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?

[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?

[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?

[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).

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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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 ;).

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

[iworm]

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

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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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.

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

[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 :-)

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.

Fascism?

[julesh]

Did RMS really just call George W Bush a fascist?

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

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.

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: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.

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.

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).

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?

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).

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: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!"

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...

[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...

[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.

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)

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.

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: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.

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.

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?

[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?

[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!)

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: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.

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"

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: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:Anything Involving Stallman...

[a.d.trick]

Ahem, that should be 'Anything Involving GNU/Stallman'

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: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.

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.

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.

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: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: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.