guaranteed that somebody, somewhere can make a business case for it? You implied that the parent was stupid and incompetent because no one would pay him to do what he liked to do, whereas here you seem to indicate that perhaps it's not merely stupidity or incompetence which drives a failure.

Re:RMS wants to outlaw non-free software

[greggman]

Since when are you his spokesperson? What I posted says nothing about copyright. He probably his for copyright. But his words are pretty plain, their is no spin. If anyone is spinning it's you. He would like to see non-free (as in non-GPLed) software banned and has suggested this multiple times. It's kind of hard to co-operate with someone when their stated goal is to ban those who disagree with him

Re:RMS wants to outlaw non-free software

[greggman]

Main Entry: 1ban
Pronunciation: 'ban
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): banned; banning
Etymology: Middle English bannen to summon, curse, from Old English bannan to summon; akin to Old High German bannan to command, Latin fari to speak, Greek phanai to say, phOnE sound, voice
transitive senses
1 archaic : CURSE
2 : to prohibit especially by legal means [ban discrimination]; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of [ban a book] [ban a pesticide]

Main Entry: 2outlaw
Function: transitive verb
1 a : to deprive of the benefit and protection of law : declare to be an outlaw b : to make illegal [outlawed dueling]
2 : to place under a ban or restriction
3 : to remove from legal jurisdiction or enforcement

No, it's not my definition. it's *THE* definition. Ban = outlaw.

Re:RMS wants to outlaw non-free software

[leomekenkamp]

Ouch, that's what you get when posting to an all English site while the language of your thinking processes is Dutch.

From 'Van Dale':
bannen (ov.ww.)
1 in de ban doen => verbannen
2 door bezwering verdrijven => uitdrijven

In Dutch the meaning is more: to drive out, to expel, to put in exile, to exorcise. That is how I read RMS words as well; I think he is outspoken enough to say we should have laws against non-free software if that is what he really means. I think he simply wants all people to stop using non-free software, and this is very much more consistent with his other statements on this issue than a 'outlaw non-free software' statement.

But you were indeed right on the ban == outlaw equality.

Re:How does he stay alive?

[pato101]

He ain't exactly hurting for cash. That's just the awards he has won
Furthermore, he seems not to spend much money.

What does he do for a living?

[sgant]

How does Stallman get paid? What does he do that he recieves a paycheck to you know...buy food, pay the bills...perhaps rent or a house payment? Where does his money come from?

Because it sounds like he doesn't accept money for any programming, and that's basically what he does all the time.

Does he work at a company that does something totally different than computers and computer related things? Does he work at Pier 1 or Dennys or where ever during the day and at night he programs and writes his manifestos?

I'm not trying to be a troll here, I honestly would like to know. He seems to be big on everything free as in beer AND free as in every other definition of the word. He seems to spend all his time working on free software and promoting GNU and all things GNU so how does he get compensated for all this?

Re:What does he do for a living?

[LiquidCoooled]

From the wiki article (I know its not gospel, but its reasonable..):

Since the mid-1990s, Stallman has spent most of his time as a political campaigner, advocating free software and campaigning against software idea patents and expansions of copyright law. The time that he still devotes to programming is spent on GNU Emacs. He supports himself by being paid for around half of the speeches he gives.

Re:What does he do for a living?

[daviddennis]

I know that when I hung out at MIT, he was staff, not a professor, so I'd be very surprised to say the least if he taught any classes as another reply to your message says. From my acquiantance with him, there's no question that he was a man of principle, which is in both an admirable and a terrifying thing. I definitely would not accuse him of ever being less than genuine or willing to betray his principles.

At the time I knew him, he was rebelling against the institution of passwords that had just been introduced at MIT. He made it very well known that his password was blank, and later when they forbade blank passwords, he made sure the whole world knew what it was. In those ArpaNet days, most of the people who discovered the ArpaNet and used MIT's systems were pretty benign, but today, sadly, his stand wouldn't last 24 hours before his data was ruined by vandals. It is truly a sad world we live in.

During his formative years he was paid by MIT as a staffer. I think he was fired, or he quit over an issue of principle (probably revolving around his free software principles, but I don't know the details). However, he was allowed to continue using MIT's facilities, and I seem to remember hearing that at least for a while, he lived in the building.

At this point, I don't recognize GNU's address as being the MIT building he was long associated with. His building [warning: link in PDF] looks pretty nice, so I assume he and his organization are not doing badly financially. In fact, the 5th floor is the top of the building, which traditionally commands high rents.

I strongly suspect what's going on is that the FSF - which I believe is effectively him - gets contributions, and they pay for the office space and whatever salary he takes out of it. When he was starting out with emacs, he would charge a substantial sum (I think a few hundred dollars) for tapes. And of course the emacs manual and official documentation are still being sold.

I think he would have been more of a business success with a less rigid attitude, but he seems to be making enough money for him, and personally, even if I were a donor, I wouldn't care if he was taking a $100k+ salary from the FSF. Indeed, I hope he is and is living well, because he deserves it as an incredibly hard-working and principled individual.

Hope that helps.

D

Re:What does he do for a living?

[HFh]

He's not a professor, college or otherwise, so I you should resubmit your rant. His history with MIT, living space, showering, and groupies is legendary and when I was a grad student there, it came up quite often. Now that Tech Square and the AI Lab are gone and they're in that, um, interesting new building and have merged with LCS to make CSAIL, I wonder where he spends his time. I could find out I suppose, but I'm too lazy. He also beat me at a staring contest once, if that helps. Peace.

Re:What does he do for a living?

[BinLadenMyHero]

Because it sounds like he doesn't accept money for any programming

That's not true.

He doesn't accept that the software he (or anyone, and that's the part many people disagree with him) write is non-Free.

There are many cases where a company pay you to write Free software. Not all software is for selling. Many times the company need the software as a tool, and doesn't mind others to be able to use it too. I myself have been paid to write Free software some times. For example, to fix a bug in a Free software that the company uses. The patch is then sent back to the software project.

Re:What does he do for a living?

[sconeu]

I believe he also won a MacArthur foundation "genius" grant. That probably defrayed some of his expenses for a while.

Re:What does he do for a living?

[daviddennis]

I don't think zmag would like his positions on certain issues. Beneath the veneer of talking about the tyrant Bush, he supports free enterprise and freedom of exchange. You can even see that in his interview: Instead of asking for a government program to develop software, he went and did it himself. You can see that he appreciates the freedom he had to do this, even at great personal cost. I do not think he would be happy under a Communist tyranny.

But in terms of his idealism, I'm afraid you're right. And that's why I mentioned in my original message that his idealism was a little scary. It seemed to defy condiions on the ground. I can respect his idealism while still saying that alas, it's not workable for most people.

I stand by my statement that it's really crummy this is the case. They were building a little utopia up there at the AI lab, where users from outside could get in via the ArpaNet and play around with the same computers the big guys did. It worked amazingly well while it lasted, but subsequent events make it all too clear it was not scalable past a community where everyone knew each other :-(.

It didn't hurt that ITS (the Incompatible Timesharing System, which was used at the AI Lab at the time) was very hard to learn. People keen to learn it tended to be relatively benign, which is why they were able to maintain open public access for a time. As an example, you would log in by using u - dhdu would log me in, and you could log out with u. Control-O deleted files, Control-R printed them, and so on.

If you knew the secret, you could type lock and at the _ prompt, 5down to take the whole system down in five minutes. No way that could survive in the modern era.

D

Re:What does he do for a living?

[eno2001]

He's not a professor. I also assert that the rest of the world should be modelled on academia because it would raise the intellectual bar. It all comes down to fundamentals:

Viewpoint 1
Q. Why am I here?
A. To live and be happy. This is accomplished by doing whatever I need to do to better myself and my life. The effect that I have on others is inconsequential as long as I am happy and alive and comfortable. This is everyone's personal responsibility to themselves. As long as everyone operates in this way everyone is capable of being happy, alive and comfortable. Anyone who is suffering is doing so only because they haven't followed the rules and is none of my concern.

Viewpoint 2
Q. Why am I here?
A. To live and be happy. Society should provide systems to keep me alive and happy at a base level. Any society that fails to do so is immoral. Conversely I also have a social responsibility to help build the system that will keep others alive and happy. This is done through properly applied taxes, laws and the oversight of people who are honest and trustworthy to maintain the system.

Between those two extremes is the ugly, harsh reality. In viewpoint 1, the onus is on the individual (capitalism). However, viewpoint 1 conveniently ignores the fact that any individual who is unscrupulous will abuse this system to his advantage. It could be that viewpoint 1 assumes that the abuse is acceptable, but I would argue that it just ignores the fact. A wealthy individual will use his monetary power to prevent others from becoming wealthy in similar means (anti-competitive practices). A physcially strong individual will use his strength to overpower a physically weaker individual if it will benefit him in some way (rape, assault, theft). A technically adept individual will use his intellectual abilities for personal gain (phishing, cracking, etc...). Therefore viewpoint 1 is either flawed (ignoring it's problems) or immoral (accepting the using one's abilities against another is a good thing).

Viewpoint 2 puts the onus on social systems (government funded social programs, non-profit charitable organizations, socialism, communism) to provide for every citizen in equal amounts at a guaranteed quality of life. So far no attempt at this has succeeded which is not to say it's not possible. The main issue with these systems is the same as the one that is putting a hole in capitalist systems: greed, selfishness and dishonesty. In this view the assumption is that every individual is willing to help another with the knowledge that everyone is willing to do the same for them. This is obviosly not the case as illustrated in viewpoint 1. This is the ideal system, but as long as humans have the character flaws of selfishness and greed, NO system will work perfectly. Capitalism is falling apart as witness by the decline of dsitributed wealth in the U.S. and other developed nations. And it is falling apart in the same way that communism did. There is a very small number of people who are in charge of the system and that number is getting smaller. It is no longer possible for someone to easily put out his shingle and "make it" unless he already has a lot of money and power. Anyone who does come up with an idea for a product or service that can make them wealthy has a very small chance of making it to the top as they will be bought out before they get there.

It sounds to me like a lot of people on Slashdot subscribe to viewpoint 1.

Re:What does he do for a living?

[Entropy]

I also assert that the rest of the world should be modelled on academia because it would raise the intellectual bar.

People would _starve to death_ .. no thanks!

Re:What does he do for a living?

[maggard]

I think he is a college professor. Meaning that he will have to teach a couple of classes and sign up for grants for whatever whim he has at the time. I have respect for real Professors who feel teaching Higher Education as a passion and enjoys the topic of their choice. But I don't have much for RMS where he just uses his classes to spit out more dribble and get more mindless followers, and teach a little bit of the topic.

You " think he is a college professor", then go on state declaratively "he just uses his classes to spit out more dribble"?!!

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!)

Re:What does he do for a living?

[eightball]

I am not sure there is a philosophy that encompasses your viewpoint 1 as described. I strongly suspect it is your perspective that is blinding you into using an overly broad description. In almost all cases, tresspass is actionable. The exceptions involve either government intervention (i.e. not capitalism) or some form of guild city state hybrid where the corporations, unchecked by any overarching state, command armies to wage economic war.

Capitalism itself does not concern itself about the political system that surrounds it. This is where I think you are making your mistake. Right now there is no place where government does not interfere with the market in one way or another. Although the market tries to get around these obstacles, it creates inefficiences. I would not say with certainty that pure capitalism would be an unqualified boon, but to suggest that the current condition of the world economy is due to capitalism is not very well supported by the facts. In order to do so, you would need to remove the effects of the government to show that capitalism would have produced the same effect.

One of the main reasons you can't just hang out a shingle nowadays has more to do with government regulation than capitalism. It is also not borne out by the facts: Napster, anyone? Or handfuls of other companies started during the 90's. Other examples are numerous but not particularly illustrative as most serve particular niches. All industries do not need to demonstrate the same level of turnover to be competetive. So, yes, turnover in large industries is glacial, but that is not the whole economy.

I have no great love for certain segments of Slashdot, but your last line is unwarranted. First you start out with a nuanced perspective that reality is somewhere in between the two viewpoints, then you brand a large segment as being extremists. It is most difficult to understand the complexities of a viewpoint you do not hold and I think it is keeping you from distinguishing 'a lot of people on Slashdot' from your viewpoint 1. You really think a large number of people on Slashdot condone "rape, assault, theft" in the pursuit of happiness by the powerful?

Re:What does he do for a living?

[eno2001]

You really think a large number of people on Slashdot condone "rape, assault, theft" in the pursuit of happiness by the powerful?

We apparently haven't met the same people on Slashdot.

Re:What does he do for a living?

[RevAaron]

You can see that he appreciates the freedom he had to do this, even at great personal cost. I do not think he would be happy under a Communist tyranny.

Nor would the vast majority of the readers, writers, and editors of ZMag. Point?

Contrary to both the propaganda of the so-called communist countries and the bourgeois democracies, there aren't just three choices- bourgeois democracy, fascism or a rightist communist dictatorship.

Re:What does he do for a living?

[daviddennis]

Insofar as I can tell, Znet wants some kind of participatory democracy where everyone votes on what people can have. So instead of buying what you want, you put in requests to the central system, everyone votes on it, and you receive what they want to give you.

Basically, it means that every year you have to beg for your allowance.

I really, really don't think Richard Stallman would do well in that kind of world.

I'd be happy to hear that I'm wrong, but as I understand it, it sounds like a horrible system. It's especially hard on individualists and eccentrics, and I think that describes both RMS and myself.

D

Re:What does he do for a living?

[eno2001]

I see lots of "free market" capitalists who claim "personal responsibility" and label themselves libertarian even though they have views to the right of Hitler (who was a right winger BTW).

Re:What does he do for a living?

[Bob Uhl]

Troll?!? The moderators really need to put down the crack pipe...

Re:What does he do for a living?

[RevAaron]

I don't know enough about ZMag's specific views, I don't think they have a "party line" per se, but they do espouse direct democracy, worker control and participatory economics. However, these things do not preclude the idea of money. It's not a matter of the country (or some other political unit) votes on what "you receive," and then everyone in the coutnry recieves the same ration of butter, milk, jeans, red shirts, blue shirts, green shirts, black sweaters, blue sweaters, one new tire for your car each year, etc. Generally, though I've not read ZMag all that much or for all that long, I would say they generally espouse a system of parecon and direct democracy, but with a market system. There is no rule that says in a socialist, communist or anarchist society that no one gets paid; or that everyone automatically gets paid the same amount, reguardless of the type of work or amount of work - or even if any work is done, but that is a common misconception. I don't know how an individualist like yourself, RMS or myself would have it especially hard. Unless by "individualist" you mean someone who, through exploitation, manages to acquire wealth far beyond what work they've done to obtain it, perhaps to buy a 100 million USD house, or built their own Neverland Ranch, etc. Those sorts of excesses would generally be beyond reach, at least outside of the setting where a group of folks had access to it.

Hope that clarifies it somewhat.

Your Choice: Rightwing or Extremely Rightwing

[FreeUser]

That's interesting - in the UK liberal means "centre", with a slight lean to the left. While conservative is "right". So in the US I thought the republicans are "right" (the equivalent of our conservatives) and the democrats are "left" (the equivalent of our old labour party, although they're pretty much "right" now). Is that correct?

No. Republicans are extreme right, Democrats are right. Your Tory party is about as far left as our Democrats, while our replubicans can best be described as ranging from far to the right of your Tories to even further right, up to and including to the right of, well, if I say his name, someone will invoke Godwin's Joke.

The Democrats are pro-business, about 40% pro-war, mostly but not entirely against institutions basic to the rest of the developed world (such as national, comprehensive healthcare, subsidized access to university for every intellectually qualified prospective student, etc.) and pro-corporate welfare (subsidies, tax breaks, business incentives, etc.). The democrats do believe in a secular separation of church and state, due process, and other quaint constitutional notions no longer in vogue in the United States, and they do by and large support women's rights, including their right to reproductive choice.

The Republicans are pro-business, about 95% pro-war, almost entirely against institutions basic to the rest of the developed world (national heathcare, etc.), and are pro-corporate welfare. The republicans by and large do not believe in a secular separation of church and state, play it very fast and loose with due process, and are seemingly unconcerned with other quaint notions of constitutionality such as the right to be secure in one's person (privacy). They almost entirely do not support womens rights, and believe a woman's body becomes chattel of the church and state upon conception and remains so until the feotus matures into a human being and is born, whether the woman likes it or not.

As you can see, the political menu de jour in America is: would you like your leadership to the right, or to the extreme right? It is interesting that more and more companies are following Daimler-Chryslers lead, and moving their operations to Europe, where the national heathcare systems have remained affordable while American healthcare costs have gone through the roof. The Darwinistic system Republicans and many Democrats have lead us to erroneously believe to be more economically sustainable than "those damn European socialists" is in fact much less scalable, and much less maintainable, than their systems. Myths of Canadians standing in line to come to American hospitals notwithstanding (sorry, having the Canadian equivelent of Bill Gates decide to jump to the front of the queue for heart bypass surgery by buying a place in an American hospital doesn't count--and it's surprising that, all this while we're lauding our system for being so great, no one asks about the person who got bumped out of the queue by our wonderful system to accomodate the wealthy Canadians who can't be bothered to wait their turn in their own system, nor does anyone seem to notice that the truly wealthiest-of-the-wealthy are all going to Paris and London for treatment, not the US, but I digress), we have the most expensive, and least bang-for-buck medical system in the developed world, so much so that companies are finding it more affordable to operate in Europe than in the US, long vacations and better benefits notwithstanding.

Re:Your Choice: Rightwing or Extremely Rightwing

[MrFrank]

Wow, if I only had mod points, what a Troll.

95% pro-business, yep someone's got to give out the pay checks. Pro-corporate well-fare, I have to agree with you on that one, although both major parties are guilty of that one, for example, the most recent bankruptcy laws are so one sided its an f'ing joke.

Almost entirely against institutions basic to the rest of the developed world? What a load BS. I have not heard of any Republicans, Bush included, that want to tear out Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These are there as a safety net. It used to be the "American Attitude". When you are down on your luck, you dig down deep and pull yourself up and make it work. The people that bitch that the government isn't doing enough can kiss my ass. My parents started with nothing, got themselves just enough so I didn't qualify for federal grants are college. I started with nothing and left college with a lot of student loans. People who are "intellectually qualified" but can not afford school are given ways to attend though pubic and private grants and scholarships. Some works does need to be done to find these grants and scholarships. You have to find the money, it won't find you. Then there are subsidized loans for those who are in not as much need.

Don't believe in the separation of church and state?!?!? WTF. I have not heard or seen anyone promoting a state run church. We just have a President who is not ashamed of his Christian faith. He has not attempted to force it upon others, has he? Have you been taken down to the local church and forced to pray to God? Nope, didn't think so. There is nothing wrong with expressing ones faith, in a public or private area. Just don't force it upon someone else.

Playing fast and loose with due process and privacy concerns will get the President bitch slapped by congress. Neither side is too happy with the latest debacle. Most conservatives, I didn't use the term Republican on purpose, are disgusted over how former A.G. Ashcroft and now the President could care less about the constitution. I wouldn't doubt if the President is impeached. I doubt the impeachment will pass, but it should send a message.

Not supporting women's right?!?!?! Your full of it. No wait, your right, women's rights have been pushed back at least 100 years over the past 5. What was I thinking.

As for pro-choice. It comes down to when you think life begins. To me, that is at conception. Here is how I look at it. Most women who get pregnant made a choice. They made a choice to have sex. They knew what the results could be, but went through with it any way. Abortion is not a form of birth control. I do realize the not all pregnancies are a result of consensual sex. Sadly, rapes happen. That is a disgusting fact of life. As much as I wouldn't want to, I would make a compromise to have a provision for a rape clause in the abortion laws. But rape charges would have to be processed with the local authorities and could not be dropped. If it turns out later that the charges were falsely made just to get an abortion, lady goes to jail for filing a false police report.

I would have to say that 95% of your comments were just plain BS.

Re:Your Choice: Rightwing or Extremely Rightwing

[Lemmy Caution]

A breathtakingly honest and accurate analysis.

Freud describes something called "the petty narcissism of small differences," the basis for the hatred of people who are more like you than you would ever care to admit. The gap between the two parties is far smaller than either of them will admit. The Clintons have been enthusiastically pro-war from the get-go; the Republicans have been ballooning the size of government (without providing or improving services) - the civil liberties situation in the US is deteriorating with little opposition.

And the ideological straight-jackets that people work from makes them miss some important information, such as the fact that the absence of a national healthcare program is hurting businesses, as is the collapse of the K-12 educational system.

Shouldn't he credit Asimov???

[Finsterwald P Ogleth]

Isaac Asimov created the Zeroth Law of Robotics...I guess one can blame him for starting with zero...

Whoa there - Wikipedia: Consider the source

[TrappedByMyself]

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.

Re:Whoa there - Wikipedia: Consider the source

[Coryoth]

In practice "Facism" is a meaningless term these days. In common usage it has simply become an epithet for someone you don't like. In more serious use it has become the victim of multiple definition to the point where there is absolutely no clearly defined general political philosophy. All that can apparently be agreed upon anymore is that Nazi Germany and Italy under Mussolini were "Facist" states - what the characteristics that made them facist, however, are defined in myriad different ways. For every subset of characteristics of Nazi Germany and Italy under Mussolini there exists some respectable definition of Facism somewher that defines it using precisely that subset.

Jedidiah.

Re:Whoa there - Wikipedia: Consider the source

[ceoyoyo]

Here you go. Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9117286. Also, see http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-219369?query= Corporatism&ct=. Unfortunately you can't see the whole article, but the Wikipedia entry (at least when I looked) is pretty objective. I suspect it is defaced frequently though.

The definition of Fascism isn't political (the MISdefinition of it is).

From the Britannica article there are several features that fascist governments tend to have in common. Some of them fit the present day US quite well. Others may not, but actually, if you think about it, actually seem to fit in a really scary way. The suggestion isn't that the US is fascist now, but may be moving alarmingly in that direction. Take note -- as Chamberlain learned pre-WWII, it's better to be vigilant and face problems rather than hope they'll go away.

Open source is often a second-class citizen

[Nurgled]

The company I work at has two arms. There's an arm which develops bespoke software solutions for businesses, and these are generally Windows-based because that's what the company is already using or what the company knows about.

The other arm makes websites for local small businesses. This arm was created mostly as a little monetary prop-up between big software projects when the company was small. About a year ago an enterprising young web developer decided it'd be easier for him if he wrote a simple CMS to manage our website. Since this was not an officially-approved project and the website was running on a Plesk server at the time, he wrote the CMS in PHP using mySQL for the database. Once the boss got wind of this he decided it would be nice to use this software for client sites so that they could update their own stuff without having to come back to us.

A year on our CMS product has come on in leaps and bounds, and it is that I spend most of my time working on. However, it's like a little island of open source in an otherwise Microsoft world. Consequently, all of the development happens on Windows servers with the Windows version of Apache usually relegated to some non-standard port because IIS is in the way on port 80. There's only one non-Windows server in the whole place and it is not allocated for development. Open source gets a rough deal in my company, and I suspect the same is true in most places.

Re:Open source is often a second-class citizen

[Fred_A]

The fact that most places have a culture of dealing with MS products certainly has a lot to do with it.
Unix and big iron shops are slightly more open (at least sometimes).

However as I was saying above, the concept is getting more and more exposure so one can always hope (crosses fingers)...

Re:How does he stay alive?

[BushCheney08]

Furthermore, he seems not to spend much money.

Hey man, do you have ANY IDEA how much soap and water costs these days? I can't say I really blame him... : p

Hypocrisy

[LaughingCoder]

RMS: There are some special circumstances. To develop GNU, I used Unix. But first, I thought about whether it would be ethical to do that.

I concluded it was legitimate to use Unix to develop GNU, because GNU's purpose was to help everyone else stop using Unix sooner. We weren't merely using Unix to do some worthwhile job, we were using it to end the specific evil that we were participating in.

Hypocrisy pure and simple. I love how earlier in the interview he says:

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.

Clearly one can write an operating system without using an operating system. I have done it and I'm sure others in Slashdot-land have as well. To blithely say everyone else should follow his draconian rules, but he is immune because of "special circumstances" is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Just Some Guy]

Clearly one can write an operating system without using an operating system. I have done it and I'm sure others in Slashdot-land have as well.

You toggled opcodes into RAM, bootstrapped it into a running system, then self-hosted the rest of the implementation? Very impressive!

Re:Hypocrisy

[LaughingCoder]

Thank you. Yes, as a matter of fact I handwrote and hand-assembled the code, then keyed in the hex. And before you point out that the software that interpretted my keystrokes was an "OS", I wrote that also, and hand-keyed the hex into a prom burner. Fortunately, the prom burner is a piece of "non-free" hardware which, for some reason, is not subject to RMS's draconian rules ... so, ummm, the answer to your question is most definitely yes. Of course I did all this in the late 70s as a hobbyist.

My views are significantly different from those expressed by RMS. I believe we all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. Whether they chose to "pursue personal goals" or if they were "pure of spirit" doesn't matter to me. What matters is leverage. And I hope I am creating things that others will build upon. That is how great things are created. If you instead have this silly political dogma govern everything you do, replicating the work of others merely to satisfy some self-absorbed "morality", you (please pardon the pun) stall progress.

Re:Hypocrisy

[leomekenkamp]

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.

Re:Hypocrisy

[LaughingCoder]

Actually, I did include his rationalization for his "digression".

We weren't merely using Unix to do some worthwhile job, we were using it to end the specific evil that we were participating in

I did not misquote; nor did I use his words out of context. It is not my fault if his rationale is inconsistent and his words are hypocritical. I am merely pointing out the logical inconsistency in his public statements.

Re:Hypocrisy

[LaughingCoder]

So another data point that proves my assertion. So why then did RMS use UNIX? UNIX, in his words, is evil. And (his words again) people who use non-free software are making an ethical choice. We have established that this was not necessary in order to accomplish his goal. So instead he compromised his principals - the very principals with which he flogs everyone else. Throwing his coat over a video camera because the event was being streamed in Real Player format is nice theatrics. Too bad that's all it is.

Re:Hypocrisy

[leomekenkamp]

RMS states that from his POV one may use non-free software if one is working on a free replacement for that non-free software. Why is this inconsistent and/or hypocritical?

Genghis Khan the progressive

[amightywind]

To be honest in the current political climate it would be hard to find someone in Europe who wouldn't be considered liberal in the USA - the current US polirtics make Genghis Khan's wealth redistribution policies look positively progressive - and Mussolini would be considered practicaly a commie!

Genghis Khan was a brutal conqueror. But cities that submitted to him paid a 10% tax and accepted a rather draconian though functional legal system received functioning markets and trade without much interference. The US today under Republican leadership has a federal tax rate of 35%. If you withhold some of that 35% your will not be tortured and executed by the IRS as you would be by withholding from Genghis Khan. You will only be tortured. Lord knows what stratospheric levels it will reach if the Democrats ever return to power. Some of GK's policies indeed seem progressive.

Liberal Hate Speech?

[Hercules Peanut]

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"

Re:Liberal Hate Speech?

[16K Ram Pack]

Based on what I've read of the Gnu manifesto, the guy's quite a fascist himself, referring to a "software tax" and high paying organisations being "banned".

Most left-wing "liberals" don't understand just how fascist they are. They see their aims as being "good" and other people's as "bad". They assume superiority over others who do not share their view, and sneer at others, assuming that other people can't possibly decide for themselves what is good for them (eg over healthcare, transport, choice of computer).

Conservatism is generally less bad, but still likes to nanny people. Hopefully, the Conservative party in the UK will go more in that direction.

Re:Liberal Hate Speech?

[stinerman]

I can decide for myself what is best for me. Universal health care and public transportation are both best for me because I'm a college student, and subsequently, broke as hell.

Re:Liberal Hate Speech?

[benjamindees]

Surprisingly, I can decide what is best for me as well. Paying for public transportation and free health care for your broke ass isn't part of it.

Re:Liberal Hate Speech?

[stinerman]

Here's an idea. I'll work for self-actualization and you can work for material goods. Does that work?

Re:Liberal Hate Speech?

[benjamindees]

Where do you need to go to become self-actualized? And why is it so dangerous as to require medical attention?

Re:Liberal Hate Speech?

[mcgroarty]

"Here's an idea. I'll work for self-actualization and you can work for material goods. Does that work?"

Sure. Just do it on your own dime, knowing nothing the government can do for you is "free."

Re:I've actually met him.

[PHPfanboy]

the wtc bit isn't true actually. (That's World Trade Center I'm guessing)

I know this with certainty because I'm really really Jewish (so I can speak to all other Jews in realtime and we all agree and we all work together and when we're not taking everyone's money which we already have anyway we're busy planning to take over the world whatever that means and... oh yeah, and eating bagels with lox).

In fact the guy who owns the company which owns the wtc building is Jewish, but you've gotta be really fucking delusional if you think he convinced a bunch of Saudi Arabians to fly 2 planes into the buildings as part of an insurance scam.

RMS had better watch out

[mslinux]

Calling the prez a facist?

I bet he just got bumped up on W's list... don't be surprised if RMS meets a sudden and unfortunate demise... hope they don't arrest him and try him in court.

Judge: "Please place your hand on the Bible and swear an oath to tell the truth..."

RMS: "Judge. Notice that I did not call you, 'Your Honor' as I do not honor the authority that you claim to hold. Furthermore, I will not place my hand on a Bible and take an oath. The Bible is a book of fairy tales and fables that I hold no respect for as it enslaves the mind of man. And..."

Re:RMS had better watch out

[DataCannibal]

As a matter of interest, aren't you allowed to swear on anything but the bible, or take some other form of oath if you're a non-christian in a US court. In the Hollywod films that I've scene they never seem to cross-examine someone not from a Judao-Christian religion, or someone non-religious.

Here in the UK you have the choice to swear on the bible or to make an affirmation.

Re:RMS had better watch out

[Tony]

I bet he just got bumped up on W's list... don't be surprised if RMS meets a sudden and unfortunate demise... hope they don't arrest him and try him in court.

The great thing about the President being a fascist is, they don't have to try him in court. They can just call him a liberal pinko commie.... that is, a liberal pinko terrorist, and they can just make him disappear.

I LOVE MY FUCKIN' COUNTRY!

Re:RMS had better watch out

[petrus4]

I bet he just got bumped up on W's list... don't be surprised if RMS meets a sudden and unfortunate demise... hope they don't arrest him and try him in court.

I doubt it, somehow. Just about everybody who's conscious these days knows about Bush's dictatorial aspirations...we didn't need The Prophet (sic) to tell us that.

Stallman would probably love it if W *did* arrest him, though...ESR has written about him having aspirations towards martyrdom. Stallman considers at least the appearance of having the moral high ground to be extremely powerful...and I suspect he would consider his assassination to be the ultimate logical extension of such.

Stallman is somebody who wants nothing more than to be seen as a greater man than he actually is, and he consistently demonstrates that a craving for veneration is his primary motivation. Thus, in his mind, being awarded concrete boots would be the greatest honour anyone could bestow upon him...because it would mean he could potentially be seen in the same light as someone like Martin Luther King or John Lennon...which is exactly how he wants to be seen.

Re:RMS had better watch out

[frank_adrian314159]

ESR has written about [RMS] having aspirations towards martyrdom...and I suspect [RMS] would consider [RMS's] assassination to be the ultimate logical extension of such.

Hell, I'd expect old ESR to pop him myself - give him a chance to go big game huntin', get his name in the paper... Maybe the CIA will offer him a contract!

Re:RMS had better watch out

[benjamindees]

Right, you don't have to swear on a bible. Most jurisdictions don't use a bible anymore anyways.

You can hate Communism and support FOSS

[lbbros]

Like I do. What I mean is that I see FOSS (but not necessarily GPLed software, though I like the license) gives equal grounds for everyone to compete. And competition on fair grounds promotes innovation.

Proprietary software and Stallman's views on jobs

[Noksagt]

Not that I 100% agree with RMS, but....

RMS: One can live without doing those jobs.

...you are required to meet deadlines imposed by customers and to produce end products specified by customers, otherwise your business fails...you'll naturally assume that ... software engineers working on customer-driven projects are the minority. Sad to say, that ain't the case.

Stallman would say that you shouldn't take that kind of software engineering job. Ideally, I suppose, you'd find a job where you can use or develop only Free software. But Stallman has said before that he realizes that this can't always be done, and pointed out that there are many jobs out there that aren't centered around software development that you could make a living without relying on proprietary software. And he is right about that--many people do get by with minimal use of computers today.

It is unlikely that someone who is most passionate about and most talented at software engineering would choose a career in another field. But if you shared RMS's sense of ethics (which, admittedly, most people don't), you probably should choose your conscience first. A trite example: if you were morally opposed to weapons & were an engineer who was offered a job making weapons, would you?

Re:Anything Involving Stallman...

[a.d.trick]

Ahem, that should be 'Anything Involving GNU/Stallman'

Re:Proprietary software and Stallman's views on jo

[DogDude]

Stallman would say that you shouldn't take that kind of software engineering job.

somehow, I sincerely doubt that RMS has ever had to actually *work* a day in his life. RMS doesn't know what in the hell he's talking about.

check out this cool RMS website..

[tomcres]

http://www.gnuse.cx/

Re:Please quote your source

[cowbutt]

[F]ind out who contributed the article and ask them where they got the bit about "economic corporatism"

Possibly Giovanni Gentile, described by Mussolini as 'the philosopher of Fascism' (and who better to judge?) who said:

Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.

(this quote is frequently attributed to Mussolini himself, and publiceye.org questions whether either Mussolini or Gentile ever said it).

Re:Of course, Bush is a fascist.

[sk8king]

Everytime a discussion on fascism comes up I'm reminded of this wonderful article somebody had in their signature so many moons ago [maybe two years]

Re:How does he stay alive?

[arose]

RMS does not get money from the FSF.

Re:How does he stay alive?

[arose]

Which is cool, you know, if you're a superstar and can make money that way. But most programmers aren't, and can't.

Before that he did consulting.

I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[DogDude]

... because if he was, he wouldn't be espousing that businesses throw away any competitive advantage that they may have, and instead throw it away by giving their software away to their competitors. That's one thing about this whole OSS thing that the zealots don't understand... software can be, and often is used as a competitive advantage. Why would a company (say mine) "share" it's code for it's custom apps with competitors, with the *hope* (and that's all it is) that one of my competitors will contribute enough to the project to make their contribution outweigh the loss of my competitive advantage via my software? It makes -zero- sense from a business standpoint, which is why businesses are, by any large, not interested.

Of sure, I wouldn't mind using any free/OSS tools that were already built. If they offer more value than their proprietary counterpart, then it's my obligation to also use this software to my advantage, as well. However, I have no incentive to open up a single line of code that I own.

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[jedidiah]

That's fine for the .0001% of software that actually represents this sort of thing.

Everything else should be a commodity like shoes or Ketchup.

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[DogDude]

And my little business just happens to fall in that "0.0001%"? I find that hard to believe. There's TONS of software that provides a competitive advantage. You think that Wal-Mart is going to "share" their software that runs their JIT supply system? You think that Amazon is going to "share" their recommendation software with their competitors? That's absolutely ridiculous. Saying that software "should" be a commodity is even more ridiculous.

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[Risen888]

It's not like software engineers are reinventing fire or the wheel or something. It's (for the vast majority of cases, including Wal-Mart and Amazon) novel combinations of known programming commands, which can, in most cases, be reverse engineered anyway. You might not write exactly the lines of code that Amazon's people did, but you could make a program that fills essentially the same need.

Most of what we call "innovation" is, in fact, not. Innovation is creating something wholly new (I would say that Java is a good example of this). 99.999% of new software is combining old parts in new ways.

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[DogDude]

And Wal-Mart and Amazon are not doing anything different from other businesses. Neither is the plumber on the corner, or the barber, or any other business for that matter. It's a matter of putting all of the pieces together correctly, and doing it BETTER than the other guy. For many, many businesses (like mine), software is a part of that. Those "novel combinations of known programming commands" are not quite as simple as you make them out to be, and in many cases, is the reason why one business fails and another succeeds.

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[Taevin]

However, I have no incentive to open up a single line of code that I own.

True if you are short sighted enough. In many cases, businesses can and do benefit from having their tools or software open source. I recently bought a RAID card for one of my servers. Their driver is open source and (perhaps because of that) it works great, one of the easiest drive installs I've ever done (and I even had to compile the thing). If tomorrow the driver starts reporting that several drives are missing or something else bizarre, I can open up the source in a text editor, fix the problem, and have the patch to the manufacturer in a few hours (depending on the scope of the problem, of course). I was able to fix my problem quickly and the company gets a free bug fix that they can then distribute to the rest of their customers. Open source software enhances the business to customer relationship without a doubt.

On the surface, inter-business open source dynamics would seem to be a bit trickier since they are competitors. However, software is a tool, nothing more. As such it can be only one (perhaps relatively small) piece of the puzzle. Getting the source code for Walmart's supply system would not get me anywhere close to being competitive with them, for example. You still need people that can use the tool effectively (among other things) for it to gain you any competitiveness.

If companies did share their code between each other, it would only lead to a steady improvement of the code base. Better tools will lead to increased ability to produce which can allow you to overtake your competitor (assuming you are better in the other important areas like marketing as well), even if he is using the same tools.

Besides, you can't control engineers completely. I think I speak for many programmers when I say that we simply want to write and use great software; we just want it to exist. I would have no problem whatsoever fixing some problems in the software of a competing company in my free time. Maybe that would make their software better for me to use in my own personal activities. Or maybe the improved quality of their software would motivate my company to finally approve improving our own. Either way, the overall quality of software in the world has risen and I'm a happy engineer. So in that case, opening your source code to the world is not the problem you see it to be.

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[DogDude]

If companies did share their code between each other, it would only lead to a steady improvement of the code base. Better tools will lead to increased ability to produce which can allow you to overtake your competitor (assuming you are better in the other important areas like marketing as well), even if he is using the same tools.

And this is the key point... if my software is better (ours is, actually), then why would I want to give that up? Our software allows us to sell more, and make more money. What's the point of improving my competitors' systems when all I get is parity with them? The pie isn't getting bigger (or if it is, it doesn't have anything to do with software), but my piece of the pie would certainly shrink. That's something that no business wants.

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[jbn-o]

RMS actually developed and distributed free software commercially for a while. He did this in the early days of the Free Software Movement. He's one of the original programmers of GNU Emacs and the principal developer of the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC). Today, GCC consultants have waiting lists and charge hundreds of dollars an hour.

As for this "competitive advantage", I think we're quickly discovering that this doesn't exist in the way most people believe it to exist—that by keeping the source code to the program a secret, one can retain some advantage over others. Once someone learns what the program does, other programmers can write suitable replacements that will suffice for most, if not all, of one's needs. Those who find themselves facing a competitor seek government-granted power to preclude competition, hence software patents are all the rage among those organizations wealthy enough to afford them. Thus, this "competitive advantage" sells a myth based on a free market that doesn't really exist for computer software.

Also, most proprietary software distributors aren't making a lot of money. They all want to be Oracle, Apple, or Microsoft, but they can't pull it off. This too puts the lie to the idea that secrecy builds profit. Large organizations like IBM are finding out that returning to services is a more profitable endeavor, and one that doesn't require the monopoly powers the government is all too willing to grant. The advantage here is one we can all implement if we have patience and skill—listening to clients, knowing enough to implement their requests, and talking to them in a way they can understand (particularly with non-technical clients).

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[DogDude]

As for this "competitive advantage", I think we're quickly discovering that this doesn't exist in the way most people believe it to exist--that by keeping the source code to the program a secret, one can retain some advantage over others. Once someone learns what the program does, other programmers can write suitable replacements that will suffice for most, if not all, of one's needs. Those who find themselves facing a competitor seek government-granted power to preclude competition, hence software patents are all the rage among those organizations wealthy enough to afford them. Thus, this "competitive advantage" sells a myth based on a free market that doesn't really exist for computer software.

Of course, something can be re-written and copied. It happens all of the time. But why, exactly, would I want to spend time and money writing something only to hand it to somebody else? So I spend $10,000 writing a piece of software, I hand it to a competitor, and then they instantly have a $10,000 advantage over me. That still doesn't make any business sense at all. Software can be a HUGE competitive advantage. Every aspect of business involves competition. The garbage collection company I use. The phone company. The company that washes my windows. My locksmith. It ALL makes a difference. Just because everybody has to do the same thing doesn't mean that it should all be free.

The whole idea that "everybody benefits" works great at an academic level, but falls flat on its face on a business level.

This reminds me of a phone call I got about a year ago. Somebody called me and said that she wanted to do a business just like mine, but close enough to take any customers. She asked if she could have my vendor list. I said "no". Of course she could replicate it. That would be relatively easy. But it still takes time. That's time that I already invested. Why should I hand it over to her? If we ever do compete, then she already has an xxx hour advantage over me, because she didn't have to spend that time finding vendors. Sure, I may get a vendor or two out of the deal from her, but that's still a net loss for me, any way you look at it.

Open Source software is just bad business. The only OSS software we use is stuff that people already developed. We will not ever open source our software, any of our procedures, buying methods, or anything else.

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[stinerman]

And the sooner we stop being adversarial towards our fellow man and start working together, the sooner we might reach paradise. Then again, "I've got mine, so fuck you" is an equally valid ethical system.

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[DogDude]

Also, most proprietary software distributors aren't making a lot of money. They all want to be Oracle, Apple, or Microsoft, but they can't pull it off. This too puts the lie to the idea that secrecy builds profit. Large organizations like IBM are finding out that returning to services is a more profitable endeavor, and one that doesn't require the monopoly powers the government is all too willing to grant. The advantage here is one we can all implement if we have patience and skill--listening to clients, knowing enough to implement their requests, and talking to them in a way they can understand (particularly with non-technical clients).

I know of lots of small software companies that also make money hand over fist. Right now, I'm using an Intuit product, a Ipswitch product, and Helios Software product. None are free or OS, and all of them are profitable companies.

The whole "advantage we can all implement" is the antithesis of business. It's called "collusion", and it's illegal. If an academic wants to spend their time writing software to save me money, good for them. I'll exploit it. But my goal, as a businessperson, is to get a bigger piece of the pie than my competitor, so that I'm more likely to be able to pay my mortgage next month. I'm not looking out for my competition, and in fact, I hope that as many competitors as possible do fail, and I'll step in to fill that void. This isn't rocket science. The whole OSS thing is purely an academic endeavor created by people for whom "competition" is completely irrelevant. That's great for them, but the rest of the non-academic world simply doesn't work that way.

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[DogDude]

And the sooner we stop being adversarial towards our fellow man and start working together, the sooner we might reach paradise.

I agree completely. Could you please point me in the direction of a fellow man that will pay my mortgage and feed my family?

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[crazyphilman]

I've read some of your replies to other people, and it seems you just run some kind of pissy little pet supply business. Why do you small businessmen always think of yourselves in such grandiose, self-flattering terms? What piece of software could you develop for your business that would give you a "competitive advantage"? Hamster Chow Tracker 1.0??? Gimme a fucking break.

When you get over yourself, read the rest of this comment.

Companies that develop internal software generally write boring crap nobody else wants anyway, so it doesn't matter whether they release it open source or not. Everybody knows how to write accounting and timecard software, it's not even remotely challenging. It's boring and dull and if someone like you wants to hoard it, well, the rest of us thank you for it. Good luck with all that "competitive advantage", sparky.

SOME companies develop internal software with which they can do things related to their business that other businesses might be interested in. They frequently release it open source because they know that they'll be able to benefit from the expertise of their competitors (and every college student who notices their software) and they'll gain MORE competitive advantage as a result. This is because they're not hamster food salesmen and they actually know that "competitive advantage" is more about providing good service for a reasonable price than having some magic piece of software sitting around.

Now, I really am sorry for having to lambaste you like this but you've brought it upon yourself with your silly, self-congratulatory post. If I've managed to help you get over yourself, I have achived my goals and increased my "competitive advantage" here on Slashdot.

Up my karma, modders! I have doneth a good deed!

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[stinerman]

As RMS has said before, writing non-free software is not a necessity (I don't necessarily believe that). But then again, that doesn't answer your question.

My answer would be me and many others, so long as you agree to do the same for me (and I don't even have a mortgage!).

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[DogDude]

They frequently release it open source because they know that they'll be able to benefit from the expertise of their competitors (and every college student who notices their software) and they'll gain MORE competitive advantage as a result. This is because they're not hamster food salesmen and they actually know that "competitive advantage" is more about providing good service for a reasonable price than having some magic piece of software sitting around.

MORE competitive advantage? How about a REAL WORLD example? Would you know the real world from a hole in the ground?

Sorry, I'm just a lowly hamster-food salesman with a REAL job and a REAL business. Our business is so simple, that we don't have competitive advantages over competitors, because that's all we do: sell hamster food. Apparently, I know nothing about software and business. I should really go get a Masters Degree in Comp Sci, because then I'll know EVERYTHING (and I'll be able to be a smug son of a bitch).

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[RevAaron]

By your definition, Java certainly isn't an example of the "innovation" of which you speak. Java is little more than C++, cleaned up and with a garbage collector, which the idea of a VM taken from Smalltalk, Pascal p-code, etc. It's far from revolutionary.

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[crazyphilman]

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...

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[crazyphilman]

Oh, I wouldn't worry about the M.S. You're already a smug son of a bitch (I provide your earlier posts as ample proof, you smug son of a bitch).

Since you want a concrete example, I.D. Software, whose annual profits are thousands of times as great as those of a pissy little hamster food salesman, releases every single game engine it produces open source the minute it releases a more modern version. It does this in order to accelerate development of gaming technology, which benefits all game companies; to enhance the talent pool available, by letting college students study their code; to befriend the open-source community and show goodwill and appreciation for all of the work that is currently being done that AIDS THEIR BUSINESS, and in general because they're good people. As a result, I.D. Software is beloved by gamers and programmers alike, and are one of the two or three most important game companies in the world.

Maybe that was a little more example than you were looking for. But it's a good one.

By the way, I'm not a college kid; I'm not even an academic. I'm an enterprise-level software developer with a patent or two under his belt who has singlehandedly made MILLIONS of dollars for one company or another over the past decade. So go fuck yourself, little man. I laugh at your self-aggrandizement.

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[DogDude]

1. I used to be an enterprise-class developer. I got bored, and now I do this. So fuck you very much, Mr. Smug. I'm not getting into some pissing contest.

2. I'm simply pointing out that I'm not some IT wonk who knows about nothing outside of his cubicle. I'm a real world business user.

Sounds like you're compensating for something...

But, to the point, ID Software does it for goodwill among a *tiny* percentage of their uber-geek customers. That's useless for *most* businesses. Somehow, I really doubt that any of my customers would know or care if I released my code to the pubic. Whether or not that helps their sales is another question, altogether.

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[crazyphilman]

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.

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[DogDude]

You're hilarious. I knew DBA's that were like you. They thought that they knew everything about everything, and people who said otherwise were shouted down. Sure, they were in charge of lots and lots of important data, but that didn't make them any less the assholes that they were.

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[benjamindees]

You raise interesting points. The fundamental concept of capitalism is that successful businesses eventually make enough profit through competitive advantage to buy out their competitors, thus ensuring improvement in efficiency of the market. At that point, once a monopoly is reached, the assumption is that the successful monopolist will reduce prices enough to prevent competitors from entering the market, and maintain the monopoly.

Of course, that isn't what happens. Monopolies instead raise prices to take advantage of the high profits available. These high prices encourage others to enter the market. To maintain the monopoly, the market leader has to be constantly buying out new competitors. Theoretically, this process could go on forever. Alternatively, the monopoly either uses it's profits to branch out into new markets in which they have no real expertise or ploughs it's monopoly rents into executives', shareholders', and lenders' pockets.

The net result is that prices remain high, new opportunities appear for those with little or no expertise to enter markets that don't need them and make money regardless, the wealth gap widens, and the customer gets screwed.

Now, what that has to do with a small retail store, I have no idea. You might theoretically obtain enough competitive advantage through small things like process improvements to eventually buy out the pet store across town. But, more likely, your sister will marry a vice-president at the local bank and you'll get a lot of funding to buy out *all* the pet stores in town, and you'll spend your monopoly rents to pay off the loans necessary to do so, doing twice as much work for the same amount of profits. And, if not, you can always just raise prices 5% and your customers likely won't notice a difference until they open a Wal-Mart across the street. Because, let's face it, no matter what you're selling or what magical software you use to do so, you can't hold a candle to Wal-Mart. And that's the moral of the story for all of us: try to make as much money as you can until they open a Wal-Mart next door.

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[OpieTaylor]

dogdude wrote: "That's one thing about this whole OSS thing that the zealots don't understand... software can be, and often is used as a competitive advantage. Why would a company (say mine) "share" it's code for it's custom apps with competitors"

When I see comments like this I wonder whether it's willful ignorance or just people shooting off on something they know nothing about. The GPL clearly says that you are "... free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them." See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html #CanIDemandACopy.

That's clear enough and so easy to find out, so why the FUD?

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[DogDude]

That's clear enough and so easy to find out, so why the FUD?

It's not FUD. It just doesn't make any sense. That clause is irrelevant, because if you're looking to OS your software, then of course you're going to give it away. I know that I'm free not to distribute our custom apps. I don't need GNU or whoever it is this week to tell me that. My question was why would I want to release my company's code out to the public? A finger-crossed, "I hope that somebody decides to modify the code AND GPL it", is worth exactly $0. So still, there doesn't seem to be any benefit to most companies to release code. You absolutely give up your competitive software advantage, but you might get somebody to fix a bug for you? You certainly don't have to be a businessperson to see that that's a bad deal for the code writer.

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[True Grit]

before you embarass yourself any further.

You're hilarious.

Sorry Phil, but he seems to have willfully ignored your advice and is just bound and determined to embarass himself some more, apparently. Amazing... and hilarious!

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[crazyphilman]

You have to hand it to him, though -- he's a plucky little rascal. He reminds me of that Kids In The Hall episode where the drunk keeps challenging a big bruiser to a fistfight, gets clobbered, wobbles to his feet, and insists on getting beaten down again, all the while thinking he's winning.

Re:I can tell he's not a businessperson...

[crazyphilman]

What's really fascinating about your latest missive is that I HAVE been promoted into a DBA slot!

Now, about your "know everything" comment, from this I have deduced that you are one of those annoying "developers" who beg/nag the DBA for the right to create, alter, and drop tables in the production schema. As I'm sure your OWN DBA's have explained to you over and over again (with the same exaggerated patience I'm about to use on you):

Nobody in his right mind EVER lets a programmer touch a production database. EVER. Not even when all the planets are aligned, it's a full moon, and Mars is rising in Uranus. Sorry, champ, but you were cute when you asked (thanks for the laugh).

Good little programmers draw up ER diagrams, and have meetings with their helpful DBAs, who will point out any major fuck-ups in their model and HELP THEM un-fuck their design before implementing it for them.

Good little programmers KNOW that the DBA's there to cover their ass (and save it occasionally). They WANT the DBA to be the layer in between them and production, because it helps them NOT GET FIRED for fucking up the production database during business hours.

Now, unruly, dopey little programmers scream "I want to use Oracle DESIGNER without restrictions! I want to build my own tables! I want access to production data! Waaa! Waaa! Waaa!"

Their helpful DBA says something like "Awwww, that's cute. Tell my partner what you just told me! Hey, Joe! Check out what this guy just asked me!" Then a good laugh is had by all, and no harm is done.

Re:Take another look at history

[vertinox]

Fascism has little to nothing to do with business, instead it is about the state or more specifically the ruler.

Take a look at 1936 Germany. Government went hand in hand with corporations especially for the rearmament process. Krupp, Messerschmitt, Seimens, Volkswagen, Reichwehrbank, and hundres more... All were part of National Social Program or supporting. Yes those businesses were around way before National Socialism came to power in 1933 but when it did they jumped on the bandwagen and even used slave labor provided by the Nazi's.

Not only that they assisted in the remiliterization programes and assisted the Nazi's with campaign funding. The Junkers weren't always nazis themselves, but they helped a great deal.

The industrialist even had their own war crimes at Nuremburg Trials notably Krupp and the head of the Reichwehr banks.

And no there wasn't true freedom of commerce either... Everyone supported the government whether they liked it or not and if the government dictated many business practices but the businesses often use sway of the Nazi party to get what they wanted. The businesses that support National Socialism got monopoly rights over particular areas. (although they did have to fight over government contracts such as the Porsche vs Krupp over the King Tiger tank turret design)

Italy's fascism was a bit different though, but it helped if your corporation got on the good side of Il Duce.

Still... If corporations own the government, it isn't much of a difference from Hitler or Il Duce, but they won't have as grand designs. Heck at least Il Duce stood up for the common Italian man at least in his grand ideal (although it sucked if you disagreed with him) and didn't sit around scheming how he is going to force them to make him personal corporation more wealthy at their expense. He was going to build the 2nd roman empire ya know.

Although I bet Goebels would have loved DRM schemes in order to prevent anything other than authorized media being played in the Reich.

Re:In other news (not a troll- was a joke)

[Maxo-Texas]

The author intended this as a clever joke playing off RMS hairiness.
Should be modded as humor.

You have *got* to be kidding

[Tony]

Most left-wing "liberals" don't understand just how fascist they are.

Apperantly, most right-wing "conservatives" don't understand just what fascism is.

They see their aims as being "good" and other people's as "bad". They assume superiority over others who do not share their view, and sneer at others, assuming that other people can't possibly decide for themselves what is good for them (eg over healthcare, transport, choice of computer).

Speak in terms of black and white much?

No, we just sneer at hypocritical greedy and/or stupid motherfuckers who think they can fuck with whatever country they want, take away whatever civil rights they deem inappropriate, increase federal spending worse than the "liberals" ever did, increase governmental powers way beyond what the constitution allows, (all of this in the name of "fighting terrorism"), remove all restraints from big business, allow 45 million Americans to go without basic healthcare, and . . .

Oh, fuck it. Just go read the wiki entry on fascism; it pretty much covers it there.

Re:You have *got* to be kidding

[16K Ram Pack]

Your government isn't that much of a right-wing libertarian government, though. Giving favours to one business interest over another isn't libertarian. Taking away civil rights isn't libertarian. Giving out unaffordable tax cuts isn't libertarian.

Many of the things that Bush has done are moving your country towards what statist communist countries like China and the USSR were like (China still is).

Not about Linux

[Tony]

The Hairy Ranter aspects of Linux, these days, aren't a net positive. They keep Linux in the image of a previous generation.

This isn't about Linux. It's about an ideal-- the ideal that information is power, and those that wish to close up and hoard information are really trying to hoard power. It's the concept that the power of information belongs to everyone equally, and that noone can "own" information.

Linux is merely a byproduct of that ideal.

Re:Not about Linux

[petrus4]

Linux is merely a byproduct of that ideal.

No, it isn't. Linus opted to use the GNU project's software purely because it was there, and meant that he didn't have to write more than the kernel itself. He didn't give a damn about Stallman's self-stimulatory idealism, either. He did it purely for pragmatic reasons...although in hindsight, it's turned out to be a bad idea.

Stallman is very bad for Linux, because there are times when people refuse to use Linux not because of the operating system itself, but purely because they (completely understandably) don't want to be associated with him or his followers.

Re:Of course, Bush is a fascist.

[jedidiah]

While the Bush brand of republicanism is not itself fascism, it is the sort of thing that leads to it. It is this sort of mindless persuit of short term economic advantage that causes nasty unintented side effects.

          Thank Henry Ford (& friends) the next time you have any concern about federal law enforcement agencies (which aren't really supposed to exist btw) running amok.

Democracy, hah!

[wurp]

OK, the subject line is meant to be inflammatory, but hear me out. What I have to say really mostly just regards the presidency, not members of congress or local government.

I do not consider it a democracy when some closed, oligarchical, plutarchical process selects the list of people who may become president. So what if you get a vote, when your vote is between the lesser of two great evils? Name the last president that wasn't the supported candidate by either the Republican or Democratic party. Now explain to me how the process for choosing those 4 or 5 people who are Democratic or Republican candidates is democratic.

Explain to me how someone who falls outside the "platform" one of those two parties presents can become president.

Explain to me how someone without the backing of billionaires can become president.

Of course, I tend to have a total lack of respect for members of the House, and they *are* elected democratically, so arguing whether or not our electoral process for the president is democratic or not may be a moot point.

China is Fascist

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:China is Fascist

[RevAaron]

Even more so, the DPRK (North Korea) is fascism in sort of red clothes. Any idiot that thinks that the DPRK is socialist has been smoking way too much Chinese opium.

that document does not associate any copyright.

[Phoe6]

or license either. I was looking for one. In all the others one could have found the article under GPL.

Re:"ZNet"

[Risen888]

It's Z Magazine's website, and I'm pretty sure it predates CNet.

What Fascism Is

[E 99]

>Even though there are no clear definition of Fascism there is definititly
>clear that corporatism - the merging of big business and the state - are
>part of Fascism.


You have it backwards. Corporatism has nothing to do either with "big business" or, necessarily, corporations. It's a form of collectivism where the state usurps authority and control of the other civic, economic, or religious groups. A capitalist free market system is the antithisis of coporatism and fascism. If you're going to apply the terms of "left-wing" and "right-wing," then as forms of collectivism, corporatism and fascism are "left-wing." The successful labeling of fascism by advocates for the left as being "right-wing," while communism, its only slightly more extreme form, persists in being called "left-wing," while a huge victory for the left, has left a lot of people awfully confused. Every fascist government that has ever existed has, in both word and deed, been a socialist government. So at least in the way the terms are used in the U.S., the "left" advocates a form of government closer to fascism, while the "right" advocates a form of government closer to libertarianism. You can cite characteristics of the right, such a a greater sense of nationalism, and a greater desire for law and order (the practice of justice, not the TV show), which when taken to the extreme are considered characteristic of fascism. But in terms of philosophy and form of government, the opposite is true. America will never be fascist because it will never tolerate socialism (or "gun control" for that matter). But take your average European country, add an overblown sense of nationalism (you can skip that last step if you chose France), and add a leader who is charismatic and ruthless enough to consolidate power in himself, and presto-chango you have a bona-fide fascism.

Re:Well Spotted! He isn't!

[DogDude]

You seem to think that not being a businessman is to exist in a cesspit. Does it occur to you that there are many who do not admire businessmen, to whom the word evokes an image of a mean little shopkeeper ripping people off, or of a magnate fiddling the books on a grand scale? To whom the word "business" itself does not give good vibes?

And to those people, I say, "Get a grip on reality." Without the engine that we call "business", I wouldn't be typing this on a $100 computer over a $30 Internet connection.

Oh dear, I don't know where to start. The "zealot's" understanding is quite a few levels deeper than that. We (I assume you will include me) understand only too well. Microsoft have become the most successful company in the world on the basis of competitive advantage given by software. The difference is that you lean back and say that's a good thing, but we don't - in Microsoft's case at least.

I'm not talking about companies that sell software. Companies that sell software are a tiny fraction of the global economy. I'm talking about virtually every other business on the planet that uses computers and software in some way.

Because improvements can result, for example in security and interoperability, that lead to improvements that will sell to the public more all round. As things are, the public are becoming disillusioned with computers and the internet.

Security doesn't sell me software. Security doesn't have any influence at all in my pet supply business choosing software. It's irrelevant to me, as it is to many businesspeople. Security is something that is simply not critical to many businesses, and is something that is the subject of much FUD coming out of the geek camp. "Interoperability" is also a moot point for many businesses. Do I want to "interoperate" with my competitors? No. Do I need better "interoperatbility" with vendors? Not really. Our primary method of "interoprating" with our vendors is a good ol' fax machine and the telephone. If there are any very critical interoperability standards, proprietary software will pick those up as quickly (if not quicker) than open source. We "interoperate" with our merchant bank via a set of standards that are included in every credit-card accepting device or piece of software.

IBM. HP, Novell, Red Hat, Apple and Sun are. That's every major company involved in Operating Systems development except Microsoft. The reason - they want to get (back in most cases) into the Operating System market, and Open Source is the most promising way.

Again, these are all businesses that sell software. Of course they're going to hype whatever the New Thing is. That's what they sell. And again, I'm talking about businesses that are NOT software companies (the vast, cast majority), but instead USE software to run their businesses.

A lot of things RMS says are BS

[jayus2k]

e.g. >Non-free software is basically antisocial, it subjugates it users, and it should not exist. This is all dogma. If I like a particular software that someone has worked hard to write, I don't mind paying for it. You do not ask your plumber to work for free (nor that he/she will) Sometimes he is just says moronic things.

Bravo.

[Spaceman40]

You love RMS because you like what he says

[Loundry]

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.

Note: Spelling mistake

[16K Ram Pack]

SS should have said SMS. Ooops.

Re:One party system

[Macrat]

America is a ONE party system. Your vote is yes or no for the main corporate stand in.

Gnu/Linux

[Bobby Orr]

Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the software as you wish.

Me thinks RMS is hypocritical about his naming convention. Free Software dictates that the user is Free, the user is not subjegated, the user can do as the user wants woo hoo!!!! Freedom.
EXCEPT -- Don't you dare call the OS Linux. No, RMS as the developer of all-but-the-kernel gets to decide what you call it.
You can USE it - but you can't NAME it.

Re:The debate repeats.

[DogDude]

But more importantly, there are more important concerns than business.

It's called Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Right now, I run a business. Everybody who is not in government or academia is involved with business. I need to be able to feed and clothe myself and my family. What he's talking about, pie-in-the-sky, give-everybody-a-Coke ONLY makes sense on an academic level. It simply doesn't mean squat to a mother trying to feed her kids. That's why he's in his ivory tower spouting this idealistic nonsense. He gets paid for doing essentially nothing, and his assumption is that the rest of the world can work this way. It can't. It's been tried, and it's failed. Every single time in human history. He thinks that he's some great visionary, but all he really is is an unbelievably naive academic espousing a philosophy that works for him, and his other trust-fund buddies and perpetual academics, but doesn't do squat for a normal guy like me trying to make a living. He thinks that business is bad, which is an absolutely ridiculous and untenable base for a philosophy. Nothing is more important than business if you're hungry.

Tee it up for me

[Loundry]

Apperantly, most right-wing "conservatives" don't understand just what fascism is.

It's the code word for "bad" in leftist-speak. If you actually ask a leftist to define what separates a "fascist" governemnt from others, you usually get a bunch of fuzzy, feel-bad characteristics wrapped around a tired, old hatred for individual property rights. I notice you tried to use wikipedia to define it for you.

Speak in terms of black and white much?

The most hypocritical and and annoying behavior exhibited by most leftists these days is the claim that they "don't see the world in black and white" and are "nuanced" people who are capable of "seeing shades of gray". Then, with an uncompromising lack of nuance, they paint all non-socialists as "fascists" or "Nazis". George Bush is a "Nazi" even though he doesn't want to kill all the Jews. I asked a "liberal" friend of mine if he couldn't see any difference between a Pat Robertson conservative and a Ron Paul conservative, and he said, "From my perspective, they look the same to me." I, being a gay man who's ideologically similar to a Ron Paul "conservative" (he's libertarian), apparently look no different from Pat Robertson to my "nuanced" friend. So much for "nuance"!

And here, the parent poster was accusing leftists of thinking in black and white terms (something I definately seen in leftists as well as in gays, Christians, Muslims, PeTA, etc etc etc), and you respond by accusing him of doing the same thing. The lack of insight you exhibit is sad.

No, we just sneer at hypocritical greedy and/or stupid motherfuckers who think they can fuck with what-

And this is what typical "liberal discussion" boils down to nowadays. I used to listen to liberals, but they've turned into such bitchy, whiney hatemongers that I just can't stand it any more. I mean, just about every "liberal" I talk to is a total *downer*. They are the group that is always complaining, always hating, and *never coming up with any solutions to the problems they hate*. Please, please, please let go of your hatred and rejoin the rational discourse of rational people. Liberals have often stood up for good things, and you do immense disservice to your causes by being so consistently dour, condescending, and vicious.

Re:Tee it up for me

[poofyhairguy82]

I asked a "liberal" friend of mine if he couldn't see any difference between a Pat Robertson conservative and a Ron Paul conservative, and he said, "From my perspective, they look the same to me." I, being a gay man who's ideologically similar to a Ron Paul "conservative" (he's libertarian), apparently look no different from Pat Robertson to my "nuanced" friend. So much for "nuance"!

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).

Re:Tee it up for me

[Loundry]

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.

I don't think my friend is ignorant at all. I think he's elitist and hateful, having been fully incubated in an us-verses-them mentality in which his side is defined as "good" (and "intelligent") whereas the "other side" is defined as "evil" (and "stupid").

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).

First, I think talking about politics (meaning, talking about what the government is doing) is vitally important! Those creeps in Washington D.C. are constantly plotting and scheming to control my life and steal my property. No other group has the power that government has, and that's why they need to be watched like a hawk.

Second, I notice you criticize people for being "ignorant" about politics, and then you declare talking about politics (and, presumably, knowing about politics) as a "waste of time". Where does your true complaint lie?

Clarification

[DogDude]

Business power is bad, so globalizing it is worse.

He's completely ignoring the fact that without "business power", there'd be no cheap computers for his software to run on, there'd be nobody to pay for him to speak, and we'd be living in a society in which "free software" would not even be feasable. He spits in the face of all of the businesses that are allowing him to live his free lifestyle. He simply doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Re:Clarification

[RevAaron]

He's completely ignoring the fact that without "business power", there'd be no cheap computers for his software to run on, there'd be nobody to pay for him to speak, and we'd be living in a society in which "free software" would not even be feasable. He spits in the face of all of the businesses that are allowing him to live his free lifestyle. He simply doesn't have a leg to stand on.

What a BS argument. Next, you'll be saying "if you don't like the US, leave it! Go live in North Korea!" Or: "How can you be an anarchist/socialist/council communist if you life in the USA? You have to thank our exploitation of the world to thank for those cheap McD's hamburgers you're eating!"

In the interview, he never said he disliked business, simply global business power. The idea that a company could exist across most of the world, perhaps as a monopoly, with the ability to do and effect far more than your petshop. Global business power means a new global government; your petshop doesn't have power of life or death over the dogs and cats in your area- if you choose not to sell food, people will get it somewhere. Maybe they won't have the gourmet stuff you sell at the grocery store, but that isn't really power. There are companies today, and only the chance for more with the way things are going, that quite literally hold the power of life or death over human beings. Whether its through being the only employer in the area or the only outlet of food.

I'm sorry, but this randist idea that "markets balance all" is bullshit. RMS is at least standing on his bloody stump.

Re:Clarification

[arose]

Depends on what kind of power you mean. RMS usualy talks about power to restrict and if IBM had the power to restrict Compaq we may not have cheap computers.

RMS doesn't understand all freedoms

[argoff]

From other comments made by RMS, I don't think he understands all freedoms like free trade.

It's funny how RMS can understand freedom in the software movement, but when it comes to other freedoms like - buying and selling at a price not interfered with by the government, or buying from another country, or hiring from or working in another country - he seems not to understand freedom at all.

If I have the money, and someone else is willing to give me something for it, or do something for it, voluntairlly without coercion or harm to others - then why in the world should the government be involved at all.

Re:RMS doesn't understand all freedoms

[Brandybuck]

You can't have free trade, because that would allow the possibility of free trade in software. As RMS has so eloquently stated, you do NOT have the freedom to voluntarily engage in an economic transaction which results in your aquiring proprietary software.

This is for your own good, so suck it up and let RMS run your life.

Re:RMS doesn't understand all freedoms

[berbo]

If I have the money, and someone else is willing to give me something for it, or do something for it, voluntairlly without coercion or harm to others - then why in the world should the government be involved at all.

That sounds nice in theory, but in practice, completely unrestricted commerce is rarely without coercion or harm.

Re:RMS doesn't understand all freedoms

[argoff]

Ahh, but the act of restricting what people can copy (copyrights) is an act of coercion.

Re:RMS doesn't understand all freedoms

[Brandybuck]

Ahh, but the act of restricting what people can copy (copyrights) is an act of coercion.

Why should I not be allowed to purchase a book which the law says I may not copy? What is immoral about engaging in a voluntary economic transaction to aquire an audo CD full of copyrighted songs? What is evil about buying software?

If you have a problem with copyright, then attack copyright. I might even join you. But don't take out your anger on the free market, because it isn't the problem.

Re:RMS doesn't understand all freedoms

[argoff]

Why should I not be allowed to purchase a book which the law says I may not copy?

I don't see any reason why you shouldn't if you want to, but in software (at least) I would recommend against it because it truely does limit your options both short term and long term - as well as empowers those who want to take away our freedom. If you must have that book, why not just copy it?

Re:RMS doesn't understand all freedoms

[Brandybuck]

If you must have that book, why not just copy it?

If you must have that apple, why not just take it?

While I have some issues with copyright, I don't get so ideologically blinded as to think that copyright-based products are evil. If someone is selling a book, and I am willing to purchase that book, then it's none of your damned business. Do not tell me I'm stupid for not copying it.

Too little, too late!

[Hosiah]

'I'm a Liberal, in US terms (not Canadian terms). I'm against fascism.'"

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.

dont mess with chomsky, youll just get tired

[crabpeople]

your an idiot. First off 2mil net worth is HARDLY anything to be proud of. Maybe you or I dont have that much money, but for a 65+yr old writer who has been an activist since the 60s, thats a very small amount. Especially if you consider the volume of work that he has produced.

Secondly, the whole article seems to live in a fantasy land. There is nothing wrong with making sure you dont have to live on the street, and nothing wrong with gaming the current system to survive. You probably havent invested much in your life so let me educate you a bit here. Generally, when you go to your financial planner and say "i have 20k, please invest for me" you are giving them control on where to put your money. they probably give you a say, but if your like me you dont really care as long as your not losing money. So hes not a financial god. BFD...

Just because you are a genius doesnt mean you dont need money.

the other thing i find objectionable about the linked article mr ac, is the idea that chomsky is a brand. SURE. as much as bob marley is or marcus garvey or ghandi. That has nothing to do with the worth, or non worth of what he says. Some people probably put on a che patch and think they are all badass. Otherpeople read what he wrote and, maybe dont even have a clear idea what the person looked like. It has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with what he says.

Last thing, the following quote "It would not be advisable to download the audio from one of his speeches without paying the fee, warns his record company" is moronic. Everyone who browses this site , AT LEAST, should know that record companies and artist are not one and the same. Infact what he says about property rights (which is also cited in the "article") is spot on what he thinks about it (or else why would he say it?). So given that, im sure he personally wouldnt care if you distributed his IP.

Struts like a duck, etc ...

[beer_maker]

Did you just call RMS a fascist?

Fascism

[Brandybuck]

RMS gets pissed when people call him "communist", yet turns around and calls Bush "fascist". I'm glad to see that the head promoter of Free Software is able to rise above the petty bickering and name calling of modern political discourse.

Liberals != "Liberal"

[maggard]

Canada's politics are different enough that direct comparison, particularly for something so nuanced as political parties, is problematic at best. The Economist has a good over-view in their Dec. 1st/3rd print edition titled "Canada's wintry election" (available online after viewing an ad, go to Print then Dec. 3rd, it's the cover story.)

Suffice to say that just like the "Democrats" aren't the US's party about Democracy and the "Republicans" aren't all about a Republic the Canadian "Liberal" party isn't necessarily a species of the overly-broad term "Liberal". Indeed the term "Liberal" doesn't even match up terribly well between the two countries, and not with Canada being invariably the more 'liberal' of the two meanings.

My advice is if you're truly interested in getting a non-US view of the US & the world then consider spending a week or so watching the news from any Canadian (or other) network. CBC is quite good, it's peer CTV is also. After a week or two of viewing you'll start to become aware of the subtly different assumptions made, notice the implicit values are different, the sub-texts & code words don't match up to your US ones. It's also tremendously edifying to compare & contrast the same stories from both sides of the border, what leads the news and what doesn't, what points are expounded upon, etc.

Re:Liberals != "Liberal"

[RevAaron]

I do listen to a lot of the BBC for my news, so I do have a perspective of the US from the non-US point of view. However, as a result, I could tell you more about the idea of the Labor Party, the Libdems and the Tories in the UK than I could about Canadian parties.

The other pain in the rear is that "liberal" means something quite different in the US than what it does in the rest of the world. In the US, it means left centrism, welfare state, "Norway is liberal," etc.

Thanks!

Re:Huh?

[RevAaron]

Extreme right? Odd. Hitler originated from the social workers party (NSDAP)...

This is either a really bad joke or a display of ignorance the level of which shakes even Slashdot's tradition of Excellence in Ignorance to its very foundation.

Re:Seems to me

[petrus4]

They actually both want power. Money is a cover for Bill, and an illusion of moral superiority is Stallman's.

Re:GNU/LINUX

[petrus4]

Without GNU, there would be no Linux.
There wasn't any alternative before Linux to the GNU tools and there still isn't.

Gee, I wonder how the BSDs have coped, then? ;) Granted, they use gcc...but most of the other elements that Linux has borrowed from the GNU project, the BSD peeps have written their own versions of. Download NetBSD sometime...you'll find that out.

There is also at least one other free compiler in existence...Open Watcom. I tried to find out if there were alternatives to GNU stuff at one point, because for a long time I've been tired of RMS and his crap...and for most things, there actually are. Linus adopted the GNU stuff because it was quicker and easier...not because there was *no* other alternative. He has since said that if he'd known about FreeBSD at the time, he would have worked on that.

I didn't expect you to know that though...Most Linux users don't seem to. RMS has done a surprisingly good job of making sure a lot of Linux users only know what he wants them to.

US Liberalism versus Canadian Liberalism

[zoobsolar]

Quick question..

What exactly is the difference between US liberalism and Canadian Liberalism?

I am an American that has [very briefly] lived in Canada before, and have since visited there a few times. However, I still don't understand the difference.. didn't realize there was a difference.

Can anyone provide insight into this?

the "right" intellectual concept

[Anonymous Coward]

---------------
"And I would say that Bush truely is a fascist, but that of course doesn't make the nation so."
---------------

    I'm no Bush lover but I do think he means well. He's not a racist or advocating it and shouldn't be painted that way. I don't hate him or think he's a facist. He's just a C student (even with the best education and tutors money could buy) and is in way over his head. That's usually why C students get Cs.

His problem is that he's insecure and by surrounding himself with some elite philosophy types he thinks he can make up for that. In reality he should be listening to scientists and facts instead of too much ideology. The Neocons play him like a fiddle but unfortunately they can't seem to grasp the scientific method beyond allocating dollars to it.

This all really shows in the issues the current crop of Republicans prioritize or ignore.

    It's not George's fault alone though.

Your going to laugh when I say this but I honestly think Americans are so used to movies they have a vision of what a president should look and sound like. Americans voted him in basically because he matches that vision more than Gore or Kerry. Reagan kind of proves the point you can be clueless and run the US. He actually didn't do a bad job as a cheerleader but thankfully he was never faced with a new major public dilemma like terrorism and IP. (I hate those terms)

Stan Kelly-Bootle quote

[blippy]

Should array indices start at 0 or 1? My compromise of 0.5 was rejected without, I thought, proper consideration.

Re:The debate repeats.

[JetJaguar]

Uh, you're misreading RMS. RMS doesn't think business is bad. But when a business becomes so powerful that it enjoins one's personal freedoms. That is a bad thing.

Put a slightly different way. If you're storing your data on hardware that you purchased with your hard earned cash, and that data is stored in a proprietary vendor specific format, who is really in control of your data?

From hard earned experience, I've learned that it isn't necessarily you. Opensource gives you control over your data, and your software, and your hardware. On top of that you may have some custom software that you might wish to keep private. That's your perogative, and I have no problem with this. As someone that runs a small side business, I do this myself, and on occaision, I do contribute small fixes to the opensource software that I use, when appropriate, and I get a better product in the next release. My business software is still my own, and is kept private, but that doesn't mean that there are parts of my business that can't also benefit significantly from the use of open source.

I have literally saved hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing fees and vendor support fees over the years by avoiding the use of proprietary software for everyday work. Your claims that this only makes sense on an academic level have no merit, and they miss the point entirely.

Re:Two stage election

[OverflowingBitBucket]

Like in France:
a first stage to vote for who you want
a second stage (with the two or three best of the first stage) to eliminate the one you want least.
Not perfect, but the first stage allows a better view of the range of preferences.

I had no idea it worked like this in France! That sounds really interesting. Of course, it's not the most ideal political system, but it is certainly much better than first-past-the-post. :) How are the two or three decided?

Re:What an asshole

[chawly]

God is to far away to help you - even if he did care. RMS is even further away - and he don't wanna help you ('least that's the impression I get). Give you a hint though - hate is not good; gives you lines on your face, ulcers in the stomach etc. As a famous man didn't say "Laugh and the world laughs with you: hate and you hate alone". Have a good Christmas and a happy New Year.

But note an artifact of the electoral system

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Thank you! That needed to be said.

There's more than one valid way to cast and count votes, and many systems do a better job than ours of approximating what voters really want. The current system forces you to vote *against* your second choice if you vote for your first choice. Imagine if two candidates are running against Cthulhu and the opinion you want to express at the polls is "no more Cthulhu!" You can't moderate Cthulhu -1, so you're forced to vote for the more popular of the opponents.

Browse Wikipedia for terms like "Condorcet" or "instant runoff" to see some of the fun alternatives.

Re:But note an artifact of the electoral system

[OverflowingBitBucket]

Thank you! That needed to be said.

No probs!

There's more than one valid way to cast and count votes, and many systems do a better job than ours of approximating what voters really want. The current system forces you to vote *against* your second choice if you vote for your first choice. Imagine if two candidates are running against Cthulhu and the opinion you want to express at the polls is "no more Cthulhu!" You can't moderate Cthulhu -1, so you're forced to vote for the more popular of the opponents.

Browse Wikipedia for terms like "Condorcet" or "instant runoff" to see some of the fun alternatives.

First-past-the-post is a terrible, terrible system. If two parties get entrenched it is hard to break their stranglehold. Instant runoff is leaps and bounds ahead of first-past though, and lets you vote for your favourite candidate whilst still being able to decide between the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately it is possible for a vote for your candidate to actually count against them in some circumstances; I have some trouble explaining the details myself, but some info can be found here. That link is mostly for the benefit of anyone else reading, since you mention Condorcet, I presume you've got a bit of background or are well read. As for Condorcet, and I have to admit I found it a bit confusing, but the theory behind it is seems strong.

And on the subject of Cthulu, can you imagine a situation where one of the main two parties put up Cthulu as one candidate, and the other put up Satan as theirs? Would people still vote for the lesser of the two evils? ;)

Re:GNU/LINUX

[Fred_A]

Interestingly enough, users of SunOS which at the time was pretty much *the* vanilla BSD workstation mostly installed the GNU tools as soon as they could. Maybe you weren't born back then.

I'm sure you have a point somewhere though.

Can he really not compromise?

[adah]

Once I put my coat over a camera before giving my speech, when I learned it was webcasting in RealPlayer format.

Even if the webcasting is not in RealPlayer format, how can he dispense with the proprietary code embedded in the firmware in cameras etc? If he check around him, I bet he will need to build many things himself (let me think about it: is the microcode in the CPU free as in `free speech'?).

And didn't he take aeroplanes? I think there is a lot of embedded code controlling the aeroplanes too....