Slashdot Mirror
Richard Stallman Warns About Non-Free Web Apps
An anonymous reader writes "Richard Stallman has published an article which warns about the 'Javascript trap' posed by non-free AJAX-based applications. The article calls for a mechanism which would enable browsers to identify freely-licensed Javascript applications and run modified version thereof. 'It is possible to release a Javascript program as free software,' Stallman writes. 'But even if the program's source is available, there is no easy way to run your modified version instead of the original ... The effect is comparable to tivoization, although not quite so hard to overcome.'"
Smell that? That's the unfortunate smell of a web server going down in flames.
Nice.
Sent from your iPad.
Why do I care if I visit a web site and "non-free" JavaScript runs in my browser?
Has "borrowing" some Javascript (or HTML for that matter) ever resulted in litigation? There's been sort of an understanding since the inception of the Web that people will borrow from each other, because they can, and that's more or less fine.
I like Stallman's idea, it just doesn't seem particularly urgent.
You mean Google might not be the glorious, saintly beneficent deity that all nerds seem to blindly worship it as?
How utterly unexpected. After all, they SAY they don't do evil. And we can always trust gigantic corporations, can't we?
About a lot of other thing he may be too fundamentalistic, but this danger is real. The average user is now more than ever dependent on a fragile link of software-service-supplier chain, locking him in totally
"from the beware-hidden-dollarsign dept"
I would think slashdot would know better what Stallman means by when he says free or non-free software. Generally these webapps area available at no cost anyway, and obviously that's not what he's talking about. He's talking about the classic ideas of free software, not whether or not it is okay to sell software. I just think that should be clear here.
Anyway, if we do argue that applications are moving into the web sphere, (which most web 2.0 advocates of course do,) then this is indeed something important to think about within the domain of free software.
http://mediagoblin.org/
This article proves it.
I mean, how else are we supposed to test Javascript based Windows worms on Linux?
This is clearly a non issue.
From TFA:
"Javascript (officially called ECMAscript, but few use that name)..."
Linux (officially called GNU/Linux, but few use that name)..."
Practice what we preach, Hmmmmm?
The license for the javascript software you are running might be important, but the far more important factor, in my mind, is the IP rights and responsibilities attached to your data.
Who has access to your data? How can you verify that? Who is responsible for keeping it secure? Who is responsible for making backups? How can you verify that?
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
According to this, a Javascript program that talks to a closed source AJAX backend is Not Free, even if the Javascript code itself is Free.
This is the craziest thing Stallman has come up with yet. Is a web browser that talks to a None Free web server Not Free? What about a program that uses SQL to talk to a database server that is Not Free?
Isn't a large majority of javascript basically throw away code? bits and pieces of glue to weld a website together? Why should I care if it's not GPL. It seems to me there is already a lot that can be done with GreaseMonkey to work around javascript that I don't like.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The article calls for a mechanism which would enable browsers to identify freely-licensed Javascript applications and run modified version thereof.
To what end?
It is possible to release a Javascript program as free software
O RLY?
But even if the program's source is available, there is no easy way to run your modified version instead of the original ... The effect is comparable to tivoization, although not quite so hard to overcome.
What the... What? Does this make sense to anyone?
Worst. Summary. Ever.
Richard Stallman has done more damage to the open source movement than anyone else. He is pompous, arrogant, rude, inflexible, and intolerant of diversity of opinion.
He has systematically alienated open source leaders like Linus Torvalds, corporate IT, and large swaths of the people who actually use Linux and other open source solutions.
The complete and abysmal failure of the GPL3 speaks not just to the profound mistakes made in its drafting, it also speaks to a general distrust of the FSF as an institution.
The FSF should book a banquet hall, give a retirement roast and gold watch to Mr. Stallman, or simply close its doors.
RMS is irrelevant at this point in time, and it's his own shrill and chicken-little attitude that has caused that state to come about. Nobody takes him seriously any more.
RMS: Have the grace and good will to know that you have essentially milked this cause for all it is worth. Stop anthropomorphizing software.
Slashdot give me this little nugget:
If somebody distributes a "non-free" software process to you, without any expressed limitation on your use of that process and without giving you the option to terminate the process, then what kind of use can you make of the process consistent with copyright law?
IAAL, but this kind of question calls for a copyright lawyer. It seems to me that if somebody injects your computer with a process without asking first and without limiting your use of that process, then that process ought to be yours to do with as you wish (i.e., "free").
I'd be interested in hearing other points of view on this. To me, the autonomy issue is more interesting than the "non-free" issue.
and more on washing.
Because you are reliant on something which must be paid for (somehow) and/or you can't own. Stallman's view, nutty or not, is that you should be able to function ENTIRELY on free software - which a non-free JavaScript "app" by definition isn't. From his perspective, it's an insidious "slippery slope" undercutting of the free (speech AND beer) software paradigm: it's so easy to get caught in the "[shrug] so what? I didn't have to pay, and I don't have to keep a copy because I just go to the site to run it again" trap, risking reliance on something controlled by someone else.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
P.S. For those interested, here is the transcript of our email conversation.
I have a Drupal-run site, it's my CMS and framework. Drupal is released under the GPL so I'm assuming all javascript, CSS, images, etc. are under that same umbrella. If I make a modification to the javascript or CSS, which I have, what does that mean to me?
Could someone go to my site and only run GPL'd code while ignoring mine (which I have not explicitly licensed)? I think he brings up a legitimate point.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
someone can say it is not free, but since, with javascript, they are essentially handing you the code, you can take it and modify it and do whatever you want with it
yes, i understand what stallman is saying philosphically, and javascript can be obfuscated, but there is a fundamental difference between interpretted and compiled code, and i don't see javascript as that hard to deobfuscated and do as you wish with it. modify something you find heavily enough, and who is to say they own that and you can't use that?
what you have to worry about is google chrome or windows ie suddenly saying "with our latest browser, we are implementing ecmascript shiny plus plus (trademark, copyright), which will allow us to serve you compiled code, which will make your browsing experience more fantastical and delicious!"
then we have a serious sliver against free software
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This is from the man who by his own admission doesn't use a web browser. He's becoming more and more like the Ayatollah - issuing edicts about things that he barely comprehends and has never actually tried himself.
So if you do care about free software on the desktop, it's reasonable that you should care about free software in your browser.
I was having trouble with a F/OSS app several months ago and I thought "Great! It's F/OSS! I can just get the software source and have a gander and solve my own problems!"
So, I downloaded the code, unzipped it, spent a couple of days getting the development environment right, and brought up the editor. A few days go by, and I'm trudging through uncommented PHP code, digging into class after class calling other classes that called other classes that just set global constants or read environment variables, and so on and so on...
I deleted the code because instead of "solving my problem" I was getting lost and not accomplishing the activity that the software was supposed to accomplish.
I went and got a package that did what I wanted.
In short, I have no desire to look at source code. I don't give a rat's ass. I have better things to do than to dig through other people's mess - thank-you-very-much.
F/OSS only appeals to people who LIKE to trudge through others code to see how it works or make it "better". To me, software is an end to a means and I don't really give a rat's ass how it works as long as it's not doing shit behind may back that I don't want; which I can find out by other means than looking at source code.
Let me give you guys a hint. Its a good time to start distancing yourself from Stallman, he's definitely wondering off to the tree-hugging-nutjob-hippie commune.
He's lost grasp of the point of software. The point of software is not 'to run free software', its to get something done.
His entire life has turned into 'omg you must use free software or you are doing the wrong thing'. He has no logic for this other than 'its bad for you not to use free software' or 'its bad for you if you cant modify it even though you have no useful reason to do so!!!'
He goes so far in the article to try to confuse the meaning of 'free' versus 'open', implying they are essentially the same thing. They aren't, and never will be. He has gotten himself so deep into his own bullshit that it would appear that it is now impossible for him to understand that his 'way' isn't the only one. Once you've got yourself to the point where you think 'free' or OSS software is 'the only way' you are no better than those people who refuse to use OSS software, you're just a moronic twit at that point.
Stallman has reduced himself to a religious leader rather than a promoter of openness for the common good. He's simply gone too far.
So again, I encourage you to distance yourself from Stallman, he is not someone you should associate with any more than the Church of Scientology as they are both just spreading propaganda for their own personal gain at this point. Now that OSS has become even slightly accepted his usefulness as a supporter of OSS is diminished, so he's taking it to the next level and trying to say all non-free software is bad. Read that carefully, 'non-free'. Not open. In this article he in a round about way attacks 'open' standards that are not 'free' by his definition.
You need to watch out for the guy who screams 'freedom' while at the exact same time adding new restrictions to the very license he claims is all about 'freedom'. I'm not saying not to use GPL or GPLv3, if the fit your needs/goals, thats entirely fine and should be used if they fit. I license my software under many different licenses based on what I'm trying to accomplish. My applications are generally closed source, I have some libraries that I've released LGPL, and many that are BSD licensed. I have not used GPL proper as it doesn't really fit my Each has their place in MY agenda. I'm just saying that what he does is hypocritical to an extreme only shared by politicians and lawyers, and because of that he should be treated as such.
I am in no way saying you should abandon OSS or the quest for open standards. I just feel that what Stallman is doing is not the quest for openness, but more like gathering a cult to be lead off to a mass suicide.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
You can't replace parts of the running code on the server with your own, either. Go cry.
RMS may be a cranky extremist, but he's still right far more often than he's wrong. Web apps are in some ways a huge step backwards in terms of openness. If you're lucky there's a wsdl you can analyze but even then that's really just a client-facing API. What's less free/open than a binary-only distribution? One that's never even distributed in the first place. May I please continue to access this application, sir?
cat /. | grep -vi stallman
So if you do care about free software on the desktop, it's reasonable that you should care about free software in your browser.
Okay, but Javascript is only one part of this problem. What about the code running on the server? I wonder if RMS visits any websites at all besides fsf.org
He can't be sure after all if other sites use only free software on the server side, so he can't visit them to avoid accidentally supporting non-free software.
Making something open source does not make it lose it's copyright status. You can't just rip off someone's javascript and claim they were "handing you the code." You can get away with it for minor stuff, but I'd love to see you try to do that with something like gmail.
It's an interesting idea, that a user could save the javascript from a page, modify it and then command their browser to use the local modified version when viewing the page. It would be cool right up until the web server changes their API and you need to update your local javascript to cope with the change. This also assumes that your page is just enough HTML to load the javascript and is all dynamically generated from there on in, the gmail interface being a good example of this.
I guess a server could even offer a mechanism to store a users modified javascript and serve it to them when it detects they are logged in, and even offer a 'store' for people to choose which javascript client to use with their service.
This does not answer why anyone would do this ofcourse, just thinking out loud.
Come as you are, do what you must, be who you will.
I squeeze every byte I can out of my javascript files not because I want to obfuscate the code but to make the site faster. 20kb difference is a huge deal for high-traffic sites. Not only for the sake of bandwidth but for load times on mobile phones as well.
We had a 9am meeting last October with a team of web developers on the size of CSS files across the domain. It lasted around 4 hours and we managed to cut the size from an already optimized 80kb down to 55kb across multiple sheets on the front page. These things matter.
It's getting to the point that RMS just spouts crap to be heard. Most website developers use java script to get some functionality working, and java script is the easiest to do so. There is (usually) no intent to do harm, or take over your computer, or lie to you, or stalk your grandmother. The developer just wants to deliver the site to its users complete with certain functionality. Why would you want to run your own version of its java script? This is such nitpicking crap that its not worth reading.
But what's the solution? This is the real question.
Just put a checkbox in the Firefox preferences window somewhere. I suggest this wording:
(x) Warn me before running JavaScript written by capitalist pigs
Richard... WHO?
however, gmail hands me their code every time i open it in the browser
i can look at that code, understand it, and pretty much copy it in and bits and pieces and rewrite some methods in my own style, rename functions, variables, move stuff around, change the order of lines, compress some functionality, make other functionality more sparse, abstract this functionality here, reimagine this functionality there, etc., etc.
yes, it would be quite a bit of work, but easily one tenth the amount of time to recreate gmail functionality from scratch
in other words, if you screw around with the code enough to the point where google could come after me and say i am using their code, but the code is different enough that the challenge would never stand in court, then all javascript code is quasi-open source by default. yes, it would be nicer to just take gmail and fork it or extend it as is, but i'm just making an important point i think that is javascript is de facto open source no matter what the legalese says
in a javascript world, a world where you hand someone your source code all the time, code is always free, as in speech, and as in beer, regardless of what anyone says legally
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Because Stallman is a lunatic zealot.
He will only be happy once nobody is able to make a living writing software... and his GPL will have everything so screwed up people will literally have to beg Stallman to allow them to run software on their computers.
That's the FOSSie view of the world. Thankfully, about 98% of the market rejects it.
Should be:
"Richard Stallman Whines About Non-Free Web Apps"
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
It's amusing to see how many man-hours of would-be pundit commentary are spent telling us how RMS is "irrelevant"...
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
It just seems like a lot of extra crap to download and hardly machine readable.
Nullius in verba
I can't wait for the technical support calls. Can you imagine trying to support people who run into errors using your site because they chose not to use your version of a javascript routine but instead replaced it with their own? Not to mention that this is not a fact they are going to disclose over the phone, and, at some point, won't even realize it is happening.
This is like the Catholic Church telling France and Italy not to use contraception, and the birth rate falling to zero anyway. Harmless dogma. What do you expect from the Pope of Free Software? I'll use Ajax, but I still go to the Church of GNU often enough to not burn in hell.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Stallman is advocating a more modular method of loading Javascript webapps.
An example of what he's envisioning: If Gmail was OSS, it would announce to the browser the modular scripts it was using to perform each operation, and the source would provided under a specific license. The browser would be configurable to load alternate web scripts to replace the functionality provided by google.
What Stallman is advocating is essentially turning webapps into applications where the user can control the application, rather than the service provider.
This would rely on OSS providers using the standard object passing model between server and client.
I'm not too sure if his idea would work too well, given how reluctant most non-OSS providers are to give away the code to their main applications.
It's a very gray area to tread, so many websites really can't be considered to be like traditional desktop applications, but they exist in some middle ground between traditional web sites and desktop apps.
I think he has an interesting point but he didn't really express it well. If he provided more examples and what the real world implications of relying on and migrating towards proprietary javascript web apps for daily productivity, I think more people would understand.
Is a web browser that talks to a None Free web server Not Free?
A Free web browser which could only talk to a non-Free web server would not be Free enough to satisfy a free-software purist (it would also be a pretty odd web browser).
The argument is quite reasonable: the owner of the non-free server could withdraw it at any time: the Free client, along with any contributions from the free software community, then has scrap value only (maybe there's some re-usable code in there, maybe not).
The counter-argument is more pragmatic (so Free Software purists won't like it): What's the alternative? Isn't it better to have a Free client and a closed server than to have both closed? You get to look at the code for the client, learn from it, port it to minority platforms and can probably deduce the server protocol and write your own server. There may be good reason why the server can't be Free (e.g. it may be serving proprietary data such as maps, and be useless without that data). Its a bit like the Linux argument - binary drivers are Bad but if Linux can't play Flash, MP3s or run NVidia cards then who is going to use it (given that RMS is presumably using Hurd).
Web browsers are a bad example, because they use standard protocols and are therefore useful with any server.
A better question, which I'm sure must have come up before, is whether any software written for a proprietary OS can be Free? If I take a GPL3 program, tack on a nice native Windows or OS X GUI and distribute it, am I in trouble because you still need a Windows/OSX license from MS or Apple to use it?
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
It's just Linux. There's no GNU code in the kernel.
Yes, most Linux kernels run alongside GNU utilities, but they also run along side a lot of other things. If you accept the GNU/ prefix, you'll have to make it Xorg/KDE|Gnome|xfce/Apache/MySQL/Perl/PHP/Postgresql/Mozilla/GNU/Linux to be consistent.
Or you could just stick with Linux for simplicity.
I'll take Stallman's contributions to the world over hers any day. What did she do again?
There is always debate about Stallman and Freedom in these articles. However, if we just look at the suggestion it makes, this article is totally practical. It just says to make clear what license the (javascript) software is using, and if it is F/OSS to say where the code can be acquired. It also says to let the USER decide what to do based on that information. And the methods for doing those suggestions are simple and straightforward.
Really, I think this is an excellent pragmatic response to a situation of growing importance that in no way would mean a major burden to programmers, users, or anybody.
Making web apps is the easiest programming you could do.
You're totally wrong. Webapps is easyer than other solutions because it enables available free software (Apache/PHP/JS/Firefox/MySQL, etc.) to leverage closed-source clients, aka the Microsuck Windoze monopoly. It's an endless stack of hacks on top of each other (RIAs being the pinnacle of them) to enable ease of deployment over am IT landscape that has been bastardized mostly because of big money interests in the IT industry. An open free PC with a unified open free OS would be much easyer to develop for. We wouldn't need WebApps the way we do today.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
So, I assume Stallman can't use any typical search engine ... maybe he built his own from Lucene. He also must not do any credit transactions online.
He must also be careful that any packets his computer sends turn right around should they encounter a Cisco router (or any other proprietary router).
I suppose in his daily life, using a phone, or a car, or Television would be right out.
I sure hope Mr. Stallman never needs any medical attention.
I DO admire much of what Mr. Stallman stands for, and I'm glad there is a champion for free software ... but I live in the real world, where to buy goods, you need some government's currency, and to do anything electronically, you have to use SOME commercial software somewhere.
I wonder, too ... does Mr. Stallman's PC have a proprietary BIOS, or did he write that code, too?
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -- "Step Right Up", Tom Waits
she was at least entertaining. stallman is nothing but a droning tool
portfolio
please note the subject matter of stallman's article
now please note:
"What other people choose to do with their own websites is none of your fucking business."
reach into the great depths of your vast intellect and see if you see some sort conflict there
good luck kid, i have faith in you to figure out who the real idiot is here
xoxoxoxoxoxoxox
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
He seems to be afraid companies will try to deny free software developers source code to improved versions of their free-software code by avoiding to ever distribute the software. It is however not clear that this is at all unethical in the same way as using copyright to restrict users from modifying software they have bought is. To demand a copy of the source code and documentation of software companies use to implement a service is a bit like demanding a cab company give you driving instructions if you ever traveled with them. Ok, so the analogy is not perfect, but there is a huge difference between proprietary software vendors trying to use copyright and shrinkwrap EULAs to limit how you use your computer, and that of service providers simply not distributing the code they use to provide a service.
In some ways Stallman is essentially making the same mistake proprietary software vendors do when they try to control what you do with software. He seeks to limit what people can and cannot do with software they run on their own computers. His demands even contradicts part of the GPL, which explicitly grant you the right to use the software "FOR ANY PURPOSE". The FSF's FAQ even explains that you're not allowed to ban using the software for things like pornography, because that would violate users right to use software for any purpose they see fit. It would appear that according to Stallman all purposes are equal, it's just that some purposes are more equal than others.
I don't really want users to be able to run their own preferred javascripts on my pages - especially not the intranet type of pages I mostly work on. I get enough people who don't understand a popup that says "You haven't filled in your name yet - please do so" as it is - who wants them to have the freedom to run their own modified scripts, then complain to me about a "broken web page"?
People here probably assume that an individual who'd be in the position to modify a script would know enough to identify the true source of any problems that come up. Based on my experience, I don't think that's a reasonable assumption - a lot of users (especially faculty - I work at an academic institution in an engineering department) think they understand far more than they actually do. Finding out the real source of a problem can be like pulling teeth (and sometimes after finally resolving an issue I'd like to do exactly that, believe me).
#DeleteChrome
"Richard Stallman has published an article which warns about the 'Javascript trap' posed by non-free AJAX-based applications. The article calls for a mechanism which would enable browsers to identify freely-licensed Javascript applications and run modified version thereof. 'It is possible to release a Javascript program as free software,' Stallman writes. 'But even if the program's source is available, there is no easy way to run your modified version instead of the original ... The effect is comparable to tivoization, although not quite so hard to overcome.'"
Mr Stallman, we already have a standard for this.
For your reference, please refer to RFC 3514 and the relevant wikipedia article.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
test
Seriously, who comes off as the lunatic here?
Your attacks do a good job showing that you cant do anything but spout threats, insults, disparagin remarks...oh wait, this is /. , so youre considered 'insightful'.
And if Stallman ever gets death threats, we'll make sure that people dont forget BitZtream (692029).
People have gotten in trouble for a lot less than saying they want to shoot someone, let's hope youre one of them.
any obfuscating process you can describe to me is equally and easily reversible
for crying out loud, they have been teasing high level code out of compiled programs for decades. now that's hard
meanwhile, deobfuscating a bunch of ascii text is not exactly an NSA level effort here. it has to retain coherence for the browser in order to be interpretted, speedily. therefore, it is easy to deobfuscate
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Can't the same questions be asked about the HTML itself? Is there really a difference for the purposes of this conversation? They are both just instructions to the browser. The HTML is essentially "executed" by the browser, albeit much more limited in functionality than the Javascript.
Shouldn't he start with that question?
Ok, I've said it before and I'll say it again.. this whole cloud computing concept at least as it is currently playing out is a really bad idea!
Now, if you or your own company hosts it's own web services then this whole issue is moot. You can always edit the javascript on your own server.
For all of these desktop wanabe web apps which are hosted by third parties however it shouldn't matter how free (as in speech) they are because they shouldn't be taken so seriously. It's like a toy. If you want to write a letter to grandma thanking her for the Christmas cookies using Google or Mickeysoft or Yahoo's web based word processor then go for it. Who cares if you can edit the source? What feature would you need to change or add? But entering company documents, personal financial information or anything of any significance into a third party website? That is just a stupid thing to do. No matter how "not evil" said company is today tomorrow there could be a change of leadership. They could sell your info to an advertisor or worse, to a competitor. They could even branch into a new market and become the competitor. Or.. they may remain good intentioned but just get cracked.
Even if you're not in a position where you handle sensative documents on a day to day basis it's what you use regularly that you will be most familiar and comfortable with. Personally if I was managing anyone who I caught using a web based word processor for a company document I would fire them on the spot. And do people really want to learn two sets of office suites, one for work and one for home? I don't think most people really want to learn one. It would be much better to just install an office suite on each computer one uses and get a USB stick. If it warrants it then a company could set up their own web application suite on their own secure server with their own ssl key but again, if they do that then they can alter their javascript and use it too.
He was brilliant in 80's
He had very good ideas in 90's
We're 20 years after he was "brilliant". His GNU is not more popular than it was 10 years ago.
Why do we listen to this guy?
does it use the same protocol/ standards/ customs as gmail to communicate with the server?
well then you're screwed. google has a good mode of attack there
but surely you don't think the legal standards are so opaque that you couldn't shove the code out of that narrow cone of similarity necessary for legal enforcement
who needs a fucking license?
look at the damn js file, understand it, reverse engineer it, make it your own in such a blendered way that it is obvious you started with gmail but you are safely out of the legal line of fire
its a question of gradual easy degrees. its trivial to mess around with the code to enough of a degree that you are safely out of the legal line of fire with confidence. and this effort would most certainly be quicker and easier than starting from scratch
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Deciding whether two algorithms are equivalent in functionality? Without severely impacting user experience by taking ages to compute? Let's not even discuss whether that can be done in polynomial time or not, it's pointless.
Jeebus, why are people trying to reduce every problem in CS to an exercise in masochism? It's not that masochism is NP-complete or something.
Just add something like "no-nonfree" to the browser User-Agent string and require all websites to honor that. If some site doesn't, sue them. Works the same as "robots.txt", just the other way round.
Or have all scripts which are GPL (or other somesuch) do "include("gpl.js");", then load a greasemonkey script matching all URLs that raises hell when any object in the DOM doesn't include a special "is_gpl" member.
Easy as pie.
The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
If I repeat to someone else, unless I have didactic memory, I will be using my own words. A report about a statement will include someone else's words in there.
Without the ability to use your own words you have no free speech.
I saw this article last night, and didn't see it was from Stallman at first or I would have immediately dismissed it.
Seriously, who is this concerned over Javascript in their browser, which is there and gone with each mouse click? It's ridiculous.
The thing he wants, the ability to replace Javascript in a website with custom "free" versions for a particular site, is already possible in UserJS with Opera. It was implemented so that users could write their own fixes on sites which don't necessarily work right in Opera, or ones which you want to simply enhance. But since Opera isn't open-source, he's still out of luck.
One day people like Stallman are going to have to realize that proprietary and licensed software is a way of life if you want a modern computing experience. Ubuntu realized it, and look at how much more popular they are now than the distro they're based upon. Debian has a very different opinion on the subject, as evidenced by IceWeasel and such.
Here's a better option for people like him: If you don't like what the website has to offer or how it was written, then don't use it. Period. You could very well be breaking a license or something by thinking you have the right to replace their software with your own version, since many times it still interacts with their site's infrastructure. They might have the right to ban you if they detected you using something else, much like companies such as Blizzard can and will do.
Of course, if you're sane, none of this is an issue anyway, so nothing to see here.
Not that he would necssarily give a crap that I do.
My personal conviction is that Linux came to be what it has come to be *precisely* because it was released as GPLv2 code; I don't think it would have grown to nearly the size and penetration </beavis> that it has were it under some other license.
Therefore, the state of much of the world today -- not just the computing world, but Real Life -- descends almost entirely from the fact that rms is a extremist about the principles of Free Software.
We often look on extremists with amusement or scorn, but I personally tend to try to remember Tom Peters' observation from one of the Excellence books:
We don't all have to be as hardcore as rms is -- Linus isn't -- but if *he* *weren't*, then I don't think we'd be where we are today.
So yeah, comparing him to a vegan is probably pretty accurate -- they have similar types of motivation.
But *dissing* him for it?
No, I don't think that's really the best outlook to have.
A web proxy can rewrite content arbitrarily, including this type of mod. Just run your own proxy on your own server. Maybe even a home server if your ISP doesn't block that: this example is a very good reason to make a political push for the expanded definition of "network neutrality", that is, all ports are open, nothing is blocked, you have the freedom to publish from home. (You can always secure your own proxy if you don't want other people to use it.)
Failing that, there is shared hosting where you could run your own personal proxy that augments the capabilities of the browser itself.
Another feature I've been wanting to write a proxy for (and haven't gotten around to!) is to store my web history permanently and make it searchable, so I can find forgotten web sites again. It should be able to store notes I write about sites, so I can search those too.
Failing that, there is greasemonkey.
Well, for example, I on the other hand am using launch4j to wrap a java app into an executable.
It didn't work as expected, but thanks to the source being open I could replace a central java file with a debug version, which helped me understand what was going wrong so far that I could work around the problem.
I didn't spend the time to really fix the problem, although I think it would be easy to, but I could have if it became a problem to me due to it being GPL'ed. One additional nice property of GPL is that it forces the software to stay open source.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
Which is EXACTLY what RMS is asking for. NOT that you MUST make your website GPL free, that you tell us if it is GPL free.
TELL US THE FRICKING TERMS.
Then if we don't like them, we'll not use the software.
But don't HIDE the terms and stop (as you are doing) telling us that useless statement, useless because YOU AREN'T TELLING US THE TERMS.
He's been crazy for years. My first exposure to his loony ideas was in that old story of his, "The Right To Read". He wrote that when I'd just entered college and just started using this "GNU" stuff, and I remember being being stunned by his paranoia. Grade schools wasting time preaching about intellectual property? Software being outlawed for being able to edit RAM that someone else's program allocated? People who didn't have the root passwords for their own computers? And then there's the central point of the story, that eventually people would be stuck with books they couldn't lend or resell! That Stallman guy was clearly a nutjob.
Seriously. Has anyone actually read the license that this deluded individual's "letter" was published under? In particular, did you read the "No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work." part?
So, you can not build upon this work. I persume this means no discussion, nada.
If you don't want to run non-free Javascript on web sites whose content you have no fucking control over, don't visit the website.
You have no implied "right" to modify the non-free Javascript on a non-free website and run your own.
I mean, you can already do many things to modify non-free websites that you visit:
So we can't re-write the Javascript on a page and use our custom Javascript instead of the code the author intended (actually, you could if you really wanted to). But how many people would do that anyway?!
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
She was a mother who also raised money for AIDS research. She actually nurtured life and tried to protect it, which is far beyond ANYTHING Stallman would do for anyone else, much less you.
"When you see a unixer brainwashed beyond saving, kick him out of the door." - Xah Lee
For the rest of that acronym soup.
They (the owner of the copyright) are the ONLY ONES able to fix it.
They don't have to charge based on their work done, but on what they can make the market bear.
If an update costs £10,000 to make then I could understand asking £30,000 to do it. But they can ask for £300,000. And if the loss of work is worth more than £300,000, I MUST pay it. That isn't a market. That's blackmail.
Look at what he is saying:
Where does that dictate terms to you? Don't be a jack-ass!
Now, I can, as a user easily decide whether I want to use (and/or depend upon) your service based upon what license you choose to use for your JS. If I don't like YOUR terms, I can say, No, I won't use it and take by business elsewhere.
How is this dictating terms to you again?
Didn't think so! Now STFU!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
if they won't tell you what you're choosing.
And that's the problem here. "You use my server on MY TERMS" but there is no way to find out what the terms ARE.
RMS is asking for something to enable that.
Or do you want to tell people AFTER they've fallen foul "you can't do that, I'm suing you"?
I looked this one up and discovered that it's a coined word... coined by Mr. Stallman.
Let's not encourage this sort of nonsense.
To me, software is an end to a means....
You must have very few means by now.
By transferring Javascript to my browser, the site has released the source code to me without _any_ license (except for sites where you have to login and agree to some POS TOS). No license means total license. That's as free as it gets. I can quite easily install a userscript that modifies or blocks any parts of that script, and if I care about that, it's perfectly legal too. Web apps are indeed a threat, but it's not the client side that he should be worried about. And why exactly should I trust metadata?
In the strictest sense, the kernel is the operating system. If you expand the definition to include standard applications, then GNU's contributions is relatively small.
Oh, and by the way, Linux isn't POSIX compliant anyway.
It's entirely possible to boot a Linux system with binutils or BSD userspace utilities.
Where you draw the line between "part of the operating system" and "mere applications" is fuzzy. If you're strict about it, you'll pick just the kernel. If you're not, you'll have to add the whole lot.
Stallman is delusional.
Your browser is running non-free HTML! What's become of your old self that refused to use browsers? You're such a sellout.
are you sure? i thought she was known for her excellent Sonny Bono impression.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
It's entirely possible to boot a Linux system with binutils or BSD userspace utilities.
Well yeah, sure, that's possible. Do you know anyone who uses such a distribution? I'm pretty sure RMS speaks of GNU/Linux because that's what people actually use.
Even if you say that the line between applications and operating system is fuzzy, I do think we can both agree that it is reasonable to count something which is required to build and boot the system as "part of the operating system", no? Especially so if we speak of the actual operating system distributions, like Debian or Fedora, which doubtlessly uses those programs for those purposes, and where it would require large amounts of work to replace them.
(Furthermore, I'm pretty sure Linux (the kernel, that is) requires GCC, GNU ld and gmake to build. I might be wrong about that, though.)
NoScript supports javascript surrogates now. So you could actually run replacement versions of commonly used scripts. There's not much of a ui to it yet but I just checked about:config and it looks like I'm already doing this.
Stallman is once again unpopular but correct.
The license for the javascript software you are running might be important, but the far more important factor, in my mind, is the IP rights and responsibilities attached to your data.
Who has access to your data? How can you verify that? Who is responsible for keeping it secure? Who is responsible for making backups? How can you verify that?
OK, what data do I own when using the internet? Is the date/time that I accessed a website my data, or theirs? Is my IP address my data, or is it my ISPs?
Talking ownership of data on the internet is a scary thing.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Did you request the source code to the ECU your car uses?
Would you refuse to drive it when they laugh their asses off at you for asking?
He is crazy, no one in their right mind in any other industry would make such ridiculous demands.
Are you afraid of the danger of not having the source code to your ECU so you can fix the problem?
Perhaps its just that we, as developers are getting too fucking lazy. My car has an ECU upgrade from third parties that will completely void my warranty, and you know how that ECU upgrade came into being? Some guy sat down and reverse engineered a ROM dump. They didn't give him the source. The ECU isn't even 'standard' in that its new and used on only a couple of other car models. The manufacture doesn't want people changing it as they'll end up having to deal with a bunch of bullshit calls from idiots like he and you who think they can change it and make everything work fine without any understanding of the rest of the system. There is NO reason for them to make it EASIER for YOU to cause them more costs and then have to listen to you bitch about problems you caused yourself or distributed to other people who now think its the manufactures problem.
Does he have source to his microwave? Possibly, but thats only because its running NetBSD anyway. How about his TV? Probably as he probably uses his PC for that instead. How about <insert any number of household items that have processors/software in them>? Nope, no source there either eh? Do you have the source code for the computers in the trains you ride in the mass transit system? How about the source to the Air Traffic control systems, or the source to the backend processing for your airline reservations? No? Well stop using those services! How about your credit cards? No credit cards, okay do you have the source to the equipment that runs the presses used to mint cash in your country? No? Do you not use money then?
Seems a little odd that he and you too I'm sure have no problem using all this other stuff with absolutely NO way to modify the source, but ... when it comes to a website, OMFG I'm a EVIL DEMON SPAWN because I don't make it so you can hack the software for my website to do whatever you want ...
Get a grip and rejoin us in reality, you have almost 0 need to modify all the applications that he demands the source to, to allow for 'freedom'. Stallman doesn't want freedom, he wants everyone to play by his rules, which are in no way a representation of freedom as they are filled with more restrictions than half the commercial/closed source licenses I've had to deal with in my development career. Maybe he just needs to put down the bong, move out of his parents basement, cut his fucking gross beard, look presentable and be an adult for once in his life instead of a moody teenager that thinks he's the only one right in the world. If you people would stop worshiping him like God I think it would be a good fucking start.
He's not only a nut job, he's a total hypocrite and extremist.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I agree on the notation that web-applications are applications as are any, and licensing should be taken into consideration if necessary.
BUT I don't feel that JavaScript makes it too easy to use non-free apps. When you see an application(web or conventional) without source-code available with Free license, how can you confuse it to Free Software.
OK, you maybe executed the non-free code once, accidentally or otherwise, but does that really matter? I would think that the point is to not use non-free apps and thereby supporting them. Does it really hurt to run a proprietary app, only to see it to be proprietary?
If this would pose a security problem, then imho the problem lies in the (potentially) Free Software-part: the browser. ALL JavaScript should be run in strict sandbox if not specially allowed otherwise. If malicious (proprietary) web-application can do its malicious thing by just (accidentally) executing it(vs user actively using it), then your browser has a security hole.
Proposition to mark all Free software as such would do little to alleviate security problems, about as much as RFC 3514 (The Evil bit), and would add unnecessary bloat to web-pages. If user is considered about licensing conditions, then user should navigate to the application's homepage where full license should be available before using the software (I still don't count executing application as using).
If you wanted to modify/fork/redistribute a web-application, wouldn't you want anyways to download the full tarball and begin from there instead of collecting bits of JavaScript, at worst embedded into HTML, and try to make something out of them. And if the application is Free Software, would there actually any reason not to put full (client-side) sources to public tarball?
In summary(so far): imho executing non-free web-apps is not an issue, because JavaScript should be untrusted by default. And you always have a chance to research licensing before actually using the software(which could lead to security problems, ie leaking personal data).
And to comment the option of modifying web-applications' client-side only. That's just crazy. If you want to use modified version, you should deploy the application on your own server modifying it in there. If application in question has some social aspect(or something) then the cross-deployment communication should be resolved some way. That would allow even conventional applications be part of the network.
The issue isn't client code or JavaScript but more so the cloud systems behind them. Even then it doesn't matter much whether the cloud engines are open source or closed when the service goes down either temporarily or indefinitely.
It seems my original post failed to be clear. Allow me try again:
I'm vegan and I like pork.
True, I try to minimize buying pork. And, yes, I think that buying pork promotes suffering. But this issue of reducing pork consumption isn't a matter of terror or rabidness.
When we get some quality vat meat produced, you can come to my luau. I'm also a big fan of skirt steak.
The overarching point is that it's easy to be a fuzzy thinker and to have comfortingly simple, black-and-white ideas of what a vegan is. That overly simple kind of thinking is comforting, but really it's unhelpful. Do I resemble your mental picture of a vegan? Do I seem rabid or terrorized? I hope not (or we've got additional problems). Sure there are people out there who are rabid vegans, but they probably also have an overly simple idea of what it means to be a vegan, causing them to condemn non-vegan behavior with severe, fuzzy-headed religious zeal.
Maybe we can agree that unrealistically simple thinking is harmful?
At this point, after having a little more light shined on the really-not-black-and-white concept of veganism, and after some discussion of the harm of simplistic thinking, does it make sense to respond with "yeah, but vegans are rabid food people"?
Vegans do not eat honey.
Stallman can suck my big fat COCK
In the strictest sense, the kernel is the operating system. If you expand the definition to include standard applications, then GNU's contributions is relatively small.
It really depends on how you use it, I'd say.
These days I think a lot of Linux systems would be more accurately described as Gnome or KDE systems - as so much of the functionality users are relying upon is tied up in those packages... For instance, Gnome handles wireless connections on my laptop - there isn't really coherent management for that functionality at the command line. The situation would be similar with a KDE environment - so much of what people actually use is in the KDE layer that without it, the machine is no longer complete.
I'd say GNU has a strong case, though - large portions of the machine's actual functionality come from GNU - and everything else (pretty much) at least goes through a GNU compiler or links a GNU library.
The question of what constitutes the OS and what doesn't is a bit more subtle than you acknowledge, I'd say: You could think of the OS as being just the kernel - but then you're ignoring large portions of the software's actual operational infrastructure. LibC, for instance, is critically important. It's not provided by the kernel itself but it's so central to everything that the OS is nearly useless without it. I think GNU definitely deserves a lot of credit for the system we commonly call "Linux" - just as BSD would be entitled to such credit if a Linux system were built on a collection of BSD tools instead of GNU.
That said, I don't personally like the whole "GNU/Linux" thing. When they started it, the naming felt to me like they were saying, "GNU still hasn't come up with a useful kernel of its own, so we'd like everyone to acknowledge Linux as a GNU system to cover for our failure to follow-through on our project goals." I don't like the idea of trying to change the common lexicon to serve someone's agenda. I do support the agenda (recognizing the important contributions made by the GNU project, etc.) - just not the method, switching to a more awkward name for my favorite OS and encouraging others to do the same...
Bow-ties are cool.
Operating Systems aren't user interfaces, they're application interfaces. Non-programmers never see operating systems, at least under the traditional definition of the term. Certainly people do use the term to encompass applications that are shipped with the operating system, but once you do that you have no cause to differentiate between the GNU utils and all the rest.
After reading through a few of these comments I think many of you need to find better things to do with your free time. I understand the importance of GPL -- hell I have a few applications licensed under it and I support the code willingly.
I think it is quite far-fetched for people to be demanding more support and time on the developer for something that is already free!
Free is free is free is free. If you get something free at a restaurant are you going to complain if you don't like it? I hope not, because you didn't even pay for it!
If the developer for a GPL app goes MIA why would you be the one irritated? You didn't pay for ongoing support. You simply downloaded it.
There is a reason enterprise companies buy their software or code it in house. It's for the ongoing support.
If you are so concerned about the code running on your computer, let alone in your browser, go take a systems programming class and learn some C. After that, write your own browser and stop using free services. Anything you want -- code it. Then, and only then will you have FULL control.
Flame on my friends, flame on.
Yes, I and many others use non-GNU tools such as BusyBox where appropriate. I don't want to have to differentiate between BusyBox/Linux and GNU/Linux. I'm not trying to start a debate about what is or is not part of the operating system. I'm simply pointing out that if you take a strict definition, Linux alone is a sufficient name, and that if you broaden it to include GNU you need to include a lot of other applications as well.
The GNU utilities are a very important part of the Linux ecosystem. But so is Apache. And Xorg. And Gnome. And KDE. And MySQL. And lots of other. GNU shouldn't be put ahead of them just because Stallman doesn't mind being obnoxious.
Yes, YOU! I would much rather have my computer using and interacting with Free/Libre/gnu/etc software than proprietary software.
How many of you use Firefox and gnu/linux? Why? because the FREE software model is better and produces better software in the end.
You should care... without RMS would we have Linux? Would Linus have let Linux/Freax out under the best license without RMS? Debatable.
BRING ON FREE SOFTWARE!
I'll listen to RMS anyday, rather than use windows/mac. I'll use free software anyday, rather than proprietary.
Someday, you will have people like RMS/LT to thank.
Your idea that you're is not the same as you are identifies you as a (by) product of the U.S. education system.
BM3
Wouldn't this just create another avenue of attack? Me thinks so.
Greasmonkey, anyone? The code might be unfree, bit it sure comes with source, and the ability to monkey-patch it to hell..
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
just because the source is distributed ????
You're just purposely trying to evade my point, rather than meeting it. Yes, there are alternatives to many of the GNU utilities. I, too, could probably name a dozen embedded Linux distros or so that don't use GNU code to any larger extent, but that's just besides the point.
The point is that the systems the vast majority of people use (say, Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, &c.) are heavily based on GNU. So much so, in fact, that it if you really seek a single qualifier for it, it would be more appropriate to call it GNU than to call at Linux. At the core of the system lies all of the GNU system, including the coreutils, GCC, binutils, bash, texinfo, gzip, glibc, all the reimplementations of basic system tools like grep, sed, awk and what have you not. What you're normally actually using, as a user, is more often than not GNU code. (And that applies to very many GUI users, too, seeing how GNOME is part of GNU.)
Also, I'm not trying to force you to call the system GNU/Linux instead of Linux, honestly. I, too, usually call it Linux, but only because that's what I and others have become used to, not because I think that it is the most correct denomination to use. (Well, only when I speak with laymen, though, really. When I speak with my friends, I can usually leave out the "Linux" part of it completely and just say that I use "Debian".) On the other hand, I certainly have no wish to actively discredit GNU's extremely pivotal role in the system.
But nor do I want to elevate GNU's contributions over that of Apache, MySQL, Xorg, Mozilla et cetera.
Many of those are individually larger projects than GNU, more critical, and would be harder to replace.
I'm not saying that GNU shouldn't get recognition. I'm saying it shouldn't be recognized above other projects.
I assume this is some kind of spoof. I certainly got a good laugh out of it. Reminds me of the ad with the gentle monk who won't kill anything, not even an insect, and cries out in anguish when he finds out that his mouthwash has just killed millions of bacteria.
If,on the other hand, RS is serious, it's time he got professional help.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
You know what's missing from this argument? Women. More specifically, beautiful naked women protesting that they'd rather go nude than use non-GPL software.
If Stallman could arrange that, he might make some converts.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
OpenBSD mailing list
The guy is basically a throwback to the "good old days" of computing, and quite frankly, his actions make me think he wishes we'd all go back in time with him.
that must be some fantastic crack your smoking!
How is the existence of Google Docs hurting your freedom? Nobody forced you to use it- it's not even like Windows, which comes on almost every mainstream PC... it's a goddamn web application. You navigate to it- you choose to view it. When you start trying to enforce your standards on assorted web parties to which you are connecting, are you fighting freedom or oppressing organizations with unnecessary wasted time and image capital through an outrageous social movement...
I mean... if you don't like how Google Docs serves its javascript.. why don't you just not go there?
If you're some sort of insane jackass who doesn't even use a goddamn browser let alone understand business, economics, or software engineering (see: RMS), you can just use a proxy server. Next time Stallman wants to masturbate, we'd all appreciate it if he'd close the door.
doesn't greasemonkey let you do this already?
I'm tired of all these porn sites using closed-source mechanisms to verify my membership, in order to access their non-free works.
I'm glad that RMS has finally gotten his priorities straight and is working to bring us free (as in speech) porn, though not necessarily free (as in... porn).
Come to think of it, sex seems to have much in common with copyleft -- what you get from one person you share with someone else! It's viral!
I for one welcome our new Pornographic General Public License.
The reason those scripts are near-impossible to interpret is because they are compressed (Minifying+), wherein all comments (like the happy license) are stripped out for pragmatic reasons. This is a standards issue.
What's more, a user still has the source code. So now you don't just want access to the source, it has to be spelled out for you in a way you can understand? How long before I have to provide the GNU license in every known language?
I have no problem with the Free Software movement in general, but you can't really expect the world to prefer to simplify complex processes in the name of ideology. Funny enough, that just leads to more complexity. Thanks for throwing in the reference to EMCAScript I hadn't heard since 1996. Was that a backhanded attempt at an appeal to "I'm an old unix hacker" AGAIN? I've never thought of Stallman as a nut (just a zealot, akin to House, if you will) until this rambling luddite suggestion which truly shows a lack of understanding and purpose.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
The javascript is a client-side program. So as a client, I can, every time I want, look at the source code of the javascript being run. Doesn't this make all javascript programs open-source?
nobody seems to have noticed this yet, so i'll spell it out.
what we're talking about is establishing the possibility for a new market for software to be run as client-side code in the browser. if you have a simple method of downloading and executing javascript in the browser for predefined webpages, you could offer customized javascript for common web-applications. don't like the standard interface for googledocs? go to www.howlingmadhowies-googledocs.com and download our client (for the fee of 20 bucks). your browser will now automagically use howlingmadhowie's googledoc interface when you go to googledocs.com.
this requires open apis between the javascript code and the backend, of course.
Richard Stallman is a stupid. Get a life!
Practically every web-capable Windoze machine has a Flash plug-in.
a) Flash has had a number of security issues, that have been fixed erratically.
b) It doesn't take too wild of an imagination to see Adobe trying to blackmail more revenue out of the YouTube-addicted world by, say, bringing out new versions of the plug-in, that you can configure more efficiently - if you pay for a license. Or letting even more of your private information leak out though your Flash plug-in in order for you to receive more accurately targeted ads.
if it cannot be enforced
"This statement is meaningless and definitely explains a lot of your other posts on the subject"
i don't know what you are referring to, but if you are referring to something like music file trading, then i have to wonder at your definition of "meaningless"
copyright and intellectual proerty are laws that are in effect, gentleman's agreements. from a distant past before the internet when the only people who published anything were a small handful. and when mr. cassette tape duplicator set up shop in a warehouse, he was easy to find, easy to shut down, and small in scale and scope
now, every teenager with a teenager has the same power of bertelsmannin in 1980, if not more, in global reach
now, i am the meaningless one: you tell me, how do you enforce quaint gentleman's agreements from the age of vinyl when the country club is being sacked by 100 million teenagers with broadband connections?
i don't know, the ability to enforce a law doesn't seem meaningless to me
if you can't enforce, the law is de facto null and void
that concept does mean something to you right?
the government can pass all the laws they want. if there is no effective way to enforce such laws, what exactly do you think the value of that law is?
sorry if this concept is too "meaningless"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yes, I and many others use non-GNU tools such as BusyBox where appropriate. I don't want to have to differentiate between BusyBox/Linux and GNU/Linux.
I rather wish that people would do that. All of these tools have subtle differences from each other. I'd like to know up front which set of tools were used in a distribution rather than having to waste time tracking down someone's feature that's manifesting itself as a bug.
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
"The Javascript Trap" seems reasonable to me. Stallman wants the ability to control the software that runs on HIS computer. He is simply calling for a convenient mechanism to:
1. Allow me to set a policy to only run code when I have access to the source.
2. Allow me to swap out any code that will run on my computer with another chunk of code of my choosing.
Neither of these things seems outlandish or unreasonable to me. And both seem like things that could be implemented fairly easily in a browser. If you don't care about this, then carry on as you are. If you do care about controlling and being able to view the code that runs on your computer, then such a mechanism would be quite handy.
Do you think he knows about HDTV yet? I'm afraid this might shock him into an entire new lifestyle.
Joe Dougherty, Florida, USA
The words I thought I brought, I left behind. So, never mind.
Are you really suggesting distributions should have names thousands of characters long, listing all their packages?
Anything that runs as the root user necessarily runs in userspace.
Many (maybe even most) distributions use both BusyBox and GNU binutils, with BusyBox used in a ramdisk and GNU for higher level tasks.