Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Free Software Foundation: 30 Years In

Posted by timothy on from the chugging-along dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The Free Software Foundation was founded in 1985. To paint a picture of what computing was like back then, the Amiga 1000 was released, C++ was becoming a dominant language, Aldus PageMaker was announced, and networking was just starting to grow. Oh, and that year Careless Whisper by Wham! was a major hit. Things have changed a lot in 30 years. Back in 1985 the FSF was primarily focused on building free pieces of software that were primarily useful to nerdy computer people. These days we have software, services, social networks, and more to consider. In this in-depth interview, FSF executive director John Sullivan discusses the most prominent risks to software freedom today, Richard M. Stallman, and more.

8 of 135 comments (clear)

  1. C++ dominant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    C++ was only 2 years old in 1985, and hardly anyone had heard of it. It was nowhere close to "becoming dominant."

    Microsoft and Borland didn't introduce C++ compilers until after 1990, which is when it really took off.

  2. C++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    C++ wasn't becoming a dominant language in 1985. That didn't happen until the IDEs supported it about 5 years later. Turbo C became Turbo C++ and then Borland C++. Microsoft was recommending Glockenspiel until they could get their own support done. 1990 really.

    Was there, got the T-Shirt.

  3. I disagree by Psychotria · · Score: 5, Informative

    In 1985 C++ was not becoming a dominant language. C was certainly high on the list of "dominating" languages, but so was ASM (often C and assembly language for critical sections were used together) and so was Pascal, Modula-2, COBOL, Fortran, Lisp, etc, etc, etc and a bunch of languages (some still very much in use today), but C++... C++ was a newcomer and far from becoming dominant. It might be accurate to say that C++ was gaining support. It might be accurate to say that C++ was encouraging or spurring on the acceptance of the OOP paradigm (whatever that is), but no... I don't think that C++ was beginning to dominate anything at all at that point in time.

    1. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Unless you're programming in Java, in which case you'd have to build a WashingMachineFactoryClothingObjectReceiverTemplateFactory factory first.

  4. Re:We're worse off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Stallman has no problem with binary blobs as long as they cannot be updated without the user's consent, and as long as they cannot be used to abuse the user, e.g., by providing a backdoor or otherwise altering the rest of the system. In his own words:

    The phone network firmware comes preinstalled. If all it did was sit there and talk to the phone network when you wish, we could regard it as equivalent to a circuit. When we insist that the software in a computing device must be free, we can overlook preinstalled firmware that will never be upgraded, because it makes no difference to the user that it's a program rather than a circuit.

    Unfortunately, in this case it would be a malicious circuit. Malicious features are unacceptable no matter how they are implemented.

    On most Android devices, this firmware has so much control that it could turn the product into a listening device. On some, it controls the microphone. On some, it can take full control of the main computer, through shared memory, and can thus override or replace whatever free software you have installed. With some, perhaps all, models it is possible to exercise remote control of this firmware to overwrite the rest of the software in the device. The point of free software is that we have control of our software and our computing; a system with a back door doesn't qualify. While any computing system might have bugs, these devices can be bugs. (Craig Murray, in Murder in Samarkand, relates his involvement in an intelligence operation that remotely converted an unsuspecting target's non-Android portable phone into a listening device.)

    In any case, the phone network firmware in an Android phone is not equivalent to a circuit, because the hardware allows installation of new versions and this is actually done. Since it is proprietary firmware, in practice only the manufacturer can make new versions—users can't.

    Putting these points together, we can tolerate nonfree phone network firmware provided new versions of it won't be loaded, it can't take control of the main computer, and it can only communicate when and as the free operating system chooses to let it communicate. In other words, it has to be equivalent to circuitry, and that circuitry must not be malicious. There is no technical obstacle to building an Android phone which has these characteristics, but we don't know of any.

    He's wrong, though. There is a technical obstacle to creating an Android phone with his desired characteristics: THERE'S NO MONEY TO DO IT; as said before, it's a damn shame Stallman never created a viable business to fund his ideas. Instead, he has always relied on fools who don't comprehend what he's saying.

  5. Free other things by iamacat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    FSF has definitely made the world a better place by given users choices, but also, ironically, by improving quality of proprietary software. I would hate to think how buggy SSL would be if every vendor rolled their own copy. If they could agree on a protocol standard at all without a mature free software stack that is.

    But I wonder if nowadays software is really the most important thing that needs to be made more free as in freedom. How about free culture (copyrights that expire in time to share your favouring movies with grandkids)? Free food (planting seeds without Monsanto permission)? Free medicine (generic drugs would save millions of lives worldwide)? Free immigration/religion/politics?

    Wish we had folks like RMS to achieve concrete progress in these causes.

  6. Re:We're worse off by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    GNU = GNU Not Unix.
    While he made products for the Unix environment, his Goal is to get rid of the Closed Unix systems and make an Open Source Unix like system. GNU/Hurd was his attempt, however Linux was able to get something out faster, and the GNU community jumped on that to fulfill the Vision of GNU. Hence why they like to call it GNU/Linux. The GNU Not Unix Code clone of Unix, that happens to be based of the Linux Kernel not the HURD Microkernel.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  7. Re:Risks by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Part of the reason why Cloud/SaaS/Remote Hosted/Time Shared software has gotten popularity, was due to working around restrictions in Open Source systems, such as the Anti-TiVo addition.

    Huh? How so? The only way this claim would be valid is if large amounts of FOSS software had actually adopted GPLv3. To date, not that much has, and certainly nothing really important. Linux is GPLv2 and always will be (it's impossible to get all the contributors to agree to a license change), PostgreSQL is BSD-licensed, Apache has the BSD-like Apache license, etc.

    The reason cloud/SaaS crap has gotten popular is simple: 1) software makers like it because it gives them a continuous revenue stream, so they just have to lock in the users and then they'll get monthly fees forever, and 2) these software makers target things that FOSS simply doesn't address very much or at all, such as specialized business software. Even Windows (OS) is trying to move to a SaaS model, and Adobe's been doing it for a while; it's all about being beneficial for the software companies. Users only do it because either they have little choice if they want to use that software, or they like the "low" monthly payments (and are too stupid to do basic math and realize they're paying more in the long run)., or they're running a business and thanks to wacky business accounting, it's easier to get the company to buy into a monthly service ad infinitum rather than shell out a higher one-time purchase fee (which is the same logic that makes businesses opt to lease expensive equipment rather than buy it, even though it costs them a lot more over time, but they don't care because it makes the short-term balance sheets look better and works better with taxes because they can deduct the expense instead of having to take depreciation).

    Anyway, point is, FOSS licensing has absolutely nothing to do with the popularity of SaaS and cloud services; that's completely ridiculous.