Slashdot Mirror
ZNet interviews Richard Stallman
ProgressiveCynic writes "ZNet has just published an interview with Richard Stallman. Much of the interview will be review for Slashdot folks, intended to introduce ZNet's audience to the free software movement, but many interesting bits remain including a discussion on the outlawing of free software, patents as applied to literature, and this quote: 'I'm a Liberal, in US terms (not Canadian terms). I'm against fascism.'"
RMS: 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.
RMS > You could not run free applications on such a system (sic, trusted computing). If you did figure out how, and told someone, that could be a crime.
In other words. You Must Pay the Microsoft Tax.
Wow, RMS was rather lucid in this interview. I'm impressed.
Who will guard the guards?
For those puzzled, RMS's Liberal comment is in reference to Canada's Liberal party.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
I think it's a fairly obvious trollf +water
The first result is from encyclopediadramatica.com
http://www.google.com/search?q=RMS+has+a+phobia+o
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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).
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.
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.
"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
Either you don't work in the software industry or you work for Microsoft (or you're still in school) but you apparently don't have the slightest idea how the real world works.
When you get a work working on software, it statistically *never* is writing one of those things that ends up in a box in your local shop.
Writing software is fiddling with an application that's internal to the company you are currently working for or which ends up embedded in the entrails of some sort of device (or of a web site).
This you can absolutely do with free software and you can often liberate tools that you created while working on your main product.
As for working freelance, it's something else entirely. But most such customizing jobs are subcontracted to large service firms, not individuals.
Or you can specialize in working with small companies in which case you'll have the same problem every budding entrepreneur has, whether he sells software services or diapers: finding customers.
Welcome to the real world (you should have taken the other pill).
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Seriously, man. ESPECIALLY in this day and age, it takes BALLS to be absolutely a hundred percent no holds barred no bullshit 100% DEDICATED to the exact letter of What You Belive Is True. It might be "socially awkward" or "a career impairment" but this is, I firmly believe, the one possible instance in which a Dungeons & Dragons Paladin grade Lawful-lawful Good-good Dedication To Cause is actually - in some capacity - having a positive impact on the lives of many.
That his intensity of focus could also make him an object of ridicule is a natural side effect of said dedication. i doubt I'd be able to talk to the guy about software or legal issues for more than a handful of syllables before the punching instinct kicked in, but where would modern software be if it weren't for GNU and the GPL?
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!"
Many good, bad and trollish things have been said about RMS and he has done his share of stirring (which I think is good).
/. or other internet poll?
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
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.
The Singularity is closer than you think
Quant
Massively offtopic, but this issue really ticks me off.
Reality is that in most cases, a vote for an independent candidate is a wasted vote.
Oh cut it out. This line of thought is why the US is stuck electing Republicrats every election. The only wasted vote is one that isn't cast.
Sure, vote for someone outside of the major two parties and you won't "win" in the present loaded system. But you do throw your weight behind the numbers who have indicated that they aren't happy with Red and Blue but want someone else in. More importantly, you've thrown your weight behind a particular party or ideology, and as the numbers grow, more people can shake the "I must vote for one of the two main parties" mentality and vote for another viable party. Sure, it won't happen in one election, but if people vote for who they want rather than following the catchy "you're throwing your vote away" mentality, then the country as a whole will be much better off and it'll finally elect a capable representative leader.
The whole logic of saying that because you won't "win" in one election you should vote for the best of the worst two is not only counterintuitive but is entrenching the present political stranglehold. All I can say is stop it. Stop repeating the "third party is a wasted vote" lie because gullible people keep believing it, and you keep getting rubbish government as a result. Don't you think you deserve better than the best of the worst two? Aren't you all sick of electing one of two fratboys offered up each election?
The Wikipedia entry for Facism is currently flagged "The neutrality of this article is disputed."
If you read through the discussion you'll see claims that facism is incorrectly being tied with right wing politics
And for that American Heritage Dictionary definition;
A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism
The dictionary.com refrence which also lists the American Heritage Dictionary as its source has something quite different
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
I want a neutral argument here, but that second definition doesn't have the "liberal spin" to it. In other words, you don't see extreme right or merging of state and business leadership, but instead the traditional definition of facism, which has a dictator with total control over the government and the economy.
Interpret this as you will, but I see here a case where information does not equal truth. There are so many facts to choose from, that people pick the ones that suit them best. If you hate Bush, you pick the first definition, and count the ways in which Bush is worse than Hitler. If you support Bush, you pick the second one and accuse the smelly hippies of spreading misinformation.
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?