The FSF Is 30 Years Old; Where Should They Go From Here? (fsf.org)

To do by SeriousTube · 2016-01-09 06:57 · Score: 5, Funny

Get Hurd done.

Re:To do by unixisc · 2016-01-09 09:38 · Score: 1

Best comment EVAR!!! Seriously, fork Minix and get HURD done. Or, if they don't want to be contaminated by BSD licensed software, work w/ Poeterring to expand systemd into kerneld - make it microkernel, and get the entire systemd suite on it - including editord, under the GPL3 or even AGPL3 license. After that, put emacs on top of it, and they'll have everything they need.
Re:To do by unixisc · 2016-01-09 09:40 · Score: 1

But Linux kernel is not theirs, and all they do there is strip out any 'non-Free' stuff in the kernel, such as 'binary-blobs' that would make things WORK. Rather than that, why not do something that they BUILD from scratch, which they can bless w/ the GPL3 or AGPL3 license?
Re:To do by jellomizer · 2016-01-09 10:26 · Score: 1

The problem with ideals, is they are never 100% accomplished, at best your ideal ends up as a major influencing force. But the problem with ideals, is that real life problems get in the way and makes things complex.
The FSF problem isn't that they have noble ideas, but the idea of Free Software, gets in the way to making a career writing software. Now some software you can make a good living with following the ideals with FSF, however other software product it just won't work.
The traditional Software Development (Closed source): You make the software then you sell copies. Simple enough, you just need to make sure that others are not copying your work, thus digging into your funds that you will be using to grow the software and support it.
Consulting: This is all fine and good, assuming the software is Difficult to use, hard to configure, or has a large scope. Not all applications fill that roll.
Distribution: This was a good method back in the 1980's and 1990's but with most of the population with over 1mbs connection, downloading FSF from other sources makes it difficult to make money off of.
Donations: There are some groups that can get donations, however you may have good and important software, that just isn't targeted towards enough people to get the donations to keep it going.
Mixed-License: This works, however it really distorts the ideal of FSF. By saying here you go Free Software but if you want to use it differently then you gonna need to pay up.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:To do by unixisc · 2016-01-09 13:59 · Score: 2

That is a problem w/ not just liberated software, but also open source software, the way it's defined by the OSI. Way around it is shared source - that is when you sell your software, you provide the sources w/ it as well. However, you disallow further downstream distribution. This goes against the ideals of both groups, but it solves the problem of vendor lock in, while protecting the revenue streams of people who wrote that software for a career
Re:To do by ale2011 · 2016-01-10 05:59 · Score: 1

It's not easy to do software for a career. In most cases, it's not the programmer who earns the big bucks. Programmers are deprived of their inventions by assuming they are writing at their employer's dictation. OTOH, users are forced to run obsolete software because upgrades require paying anew. Software producers who adopt the free software model help both ways.
I'm not saying the free software model is easy, but we already tried proprietary software. Perhaps, software is just too complex to fit a simple law of supply and demand. So, what stops us from trying alternatives? It looks as if it is the fear of not earning as much money as possible otherwise. Greed. Not programmers' or users', but money makers' greed, as with any other business. Please consider the environment before using proprietary software...
Re:To do by unixisc · 2016-01-10 06:35 · Score: 1

I agree w/ Open Source principles (not liberated software). The idea that one should use software that one has the sources to, so that in the event of either a migration or maintenance after an EOL of the software by its original ISV, the consumer can continue to run that software on newer hardware. Imagine if OpenVMS had been FOSS, so that after the demise of the Alpha, a customer could have potentially migrated all that to, say, a Power box from IBM. Or if Windows 7 was FOSS. That way, you're not forced to migrate to a Windows 8 or Windows 10 just b'cos Microsoft wants you, or you're not forced to buy an Itanic or an x64 just b'cos HP wants you to.
Where I break ranks is the requirement that a software author has to allow REDISTRIBUTION of his software. THAT is the killer here. If his customer is allowed to GIVE AWAY what the ISV has written, that dilutes the potential market. What I support is something b/w shared source and open source - that is require the distribution of source code alongside the binaries whenever software changes hands, but allow the DENIAL of redistribution or subsequent competition. That's a win-win: the customer gets the sources to the code so that even if the ISV goes belly up down the road, the customer can hire its own developers and continue to finetune the software according to their needs. At the same time, the ISV doesn't lose further opportunities, since this customer can't REDISTRIBUTE - either for free or for a price - either the original or even modified version of that software w/o the ISV's consent. Oh, and one more thing - I support there being an unlimited number of seats as far as running that software goes.
Re:To do by ale2011 · 2016-01-10 11:19 · Score: 1

Where I break ranks is the requirement that a software author has to allow REDISTRIBUTION of his software. THAT is the killer here.
I see your point. However, constraining redistribution of software may become impractical. Let me explain myself by example. I recall a study on Literary machines before the advent of WWW. It was hypertext, with provisions for per-access micropayment. HTML was much simpler and straightforward, so it won.
What about redistribution of profits? I'm not advocating communism, it has already been tried and failed. I don't have a solution at hand. Yet, it seems to me that software is more important to mankind than the current establishment. Aristocracy passed and nobody regrets. Now we have a different ruling class, based on earning money by selling goods and services. It will pass too. Software won't. How about helping such transition?
Re:To do by exomondo · 2016-01-10 14:12 · Score: 1

Please face reality. It may have been a nice idea, but obviously, after all this time, will never become practical. Better to concentrate on the rest of their software, and the Linux kernel.
But as the computing environment evolves we see changes that require the FSF provisions needing to evolve in such a way as to satisfy their mission, for example the GPLv3 and the AGPL. The Linux kernel is not an FSF project, while it is licensed under the GPLv2 there is preamble that overrides some GPL provisions with regard to proprietary software. It is not a vehicle for the FSF's ideology, it isn't GPLv3 chiefly because Torvalds disagrees with the FSF's position on Tivoization (and also because it doesn't do copyright assignment to the FSF).
If the FSF wants to stay relevant in the current and future computing environments they need to build a system atop a core that reflects its ideals, not one that is - at least partially - opposed to them and not interested in being an FSF project.

They should rename their OS to COW by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 06:57 · Score: 1, Interesting

You are all GNU. GNU says GNUUUU! GNUUUUUU! GNUUUUUU gnus GNUUUUU! GNUUUUU says the unix OS. YOU OPERATING SYSTEM DEVELOPERS!!!

Huh? by Hognoxious · 2016-01-09 06:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm not sure how UX issues are part of their remit any more than child labour or bees dying are.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Re:Huh? by westlake · 2016-01-09 07:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm not sure how UX issues are part of their remit any more than child labour or bees dying are.
The user experience is make or break.
The geek ought at least to have learned by now that "free as in beer or free as in freedom" is not a driving force for most users.
Re:Huh? by thejam · 2016-01-09 09:19 · Score: 1

The geek ought at least to have learned by now that "free as in beer or free as in freedom" is not a driving force for most users.
RMS understood this from the beginning, but from his experience in the early days of MIT's AI lab, he saw the value of (software) freedom, and expended a heroic amount of effort in demonstrating the value and plausibility of this freedom (by jump-starting it with his own implementations), when most others thought proprietary was the only way to go. He has succeeded beyond imagination, at least for server software, wherein UX is less an issue. Now with Android, even end user-facing applications have reasonable UX.
Re:Huh? by unixisc · 2016-01-09 09:42 · Score: 1

Isn't the GNOME project under their extended umbrella, since GNOME stood for GNU Networked Object Model Environment? Granted, the Networked Object Model Environment aspect has been dead for many years, but ain't it still GNU? If yes, then can't the FSF decide what GNOME should look like, and whether it satisfies their goals of total freedom i.e. GPL3?
Re:Huh? by AmiMoJo · 2016-01-09 11:28 · Score: 1

What they call anti-patterns, or deceptive UIs that trick the user into acting against their own interests. For example, a prominent UK electrical retailer (Currys) will add an expensive and crappy iPad case to your basket automatically if you try to buy an iPad. You didn't ask for it, and they are hoping you didn't notice it and just won't return it.
By the way, the law says that when returning stuff like that you only need to return the item itself, not the original packaging, so be sure to destroy that so they can't just pass it to the next person who got scammed. Often you can just wrap it in parcel tape to avoid spending money on packing materials.
The FSF takes a stand against things like DRM, this is no different.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Huh? by armanox · 2016-01-09 13:07 · Score: 1

Yes and no. I think GNOME, while it is technically a GNU project, answers to the GNOME foundation rather then GNU these days, and most of the developers working on GNOME work for Red Hat.

--
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
Re:Huh? by unixisc · 2016-01-09 18:16 · Score: 1

Android has nothing to do w/ anything RMS did. Google put in the investment and effort to get UX experts design it, so that it's easy to use. The 'community' could have done something like that while putting together things like KDE, GNOME, GNUSTEP, et al
Re:Huh? by Bengie · 2016-01-10 02:23 · Score: 1

"free as in beer xor free as in freedom"
Fixed. You can't have both.
Re:Huh? by Hognoxious · 2016-01-10 22:47 · Score: 1

Well it's the same in that you don't like it and it involves computers.
I suppose that you could drive your car to the polo club, therefore BMW should make saddles. See, I can do tenuous too.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Copyleft is important. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 07:02 · Score: 1

I'm not trying to be a troll for the ongoing license flamewar, but copyleft licenses are still insufficiently understood--even among coders.
A lot of what FSF talks about is digital freedoms in general, but I'd like to see them focus more on the realities of copyleft.
When you write your own code, it's your choice what license to release it under. We should all understand the copyleft options, in order to make an informed choice.

Re:Copyleft is important. by tepples · 2016-01-09 07:18 · Score: 1

Then the FSF would appreciate your feedback on what the license recommendations and GPL FAQ pages leave unclear.
Re:Copyleft is important. by ray-auch · 2016-01-09 08:44 · Score: 1

They leave unclear and unanswered _why_ there is a clause in GPLv3 that applies _only_ to a specific class of products.
If the Tivo clause is necessary to ensure user's freedoms, then why does it only apply to a class of products / users:

(1) a “consumer product”, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling.

Or, conversely, why do business / professional users get less protection, why is there effectively a field-of-use restriction in the licence (where it is more restrictive in one field of use) ?
If it is there to ensure freedom, why do only some users get the benefit, and if it is not then why is it there at all ?
Re:Copyleft is important. by tepples · 2016-01-09 10:15 · Score: 1

Google gplv3 "user product" brought me the article "GPLv3, User Products Clause" by Allison Randal, which links to the GPLv3 rationale document (PDF). However, the explanation to which Randal's article refers is in rationale for draft 3 (PDF), not rationale for draft 4 (PDF), to which the link to the rationale currently redirects. For convenience, I quote the relevant excerpt from the rationale for draft 3 here:

In our discussions with companies and governments that use specialized
or enterprise-level computer facilities, we found that sometimes these or-
ganizations actually want their systems not to be under their own control.
Rather than agreeing to this as a concession, or bowing to pressure, they
ask for this as a preference. It is not clear that we need to interfere, and the
main problem lies elsewhere.
While imposing technical barriers to modification is wrong regardless of
circumstances, the areas where restricted devices are of the greatest practical
concern today fall within the User Product definition. Most, if not all,
technically-restricted devices running GPL-covered programs are consumer
electronics devices, and we expect that to remain true in the near future.
Moreover, the disparity in clout between the manufacturers and these users
makes it difficult for the users to reject technical restrictions through their
weak and unorganized market power. Even if limited to User Products, as
defined in Draft 3, the provision still does the job that needs to be done.
Therefore we have decided to limit the technical restrictions provisions to
User Products in this draft.
And it's not a restriction on a particular field of use; it's a requirement for distribution in a particular form, namely preinstallation in a device. It's not much different from the requirement in GPLv2 to provide "scripts used to control compilation and installation" (my emphasis).
Re:Copyleft is important. by ray-auch · 2016-01-12 09:56 · Score: 1

Not in the license recommendations or the FAQ though is it - which was the point.
I'm aware of the passage from 3rd draft (which is not in the final rationale), as far as I am concerned it is a sell out to big corporate lobbyists. It basically says: some big corporate suppliers and users thought the status-quo (tivo-allowed) was the correct interpretation and therefore we'll exempt them from requirement to give their users this freedom. Seems some users are more free than others ? I wonder if they asked any of the end-user consumers who thought tivos interpretation was correct, or do those users not count because they are not big-corp? I wonder if they spoke to any small business users (the vast majority of businesses are small after all) about whether or not there saw any "disparity in clout" if they had a say half-million budget and were negotiating with, say, SAP, or Oracle ?
The final rationale says something about extending the provision (another incompatible GPL version and further balkanisation of the GPL world) if problems appear in currently exempted areas. Wonder what the big corporate lobbyists thought of that - "well we'd better be good" or "right we've bought a few years to get ourselves off this GPL stuff" ? Who they were is left unsaid, but various possible suspects are currently now pushing LLVM etc.
And it is not "a requirement for distribution in a particular form, namely preinstallation in a device.", it is "a requirement for distribution in a particular form, namely preinstallation in a device in one field of use" - devices in other fields of use being conveniently exempt from compliance. If you can't comply (say because of contractual, legal or regulatory obligations) then it is a field of use restriction.

Focus on what they do best by 110010001000 · 2016-01-09 07:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

They need to fight the coming tide of walled gardens and closed systems. The availability of freely programmable general computers is not guaranteed. We are seeing a rush towards closed systems like iOS and Android and corporate controlled app/software stores with signed code. I hope in 25 years end user programmable computers will still be affordable and widely available with access to the Internet.

Re:Focus on what they do best by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 08:01 · Score: 1

Closed systems are caused by:
1- Companies putting together largely open source software licensed with BSD and LGPL with a bit of proprietary cement.
2- Companies going SaaS, and thus using the GPL saas-loophole to close source their software.
The solution is more AGPL adoption.
But of course this does not address the bigger problem of data management (ex. client data usage and retention), user privacy, etc. This level of obscurity cannot be addressed by the FSF..
Re:Focus on what they do best by unixisc · 2016-01-09 09:50 · Score: 1

They need to fight the coming tide of walled gardens and closed systems. The availability of freely programmable general computers is not guaranteed. We are seeing a rush towards closed systems like iOS and Android and corporate controlled app/software stores with signed code. I hope in 25 years end user programmable computers will still be affordable and widely available with access to the Internet.
How exactly is that Replicant project coming along?
Re:Focus on what they do best by phantomfive · 2016-01-09 09:56 · Score: 1

Good answer.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Focus on what they do best by grumbel · 2016-01-09 10:16 · Score: 1

Not disagreeing on the overall point, one problem however with the Free Software world is that those fights often go into the wrong direction. Take the app model on iOS and Android, on one side it's a framework that is used to provide a walled garden, on the other side the clean isolation of apps from each other drastically reduces the potential for abuse and in turn provides a flourishing ecosystem of applications. On your average Free Software system by contrast you always have to worry about a 'make install' wreaking havoc, as there is no limit to what it can do. If you run a program you hand your system over to that program, you are no longer in control, you have to trust the software to do the right thing. This goes wrong all the time without even malicious intent, a wrong library here or there and stuff will break.
On the OLPC, which had a similar isolation model for apps, there was this idea of having a 'source' button on the keyboard, you could press it and it automatically jump you to the source code. You could modify things without wreaking havoc and you could share your modified apps with your friends with a click of a button. It never got fully implemented from what I understand, but as a concept it's still an incredible interesting idea for how Free Software should work. A system bulid from the ground up to encourage modification instead of a system where modifications are complicated, time consuming and dangerous. If people here of a new cool app on iOS and Android, they can try it with a few button presses. On a Free Software system I head over to Github, see a long list of required dependencies and essentially give up at that point, as more often then not, it's just not worth the effort.
Instead of fighting against stuff, Free Software would do well focusing more on building the better system. A system where all the software is under a Free license should make it easier to share stuff, but instead it's often harder. All the freedom the license give doesn't really trickle down to the user.
This is just one example, there are plenty other areas, like the fight against Javascript. Javascript is not the enemy, it should be seen as a building block for the semantic web, as it allows to decouple the data from the presentation, something that HTML claimed to do, but completely failed to do in reality.
Re:Focus on what they do best by serviscope_minor · 2016-01-09 11:02 · Score: 1

On your average Free Software system by contrast you always have to worry about a 'make install' wreaking havoc
By what definition of average? I'll bet almost all free software systems have a working package manager. I don't have to worry about apt-get install doing dangerous stuff.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Focus on what they do best by grumbel · 2016-01-09 12:54 · Score: 1

I don't have to worry about apt-get install doing dangerous stuff.
Yes, but it does so by being a walled garden. The distri decides what goes into the repository, what version of the program and so on. As a user I can just consume what they provide me, my ability to change or object what they do is extremely limited and any more complex change will break the monolithic dependency tree. It's a system that violates everything Free Software should stands for, it works, but it doesn't give much freedom at all.
Re:Focus on what they do best by ChunderDownunder · 2016-01-09 13:17 · Score: 1

very slowly I believe, as it's the work of a single figure of volunteers and whatever handsets they use or have donated.
Seems like an obvious candidate for crowdfunding - make a deal with Broadcom and produce a phone for under $100 piggybacking off the r Pi community to help work on the drivers.
Re:Focus on what they do best by bug1 · 2016-01-09 13:42 · Score: 1

They need to fight the coming tide of walled gardens and closed systems
Agreed, i think they need a "free system" licence that articulates their "respects your freedom" hardware certification.
Bring out a licence that allows developers to exclusively work for those who care about freedom.
We need to accept that 'mere aggregation' is damaging to the future of free _sytems_, and can only ever lead to free isolated software components that form part of a system, with the choke points controlled by our adversaries.
(but yea, watch all the hate from the 'i just want free beer' crowd)
Re:Focus on what they do best by martin-boundary · 2016-01-09 15:05 · Score: 1

Are you for real? Open source platforms have long since abandoned "make install", with one or two exceptions. In fact, the "walled garden" metaphor was pioneered and developed by open source operating systems such as Debian (apt). The result was (and largely still is) a clean, virus free, simple installation framework. The commercial providers *copied* this idea because what they had was a cesspool. Even the concept of "distro" is precisely a curated collection of free software designed to seamlessly work with minimal fuss and offer a sampling of all the applications an ordinary person is likely to need.
Re:Focus on what they do best by serviscope_minor · 2016-01-09 22:36 · Score: 1

Yes, but it does so by being a walled garden.
No it isn't. You can side-load software using any other repository system if you like (see e.g. bedrock linux). You can freely add and remove apt repositories and host your own, so you can load (or not) your own software via the main system if you like.
my ability to change or object what they do is extremely limited and any more complex change will break the monolithic dependency tree
They provide complete sources. You can make a deep change and recompile the entire apt repository yourself from scratch with your change embedded, then install it where ever you like at any time for any reason and for no cost. Furthermore you can freely share that altered repository with anyone you like.
You have complete freedom to do what you will with it. No one is stopping you, you have to put in work, that's all. Complaining you're not free is like me claiming I'm not free to walk out of the city in which I live. I am never going to walk out. It's a long and not especially pleasant walk so I won't do it.
This is not like an iPhone where for example Apple put considerable effort into stopping you running your own browser.
It seems like you're really complaining that you can't change a library version and have all existing software still work... well no shit. The software depends on that library.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Focus on what they do best by grumbel · 2016-01-10 02:14 · Score: 1

Yes and I am also free to jailbreak an iPhone. Just because I can do it, doesn't mean that the system is welcoming to third party software. The monolithic dependency trees used in the Free Software world are worse then what you see in the proprietary world. With Windows, as messy at it is, installing third party software isn't difficult and Microsoft goes to great length to ensure backward and forward compatibility to OS released a decade ago. It's not always works out of course, but it's a lot better then Linux world where every distribution is incompatible to everything else and even to past and future versions of itself.
Re:Focus on what they do best by grumbel · 2016-01-10 02:26 · Score: 1

No it isn't. You can side-load software using any other repository system if you like (see e.g. bedrock linux).
Yes, I am free to not use the repository system that doesn't work, just like on iPhone or any other proprietary system. If I work around what the system offers then I gain more freedom. That's not a good thing, that's the problem. The repository system should be the very thing that gains me freedom, not the thing that gets in the way of it.

They provide complete sources.
Which are nearly worthless as the system doesn't provide a clean way for me to modify them and reintroduce them into the system. The next time I ran a upgrade my modification will be overwriting by the distribution. And when I put packages on hold or increase the epoch version I cut myself of from security updates and such. Repositories are not build for user modification, they are build around a central authority that provides everything and decides everything. The user can comply or switch to another distri that suffers from much the same problems.
Re:Focus on what they do best by grumbel · 2016-01-10 03:52 · Score: 1

Are you for real? Open source platforms have long since abandoned "make install", with one or two exceptions.
Virtually every single piece of Open Source software out there uses "make install". Your distribution wraps the result of that up in a package which you can cleanly install and uninstall, but that doesn't solve the fundamental problems with the concept of "make install" (i.e. single global name space into which all packages go, no way to install two different version of the same package, no relocation, etc.). It's a fundamentally flawed approach.

The result was (and largely still is) a clean, virus free, simple installation framework.
Yes and there is nothing wrong with reaching that goal, the problem is that they did it at the expensive of the users freedom. Distributions still have no good way of dealing with software that isn't provided by them.
Re:Focus on what they do best by serviscope_minor · 2016-01-10 04:42 · Score: 1

Yes, I am free to not use the repository system that doesn't work, just like on iPhone or any other proprietary system.
No, that's simplistic to the point of being deceptive. With apt you can hack it at every single level. You can add new repositories from other people (PPAs) you can create your own repositories (and share them with others), you can make your own dpkgs inside the main tree OR to install dependency free in /opt. You can side load and have multiple installed side by side.
No one makes even the slightest effort to prevent that, and some people actively encourage it. Bedrock Linux is in fact built entirely on the premise that you might want multiple different repositories installed on one machine. Nixos is built on the premise of a functional style packaging system which allows private user packages and multiple versions as a natural consequence of how it's designed.
Even without those you can do it yourself very easily. I have build scripts which create temporary chroot ubuntu installs of various versions (with caching!) so I can get fully automatic repeatable builds of a package I distribute. It builds against 10.04 and 12.04 for compatibility with old systems on my 14.04 machine.
On the iPhone, you have to root it in order to side load in almost all cases, and Apple actively prevent you from doing that by patching root exploits when they happen.
Are you really, honestly claiming that those two systems are more or less the same and that the former is a walled garden where someone is acting to prevent you from doing things?
Which are nearly worthless as the system doesn't provide a clean way for me to modify them and reintroduce them into the system.
Except it does. Grab the source package of the package of interest. Modify the code and make a new dpkg, RPM, tar.xz or whatever. Then use the package manager to install the new package to upgrade whatever the existing version is to the new one. I have literally done this my self AND used repositories where other people have done this for me (e.g. using libreoffice latest version tracking PPA in ubuntu, rather than the default system version).
Or grab the source, and configure && make && make install in a sandbox/VM, then copy the files back over. Now that VMs and containers are really easily available, this has become particularly easy, much easier than it was 5 or 10 years ago on Linux (smug FreeBSD users got jails 15 years ago).
Repositories are not build for user modification, they are build around a central authority that provides everything and decides everything.
Oh. Today I learned apt-add-repository and the AUR don't exist. Funny, I could have sworn I used both of those...
Basically, you're wrong. You can't just attack packages willy-nilly, especially core components and expect everything to work perfectly together. That doesn't mean they're closed to user modifications (they are manifestly not), it means that you need to take some degree of care.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Focus on what they do best by Dog-Cow · 2016-01-10 21:07 · Score: 1

Freedom doesn't mean "make it easy". You are just a self-absorbed asshole.
Re:Focus on what they do best by grumbel · 2016-01-11 02:11 · Score: 1

There are two components to software freedom:
1) Being legally allowed to make a change or redistribute something
2) Having the realistic possibility to make use of freedoms granted in 1)
Number 2) is why the GPL exist, as the pure legality to make a change isn't enough, you also need access to source code and build files to make it practical and those are required by the GPL. The problem arises when the build files don't work, when the dependencies don't match and stuff just doesn't work. That to me is a clear violation of the principles behind 2). If I get the source code and am unable to reproduce the binary then something is very obviously wrong.
Re:Focus on what they do best by grumbel · 2016-01-11 02:21 · Score: 1

You can add new repositories from other people (PPAs) you can create your own repositories (and share them with others), you can make your own dpkgs inside the main tree OR to install dependency free in /opt. You can side load and have multiple installed side by side.
Yes I can and in doing so I will wreak havoc to the monolithic dependency tree. There is no way to do a simple task such as installing two different version of the same package via apt. The system isn't build with that flexibility in mind.

I have build scripts which create temporary chroot ubuntu installs of various versions (with caching!) so I can get fully automatic repeatable builds of a package I distribute.
Yes and that is the problem. You had to literally abandon your main OS and reinstall a new one to get dependable behavior. That is a failure of the OS, not a feature.

Or grab the source, and configure && make && make install in a sandbox/VM,
Again, you are working around the system. The ability to completely by pass the package manager and doing things the manual way is not an argument for the package manager being good, it's the very reason why it's crap.

Oh. Today I learned apt-add-repository and the AUR don't exist.
Those fuck around with the monolithic dependency tree and cause trouble all the time. The package management system has no means to keep third party apps in a separate namespace.
Re:Focus on what they do best by serviscope_minor · 2016-01-11 03:00 · Score: 1

Yes I can and in doing so I will wreak havoc to the monolithic dependency tree.
No you don't. This is 100% absolutely wrong.
I'm running 14.04 happily with a bunch of PPAs. I have gcc5 PPA, I have the libreoffice fresh PPA and one or two others. It works perfectly fine and there is no wrecking of the monolithic dependency tree, and regular updated happen just fine.
There is no way to do a simple task such as installing two different version of the same package via apt.
It's not trivial, no, but it's by no means impossible and not even that hard. I have compilers installed from 10.04, 12.04, 14.04 and the gcc5 PPA installed on this machine, all using apt. The former two are in two different chroot environments.
es and that is the problem. You had to literally abandon your main OS and reinstall a new one to get dependable behavior.
???
No, it's because I want to be able to go to any random linux machine and type one single command to get a repeatable build with zero fucking around. It's one of the first rules of good development: one single command to build a shippable executable. It will even work on an arch, gentoo or deadrat machine if I grab the dbootstrap script.
That is good practice.
Again, you are working around the system.
No, because the system allows and heck even encourages such things. It's not "working around" if yopu're using standard features as advertised. This is why it's not a walled garden.
The ability to completely by pass the package manager and doing things the manual way is not an argument for the package manager being good, it's the very reason why it's crap.
If you insist...
Those fuck around with the monolithic dependency tree and cause trouble all the time.
(a) no they don't and (b) no they don't.
The package management system has no means to keep third party apps in a separate namespace.
???
If they're fully third party and carry their own dependencies, then they don't really need to go through the package manager since there's nothing to be managed. So, stick them in /opt and have done with it. Nonetheless, some package managers do explictly allow such things, such as nixos.
But again it's not a "walled garden" because no measures are taken to stop you doing that.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Focus on what they do best by grumbel · 2016-01-11 06:06 · Score: 1

I'm running 14.04 happily with a bunch of PPAs. I have gcc5 PPA, I have the libreoffice fresh PPA and one or two others. It works perfectly fine and there is no wrecking of the monolithic dependency tree, and regular updated happen just fine.
How cute. You have three PPAs and call that proof that the system works? Try that again at the scale of the Apple or Android stores where you have to deal with a million apps from third parties.
PPAs plug into the monolithic dependency tree, there is absolutely zero tooling in place to ensure that they don't break things. The only reason why things don't break often is because people work very hard behind the scenes to keep things running. The monolithic dependency tree is essentially the Linux version of Window's "DLL Hell".

It's not trivial, no, but it's by no means impossible and not even that hard. I have compilers installed from 10.04, 12.04, 14.04 and the gcc5 PPA installed on this machine, all using apt. The former two are in two different chroot environments. That is good practice.
Yes, because your OS is garbage. Chroots and virtual machines are a workaround for crappy OSs that are incapable of giving you reproducible and verifiable behavior.

No, because the system allows and heck even encourages such things.
Yes, in much the same way as a broken car encourages repair.

This is why it's not a walled garden.
There is one monolithic dependency tree. Your distri controls it.
Take a simple everyday example: You want to install software "foobar", so you do "apt-get install foobar". Awesome, takes three seconds and you are done. That's how it should be. But now "foobar" release a brand new version and you want to use it right now, but distri won't have it for another release for six month. So what do you do now? Wait for somebody to build a PPA? Grab the sources of the .deb and patch them up to the newest version? ./configure && make directly from source? All of this is possible, all of this works. All of this is also a thousand times more complicated then "apt-get install foobar". Just like a jailbreak. Your distris won't stop you from leaving it's walled garden, but it won't give you much of a helping hand either.
Re:Focus on what they do best by serviscope_minor · 2016-01-11 13:14 · Score: 1

You have three PPAs and call that proof that the system works? Try that again at the scale of the Apple or Android stores where you have to deal with a million apps from third parties.
The apps do not carry dependencies with respect to each other. PPAs which don't carry dependencies with respect to each other also scal arbitrarily. Are you claiming otherwise and do you have any evidence for your claim?
PPAs plug into the monolithic dependency tree, there is absolutely zero tooling in place to ensure that they don't break things. The only reason why things don't break often is because people work very hard behind the scenes to keep things running. The monolithic dependency tree is essentially the Linux version of Window's "DLL Hell".
No it isn't. You have no idea what you're talking about. It is perfectly easy to ship self-contained packages which carry all dependncies. There is no dll hell.
Yes, because your OS is garbage. Chroots and virtual machines are a workaround for crappy OSs that are incapable of giving you reproducible and verifiable behavior.
Wait so because my OS provides facilities where I can get reproducable behaviour it's crappy because I ger reporducable behaviour?
lolwut?
Tell me, what facilities does YOUR OS provide so that you can roll up to an almost random machine, check out your repo, type one command, and get reproducable builds?
There is one monolithic dependency tree. Your distri controls it.
Except (a) there isn't and (b) there still isn't. Between the various chroots, the stuff in /opt and the stuff in /usr/local it's just plain dumb to claim there's a single monolithic dependency tree.
Take a simple everyday example: You want to install software "foobar", so you do "apt-get install foobar". Awesome, takes three seconds and you are done. That's how it should be.
Yep!
But now "foobar" release a brand new version and you want to use it right now, but distri won't have it for another release for six month. So what do you do now? Wait for somebody to build a PPA? Grab the sources of the .deb and patch them up to the newest version? ./configure && make directly from source? All of this is possible, all of this works.
Yes, yes it does. That's nice I have options. You've also missed a bunch.
All of this is also a thousand times more complicated then "apt-get install foobar".
Uh...
sudo apt-add repository foobar-ppa
sudo apt-get install foobar
That's like totally a thousand times harder.
And there's also the option of providing a .dpkg which dumps it into /opt. That's very easy.
Or just untar it in to /opt.
So many single command options.
Just like a jailbreak.
You literally cannot see the difference btween an open system where you can do what you want and a closed system where (a) you cannot and (b) the manufacturer will close any routes if they find them. This is amazing.
Your distris won't stop you from leaving it's walled garden,
Then it's not a walled garden. Apple prevent you very actively from leaving.
but it won't give you much of a helping hand either.
You know, other than providing the whole PPA mechanism specifically for leaving. And the debootstrap script so I can leave via a different route with a single command. And the chroot command. And the whole LXC infrastructure. And the compiler tools so I can complile source packages.
So yes apart from the huge heaps of facilities they provide to let me leave they don't help at all.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.

Easy. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 07:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

And how miserable could things get?

Mobile-centric (we're already headed there) with mandatory identification tied together through the bullshit of a combined arms effort of Facebook-Google-Apple.

UX to increase user base, in turn for HW compat by tepples · 2016-01-09 07:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

If UX of a free application is worse on the whole than UX of the more popular proprietary alternatives, improving free software UX may increase the user base. In more concrete terms, there might be more GIMP users if GIMP were as easy to learn as Photoshop. User base is important because only the economies of scale associated with user base can make hardware makers willing to ensure that their products are compatible with GNU/Linux or other free operating systems.

Re:UX to increase user base, in turn for HW compat by MacTO · 2016-01-09 08:18 · Score: 2

While it is important for FLOSS developers to look at UX, the vast majority of FLOSS has nothing to do with the FSF beyond using their license agreement. UX has also been outside the scope of FSF efforts, and choosing to put more emphasis on it is bound to alienate a lot of their supporters.
So yes, look at UX. Yet choose the right people for the job.
Re:UX to increase user base, in turn for HW compat by stephanruby · 2016-01-09 09:15 · Score: 2

In more concrete terms, there might be more GIMP users if GIMP were as easy to learn as Photoshop.
Adobe Photoshop is easy to learn? Seriously? Hopefully, Gimp developers can do better than Photoshop in terms of usability. In my opinion, both Gimp and Photoshop are very difficult to learn.
And the only app that's breaking new ground in terms of usability is Inkscape (not that Inkscape is a substitute for either Photoshop or Gimp, it's not, but it's becoming better and more usable than all the other proprietary vector graphics alternatives).
Re:UX to increase user base, in turn for HW compat by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 09:24 · Score: 1

As someone who tried to learn gimp, then bought PS, PS is far, far easier to learn than GIMP. Not having the worst fucking GUI paradigm ever helps quite a bit.
Re:UX to increase user base, in turn for HW compat by unixisc · 2016-01-09 09:43 · Score: 1

But ain't GNOME a GNU project?
Re:UX to increase user base, in turn for HW compat by MrKrillls · 2016-01-09 10:14 · Score: 1

The way I see it Gimp and PS both have awful interfaces and are both a handful to learn. But, photoshop has a larger and more professional set of tutorials from outside the project, like videos on youtube etc. Gimp suffers from having fewer tutorials and a generally lower quality level. The two are similar enough though that I just look for the best tutorial for my needs, from either program, and then figure out how to adapt the results to what I'm using.

--
Don't step on the baby.
Re:UX to increase user base, in turn for HW compat by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 10:46 · Score: 1

GNOME is more of a Red Hat project.
And I'm not entirely convinced they're aware that they have users!
Re:UX to increase user base, in turn for HW compat by stephanruby · 2016-01-09 12:31 · Score: 1

As someone who tried to learn gimp, then bought PS, PS is far, far easier to learn than GIMP.
I guess I didn't want to risk buying, if I wasn't able to learn how to use it during its free 30-day trial.

Not having the worst fucking GUI paradigm ever helps quite a bit.
It's not the worst. Blender is the worst. This is not to criticize the capabilities of Blender. I have huge respect for the project itself. It's just that its usability is truly the worst.
I guess you could say Gimp is second worst, but I really don't think that Photoshop is that far behind in terms of usability. After all, people have gotten used to the Macromedia tools and the Adobe tools (thanks to company-sponsored piracy of their own tools). But now that option is pretty much gone. I must be blind, but I don't see any reason of why Photoshop might be easier to learn than Gimp.
Re:UX to increase user base, in turn for HW compat by armanox · 2016-01-09 13:04 · Score: 1

I'm not sure that I would call Adobe products 'easy to learn' - I learned how to use Photoshop and Pagemaker while I was in school (running on System 7.....wow that was a long time ago). When I got into GIMP I bought a book (just like I have/had books on using Windows desktop, Linux desktop, Sharepoint, Drupal, etc; from across the years of adding new skills) to guide me,

--
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
Re:UX to increase user base, in turn for HW compat by Hognoxious · 2016-01-09 23:51 · Score: 1

As MacTO points out below, the connection is peripheral at best. If their name was the FSTETUF you might have a point.
P.S. Do you have some phobia about definite articles?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:UX to increase user base, in turn for HW compat by squiggleslash · 2016-01-10 01:34 · Score: 1

GIMP isn't harder to use than Photoshop, it's just both hard to use (in the same way Photoshop is because it's a large complex powerful application) and different from Photoshop, so people evaluating it as a Photoshop replacement inevitably find it "harder to use" because they have to learn how to use it all over again.
Believe me, if most people used GIMP and then had to evaluate Photoshop they'd be complaining about the Photoshop UI.
As someone above pointed out, simply cloning the competitors UI isn't going to help here - see Mozilla. Nor would "simplifying the UI", that would just mean users would desert the application in droves as it'd no longer do what they want - see GNOME 3 for a case study in how not to do it.
You can probably tweak the UI so it's a little easier to use, but I'm not sure such tweaking would ever solve the "People are used to Photoshops UI" problem.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:UX to increase user base, in turn for HW compat by ale2011 · 2016-01-10 06:22 · Score: 1

As someone who tried to learn gimp, then bought PS, PS is far, far easier to learn than GIMP.
I guess I didn't want to risk buying, if I wasn't able to learn how to use it during its free 30-day trial.
I had bought the whole suite, Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver and LiveMotion. Hard to learn, hard to upgrade, overly slow because of ubiquitous scripts. Switching to Gimp, Inkscape, Gedit, Tex, and other compatible stuff was such a relief!
Yes, one has to be a bit cuter. That's not the kind of software to spoon feed its users. In return, learning yields the ability to choose one's own food.
Re:UX to increase user base, in turn for HW compat by exomondo · 2016-01-10 14:46 · Score: 1

That's what we now call "the Mozilla fallacy". If you change your UX to mimic a competitor, you will lose your current userbase, instead of attracting the competitor's.
He didn't suggest they copy the competitor's, he suggested they improve their own if users find the experience of using that software to be poor.

The other falacy you're committing is "new is better".
No, he didn't say new. He quite clearly said that if people find the user experience worse on the free software than on the proprietary software then such a thing should be improved. This could mean going back to the old Firefox UI or from the GNOME3 UI back to GNOME2 style for example.

I'm not saying that all UX changes are bad, but people get tired of yet another "let's move everything around for no apparent reason".
His suggestion was to improve it if it is identified to be poor, not just "move everything around for no apparent reason".
Re:UX to increase user base, in turn for HW compat by exomondo · 2016-01-10 14:50 · Score: 1

As someone above pointed out, simply cloning the competitors UI isn't going to help here - see Mozilla.
Mozilla's problem wasn't that people found it hard to use, in fact before Chrome most users were using Firefox and then switched to Chrome - in spite of the fact that they had to go with a different UI - because it was better.
Re:UX to increase user base, in turn for HW compat by dolmen.fr · 2016-01-11 05:48 · Score: 1

UX has also been outside the scope of FSF efforts
The first published software of the FSF / GNU was GNU Emacs. Can you really assert that user interface is outside the scope of a text editor?
Re:UX to increase user base, in turn for HW compat by malditaenvidia · 2016-01-20 09:12 · Score: 1

You better be joking, surely you don't use many keyboard shortcuts if you think Mac OSX is more usable than windows in any way, shape or form.

Make Defensive Publication Possible Again! by nomentanus · 2016-01-09 07:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

Having watched inventions wander away from me and become private (first to the patent office with a whole bunch of cash now wins thanks to changes to U.S. law) I know how vital defensive publication is. Now I see that the OIN and linuxdefenders.org related defensive publication service defensivepublications.org has been discontinued. The website still exists, but won't take further submissions if you try to submit them. Without being able to keep open inventions open, we're in a heap of trouble. I'd like to see easy, reliable, court-provable defensive publication come first. I am suppressing several inventions right now that I believe would greatly benefit open source (etc) because such a service doesn't exist; as I wait until it does exist again. That's all I can do on my budget right now.

I know their direction... by Lumpy · 2016-01-09 07:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

They need to hire more lobbyists and lawyers. get people to actually band together to be members and scare the hell out of the congress critters that are hell bent on being the enemies of the people and work only for their corporate masters.

congress is afraid, deathly afraid of the NRA.... we need to get the FSF at the same level of fear.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Re:I know their direction... by tepples · 2016-01-09 07:44 · Score: 2

A 501c3 charity can't hire lobbyists. Did you mean FSF should affiliate itself with a PAC, much as NORML Foundation (a charity) and NORML PAC are affiliated?
Re:I know their direction... by colinrichardday · 2016-01-10 04:33 · Score: 1

But the courts have ruled that encryption is weaponry.

Let 'em eat Pi by tepples · 2016-01-09 07:25 · Score: 2

The availability of freely programmable general computers is not guaranteed. We are seeing a rush towards closed systems like iOS

The last couple times that argument was made (by betterunixthanunix and AC), the answer was "let 'em eat Pi" (AC and BasilBrush). What makes you see a rush away from things like Raspberry Pi and Arduino?

and Android

The last time I read the Android Compatibility Definition (CDD), it required all Android devices with Google Play to accept self-signed applications through adb install.

Re:Let 'em eat Pi by 110010001000 · 2016-01-09 07:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

Android is still a closed walled system. There is a rush towards closed systems and it is gaining momentum. There isn't a rush away from Pi or Arduino, but there isn't a guarantee that such systems will remain available forever. I can see a day when ISPs start requiring "approved hardware" in order to connect to their networks for example. I can also see a day when Google starts requiring Google approved apps and turns off the adb install route. It may not be today, or tomorrow, but it is a threat.
Re:Let 'em eat Pi by 110010001000 · 2016-01-09 07:52 · Score: 1

Because Google is your new ISP and Google makes ChromeOS devices. You need a ChromeOS device to get on the Google network. Don't think that can happen? Microsoft planned to do this type of thing in the 1980s until the Internet foiled their plans. It is a great revenue stream.
Re:Let 'em eat Pi by 110010001000 · 2016-01-09 07:56 · Score: 1

But everyone is buying "their" product. That is why Android/iPhones are everywhere and open phones are not.
Re:Let 'em eat Pi by tepples · 2016-01-09 08:04 · Score: 3, Informative

Android is still a closed walled system.
How so? Android is free software. Or by Android did you mean Google Play?

I can see a day when ISPs start requiring "approved hardware" in order to connect to their networks for example.
Back in 2005 or so, users such as Alsee were predicting that home Internet access would be locked down using Trusted Network Connect by 2015. It's 2016 now.
Re:Let 'em eat Pi by westlake · 2016-01-09 08:17 · Score: 2

What makes you see a rush away from things like Raspberry Pi and Arduino?
The boards appeal to the system builders, the technical hobbyists, a very small segment of the population. There are 700,000 ham radio operators in the U.S. 327 million cell phones.
Re:Let 'em eat Pi by thinkwaitfast · 2016-01-09 09:47 · Score: 1

What can 327million people do that 700,000 can't? The panama canal was built with tens of thousands of people. NASA employs 18,000 and spacex fewer than 5,000. Why o you have to win to be relevant?
Re:Let 'em eat Pi by tepples · 2016-01-09 09:55 · Score: 2

What can 327million people do that 700,000 can't?
Constitute a sufficiently large market to enable enough economies of scale to convince peripheral makers to support it rather than making peripherals compatible only with Macs and Windows PCs.
Re:Let 'em eat Pi by 110010001000 · 2016-01-09 09:59 · Score: 1

Android isn't Free software. It is controlled by Google, Inc. It may be free, but it ain't Free.
Re:Let 'em eat Pi by tepples · 2016-01-09 10:20 · Score: 1

I agree with you that Android's development model is too cathedral-like for some critics. But I was referring to the free software licenses that apply to the operating system (apart from Google Play). Linux and OpenJDK are under the GNU GPL version 2. Most of the rest of Android Open Source Project is under the Apache license.
Re:Let 'em eat Pi by Anonymuous+Coward · 2016-01-09 10:40 · Score: 1

How so? Android is free software.

No, it's not.
I'm yet to see an affordable android device that doesn't require proprietary drivers for video, gps, etc.
Even after "rooting" your device with some dubious "tools" downloaded from warez-like sites or by scouring fulldisclosure and writing your own exploit, most of the time you won't be able to install a modified system; for all intents and purposes it's a pure proprietary device.
Or "tivoized", if you like the term better.
Re:Let 'em eat Pi by deragon · 2016-01-09 11:01 · Score: 1

You might be able to get Android source code for free, at least a large part of it (exluding binary blobs), but my beef is that when I buy an Android phone, it does not come rooted and for some models, I cannot root it (there is no recipe). When there is a way, it is not easy. Most basic freedom is able to get root/admin powers on your device, and now more and more devices does not make it easy to get them.

--
Remember the year 2000? They promised us flying cars. They delivered the PT Cruiser...
Re:Let 'em eat Pi by tepples · 2016-01-09 15:09 · Score: 2

Then be choosier in what you buy. Nexus devices can officially be flashed with a rooted ROM.
Re:Let 'em eat Pi by phantomfive · 2016-01-09 19:33 · Score: 1

To be fair to Alsee, he also said:

"I predict we are going to discover that people seriously suck at predicting the future."

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Novelty still bars a patent by tepples · 2016-01-09 07:32 · Score: 1

first to the patent office with a whole bunch of cash now wins thanks to changes to U.S. law

I'm not sure what you meant by that. True, the America Invents Act changed the priority of U.S. patent applications from the old "interference" proceedings to the first inventor to file. But this affects only priority between patent applications. Both before and after the America Invents Act, lack of novelty still disqualifies an invention from a patent. And if an invention is published by someone else before it reaches the USPTO, it is not novel. In fact, the AIA expanded the scope of prior art to include foreign publication and public use.

Re:Novelty still bars a patent by martin-boundary · 2016-01-09 14:46 · Score: 1

lack of novelty still disqualifies an invention from a patent

It does not, that is the point of the "$PATENT with a computer" meme.
Lack of novelty is a meaningless phrase that means something warm and fuzzy to the public but has no true power to stop obvious inventions from being patented.
Re:Novelty still bars a patent by tepples · 2016-01-09 15:04 · Score: 1

I thought recent rulings at the Supreme Court had shut down the "prior art + on a computer = patentable" formula.

Re: An easy way to comply to GPL3 ? by dnaumov · 2016-01-09 07:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

GPL3 is more restrictive than GPL2, there is no way around this truth. A lot of companies are avoiding GPL2 like the plague, so trying to sell them on a "but this one is only very slightly worse for you" license is an absurd exercise in futility.

CGNAT and ISP TOS defeat RPi ownCloud by tepples · 2016-01-09 07:37 · Score: 1

The RPI can be your PERSONAL CLOUD.

Running ownCloud on a Raspberry Pi board isn't so useful once your home ISP puts your connection behind a carrier-grade network address translation (CGNAT), citing IPv4 address exhaustion. Then you won't be able to reach the RPi in your home from outside your home. Likewise once your home ISP terminates your service for running a server at home in violation of the ISP's acceptable use policy for home accounts.

Or are you willing to move to a different city just to get a different ISP?

Re:CGNAT and ISP TOS defeat RPi ownCloud by unixisc · 2016-01-09 09:48 · Score: 1

You could then run IPv6 itself. I believe even GNU supports it

Red Hat certification by tepples · 2016-01-09 07:39 · Score: 1

not to mention the expected certifications that employees are expecting compensation for... or, one or two guys with emacs and some unix boxes.

Are you trying to tell me that people don't expect compensation for certifications in RHEL, a distribution of GNU/Linux?

Re:Give up by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 07:41 · Score: 1

A day may come when the courage of geeks fails, when we forsake our custom distributions and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. An hour of UEFI and walled gardens when the age of open hardware and unrestricted usage comes crashing down, but it is not this day! This day we fight!

DFSG and OSD are substantially identical by tepples · 2016-01-09 07:42 · Score: 2

Open source software is not always free software.

I'm aware of philosophical differences between users of the two terms. But I wonder what substantial difference you're seeing between the terms with respect to the software itself, as the Open Source Definition published by Open Source Initiative is nearly word-for-word identical to the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

Re:DFSG and OSD are substantially identical by unixisc · 2016-01-09 09:54 · Score: 1

I'd think that the answer lies in the comparison b/w installing something like an Ubuntu distro on your computer - say Lubuntu or Xubuntu - vs installing Trisquel on it. Would Trisquel recognize all the hardware on your computer? If yes, a good first step. After that, would all the liberated software that they come packaged w/ be adequate for your needs? If yes, then you're right - there is no difference.

Re:Give up by 110010001000 · 2016-01-09 07:55 · Score: 1

Sure you can do that. But don't try to attach it to a Google(tm) or MicroVerizonSoft(tm) network. Not permitted.

Copyright by sims+2 · 2016-01-09 08:01 · Score: 1

Oh ideal?
Well we could stop giving all the tv coverage to terrorists maybe even go after those mass murdering telemarketers.
Copyright could be rolled back to a reasonable length.
We could eliminate another disease worldwide like we did with smallpox.
We could go back to having the option to pay for software.
We could have a sell it or STFU law to prevent companies from claiming losses on patents and copyrights they have absolutely no intentions of ever using.

As for worse
Well copyright could be extended another 100 years.
Because that's why!
Both paid and free games could be ad supported with no way to disable them because piracy.
All applications could become freemium want to be able to select text? $0.99 5 uses. Uninstall a program $9.99 each.
We could have our rights further eroded for the fight against terrorists Eg having broken encryption in the US while everyone else has security.
We could see the return of polio here in the US due to lack of education and care.

--
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!

Re:Copyright by tepples · 2016-01-09 08:16 · Score: 1

Copyright could be rolled back to a reasonable length.
Unlikely. Reversing a past windfall would likely be deemed a "taking", requiring "just compensation" pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or foreign counterparts.

Well copyright could be extended another 100 years.
Unlikely. The only excuse that the U.S. Supreme Court ever allowed for across-the-board re-extension of the term of copyright in works whose copyright term had already been extended was harmonizing its copyright term with that of the EU. The EU hasn't extended its copyright term since.
Re:Copyright by sims+2 · 2016-01-09 08:50 · Score: 1

First I figure it could still be done if the new length applied only to new works after a set date.
Second I hope you're right but there happens to be a certain perpetually protected mouse who will test that in 2024.
How come drugs have limits but a book of cat names can go multiple lifetimes? Ridiculous.

--
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!

Most pressing issues: by Qbertino · 2016-01-09 08:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

GNU/Linux: Let it go. We all know what GNU has done for FOSS, but your Branding sucks.

FS vs. OS: Seriously, let it go. Keep on fighting, but stop the infighting.

Your branding and marketing sucks big time, across the board. Get some professionals and listen to them.

FOSS Projects: E-Mail needs a replacement. Start building one. Encryption and anonymity as core of the specs. Build Branding, marketing, professional UX and proper Clients for all Plattforms. Yes, including Apple. Lets get going with this overdue problem.

We need a feasible distributed Facebook Killer. Diaspora is Meh, with shitty branding and UX and others are even worse.

Those two endeavors would have a huge positive impact.

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca

Re:Most pressing issues: by rasmusbr · 2016-01-09 10:03 · Score: 1

Email works just fine. You can get increased anonymity through Tor.
Facebook is proprietary, so it would be nice if there was an alternative, but it's unlikely that the alternative would ever become more popular than Facebook itself.
FOSS projects should focus on building fundamental stuff that others can build on top of.
Don't build a Gmail clone or a Facebook clone. Build a web server that can automatically scale from 1 connection per day to 1000,000,000 connections per day and back down again to 1 connection per day, without ruining the person who owns the web site (that's the tricky part). If you do that then other people will build an anonymous web mail service on top of that, and a Facebook clone, and a Youtube clone, and a ton of other stuff that nobody has even thought of yet.
Re:Most pressing issues: by carton · 2016-01-10 04:50 · Score: 1

FOSS Projects: E-Mail needs a replacement. Start building one. Encryption and anonymity as core of the specs. Build Branding, marketing, professional UX and proper Clients for all Plattforms. Yes, including Apple. Lets get going with this overdue problem.
We need a feasible distributed Facebook Killer. Diaspora is Meh, with shitty branding and UX and others are even worse.
These are the wrong kinds of projects for FSF to sponsor. There are armies of hipstercoders with well-trimmed beards and MacBooks in cafes attempting to tackle this problem to improve their Personal Brand. By this I mean, they are getting high attention in the contemporary world, and don't need attention-boosting by the long-sighted greybeards of FSF. They also have a low multiplier, in terms of code written and software freedom gained, since they're meant to be used by regular people and not programmers. They get more absolute use than the proposals below, but are not FSF work, just independently important work.
git is an example of a project FSF might have sponsored. People getting paid to write software who want to upstream their changes have lower barrier-to-entry through not just the convenience but the process that grows around git, so it's created a culture of upstreaming among corporate Linux users that used to fork and forget. Code review tools to replace the adhoc code review happening on the sub-mailinglists where most Linux kernel code is traded could be helpful, especially if it fits the processes of the companies actually writing the code, sign-off of ownership or whatever else they need, though they may already be happy. This would be more interesting to work on in the 90s, but is more solved now, maybe.
Another might be, a lighter-weight less-finished version of Android for use in televisions, printers, "internet of shit" devices, that communicate through passive-matrix LCDs like refrigerators or overlays like televisions. If it were rigidly-open enough that any company using it would have to give the user control of the device, and compelling enough that many companies wanted to use it, then this could increase software freedom significantly. It could perhaps even contribute if the manufacturers insisted on putting in some proprietary blobs, but I would prefer something more revolutionary. Even when included by "mere aggregation," on an embedded device binary blobs are infectious because once you allow one in, it makes tracking top-of-tree really hard. The OS could, for example, have a sandbox for blobs, like NaCl in Chrome, to reduce this infectious effect.
Another might be, an open CPU and compiler for 0.5GHz single-core applications. There was some research paper about a legacy-free low-cost CPU that was performance competitive with ARM using half the gates.
Another might be, an open toolchain for NVidia, targeting CUDA applications not graphics. I guess there is one in TensorFlow that Google just released? I don't totally understand it. but if NVidia could be convinced to use gcc to do their JIT, even if they continued releasing binary drivers, they may contribute back to a free software foundation-layer driver that's good enough to write scientific applications. This would give people a lot more computing freedom because the applications for these GPUs are broadening.

This was a tough one by Kjella · 2016-01-09 08:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

The free software movement has been successful at achieving its goals over the last 30 years.

I mean no doubt open source has scored victory upon victory from cell phones to supercomputers, but the FSF's goals? Most users do not use a platform or applications that gives them the "four freedoms". Users in general do not see proprietary software as wrong. In fact much of their data has moved from proprietary code to proprietary services, which use open source including GPLv2 software in their delivery but don't distribute it. I don't know any service I use using the Affero license, the "GPL for SaaS" license. And with online services the DRM is more or less baked into the service, naturally it won't work without the server side and you get to do a lot more live cheat detection and bans.

A lot of the code that big companies has released is under the Apache 2 license instead of the GPL, things like Android and LLVM has gotten far more attention lately than the GCC. The lone exception is the kernel, but it mostly lives in its own "universe" not affecting user space and drivers have found ways to use blobs when they want to. In short, I don't think RMS is happy with the state of things, maybe not even the direction things are going. But I'm happy that open source keeps "hollowing out" proprietary software, if it runs on top of a LAMP stack or Docker container or whatnot they're interested in making the foundation stronger. Eventually the layer thins out to where OSS volunteers making something "good enough".

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Re:This was a tough one by AmiMoJo · 2016-01-09 12:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

You have to ask where we would be without the FSF. The answer is "a lot worse off". Pushing the GPL and free software, especially in the early days of the internet when GPL software became the de-facto standard for a lot of things, has created a better, freer world. No exaggeration.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Alternative needs economies of scale by tepples · 2016-01-09 08:06 · Score: 1

Don't buy their product, and someone else will step in with an open system.

How are you so sure about that? I didn't buy an iPad, and the alternative (a netbook) got discontinued at the end of 2012. There need to be a substantial number of people not buying a piece of hardware in order for manufacturing an alternative to be profitable

Re:Alternative needs economies of scale by thinkwaitfast · 2016-01-09 09:43 · Score: 2

It's relatively easy to assemble your own pad or phone from freely available hardware.
Re:Alternative needs economies of scale by 110010001000 · 2016-01-09 10:00 · Score: 1

Really? How do I assemble a phone? Not realistic.

To distinguish GNU/Linux from Android by tepples · 2016-01-09 08:17 · Score: 1

GNU/Linux: Let it go.

"GNU/Linux" is shorter than "End/user/Linux/other/than/Android".

where's the source of the survey? by lkcl · 2016-01-09 08:45 · Score: 1

yaaa, i'm not filling out the survey until i've seen the full source code and an MD5/SHA1 checksum that shows the source code is what's actually running on the server. i wouldn't want my data to be sold out by the FSF or intercepted by the NSA due to MD5 or SHA1 collisions ohshit...

Re:where's the source of the survey? by ais523 · 2016-01-09 14:19 · Score: 1

It's here, linked from the footer of the page.
I'm not sure there's any method to guarantee that the source they linked is the same as the source they're running, but given that it's AGPL (and thus doing otherwise would be illegal), it seems highly likely that the FSF is in compliance; they seem like one of the least likely organizations to commit a GPL violation.

--
(1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"

Re:RPI by drinkypoo · 2016-01-09 08:45 · Score: 2

The RPI can be your PERSONAL CLOUD.

No, no it cannot. Cloud computing is being able to spin up as many VM, container etc. instances as you need, and be billed accordingly, on someone else's hardware which might be located anywhere. If you build your own "cloud" what you have actually done is built your own "server" or "cluster".

Cloud computing is just shared cluster farming with on-demand instances, so it's not magical. But it is something specific, and it's not plugging in a Pi and loading it with Debian.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

To Switzerland by gnaarly · 2016-01-09 08:54 · Score: 1, Funny

They have a clinic there

And keep Stallman out of the limelight, please by JonathanF · 2016-01-09 09:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

You hit the nail on the head, and I'd add that the leadership (namely Richard Stallman) is sometimes more of a liability to the FSF than an asset.

It's a group built around ideas, to be sure, but it's hard to sound reasonable when your leader is the definition of unreasonable: forcing people to refer to a product a certain way (it's Linux in real life, Richard, not GNU/Linux), refusing to accept that any use of closed-source software is okay, and so on. Paradoxically, he's more trapped and enslaved than many of the people using the closed software he rails against. If Stallman were around in Tunisia during the Arab Spring, he wouldn't have been out on the streets securing real, meaningful freedom (because that would involve using the "evil" Facebook and Twitter)... he'd be too busy asking the existing regime to use FOSS.

In other words: argue for free and open software by all means, but don't pretend as if your only options are to either switch completely to FOSS or else be forever tainted as a human being. The FSF needs a leader who is cool with you running open source apps on Macs and Windows PCs, and understands that it's the goal of free/open source code that matters, not how "pure" you are.

Re:And keep Stallman out of the limelight, please by AmiMoJo · 2016-01-09 12:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Strongly disagree. We need an FSF with strong principals. Time and time again Stallman has been proven right, sometimes decades later. He predicted the DRM, the walled gardens, renting software and media without ever really owning it, not being able to trust our computers at the hardware level.
While this unwillingness to compromise might mean the FSF can't do some things, it provides an essential standard that everything else can be measured by.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:And keep Stallman out of the limelight, please by sunderland56 · 2016-01-09 13:54 · Score: 1

You hit the nail on the head, and I'd add that the leadership (namely Richard Stallman) is sometimes more of a liability to the FSF than an asset
Sometimes??
FSF is stuck in quicksand until they get rid of RMS and concentrate on what people want and need, not crap like Hurd and replacing things like Google Earth.
Re:And keep Stallman out of the limelight, please by unixisc · 2016-01-09 18:22 · Score: 1

I dislike RMS as much as the next guy, but HE had abandoned HURD long ago. That's now just a pet project of some people, assuming that there is ANYBODY working on it. But yeah, OpenStreetsMaps has not been the success he hoped it would be.
Re:And keep Stallman out of the limelight, please by HatofPig · 2016-01-09 20:53 · Score: 1

... don't pretend as if your only options are to either switch completely to FOSS or else be forever tainted as a human being.
No. Switching to FOSS is the ideal which we are kept from achieving by reasons of practicality. But we should aspire the complete switch, and remain uncomfortable with compromise until it becomes possible. Your flair for drama makes it seem like an either/or proposition for everyone. But I use nvidia drivers, while wishing I didn't have to, and it is fine. But purity is rather what we need from ideological leaders like Richard Stallman. The taint of proprietary software/hardware is historically contingent, and will only last as long as we let it.

--
Silicon & Charybdis McLuhan Kildall Papert Kay
Re:And keep Stallman out of the limelight, please by Pentagram · 2016-01-10 02:55 · Score: 1

it's hard to sound reasonable when your leader is the definition of unreasonable
Obligatory George Bernard Shaw quote:
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
Re:And keep Stallman out of the limelight, please by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-10 02:56 · Score: 1

> Dr Stallman (or his replacement) says
Oh man, talk about kiss-ups. His Ph.D. is honorary. He only earned a bachelor's in school.
Re:And keep Stallman out of the limelight, please by JonathanF · 2016-01-10 03:21 · Score: 1

The FSF needs its principles, but the current state of FOSS is such that adhering to the ideology in its absolute form hurts you more than it helps.
Stallman uses a junky laptop, only the most basic of internet services, and no personal cellphone at all. What kind of example is that? Not much, at least not for someone who's supposed to be an important advocate. The irony is that he's highly dependent on other people to get things done, and many of them are using some form of the proprietary software he refuses to touch.
Yes, rail against DRM, warn against the risks of being reliant on walled gardens, but remember what they say about perfect being the enemy of good. Stallman arguably hurts the FSF's cause because his insistence on a purist lifestyle is not only unrealistic, but limits his ability to spread his message.

The FSF is doing enough to promote diversity and p by ShieldW0lf · 2016-01-09 09:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

I was going to finish the survey, but then I saw this question. There's no way to express my desire for them to stop promoting diversity and participation of underrepresented groups, and I don't want to be counted among those who oppose egalitarianism in the community.

--
-1 Uncomfortable Truth

Re:Give up by thinkwaitfast · 2016-01-09 09:40 · Score: 1

According to most things I read online, that day is already here and past. Look at how much /. has become a political and entertainment site vs geek and tech.

Re:Give up by unixisc · 2016-01-09 09:45 · Score: 1

A Russian ELBRUS CPU is something you could code on an FPGA, if the Russkies would give you the HDL for that.

Re:RPI by unixisc · 2016-01-09 09:47 · Score: 1

With RPI, ain't there the issue of Free/non-Free WiFi chipset & drivers? I'd think that an Arduino might be more compatible w/ the FSF's religion

Re:obvious by unixisc · 2016-01-09 09:49 · Score: 1

That, or Liberated Software Foundation, which would also indicate their Leftist ideology in their name more cleanly, than a term that forces you to think in terms of foreign words like libre vs gratis, or 'free as in freedom vs beer'.

To ensure subscribers run approved antivirus by tepples · 2016-01-09 09:53 · Score: 1

Why would they care, as long as they're getting paid?

Because a Trusted Health Check keeps virus-infected machines off the ISP's private network.

Independent creation by tepples · 2016-01-09 09:58 · Score: 1

How come drugs have limits but a book of cat names can go multiple lifetimes? Ridiculous.

Because in theory, copyright doesn't apply to you if you've never had access to the older work. Patents apply to everyone. The longer term of a copyright is said to balance the possibility of independent creation.

retire? by ooloorie · 2016-01-09 10:11 · Score: 1

The FSF has made big contributions in the past, but I'm not sure they are so relevant today. The FSF says:

The Free Software Foundation is working to secure freedom for computer users by promoting the development and use of free (as in freedom) software and documentation—particularly the GNU operating system—and by campaigning against threats to computer user freedom like Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) and software patents.

It seems to me there are now many other organizations that do this, many of them arguably more effective than the FSF. In addition, the FSF seems to have a certain degree of mission creep, not focusing on creating and promoting free software, but also trying to achieve other political and social goals.

Re:The FSF is doing enough to promote diversity an by Tailhook · 2016-01-09 10:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

ISIS is beheading a sufficient quantity of infidels.

[ ] Strongly disagree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Neither agree nor disagree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Strongly agree

--
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!

Re:People want their code to be truly free. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 10:51 · Score: 1

> Forcing others to use code you wrote in very specific ways is not freedom; it's tyranny.

PLEASE! Nobody is "forcing" you to use any code. You can accept what is given to you on the terms of the giver, or you can write your own.

Your problem is you think you're entitled to use other people's work, any way you see fit. You aren't.

Re: An easy way to comply to GPL3 ? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 12:30 · Score: 1

The solution is obvious: BSD and real free licences and that's it... screw the GPL insanity

How about promoting the GPL? by martin-boundary · 2016-01-09 13:39 · Score: 1

The FSF has dropped the ball in the last 10 years, there needs to be a campaign of awareness and a new push for adoption of the GPL. The GPL was the reason that the open source ecosystem grew and thrived in the 90s. It encouraged people to contribute, knowing that corporations weren't going to take over their work and turn it into products with nonfree agendas. Now the ecosystem is a shadow of its former self, and the world at large is infested with spying, ad-serving, nickel and diming products explicitly designed to keep open source in check.

In the last 10 years, online freedom has been reduced dramatically through the efforts of hardware and software companies like Google and Apple, who take the community's work and turn it into products: free-as-in-beer (with ads) but not free-as-in-freedom. The smartphones, chromebooks, Windows laptops we buy today are built on open software roots but explicitly prevent us from having root access and controlling our privacy. And when the hackers toil to make root available on personal hardware, those companies shortly bring out an update explicitly designed to destroy that access.

Re:RPI by Kjella · 2016-01-09 13:44 · Score: 1

Actually when people use something like iCloud they have no concept of instances. Their data is just out there somewhere, the cloud is essentially the 2010s name for cyberspace. And everything else syncs against the cloud whether it's cell phone, tablet, laptop, pc, whatever. And I think that's really the business definition too, if it's in the cloud it's not your servers and not your job managing them. You're just buying the service. I could see benefits from organizing a large company the same way internally, one group runs their "cloud" with some headroom for expansion and everybody else is charged according to use. The point is, do you have the same flexibility to start up, shut down and repurpose servers as the cloud solution.

But back to individuals, what you want is the sync/backup service so physically it is just a 24/7 server but it's the software that matters. Are there clients so that when you take a photo with your cell phone you don't have to think about it, it just auto-syncs. If you added a contact as you were working on the laptop and need to call him on the phone to say you're late, is the contact there? If you update your music playlist on the cell phone because you're tired of the song, will it still play on your desktop back home? The cloud is 99% integrations, 1% hardware. I don't think most people would want to self-host anyway, but just like web hotels you'd have cloud hotels. Your choice of provider, costs/GB for storage, bandwidth, SLA and so on. At least it wouldn't be centralized at a few mega-corporations and you'd have the choice to do it yourself.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Re:FSF suckers can suck my dick by unixisc · 2016-01-09 14:10 · Score: 1

The problem you have is that RMS/FSF do NOT believe in intellectual PROPERTY. They don't believe that what your mind produces is property - rather, they look at it as knowledge - something that should be as free as the air you breathe. The worst part of it is that RMS has systematically opposed anything that makes it profitable for developers i.e. anything PRACTICAL that would help you make money. Like when he suggested making money by writing documentation, and then turned around and demanded that documentation should be liberated just like software.

It is telling that most of his life work has been involved in FSF activism, as opposed to software development. Somewhere deep down, even HE does not appreciate working for the 'community' and not getting compensated for it, like he won't be.

Re:Become less ideologically bent by unixisc · 2016-01-09 14:12 · Score: 1

Actually, the next thing they COULD look at is explore ways to have 'liberated hardware' - where one would have the designs to make any object that one has, and be able to take that to a manufacturer to be produced. That could be where future opportunities lie

Some ideas by AHuxley · 2016-01-09 14:28 · Score: 1

File systems, cryptography, networking logging, a deeper understanding of safer cpu, gpu options that cannot hide malware, ship with trapdoors, backdoors.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"

Re:FSF suckers can suck my dick by unixisc · 2016-01-09 18:31 · Score: 1

GP was complaining about FSF principles resulting in him being ripped off. In other words, something he did for no price was sold by someone else elsewhere. Which is perfectly legit w/ the FSF, but he saw himself getting shafted.

Intellectual property takes many forms. In case of software, it's not just the idea of doing something: it's also the how-to, amongst other things. What the GP described was code that he had written, and which others used in profiteering. Had he NOT written or NOT provided that code, they'd not have made that cash, so he feels that the license gives him the shaft. Which is a perfectly legitimate POV

If you think that money is a fictitious construct, is that what you tell your renters or mortgage every month? And your credit card vendors?

Re:FSF suckers can suck my dick by unixisc · 2016-01-09 18:40 · Score: 1

Software patents definitely make sense. The SCOPE of it is something one can debate - like rounded cornered rectangles vs an IPv6 ULA assignment mechanism. One of them is too broad, the other reasonably right, since there are any number of ways of doing the latter. So of course, ALL patents should not be granted, but SOME should.

If you are giving something away to someone else, it should be up to you as to what exactly you give. Like if you give a cooked rotisserie chicken to somebody, then that's fine. You shouldn't be required to provide them the recipe, or let's say, the appropriate condiments that go w/ it, even though that might be nice. But that's what the GPL does.

As for liberating AND selling something, there is a cliche for that. It's called 'having your cake & eating it too'.

Re:FSF suckers can suck my dick by Your.Master · 2016-01-09 19:23 · Score: 1

All property is imaginary. A construct of laws. You could make an argument in principle for own body being inherently sovereign, but even then people argue about it with things like fetal rights / abortion / mandatory vaccinations / organ donors / etc., not to mention that abhorrent ideas like slavery have existed which prove that people can indeed claim ownership on another's body.

The idea that property's defining attribute is that you can "give it back" is a strange invention of yours. Property is, literally, entity-dependent rights, as opposed to universal rights. Often these are fairly exclusive, just 1 person or a small family unit of people.

So, yea, you're right: they don't believe in Intellectual Property. They also don't believe in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. Do you?

Intellectual Property is real. It's defined strictly in law and loosely by social convention, which are the only places where any notions of property are defined. This disbelief in Intellectual Property is completely unlike disbelief in Santa Claus. They don't believe Santa Clause exists; they may or may not believe Santa Clause existing is a good thing. They don't believe Intellectual Property existing is a good thing, but they absolutely agree that it exists.

Just so you know, the world was doing just fine and progress was being made -- creative works flourished, inventions were born left and right -- for all of human history before the ridiculous idea of "everything must be owned" started being written into law, a mere ~300 years ago, not even a blip on the human timeline.

The world's also doing fine now. Creative works are flourishing and inventions are happening at an unprecedented pace, with a large bulk of them happening well within the last 300 years as you cite. That makes this a ridiculous argument.

Furthermore, things recognizable as IP law go back thousands of years. There are records of ancient Greeks using something like a patent (with a 1-year term). Actual things called patents in English go back over 600 years. It's not as new as you suggest.

Um, you do realize that money is a fictitious construct as well, don't you?

Don't you?

Nevermind, we're not even gonna get into that. I just wanted to point out that referring to something that is completely made up as "practical" makes no sense at all.

In one sentence you point out that money is fictitious, and in the next you say that it makes no sense to refer to something fictitious as practical. I conclude that, to be consistent with those two claims, you must believe that money has no practical use. Do you agree that this is nonsense?

The problem is that you are playing fast-and-loose with the definitions of fictitious, imaginary, and made up. Using one definition, I can agree that fictitious things like comic book characters have no real life utility in and of themselves, although media featuring those comic book characters -- and in fact, the shared *idea* of those comic book characters as a representational artifact -- does have utility. Using another definition of fictitious, I can agree that money is fictitious. But you can't use the same definition for fictitious in both of those statements without reversing position on one of them; it's insanity.

Furthermore, if completely made up things are not practical, then there can be no possible problem with IP law in practice because it's completely made up. I do not believe you really have trouble making sense of these statements.

This is my problem with the FSF movement and RMS in particular. A lot of the arguments contain a huge amount of newspeak redefinitions or recastings of terms and acronyms and a) often they are nonsense, and b) even if they did make sense, you're spending all your time arguing semantics and not substance. It really, *really* doesn't matter whether IP stands for intellectual property or imaginary property, what matters is wheth

Re:RPI by KGIII · 2016-01-09 20:32 · Score: 3, Funny

Pfft... Sync to the internet? I don't... I use 47 Lithuanian boys, who mimic the chittering of squirrels, to carry my packets back and forth. When one of them brings back a bad packet (one to sync with one of those newfangled cloud thingies) I beat him with a stick until he learns to filter it better!

Err... Yes, yes I'm very tired. :/

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."

Re: The FSF is doing enough to promote diversity a by ShieldW0lf · 2016-01-09 21:35 · Score: 2

For any of you who find it confusing, that was an example of begging the question.

Another example is "So, do you still beat your wife."

--
-1 Uncomfortable Truth

But it's a poor example by JonathanF · 2016-01-10 02:50 · Score: 1

Here's the problem: if he's leading by example, he makes a great case for proprietary software.

Stallman is so insistent on FOSS everything that there's very little he can actually do by himself. He uses a garbage laptop (to maintain 'pure' firmware, of course) and only the most basic of internet services. He's missing out on so much, both technologically and in life, that your iPhone-toting aunt is probably more liberated than he is.

You're using extreme arguments -- it's software, not a crime against humanity. The FSF leadership should certainly embrace Linux and open source programs where they can, but they shouldn't turn themselves into digital hermits in the process. Set an example that's realistic and positive, one where the leader can actually participate in the real world instead of retreating from it.

Re:But it's a poor example by twistedcubic · 2016-01-10 05:30 · Score: 1

You already know Stallman isn't "missing" a damned thing. He has told people millions of times it is better to use inferior free software instead of being enslaved by a proprietary equivalent. In my example, if I remove all proprietary software from my life (stop using Netflix, replace Radeon hardware with Intel, use a phone with free firmware), the only change is that I would be a lot more productive. Maybe you should compare your accomplishments to Stallman's and consider doing the same?

Re:Become less ideologically bent by The+Finn · 2016-01-10 06:40 · Score: 1

Agreed. I can bootstrap a complete OS and software stack, even cross-compile it to multiple hardware platforms, but I can't do the same thing at the hardware level. I'm stuck with multiple levels of proprietary hardware and firmware. I can't get HDL to my RasPi. I want the ability to bootstrap a complete hardware design (physical circuit boards, RTL, and ALL platform firmware) between multiple independent hardware and silicon vendors. True multiple-sourcing. If I had the facilities (board manufacturing, fab process) I could do it myself. I expect FPGAs to grow good enough to handle this in my lifetime, but they are still tied to proprietary toolchains, and designs for the FPGA silicon itself is not Free or Open.

--
NetBSD: the cathedral vs the bizzare.

he is about due for a gold watch - age 65 by peter303 · 2016-01-10 07:39 · Score: 1

Many of his generous labors were not paid very well.

github has changed the nature of free software by peter303 · 2016-01-10 07:42 · Score: 1

Open source-code is now manageable in a semi-professional manner. A user can offer his/her own code or participate in others projects. (kudos to githubs oredecssors too)

Adjustment layers by tepples · 2016-01-10 15:01 · Score: 1

Can you quantify what was so hard to learn?

For one thing, how to work around the lack of nondestructive filtering. Photoshop has had adjustment layers since version 5. Not CS5, actual 5, well over a decade ago.

Re:FSF suckers can suck my dick by minderaser · 2016-01-11 02:12 · Score: 1

They say they are clarifying things, but recasting "intellectual property" as "imaginary property" gains nothing. Recasting "Digital Rights Management" as "Digital Restrictions Management" gains nothing.

It only gains nothing if you're too stupid (or just refuse) to realize the terms "Imaginary Property" and "Digital Restrictions Management" are the correct terms for what is actually happening. That's clarity.

Re:FSF suckers can suck my dick by minderaser · 2016-01-11 02:13 · Score: 1

because that includes the requirement that you sign over your copyright to them.

What a complete bunch of horseshit. Stop lying.

Not a great comparison by JonathanF · 2016-01-11 06:53 · Score: 1

Problem is, this presupposes that the unreasonable man is effective. DRM and walled gardens are much more present than they were when Stallman first warned about them; Linux has made little progress in PCs outside of the data center; most attempts at selling products based on openness (Firefox OS, Jolla) are dead or dying.

When Shaw made that quote, he was also assuming that the unreasonable man was engaged with the world, actively trying to change it. Stallman is lately defined more by what he avoids, by a retreat into a safe space where his world view is never challenged. A revolutionary doesn't change the world by running away from it.

Slashdot Mirror

The FSF Is 30 Years Old; Where Should They Go From Here? (fsf.org)

145 of 231 comments (clear)