Slashdot Mirror
Stallman Attacks Gates, Microsoft, & Charity Foundation
An anonymous reader writes "Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation, has an article in the BBC in which he maintains that Gates' departure from Microsoft doesn't mean the end of proprietary software and that the free software community needs to stand strong to undo the damages Bill Gates, Microsoft, and other proprietary software vendors (explicitly naming Apple & Adobe amongst them) have done. And he slips in a claim that the Bill and Melinda Gates charity foundation doesn't really help the poor; it just pretends to while actually subjecting them to greater harm."
Who wants to bet it was Twitter?
fucking commie bastard
capitalism forever!
GOD BLESS AMERICA
I'm one of the biggest GPL zealots around here, and RMS is high on my list of respected people, but come on. There are whole medical labs dedicated to fighting TB and AIDS in southern Africa that wouldn't exist without the Bill&Melinda foundation. How is that hurting anything?
Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
he needs to STFU
no wonder Open Source isnt being taken seriously when you have self appointed beardie weirdy "leaders" who see FOSS as more of a religion than a solution
take a long look at him and tell us if he speaks for you, Microsoft are at least "professional" thats why they win in the boardroom
get a suit, get your hair cut and be a professional, dress and act like the natives even you are faking
nice
My mind is screwed. It immediatly thought of RMS wielding a big a big katana running like a madman towards Gates and a legion of MS employees.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
Is Stallman so desperate to make Mr. Gates out to be the bad guy that heâ(TM)d sink this low?
I don't see any "low sinking" about it. First of all, the money Gates is so charitably donating, is money he acquired from an illegal monopoly, so it is reasonable to follow where it is going.
Second, there is a good argument to be made that foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are harmful and are mainly entertainment vehicles and tax shelters for the rich.
Third, why shouldn't Stallman comment on this stuff? He started the Free Software Foundation out of social consciousness and civic concern; of course, he would comment on other social issues and may well take action, even if they have nothing to do with software.
And why should Stallman be "desparate"? Free software is doing better than ever before, while Microsoft just keeps failing in everything they do.
The rest of the NeoSmart files contains more bullshit. For example:
Stallman somehow neglects to mention that â" regardless of whether morally acceptable or not â" Microsoft had the legal right to demand payment in exchange for their software.
There is no "neglect" about it. It is not at all clear that Gates had that legal right at the time; in a sense, Gates helped establish that right, to the deteriment of us all, according to Stallman's reading.
I don't agree with what Stallman says, but he is at least consistent and logical. NeoSmart is a bunch of bullshit and FUD.
Is Microsoft getting so desperate that they have to step up their bullshit and FUD machine another notch? I guess it's a good sign.
Way to insure that people continue to believe (in numbers greater than anyone wants to admit) that the whole FOSS thang is nothing but an expression of Socialism.
Do us all a favor, Stallman? The next time you want to go off half-cocked like that, you stuff your favorite Che Guevera t-shirt in your mouth and bite down until the thought goes away?
Bitch!
Gates' legacy is that you don't have control of the PC (whether hardware or software) you paid for.
Wow, he really comes across bitter. One may dislike Bill and MS, but the foundation Bill started has really done some great things. At least he is doing something with his money AND has made other extremely rich people start to do similar charity activities.
I think while MS has done some awful things, the industry has still moved forward as a whole. Bill saw a business model and moved to make it successful. Stallman's idea has caught on too, just not as well YET as the Microsoft one.
Instead of focusing on criticizing Microsoft how about focus on making open source software that is not "as good" but rather "MUCH BETTER" than closed sourced equivalents? How about make OpenOffice or Koffice not "good enough for most users" to be so awesome that it surpasses MS Office? That's why Firefox caught on, it was significantly better than IE 6 in terms of functionality and SECURITY that it was able to become a contender.
deserves to be modded -1 Troll.
Stallman did not claim that the foundation doesn't really help the poor. He simply referenced some well known LA Times articles critical of the foundation.
That's all, nothing to get upset about.
Unless of course god awful sides like neosmart try to take it out of context and sensationalize it. And as usual, /. editors think it's worthwhile to lend them a hand in this endeavor.
Well done!
To suggest that "Microsoft is failing at everything they do" is just ridiculous. Microsoft is concerned about the generation of DOLLARS. Their rules are about making MONEY. In that sense, they are spectacularly successful at what they do, whether you or I agree with their motivation, ethics or whatever.
Its like trying to say that China sucks because they are not a Democracy. Sure, they may suck indeed to you and me, but to China, they are doing just fine.
Stallman is a horrible spokesperson, in the sense that he allows himself through his own words to be defined as a kook, allowing his goals to be written of as the rantings of a madman.
The only reason he wants healthy people in Africa is so that he can make money locking them into paying for Windows.
Invest a few million to ensure the good health of the population, reap a few billion in licensing fees. It's no more difficult than that.
GNAA Penis Rocket To The Moon Project
Sat Jul 5, 2008 (GNAA Wire):
To celebrate this year's Chinese Olympics, hand-in-hand with the totalitatian cooperation with the United States and their recent Chinese made American flag waving holiday of July 4th, The Gay Nigger Association of America (GNAA) is proud to release official GNAA Bozo the Clown Love Gloves, especially made for anal fisting. Each pair of GNAA Bozo the Clown Love Gloves features photos of Larry Harmon, who played Bozo the Clown, with various wacky expressions, with a butterfly and a little heart painted on his head, to remember his heart failure.
As we celebrate the rising of a communist super power with the Chinese Olympics, turn a blind eye to Tibet and the peace loving people who were viciously attacked, and continue to support companies like Wal-Mart who fund communist China, let us remember our freedom as our rights continue to be stripped away, DEA's funding increases and drones begin to fly more and more over our homes, with FLIR scanning our homes for evil marijuana grow ops, while the television shows good Americans waving flags and dancing instead of coffins coming home during an illegal war.
Happy Fourth of July, America! You fat, disgusting piece of shit group of zombies who pay taxes to fund illegal wars like the war on nature (drugs?) and the war in Iraq. Pray to your war-god of Israel at the pump all you want, do you think he really cares? He loves war, look at all of the people who follow him, war mongers on each side, Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Why, even today Christians who can't convert by violence have to convert by bribes.
To celebrate your decline, your present dictatorship, and your future masters in China, please purchase GNAA Bozo the Clown Love Gloves, and enjoy fisting each other in friendship and love while the face of Larry darkens with your feces.
All profits go to our Penis Rocket To The Moon Project.
would atleast dictate that he refers to Bill Gates as Mr Gates rather than "Gates", I find it offensive and I'm not the one even being attacked.
I once read something along the lines that presentation is90% of the arugument or something along those lines.
As someone who doesn't really follow the free software movement, I think he should have focused on promoting the advantages of open-source, rather than bashing those that are free to license their software whichever way they choose.
Gates didn't invent proprietary software, and thousands of other companies do the same thing. It's wrong, no matter who does it.
Utter nonsense - and it reflects badly on the FSF. How exactly are you going to persuade these companies to become more open-source friendly, if all you do is bash them?
That's your opinion and I don't agree with it.
No, it doesn't. As a matter of fact, if all of my computers were to vanish right now, my life wouldn't change that much. It might even be better. You want to talk about power over people? Have a look at the banking industry.
The system will change. That's just the nature of things. Whether or not it needs to be changed is irrelevant.
I disagree with most of what this guy has to say. If anyone creates a piece of software or anything else, it's their right to do as they please with their creation.
Here's an incredibly intelligent person who has the emotional development of a 15 year old.
Ugh I know this is flame bait but I have to say it as it's on topic.
I still don't see the harm that Gates brought to the computing industry with Microsoft. They brought a unification to the desktop and IT that simply didn't exist before, and pushed for standards that made it easier.
And even now there are still problems with all of this. Look at the browser market. Even if IE were not involved, you still have the problem that Firefox, Opera, and Safari render pages differently. Their performance is also very different. So say, a website that you write for one may be great on performance but when launched in another browser be completely and utterly poor.
Even setting "standards" for rendering don't resolve that, as exactly "how" those standards are implemented are left up to the developers. Then you still have the issue that Safari is the most common browser used on Macs, and that's certainly going to heat up as Safari 4 makes its rounds.
Either way, Microsoft tried to reduce this as much as possible. And they succeeded. Despite the fact that millions of people don't know how to use the computers they use every day, they still use them and have access to them. You can still get an education with them.
There are points where IT nerds don't want to learn anything new anymore--it's just at a much higher point than the average person, but still exists...
When I first read rms' potification, it made a certain sort of sense. If you've ever been threatened by the BSA, as I have - twice - you begin to recognise that many software vendors use EULAs to give themselves ridiculously expansive rights, far beyond the government's constitutional limits (at least in the USA). Enter my house to audit my computers? In your dreams.
After a great deal of thought, however, I realize that his view on free software and society actually do make a lot of sense. Free-as-in-liberty software is worth supporting IMHO. So this former Microsoft enthusiast does. Still use a Microsoft mouse, though - they make great hardware. :-)
I have no opinion on the Gates' foundation - I favour charity, obviously, but I'm not up to speed on the details of their goals & policies.
--
Written on the best-selling N800 GNU and Linux tablet.
I still don't understand why he wants everyone to be naked. Isn't the right of author of program to choose either let the product to be open source or not? BTW, I think donating money and writing software is two different things, I can't see any reason to mix them up.
The B&M foundation is a brilliant and incomparable gesture of philanthropy by someone with nothing to gain and everything to lose by such actions; whatever you say about him here i have no doubt bill g would have been a slashdot reading lovable geek had he been born 10 years later. The ridiculous assertions thus far made are a stupid "everyone is either good or evil" step too far. Those who say otherwise ignore every historical example and basic economics to make a point at the expense of a fundamental social cause. Like every social leader stallmann finds himself in a position where he essentially has (bizarrely) to lie in order to maintain his media integrity, we saw in with mandela, we are seeing now with obama on fisa, now it seems we are seeing it with stallman. But there is a fundamental difference here, a the issues that the B&G foundation are addressing are some of THE most important that humanity has ever faced, in those examples, the war had been won and we were conceding minor points, here we are conceding the war for the sake of a battle, ( and fsf is undoubtedly a battle not a war, see lessig). We cannot afford this ridiculous and vindictive charade and it we continue it i fear it will tear us apart just as creationism is tearing apart the christians
Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, and the rest, offer you software that gives them power over you. A change in executives or companies is not important. What we need to change is this system. That's what the free software movement is all about. "Free" refers to freedom: we write and publish software that users are free to share and modify.
In other words, "Do as I tell you, or you are a dumb slave"
Don't get me wrong, I love free software, but more than that I enjoy software that just works. If its free, I'll use that first, but Stallman has always seemed to say that, "Freedom is what I say freedom is, and if you don't do what I tell you to do, then you are not free" Give me a break.....
Monstar L
From the article: "To pay so much attention to Bill Gates' retirement is missing the point. What really matters is not Gates, nor Microsoft, but the unethical system of restrictions that Microsoft, like many other software companies, imposes on its customers."
and no, getting rid of proprietary software won't magically fix disease, starvation, etc
Oh be creative! Free software is, as far as the whole of society is concerned, much cheaper than proprietary software, because society only has to pay to solve (the software portion of) a particular problem once. Therefore, if problems are solved using free software instead of proprietary software, society will have a lot of money left over to spend on fixing disease, starvation, etc.
But we don't even have to argue about free vs. proprietary software in general. This discussion is about free software versus Microsoft software, and it's fairly well-established that Microsoft software has a much higher TCO than best-of-breed free software.
When you consider how much money Microsoft drains from various countries' economies, it's easy to see how the money could be put to better use.
http://outcampaign.org/
The Bill & Melinda Gates foundation is one of the largest charitable organizations in the world, and manages those assets earmarked for charitable contribution by Gates as well as Warren Buffett.
The foundation currently donates hundreds of millions of dollars per year across a portfolio of (I think) worthy causes -- HIV research, education, feeding the poor.
For RMS to insinuate that these contributions are "merely pretending to help" and that they "do more harm" than good is ridiculous.
What then, should the foundation do? Should the foundation -- and by extension, all of us -- simply stop making donations to disease research, the building of libraries, feeding the poor, and improving universities? Does RMS believe that there will be some sort of grassroots "open source" movement to research vaccines and build libraries? Of course that won't happen, and if this is what he believes, then he's flipped his lid. The world doesn't work this way, and the B&M Gates foundation looks like it's doing its best in an imperfect world.
stallman's problem is that he has seveere diarrhea of the mouth.
RMS' Free Software Foundation develops GPL and LGP covered ***FREE*** software.
Quote from the BBC article: ""Free" refers to freedom: we write and publish software that users are free to share and modify."
I have two questions about GPL free software:
1. Does "software" in the quote refer to GPL and LGP covered ***FREE*** software?
2. Do I have the ***Freedom*** to copy parts of GPL/LGPL free software into BSD-covered open-source software of FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD projects?
3. "users are free to share and modify" means users are free to share or not to share. Its the user's choice. If I distribute GPL/LGPL binaries, so do I have the ***Freedom*** to not to share the changes?
There's also this story: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,4205044,full.story
Andrew Carnegie gave the money to build libraries all over the continent. He got the money by being a ruthless capitalist. Nobody remembers how he treated his workers, they just see the library building and think he must have been a good guy.
The motivation for Bill Gates' charitable activities is known only to him but there is a good chance that he wants to leave a legacy that will make future generations think he is a good guy. Anybody involved with a business that was screwed by Microsoft knows better.
Its one thing to be passionate about free software, but you can go too far. In the real world, If he held any position of importance at all, Stallman would have to resign his position after a comment like that. Stallman obviously thinks software is more important than people. He is dead wrong. Something wholly good is coming out of the software that he is criticises. Is free software going to feed people and cure disease?
Stallman would also be wrong if he thought that all the money that the Gates foundation plays with is sourced from Microsoft. Warren Buffett has given most of his fortune to the foundation also. To even imply that such philanthropy is harming the thirld world is nothing less than criminal.
RMS pointed out that the bulk of the Gates Foundation's money is parked in investments (so the philanthropy can live off the interest). This is a true statement. However, it's a bit silly to imply that a philanthropy is disingenuous for not spending its entire balance sheet in a single year... because if philanthropies did that, they mostly wouldn't be around longer than a year. Pretty much EVERY philanthropy keeps most of its money in investments, and does it philanthropic work with the annual proceeds.
Stallman's second criticism is that some of the particular investments the Foundation keeps its money in are not socially-conscious companies. I don't know the details of the Gates Foundation's portfolio, but that's a fair criticism of a philanthropy in general. If you donate money to a gun control policy foundation, you expect that they won't invest it in gun manufacturers, etc. A foundation that works with disease and living conditions in third-world countries probably shouldn't invest in companies with poor track records of worker and environmental exploitation in third-world countries. Indeed, applying pressure through the use of its investment decisions might be the most effective power that a foundation of that size could wield.
In sum, the quote was probably a bit less than fair in that it has nothing to do with software, and was thrown in just to be spiteful. Still, the quote was just ONE SENTENCE... buried in an article that dealt exclusively with software otherwise.
The tactic of going after a charitable organization with extreme claims is getting old. Someone as smart as Stallman claims to be should be able to recognize this as the hallmark of a desperate individual trying to "make their mark on the world".
Funny, I noticed this at the bottom of his personal page:
"copyright (c) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 Richard Stallman
Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire page are permitted provided this notice is preserved.
Verbatim copying and redistribution of any of the photos in the photos subdirectory is permitted under the Creative Commons Noderivs license version 3.0 or later. You can copy and redistribute the photo of me playing music to the butterfly under the Creative Commons Noderivs Nocommercial license version 3.0 or later. Any other photos of me in this directory may be copied and redistributed under the Creative Commons Noderivs license version 3.0 or later."
If Stallman is so damn benevolent and charitable, he should spend his time giving money to people, and not making extreme claims to get his face or name mentioned. The is a fine line between activism and self-glorification/self-publicization, and Stallman crossed it long ago.
Stallman is just a "techie" version of Michael Crook.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Now, when I forget to say GNU/Linux, it's on PURPOSE!!!
I just want to say thanks to Bill and Melinda for giving me BBC all night. Keep it up!
load "linux",8,1
If Stallman himself needs to work as (according to TFA) an "expert food manipulator".
Oh, wait, it says 'FUD'. My bad.
I ask this out of genuine curiosity and ignorance.
As I recall, Gates's main argument is that programmers must make money for their work, as there is no incentive for them to produce software otherwise.
Apart from a few benevolent souls who produce software in their spare time, how exactly is completely free software a sustainable model? Or is the argument that you make your software open source but not free? Does this mean someone else can copy your hard work and produce a customized version?
I still haven't really grasped what incentive a business would have of producing software without protecting their work. Or is Stallman advocating a Red-Hat/Suse sort of thing, where you produce software and charge for consultancy? Meaning the more obscure your software is, the better?
How can you produce desktop software using such a model?
"feeding the poor" sounds really warm and fuzzy, but without a reversal in global population growth what are you "really" achieving? How about spending some of that money on weekly radio and TV spots that counteract the religious propaganda that we see and hear every day. I've love to see that, a syndicated radio network that examines sermons from famous religious leaders and exposes the fear and hate mongers that they really are. Now THAT would be charitable.
I have had discussions with people that support the claim that Gates has done more to harm than to help, but only assuming that most people are not woefully illogical and ignorant. Alas that is a false assumption. I have actually had people tell me that they prefer to buy Windows rather than use Linux for free, because "a portion of my money goes to charity when I buy Windows." It actually never occurs to these people to use Linux and donate the entire cost of Windows to charity!
... that is certainly to a large degree for show, and he is giving back very little of what he stole. He is no Robin Hood, to be certain. If you calculate what percentage of his ill gotten gains he has returned, it is parallel to me offering to give to charity and then asking that charity if they have change for a penny. Gates is no great philanthropist. He is a skilled opportunist, who knows how to leverage peoples ignorance and lack of logical facility, and so that is why we have people today purchasing Windows so that a couple of dollars goes tro charity rather than using Linux and sending a couple of hundred dollars to charity.
So in an ideal world, everyone would use Linux, or one of the *BSDs, and donate the money they would have spent on an OS to a worthy cause. In that ideal world every purchase of Windows would be a drain on charity funds. In that ideal world, people would not be illogical sheep lead to the proprietary slaughter. But we don't live in an ideal world.
As far as Gates giving to charity
RMS is an idealist. Anyone who doesn't respect him far more than they do Gates is merely ignorant. Unfortunately, RMS is also a bit of a nut, while Gates is pure criminal. Nuts are obviously nuts. Good criminals know how to avoid looking like criminals. So we have a world where ignorant people prefer the fine upstanding looking criminal to the obvious, but well meaning, nut.
Does any of this mean I wish Gates wasn't giving to charity? No. But lets not be so quick to call him a great guy. If he was a great guy, it wouldn't be so obvious who was donating the money, and the charity organization certainly wouldn't be called the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
RMS is a tool.
It seems to me that RMS is stuck in a little world of his own. He doesn't understand that proprietary software is here to stay, and he has now resorted to FUD and statements which are, to be quite frank, libellous in nature. He is disparaging a charity to claim that all proprietary software is evil, which I consider to be a deplorable method.
Shame on you, Richard Stallman. Shame on you.
Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
MOD PARENT UP!
Quote: "Microsoft software has a much higher TCO than best-of-breed free software."
The cost of owning a Microsoft product is very high, in my experience, because of the extreme sloppiness that Microsoft allows. Microsoft makes more money when users pay to buy new versions because they have discovered problems with the original versions.
It's amazing how many people are pretending to be charitable. It's amazing how well that works with the public. Basically, someone who made billions of dollars with tricky, sneaky, unethical business methods can gain a positive image by spending a little of that money on public relations.
Re-worded quote: "Microsoft drains money from the economy of every country in the world. Free software allows that money to be put to better use."
"Free software existed fine without RMS."
No, it didn't.
Yes, a software package that was already written and finished and made public would of course continue to exist. But there were literally thousands of companies and people who would take advantage of someone else's work and give nothing in return.
My look at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation shows it was founded with two primary purposes:
- Tax dodge--giving money to a charity reduces his personal income taxes. By giving it to a charity he controls, he gets additional benefits.
- As PR for Microsoft against the anti-trust investigation.
Bill Gates has been rich since the 1980s, but his Foundation didn't really get any significant money until 1999. And then Bill then realized around 2004 that he could run his Foundation as his "retirement", and so started giving it more focus.
By checking out the contributions provided at www.gatesfoundation.org, you can see (this is complicated by the fact he had two charities, with the primary one now being the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation):
- As of 1998, Bill Gates had donated a grand total of $300million to both of his charities. That's not for that year, that's over all previous years combined, with interest/appreciation. This number is embarrassingly low for a person worth $100billion. However, it's probably just about the right amount to maximize his tax savings on a yearly basis. Also, the charity was building an endowment, and not spending all that much money.
- Then suddenly, in 1999, in the middle of the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit, he gives $15 billion. He gives another $5 billion in 2000.
- Then, once the anti-trust lawsuit effectively ended, in 2001, he gives $0. Yup, check it out yourself. Probably because he took a loss that year due to the stock market drop, didn't need the tax writeoff anymore, and didn't need the PR.
- In 2002, he gives $82.5million, again, back to the tax dodge. He gives $81.9 million in 2003. He's still worth $40-50 billion dollars due to Microsoft stock.
- In 2004, he starts to give his charity a little more notice, and starts donating $700million in 2004, $442 million in 2005, $333million in 2006, and $1.2billion in 2007.
I wouldn't be surprised if the recipients of his money found it had lots of strings attached, but I'm not interested enough to dig up all this dirt. Although it's nice he's giving some of his money away, IMNSHO, it's just about the least he could do (except for the $20billion PR stunt). I also think the expenses for this foundation are quite high, and are probably more of a tax dodge. The foundation also spends considerably less than he has contributed, so it's building a very large endowment. It seems benign. So far.
I liken it to a king tossing silver coins to the rabble around his carriage--but doing it only when the press is around.
Richard Stallman is not about freedom. Richard Stallman only cares about end-user freedom.
But I fail to see why end user freedom should be more important than the developer's freedom to choose. It's almost as if developers were evil by default from his point of view. Unless of course they embrace the GPL.
diegoT
1) He conducted a campaign of terror that resulted in the egcs fork
2) He attacked Linus Torvalds
3) He created the GPLv3, which is a complete and utter failure
4) He is pushing Affero, which is horrible
5) He shows up at public events wearing a halo (literally, made of an old disc)
6) He undermines the credibility of the open source movement.
7) It's Linux, not GNU/Linux, you trademark-diluting parasite. In terms of source code, GNU utils make up less than 3% of a typical distribution.
8) We need an emergency coding project to replace GNU foundation software with work-alikes.
The world would be a better place if Richard Stallman were to retire from public life and stop all activity related to software.
There are whole medical labs dedicated to fighting TB and AIDS in southern Africa that wouldn't exist without the Bill&Melinda foundation. How is that hurting anything?
Gates said 30 years ago that all the work he invested in making some programs should be paid back by the people "stealing" his products. But then he imposes a very expensive tax for ALL computer users in the world. And then he plays dirty to make sure other people don't give the public better and cheaper products (I'm talking before the Free Software revolution happened).
Don't you think that's being a little hypocritical about it?
By forcing governments to use expensive Microsoft products you prevent said countries from using all that money for better causes, i.e. fighting AIDS and diseases, developing a solid independent industry, investing in education, etc. It's like taking money destined to the poor, and then donating a tiny bit of it to the poor and getting praised for that. My point is that the money the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation gives to the poor can't even be compared to the money they took from other countries and would end up in the hands of the poor sooner or later.
YOU CAN'T ERASE ALL YOUR BAD DEEDS BY DOING A SMALL GOOD DEED!
Really - do you think that someone who became millionaire by forcibly collecting money from nearly anyone, including taxpayers, who end up paying taxes for Microsoft Software (including Vista) installed in government offices (and that's AROUND THE WORLD - so that's a double Microsoft tax, not only for you, sir, but for all citizens of all countries) is really a charitative person?
Give me a fucking break.
This is EXACTLY THE SAME THING that the US has done. First they force their expensive products down the throats of foreign countries, raising their debts and increasing poverty. But instead of helping those countries develop their industries and invest in education, they give them "money for the poor" with the condition of investing in birth control (because we can't have poor people have many kids, think of the poor single mothers with 10 children!).
It's people like Bill Gates and company who help maintain the international Status Quo.
Ideological purity rarely works in the real world. If you take it too far you wind up with Bush as President... Without Apple, the GUI would have remained hidden away in the PARC labs until who knows? Apple took those rough ideas and polished them to a wonderful degree, then brought them to the world. Similarly the iPhone touch UI Apple has commercialized is fantastic. Who really believes open software would produce new classes of products such as those? I am very happy to pay money to innovators who bring me things I otherwise could never have. Open and commercial software are complimentary. I think patent law should be addressed so that open software products can come in and commoditize things once they have matured, but lots of real innovation happens in the commercial space.
I've never read a more infantile display of whining from someone with an obvious inferiority complex. Stallman exhibits a breathtaking level of paranoia and probably believes Gates AND Microsoft black helicopters are flying around him with super-sensitive microphones so they can be in a position to dominate the world with their cabal of confederates and governments. Pitiful.
I hadn't heard of that scandal. Imagine, The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation investing in a factory which poisons the lungs of the very people they claim to help. Mod parent informative.
Ahem, ahem...
I am not really impressed by B&M gates foundation... and the use they have given to it:
e-Mexico.
Which was about to be kickstarted with Open Source (with the backup of HP, IBM, Sun, etc)... until Bill Gates went to Mexico to speak with Presidente Fox... aaaaand, guess what:
Microsoft has pledged $60 million in software and training to help fund Internet kiosks that are being built in remote communities. The software maker has also allotted $10 million to train workers in small and mid-size businesses, along with an additional grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to the country's VAMOS MEXICO program to be used to move the country's libraries online.
Ohh, Vamos Mexico... the foundation from Fox's wife which has been investigated for allegued corruption practices.
Oh yes, B&M Gates foundation are God's messengers.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Clearly, you haven't had your facts today.
I'm no MS apologist, but RMS is a wacko.
Is it me or is he kind of like the software equivalent of a religious fundamentalist (e.g. Taliban type)...?
Stallman's idea has caught on too, just not as well YET as the Microsoft one
It's kind of ironic that FOSS is gaining in popularity for a number of reasons, different from what Stallman is promoting it for.
Firefox has become a huge success mostly because it causes fewer *security* problems for average users. Linux and *BSD variants are mostly found on servers for performance/security/easy maintenance reasons. Linux is used to bring older PC's back to life, because it can be tailored to run well on systems where modern MS offerings wouldn't do. And it's found a new spot in the ultramobile PC market for the same reason, and because avoiding the MS tax makes a big difference when the hardware is cheap and the competition strong. From the looks of it, the 'freedom' or 'source code available' aspect isn't on top of anyones list.
Stallman is right, but he should realize that for average Janes and Joes, the 'freedom' and 'source code available' aspect matter *shit* when it comes to software. And these average Janes and Joes are who matters, because they're the biggest group of computer users (embedded systems aside).
Why not focus on practical advantages? "No nag screens or searching for cracks on shady websites". "No need to feel guilty if you didn't pay for it". "The authors would be happy if you pass a copy to your friends (and it's legal to do so)". "Promotes free standards so that computers inter-operate better (and make it easier for you swap hardware platform)". "Easier to fit on whatever hardware you've got". "No forced upgrades to the latest and shiniest that you don't really need". Are these reasons not good enough?
To Stallman I'd say: for each and every Jane or Joe that picks FOSS for these reasons, just be happy with the 'freedom' side-effect that comes with it (for them). Those who know what to look for, already appreciate your contribution. I know I do (free beer available if you ever travel to a place near me!).
Please explain how having software that works in the interests of the user where the user has the freedom to make the changes they want, limited chiefly by the user's willingness to alter it, is in any way similar to being called "a dumb slave".
Nobody is arguing against powerful reliable software. But when that software is proprietary instead of free one wonders for whom the software "just works"; who benefits from a program that spies on the user, keeps users from adding translations into the user's native language, disallows technical users (like programmers) from fixing bugs or adding features, or makes it a copyright infringement to share any version of the program with their fellows (whether improved or not, whether shared commercially or not). Powerful and reliable software can be bad for the user (see RMS' essay on "Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software" specifically the section called "Powerful, reliable software can be bad").
Digital Citizen
Richard Matthew Stallman designed and championed the GPL, the license under which Linux is provided. It is that umbrella philosophy that allows Linux to be the powerhouse that it is today. No company can use the work of others on Linux to engage in adversarial, tricky, sneaky behavior.
What is the link it's some blog crap? anyway I can't see an actual RMS quote. IF RMS is comenting that giving long term food aid to africa is a bad thing I would have to agree. It only leads to a large unsustainable population and greater suffering. Sure short term disaster relief and teaching people about birth controll and good farming helps people in africa. Also as the above posters have pointed out the charity is a tax dodge. The problem with RMS is that he is almost always right and yet gets mis represented due to the contriversy of his statments. He also has good reason to hate gates.
I appreciate your help in making my point that there are many illogical ignorant people in the world, but I really didn't need your help ;-)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
To even imply that such philanthropy is harming the thirld world is nothing less than criminal.
No, what is criminal is that people like you take it for granted that dumping large amounts of "aid" on third world countries is going to help them. There is not a single nation in the world that has come out of poverty through external aid.
but you can go too far.
Yes, you did go too far. It's people like you that condemn millions to die every year by offering them handouts and creating dependencies instead of real economic development and progress. You're the real criminal.
It seems like Microsoft has no problem dodging any real punishment in the US. The EU's antitrust actions against Microsoft, mild as they are, put the US' antitrust punishments to shame. So then it seems that Microsoft has no problem making more money as American individuals and organizations buy Microsoft's goods and services.
One of the major problems with this thread of the conversation is the assumption that illegally leveraging monopoly and violating the law around the world can be made right by philanthropically spending some of the ill-gotten gain. A more reasonable view of the larger issues here is to adequately punish the wrongdoing and recognize that saving people's lives, providing potable water, and decent universal health care (whether or not the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does this) shouldn't depend on the whims of the wealthy.
Digital Citizen
Please do cite evidence of an organized movement for user's freedoms, preferably one which specifies what those freedoms are, prior to the free software movement RMS started.
Digital Citizen
Is it so bad that Microsoft is a business? I don't see Linux fans (myself included) citing Torvald's, or Stallman's, or any other core developers' helping the poor and sick of the world. For Mac fans, Jobs is notorious for his utter lack of charitable support, and has been criticized frequently over the years--usually in comparison to Gates, in fact.
Would it be too far to say that many of you can't distinguish between Microsoft, international software company, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a charity? Because to use a phrase from my childhood... they're apples and oranges.
Also, why would they spend 100% of their money? That's poor business management, especially for a charity. When you rely largely on other people's donations, and you merely spend it, you'll end up with less money, doing a lot less good--because you'll use it all up and end up treading water for months or years.
To some of the people criticizing Gates' personal donations--do you think he's the only person donating? Google Warrenn Buffett. When a company like HP, or IBM, or any high profile business, gives money to a charity, do you seriously think they're doing it because they're saints? No. Its largely a political move to increase their standing in the community, as well as the added benefit of a tax write-off. Trying to single out one person or one company is utterly ridiculous when in the business world, its a pretty standard policy.
The fact is, nobody's looking to do Gates any favors--and if his charity were actually defrauding or mismanaging funds, believe me, they'd be called on it. If people have no problem taking on Microsoft legally, do you really think they'd hesitate on an "evil" charity that's just guzzling money for its own purposes?
Regardless of the reasons for donating, its obvious that Bill Gates gives a crap--which can't be said for most of the tech big wigs (I'm looking at you, Jobs!). On top of that, his personal involvement in the organization (and believe me, he is involved... Google it) is commendable.
Don't mix your negative views of Microsoft, the company, with your views of Bill Gates, the man.
(P.S.: How much money has RMS given to help his fellow man? Somehow, I don't see Linux doing much good to a starving Ethiopian child. Or an illiterate American child who can't afford to eat. Or... well, you get the point.
Furthermore, what percentage of _your_ money have you donated?)
More:
Quotes from Richard Matthew Stallman:
"Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, that you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone."
"Fighting software patents one by one will never eliminate the danger of software patents, any more than swatting mosquitoes will eliminate malaria."
"Free software' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, think of 'free' as in 'free speech,' not as in 'free beer'."
More quotes:
"People get the government their behavior deserves. People deserve better than that."
"Odious ideas are not entitled to hide from criticism behind the human shield of their believers' feelings."
"Injustice is happening now; suffering is happening now. We have choices to make now. To insist on absolute certainty before starting to apply ethics to life decisions is a way of choosing to be amoral." (Slashdot interview, 1 May 2000)
And when Security and the police shot him to death...
And as Linus Torvalds held Stallman's dying body in his hands, RMS looked over his shoulder at the pages of code flying in the air and with his dying breath whispered:
"Perfect... They are all... perfect..."
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
It would be nice if Stallman were as outspoken about the Web based folks who use GPL software and because of his obsession with Gates and Microsoft, don't have to give back. The free software movement is more threatened by these folks, like Google, than it is by Microsoft. If software and our data move to the cloud and the big Web guys can use GPL but not give us back what they do and a chance to audit it, we're more threatened than we ever were by Microsoft.
He mentioned that while all of the biology and engineering tech were all IP'd up, the software side was FOSS -- Google Cytoscape to look up their software project. Predictably, he mentioned that Bill Gates was against this arrangement, and Lee Hood mentioned it took a lot of upper-management pep talk and persuasion to get his in-house software people to be happy about it as well.
I didn't bother asking Lee Hood questions about the software aspects as it was a biology symposium and the grad students were more interested in the biology aspects of the project, but I looked up Cytoscape, and guess what, it is written and extendable in Java. And this is largely on Bill and Melinda's dime.
Here is the Polish translation of this article: http://osnews.pl/problemem-nie-jest-gates-lecz-bariery-ktore-stworzyl/
Polish your GNU/Linux! http://polishlinux.org
But if you don't have Linux, you're definitely NOT in control. Windows keeps "calling home", prevents you to copy a legitimately purchased DVD or CD thanks to all that DRM stuff. If you can still power off your computer and install Linux, you should be grateful that Bill and Steve haven't found yet a way to prevent you from doing that.
I am writing this on my Windows box. It is also my primary Linux box, but I use that part of it very rarely.
I have like... ummm MAYBE a dozen "legitimate" DVDs and about... uhh... ah lets say a couple of thousand (although its probably way more) of those other DVDs and CDs.
And out of ALL those "legitimate" disks only 2 are software. A Counterstrike CD I bought to be able to play online and a Battlefield 2 DVD I won in some online game.
WHO is stopping me doing WHAT?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
... what would free software copy then?
his Captain Obvious costume again.
Microsoft, Apple, and Adobe and others found ways to use open source software to their advantage using loopholes in open source licenses to close off the source for their commercial projects and putting limits on what code goes into the open source projects they use in their commercial software.
Bill and Melinda Gates charity foundation was created as a tax shelter for Bill and Melinda Gates to give away Microsoft and PC technology to ensure that Microsoft continues to have a high marketshare and forces the poor to buy more proprietary software and avoid open source software.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
From http://www.stallman.org/
"Richard Stallman" is just my mundane name; you can call me "rms"
He lets people refer to him as RMS.
Something tells me he has quite liberal views on the matters of proper protocol and titles.
Its not like he referred to Bill Gates as Billgatus of Borg. You know... as Slashdot still does?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
This guy never ceases to annoy me. PFO.
you might want to read this: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Careful, a similar argument was once used (and occasionally still is) to claim that communism with its central planning was superior economically because the competition of capitalism involved wasteful duplication of effort. The claim proved a bit flawed when put to the test.
Good point, however, I'd say that FOSS promote more competition, because it removes barriers of entry for competitors. May the best project win!
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
And if you get the public sector to solve these problems, you will find that the money will be spent on luxury offices and furniture, govnernment pension schemes, staff motivation jollies, banquet style power lunch meetings and chauffeurs, all for career beauracrats. Sometimes charities and foundations are better for such things.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Fantastic response to the gp's same old complaints.
Thanks for taking the time to type it up. People really need to get some perspective with the whole "MS is evil" and you eloquently explain this point.
Ditto, Gnome vs. MSWin.
Obviously the original strategy was to be familiar to MS users, so they would be comfortable switching. But, that would only work if the competition stood still. And, now there are online replacements like Google Docs.
Too bad. The best thing to come out of OO is the insight to be better instead of the same.
"Less money spent on software = more money for charity" Ahahahahahahahahaha. How many of you eggheads using Free Software has actually given the equivalent amount if you used proprietary software to charity? Huh? huh? WAHAHAHA.
The foundation is a tax shell and not doing "great things". The foundation makes poor people even more poor. It is used to enforce the monopoly of Microsoft: It gives away free pc's with Windows but included is an expensive support contract with MS.
It's not that Bill invented a businessmodel, he used an illegal one (monopoly).
Wrong. It's not a tax shell (btw, you mean shelter not shell) if you give away almost all your wealth. Think before you post.
Compaq made IBM clones.
Clones create a competitor in the market place.
To remain domninant, you must either be cheaper, faster, better or any combination thereof.
Compare that to Windows: you can't recreate the operations (see all the "Photoshop isn't on Linux so I can't move" posts) where you have a monopoly grant. No competition, no free market pressure, stagnation.
MS software has FUCK ALL to do with computers getting cheaper. PC's and their competition between hardware manufacturers made computers cheap.
Exactly. If it weren't for proprietary software, from whence would the free software movement have copied TCP/IP, HTTP, and a decent web browser?
Oh, wait...
Another story on the BEEB today typifies what Gates & Family do with the supposed philanthropy:
moral corruption of the medical industry
RMS is not a fool. He is also right 99.999% of the time too.
Stallman exhibits a breathtaking level of paranoia and probably believes Gates AND Microsoft black helicopters are flying around him with super-sensitive microphones so they can be in a position to dominate the world with their cabal of confederates and governments.
Also, he sleeps with a katana under his bed.
http://xkcd.com/225/
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Microsoft attacked him first.
I read what he wrote because it was interesting. It's too bad that you had to pick nits instead of countering his argument with your own points.
In English, we call that either a "cheap shot" or a "cop out."
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
Really? Why thats new.
*yawn*
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Microsoft actually has a long history of its higher level employees contributing to or creating charitable contributions. For example, thanks to Ballmer's research, today's average office chair is now 73% more aerodynamic.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
they give them "money for the poor" with the condition of investing in birth control (because we can't have poor people have many kids, think of the poor single mothers with 10 children!).
You sound like a pro-lifer who has been out of touch with this issue since the nineties. The US president has for the past eight years ignored Congressional demands and international treaty obligations to provide the US share of funding for UNFPA, solely because that organization educates women receiving its aid as to ALL of their reproductive health options. UNFPA, oddly enough, also acts a conduit for money to provide education and economic opportunities for the women receiving their aid: the single most effective way known to mankind to improve the overall economic status of poverty-stricken groups.
Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
I liken it to a king tossing silver coins to the rabble around his carriage--but doing it only when the press is around.
Right... Like all those kings that created their software companies and made money actually building something instead of "collecting" it from that very same rabble or stealing it from their neighbors.
Yeah... sure... If Bill Gates used his money to make himself a giant golden pyramid. Or Taj Mahal.
Instead, motherfucker is giving away money to strangers.
That is so fucking evil.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
It's amazing how many people are pretending to be charitable. It's amazing how well that works with the public. Basically, someone who made billions of dollars with tricky, sneaky, unethical business methods can gain a positive image by spending a little of that money on public relations.
So Bill Gates is a ruthless capitalist who have built an empire by screwing over the empires of other ruthless capitalists? I have a hard time seeing how that can be "more evil" than it is "good" to give away that same money to people that actually need them. It is not like Netscape's presidents are sleeping on the streets because evil Microsoft bundled IE with Windows.
Football Odds
You hippies just sit here salivating for one of these articles to spew your brain diarrhea all over the page, huh?
Yes, many will not concur with Richard, but the truth is that the foundation IS Bill Gates PR arm. I give you the example of Mexico's enciclomedia project (which was an absolute failure): with the simplest menace of the country's strategy of including linux as a base platform for millions of computers for elementary schools, the B&MG foundation (after a lightning trip of ballmer and gates to personally talk to President Fox) donated 40 million dollars worth of boxes with a simple, little string attached: it HAS to run Microsoft Windows.
Thats not charity. Thats taking care of brand positioning in the future.
Now of course the foundation ALSO does some great things, with no strings attached. But when it comes to technology.... well, they just do what the founder needs them to do.
NO SIG
Yeh, like Apache is a copy if IIS or something?
"charity" = very obvious tax evasion scheme
as used in the past by -
rockefeller
ford
howard hughes
etc
- give up "ownership" but retain control. Sweeeeet.
Actually, Foo is simultaneously right and wrong regarding the nature of Free Software.
The reason is that it's not "communist-ic" but it is strongly "libertarian" in philosophy.
That is because licenses such as the GPL only bind developers who voluntarily use Free Software as a starting point for their own efforts, and does not inhibit others who choose not to participate. It does, however, require that those who do participate in the development of the code and direct derivitave works follow the rules and provide their work back to the community. It is actually the license fee to do so.
We tend to view fees as monetary flows from "Party A" to "Party B", but Free Software is more akin to a "barter economy" instead.
Any scheme that is "communist" or "socialist" requires mandatory participation. A "communist-ic" scheme would require that even from-scratch code would immediately become a publicly-owned work.
It is noteworthy that Free Software does allow anyone to republish and distribute copies at any desired price, so long as the source code is made available for no charge or basically "at cost".
It's important to further clarify that sometimes terms become muddy in popular use.
"Communist" and "Socialist" really mean "slave to the commune, with no option whatsoever."
The term "free market" is a market without external pressures of whatever kind used to create artificial barriers to entry or change.
"Libertarian" indicates the individual choice of who each individual chooses to participate with. It is based on voluntary cooperation and participation, not coersion and force, but does recognize defense.
In practice, all these get jumbled together, shaken, stirred, bent, folded, spindled and mutilated until none of them are recognizable.
Are you so ignorant that you truly believe that if MS never existed the world would be a hugely better place? Do you truly believe free software is the answer to the world's ill's? I've never seen such ignorant remarks in my life. What about the starving, poor people before MS existed or became a monopoly? Was that IBM then crushing all those people? Do you truly believe in places like Ethopia or anywhere else where the starvation and poor is so rampant that free software will some how feed them?
God I could rant on this all day but the people would never understand how the real world exists. Free software is great but my god to think the way you guys think that free software will magically fix everything is so ludicrous. And to attack the Gates foundation (feel how you will about gates they do good work) is simply stupidity at its finest. I guess people would prefer that he kept his money to himself and not try to help anyone at all. Yea, that's brilliant logic there for you imbeciles.
Get over yourselves, get over free software, join the f'ing real world and actually try to help people yourselves. Travel to those countries and take a real look at what software would or would not do for them. Guess what?! NOTHING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. software will not help them one single bit. you getting off your lazy ass and helping them and donating your own money instead of complaining about other people who actually trying to help.
My god I've seen ignorance on this site before this is takes the cake
Tell me, what magnanimous acts of philanthropy has RMS performed lately?
He might be a skilled programmer, but as far as his ideas go... he's got so many stars in his eyes that he's completely lost touch (if he ever had it) with the real world.
It's called fascism (in the Mussolini form), and basically is a merger of government and business. It's a centrally planned and controlled system with private ownership and profits.
Really, it is an oligarchy run by elitists, and is not terribly different from feudalism.
Stallman has a personal hatred for Bill Gates, and is making himself look stupid.
Forced? No. Made it a much better choice in the short term with the intention of bending them over long term, sure. Took advantage of corrupt leadership and politicians, sure. Evil, sure. Forced, no.
Much like fixing what Microsoft has done too America requires fixing our politicians, fixing the 'problems' Microsoft has caused other countries requires fixing the politicians.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Quite frankly, your misunderstanding of economics is astounding. If you misunderstood everything like that, you would turn your computer off to read Slashdot.
Even if Microsoft products have a higher TCO, it isn't in up front product cost. It's in hands-on maintenance and administration? Who do you think is going to eventually and inevitably do that?
Local workers. Therefor, training and other economies are created.
Without Microsoft and Apple tirelessly attacking the problem of computers at home, and Dell supplying the means, free software would be an exercise in University halls and the end result would be emacs, nethack and nethack inside emacs.
You'll understand this when you get older.
What is the point of trying to compete when you lose your edge as soon as you release your product/application?
This is a problem with competition in general. Without free software, the competition is less intense, so that short-term niches can appear. Perhaps there is an argument for competition to be less intense, so that the marketplace has an opportunity to anneal.
However, free software still provides competition; that the competition is perhaps too effective doesn't contradict that basic fact.
As competition, free software is interesting in that its wage is non-monetary, this leads many who don't realy grok supply and demand, and the roots of money in barter to consider such non-monetary wages as being somehow against the spirit of capitalism. Such distortion is then used to link volentarism with oppressive regimes, so as to present the exercise of freedom as anti-freedom.
Pretty bizarre, if you ask me...
Wikileaks, no DNS
Compare the size of community power between Linux and BSD.
Which one's the Daddy?
BSD has NO EXCUSE because, as you pointed out, it's been there a HECK of a lot longer.
So why hasn't it caught on? Because you're GIVING your work away.
Because of the BSD license.
Linux brought more people to it because it grew from ALL the additions made to it, not just the ones that someone decided, after all, to donate back.
And how was that achieved? GNU.
Who made that?
RMS.
So "there was an open source system before RMS" is ridiculous. There was, but it was powerless and it brought NOBODY together. RMS and GNU *did*.
I would mod you to the moon.
NO SIG
Am I the only one who noticed that the foundation didn't exist until Bill married Melinda. Personally, I think right after the honeymoon, maybe during, she took him out to the woodshed and he finally grew up. I wonder what she used, an ash shovel (mclintock) or a cane as I doubt bare handed would have done much. She's largely the driving force behind the charitable end given Bill's history of screwing everybody where money is concerned. By the way, if you take all the customers and enemies/friends that Bill Gates/Microsoft has robbed over the last thirty years, we've already contributed to the foundation plenty. And yes it does good things, but considering the connections and resources available it could do a lot more, never mind interleaving with all the other foundations. And has anyone else noticed, considering the sheer number of foundations around that we still have lots of problems?
RMS is largely about the ethical high ground and dareing us to get there. As the software freedom evangelist he does quite well. Of course, it does get old for us regulars but he's not aiming at us and even we need a reminder once in a while.
The yuppie generation, which these people are a part of, should get a good kick in the teeth, starting with government, considering they're in charge and blowing it for the rest of us. George Carlin described you people right. And much of this giving smells more like tax evasion and after mid-life guilt. If you want proof, just ask if you would donate if the financial/emotional gains didn't exist.
He failed to create the kernel because he believes in a misguided idea from academia called the micro kernel. This allowed Linux Torvalds to create the Linux kernel "just for fun". Torvalds is a talented kernel engineer, but he does not have the vision necessary to create the GPL or the GNU project. Witness the Bitkeeper Debacle.
Gates on the otherhand, is a money grubbing horse thief, that has screwed a long list of people and companies on his way to becoming a billionare. His company is a convicted monopolist. Almost everyone that has anything to do with computers (that is everyone, whether they know it or not,) has been hurt by Bill Gates.
History of free software
Meaning of free software history
Mirco kernel debate
I'll agree with your definition of totalitarian communism, but I would not equalize socialism with it.
Also libertarian simply means that one believes that individual rights and freedoms come before the rights and freedoms of the community as whole. So for example restricting what items one can bring on an airplane (taking away of individual freedom) to prevent mid flight terrorist attack (and protect the larger community consisting of people on the flight and possibly ground) is against libertarian view.
However, one can be perfectly libertarian and socialist in outlook. There is nothing wrong with valuing individual rights and freedoms but also supporting national health care and welfare, which are institutions made for the common good. In the end everyone ends up better off with these. Note that these are not rights nor freedoms. These are simply institutions designed to work well for all and not just economic elite.
Look at majority of Western Europe, which is mostly libertarian and socialist esp Scandinavian countries, Austria, France with 5 week vacations, national health care, and individual rights and freedoms.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
RMS continues to be one of the strongest voices in advocating the how and why of open-source. It's a great thing we have him, and GNU.
I haven't read any RMS since the 90's but this bbc article is starkly misleading. The core ideas behind FSF were great, but the rhetoric in that article sounds purposefully misleading.
If a great ideas can stand on their own why not just say it clearly? Why qualify free as in "bar nuts"? Why not just come up with a better description? The FSF wants 'liberty' not 'no-cost'.
I see two possibilities for this seemingly everlasting confusion:
1. RMS is lying to himself and won't admit that the confusion benefits the FSF when people hear 'no-cost'.
2. RMS knows that the FSF benefits when people hear 'no-cost' and has lost sight of communicating the real message.
Some people may care less about liberty then getting something without paying. However, RMS's actions show someone who is frankly riding a long standing dishonesty by continually conflating no-cost with liberty.
I happen to believe he is actually blind to this. Yes RMS clarifies, but does anyone really believe that someone who reads a headline that says 'free' in relation to software thinks of anything other than 'no cost'. Why not actually just say what you mean and speak of software liberty?
Microsoft software is no cheaper than it has always been (why the fuck does Office still cost so much?). All these cheap computers exist because of Michael Dell, who turned the manufacturing industry on its ear. He deserves most of the credit for the commoditization of computer hardware.
who have billions in endowments and yet sit on it? The numbers than some of the ivy league colleges have and essentially sit on is staggering. Yet the costs of college keep going up further locking many out of the loop. Those billions are just as "shady" invested as anything B&G do. Hell I bet I could designate shady anyone's investment, if your only intent is to vilify its damn easy to do.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
And he slips in a claim that the Bill and Melinda Gates charity foundation doesn't really help the poor; it just pretends to while actually subjecting them to greater harm.
And how does Richard Stallman help the poor outside of the FSF work? I guess all the ranting he does on his website about harry potter books, cell phones, lets boycott "everything" and removing passwords from their WiFi hubs will help out poor people.
I can never understand why people call this guy an activist, the activists I know actually do something about things they feel strongly about rather than talk about it or get others to do it for them; which from what his web site seems to promote.
So putting aside the software stuff what has this guy even done that is meaningful? I mean if he is going to attack the Gates' on things they do outside of MS time for him to fess up to what he as done for humanity outside of the FSF.
Back in my day we had a term called Robber Baron to describe exactly what Bill Gates was. Well not really my day as the term dates back to 12th century Germany but you get the picture. These people used illegal and immoral tactics to amass their fortunes.
Some of the big Robber Barons of the Industrial Age went and used their ill-gotten money later in life in philanthropy and are remembered today as people who helped the community even though they destroyed many lives getting to the top.
Compare Bill Gates to John D. Rockefeller. Both used illegal monopolies to become the richest man in the world. Both then used their fortunes as charity to try to buy the public opinion. Bill Gates is the Robber Baron of the Information Age.
I'm not going to say that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation hasn't done any good, because they have. I will say that the foundation still clings to Gates' practices of being shady. Also the idea that giving out Windows/Office licenses to the poor is a charitable donation is about as patronizing as Rockefeller's practice of giving dimes to children.
Has anyone seen Stallman and Michael Moore in the same room at the same time?
/LabMonkey09
NPOs are only required to spend like 2-3% of their money doing good deeds, and that is precisely what their foundation does. Meanwhile, 95%+ of their money is spent investing in companies that harm the same communities they are trying to help. The LA Times did a massive set of features on the foundation. They showed that they were financing companies that kept living conditions down, and spread carcinogens.
Even worse, it has been suggested (though not proven) that the NPO is a massive front. If a corporation is willing to sign exclusive Microsoft deals, they get kickbacks, in that the foundation will invest in your corporation. People are donating money to the foundation thinking they are doing good deeds with the money, when the money is being used to strong-arm corporate contracts.
It has also been speculated that the foundation has strong-armed governments along similiar lines. Use our products, or don't receive aid.
In conclusion, the foundation does good, and there is no denying that. The question is, does the foundation do more harm than good? The LA Times team that investigated them sure thinks so, and they aren't crazy OSS zealots or anything.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
There was a radio show in my area that spoke about philanthropy and how people like Bill Gates were using they're influence to change the type of aid that goes to some of these areas. The show gave as example that Foundations like B&M's would send medical aid to countries to help them and actually force this over the people (by people I mean those that are trying to get the funds to help these poor souls) that know what is needed to give proper aid. For instance, foreign aid is used to help people that are sick in Haiti from diseases. But the doctors out there would all stop their trade if someone would fund to fix the water supply line, they know that the diseases are caused by such things as lack of clean water. It's also a fact that doing this would cost a fraction of the cost of treating the diseases yet no money is being placed where it would do more good. So in that respect people like Bill Gates look like they are doing good and may even believe they are but haven't the vision to do what would be most beneficial.
That would be a died in the wool socialists primary gripe about communism (the autocracy that is).
Most free market thinkers consider the lack of property rights (property rights cover many good things) to be the primary gripe with all socialist schemes (including communism).
They would follow that autocratic control is a characteristic of all command economies (socialist economy being a subset of command economy, which also includes many dictatorial governments). The only question is the autocracy's reach (Heavy Industry? Farming? Transport? Food?).
In any case you don't know what you are talking about. Business software is developed to gain competitive advantage. If it were free the advantage would disappear and hence the software would not be developed and progress would not be made.
Besides code is art. That is all there is to say about that. The fact that sign painters exist doesn't make painting not an art.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I work for an organization (www.fhi.org) that gets quite a bit of money from the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation for any number of health related studies and/or programs. For him to say what he did shows that he has no idea what he is talking about, as the programs they sponsor serve a definite need.
No, the foundation cannot solve all the issues that these people face. Whether it is a lack of viable employment, stable food/water supply, sanitary living conditions, or just a dictator who generally opresses them, their problems are much greater than just general health.
I've got news for you Richard: Open source software isn't the solution to their problems either.
Ever feel like you are driving the getaway car?
I mean, personally.
I don't think it's all that many.
You see you're equating what BG's *personally* done with what Hitler is responsible for.
Which is, not to put too fine a point on it, bollocks.
That you're saying OTHER PEOPLE will say this (which hasn't happened) is self-serving and egotistical in the extreme. You can't put words in the mouths of others.
No, bug Spyglass basically was (on the streets, that is -- basically bankrupted). Remember, that's the original IE engine that Microsoft promised to give a royalty for each copy of IE.. which they then decided would be 0%. Nice hmm?
The specific complaint (on page one of the story) they have is about an Italian oil company that (horrors) runs refineries in Nigeria.
These refineries further flare (horrors) small fractions at the top of their distillation towers. Refineries around the world do this.
The LA times story reflects their own luddite thinking more then anything.
Investing in the third world is a good thing.
I refuse to send any more revenue (via ad serves) to the hacks at the LA times.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
And here is why you are wrong.
You are assuming that CEO's are concerned with the welfare of others, specifically the next CEO.
If a Pharma companies found a cure for AIDS, the CEO and board would make BILLIONS for themselves in bonuses because there profits would skyrocket.
Sure in 5 years when the money started to level off they would make less profit,but why would the CEO give a rip?
God help the CEO if the shareholders found out he withheld a cure, because there shares prices would triple.
In short, there is no motivation for the people the run companies to kept it away from the public.
5 years would be very quick too. It would take years and years to get everyone cured. My point would be true if id manufacturing and distribution was instantaneously.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Except that he screwed over plenty of other people who weren't "ruthless capitalists", namely, 99% of those who's ever owned a computer during the past 20 years, thanks to their monopolistic practices towards hardware manufacturers who certainly didn't take the cost of Windows licenses from their profit margins.
If you really wanted to keep your "anti-business" stance (as illogical as it may be), you should be praising IBM who's found a way to drain huge amounts of money from many large businesses, while leaving "mom & pop" stores, and your average computer user, alone.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
And when XP is no longer supported by the hardware available, you have to pay to retrain.
When XP is no longer able to be activated, what will you use?
You have to pay to train whenever you move.
But, because Linux is open, you can keep older versions going for FAR longer. Especially if your hardware is open too. It can then come down to:
is it cheaper to retrain to a newer linux with support for Y built in or is it cheaper to get any drivers for new hardware backported
to be able to comment on whether another organization that intends to help the poor actually does so or not.
if put into plain logical terms, you dont need to be doing the same thing, be in the same place, experience the same thing to be able to comment, speak, or even do research or put legislation on them.
lets provide examples :
you dont need to be a survivor of the holocaust to be able to say that holocaust has happened and it was a horrible thing, because we know from verifiable data that it was.
you dont need to have actually been on the moon to be able to say moon's surface is covered with mostly fine grained sand/dust.
you dont need to actually be someone in the bush administration to criticize their actions.
you can name other examples.
therefore if stallman, or any other person, thinks that some other group/party is not delivering what they promise, from their observance of proceedings, not only what they do in real life, what their foundation does are irrelevant, but they are entitled to their opinion just like every other asshole around the world. not that stallman and others are assholes though. but you get my meaning.
Read radical news here
In October 2006 the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was split into two entities: the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust, which manages the endowment assets and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which "... conducts all operations and grantmaking work, and it is the entity from which all grants are made." Also announced was the decision to "... spend all of [the Trust's] resources within 50 years after Bill's and Melinda's deaths." This would close the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust and effectively end the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. ... Warren Buffett has stipulated that the proceeds from the Berkshire Hathaway shares he still owns at death are to be used for philanthropic purposes within 10 years after his estate has been settled.
The plan to close the Foundation Trust is in contrast to most large charitable foundations that have no set closure date. This should lead to lower administrative costs over the years of the Foundation Trust's life and ensure that the Foundation Trust not fall into a situation where the vast majority of its expenditures are on administrative costs, including salaries, with only token amounts contributed to charitable causes. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Gates on the otherhand, is a money grubbing horse thief, that has screwed a long list of people and companies on his way to becoming a billionare. His company is a convicted monopolist.
i dare anyone who will be chanting praise about bill gates, to debunk the bold fact, and the especially underlined fact, before they even start their chanson.
Read radical news here
I'm no fan of RMS but I fail to find anything contentious in what he's written. It's all very bleeding obvious. To the point of being truisms. What RMS has done is use the platform to promote his own goals. Once. Again. So big. Yawn.
they give them "money for the poor" with the condition of investing in birth control (because we can't have poor people have many kids, think of the poor single mothers with 10 children!).
Have you paid any fucking attention the political situation in Africa? I don't care if Bill Gates spends every red cent he's ever earned and then pimps Melinda out on the side to earn more, you can't fix Africa's problems by throwing money the *symptoms* there so long as populations run unchecked and the governments are run by thugs and liars like Mugabe and Mbeki and the many others ensconced in luxury and propped up by the military and tribal loyalists.
Long-term improvements in public health cannot take place with deeply corrupted governments and periodic and/or never ending civil wars. Yet this is exactly what you get when you add 2 parts tribal economics and 1 part overpopulation and shake violently. Rural agriculture is highly dominated by tribal social structures and as population increases (often due to well-intentioned and up-front beneficial health campaigns), the land system cannot produce any more farms to match the growth in population.
So you end up with mass migrations to urban areas, where, surprise-surprise, there are no jobs, housing or any other infrastructure and you end up with vast slums and shantytowns which become the fertile ground in which militias are recruited from, either to suppress their fellow citizen or to join in arms against whatever leadership is in power this time.
The long-derided missionary culture that aimed to save Africans from themselves through the word of God is as misguided and counter-productive as the current crop of do-gooders also looking to save Africans from their misery. The sad and painful irony is that most Zimbabweans would have been better off with Ian Smith's government than Mugabe's, yet we continue to vilify colonial governments.
The yuppie generation, which these people are a part of, should get a good kick in the teeth, starting with government, considering they're in charge and blowing it for the rest of us. George Carlin described you people right. And much of this giving smells more like tax evasion and after mid-life guilt. If you want proof, just ask if you would donate if the financial/emotional gains didn't exist.
Read radical news here
"Copyright also restricts a natural and universal right necessary for every Free Society: Free Speech. Copyright makes certain speech controllable, which makes it NOT Free. Liberal Democracies are literally inconceivable in the absence of Free Speech. In the absence of copyright, however, few things in our current world -- except for millionaire record execs -- are inconceivable."
Bullshit. That is just bullshit.
Free speech means that you can express any idea you want. Copyright only applies to a specific implementation of an idea. You CANNOT copyright an idea.
So, if I write an article saying that Gitmo is bad, you are free to write an article saying the same thing. The only time copyright would kick in is if your article is word for word what I have written.
And, for that matter, words MEAN things. "Free speech" means something, something very important I might add. It allows you to be free to express uncomfortable ideas, regardless of if it inconveniences the government. It is not a tool to be swung about because you want to copy music.
"Communism" means something too, by the way. It's a political system that is in direct opposition to the free market economy, one that involved taking rights and property away from people in the name of a greater good, and had an entire economy controlled by the state. I know people who grew up under Communism - I don't think they'd be happy with the way you're misusing the word as a prop.
So, do yourself a favour. Learn what "Copyright" and "Communism" MEAN. Read the Berne Convention, and do some reading about Soviet Russia and Communist China. The way you have misused these words, quite frankly, is offensive.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
That link in the parent re-directs to a fake newspaper made by Microsoft that says Microsoft software is better: The Highly Reliable Times.
Quote: "With the Linux-based platform we would have a system crash at least once a week. Migrating to a Microsoft-based system has virtually eliminated server crashes..."
It's really disgusting when marketing people with no technical experience write advertisements.
I've observed that often Linux is as bad with documentation as Microsoft software, but I've never known Linux to be prone to crashes unless the hardware was unstable.
and read comments here citing cases in which bill gates used his foundation to get open source switch projects scuttled by donating 40 million boxes in mexico, on the condition that they run microsoft windows, for example.
if that is what it means to hold 'a position of importance', hell, world doesnt need any of that kind of important people, or that kind of charity.
Read radical news here
But I thought these were free? How can they be free if that's why they make the price increase not an increase? Without them, MS would have to have made XP cheaper.
Also remember that 80% of the code is the same code you paid for out of Windows 2000 for XP.
They've already been paid that, so why is it not 80% cheaper?
Same with Photoshop.
Most of the code has been paid for.
It's rather like getting a new car when the engine is a refurb, the seats taken from a well-cared-for older model and the wheels made from retreads.
Would you not expect the car to be cheaper than one with all new parts?
Yes, many will not concur with Richard, but the truth is that the foundation IS Bill Gates PR arm. I give you the example of Mexico's enciclomedia project (which was an absolute failure): with the simplest menace of the country's strategy of including linux as a base platform for millions of computers for elementary schools, the B&MG foundation (after a lightning trip of ballmer and gates to personally talk to President Fox) donated 40 million dollars worth of boxes with a simple, little string attached: it HAS to run Microsoft Windows.
i would really like to see what kind of 'charitable' act this one is. ah, also below too :
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,4205044,full.story
Read radical news here
Doesn't sound like that at all. All instances of "better" are, by definition, better.
Yes, many will not concur with Richard, but the truth is that the foundation IS Bill Gates PR arm. I give you the example of Mexico's enciclomedia project (which was an absolute failure): with the simplest menace of the country's strategy of including linux as a base platform for millions of computers for elementary schools, the B&MG foundation (after a lightning trip of ballmer and gates to personally talk to President Fox) donated 40 million dollars worth of boxes with a simple, little string attached: it HAS to run Microsoft Windows.
also :
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,4205044,full.story
Read radical news here
I used to like open source. I was brought up on Unix then used Linux. Stallman's behavior is exactly why I recommend closed source now.
I think he's a fucking nutcase and he's basically created a world of people who are slaves to his idea but don't realize they're working as slaves so someone else can make it. I'll take the money and the control of my ideas thank you very much. If yours are so good, then compete. If you can't then bye.
Whatever. Anyway, long live MS and .NET
And SCREW Stallman
I feel so much better now
yes the analogy may seem a bit exaggerated but, you get my meaning.
you wont be able to persuade these companies to be more open to open source, and therefore freedom of the masses. because, their business depends on people not being free, depending on their software by lock ins.
what you propose is just like trying to promote the merits of equality for all, egalite, eternite, fraternite, to the aristocracy in france in 1789. its basically saying "hey, you are enjoying unjust privileges now, but would it not be better if you just forfeit them, and be equal with everybody else ?"
Read radical news here
Yes, many will not concur with Richard, but the truth is that the foundation IS Bill Gates PR arm. I give you the example of Mexico's enciclomedia project (which was an absolute failure): with the simplest menace of the country's strategy of including linux as a base platform for millions of computers for elementary schools, the B&MG foundation (after a lightning trip of ballmer and gates to personally talk to President Fox) donated 40 million dollars worth of boxes with a simple, little string attached: it HAS to run Microsoft Windows.
also :
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,4205044,full.story
Read radical news here
Yes, many will not concur with Richard, but the truth is that the foundation IS Bill Gates PR arm. I give you the example of Mexico's enciclomedia project (which was an absolute failure): with the simplest menace of the country's strategy of including linux as a base platform for millions of computers for elementary schools, the B&MG foundation (after a lightning trip of ballmer and gates to personally talk to President Fox) donated 40 million dollars worth of boxes with a simple, little string attached: it HAS to run Microsoft Windows.
also :
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,4205044,full.story
Also, as an earlier poster mentioned :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_and_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Criticisms
Read radical news here
Yes, many will not concur with Richard, but the truth is that the foundation IS Bill Gates PR arm. I give you the example of Mexico's enciclomedia project (which was an absolute failure): with the simplest menace of the country's strategy of including linux as a base platform for millions of computers for elementary schools, the B&MG foundation (after a lightning trip of ballmer and gates to personally talk to President Fox) donated 40 million dollars worth of boxes with a simple, little string attached: it HAS to run Microsoft Windows.
also :
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,4205044,full.story
Also, as an earlier poster mentioned :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_and_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Criticismsplease explain this oil connection and the windows pushing in terms of investment and charity.
Read radical news here
People on slashdot have become stupid and short sighted.
The Free software whatever is not a revolution and is not going to save the world.
If governments didn't pay for software it would not automatically go to helping people, and we would have the same social/economic/health problems we have today.
The Foundation Does help people, even though the main purpose is most likely for tax purposes, but it also serves to protect his assets in other ways and there's a lot of people that have suggested that taxes on income have problems to begin with concerning a whole bunch of things. AND you would be irresponsible not to do something to protect your assets if you had as much money as Bill Gates.
Richard Stallman does not help his cause by acting like an asshole and degrading other peoples accomplishments.
Furthermore it's unreasonable to think that without Bill Gates only free software would exist. What would happen is that another person would have done what he did. AND that's the same for Richard Stallman's work.
Copyright is also not communist. It protects the right of a persons "speech" from being used without their permission. Just because it's been abused doesn't mean that it's bad.
He should concentrate on his work and not sound like a person trying to steal publicity by badmouthing other people. And work on making his movement sound less unrealistic and contradictory in the way he tries to describe it.
Fanboys aren't limited to microsoft or apple or videogames.
Yes, many will not concur with Richard, but the truth is that the foundation IS Bill Gates PR arm. I give you the example of Mexico's enciclomedia project (which was an absolute failure): with the simplest menace of the country's strategy of including linux as a base platform for millions of computers for elementary schools, the B&MG foundation (after a lightning trip of ballmer and gates to personally talk to President Fox) donated 40 million dollars worth of boxes with a simple, little string attached: it HAS to run Microsoft Windows.
also :
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,4205044,full.story
Also, as an earlier poster mentioned :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_and_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Criticisms
Read radical news here
eh criticizes Bill Gates and doesn't afraid of anything
The cost of actual software is very little compared the cost of support, which is still a significant cost when using "free" software.
a bullshit of the first order. you can get free, sometimes unprecedented first hand help from open source communities. just do a test by going posting a question on the oscommerce forums about some odd, out of the way tax implementation for out of state sales from ontario, in canada.
open source support comes generally much faster than shitty proprietary support. while the former comes free, the latter generally comes with a cost associated and outsourced to people that are not quite in the know of what they are saying you. you get passed from department to department and have to allocate half a day's work to getting an answer for the question you have, leave aside solving it.
Read radical news here
he maintains that Gates' departure from Microsoft doesn't mean the end of proprietary software
No shit. Does RMS think that Gates is the source of all proprietary software?
I have no respect for anyone who is a zealot and has to resort to bashing those who disagree them him. RMS fits that bill.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
ideology in modern western capitalistic world already ?
the right to retirement, weekly vacation days, daily working hour limits, job safety are all modern concepts that were only possible by pressure the socialist and communist revolutions of early 19th century, but especially 1848. still for these to come to fruition we had to wait until the advent of 20th century, and we are only able to have a civil working environment just for the last 60 years or so. before that, especially in 19th century, corporations were using people virtually as slaves - a few hours off for sunday mass, rest of the week hard work with pathetic pay for 10+ hours with no safety or guarantees and any retirement rights.
all the concept of preventing monopolies so there could actually be equal rights to compete comes from the socialistic ideals of late 19th century. yet still it took 2 presidents (theodore R and franklin D R) to get this important precondition of life to become a reality and liberated usa from the hands of 4 to 5 big robber barons you can easily name, even now.
i really detest people who put forward prejudices about stuff without knowing history.
Read radical news here
Well let me explain something to you.
1 Curing Malaria would not be on small deed.
Also do you know just how small a percentage Windows is in the average small countries IT budget?
You do know that they use Windows for the desktop because for many tasks it is still the cheapest and best solution?
How is Microsoft FORCING governments to use Windows? What exactly is stopping them from Using Macs, Linux, or BSD?
I really don't Microsoft and I do like, use, and support FOSS but you are foaming at the mouth.
If the Gates Foundation finds a cure for Malaria, helps control TB, or finds a cure for AIDS then yes NOBODY will remember anything Microsoft did wrong. What is probably more to the point in 100 years William Gates will be remembered as a great man that made his money running some software company.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
noone is offended when george w. bush is talked about as 'bush', or jean jacques voltaire as 'voltaire', thomas jefferson as 'jefferson', but you get offended by bill gates, a mere man, (he is just a mere man compared to the names i mentioned here), being named as 'gates' ?
from what holy see did gates get the sainthood bestowed upon him ? and when ?
Read radical news here
Yes, many will not concur with Richard, but the truth is that the foundation IS Bill Gates PR arm. I give you the example of Mexico's enciclomedia project (which was an absolute failure): with the simplest menace of the country's strategy of including linux as a base platform for millions of computers for elementary schools, the B&MG foundation (after a lightning trip of ballmer and gates to personally talk to President Fox) donated 40 million dollars worth of boxes with a simple, little string attached: it HAS to run Microsoft Windows.
also : :
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,4205044,full.story
Also, as an earlier poster mentioned :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_and_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Criticisms
also this
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4103.htm
Read radical news here
Yes, many will not concur with Richard, but the truth is that the foundation IS Bill Gates PR arm. I give you the example of Mexico's enciclomedia project (which was an absolute failure): with the simplest menace of the country's strategy of including linux as a base platform for millions of computers for elementary schools, the B&MG foundation (after a lightning trip of ballmer and gates to personally talk to President Fox) donated 40 million dollars worth of boxes with a simple, little string attached: it HAS to run Microsoft Windows.
also : :
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,4205044,full.story
Also, as an earlier poster mentioned :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_and_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Criticisms
also this
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4103.htm
Read radical news here
Your quips about Linus' work being a "blind and aggressive campaign" aside, you're ignoring quite a bit of history. Microcomputers did not spring fully-formed from Bill Gates' forehead! At the time of the 16-bit IBM PC many cheaper and more functional alternatives existed, though it is not surprising that no one remembers them today.
Do names like Amiga, Apple and Atari ring any bells? What about Sinclair? The various MSX-compatibles? All of these were very credible competitors for the PC, despite the MSX platform having a bit of a bogdown due to difficulties in making the 8-bit to 16-bit transition. The Amiga and Atari's ST lines were 32-bit from the start, and Apple never had a 16-bit stage.
Microsoft did not invent the personal computer. They did not invent the operating system. They did not even popularize personal computing: that happened inadvertently when PC clones came about and the prices started tumbling. For instance, personal computer terminals were par for the course in many companies and government offices throughout the western world quite a bit before IBM's 286-powered AT.
Furthermore there is still the question as to how microsoft was supposed to make money as a FOSS company.
The argument is often made that Microsoft is simply backwards and stupid for *Not* being a FOSS company and that they themselves would have profited and or would profit by switching to an open source model.
I would ask these people to cite a consumer Open Source company in existence.
"Sell support contracts". Oh really? When was the last time you personally purchased a support contract for a consumer piece of software? Microsoft has set its sights from almost the get go on the home. The home doesn't know what a "Support Contract" is. You give a consumer software which is free except for a "Support contract" and you've just given away the software for nothing.
Before people can make a solid argument against closed source as an unprofitable and backwards sales model they need to prove the viability of open source for consumers not just huge datacenters and fortune 500 companies.
Stallman does not believe in the concept of "intellectual property." We'll some of us disagree. Regardless, if you don't like Gate's policies, write your own software and give it away to anyone you like. The Linux and GNU has done this, which is an admirable and proper response. Whining about Bill Gates is not.
I'm sorry, but RMS is seriously an a-hole.
Sun releases GPL's Java: gnu.org doesn't pull the Java Trap webpage, they don't pull the page, and just preface it by saying Java's not a trap anymore. First of all, RMS, pull that friggin page; Java's not a trap (and it NEVER WAS, IMHO.) Let archive.org keep it for posterity if you like your writing so much. Second of all, HELLLOOOO, Java was open sourced? A little THANK YOU is in order, you ANNOYING IRRELEVANT JERKFACE!
Now RMS is being all snide about BillG's CHARITY? It's really pathetic how badly he hates, I feel sorry for him. Just because you're a leftist doesn't make you a right or good person automatically, you know?
Wow. Well, I suppose that a guy can only take so much irrelevance before he snaps and starts to actively do everything he can to destroy what he ostensibly champions. I think it all started when he stopped wearing shoes.
With "friends" like Mr. Stallman, Free (as in freedom, beer, or however you wish to slice it) Software certainly needs no enemies. Except we *do* have enemies, plenty of them, well-funded and in no need of help from shoeless hippies with overinflated egos.
Mr. Stallman, I have but one simple request: For the good of the Free Software community, shut your cake hole. You've degenerated into nothing but a caracature of what everybody wants to see as what's bad about Free Software.
Since I know you're unable to do that, I have an alternative request:
- Get a haircut.
- Put some shoes on.
- Build up instead of pathetically trying only to break down in your public commentary.
- Try to be less of an embarassment to the Free Software community.
Thank you.
I am not prepared to swallow this notion whole.
WordPerfect thought it had the Almost Perfect word processor for the PC.
The DOS era ends and the era of MS Word, Windows and Office begins. The web begins to weave its spell and SharePoint becomes a billion dollar node in the evolving MS Office eco-system.
OpenOffice.org is funded and staffed by Sun.
The Mozilla Foundation receives about 85% of its funding from Google.
This tells me that the problems of the office suite and the browser are not solved and that society is still paying the price for development - and contributing to the profit margins of their corporate sponsors - even when these programs nominally evolve through open source.
The bill is simply hidden in the price of shopping through Google or in purchases of goods and services from Sun.
That raises the interesting question of whether this model is not in fact regressive. When your project is funded through Ad-Sense is it the WalMart shopper who keeps it afloat?
Microsoft is building a $300 million research campus for 5,000 in Beijing's university district.
It's true that 60% of Microsoft's revenues come from outside the U.S. It's also true that Microsoft is a significant employer and investor outside the U.S.
The multinational corporation is not the one-way street the Geek pretends.
seen HBD Venture capital?
Why does not Bill ask Steve to copy HBD?
All of them can be controlled directly, indirectly or otherwise at will by bribing enough of the important people at the right places, as usual.
Teach people fishing instead of giving them fish.
Start a nice new licensing scheme for M$ products where you get them on a loan for 10 years if you plan to start a tech company.
Why no BMGF Venture Capital for Third World?
Why no use of Bill's business acumen to expand the M$ enterprise into a huge network of Venture Capital firms?
Why is Bill not copying the VC route HBD takes?
I'm not well-informed in the ways money moves in the world, but I can see enough good being dine by VCs in California and Tech in general and specifically HBD in SA, another place where Billg's heart would yearn to help out the poor and the needy.
In short, why give bad infected fish for free when you can teach them how to fish for better fish and for lesser, at higher profits?
It's complete mismanagement of the process of empowerment of the poor.
A man of Billg's business acumen and global vision cannot be technically incomepetent to fail to recognize this simple fact.
Some big questions remian unanswered.
As for RMS, well, he has his ways.
Hackers have long memories. It works both ways.
What does it feel like to hate so much? I bet you're a very sad person. Crack a smile once in awhile, and maybe exhibit some empathy with those you disagree with if you are able?
"If you're a business and you want to pay a programmer to make the software suit your needs better, you can't." Really? So what are all these checks I keep receiving from clients who paid me to make the software better suit their needs? Our company slogan has always been "We make the impossible unlikely" I guess it's more true than I thought! -B-
-B-
There is nothing about Gate's Foundation in the mentioned article.
For truth!
Back in 1998 that other great hero of our times 'Bill Clinton' was having issues in the White House. Then something happened in Africa and what was the response? Bomb make believe terror training camps in far-off-istan and a Sudanese medicine factory. This factory sold to all kinds of places in the developing world, including Iraq under the oil-for-medicines thing that was imposed on them.
If born-with-a-million-dollars Gates really cared about improving the situation in the developing world then he would ask his government to put this one factory back together again and apologize.
Stuff the B+M foundation. Let's allow the developing world to develop. They don't want handouts. They wasn't even poor until us colonialists looted and pillaged everything. A level playing field of fair not free trade is all that's needed.
Same goes for everything these 'NGO's' have been up to over the last few years. You shouldn't be buying a clean conscience by handing them a few bits of loose change from whatever pile of worthless green bits of paper you get given every month.
Remember when W first came in and how we would all get rich on the long boom, not needing savings or a pension plan, just a portfolio of stocks? It didn't work. The economy does not grow for ever and the days of charities sitting on piles of interest bearing cash will have to come to an end much like the pension plans proposed back in the dot com era.
Microsoft does nicely out of the military. He could put something in the EULA to rule that out and single-handedly bring on an end to the arms-trade and your culture of militarism. Or maybe we cannot have such dreams in an 'imperfect world'.
They give a bunch of money, and deduct it as a charitable contribution. To an organization that they pretty much control, sharing it with Warren Buffet, yes that one. They can then make investments and directions of their charitable money towards business ventures that spread Microsoft software including libraries and education - which expose children to Windows as the only OS they know. Instead of spending personal capital to extend their business an personal interests, they "give it away" to a foundation that they control, and save on taxes. I'm sure there are a huge number of contributions that would not qualify as tax-exempt except that they are routed through this loophole.
Maximizing ROI for the charity is a goal - and as stated elsewhere they really aren't concerned about where the money is invested. Wikipedia says after they got called out on that, they scheduled a review - then cancelled it and said ROI is the way to go.
Not that donating is bad - but this seems to be run in the trademark microsoft evil style.
Wow, I never thought I would RMS attack a charity even if it's is from Bill Gates. At least Bill is trying, it might not be perfect, but is trying to do some good. I understand that RMS wants to make software free to use and its source openly avaliable and is adamant about it, but after this blurb maybe he should take a backseat and let someone else take the lead in the fight for free software. I don't like reading and hearing this kind of rhetoric from people in his position.
Yes, and kids throwing rocks through windows provides work for the glazier, who then buys bread from the baker, who buys shoes from the shoemaker who...
Long story short, you just invented the broken Windows fallacy... congratulations?
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
The claim that B&M (and anyone pouring millions into the MDGs) are doing bad things to the developing world isn't that outrageous a claim. Remember the Prime Directive from Star Trek? It wasn't made of out of thin air -- it comes from a long line of dedevelopment critiques (people like Spanos, Escobar, and Illich) that state that development is bad. Illich states that it's unsustainable and probably can't be achieved by Africa/Latin America, so "selling the middle class life style" just increases expectation and demand while squandering supplies on development projects that focus on national infrastructure (super highways don't do you any good if you don't have a car) Spanos and others talk about how America and the west intervention is misguided -- it focuses on our conceptualization of America and the west as exceptional, which -- regardless of announced intentions -- dooms aid to ultimate failure, even if there are temporary successes. Then there's people like Escobar who flat out state that any development does horrid things to indigenous people. Those in this camp call things like the B&M G foundation neocolonialist in nature. They draw on both colonial empirical examples and examples of how trying to achieve the MDG have lead to crappy stuff happening. Don't forget those in the "globalization bad" camp, who claim that globalization is inherently predatory -- and that foreign aid is a tool used to indoctrinate areas into spheres of influence (these people point out that China is bidding for influence in Africa, and that some foreign aid funding comes from places like the Dept. of Homeland Security) Anyway, the lesson is, just because you try to do good doesn't mean you aren't being evil.
You stated (I won't quote, just look at the parent post):
RMS is a criminal: WRONG - Microsoft is the criminal.
RMS doesn't hold a position of importance: WONG - otherwise explain your reaction
RMS doesn't live in the real world: What kind of crap is that? I presume that there is ANOTHER world that you are aware of?
All this to wrap an idea: that somehow the vast profits made by illegal activity are good, because people will be fed, and diseases cured.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Microsoft probably wouldn't make much money doing exactly what they do but with open source also. Thats the point. Software development shouldn't focus around selling the same product over and over again, but should instead focus on selling services. Services include developing new features. Possibly, using a Ransomware scenario with source included, and then relicense it to a redistributable open source license after a certain minimum amount revenue was collected. Also, there is a fully functional desktop (several even) available right now. The free software ecosystem is very healthy.
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
Consider this, actually: the pharma corporations have _already_ developed and patented _cures_ for a lot of diseases. Roll the time back a century or two, and stuff like tuberculosis or cholera or pneumonia or typhus killed people by the dozen. We now have antibiotics against those. Bacterial infections used to be the number one reason to die after surgery. Now they stuff you full of antibiotics instead.
Get this: the bulk of the wealth of those pharma corps is built on selling _cures_.
What people don't get is that there's more than one kind of disease.
- bacteria: we're quite good at killing those, because they're different from your own cells. E.g., the whole beta-lactam (penicilin) group works because bacteria have some different proteins than you do in the cell wall, and the beta-lactam ring can cause the whole cell wall to collapse. E.g., Streptomycin and the like attack the bacterial ribosome, which luckily enough is different from the human one, so things can exist that react with one but not the other.
At any rate, that's antibiotics. And basically that's the only thing we're really good at curing: bacterial infections.
- viruses. These slightly modify your own cells to produce more viruses. But otherwise it's the same f-ing cell, the same ribosome, and the same proteins in the cell walls.
The best luck we've had with these is vaccines. We pre-train your own immune system to deal with certain viruses. But that's not as much a medicine, as some dead viruses for it to play with. Downside: for some viruses it doesn't seem to work. Others mutate so fast that it's hit and miss, e.g., flu.
We have some anti-virals, which are very different from anti-biotics. They tend to be very limited in effectiveness, and very toxic to your own body. Which is what's prescribed for HIV. (Hence, any antibiotics you get for a flu are pure placebo, btw. Nobody prescribes antivirals for a flu, unless it's something deadly like the bird flu, because the cure tends to be worse than a normal flu.)
But, at any rate, we're still pretty bad at curing viruses.
- cancer. This one is even weirder, because it _is_ your normal cells, with some safety mechanisms broken. Essentially for a cell to become cancerous:
A) the proteins regulating divisions must break. (Human papillomavirus does this by adding the code to a broken protein to your cells, so hopefully it binds with the DNA instead of the real thing.) But even that then hits the maximum division counter and stops. That's why warts don't kill you. So
B) the cell must start regenerating its telomeres, i.e., reset the maximum division counter. That sounds like doing something extra, but remember that every cell has the DNA for all other cells, it's just inhibited or not expressed. The body already has the code to reset the telomeres of, say, sperm. (So your kids start with a full counter, and not with your remaining life expectancy.) A broken cell can start doing the same by mistake.
When you get both in the same cell, it's cancer.
At any rate, these _are_ your normal cells, with as little as some wrong aminoacid in a protein or two. Even your own immune system has trouble recognizing a lot of them, and since they still mostly work like the rest of the body, they can even send the right signals to get more blood vessels to support their growth and other fun stuff.
And btw, there are a lot of types of cancer, depending on exactly what was broken and in what type of cell. So one cure-all medicine is highly unlikely.
Nobody knows how to treat the vast majority of these, because there isn't some vital _and_ different protein you can attack, like we do for bacteria. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy actually break the DNA of all cells, and hope that it kills more cancerous cells than good ones. Because (I) cells currently dividing are more vulnerable than cells who have their DNA nicely spooled, and (II) cancerous cells often have broken DNA-repair proteins, so some breaks would be repaired by a normal cell, but
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Except that he screwed over plenty of other people who weren't "ruthless capitalists", namely, 99% of those who's ever owned a computer during the past 20 years, thanks to their monopolistic practices towards hardware manufacturers who certainly didn't take the cost of Windows licenses from their profit margins.
And yet I somehow still ended up with a 3 GHz superscalar processor with two gigabytes of RAM, a half-terabyte of mass storage, and a 1600x1200 display for $1,000.
Can you honestly tell me that would've happened if the market had remained fractured into three dozen different *nix fiefdoms?
Two parts to all this. I was a real open-source/GNU advocate back in the day (now the GNU part's been taken off -- I've grown up a little).
Stallman and Gates are both more complex characters than the standard /. fare allows:
1. Stallman's a jackass. I've heard him speak, this really gets its way through. Yes, he's a good hacker, but he tried to be some faux-Nelson Mandela figure atop of it. His combination of arrogance and political ignorance puts together a terrible little combination. He's a hippy doing what so many hippies did -- use the same fascist methods that his opponents used, only for a slightly different goal.
Look, Stallman, thanks for emacs, really. I use it to this day. But your idea of open source is *not* the one that took off. Get over it. Your idea of open source is ridiculous and nonsensical. Unlike you, some of us want to drive a decent car, have attractive significant others, and raise some kids. That requires, *gasp*! income! The thing is, you never understood capitalism. It's a double-edged sword that was too complex for you to understand. The vendor lock in, the obsolescence, the FUD, are all real concerns people have when using software. The actual money is rarely an issue (outside of MS pricing, covered below), the software usually saves people money. Vendors who provide source code, support, and adhere to standards do quite well in the industry.
2. Gates is also a jackass, but not the devil. Microsoft never learned how to write big software themselves. Just like the RMS & Linus's world, they need someone else to do all the heavy lifting (e.g. Bell Labs & Unix for Linus, Apple for MS), and then they can come in and copy.
Complaining about Gates's foreign aid is absurd. Sure, it's not a great system, it forces people to live off the handoffs of others, whatever. The real question is, is that why Gates is doing it? No, it's not. He's not getting anything back for it. He's not politically sophisticated, and this is the best idea so far on the topic.
Gates also has the right to take credit for making the PC world what it is today. Up through DOS, I liked the work MS put out. The software was small and simple, and they sold it at a good price. That was when they didn't need to pull giant bloodsucking bundling maneuvers to literally force customers to buy their shittier software (e.g. windows and all of office at once, instead of a la carte). Their software was fine when it was small and could be done by a few people. When it got larger, they couldn't compete, so they had to find ways to fix the game. In my book, that was Windows and beyond -- shitty software, racketeering tactics for selling it.
If y'all want heroes in this new world, check out the author list on some RFCs, or your favorite app. The names you never hear from eWeek or /., but the folks who get real stuff done. The nice thing is, they're actually pretty intelligent, friendly, accessible people. The way a proper hero should be.
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
How about a look at the big picture? Gates & co. are robbing the rich, and giving a fraction of this money to the poor. The alternative could be that we used Free software, and instead of the money going to Microsoft, it could go more directly towards helping the poor.
Also, the 10% flouted by astroturfers and the ill-informed is the bare minimum that Gates foundation can get away with and still call itself a foundation. To put it another way, 90% of the money is sloshing around in various investment funds. So 10% is a small price to pay to continue advancing the Microsoft Movement -- without being answerable to either a board or shareholders on the question of profitability.
MS, if one cuts away the Enron-style accounting, could very well have gone belly up long ago. To be sure, there are a lot of questions about what is bringing in any money. The Gates Foundation allows Bill to continue MS politics independent of MS itself...
Can you honestly tell me that would've happened if the market had remained fractured into three dozen different *nix fiefdoms?
Yeah, all the improvements you name are due to the industry's standardization on the x86 architecture, something that Microsoft took advantage of but didn't cause in any way. So, in that respect it would've been the exact same thing, though perhaps you would've gotten it for $50-100 less but with FreeBSD instead.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
This has nothing to do with whether or not Microsoft the company is doing something wrong or illegal; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation doesn't suddenly make everything Microsoft does or has done in the past right. That said, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has done and continues to do good things to improve people's lives.
Stallman... you're so stupid that I'm impressed.
I had a GPL project but with this I'm dropping it in protest against you and your communistic manners and will soon announce its dead to the public.
Under you "guidance" the GNU and GPL projects will die.
How should Mr. Gates spend his charity money?
OK, let's take Africa as an example. Yea, it might be a stereotype, but it's true. What would be needed there to give it a chance? Easy answer: Basic heavy industries (coal, steel and oil) and basic infrastructure (railways, power plants and solid highways). Btw, the resources for all this are all right there. This is the very basic every country in every continent needs to get things going. There is no way around it, unless this is accomplished people will suffer in extreme ways no matter what clever politics you apply to them.
One thing stands in the way of making this real, and that is the west idealizing peasant life. No, these are not some "native people" wanting to "live in harmony with nature", no, these are suffering human beings that cannot help themselves while some ecologists are telling them to use solar panels because of the sake of the planet. In this very case, screw the planet, it can take 20 years more of this, even more so as it would be on a level that cannot compete with the stuff the west is doing just to keep the lights in NY on. You simply cannot feed a steel industry with solar panels. If you would be the one to chose: "save the environment" or "save billions of people", what side you take? Greenpeace took the wrong one, and that's why their founder left it for good.
And spare me this "but with the environment destroyed there is no [whatsoever]". This is neither about you looking at beautiful african landscapes nor the rain forest. Just take a side, because eventually, it will come to this anyway.
As Mr. Gates no doubt is a very intelligent man, he must know this. Does he invest his money that way? Is his charity work dedicated to this? I don't know, but if it is not, it is meaningless.
Want proof? Since I can think the so called "west" is pumping money into charities and the people suffer ever since. Every 20 to 30 years the body count from "civil wars" in Africa hits the WW2 mark. Nothing has changed with all the charities, especially the public ones. But nice parties they throw while they're at it.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
I have only twice ever called Microsoft for support, and both times it was because I wasn't able to activate Windows XP.
I remember back in the '90s FOSS advocates were chanting that we could all make our money from support. I thought it was idiotic back then too since most computer users above 18 had already been used to being able to call up a software company to get support from a real programmer. I'm speaking of BBS software in particular, but I found this to be true for a lot of small commercial apps.
I'm not sure what you're saying.
Is it okay to tie science up in IP as long as it's not math?
If the charity foundation is investing in the refineries, perhaps the charity foundation could use some of its presence on the board to induce the company to build environmental controls into its hardware?
Capital economies don't have to operate as slaves to the bottom line. Bill G's charity is by nature going to have a hard time demonstrating that fact, and that is really what the whole criticism is about.
I'd say that a charitable foundation with a mandate to provide for its on continued existence is not as much a charitable foundation as one with a simple mandate to help people.
Interest has to come from somewhere, you know.
I'd mumble something about a rich guy giving some of his friends permanent high-paying feel-good jobs, contrasting it to my efforts to help lower-middle-class kids get an education on less-than-lower-middle-class wages and a contract that is completely up in the air every year, with no way for my performance to buy me either tenure or higher wages. But I suspect my mumblings would be misconstrued to be the mumblings of a crazy man.
Until I hear about FOSS donating $3-4 billion a year to schools, disease research, immunization programs, literacy programs, etc you can all just stuff it. RMS, despite all thats hes done to advance software is a zealot nut case. *ducks incoming katana*
When Stallman decides to do something for the poor of the world, he should talk. I live in Bangladesh and can see directly the benefits the poor are receiving from the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. I don't see any benefit that free software does to people who've never seen a computer.
Of course the wealthier like me benefit immensely from free software. I use firefox, gimp, open office. I run linux and freebsd on my servers. But what good does it do the poor. All my services are for people who can afford computers.
Stallman despite his best intentions does close to nothing for the extremely poor or even the moderately poor. The people who Stallman and his cohorts benefit are those like Steve Jobs, a greedy megalomaniac who takes free software and makes piles of cash with it and gives nothing back.
Take, for example, ODF.
One standard. No choice. No redundancy.
Eight applications use ODF.
8 choices. 8 Redundancies.
See, we can have both.
But your last quote is wrong, it isn't either one or the other, because "Free Software" is more than one piece of software.
An algorithm for detecting edges can be taken from a photo manipulation program and used in a computer visuals application. If it's open source.
But what if someone has a better algorithm? Well, we have redundancies but, because we can move code, we can have the best one win.
"He's a straaaawmaaaan! He's been going a long long time".
I find it interesting that you say that "Microsoft drains money from the economy of every country in the world. Free software allows that money to be put to better use."
I come from a developing country - India. Microsoft is a big hero here for the massive number of jobs it creates here. The number of consumers of MS products in India isn't that high (and is largely restricted to corporates), and the net effect is of massive gain for the country (the IT industry is one of the largest and most profitable sources of GDP for the country).
In addition, any corporation (or consumer) in India who chooses to purchase a MS product is exercising their right to purchase. They are not being coerced in any way, and many choose to pirate their software, or even go for FOSS (pirating MS products is by far the more popular choice).
It's low. It makes RMS look like a raving madman. And to say MS only make cash through an illegal monopoly is ridiculous and makes you look like a raving troll too. Millions of people choose MS software, even when "free" exists elsewhere.
Perhaps they should close the foundation? Is that what you want, exactly?
Gates has earnt a lot of money, for sure. Unlike many others in his category, he's putting some of it to good use. RMS can criticise when he's invested similar $$$ into 3rd world, until then, I suggest he get back to what he know's best; software.
throw new NoSignatureException();
Why did they agree to a deal like that?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Yea, but to repeat an earlier posters point - how do you think India's eco system woud benefit if corporations didn't have to spend all the money on licenses, but instead used that money to develop FOSS and develop new software?
There's no reason that the IT industry wouldn't be even bigger.
It's interesting to me that you revealed perhaps THE MOST AGGRESSIVE activity of Microsoft, and you apparently don't realize it.
You said, "They are not being coerced in any way, and many choose to pirate their software, or even go for FOSS (pirating MS products is by far the more popular choice)."
In my opinion and experience, that is one of the primary methods Microsoft has used to ruin the business of competitors: Microsoft encourages and allows piracy.
That's been happening since the days of the DOS operating system. At one time, Microsoft had made it impossible to buy DOS legally unless a system builder was very large, so smaller companies could not compete. Instead, in my area there were six legitimate distributors of pirated DOS. I also knew one national distributor of pirated DOS. I called Microsoft's legal department and complained intensely. That apparently forced Microsoft to take one of the distributors to court (I was a witness in the trial), and to tell the others to stop pirating.
But Microsoft continued its policy of not selling DOS to smaller customers. That meant that a smaller company could be shut down at any time by a complaint from Microsoft's legal department.
Much later, when I tried to report retailers selling pirated copies of Microsoft Office, I found that it was no longer possible to be connected to the Microsoft legal department by telephone. There were company procedures that prevented that.
how do you think India's eco system woud benefit if corporations didn't have to spend all the money on licenses, but instead used that money to develop FOSS and develop new software?
Many are choosing to use FOSS to develop software and run their businesses. Nothing stops them from doing so, least of all MS. Any company using MS products is doing so of their own free will (or call it misguided reasoning if you want).
MS isn't stealing from these companies, or forcing them to use their products. They have every right to earn money from these companies. The net effect for these companies is profit. Would there be more profit if they used FOSS? Possibly, but it would be speculation to say so.
However, MS, and companies running MS products are employing millions - and that benefits India.
Mr Stallman, you are just ridiculous. That is all.
Is he so stupid?.... Seriously though
You know what .... the fight between OSS and proprietary software is OVER bro. They are both going to exist forever in a continuum that itself will RESEMBLE THE BAZAAR.
Although comments like this are simply BIZARRE. Philanthropy after the fact should be cheered. Giving away all the software in the world won't help any of the things that his money could do at this point.
Holy crap though ... RMS .. GET OVER YOURSELF.
Like a typical conservative, Stallman helps no one, yet feels he has some god-granted moral superiority to those who do.
Tell Richard to get off his fat ass and do something besides charge lots of money for speaking engagements where he does nothing but rant against all things Microsoft.
Sorry RMS, we are not giving you permission to dictate what software we are allowed to use, no matter how cleverly you write it into the GPL.
MS software has FUCK ALL to do with computers getting cheaper.
Page through back issues of Creative Computing and you will discover that MS-DOS was rapidly gaining ground before the reverse engineering of the BIOS.
The generic MS-DOS PC was as much Compaq's competition as the IBM.
And how will the people they phone up be able to help them? The professionals users phone up can help in the same way car mechanics help car drivers, the way electricians, plumbers, and roofers help homeowners—all of these professionals (and many more) have the freedom to tinker and share information. In computer software we have had to value these freedoms for their own sake, politically organize, and fight for these freedoms for all computer users against anyone who would distribute proprietary software. We do this by making replacement programs that do the same jobs as proprietary software, making new programs that do interesting new things, and making it easier for people to use the free software we have created and distributed. When proprietors see us do this they clamp down harder by using new legal regimes to try and stop us from competing along side us (proprietors like controlled economy where they are the monopolist, they don't like competition). That has been the reality of the free software movement for over 2 decades now.
Users are not commonly programmers and they don't have the ability to make or fix programs. But users commonly want things simpler than they are, or they want programs that don't spy on them, or they want programs that don't take away what they thought was theirs (not surprisingly users apparently don't like DRM), and users want many other things some of which conflict with what other users want. Similarly most car drivers aren't mechanics, but they want stereos installed, sunroofs put in, oil changed, tires repaired or replaced, and other changes. And not all drivers want exactly the same things in or on their cars. Any homeowner will tell you that no matter how well their house suited its previous owner the house became great because people put time into making changes to that house. And every homeowner knows that their tastes will demand nothing different from them because no single arrangement of anything is to everyone's liking. Even if you have no problems with how government functions today you might have problems with government later. So in all cases we solve the problem in the same way: define and defend freedoms to let people do what they want with their stuff, and foster a culture around the freedoms we defined. You know it would be foolish to relinquish your freedoms of assembly and speech based on what you think and feel now (you might need them later), you wouldn't tolerate a car with the hood welded shut (you might want to get in there later), and you wouldn't buy a house with proprietary plumbing only one plumber could legally fix (you might want to leverage competing plumbers later).
We deserve freedoms to make our computers do what we want. We aren't harming others by inspecting, running, sharing or modifying software, playing our movies anytime we want, or using computers without being tracked (to name a few actions that collide with proprietors' interests). There's no ethical justification for keeping people from software freedom.
You really should listen to any of RMS' talks on the story of the free software movement so you can hear his logic behind why his framing of the debate makes sense and aims at a larger more important social issue: social solidarity.
Digital Citizen
I think the Foundation's money source (Microsoft's illegal leveraging of their monopolies around the world) is very much a part of this debate, particularly if you believe that "the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has done and continues to do good things to improve people's lives". I understand that some US states have laws which prevent relatively low-rent criminals from commercially exploiting their criminal behavior (such as selling their stories). We ought to at least be concerned when heads of illegal companies use their ill-gotten gain on an international multi-billion dollar scale, one which apparently feeds the drug patent juggernauts. Those juggernauts oppose the interests of the people who need life-saving drugs. One of the greatest triumphs of the modern corporate-friendly age is convincing people that it's wise to not look at the bigger picture.
Digital Citizen
I only submit journal articles, so you can check for yourself.
I would never have linked to the neosmart article because it's ignorant and inflammatory. RMS has been very good at documenting the real harm done by "IP" enforcement to the developing world. His accusations of harm from an organization like Gate's charity are more than "FUD" they are well founded and reasonable arguments. Every year, millions of people die who could be saved if patents did not keep India, China and other nations from making cheap anti-biotics and HIV medication. They die so that big pharmacy companies can continue to make big money and Gates is buying into it. His foundation pushes "respect" for IP which is both wrong and self serving. RMS has also linked to and documented the purchase of independent newspapers and other nefarious activity from the Gates Foundation. Because the Foundation is not transparent with it's books, we can not know the magnitude of these wrongs or if they outweigh the good done. Mr. Gates is a multiply convicted monopolist (felon) and it is up to him to prove his innocence rather than for us to prove his guilt, but RMS goes a long way toward proving that Gate's new business is much like his old one.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I disagree with your point that it was Microsoft that brought "unification to the desktop", a point that is often repeated.
What Microsoft accomplished was to replace other products with their own, not so much with better engineering as better marketing, and get their name out there as the most ubiquitous --> preeminent name in desktop computing.
That sounds a lot like they brought unification.
They played all the right hands, it was a product marketed under their names. While other may be involved, that does mean they brought around the change.
There's some serious trolling going on in this site; people, amazingly seem to thing donating billions to charity is a bad thing compared to GPL freedoms. Are zealots really going to go so low as to try and piss on a charitable campaign because it was done by a guy who made a stack off selling his own code (I'll accept, the business tactics could've been more ethical)?
Moderations such as "overrated" to the parent really make me lose faith in humanity sometimes.
There's nothing "overrated" about someone saying "I receive Bills money, and without it the work I do for charity would be much harder." unless of course you want to censor this opinion.
If you look for bad in anything you'll find it; and that's exactly what some of the zealots are out to do at any cost.
RMS to me has proved to me that some OSS zealots are about blind belief at all costs, and that no line is too low to cross.
A damned shame too; OSS itself isn't bad, it's just some of the idiots associated with it that suck.
throw new NoSignatureException();
Non-profits in the USA since the last redefinition allow for 10% to go into the cause. I've known people who exploited this as a tax shelter.
Essentially they have created an investment firm that gets large write-offs by giving away 10%...
It shouldn't be a legal charity or get any tax benefits. If you want to invest 90% and be a charity you should include microloans as part of your cause and then that 90% becomes 100% charity work (as long as you can get an exception for microloans not being a normal investment.) Micro loans do far more to benefit the poor than many of the common alternatives.
I'm not saying that microloans are the end all solution and the free market religion is as blindly and foolishly followed as the other religions. It is however better than investing in EXON, DUPONT etc.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I work for an organization (www.fhi.org) that gets quite a bit of money from the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation
You're right that FHI may be doing some good. You're also right that that the Gates foundation is giving money for it. The question is whether the Gates Foundation comes out ahead in an overall cost/benefit analysis relative to other funding models.
I think your posting just shows that (1) Gates' attempt to white-wash his reputation through "charity" is working to some degree, and that (2) people at organizations like FHI apparently lack even a basic ability to reason about economic and social issues.
I sincerely hope that you aren't representative for FHI because with your lack of critical thinking, you are hardly in a position to deal with complex issues of international public health.
The core of Sir John Sulston's complaint is the privatization of scientific knowledge but that is a core mission of the Gates Foundation. Every "gift" and grant comes with typical M$ strings, including software use and they demand a servile "respect" for "intellectual property". Real charity does not come with conditions, it is freely given out of love. The Gates foundation is all about Gates moving M$'s ethics into medicine but it should be rejected. Patient care is more important than profit. Control of medical information for profit may not be a crime now but it should be.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=216934&cid=17629948