Slashdot Mirror
RMS Views on Linux, Java, DRM and Opensource
An anonymous reader writes "All About Linux is running a transcript of a recent talk given by Richard Stallman at the Australian National University. Stallman discussed various issues facing GNU like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Digital Rights Management, about why one should not install sun's java on your computer, his views on Opensource as well as why he thinks people should address Linux distribution as GNU/Linux."
Mox
I'd like people to answer their phones "Hoy hoy" instead of "Hello," but I'm afraid I've already lost that battle as well.
Or is Stallman just a brilliant guy with some signs of lunacy? I'm pleased as hell that he has led the charge for Free Software and cracked the gates of proprietary software wide open. The only other significant movement I ever saw in that area was from the US Government itself, and they go co-opted pretty fast.
But RMS seems to not be "with it" when it comes to actually closing the deal on the revolution. Computers taht really are by the people, for the people. Cryptic jibberish is OK, as long as it is Free cryptic jibberish.
Or maybe I'm just missing something. Its OK, it happens a lot.
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
But the more he goes around criticizing other concepts (open source) and other people who make his world possible (Torvalds), if not perfect, the more he will alienate them and the farther away his dream will be. It's impossible for Stallman to realize his vision on his own. He needs Sun and Java and Torvalds and ESR and Red Hat and everyone else. At this rate however... calling Linus insufficiently political is not going to win him any more fans. And more fans is exactly what he needs.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
why he thinks people should address Linux distribution as GNU/Linux.
It never gets old does it?
...build a GNU-free Linux distro so we can tell RMS that not all Linux is GNU/Linux, thereby making the word Linux by itself an acceptable word :-)
Surely this is possible.
is that in order to truly spread the "philosophy" the product must succeed on its own without the "philosophy" attached. When the product succeeds because it is a good product then the philosophy will inherently spread. That is why it is good to call it Linux and not GNU/Linux. That way people will buy into just because its good and not because it is a physical manifestation of RMS's philosophy. This is analagous to all those people who bought American cars in teh 70-80's even though they were crap because they philosophically thought it was important to buy American cars. Therefore the product got worse and worse. He gets it exactly wrong by saying that it must be called GNU/Linux to spread the philosphy. I'm not looking for a philosophy; I'm looking for an OS.
Glad to see this increasing
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
This is the best explanation of why he does that yet, IMO. I've always been a little confused and thought he just wanted more credit, which seemed petty. But by pointing out that its basicly advertisement of the GNU philosophy and Free Software makes a lot more sense. I'm not sure if I'm going to join him in doing so, but I'm a lot more likely to now.
Oh, and I know people are going to flame his last Q&A. I thought it was funny. Shows he doesn't need to take himself seriously all the time.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
The speech the article extracts from was delivered at ANU back in 2004. I believe that was his last visit to Australia (he also spoke at UNSW). There are numerous, more recent speeches by RMS available in audio and video format on the same subjects, and I don't see why this one makes news.
FTFA== "One of the big dangers in our community is that people start putting non-free software into the system and they call it bonus. They say it is a nice addition, it gives more features. Yes it gives you more features at the cost of your freedom. When these things are distributed separately, they call it value added packages. And that term makes it stick about your values. It says it values your convenience only, don't value your freedom. So I prefer to call them freedom subtracted packages. That makes a statement about my values." What a fruit loop. Somebody needs to just hide in the basement and stop bothering people. I am just waiting for him to say "worst episode ever" whenever I see a picture of him.
"If you do install it, you are putting yourself at risk of creating other problems for other people. There are people who are so attracted to java - they think this idea that will run on all platforms is so exciting - that they stop paying attention to things like what to pay attention to."
Wow, you make it sound so evil, Richard. I've made a living out of writing Java software for the past 5 years and I'm always very happy to know that the software I develop in Windows will end up running on a Linux server. Of course, we could just remove Java and run Microsoft Windows Server 2003 instead..? Would that make you happier?
THE HONOUR OF THE KNIGHTS - CC Licensed Sci-Fi Novel
Ugh. Relative/absolute link mixup, here's where to find the first two transcripts:http://www.ifso.ie/documents/#transcri pts
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
"Booooooo!" was probably first said many tens of thousands of years ago so you've missed that one.
You probably need to make up a new word - for example, let me be the first to say "Ghaslespruthmeep"
AT&ROFLMAO
"I'm not looking for a philosophy; I'm looking for an OS."
Not everybody is like you, the philosophic part in choosing an OS is very important to me. And I think you do not realize that wihtout this philosophy GNU/Linux would not exist, your choice in OS would be very limited.
not his St. IGNUtius jokes again :(
First anyone that looks like that that tries to give a speech to the corporate execs wouldn't even get past security.
Second, news flash for RMS, even "free" software in large business is FAR from free, hell in some cases the support for "free" software is sometimes even more expensive to deploy, support and manage than oh, say Windows. ANd that cost delta doesn't cover the cost of licensing for Windows... go figure.
It's not bloody GNU though is it? I mean my house has some Argos furniture in it but that doesn't make it a bloody Argos house, does it?
It seems the usual Stallman stuff we've heard before with some bitter-sounding remarks about Linus Torvalds thrown in. It makes one wonder whether Stallman is really motivated by a massive grudge against Torvalds for stealing his thunder all those years ago. Creepier still is a comment later on - "I don't criticise and condemn people just because they don't stand up for free software strongly as I do" - which is completely undermined by what he has said earlier about Torvalds.
By now a great number of highly talented people have contributed a lot to Linux. It's rather revealing that only one of them hogs the limelight and witters on about "the community" all the time. Your community but not necessarily mine, RMS. The fact that I use GNU/Linux gives you no right to speak on my behalf.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
...despite being three days late for April Fools Day.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
While RMS of course is right that the free Java implementations out there don't yet implement all of Sun's features, things are REALLY beginning to look bright lately! The GNU Classpath project, which can be used with free VMs such as JamVM now even include most of Swing and AWT. For those that prefer working in a familiar environment, the version of GCJ that shipped with GCC 4.1.0 introduced a new enough (late-2005, I believe) checkout of the GNU Classpath that most of Swing and AWT were available.
When I started a mandatory course in Java at my university this semester, I was really demotivated by the fact that I would have to develop on a non-free and also unfamiliar platform. Then I discovered GCJ, and I was able to live in a free and familiar world of using the GNU toolchain for everything. Midway through the semester, we started using Swing, and I thought I had reached the end of how far free software could take me. But lo and behold, GCC 4.1 was released at the right moment. What I'm trying to say is: For those of you who want a free Java platform, you really should investigate what's new in the GCJ that ships with GCC 4.1. Or if speed isn't the most important thing to you, an even more feature-complete free Java can be obtained by using a recent GNU Classpath with a free VM such as JamVM.
"it offers a far better experience in terms of a complete GUI where I don't have to use the command line for 99%"
...
Try installing X, a desktop manager and some GUI config tools. It should at least bring that percentage down a couple of points
However, that and two bucks will get you a cup of coffee. People value what they value; if they aren't rioting in the streets after finding out that our conntry is spying on them and sending people to syria for torture, then they most certainly aren't going to give one half of one shit that word documents cannot be universally read.
Once again, RMS demonstrates that being right isn't the only thing; hell, in this age, being right isn't (worth) any thing.
1) calling all software licenses equal is not Microsoft's position. They don't particularly like GPL, and wish they could stamp it out. They don't mind BSD license so much, they still ship with BSD code (some command line tools), had a BSD network stack for a while (NT 3.5 days or so, been ripped out completely in favor of MS code), and AD authentication is from MITs Kerberos, with some extensions.
2) Calling it "like Microsoft" is just an emotional attack. If he said "Linux thinks all licenses are valid" then he'd have to come up with a reason why this shouldn't happen. I've never bought his arguments.
3) "wrong to ever violate them". Stalman makes it sound like this is bad, but never gives reasons why. Can i violate GPL and he'd be happy?
In a way i wish RMS would stop talking about GNU/Linux and get back to the HURD. Instead of a decades old OS with various security patches on top of it to work in a networked world, have some ideas for a truly clean OS. Port stuff to it. WHy in this day in age do most machines have this all powerful root (or Administrator) user? Build in sub-permissioning from Day 1, don't add on later and wait for thigns to break. Why does a bug in glibc put my whole computer at risk? Why cant we re-engineer things to have message passing and isolated address spaces for libraries? Is the inefficiency of message passing vs. direct method calls going to kill a user who really just wants to be on the net safely? Use the HURD as a research project, get new ideas out into the OS world, where it's stagnating now.
Q: "What does RMS call Windows?"
A: Evil
The only problem with the GPL is that it assumes that every user is a developer
:)
No, that's what Linux zealots assume. Thankfully the Ubuntu guys did not
Who's your user, program?
Actually, that was already said here...
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
What a lovely little utopian dream. Please tell me, seeing as you appear to be arguing musicians should be unpaid, where you expect new music to come from?
To become a saint in the church of Emacs does not require celibacy
Inseert standard joke abut geeks not having gf's here
Jokes aside, maybe it's true. RMS's personal ad is still on his websit. Still single after all these years?
I'm actually coming round to his POV on the GNU/Linux thing (X/Linux, KDE/Linux notwithstanding) - GNU was there first, they do still have a way to go, and "Linux distros" do use a lot of GNU stuff. OTOH, of course, there's nothing in the GPL that says you have to call the software a particular name, so he's kinda SOL on that.
Reading his reasoning behind the "Java trap" makes me chuckle, though. His main argument there seems to be that the Free Software implementations can't keep up with the proprietary ones, and therefore people should stop using the proprietary implementations. Surely the whole reason they're behind is that they waited until the Java gained traction before starting up on a Free version. If it hadn't had that traction, then it wouldn't have been worth doing a Free implementation in the first place.
Registering accounts later than some other chrisb since 1997
And now that the 'movement' is moving, he needs to step aside and let it happen on its own. His rants often make the rest of us look silly.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
He needs Sun and Java and Torvalds and ESR and Red Hat and everyone else
No. Emphatically no. It's the other way around. The corps desperately need him. Most of them tried it the proprietary way for years and lost to Microsoft.
The best analogy I can give regarding a future with RMS serving the corps is an Animal Farm reference. The animals are running the humans off the farm right now. The animals are excited, no animals go into the house on pride. But pretty soon, the Pigs (red hat, et al) will be moving into the house. (I would argue they've already started) After that, they'll declare, "two legs good, 4 legs bad."
A corporation is imbued with extra freedoms beyond what individuals get in the U.S. in order to return a profit to its shareholders. Distorting RMS's message to serve that end is approved by shareholders.
RMS needs no corporation.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I'm Karl Jenkins, and I object to your vision. I need that $1 to pay the rent, man.
Here let me put your psuedo future into real nerd context here:
./configure ; make ; make install .. ./configure ; make ; make install
# tar -xzvf communism.tar.gz ; cd communism
#
# communist-artist-music-search *
communist-artist-music-search: This program is just a stub until all those artists start making music for free.
# cd
# tar -xzvf riaa.tar.gz ; cd riaa
#
# riaa-artist-music-search "Karl Jenkins"
riaa-artist-music-search: Please specify credit card number.
# riaa-artist-music-search "Karl Jenkins" 98766542358979
riaa-artist-music-search: All available albums by artist "Karl Jenkins" have been destroyed in the DRM music server fire of 2006.
# rm -R ~/.musical_heritage ~/.musical_history
# rm -R ~/.human_knowledge
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
In the star trek future there are replicators and hence money has no meaning. Well, obviously you still need gold pressed latinum if you want to hire a dozy screenwriter, but who'd want to do that?
Though it's not entirely utopian, as clearly there's some microsoft coders around; why else do you think the replicators are too stupid to notice that when Jean-Luc orders tea, he doesn't want stone cold darjeeling?
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
For thousands of years music was played for enjoyment and not for profit. I personally know quite a few people who are rather talented musically, but who wouldnt ever try to earn millions upon millions of dollars each year to sell their music.
I agree, that was a damned good live album by him - I particularly liked the encore track he did "Pulling The Goolies Off Of Trolls"...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I'll get my coat...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
What do you get if you cross Stallman with the RIAA?
DRMS.
I'll still get my coat though...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
1. I can tell you from personal experience, working for a company that has licensed Microsoft IP you do not have a single clue how much MS disapproves of the OSS movement and makes a point of it in distributing their IP.
2. I've never bought his arguments. Which is the point of your entire post. Why pick on one thing?
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
And presumably they were recording that music onto their stone iPods and listening to it? Or is argument by tradition actually a fairly poor technique?
True, RMS failed to produce a kernel, and the main reason he failed in my view is that instead of copying a proven design, he tried (and failed) to design something unprecedented. Linus succeeded because, unlike the GNU project, he copied a proven design (a monolithic Unix kernel). But Linus is not the only available source of kernels.
If Linus had never come along, RMS would be running GNU tools on top of a BSD kernel and telling everyone why it should be called GNU/BSD. The free BSD kernels were under a legal cloud until 1994, which is what gave Linux time to take off. Of course, Linus' impressive skills as a developer and architect allowed Linux to come from behind and dominate. But we would have gotten to where we are without him, because so many in both GNU-land and BSD-land were committed to the vision of an entirely free operating system.
Designing something completely new usually doesn't work. Other than Emacs, the rest of the GNU tools are re-implementations of designs from elsewhere, and so is the Linux kernel. That's not bad, by the way, as in both cases the copies are superior to the originals.
Not everybody is like you.
Of course you're right, not everybody is like the OP, but I think it's very likely most people are. When one is young, perhaps, then being an apostle or revolutionary is attractive. But most folks are not young, they're grumpy middle-aged folks just muddlin' through, and they lost interest in signing up for a Crusade long ago. (If for no other reason than that by the time they hit age 35 or so they've got their own philosophy and aren't interested any longer in being someone's disciple.)
For reg'lar folks, then, I suspect the attraction of any product, from an operating system to a car or system of government, is pretty much determined by its usefulness. It gets the job done, or it doesn't. Whether it has lovely philosophical decorations on it is a minor issue. Might be a tie-breaker if all other things are equal, but that's about it.
I suppose this may seem to suggest that most people are boring and unimaginative, but I only mean to suggest they are practical. And that's a useful trait. (John Rich put it well: If everybody contemplates the infinite instead of fixing the drains, many of us will die of cholera.)
RMS himself is sort of an illustration of the dangers of spending your life contemplating perfection. After GCC and friends he seems to have spent a decade or so pursuing the über-OS and getting nothing much actually done. If Linus hadn't come along and short-circuited this Zen contemplation by just building an actual OS, accepting whatever warts and compromises were necessary at that stage to get the damn thing done, then I think there's an excellent chance the GNU project would have become a curiousity in the software museum. Without Linus' decision to value practicality (a working OS) over philosophy (the perfect OS) the open-software movement might have been stillborn in the late 80s.
I find that he has a lot in common with Marx. I don't mean specifically in terms of this notion of community propery that's bound into the GPL, but more in just the notion that his ideas are... ideals, but not particularly practical in all cases. I will be the first person to tell you that the GPL is valuable and has a place in software. But I think there's a lot out there that can't derrive benefit from the GPL.
The GPL is a very useful approach when the software isn't the way you intend to make money. That is, the software is a gateway to other business. So you have GPL software that you build a consulting and customization service on top of. Or you use GPL software in a piece of hardware you sell. It's very hard to make a profitable business selling software that other people can redistribute for free.
The ideals that the GPL embodies are noble, but in the end, they aren't practical in all cases. Much like marx denied certain realities about human nature, RMS denies certain realities about software development. I like his vision, and in the real world there is a place for that vision, but not as big a place as I think he'd like.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
GNU/Linux
The people that can't give up the extra 4 characters to call it what it is, are basically whiners. If you won't do this one small thing that he asks for all that he and the other GNU developers have given you (the vast majority of the system software of any GNU/Linux OS), shame on you. It's the correct thing to do and it's easy.
Even in the Star Trek universe there are episodes about controversial topics like ownership and copyrights within the "utopian" Federation:h e-measure-of-a-man/episode/19022/summary.html/ episode/26480/summary.html
http://www.tv.com/star-trek-the-next-generation/t
http://www.tv.com/star-trek-voyager/author-author
Now, however, there's no way I could call my system(s) GNU. First off, if I'm not using Ubuntu (which really is GNU in is barest form), I'm running Novell. Even with Ubuntu, I install things such as Java, MP3 and DVD players, Flash, Crossover Office, as well as a commercial translation suite that relies on Java. Most everything else is already included in commercial versions of Novell/SUSE, with the exception of the translation suite.
I have absolutely no problem running a combination of free and non-free software on the same machine. But don't make me call in GNU, because it's not.
Listen to him - but remember he's a guy on the outside of linux shouting orders. Despite the prefix that people are adopting linux is not a gnu project and neither are any of the distributions. The only gnu/linux is "debian gnu/linux" - because the people putting together a distro get to name it and not some guy on the outside shouting about what the thinks should be done.
There are already newbies out there that think RMS had a major role in linux development and wrote a pile of the kernel. He does not speak for linux, he speaks for his own interests, the repeated "linux? Never heard of it" in interviews for year right up until the first attempted renaming "to raise the profile of gnu" and the efforts to stop gcc from having linux optimisations should make that clear. Ask him about the stuff he's involved in - but ask someone else about linux. We don't need a hero to follow blindly on every issue - read his licence and use it if you like it but don't do something because RMS says so.
To become a saint in the church of Emacs does not require celibacy.
And strangely enough if this rule changed not a single one of the saints would notice a difference.
that he mentions that was shut down by the courts? The article didn't elaborate much.
What?
Here we go again.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Perhaps you have figured out why the whole crew seemed so obsessed with 20th century music and literature. It was the only material out of copyright.
"He needs Sun and Java and Torvalds and ESR and Red Hat and everyone else"
No. Emphatically no. It's the other way around. The corps desperately need him. Most of them tried it the proprietary way for years and lost to Microsoft.
Interesting. I would love to hear how Red Hat and Sun (with Java) have lost to Microsoft. On the contrary, Microsoft sees commercial Linux and Java as major threats, and it has singularly failed to compete with them in major areas.
RMS should apply for a Job there.
Ah ... the beauty and elegance of recursion.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
RMS will be the first to tell you it's not about price, it's about freedom. Software Libre.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Easy... just pay musicians to write music, not to make copies of it. Once it's written, and they've been paid, listen to it all you want.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Call it what it is: OpenOffice/GNOME/X.org/KDE/GNU/Linux/Wine...
Or if it's a server, call it that, then: GNU/Linux/Apache/MySQL/Perl.
After all, these developers have done a lot for you, haven't they?
Why should GNU get precedence over everything else?
Linux is easy to spell, easy to pronounce, and has no slash in it. If it weren't for the fact that GNU sounds retarded when spoken aloud, I'd have no problem calling it the GNU system. Hell, if HURD was a viable Linux replacement, I might use that and just call it HURD.
I give RMS all the credit in the world, and I appreciate his precision. Most of what he says is of the kind of syntactic and intellectual rigor that few lawyers can aspire to. But, while it would be more accurate to call the thing behind me a Cathode Ray Tube Television, I just call it a TV. At the end of the day, it just isn't worth it any more than it's worth it to refuse to play a videogame, just because I know I'll never get the source to it.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Yes, Stallman doesn't NEED the corps, or Torvalds, etc.
However, without them, development will slow down dramatically.
Programming in your free time is great. But people also need to eat, and have a roof over their heads, pay for the electrcity the computer eats...you know.
While some groups and public support can keep these people in pizza and Jolt, the support just isn't there to do it for everyone.
And while, even with corporate money, you still can't do it for everyone, you DO have a larger pool of capital to subsizide efforts.
Will the stuff get written?
Eventually.
The extra money means that "eventually" happens sometime in the foreseeable future.
Seriously. Look at HURD. How long did it take to go from "We're gonna do this" them actually shoving semi-usable versions out the door to the public? Half a decade or more to get to the 0.0 release? And how much has it developed since? (We're still sitting on 0.2 released as of 1997. WOO what development!)
We already see enough of this flash-in-the-pan development model elsewhere.
I'd rather see a product out there and developing with corporate subsidy than languishing in non-development because nobody has the time to work on it properly.
I like Richard Stallman. The man deserves shitloads of credit. But at times he's just way to far out there. What he misses in his "free as in freedom" is the freedom to choose to be bound by the limits of proprietary software if the need or desire arises.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Somebody mod this up "Funny". This is hilarious.
You evidently haven't been in a StarSchmucks lately have you?
--
Squirrelly wrath! Squirrelly wrath!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
We owe RMS a huge debt because he single-handedly kickstarted the free software movement. Linus gave us Linux... but he used GNU C compiler to do it. And the Linux kernel isn't very useful unless you have a shell like GNU bash, and you need command line tools like ls, cp, mv... all GNU provided. Thank you, RMS.
9 01.html
But sorry, RMS, you are crazy and I hope your dearest wishes do not come true. RMS believes the only acceptable licenses are the ones he wrote; if he had the power, he would make it illegal to ship software under a proprietary licence. (How do I know this? Eric Raymond publicly challenged RMS about it and RMS did not respond, and I believe it was because ESR was right and RMS didn't want to say it out loud. Google for the words "Freedom Zero" to get the context of all this.)
Somebody asked RMS how can software writers make enough money to live. RMS said that he would be in favor of a "free software tax" to pay the salaries of people writing free software. If it was illegal to ship software under a proprietary licence then maybe you would need something like this, but I do NOT want government involved in deciding who gets to write what software for pay. The free market is better.
Only RMS could think that government paying of salaries to selected software writers is more free than people deciding what software to write and what licence to ship under.
Actually that's an important point. RMS wants to maximise freedom for the USERS even at the expense of the PROGRAMMERS. He is willing to constrain the freedom of a programmer, because he wants all software to come with source code.
The worst thing about RMS is that he doesn't care about anything else as much as his particular ideal for free software. Of all the Linux distros out there, you would think he would recommend Debian GNU/Linux, right? The only major distro that actually puts "GNU/" in their name?
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major
But in an interview he recommended some obscure Linux called Extremadura or something like that, because he had read somewhere that they only provided GPL software.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/08/msg02
If you set up a default Debian system, you will only have free software; Debian's "main" servers have nothing RMS would not approve. But Debian has for years had a server called "nonfree" where you could get things like Netscape Navigator. If you know what you are doing, you can set your Debian system to pull packages from "nonfree", and for this crime, RMS snubbed Debian in favor of the other one. And it turned out that the onther one isn't actually freeer than Debian; RMS had heard it was so, but it wasn't, really.
It's sad that RMS can't even say something nice about Debian, the closest thing the world has seen to what RMS says he wants, because they aren't PERFECT and if they aren't PERFECT they aren't good enough for RMS.
RMS, thank you for kick-starting the free software movement. Thank you for GCC, EMACS, and the other GNU utilities. But you are crazy.
People outside of projects usually don't get to pick names (unless they are governments), so we have Redhat naming their distribution and Debian doing the same - but RMS has his own stuff to do and shouldn't expect to rename it by shouting orders from the outside like a government.
I don't agree with the reasons given on the gnu website for the suggested renaming - others will be everyone that proposes this renaming should look at the website, see if you agree with their justifications and definitions of various terms (like operating system) and then decide for yourself. Blind hero worship of RMS is no reason - he's got his own very good agendas which do not always agree with the direction linux has gone. Just having an nvidia card with a closed driver should be enough to disqualify the gnu/linux name - it is NOT a gnu project so things have been done that gnu would NEVER agree with.
is to drive the cost of software not towards zero, but towards the true cost of coding it. Software costs nothing to copy; it only costs to code. So, why charge people per copy? Just charge all users for the effort to code it. If the users don't shell $$$ for it, it does not get done. You eliminate a lot of aberrations like Microsoft itself: it shells out $ 50.000 for developing MS-DOS, charges its users 10 million; then it shells out 500.000 for developing MS-Word, charges its uses 30 million; and so on. Feel free to ignore me.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
What about all that music from before DRM was instated? And what about all the music that is already being produced without having to pay for it? And what about the fact that there are still un-DRMed copies of most CDs(it's simply impossible for something to continue to play in old CD players while having DRM on your computer, for obvious reasons) today? But that would rebutt your silly pro-DRM arguments, wouldn't it?
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
I don't always agree with RMS, but when I don't, I always make sure I have a way to recover if I'm wrong...with one exception. GNU/Linux just won't fly. Zipf's law says that when words are used frequently the shorter forms will come to predominate. I use Linux frequently, and I want it to be a common IDEA, so the phrase is Linux, not GNU/Linux. I agree with his reasons as to why it would be a legitimate name, but it still isn't going to be either the name I use or the one I promote.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
If you've read anything that Linus has written on the subject you'd know that he doesn't give a monkey's anus about politics, either using Linux as a political tool or personally. Nor does he really care if people use Linux or not (ie. he is not in a Linux vs the rest ego war).
Engineering is the art of compromise.
**Stop press** 'Random Letters' on the CAPTCHA now says verification text! w00t! well done cbn!
d soffonts/nicewallpaper/some-app-I-wrote-on-a-sunda y-morning
Still bitter people don't mention GNU when talking about linux (which is daft, I should call it kernel/tools/windowmanager/fonts/colors/homepage or something? Its Linux. That is the name that has been misappropriated for the whole kaboodle.)
What OS do you use?
Linux/Gnu/Some-non-gnu/KDE/plus-gnome/fluxbox/loa
Surely that defines the system?
RMS is a little quaint. Yes, I like GNU, and wow, GNU/Hurd is a Llama that won't be flogged yet. I am all up for it. But RMS is a little weird. He thinks computer programs can have human rights... but 3month old feotus cannot.
Whatever your views on 1st trimester feotuses, the thing about the program is startling. OT? who knows! not me.
please type the word in this image: convect
verification text - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Everyone who takes a position in this renaming issue should read the gnu pages and make up their minds. Remember it's up to those who want to change the name to convince those of us that mention the name and not the other way around. I disagree with their reasons and think that if the author of the statement you quoted couldn't even name their source then the source is unlikely to stand by their statement - so even that argument about there being a lot of gnu software is flawed since they can't get anyone to back them up. This whole thing may even be counterproductive to the FSF - like the fiasco of demands for linux to change to a licence that hadn't even been finalised.
We don't have nice GPU accelerated drivers for most cards. Both nvidia and ati provide shitty broken drivers that cause lockups and have lots of random an unknown incompatabilities, and are a HUGE fucking pain to try to get working.
If Linus had anything hanging between his legs, he would have bitchsmacked these assholes by now, and they would have released the API docs for their cards, allowing for free and WORKING drivers.
That's because he does not sell them. If it makes you feel better, make a donation or join the FSF.
Can i violate GPL and he'd be happy?
No.
The point of said, "violations," is to help your neighbor. Your obligations to people around you should always outweigh your obligation to Bill Gates and other greed heads. Public libraries are founded on this principle. Sharing and co-operation are good for everyone. Information, unlike all physical goods, has always been free to share. It is only recently that the US has made sharing information a crime. The laws do this are simply wrong.
Some people, who can't seem to finish their own OS after five years, would love to do what you suggest, so they can better screw their users. The laws they made, which keep them in business, prevent it. Microsoft is going to have to code or legislate themselves out of their GPL troubles. Their coding efforts appear to have failed.
OpenBSD: "Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 8 years!"
Microsoft: Only one OS release in five years!
Free Software: Billions and Billions served.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
RMS is being critical of Linus for believing that licensing your work under YOUR terms is fair and reasonable, and that if you release something you should be able to reasonably expect the license to stick.
The whole GNU agenda is yet another reason why I am pretty much giving up Linux these days and switching more of my stuff over to FreeBSD.
Linux is "cool" and has sometimes has hardware support that FreeBSD does not (though in my experience BSD hardware support has been on par, or "better" (see "project evil" for using windows network drivers), but you've got this political bullshit to deal with. Plus, the documentation for the core OS (kernel + libs + baseline shell tools) is generally inferior (less current, often out of date) to BSD.
I agree with some of RMS' views (software patents = bad, his views on Java/Flash), but unfortunately he's an idealist, and out of touch with what is a feasible compromise in the real world.
In my opinion.
Plus, he likes (wrote, even) Emacs :D
smash.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
The "GNU/Linux" thing has always stuck me as self-centered. I mean, sure it's both GNU and Linux, but... A name is not a chemical formula out of which a thing's structure can be parsed. Otherwise my OS would be something more like OnceKnoppix SortaDebianTesting Gnu/Linux/bitsOfBSD/Xorg/KDE/SunJava/OpenOffice.or g... and it wouldn't stop there. Heck I could just dump a list of my apt packages, their repository and version, but even that would be incomplete as it would miss out historical influences since purged.
At which point does a name come to encompass the totality of elapsed events since absolute tick zero?
I'll continue calling it "Linux" or maybe "Debian testing", because that's good enough and does nobody any special favours.
I really don't understand why Mr. Stallman harps on about this one. The thing is, those of us who use Linux (pardon me, GNU/Linux), know that it is GNU/Linux. We know that without the incredible work of the people who contribute to the FSF, Linux would not be as it is today.
BUT... to people who don't use Linux, don't care about Linux, and will probably never be exposed to anything that doesn't come out of Microsoft, it doesn't matter what it's called. They don't care.
When people talking about Windows, most listeners know that they're talking about "Microsoft Windows"... the Microsoft is implied. Those of us who use Linux, we know that the GNU is implied.
As for the "Church of Emacs", that's just whacko nut talk. Emacs is a program, like any other. Sure, it does a lot, but to liken it to a religion is just crazy.
Although to be honest, I'm surprised it's not the kernel instead of Linux. The GNU Emacs Operating System. Has a nice ring to it.
The freedom Stallman believes in is an aristocratic one. Freedom, sure, but for those with the resources. But instead of rich political families doing whatever they want while the masses are entirely unfree, we have software developers with all the opportunity to be free and end users we none of the opportunity
Yet when it comes to something we all can do in a fully literate society, read and write, freedom doesn't apply. This post specifically:
This motivation by pragmatism, not freedom. We have heard long and hard 'bout how we cannot cosy up to companies just because they make out life easier with non-free software, and yet we can compromise our freedom for plain-text publishers? And, if there were a shortage of programmers, could we make software non-free in order to lure them in as well? This post: Is it just me, but shouldn't they be more free?Boooo..urrrnss!
Stop this before it gets silly: "Announcing the GNU/Linux/Bell/GSM/Nokia 3477 phone that connects to the the DARPA/Al Gore/Internet for CERN/web browsing. The unit features a 400MHz Turing/von Neumann/Babbage/CPU and has a Faraday/battery providing 5 days of typical usage...."
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Stallman probably deserves more credit than he gets among most Linux users for basically founding the Free Software movement, but his relevance to what the movement has become since then is fading.
Actually I think his contribution is overstated. Don't get me wrong, he deserves credit, but his contribution is more coining a name for a movement, not creating the movement, and of course writing a license. People were sharing code, posting code they needed help with and more importantly getting help, long before any "movement" existed. Personally I think the open source movement benefited more from technology than human enthusiasm. PC ownership reaching a critical mass, dropping in price, and the internet becoming accessible to all. It sure beat posting code to various BBS'. There was an active community before Linux, before FreeBSD, before the net, etc. The real change was the ease of communication and collaboration, not a license or a movement, they were secondary IMHO.
Are you going to write your own version of ls so that you don't have to use Stallman's software?
It's guh-NOO.
...because he fears he'd be locked into buying blades from one vendor?
Seriously, though, if the guy cleaned up it might do the whole "movement" some good. If he wants converts, looking like a leftover from Woodstock isn't going to help. The message is important but so is the messenger...he needs a PR person.
Actually, RMS is more a John The Baptist than a saint - railing against the establishment, morally pure, living in the desert eating naught but locusts and honey and using over the top, fire and brimstone sermons to try and draw the masses towards salvation. And abso-fucking-loutley batshit crazy. He is however, necessary if we are to make it to the promised land. ;-)
"morally pure" in a subjective sense, not an absolute sense. I'm reluctant to use the word "cult" because of the negative connotations but there is a little bit of cult-like behaviour going on here and like many cults a superior morality is attributed to the leader. In reality RMS is a guy with a good idea and a good piece of code or two, but also a guy who thinks he has more answers than he does in reality. Coming from an academic environment he had the luxury of giving away code so the personal sacrifice angle may be overblown. Yes, he deserves credit. Yes, if he offers you some koolaid it will be safe to drink. Yes, it would be safe for a Congressman to visit him at home. But there is a little bit of a cult thing going on here, mostly harmless though.
And just how do you propose to get the behemoth that is the Linux Kernel compiling with something other than GCC???
;-)
Intel's free compiler? Yes, not portable, but for 99.9% of Linux users so what. And if Linux doesn't build due to unsupported gcc'ism well them fire up vi and change the code, don't use emacs though, that would unethical in this context.
Really gnu has made a lot of great sofware. But GNU does not own all the software in a modern distribution.
The guy must be rolling over in his grave!
What? He's not dead yet? He sure will wish he were dead when he finds out!
I am not pro-DRM at all. I postulate that Digital Restrictions Management will be the downfall of modern civilization. What good is the corpus of human knowledge available now if it will be locked away giving the privileged paid eye the opportunity for momentary enlightenment and depriving all others of the knowledge which their ancestors helped to construct. Companies die, but now what they produce will die with them if they aren't extremely careful. People of ancient times left everything as legible paper trails. We'll leave a bunch of locked digital content (assuming the content even survives hard drive crashes, since it is illegal to copy to more than X number of devices, and assuming its lease does not just expire). Post catastrophic archaeology will simply be attempting to piece together a nice big heaping corpse of meaningless reports and random e-mails, and trying to descramble an ancient mess of human greed.
But on the other side of the coin, human greed is not limited to those empowered to make things DRM'd. The artists themselves are the ones subscribing to it. They are the ones who's greedy desperation for immortality and fame will in the end destroy their chances of attaining it. Of course, this is just my opinnion, and is very subject to error.
BTW, I was commenting more on the current trends than on the current times in general. Also, records will not last forever and CDs only last as long as they have a willing host to keep them alive (i.e. copy them).
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
I am not surprised by the hostility towards RMS shown in this topic. I guess that as more and more people adopt Linux, we are seeing a greater proportion of comments from these people who naturally have little idea of the history of GNU, why it exists and where it is going.
Richard has always held a firm line on Freedom with respect to software for precisely the thoughts expressed here. GNU arose out of the rise of pragmatists over those who valued the free exchange of ideas(software). They traded away channels of collaboration for a restricitve environment where third parties dictate the terms of collaboration and use. The pragmatists have inherited GNU and are destined to lose it once again.
Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
"why he thinks people should address Linux distribution as GNU/Linux"
Get over it. Get on with your life. Nobody but your mama cares, and she could be jiving you too!
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
RMS' view on the following:
Linux - Its not Linux, its GNU/Linux.
Java - I don't like it.
DRM - I don't like it.
OpenSource - Its not 'Open Source' unless its GPL.
Because they can't?
This should be modded Insightful, not Funny.
Mr. Period: Nine is the one that's right by ten!
Nine: One day I will kill him. Then, I will be Ten.
For thousands of years the professional in music was supported by the state, aristocratic, clerical and royal patronage, and the merchant prince.
Much of what Americans think of as folk music was written, published, and performed commercially:
"When the wind blows the cradle will rock..."
I started reading the article, and as usually, RMS makes me angry with the stuff he says, but in this one, after about three quarters of the text, I realized that he has created a new religion, and that he is a priest, and then I actually read it in the rest of the article, he was jokingly, but still referring to GNU as to a religion and to himself as to a saint.
Well, he has sense of humour, I give him that, but I don't follow religions, I am an atheist.
You can't handle the truth.
I don't see a problem in calling it GNU/Linux. It's not like Linux was a giant collaboration of software all by itself. It started as a kernel, and it fit into the GNU group of software. All the GNU group needed was a kernel. And Linux filled that need. So whats the problem? Why do people fuss about him calling it GNU/Linux? Either change over yourself and call it GNU/Linux, or don't and just keep your opinion to yourself. People don't care if you think it should be called Linux, just like people don't care that RMS thinks it should be called "GNU/Linux". Theres sufficient argument for both sides. So I say just let the man toot his "GNU/Linux" topic.
There's a reason we take care of our parents when they get old, regardless of what they mumble about: they took care of us when we were young. I think we at least owe this to RMS, regardless of whether or not he is right.
GNU/Linux might be a good way of assigning credit where credit is due. But the people aren't going to say it because it's a pain in the ass.
I agree completely. This is also why any distribution with any hope of spreading beyond the ultra-techy scene doesn't include GNU in their name (i.e. Red Hat Linux, Ubuntu Linux, SuSe Linux, Gentoo Linux, etc.).
It's marketing suicide to use a name that's a pain in the ass to pronounce.
Web Design Tips
Or Mac OS X Mach? The system I use is GNU ("Windows", "Mac OS X"), it's kernel is called Linux ("ntoskrnl.exe", "Mach"), the distribution is Gentoo ("XP Professional", "Tiger"). Calling the thing Linux may be convenient when talking to people still believing they can't be bothered to even seriously try OpenOffice.org, because they just can't do what they can in Word (It's amazing to see Grade-A students in theoretical physics fail at finding a function under a different name or shortcut), but that's a case of mismarketing. When talking to tech-heads, refering to GNU/Linux, GNU, "a NIX" or "a POSIX compliant system" is both correct and conveys much more information about the context.
Who pays them and where does the money come from? Are you suggesting some kind of state-funded musician system? Or that the next time I want some new music I hire four musicians to produce it?
The next time you want some new music, get together with everyone else who shares your tastes, pool your money, and hire four musicians to produce it. If thousands of individual contributions can fund a political campaign, they can certainly fund an album - more people vote for American Idol than American President, after all. All you need is the infrastructure to get the people who have money together with the people who have talent, and all you need for that is a web site, a database, an escrow service, and some promotion.
State funding is another possibility, but I don't think it's necessary. The free market works fine for most services; I believe it can work just as well when the service is writing/performing music rather than, say, cutting hair or accounting.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
You are joking/trolling, right? Ignoring the freeloader problem for now, who the hell is going to bother doing that? That option is available right now, there is nothing stopping anyone doing it.
If you instigate that kind of system, you would end up in a few years with agencies that arrange new music for you at a price on the condition that you don't pass out copies to any one - so we'd be right back where we started.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Simple. Just use Debian "main" packages. They are checked very throughly to comply to the FSF philosphy. For years I didn't have to use any packages from "contrib" and "non-free" which are the categories that both violate those proniples to different degrees. And I have a very diverse hardware collection. So it is possible to use completely free software on most hardware.
Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
I think that, despite what RMS is trying to say here, that this speaks very well of Linus's philosophy in general. This essentially just says that Torvalds would rather play by the rules, and win with a better licence, than attempt to force everyone to work to rules he agrees with. That's a better way of working these things, in my opinion.
Ignoring the freeloader problem for now, who the hell is going to bother doing that?
There is no "freeloader problem". You're not paying for copies of the music, you're paying for the music to be written - much like you might pay to have your road paved, even if it will also benefit your neighbors (who don't want to chip in), simply because living on a nice paved road is important to you. If some people would rather wait for the music to be written and released and then enjoy it for free, they can do that, but they're taking the chance that it won't ever be written at all.
That option is available right now, there is nothing stopping anyone doing it.
Apparently they find it easier to sign up with a record company, and let the record company worry about bribing politicians to keep their faltering business model propped up, suing teenagers, and paying DJs to get their songs on the radio.
It's a bubble - the model is fundamentally unsound, because it's based on treating something (data) like something it isn't (a product that can be sold in discrete units and has to be bought from a single manufacturer), and it can't last forever. Meanwhile, we get infringements on our rights, shackles on our equipment, laws telling us what kind of software we can or can't write, and an industry growing ever more mingled with government, with corruption spreading in both directions.
If you instigate that kind of system, you would end up in a few years with agencies that arrange new music for you at a price on the condition that you don't pass out copies to any one - so we'd be right back where we started.
Not quite. Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that we do find ourselves facing that situation in a few years. I buy a song from your agency and give a copy to my neighbor, who gives copies to his relatives, who post it on a torrent site. You might be able to sue me, if you can even figure out I'm the one who first shared it, but my neighbor hasn't signed any contract with you, and neither have his relatives, the torrent site administrator, or the millions of people who participate in the torrent.
So it'd be impossible to enforce those conditions at all unless you can intimidate me into not releasing it in the first place; given the existence of anonymous networks and the frailty of watermarks, I don't think that's likely. And that all presumes that I'd do business with your agency in the first place, instead of moving on to someone else who's happy to provide the service I'm looking for. Do you think all musicians will collude to place such restrictions on their customers?
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Only in the same way that any other craftsperson is one step ahead of poverty. A cabinetmaker or plumber doesn't need special laws for them to make a living - they just have to work hard and provide goods/services that people are willing to pay for. There's no reason why so-called content-creators shouldn't be expected to do the same.
As an example of a "content-creator" who is making a living, I write code for a living. I don't expect to write one program and get paid every time someone uses it - I provide the _service_ to my employer of generating code, and assume that if I want my employer to keep paying me, I have to keep writing MORE code.
Expecting anything more than that is just greed.
...I only ask because appaling his grammar is.
OK, say in your system I want a recording of a piece of music on the scale of a Beethoven Symphony. So, I need (at a wild guess):
- a composer for (say) a year: $50,000, min
- an orchestra, ~60 people for a couple of days: $30,000
- recording techs and equipment, studio hire: $10,000
So, now I have no ability to resell that recording, I need $90,000. Given the current system, I can get that recording for $15 or so, so now I need to find 6,000 other people with the same musical taste as me in order to match that price. Or I can just make do with whatever I already have, thereby removing the incentive for people to produce new music.
Given the current system, I can get that recording for $15 or so, so now I need to find 6,000 other people with the same musical taste as me in order to match that price.
Ah, but there have to be 6000 people with the same musical taste as you either way if you want to pay that price. The musicians can either write and record a symphony for free, then try to find their audience later (and risk having wasted their time for nothing if they can't find one), or they can find the audience ahead of time and be guaranteed payment for their work.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Some guy who looks like a crossbreed of hippie and tibetan monk tells that Flash is taking our freedom because his software is lagging behind...
I know he's right, but if didn't know this before, after reading TFA I'd think he's been smoking something.
How suits in management are supposed to believe what he's saying and dump MS Office? Will anyone drop enterprise Java because it's evil as in Vi-Vi-Vi?
Indeed, but I don't have to care about those people, I just buy the music. The idea of finding 6,000 people and getting them to agree up front what they want to pay for is laughable. The way it works at the moment is the standard business model: estimate what the customer wants, produce a product and try to sell it and make some profit on your investment.
The main point is, there is nothing stopping people implementing your system *right now*. Yet it hasn't happened. Instead, the market has spoken and I can walk into a music shop and buy any of thousands of high-quality recordings of good music for very litttle money.
There is also a page on GNU.org for audio recordings of (mostly) Richard's talks.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
problem is that for marketing, you want short and catchy names. and if you dont provide one, the public will. thats why microsoft windows (whatever its version) is mostly only refered to as windows. or that the apple macintosh is referd to as mac.
basicly a mouthfull like "The GNU Operating System, powered by the Linux kernel" isnt something people will use.
allso, how much outside of the basic gnu tool chain and the gcc is gnu made today? there is kde and gnome, with all their software. there is mozilla with their firefox and thunderbird (plus the mozilla suite at times).
there is so many projects that make up the modern linux distro that trying to claim the need to label it with GNU could be extended to claim it should be named gnu/linux/kde/gnome/mozilla/apache/samba and a whole lot more...
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
not sure what world you are living in, you only have to look at how redhat has stagnated over the past year and Sun is still going out backwards. Red Hat is faring better than Sun with its verging on dead proprietry Java.
Not sure what world you are living in, but you only have to look at how successful Red Hat is on the server side compared with Windows, and only someone living in some weird parallel dimension could think that Java is 'dead'. Its use is still growing after a decade - it is now in advance of C++ on sourceforge and check out things like the TIOBE index.
I often find such strange uses of the word 'dead' on Slashdot - they don't conform to uses in our reality!
throw out the copyrights and destroy the American Colosseum.
Yeah? Consider the Roman Catholic Church's demonstrated track record regarding FOSS (free and open-source spirituality).
RMS would shit.
If RMS was stampeded by a horde of wild boars tomorrow, I'm sure Sun et al. would just keep doing what they're doing, probably thankful for a slight reduction in background ruckus.
I don't think the corporations need RMS so much as they need the concept and methodologies of open-source. It's not like RMS owns a patent on those. (Rimshot.)
First - love RMS and the stuff he's done. That said - when you're marketing an idea or set of ideas, you're marketing. Looking like a guy who just did a 20 year stretch isn't getting us anywhere.
We talk about usability, blah blah blah... who does my grandma trust - the shiny M$ guy telling her IE is great, or manson's cousin telling her it takes her freedom. Sheesh - even I got a haircut and shaved my gizzly adams. I suppose you can change the system from inside our out, just my 2c.
RE: his quote ~"you write java but it won't run on all platforms, it won't run on free platforms."
Please, can we get him to stop doing that? I daily develop large java apps-developed on Win, contiuous integrationed on Linux, and deployed on a different flavor/kernel, unix, and Win - on amd and intel. Please, RMS, for the good of the cause either clarify what you're talking about, or stop spouting that FUD.
Ye gods, then you'd have...an out-of-the-box Ubuntu install. Nope, sure can't play music or surf teh intarwub or write a letter or check your email or draw a picture or play a game.
Idiot.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
-1 Retarded.
Humans made music (some of which...gasp!...you can listen to today on public radio for free (speech and beer)) for thousands of years before DRM, or even copyright. If all that vanished last week, I didn't get the memo.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
I think you hit the nail on the head.. with a sledgehammer.
;)
The software in itself is very muchly high in all forms of chunky Goodness. But the name "GNU" and other attrocious names spawned from it are not only crap, they (IMFSO) should be counted as crimes against humanity. How many people have died(*) from their brains exploding from trying to mouth or explain this once-maybe-cool-in-the-80's cruft. Also, true "Playful cleverness" would at least put an exit condition on those recursive acronyms. Stack faults are not cool when you have to pick the body parts off the floor.(*)
Despite the fact RMS has cool initials, he was a founding father of a text editor that caused the slaughter of countless millions(*) in the holy wars. (Not that those VI, PICO and other sucky editor using scum deserved to live..
And how exactly is a HURD of GNU supposed to work together in a harmonious bond without some form of guiding master process. I can assure you that the whole gooey pile of GNU-ey goodness heaped together, will NOT transend to a form of sentience using a kernel that has a sucky name like HURD.
And need I say anything about the horrendous exploitation of all those helpless GNU's?(*)
I hereby propose the following actions to be taken:
1. Richard Matthew Stallman be brought before a War Tribunal for his horrible acts of Cruelty(*),
2. Offending software urgently has name changes to something (a heck of a lot) less sucky.(#)
3. I be commited to an insane asylum as soon as practically possible.
Beep!
(*) May or may not be factual.
(#) I'm serious.. this would cause much rejoicing.
The way it works at the moment is the standard business model: estimate what the customer wants, produce a product and try to sell it and make some profit on your investment.
That's the standard business model for physical products, but it can't be applied to services or data. A CD is a physical product, but copyright prohibits you from using it like you'd use any other physical product - you get the worst of both worlds.
Instead, the market has spoken and I can walk into a music shop and buy any of thousands of high-quality recordings of good music for very litttle money.
That isn't the result of the market, it's the result of government tampering. Thanks to legally mandated artificial scarcity, you can now pay "very little money" for the same music over and over if you lose the media or switch to a new format, and with all the limitations on how you can use what you've paid for, you can hardly even claim to own it.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
let me be the first to say "Ghaslespruthmeep"
Sorry, but I already said that last thursday afternoon. You know, after waking up from the drunken rampage on tuesday.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
> how much outside of the basic gnu tool chain and the gcc is gnu made today? there is kde and gnome
GNOME is part of the GNU project -- if you are going to belittle the GNU project contribution, at least have the decency to know what you are talking about.
RMSs personal contribution include a hell of a lot of code, and even more inspiring other people.
Personally I think we should call the GNU project OS "Debian" for short, but I'm not sure I'm carrying many people with me on that one.
Simon (sometime GNU maintainer whose own contributions would be a far easier target for mocking)
I'm commenting on the trend, not the time in general. I understand there is tons of crap already in the public domain. And tons of crap already on CD, etc. All I am saying is that greed will drive more and more things to be DRM'd. DRM'd content by its very nature of limiting its useful lifetime will disappear over time, taking a nice large chunk of human knowledge, culture, and history with it.
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
You deserve to lose your music if you're trying to do all those things as root.
:-P
Eh, what can the 'install' rule in the Makefile not contain misbehaving commands? It just so happens that, being a true expert, this person audited his code before hand to ensure no nefarious deeds are done by the code.
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
a highly interesting USENET posting as seen on comp.os.linux.advocacy
If you want accurate snapshots of any point in time, you need to understand the mindset of the people at the time. Given that the popular crap will be the DRM'd crap, future historians will have a very hard time reconstructing accurate depictions of our society. I am not saying everything will be DRM'd, BUT corporations exist for profit and only profit. They will always take the most profitable path regardless of its implications in the future. That together with the fact that most content distributed (whether music, writings, or video) has ever growing popular digital representations means that corporate interests will start to DRM as much as they possibly can to maximize profits. Its what they do, and its what will ultimately destroy a large chunk of human knowledge.
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
Linux is not "just a kernel" if you include all the drivers and file systems etc that go with it. Indeed the term "kernel" is hard to apply to Linux because the term only really makes sense with something like a micro-kernel architecture that has driver managers etc (eg. something like WinNT or WinCE, or Hurd).
When an application runs on Linux, it interacts directly with Linux. There is no gcc "middleware" involved. Sure GNU provides a bunch of useful (and even vital) apps, but I really struggle to see what GNU adds to the OS.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
ill admit that i keep forgetting that gnome is part of GNU.
and that kinda changes the image a good deal...
still, i stand by the "marketing" part. that RMS and others can call for a more informative name all they want, people will still refer to the whole setup as linux (for varius reasons)...
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
This is something you hear a lot. It is often wrong. Read about the Tragedy of the Commons.
The free market will not solve everything. Some things require everyone to agree on the best way, then enforce it from a central authority.
Now, using the free market as a tool to figure out which Free projects should get how much money is great... maybe by giving people chits to spend on Free projects. I don't know the right answer, but I do know that requiring that the right answer be "the free market" is sometimes wrong.
IMHO, the outermost layer of the OS is the most important. If you rang up a help desk and told them you were running the "Intel-Microcode" operating system, this would really not help them much. Similarly telling them you are running an operating system that has a Linux kernel buried deep inside, won't help much, even if you further explain that most of the libraries are written by the FSF... unless you are willing to leave the KDE environment and switch to the GNU-Bash environment.
OTOH, telling them that you are running the KDE OS would help. Even better, if you say that you are using "Kubuntu" that tells them everything they need to know.
Sure you can run a KDE apps on a GNOME system, but it would not obey the Human Interface Guidelines (e.g. the file open dialog would look weird). Similarly you *could* run a KDE app on an MacOS-X system, but it wouldn't fit in with the rest of the desktop. It was also quite common to run Windows apps on MacOS via SoftPC
In case you hadn't guessed, I approve of the decision to brand Ubuntu differently from Kubuntu :)