While many people agree with you that April Fool's day on Slashdot is indeed way over the top
Nearly all of the stereotypical "humour" associated with this site isn't in any way funny at all, but is so utterly peurile and moronic that I am at a lost to understand how anyone could find it remotely amusing. The April Fool's Day garbage is merely one element.
The thing about it that is truly aggravating is that I suspect that it is produced by probably around half a dozen people, tops. It's the usual story; a tiny number of living arguments for involuntary euthanasia making life less happy for a far larger group of people than themselves.
To each one of those people, I have this request to make. Make the world a better place, guys; stick your mouth over the exhaust pipe of your car, and then get a friend to start the ignition.
AFAIK this has been the accepted standard theory behind pyramid construction for years. I saw a thing from the History Channel which detailed exactly this theory probably two years ago, and I'm fairly sure said documentary was made during the mid 90s.
There's some evidence that the ancients were better moving large rocks using levers than we are these days, (Stonehenge, in particular) but that in itself isn't a huge revelation. I remember the saying that as the printing press improve{s,d}, so engineering has inversely slid further and further into decline. It genuinely is true that we're not anywhere near as good at constructing buildings as we used to be...mainly because the degree of integrity imbued in the structure of buildings must, by definition, be a mirror of the degree of integrity present within the structure of the society responsible for their construction. Solid physical structures are only possible when solid social structures exist beneath/behind them.
It had the first bots that you could play against for hours and not even notice you were offline.
I spent probably 6 years messing around with the original UT's AI, on and off. I never felt like I was playing human players for a moment, but it was possible to get them to do some interesting things. One thing I was able to do in a map I put together was create around four different routes to the flag, and then fill that with alternatepath nodes with different weights such that their path selection was at least somewhat random, and would use underwater routes as well, so they'd come into the flagbase from a few different directions...that added to realism. Turns out FileFront got a copy of the map somehow, so you can grab it here if you're interested...I don't think anyone else has ever downloaded it.;) I was trying to create a scenario where a bot would follow one particular path for a certain distance, and then actually change to another in transit. I think to some degree I got them to do it.
UT's AI was actually fairly limited in some respects...it didn't handle underwater areas well, and it also had no dynamic ability whatsoever...anywhere that didn't get covered with nodes didn't exist as far as it was concerned. I could never get the translocator to work with it in the first game, either...no matter what I did, the bots wouldn't use it properly.
Where I was able to really make the AI more interesting was when I downloaded some modifications for the game, primarily Bullet Time, MatrixMoves, and Unreal4Ever. Bullet Time meant that I could essentially turn the bots into the equivalent of the Agents from The Matrix. Unreal4Ever was primarily a weapons pack, and the most interesting thing about that was that some of the weapons did work with Bullet Time, and some of them didn't. That meant that you had the effect of a Matrix-like environment with some weird glitches; it might seem odd, but that actually added to the surrealism of the environment rather than detracting from it. The reason why is that it meant you had to adapt specific tactics not only in order to avoid certain weapons, but also to kill the bots if they were using bullet time as well. They could dodge bullets, but not explosions. They were also actually able to dodge such things as acid clouds and individual flames to a limited degree.
I also found various maps and renovated them somewhat; for example, there was this really awesome Stargate themed map, but the Stargates in it were connected via teleporters. I took the teleporters out, and rebuilt the gates so that they used WarpZones, a feature of the game which made the gates in the map function identically to the gates in the film/tv show in the sense that you could walk right up to the event horizon and through it, and you could also shoot through it and throw projectiles through it as well.
First we had Windows NT, then we had Windows XP. I've long thought that if Microsoft were honest, Vista actually *should* have been called Windows DOA.;-)
Richard's own brain wiring makes it difficult for him to have empathy for people who do not think as he does, and he finds it difficult to construct a mental bridge to them. I'd hope you could appreciate that.
I actually do appreciate that. But ask yourself...Do you really think that it's a safe or desirable thing to have someone with limitations in that specific area as the leader of a large group of people? Are you aware, Bruce, of some of the things that have occurred historically in countries that have had leaders whose brain wiring made it difficult for them to have empathy for people who did not think as they did, and who found it difficult to construct a mental bridge to them?
I appreciate the software from the kernel team, the FSF, and the multitude of others that I have on my machine, but I run it by their grace, not because I claim any kind of right or fundamental freedom to do so.
That is exactly the point. You as an individual have the perspective that you only run it by their grace. The FSF on the other hand talk about the "four freedoms," (i.e., making it sound as though use of the software *is* a fundamental right) and then imply that said fundamental right is something they can both give and take away. (In the case of Microsoft/Novell)
In other words, they're trying to have it both ways. Which is it? Do we have an inalienable right to use software, (in which case, Stallman has no right to try and act as an arbiter of it) or is it, as you say, merely a privelege which is granted to end users by developers?
Seriously, I don't think that there will be a morality to oppose Stallman within the FOSS community for some time.
The real problem is that if there is one thing he is truly masterful at, it's fearmongering. Every single time someone here voices an opinion that dissents from the FSF's party line, the attempt to refute the dissenter *always* includes an appeal to fear.
"Do what we say, accept any license terms we dictate, and accept our ideology without question, because if you don't, the big bad monster from Redmond will eat you and your children."
If the FSF's ideology was genuinely worth keeping, that would not be the case. They could promote it on the basis of its' own merits, rather than constantly having to resort to the line that Steve Ballmer is constantly lurking in the shadows, waiting to pounce.
BSD is not a threat to Microsoft in the way that Linux and other programs under the GPL are. The reason is that the GPL is a specific deterrent to the "embrance and enhance" strategy that Microsoft would otherwise use.
Right. The GPL represents a competing monoculture. Microsoft are able to recognise that.
Microsoft already incorporates the BSD networking stack, which is not differentiating software. They took a different approach with Kerberos, however, taking an open specification and its software and adding noninteroperable details under an odious license.
I know about that. As distasteful as you might find it, there was nothing inherent about Microsoft doing that however which threatened the BSDs' existence. The BSD developers do not consider corporate association to be a threat; rather, I have read multiple accounts where they have recounted how such involvement actually benefited their respective projects. Theo de Raadt has also stated that he prefers third parties using his software, from the perspective that it guarantees in his mind that they will be using something that he knows is secure.
I think you are trying to imply that RMS, and through him FSF and Free Software are a repressive culture. I know RMS for quite a long time now. There is one thing I am sure about where he's concerned: he is entirely self-consistent. Richard really lives for your freedom, and he lives the way he would have you live.
Interesting. If it's true that the FSF does not have a repressive culture, and if it's also true that people here have integrated Stallman's philosophy to the degree that they have appeared to, then why are dissenting responses to that philosophy repressed here to the degree that they are? I have seen people here (including myself) merely being shouted down, as well as the moderation system being abused in order to ensure that perspectives which deviate from FSF philosophy are not read. If there is one thing that I have seen consistently among FSF advocates, it is an intolerance for ideology that deviates from their own. It may be true that as you say, Stallman himself does not hold such a perspective; but if that is so, I am at a loss to explain the discrepancy.
I'm also aware that with this exchange, I've probably rendered myself an outcast more or less entirely where Linux is concerned. That however is fine. To quote someone who you've mentioned knowing rather well, "This isn't a popularity contest." You state at the end of your own message that you fight for what you think is right. You are correct in assuming that I firmly believe that the FSF are a genuinely repressive institution. The words and actions of the organisation's supporters online provide me with further evidence to support that belief on a daily basis. You should also be aware that, without my intending to speak for anyone who has not already spoken for themselves, I am aware that I am most assuredly not alone in holding that conviction. I do not have the resources that you presumably do at your disposal; thus, even if this venue is the only one in which I may engage in any form of action consistent with my belief, so be it.
Now, let's get to the nasty part. You called me a coward. If I have read your web site correctly, you admit to being autistic. So, I am not sure if I should revile you for calling names, or if I should shrug it off because your brain wiring does not allow you to appreciate my bravery as someone else might. But I really don't have time to dwell on being angry at people, so I'll shrug it off. I would like, however, to see you do as much as I do to fight for what I think is right.
Clever. At least you're not trying to make out that we are on different levels morally. I actually very much appreciate that...it is not what I was expecting. I don't pretend to adopt the moral high ground; if I engage in ad hominem I do so as an honest reflection of how I feel. I realise that some would consider me morally deficient for that. Ho
I also want to add that I appreciate you actually coming here to defend your perspectives with people, rather than merely taking actions from a distance and not actually showing up to listen to our responses.
However, that is also my main point. Stop being a pawn for Richard Stallman, as you are eroding whatever level of credibility or respect you might previously have had by doing so. A major step forward would be for Stallman himself to show up here and defend what he is doing, rather than for him to continue to rely not only on yourself, but also on the various brainwashed, mentally crippled wretches here who have swallowed his philosophy whole, and then merely regurgitate it verbatim in defense of his actions, in an attempt to propogate their own inability to engage in critical thinking.
If Microsoft/Novell and various other companies are such a dire threat, why haven't the BSDs been destroyed yet?
The way I see it, *BSD is the acid test here...if they are able to demonstrate that they can survive without all of the additional "protections" that you and the FSF are so busily trying to shove down people's throats, that will also prove that the rationale behind you and the FSF here is, as I suspect, merely so much baseless fearmongering.
I think you are a coward. I think you are basing your actions on threats which Steve Ballmer has made that he himself knows that he cannot viably follow through on. I also think you are lending your support to someone who badly wants to establish just as repressive a monoculture as anything that Microsoft have ever had, and that in your own fear, you are either unwilling or unable to see that.
I've seen a lot of attempts on your part at playing the leader. You seem to believe that you speak and think for a lot of other people who supposedly cannot do those things for themselves. Here, then, is another challenge for you.
If you want to consider yourself a leader, start actually being one. Grow a spine, and start basing your perspectives on genuine courage and integrity, rather than continuing to act merely as a craven quisling for somebody else who wants to repress computer users just as much as Microsoft themselves do. If you're unable to do that, you're basically just a grandstanding narcissist...not a leader.
It's also quite trendy and fashionable these days to attack the FSF and the GPL for "not being free" by some other definition that people keep changing.
And how often we see people defending it writing under the label of Anonymous Coward. Truly lends credibility to the idea that the FSF are worth defending, doesn't it?
As for how the other definition keeps changing; it doesn't. My own definition of a free software license is one that in addition to Stallman's four freedoms, also:-
Makes no discrimination against persons or groups. (Like, say, Novell or Microsoft)
Makes no discrimination against specific fields of endeavor. (In other words, it also doesn't matter if you're Tivo or Al Quaeda in terms of what you're going to do with the software)
Places no conditions on redistribution or end use, of any kind.
THAT is free software. NOT copyleft. Other than the conditions on inclusion of the notice, the above is also met in every point by the BSD license, which is why I support it, and why I have never at a gut level supported the GPL.
Stallman's redefinition of the word "free" is a classic tactic straight out of the cult leadership playbook...it's called "introducing loaded language." It refers to the practice of taking common words from the English language and redefining them in such a way that, for people inside the cult, the word begins to mean something very different to its' definition in the minds of the general population.
How would you feel if I demanded royalty payments for your Linux desktop that you didn't buy from me.
Does anyone else notice how the justification for Stallman's actions is always the same? An appeal to fear.
Here's a thought...how about we remember the guarantees not to engage in patent action we've already been given by IBM and other companies, stop listening to Stallman's attack bots telling us to cringe in constant terror of Microsoft, tell Stallman once and for all to go fuck himself, and then actually do our own thing?
As far as I'm concerned, I would be happy with GPLv2 plus one modification: by distributing this software, you give up all legal right to sue others for circumventing restrictions placed on the software.
I would support that. Unfortunately, that just isn't good enough for the FSF. Stallman just has to have CONTROL.
Will you all be sending in your $699 cheques to MicroSCOft soon?
No, none of us will. Any threats Ballmer makes along these lines constitute nothing more than baseless sabre rattling...and your own threat here is equally baseless fearmongering.
The FSF talks about freedom, and yet you're here issuing fear-based threats about what will happen to us if we don't accept a repressive license which has already been rejected by the kernel developers and others.
I can really see the freedom there. Go and crawl back under your rock...I just wish to God that Stallman would do the same.
Without the FSF and the GNU project "Linux" would not exist. Without the continuing work of the FSF and the Software Freedom Law Center it would soon become impossible for non-Corporate entities to create Free/Open-source software.
This is fear based garbage, and it's also so utterly idiotic and ignorant that I find myself wondering why I'm bothering to reply to it at all.
You obviously haven't used any of the BSDs before, have you? Of course, you're probably barely even aware that *BSD exists at all.
You probably also aren't aware that the sources of many of the commercial UNIX userland apps were released under the BSD license by Caldera not that long ago. In other words, a minimum of 3 different implementations of said userland exist, aside from Stallman's. The only element of the GNU system which is currently genuinely irreplaceable is gcc. Everything else has multiple alternatives.
Please...do both yourself and the rest of us a favour, and get some basic knowledge of general UNIX outside the box Stallman wants people to think in, before feeding people his usual propaganda and expecting them to swallow it.
I'm really sick of seeing people here who are so pathetically ignorant that they actually believe this sort of shit...it happens over and over again. Go and do some of your own research rather than merely accepting the first thing you're told, and even worse, expecting the rest of us to do the same.
This ESR gift culture is the result of having lived through experiences like the shutdown and loss of BeOS's code. After going through that I can honestly say that OSS/FSF is the way to go. I was young and naive, I purchased a BeOS professional release, Office software, and a game.
I'm not arguing against OSS. I was arguing in favour of OSS via a license which does not explicitly dictate distribution or end use.
"We need to stop being true to ourselves, because if we don't, corporations are going to kill us all."
I find it deeply ironic that Stallman and his followers engage in the amount of fearmongering that they do, and then in the same breath turn around and argue about the importance of principle. It's utterly laughable...or it would be if it didn't cause me the degree of pain that it does.
That in the end is what copyleft is...an attempt to enforce reciprocity based on fear, via use of the law as a blunt instrument, and then dressed up as something morally superior. That the only way to compete with the heads of corporations, who engage in total sale of their souls, is to engage in the incremental sale of our own.
Sadly however, it's a persuasive argument, and the majority have fallen for it.
GNU provided a user experience that is important. I've got a good shell, a decent C/C++ compiler, tons of shell utilities, etc, etc. GNU also provided a host of other important applications.
Please note that I don't use "open source" in this little diatribe. That's because open source is focused on the *pragmatism* of Free software. It's the "many eyes", "faster development", "better apps" argument of using Free software.
Ok, so we've heard the standard pro-FSF mind control. Now tell us...what, as an individual, do you really think?;-)
People try and tell me that the FSF aren't a cult, and that I'm "disingenuous" for calling them one. Then I see screeds like the above, which basically consist purely and solely of people holding Stallman's perspectives in leiu of their own. If that isn't cultic, someone needs to explain to me what is.
It also makes me wonder if Linux is ever going to be rid of the boa constrictor around its' neck that is Richard Stallman.
People keep referring to Linux and Linux-based distributions with this 'GNU' thing in the name? What's up with that?
It's part of Stallman's usual obsessive need for the limelight, as well as a reflection of his attempt to make his own group's additions to the OS appear more important than the kernel. As always with his decrees, this one is also enforced by his minions on Slashdot.
I don't really understand the reasoning behind the recent seeming re-polarisation in favour of Stallman around here recently; prior to about six months ago, a lot of the site's readership seemed sufficiently disillusioned with him and his cult that I had felt some hope that his influence was waning. It could be the flap over the Microsoft/Novell deal, and if so, he should probably reconsider attempting to ban such deals in the GPL v3, since apparently such incidents are good for revitalising his popularity.
If there is one reason though why I wish Microsoft would change their behaviour, it is because said behaviour feeds Stallman and his followers and makes them both feel and appear justified. I consider Stallman and his followers to be my life's primary remaining source of misery at this point, and where Linux is concerned, do not wait for anything with more fervour than the collapse of the Free Software Foundation.
To paraphrase the Joker...I have given a name to my pain, and it is Richard Matthew Stallman.
I can't adequately describe how sick I am of seeing this particular whine constantly being made on Slashdot. Really a case of ESR's gift culture at work there, guys.
Once, just once, I'd like to see a Congressperson call the cops and have a lobbyist hauled off to jail for trying to buy a law or other favor.
If you were able to have a law created barring anyone from entering the legislative branch over the age of 40, you might see that happen. I'm not saying that the young can't be just as corrupt as the elderly, but the difference is that the elderly, while they're being corrupt, actually think they're right.
We still need to use the DMCA to crush the author of WoW!Glider and the associated goldfarmers! Once we've done that, then by all means have the DMCA declared as much a failure as you want...but don't ruin Blizzard's chances in court!
Why do I get the feeling that primarily among the "sweeping generalisations" of the article was a complete lack of mention of the FSF? *gasp!*
It's times like these that I begin to realise that at least some of the rather passionate vitriol that I feel towards Stallman himself is misplaced. Most of it more rightfully belongs to his followers; I can honestly say that I've seen Scientologists who were more objective than some of the members of Stallman's cult that I've come across. I've also never really been able to determine whether or not a group of ardent cultists is something that Stallman has wanted from the beginning, or whether said group simply materialised around him more or less on its' own.
All the guy himself has really done is write a couple of licenses and some software. The intimidation, the tireless suppression of dissenting opinions, the abuse of this site's moderation system, the attempts to control the thoughts and actions of other people, at least where software is concerned...that's all done by his followers.
Slashdot Mirror
While many people agree with you that April Fool's day on Slashdot is indeed way over the top
Nearly all of the stereotypical "humour" associated with this site isn't in any way funny at all, but is so utterly peurile and moronic that I am at a lost to understand how anyone could find it remotely amusing. The April Fool's Day garbage is merely one element.
The thing about it that is truly aggravating is that I suspect that it is produced by probably around half a dozen people, tops. It's the usual story; a tiny number of living arguments for involuntary euthanasia making life less happy for a far larger group of people than themselves.
To each one of those people, I have this request to make. Make the world a better place, guys; stick your mouth over the exhaust pipe of your car, and then get a friend to start the ignition.
AFAIK this has been the accepted standard theory behind pyramid construction for years. I saw a thing from the History Channel which detailed exactly this theory probably two years ago, and I'm fairly sure said documentary was made during the mid 90s.
There's some evidence that the ancients were better moving large rocks using levers than we are these days, (Stonehenge, in particular) but that in itself isn't a huge revelation. I remember the saying that as the printing press improve{s,d}, so engineering has inversely slid further and further into decline. It genuinely is true that we're not anywhere near as good at constructing buildings as we used to be...mainly because the degree of integrity imbued in the structure of buildings must, by definition, be a mirror of the degree of integrity present within the structure of the society responsible for their construction. Solid physical structures are only possible when solid social structures exist beneath/behind them.
It had the first bots that you could play against for hours and not even notice you were offline.
;) I was trying to create a scenario where a bot would follow one particular path for a certain distance, and then actually change to another in transit. I think to some degree I got them to do it.
I spent probably 6 years messing around with the original UT's AI, on and off. I never felt like I was playing human players for a moment, but it was possible to get them to do some interesting things. One thing I was able to do in a map I put together was create around four different routes to the flag, and then fill that with alternatepath nodes with different weights such that their path selection was at least somewhat random, and would use underwater routes as well, so they'd come into the flagbase from a few different directions...that added to realism. Turns out FileFront got a copy of the map somehow, so you can grab it here if you're interested...I don't think anyone else has ever downloaded it.
UT's AI was actually fairly limited in some respects...it didn't handle underwater areas well, and it also had no dynamic ability whatsoever...anywhere that didn't get covered with nodes didn't exist as far as it was concerned. I could never get the translocator to work with it in the first game, either...no matter what I did, the bots wouldn't use it properly.
Where I was able to really make the AI more interesting was when I downloaded some modifications for the game, primarily Bullet Time, MatrixMoves, and Unreal4Ever. Bullet Time meant that I could essentially turn the bots into the equivalent of the Agents from The Matrix. Unreal4Ever was primarily a weapons pack, and the most interesting thing about that was that some of the weapons did work with Bullet Time, and some of them didn't. That meant that you had the effect of a Matrix-like environment with some weird glitches; it might seem odd, but that actually added to the surrealism of the environment rather than detracting from it. The reason why is that it meant you had to adapt specific tactics not only in order to avoid certain weapons, but also to kill the bots if they were using bullet time as well. They could dodge bullets, but not explosions. They were also actually able to dodge such things as acid clouds and individual flames to a limited degree.
I also found various maps and renovated them somewhat; for example, there was this really awesome Stargate themed map, but the Stargates in it were connected via teleporters. I took the teleporters out, and rebuilt the gates so that they used WarpZones, a feature of the game which made the gates in the map function identically to the gates in the film/tv show in the sense that you could walk right up to the event horizon and through it, and you could also shoot through it and throw projectiles through it as well.
Fun stuff.
First we had Windows NT, then we had Windows XP. I've long thought that if Microsoft were honest, Vista actually *should* have been called Windows DOA. ;-)
Richard's own brain wiring makes it difficult for him to have empathy for people who do not think as he does, and he finds it difficult to construct a mental bridge to them. I'd hope you could appreciate that.
I actually do appreciate that. But ask yourself...Do you really think that it's a safe or desirable thing to have someone with limitations in that specific area as the leader of a large group of people? Are you aware, Bruce, of some of the things that have occurred historically in countries that have had leaders whose brain wiring made it difficult for them to have empathy for people who did not think as they did, and who found it difficult to construct a mental bridge to them?
I appreciate the software from the kernel team, the FSF, and the multitude of others that I have on my machine, but I run it by their grace, not because I claim any kind of right or fundamental freedom to do so.
That is exactly the point. You as an individual have the perspective that you only run it by their grace. The FSF on the other hand talk about the "four freedoms," (i.e., making it sound as though use of the software *is* a fundamental right) and then imply that said fundamental right is something they can both give and take away. (In the case of Microsoft/Novell)
In other words, they're trying to have it both ways. Which is it? Do we have an inalienable right to use software, (in which case, Stallman has no right to try and act as an arbiter of it) or is it, as you say, merely a privelege which is granted to end users by developers?
Seriously, I don't think that there will be a morality to oppose Stallman within the FOSS community for some time.
The real problem is that if there is one thing he is truly masterful at, it's fearmongering. Every single time someone here voices an opinion that dissents from the FSF's party line, the attempt to refute the dissenter *always* includes an appeal to fear.
"Do what we say, accept any license terms we dictate, and accept our ideology without question, because if you don't, the big bad monster from Redmond will eat you and your children."
If the FSF's ideology was genuinely worth keeping, that would not be the case. They could promote it on the basis of its' own merits, rather than constantly having to resort to the line that Steve Ballmer is constantly lurking in the shadows, waiting to pounce.
The big problems for them will be GNU LIBC
;)
Yes...because as we all know, Glibc is the only implementation in existence.
BSD is not a threat to Microsoft in the way that Linux and other programs under the GPL are. The reason is that the GPL is a specific deterrent to the "embrance and enhance" strategy that Microsoft would otherwise use.
Right. The GPL represents a competing monoculture. Microsoft are able to recognise that.
Microsoft already incorporates the BSD networking stack, which is not differentiating software. They took a different approach with Kerberos, however, taking an open specification and its software and adding noninteroperable details under an odious license.
I know about that. As distasteful as you might find it, there was nothing inherent about Microsoft doing that however which threatened the BSDs' existence. The BSD developers do not consider corporate association to be a threat; rather, I have read multiple accounts where they have recounted how such involvement actually benefited their respective projects. Theo de Raadt has also stated that he prefers third parties using his software, from the perspective that it guarantees in his mind that they will be using something that he knows is secure.
I think you are trying to imply that RMS, and through him FSF and Free Software are a repressive culture. I know RMS for quite a long time now. There is one thing I am sure about where he's concerned: he is entirely self-consistent. Richard really lives for your freedom, and he lives the way he would have you live.
Interesting. If it's true that the FSF does not have a repressive culture, and if it's also true that people here have integrated Stallman's philosophy to the degree that they have appeared to, then why are dissenting responses to that philosophy repressed here to the degree that they are? I have seen people here (including myself) merely being shouted down, as well as the moderation system being abused in order to ensure that perspectives which deviate from FSF philosophy are not read. If there is one thing that I have seen consistently among FSF advocates, it is an intolerance for ideology that deviates from their own. It may be true that as you say, Stallman himself does not hold such a perspective; but if that is so, I am at a loss to explain the discrepancy.
I'm also aware that with this exchange, I've probably rendered myself an outcast more or less entirely where Linux is concerned. That however is fine. To quote someone who you've mentioned knowing rather well, "This isn't a popularity contest." You state at the end of your own message that you fight for what you think is right. You are correct in assuming that I firmly believe that the FSF are a genuinely repressive institution. The words and actions of the organisation's supporters online provide me with further evidence to support that belief on a daily basis.
You should also be aware that, without my intending to speak for anyone who has not already spoken for themselves, I am aware that I am most assuredly not alone in holding that conviction. I do not have the resources that you presumably do at your disposal; thus, even if this venue is the only one in which I may engage in any form of action consistent with my belief, so be it.
Now, let's get to the nasty part. You called me a coward. If I have read your web site correctly, you admit to being autistic. So, I am not sure if I should revile you for calling names, or if I should shrug it off because your brain wiring does not allow you to appreciate my bravery as someone else might. But I really don't have time to dwell on being angry at people, so I'll shrug it off. I would like, however, to see you do as much as I do to fight for what I think is right.
Clever. At least you're not trying to make out that we are on different levels morally. I actually very much appreciate that...it is not what I was expecting. I don't pretend to adopt the moral high ground; if I engage in ad hominem I do so as an honest reflection of how I feel. I realise that some would consider me morally deficient for that. Ho
I also want to add that I appreciate you actually coming here to defend your perspectives with people, rather than merely taking actions from a distance and not actually showing up to listen to our responses.
However, that is also my main point. Stop being a pawn for Richard Stallman, as you are eroding whatever level of credibility or respect you might previously have had by doing so. A major step forward would be for Stallman himself to show up here and defend what he is doing, rather than for him to continue to rely not only on yourself, but also on the various brainwashed, mentally crippled wretches here who have swallowed his philosophy whole, and then merely regurgitate it verbatim in defense of his actions, in an attempt to propogate their own inability to engage in critical thinking.
I have but one question for you, Bruce.
If Microsoft/Novell and various other companies are such a dire threat, why haven't the BSDs been destroyed yet?
The way I see it, *BSD is the acid test here...if they are able to demonstrate that they can survive without all of the additional "protections" that you and the FSF are so busily trying to shove down people's throats, that will also prove that the rationale behind you and the FSF here is, as I suspect, merely so much baseless fearmongering.
I think you are a coward. I think you are basing your actions on threats which Steve Ballmer has made that he himself knows that he cannot viably follow through on. I also think you are lending your support to someone who badly wants to establish just as repressive a monoculture as anything that Microsoft have ever had, and that in your own fear, you are either unwilling or unable to see that.
I've seen a lot of attempts on your part at playing the leader. You seem to believe that you speak and think for a lot of other people who supposedly cannot do those things for themselves. Here, then, is another challenge for you.
If you want to consider yourself a leader, start actually being one. Grow a spine, and start basing your perspectives on genuine courage and integrity, rather than continuing to act merely as a craven quisling for somebody else who wants to repress computer users just as much as Microsoft themselves do. If you're unable to do that, you're basically just a grandstanding narcissist...not a leader.
There's a big difference.
And how often we see people defending it writing under the label of Anonymous Coward. Truly lends credibility to the idea that the FSF are worth defending, doesn't it?
As for how the other definition keeps changing; it doesn't. My own definition of a free software license is one that in addition to Stallman's four freedoms, also:-
THAT is free software. NOT copyleft. Other than the conditions on inclusion of the notice, the above is also met in every point by the BSD license, which is why I support it, and why I have never at a gut level supported the GPL.
Stallman's redefinition of the word "free" is a classic tactic straight out of the cult leadership playbook...it's called "introducing loaded language." It refers to the practice of taking common words from the English language and redefining them in such a way that, for people inside the cult, the word begins to mean something very different to its' definition in the minds of the general population.
How would you feel if I demanded royalty payments for your Linux desktop that you didn't buy from me.
Does anyone else notice how the justification for Stallman's actions is always the same? An appeal to fear.
Here's a thought...how about we remember the guarantees not to engage in patent action we've already been given by IBM and other companies, stop listening to Stallman's attack bots telling us to cringe in constant terror of Microsoft, tell Stallman once and for all to go fuck himself, and then actually do our own thing?
Maybe the ASF can create an Apache 2.1 license to solve this.
So it's other people who have to make concessions in order to follow Stallman's lead?
As far as I'm concerned, I would be happy with GPLv2 plus one modification: by distributing this software, you give up all legal right to sue others for circumventing restrictions placed on the software.
I would support that. Unfortunately, that just isn't good enough for the FSF. Stallman just has to have CONTROL.
Will you all be sending in your $699 cheques to MicroSCOft soon?
No, none of us will. Any threats Ballmer makes along these lines constitute nothing more than baseless sabre rattling...and your own threat here is equally baseless fearmongering.
The FSF talks about freedom, and yet you're here issuing fear-based threats about what will happen to us if we don't accept a repressive license which has already been rejected by the kernel developers and others.
I can really see the freedom there. Go and crawl back under your rock...I just wish to God that Stallman would do the same.
This is one of the best responses I've ever had. Thank you. :)
Without the FSF and the GNU project "Linux" would not exist. Without the continuing work of the FSF and the Software Freedom Law Center it would soon become impossible for non-Corporate entities to create Free/Open-source software.
This is fear based garbage, and it's also so utterly idiotic and ignorant that I find myself wondering why I'm bothering to reply to it at all.
You obviously haven't used any of the BSDs before, have you? Of course, you're probably barely even aware that *BSD exists at all.
You probably also aren't aware that the sources of many of the commercial UNIX userland apps were released under the BSD license by Caldera not that long ago. In other words, a minimum of 3 different implementations of said userland exist, aside from Stallman's. The only element of the GNU system which is currently genuinely irreplaceable is gcc. Everything else has multiple alternatives.
Please...do both yourself and the rest of us a favour, and get some basic knowledge of general UNIX outside the box Stallman wants people to think in, before feeding people his usual propaganda and expecting them to swallow it.
I'm really sick of seeing people here who are so pathetically ignorant that they actually believe this sort of shit...it happens over and over again. Go and do some of your own research rather than merely accepting the first thing you're told, and even worse, expecting the rest of us to do the same.
This ESR gift culture is the result of having lived through experiences like the shutdown and loss of BeOS's code. After going through that I can honestly say that OSS/FSF is the way to go. I was young and naive, I purchased a BeOS professional release, Office software, and a game.
I'm not arguing against OSS. I was arguing in favour of OSS via a license which does not explicitly dictate distribution or end use.
"We need to stop being true to ourselves, because if we don't, corporations are going to kill us all."
I find it deeply ironic that Stallman and his followers engage in the amount of fearmongering that they do, and then in the same breath turn around and argue about the importance of principle. It's utterly laughable...or it would be if it didn't cause me the degree of pain that it does.
That in the end is what copyleft is...an attempt to enforce reciprocity based on fear, via use of the law as a blunt instrument, and then dressed up as something morally superior. That the only way to compete with the heads of corporations, who engage in total sale of their souls, is to engage in the incremental sale of our own.
Sadly however, it's a persuasive argument, and the majority have fallen for it.
GNU provided a user experience that is important. I've got a good shell, a decent C/C++ compiler, tons of shell utilities, etc, etc. GNU also provided a host of other important applications.
;-)
Please note that I don't use "open source" in this little diatribe. That's because open source is focused on the *pragmatism* of Free software. It's the "many eyes", "faster development", "better apps" argument of using Free software.
Ok, so we've heard the standard pro-FSF mind control. Now tell us...what, as an individual, do you really think?
People try and tell me that the FSF aren't a cult, and that I'm "disingenuous" for calling them one. Then I see screeds like the above, which basically consist purely and solely of people holding Stallman's perspectives in leiu of their own. If that isn't cultic, someone needs to explain to me what is.
It also makes me wonder if Linux is ever going to be rid of the boa constrictor around its' neck that is Richard Stallman.
People keep referring to Linux and Linux-based distributions with this 'GNU' thing in the name? What's up with that?
It's part of Stallman's usual obsessive need for the limelight, as well as a reflection of his attempt to make his own group's additions to the OS appear more important than the kernel. As always with his decrees, this one is also enforced by his minions on Slashdot.
I don't really understand the reasoning behind the recent seeming re-polarisation in favour of Stallman around here recently; prior to about six months ago, a lot of the site's readership seemed sufficiently disillusioned with him and his cult that I had felt some hope that his influence was waning. It could be the flap over the Microsoft/Novell deal, and if so, he should probably reconsider attempting to ban such deals in the GPL v3, since apparently such incidents are good for revitalising his popularity.
If there is one reason though why I wish Microsoft would change their behaviour, it is because said behaviour feeds Stallman and his followers and makes them both feel and appear justified. I consider Stallman and his followers to be my life's primary remaining source of misery at this point, and where Linux is concerned, do not wait for anything with more fervour than the collapse of the Free Software Foundation.
To paraphrase the Joker...I have given a name to my pain, and it is Richard Matthew Stallman.
from the Unix world without giving anything back.
I can't adequately describe how sick I am of seeing this particular whine constantly being made on Slashdot. Really a case of ESR's gift culture at work there, guys.
Once, just once, I'd like to see a Congressperson call the cops and have a lobbyist hauled off to jail for trying to buy a law or other favor.
If you were able to have a law created barring anyone from entering the legislative branch over the age of 40, you might see that happen. I'm not saying that the young can't be just as corrupt as the elderly, but the difference is that the elderly, while they're being corrupt, actually think they're right.
Not yet, guys!
We still need to use the DMCA to crush the author of WoW!Glider and the associated goldfarmers! Once we've done that, then by all means have the DMCA declared as much a failure as you want...but don't ruin Blizzard's chances in court!
Take off the tinfoil hat, bro.
It's not paranoia. All of the things I listed really are being done. I've seen then happen.
Why do I get the feeling that primarily among the "sweeping generalisations" of the article was a complete lack of mention of the FSF? *gasp!*
It's times like these that I begin to realise that at least some of the rather passionate vitriol that I feel towards Stallman himself is misplaced. Most of it more rightfully belongs to his followers; I can honestly say that I've seen Scientologists who were more objective than some of the members of Stallman's cult that I've come across. I've also never really been able to determine whether or not a group of ardent cultists is something that Stallman has wanted from the beginning, or whether said group simply materialised around him more or less on its' own.
All the guy himself has really done is write a couple of licenses and some software. The intimidation, the tireless suppression of dissenting opinions, the abuse of this site's moderation system, the attempts to control the thoughts and actions of other people, at least where software is concerned...that's all done by his followers.