Slashdot Mirror
Stallman Suggests Install Fest 'Deals With Devil' Include Actual Man Dressed As Devil (gnu.org)
This weekend's annual LibrePlanet conference, hosted by the Free Software Foundation, prompted a new essay about "install fests" from Richard Stallman:
Install fests invite users to bring their computers so that experts can install GNU/Linux on them... The problem is that most computers can't run with a completely free GNU/Linux distro. They contain peripherals, or coprocessors, that won't operate unless the installed system contains some nonfree drivers or firmware... This presents the install fest with a dilemma. If it upholds the ideals of freedom, by installing only free software from 100%-free distros, partly-secret machines won't become entirely functional and the users that bring them will go away disappointed. However, if the install fest installs nonfree distros and nonfree software which make machines entirely function, it will fail to teach users to say no for freedom's sake. They may learn to like GNU/Linux, but they won't learn what the free software movement stands for.... In effect, the install fest makes the deal with the devil, on the user's behalf, behind a curtain so the user doesn't recognize that it is one.
I propose that the install fest show users exactly what deal they are making. Let them talk with the devil individually, learn the deal's bad implications, then make a deal -- or refuse! As always, I call on the install fest itself to install only free software, taking a strict stance. In this way it can set a clear moral example of rejecting nonfree software. My new idea is that the install fest could allow the devil to hang around, off in a corner of the hall, or the next room. (Actually, a human being wearing a sign saying "The Devil," and maybe a toy mask or horns.) The devil would offer to install nonfree drivers in the user's machine to make more parts of the computer function, explaining to the user that the cost of this is using a nonfree (unjust) program... Those users that get nonfree drivers would see what their moral cost is, and that there are people in the community who refuse to pay that cost.
They would have the chance to reflect afterwards on the situation that their flawed computers have put them in, and about how to change that situation, in the small and in the large.
Stallman adds that the Free Software Foundation itself would never let a devil near its events. "But given the fact that most install fests quietly play the role of the devil, I think that an explicit devil would be less bad.
"It would convert the install-fest dilemma from a debilitating contradiction into a teaching experience."
I propose that the install fest show users exactly what deal they are making. Let them talk with the devil individually, learn the deal's bad implications, then make a deal -- or refuse! As always, I call on the install fest itself to install only free software, taking a strict stance. In this way it can set a clear moral example of rejecting nonfree software. My new idea is that the install fest could allow the devil to hang around, off in a corner of the hall, or the next room. (Actually, a human being wearing a sign saying "The Devil," and maybe a toy mask or horns.) The devil would offer to install nonfree drivers in the user's machine to make more parts of the computer function, explaining to the user that the cost of this is using a nonfree (unjust) program... Those users that get nonfree drivers would see what their moral cost is, and that there are people in the community who refuse to pay that cost.
They would have the chance to reflect afterwards on the situation that their flawed computers have put them in, and about how to change that situation, in the small and in the large.
Stallman adds that the Free Software Foundation itself would never let a devil near its events. "But given the fact that most install fests quietly play the role of the devil, I think that an explicit devil would be less bad.
"It would convert the install-fest dilemma from a debilitating contradiction into a teaching experience."
I'm guessing Ray Wise is not a tech nerd, otherwise he would have been a perfect choice. He was perfect as the devil in Reaper.
These people are insane.
However, if the install fest installs nonfree distros and nonfree software which make machines entirely function, it will fail to teach users to say no for freedom's sake. They may learn to like GNU/Linux, but they won't learn what the free software movement stands for.... In effect, the install fest makes the deal with the devil, on the user's behalf, behind a curtain so the user doesn't recognize that it is one.
Perhaps, it can demonstrate that compromise and practicality are sometimes necessary in a functioning society and not just a "deal with the devil". Rigidity to an ideology can often be more destructive and counter-productive over the long run. Progress comes from change not stasis.
Stallman adds that the Free Software Foundation itself would never let a devil near its events.
The devil is often in the details; I'm sure some will always be nearby.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The various BSDs are 100%-free software, but Beastie is not free.
I don't drive a Pirelli/Ford, it's just "Linux".
sag
In some ways, RMS lacks social ability.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Not sure that Stallman is fully versed in the relevant politics...
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
The devil would offer to install nonfree drivers in the user's machine to make more parts of the computer function, explaining to the user that the cost of this is using a nonfree (unjust) program... Those users that get nonfree drivers would see what their moral cost is, and that there are people in the community who refuse to pay that cost.
Implying that it's unjust and/or immoral for one's work to have tangible value and for one to make money from it. I know that's not what he means by "freedom", but, unfortunately, our society doesn't function on the Honor System.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The devil represents the compromises we're often forced to make. Having a BigTech's binary closed source driver (often working in the background) playing any role in an Open Source system is ludicrous when you think about it. Having a horned devil representing this compromise is brilliant! It's also an honest approach to the current state of things.
I wouldn't expect less from Stallman. His motive is pure, but lots of ours is more of a realistic one...
In reality, only the very rich or very poor can afford to live their lives with motives 100% pure as they can either lose a lot without consequence or have nothing to lose. The more one can, or is willing to, give up or do without, the more one can live by their convictions and still live. Whether they become a burden on the rest of us is another matter.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
While stallman has some rivid values I don't think he's disagreeing with you. He's just wanting the process to call attention to the philosophy more and the consequences of choices in our real world. He's being both realistic and educational by proposing the cute idea of the personified Devil
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Indeed, the lead section of FSF's directory of free software for Windows takes a pragmatic approach by replacing pieces of the Windows user space with free software one at a time in order to make the transition to X11/Linux less abrupt.
Up until there's a completely free Stallman improved Linux that just works on every hardware configuration out there.
The other option is to wait until you would have normally replaced your laptop anyway and then buy a Respects Your Freedom(tm) certified laptop.
Till then I'll move closer and closer to his ideal so long as it provides working solutions for my work and gaming needs.
AAA-caliber gaming is one part of the software market where FSF has been conspicuous by its absence.
It's about freedom though ... so maybe a warden would be more appropriate? You get to wear handcuffs while they install the appropriate drivers on your PC?
I wonder what life would be without RMS and GNU, especially GCC. I would really love to be paying $500 per machine for a compiler, because I believe free stuff is junk. I happily pay MS for Windows licenses, because I know I'm getting a solid product made by the top software company in the world.
Linux is an OS for people too down and out to realize how good commercial software is. Nobody in their right mind would use something that does not need activation and license audits to ensure compliance. /sarcasm
Yes, RMS is a pill... but without him, we likely would be paying by the hour for a cable set-top box to send "E-mails" with a "stamp fee" from our CompuServe accounts.
I think the word you want is "ostensibly."
Users are ALREADY making some sacrifices by installing and using Linux,
I mean techincally you're going to give u something no matter which you choose, but installing the best OS does mean making the minimum sacrafice.
That's Linux by the way.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I guess we know what Stallman thinks about FreeBSD then. ;-)
4 years ago I bought an HP laptop and tried to put Linux on it. Could not get the lappie to boot from neither the DVD nor a USB stick. Trust me, I tried.
Last October that lappie died with a hard disk crash. Nothing could be recovered (good backups FTW). Other than a dead hard drive it's a perfectly good laptop.
I thought of buying a new hard drive and making it a 100% Linux box, but if the BIOS won't let me boot from anything other than the hard drive that seemed a waste of money.
Are you now telling me there is a way to turn this useless pile of electronics into something useful? Because that would be wonderful, and I'd probably use the (currently dead) laptop more than it's replacement.
to help put food on the table of someone who writes software. Free software will always be mediocre and decades behind commercial solutions. Yes, ostentatiously [sic] the word free doesn't necessarily mean no cost, according to RMS, but let's get real, if there is no hindrance to simply copying it, then there is no motivation to pay for more than the cost of the copy. Unfortunately, copying 1s and 0s hardly covers creating them in the first place, and if there is no motivation to create them, then the choices will be mostly limited to hobbyist and hardware manufacturer written software.
And yet people do make a living writing free software. In many cases quite a comfortable one.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
I'll start by saying I respect RMS highly. Anything he says on free software is worth considering. But that doesn't mean you have to agree with it.
It should be noted that RMS, when he was creating GNU, had to rely on proprietary commercial unix hardware and closed-source software (Sun Microsystems, IIRC.) As he said in his own essays, this was a necessary means to an end. He and his associates had to start with a working system and replace it bit-by-bit (pardon the pun) with free-as-in-freedom components. By the early 90s, all he had left to create was Hurd, the planned kernel for the Gnu system.
Then Linus Torvalds came along with his Linux kernel, and Gnu/Linux was born. In the early days, no hardware vendors were supporting Linux officially, so the only drivers were available as source, and therefore free. There was no "devil" to shake hands with. As Linux grew in popularity, hardware vendors began contributing drivers -- some as source, some as binary-only. The licensing of the kernel allowed this to happen. And this situation persisted to this day.
I think the point RMS is making is that the free-software revolution is stalled (again, pardon the pun) at best, or going backwards at worst, when it allows binary blobs to be part of an OS. Unlike in the early days of Gnu, it is now possible to run a system with entirely free software with few compromises. I think he's trying to encourage people to adopt this practice in order to encourage more hardware vendors to contribute open-source drivers.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Yes if and ONLY IF your software fits into the "Blessed Trinity" of selling hardware, support (which gives the company an incentive to make buggy and/or incomplete software so you have to pay them to "fix" it) or eBegging. If your software doesn't fit those models? You are royally fucked with FOSS, which is why so much of the end user software is frankly mediocre compared to commercial software.
Where is the FOSS video game that can compete with something like Bioshock, a game that came out over a decade ago? Hell several game engines have been made open source, plenty of free tools...oh wait, games don't fall under the Blessed Trinity so all the FOSS offerings will always be subpar. Where is the image editor than can compete with Photoshop or even Paintshop Pro from a decade ago? Not like people haven't been pointing out for ever that Linux sorely needs a competitive replacement...oh wait, doesn't fit the Blessed Trinity so again you are SOL.
From games to productivity to bookkeeping to inventory management to a billion other jobs people use computers for there are a ton of use cases where software simply doesn't fit the Blessed Trinity so the FOSS model simply will not work.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
'GPU'
Various ways to describe the problem, but I'll reduce it to a question: If Linux is so superior, why is it a niche OS?
In terms of solution approaches, I think the reasons involve bad financial models. Which leads us back to rms (Stallman) himself. He has no deep understanding of money. I theorize that it's a mix of his extremist philosophy, his tenured status that insulates him from monetary concerns, and some major confusions about freedom versus free. Also something about programming as meta-language and level slippage?
My favored solution approach would be the CSB (Charity Share Brokerage) financial model that would let more people be vested in the success of Linux based on the features and services that they are actually willing to pay for. I'm not saying that everyone needs to pay for everything. That's Microsoft's model, with special emphasis on the features the pesky little users don't even want. More like $10 at a time for a charity share, and it doesn't matter if there are lots of free riders as long as the costs are covered--and that includes fair compensation for the programmers who do the actual work (and who are often weakly vested to boot, as things stand now).
ADSAuPR, atAJG, but I'll note that rms actually asked me a question that contributed to the development of the CSB idea. That was about 15 years ago and I still think it was an accident. He didn't care about money at the time and I haven't seen any evidence of his worrying about real-world money ever since.
Or even better if you have a better (AKA more practical or creative) solution approach. Even less evidence of that on Slashdot these years.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
>"That's Linux by the way."
Agreed
Yup this is why we need public funding for free software.
It's weirder than that.
Any sort of complex and fun to write code will always be superior on the open source version, ask things like ffmpeg and blender, or apache.
Now when its boring code like GUIs, well, then people just don't want to touch that and halfass the GUI, when they even bother in doing one (see ffmpeg or blender).
I'm pretty sure he believes in metaphor and simile. Particularly those that convey ideas succinctly.
So how do you explain the Linux desktop machine I am using to reply to you. The one with the browser that's so far beyond MS's offering that they cried 'uncle' and decided to use a re-skinned version of it rather than their own product? The one with an office suite that can read MS Office documents better than MS Office?
How do you explain the total failure of Windows on cell phones and it's status as an also ran at best on tablets while a fair portion of them use a modified Linux kernel (the rest use a modified BSD kernel)?
Some of the Free software also runs on Windows. It is gaining in popularity even there. Even over software MS gives away with Windows.
Ultimately, it may be necessary to find a way to get more people to pay for Free software, but your characterization of it's current state is way off.
Your statement is vague and not wise without applying it to an actual situation, so please be specific. As it stands you're replying to someone who has a far better track record of applying practical consideration to his decisions than is commonly received or reflected on sites like these where namecalling is the norm (if you don't believe me, consider that "crackpot" is one of the tags applied to this thread). This "crackpot's" "rigidity" has helped create a free operating system and many programs licensed to preserve software freedom despite so many people flatly insisting a free OS was a fantasy. Despite the current push for rewriting copylefted free software and releasing the rewrites under pushover (non-copylefted) free licenses, the GNU GPL is widely used. We have a huge collection of wise essays demonstrating critical thinking skills and appreciation for social solidarity to refer to for the foreseeable future. Accomplishments like that don't deserve ridicule or vague critique.
Digital Citizen
Today you have hardware that respects your freedom and free distros to choose from. You aren't facing the same situation RMS did when he started GNU. You're not acknowledging this enormous difference. Also, the GNU GPL v2 (a license the FSF wrote and RMS is a chief author of) doesn't "allow" proprietary software drivers into the Linux kernel. Allowing that is a choice of Linux kernel copyright holders who don't sue, encourage other Linux kernel copyright holders not to sue, or pass on copies of that variant of the Linux kernel with the proprietary software intact. No license can do any better because copyright holders always have the final say on whom they'll choose to sue.
Again it's GNU that has a solution to this (which you also don't acknowledge): GNU Linux-libre—a variant of the Linux kernel with the non-free software removed. This project and the essay that started this /. thread fully acknowledge that GNU Linux-libre won't run on all of the hardware Torvalds' variant of the Linux kernel will run on. But that's not the point; the point is keeping users in control of their computers, respecting their software freedom, and showing that one can do computing with a fully-free system running on fully-free hardware. The FSF doesn't "allow binary blobs to be a part of an OS", some distributors of GNU/Linux do that. No FSF-approved free distro includes non-free software and the free distro guidelines go beyond that to push for pointing to only free software. The user is free to add non-free software and/or repos to their system if they wish but an FSF-approved distro won't do that by default.
You claim "the free-software revolution is stalled" but offer no evidence to support the claim. It seems you overlook what the FSF is doing to promote software freedom and misstate the responsibility the FSF has for the Linux kernel project as a whole.
Digital Citizen
You don't have to believe in real Santa to hire a mall Santa.
We need to get going with some user friendly zero-fuss FOSS cloud solution that can replace Google, MS and Apple clouds and webapps with one install command. Think gnome/kde in neat and beautiful but for the web.
Beat the proprietary services at their own game is what has been long overdue.
My2 cents.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I much prefer {GNU libc, GNU compiler collection, GNU emacs, etc.}/Linux.
Which comes fairly close to the spirit of my "Coreutils plus two" definition.
When you go to school, it is Windows, Android, and iOS that is taught with, not free variants. Same goes for attendant software. If you want to be a film maker, graphic designer, photographer--you are taught Adobe Creative Cloud, not free variants. In the workplace, proprietary software is the rule, free is the exception. The way people post here, one gets the impression that Stallman is some software Czar that denies the right to use proprietary software. The facts are the opposite. Proprietary software has moved from paid tools to rented ones and we, the user, have become serfs for The (corporate) Czar. We are forced onto a subscription model with programs that audit our hard drive to make sure we always comply with the company terms and conditions wherein the company has all the rights and we have none. We cannot even access our own work if we do not have the money that month. If the user does not have money for the subscription fee that month, guess what? The user does not work. Think about that. These companies have denied the user the right to own her own tools and be afforded the dignity of labour. When you have and use free software, you are always free to work without being beholden to a company for the right to work. Read Stallman's 'Free Software, Free Society'. It is perhaps among the most important series of essays on technology there is. Here is something else: technological progress will grind to a halt and we as a society are due for regression due to patent laws. Patent laws were conceived as a way to encourage development, but corporations have hijacked the system such that they control patents. Please read Tom Wolfe's 'Land of Wizards' from Popular Mechanics (1986) where patent laws enable corporations to take ideas from inventors because s/he cannot afford the court costs. If we want to (technologically) progress as a society and as a Human Race, Stallman's admonishments are vital to follow.
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
It had a major overhaul on the GUI to suck quite less.
The previous one was absolute madness.
How's life in the hypocrite lane?
In a world where people attach no price tag to their time, you're right. That's not the case in a professional environment where everyone's time literally does have a price tag. I sell my time to my company. And if I have to figure something out myself, it can easily cost more money than hiring the person who wrote the software to teach me how to use it.
This is, by the way, the reason why Linux took off mostly as an OS for server systems and in other areas that are mostly used in an environment where you will more likely hire some knowledgeable person to teach you than to fiddle around with it for hours to figure it out.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's bitztream the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating, Qualcomm-hating, Firefox tabs-hating, Slashdot editors-hating Slashdot troll!