FSGS (Free Standard Game Server) can also play some of Blizzard's games, like StarCraft and Diablo. They do not support the WarCraft III beta however... but they did get hit by a legal letter from Blizzard. Currently their site is still up and running but you can no longer download the software.
So apparently Blizzard is really launching an all-out attack on b.net clones...
Portable.NET has been around longer than Mono, and remains true to the principles of Free Software.
Don't get me wrong, but what prevents the copyright holders of this project from changing their minds, too?
Ultimately, releasing a particular piece of software under the GPL or another license won't guarantee that it will stay that way; the copyright holder can always change its mind. It's not the first time I hear someone complain that allowing such and such company to work on a piece of software "doesn't guarantee that it'll remain free, so we must make our own version".
While it might seem like a worthy goal, it also seems to me like it's a duplication of effort and also ultimately shows a distrust when it comes to corporate involvement with free software. This last part is especially bad in my opinion, because corporate-funded free software development really has the potential to benefit everyone. But for some reason many Linux and free software users still don't like private companies meddling with their toys.
I won't try to argue about which browser supports what better than the other (since everyone else is doing that), but I just want to point out one area where I think Mozilla wins hands-down: improvement.
I've used IE on my Mac exclusively back in the days of IE 3.02. It was small, sleek, fast. Yes, it didn't render everything perfectly, but neither did Netscape 4.x, which was twice as bloated. Then IE 4 came out, then 4.5, then 5 - and what was new? Nothing. They just kept adding more features I didn't need, doubling the RAM requirements on each release and making it slower and slower on my old mac(s). I switched to Netscape 4.7x at that time on classic MacOS and never went back.
The same thing is happening with IE on Windows. I began using IE with version 4 on Windows 98. It was so surgically-grafted to the OS that it started fast as hell and was really lightweight. Then they began releasing more and more versions - 5, 5.5, 6. What was new? Again, nothing. They just keep adding more and more useless stuff on my toolbar (like a Radio toolbar or a Media button in IE 6 to plug Windows Media Player in), making it gobble more and more RAM and making it start and run slower and slower on my high-end PC (damn, I have a 1Ghz Pentium III at work and it still starts pretty slowly compared to IE 4 on my 266Mhz K6-2 running Win98 here are home).
What about Mozilla? Well, to tell the truth, the first Mozilla releases sucked, plain and simple. But what are they adding in each release? Important stuff. Better standard compliance. Even more stability. Making it start/run faster and faster.
At work, I've recently began using Opera instead of IE for day-to-day browsing. Why? Because IE sucks now. Opera starts faster and renders everything pretty well. And Mozilla is coming along in that direction nicely. Although I find it a bit bloated for its own good, I have to give it my two thumbs up for one thing: it's actually getting better, while IE is sinking.
I sure hope they fixed their installer since Delphi 5, because in that version, you could select "I do not agree" and still click Next, and proceed with the installation.
Cocoa is not a GUI toolkit. It is a set of API, available for Objective-C and Java, that allow you to write applications for MacOS X. Cocoa includes many APIs, including APIs for GUI stuff.
However, the GUI toolkit in OS X is called Quartz and it uses PDF. Quartz is used by all OS X apps to display their GUI, be they written in Objective-C/Java with Cocoa or in C/C++ with Carbon.
The fact that "oh so many people want to do it" is completely irrelevant, because these "oh-so-many-people" haven't written the programs in question, and thus have nothing to say about the way these should be used apart from kindly asking the author(s).
Funny how that sounds like what a proponent of proprietary software would say: "I am the developer, I decide what license I use for my software and how you are to use it.".
I am a big believer in free software, however I cannot help but notice that the free software movement sometimes uses tactics that are strikingly familiar with the way makers of proprietary software act. After all, one of the big argument of the FSF is that deciding how people are gonna use their software ("you can't see the source", etc.) is bad - that people should be free to use the software as they please. Yet telling people how they should release their software is exactly what the FSF is going with the GPL!
I think that there's really no big difference between the GPL and non-copylefted licenses like the BSD license - they're both giving away a right (to use the software as one sees fit). The only difference is that the GPL tries to make a moral point - that proprietary software is wrong, that it should not exist. But imagine this: if lawmakers were to get that and render proprietary software illegal, then there would be no difference between the BSD license and the GPL.
I just checked MSN.com here on my mac, and I still can't get in with either Mozilla 0.9.4 or 0.9.5 (I downloaded the update specifically to check). However I can get in fine with Netscape 4.78 (it doesn't crash, either).
Now, I also checked with iCab Pre2.5.3 and it was letting me in at first... but I noticed i had told it to say it was IE 5 for mac. I switched its user-agent string to "iCab/2.5.3 (Macintosh; I; PPC)" and got blocked. Same if I use "Lynx/2.8 (compatible; iCab 2.5.3; Macintosh; I; PPC)".
However, the following user-agent allowed me to get in: "Mozilla/4.5 (compatible; iCab 2.5.3; Macintosh; I; PPC)".
So it seems they're not just blocking Mozilla and Opera like some thought, but are broadly blocking non-IE and non-Netscape browsers.
Creator/Type advocates emphasize one virtue (the metadata nature of the typing system) and ignore the gross failures of Creator/Type to actually support what users need to do.
It depends on how you define "need to do". The Type/Creator system had the merit of separating the TYPE of data contained in the file from its ORIGIN. That is, on OS 9 here, I can have text files created by different programs (SimpleText, BBEdit, CodeWarrior) and they will all be linked to their corresponding apps when I double-click them, which is definitively something I "need to do" (or rather "like to be able to do", since most OSes don't let me).
Separating the file's Type from its file extension also allows you to separate the TYPE of data from its intended USE. On my system, all my code files, be they.cp,.cpp,.pas, etc. are all of type TEXT, which is logical because code IS text - it is just intended to be used by a compiler (hence its associated Creator code linking those files to CodeWarrior). This allows these files to be recognized by other apps as text files, and allowing those apps to see these files when you use their Open commands, which makes more sense to me.
To be fair, one big mistake of Type/Creator implementation in older MacOS versions is its secretive nature - there's no way to see and/or change a file's type/creator without using a power-user tool like ResEdit or FileBuddy. For applications I can understand why it's important; for files, I would've liked an "Advanced" tab somewhere allowing me to change that. (In the past I have used system extensions to add that kind of tab in my File Info window, but the version I was using no longer works with OS 9.)
Ever since I've heard about the idea of adding back-doors to encryption products in the US, I've been wondering exactly HOW this was supposed to help.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US is not the only country in the world where encryption research and development is taking place. So terrorists could still use programs like GnuPG to encrypt their communications.
In contrast, encryption research in the US would be hindered by the back-door laws. This means that US citizens wouldn't be able to (legally) access quality encryption products. It could even mean that encryption research would move elsewhere (or at least quality researchers would), which would make it more difficult to find encryption experts to hire in the US. And THAT would mean the FBI and other legal entities would have MORE trouble fighting terrorists (who, as noted, are still happily using GnuPG).
I had submitted this as a/. story quite some time ago, but it never got posted, so I'll add it as a comment here.
When I installed the first version of QNX Real-time Platform, I used their package management system to install extra developer tools and packages from the RtP CD i burned. one of those packages was essentially made up of GCC and other GNU tools. When you install packages using RtP's package manager, it sometimes pops up licences to the various packages - most often, the QNX RtP license.
Well, surprise - the GNU package popped the QNX license, too. That license is of course NOT a free software license, so it could probably be considered a GPL violation.
Or maybe it's just a mistake while building the package, leaving the default QNX license on...
I didn't install the new release of QNX RtP, so maybe this has changed. Does anyone know?
I think this is not really about visual programming. Actually it's far from it - it's about programing *without representation* - be it text, pictures, etc.
Yes, text *alone* might be better than pictures *alone* at representing a computer program. But the point of this is - why pick one? Maybe pictures *and* words is the best way of doing it.
I am very used to reading code. However, I have to agree with this guy about one thing: it is very difficult to grasp a program's design by reading its code. It is too complicated because you must navigate through your source files in a totally non-linear fashion. It is usually a long, tenuous and not-so-interesting project.
With a language like this, we can have the best of both worlds. Different viewers could represent the program in different ways. One viewer could show source code while the other could show the program's structure graphically. Heck, maybe you could even represent the program using various code syntax: you know Java best? we'll show you the program in Java; C is more your thing? Well, C it is then.
I think this is a great experiment, one that has the potential to give us important insights into how programs are constructed and how they are represented. Maybe the fact that these two are so interlinked in today's language is part of why programs are usually difficult to write and maintain.
> 3. Until the CRTC took their grimy mitts off
> long distance, we were still paying a fortune to
> use the phone. In some areas, the CRTC WILL
> STILL NOT ALLOW COMPETITION. I'm living in such
> an area.
Actually, ever since the CRTC took their "grimy mitts" off long distance, I AM paying a fortune to use the phone.
here in Quebec, Bell had a monopoly on long distance service which they defended by saying the higher prices on long distance was used to cover the expenses for local calls (i get unlimited local calls for a flat rate).
now since Bell has competition for long distance, my local calls rate has been going up steadily and I now pay DOUBLE the amount I was paying when Bell had a monopoly (more or less).
I don't do a lot of long distance. So for me, the monopoly was a Good Thing. i may be wrong, but I believe that competition in long distance is more beneficial to business. quite frankly, I'd rather see people pay less and business pay more. maybe that's just me. or maybe not: even the Consumer Protection Association here in Quebec was FOR the Bell monopoly, and OBJECTED to the CRTC's decision to allow competition.
sometimes you have to check behind the principles and look at what's happening in the field.
Re:Who's cheapening freedom?
on
Men of Zeal
·
· Score: 1
Freedom *does* have something to do with software. I buy a CD. I use the program. I buy another program that's better, so I want to give the old program to a friend. Now I'm told I can't because I don't actually own the program? What's up with that, I paid for it.
Since some sofware makers are actually trying to deny me of my freedom, it is important to me that I have a free alternative - thus, free software does help the cause of freedom.
Who's cheapening freedom?
on
Men of Zeal
·
· Score: 1
From your post, it almost sounds like you're accusing people who support free software of lowering the value of the word "freedom" just because they are fighting for the freedom of something else than the lives of other people (or maybe their own).
Isn't it a bit contradictory to claim that someone trying to teach others about freedom is actually doing harm to the fight for freedom throughout the world? Instead, by trying to restrict the meaning of freedom to helping those in need of food, shelter, etc., you are most likely to cheapen the meaning of freedom by restricting it to a very specific aspect of the concept.
Freedom is not only about staying alive, eating food, having shelter, etc. If fact, I think this has more to do with basic human rights than freedom. Instead, freedom is considered by many to be a right in itself - meaning that after you are safe and healthy, you want to be able to express yourself, to speak to others about any subject, to be able to share your knowledge and your dreams with others, etc. After all, some people live in totalitarian countries and are healthy and safe - in China, for example. But even if their rights to life, food and shelter are assured, their right to freedom is not, because they are told that certain subjects cannot be discussed, that they cannot criticize the government, etc.
I think everyone will agree that it is more important to stay alive, eat well and find shelter than to be able to speak freely. This is a given, since you can't possible speak freely if you're sick and dying. But it does not mean that fighting for the safety of people who are in need of it should stop us from fighting for freedom.
I think that the people who believe in the freedom of software are often seen as zealots or fanatics. I think that's because people don't realize what they're missing because they grew up in a world where some of their freedom were taken away constantly. In comparison, the net grew with the help of dreamers who sought to create a mean of sharing and communicating openly with others, something that is very important for freedom. The internet is perhaps the last place where we can really hope that our right to freedom is fully kept alive. However, as the net grew and more and more companies sought to connect everyone to it, the number of people who came on the net for sharing and collaborating gradually lowered in proportion of the people who just came on the net to have fun and profit from other's hard work without sharing themselves.
The fight for freedom of software is just as important as other fights for basic human rights and such - in fact, not only is it important, but all those fights must be fought if we are to preserve those rights. It is not proper for you to criticize others because they're taking part in a fight which you find less important than the one you're taking part in. After all, many people don't take part in any of those fights, so at least the people who fight for freedom of software are surely helping more. And it's very possible for someone to help in more than one fight - after all, what's preventing me from sending money to OXFAM or the Red Cross while i'm writing free software? People have different interests and abilities, and they can use them as they wish (that, too, is part of freedom, after all). Some people go to other countries and help those in need of food and medical assistance. These people are surely admirable and I respect them a great deal - but as for me, I don't feel like I'm capable of doing that. On the other hand, I'm capable of writing software, so I can help protect freedom in my own way.
Please note that I am not an old-school hacker; in fact I am not even a hacker. I am a young programmer that grew up in the Macintosh world, and I've just recently taken interest in GNU/Linux and the world of free software. I don't agree with everything that RMS says and that's ok, since everyone is entitled to their own opinion (that doesn't mean that we can't discuss those opinions); however, even though freedom of software wasn't something I grew up with (the macintosh community is more oriented toward freeware and shareware), some of what he was saying did interest me. I do not know if proprietary software is so bad, because I still can't decide if being able to buy a piece of proprietary software (thus giving away some of your freedom) is also an important aspect of freedom (after all, shouldn't I be free of foregoing my freedom if I want to?). However, I do agree that proprietary software has often hurt the community and our freedom to share and express ourselves. Thus, supporting free software is important, I believe, because it shows those big businesses that we're not giving our freedom away without a fight.
Slashdot Mirror
Crossover? (Score:1, Troll)
I dont mean to be a troll but I believe I have a point.
Well, it seems that you ARE a troll, but at least you're right: you DO have a point.
FSGS (Free Standard Game Server) can also play some of Blizzard's games, like StarCraft and Diablo. They do not support the WarCraft III beta however... but they did get hit by a legal letter from Blizzard. Currently their site is still up and running but you can no longer download the software.
So apparently Blizzard is really launching an all-out attack on b.net clones...
Don't get me wrong, but what prevents the copyright holders of this project from changing their minds, too?
Ultimately, releasing a particular piece of software under the GPL or another license won't guarantee that it will stay that way; the copyright holder can always change its mind. It's not the first time I hear someone complain that allowing such and such company to work on a piece of software "doesn't guarantee that it'll remain free, so we must make our own version".
While it might seem like a worthy goal, it also seems to me like it's a duplication of effort and also ultimately shows a distrust when it comes to corporate involvement with free software. This last part is especially bad in my opinion, because corporate-funded free software development really has the potential to benefit everyone. But for some reason many Linux and free software users still don't like private companies meddling with their toys.
I won't try to argue about which browser supports what better than the other (since everyone else is doing that), but I just want to point out one area where I think Mozilla wins hands-down: improvement.
I've used IE on my Mac exclusively back in the days of IE 3.02. It was small, sleek, fast. Yes, it didn't render everything perfectly, but neither did Netscape 4.x, which was twice as bloated. Then IE 4 came out, then 4.5, then 5 - and what was new? Nothing. They just kept adding more features I didn't need, doubling the RAM requirements on each release and making it slower and slower on my old mac(s). I switched to Netscape 4.7x at that time on classic MacOS and never went back.
The same thing is happening with IE on Windows. I began using IE with version 4 on Windows 98. It was so surgically-grafted to the OS that it started fast as hell and was really lightweight. Then they began releasing more and more versions - 5, 5.5, 6. What was new? Again, nothing. They just keep adding more and more useless stuff on my toolbar (like a Radio toolbar or a Media button in IE 6 to plug Windows Media Player in), making it gobble more and more RAM and making it start and run slower and slower on my high-end PC (damn, I have a 1Ghz Pentium III at work and it still starts pretty slowly compared to IE 4 on my 266Mhz K6-2 running Win98 here are home).
What about Mozilla? Well, to tell the truth, the first Mozilla releases sucked, plain and simple. But what are they adding in each release? Important stuff. Better standard compliance. Even more stability. Making it start/run faster and faster.
At work, I've recently began using Opera instead of IE for day-to-day browsing. Why? Because IE sucks now. Opera starts faster and renders everything pretty well. And Mozilla is coming along in that direction nicely. Although I find it a bit bloated for its own good, I have to give it my two thumbs up for one thing: it's actually getting better, while IE is sinking.
Seriously though, it's good to see a company respond to the voices of the online community, and admit it made a mistake. Good job Borland.
Borland fixes its clearly-abusive Kylix/JBuilder license: good for them to listen to us, they're the good guys.
Microsoft fixes its clearly-abusive Passport license: they did it just to put out the fire, not because they care, they're still the bad guys.
Isn't it ironic how /. can be full of double standard?
I sure hope they fixed their installer since Delphi 5, because in that version, you could select "I do not agree" and still click Next, and proceed with the installation.
:)
Cocoa is not a GUI toolkit. It is a set of API, available for Objective-C and Java, that allow you to write applications for MacOS X. Cocoa includes many APIs, including APIs for GUI stuff.
However, the GUI toolkit in OS X is called Quartz and it uses PDF. Quartz is used by all OS X apps to display their GUI, be they written in Objective-C/Java with Cocoa or in C/C++ with Carbon.
The fact that "oh so many people want to do it" is completely irrelevant, because these "oh-so-many-people" haven't written the programs in question, and thus have nothing to say about the way these should be used apart from kindly asking the author(s).
Funny how that sounds like what a proponent of proprietary software would say: "I am the developer, I decide what license I use for my software and how you are to use it.".
I am a big believer in free software, however I cannot help but notice that the free software movement sometimes uses tactics that are strikingly familiar with the way makers of proprietary software act. After all, one of the big argument of the FSF is that deciding how people are gonna use their software ("you can't see the source", etc.) is bad - that people should be free to use the software as they please. Yet telling people how they should release their software is exactly what the FSF is going with the GPL!
I think that there's really no big difference between the GPL and non-copylefted licenses like the BSD license - they're both giving away a right (to use the software as one sees fit). The only difference is that the GPL tries to make a moral point - that proprietary software is wrong, that it should not exist. But imagine this: if lawmakers were to get that and render proprietary software illegal, then there would be no difference between the BSD license and the GPL.
Did you try it with IE 5? It looks perfect with IE 5 on the mac.
I just checked MSN.com here on my mac, and I still can't get in with either Mozilla 0.9.4 or 0.9.5 (I downloaded the update specifically to check). However I can get in fine with Netscape 4.78 (it doesn't crash, either).
Now, I also checked with iCab Pre2.5.3 and it was letting me in at first... but I noticed i had told it to say it was IE 5 for mac. I switched its user-agent string to "iCab/2.5.3 (Macintosh; I; PPC)" and got blocked. Same if I use "Lynx/2.8 (compatible; iCab 2.5.3; Macintosh; I; PPC)".
However, the following user-agent allowed me to get in: "Mozilla/4.5 (compatible; iCab 2.5.3; Macintosh; I; PPC)".
So it seems they're not just blocking Mozilla and Opera like some thought, but are broadly blocking non-IE and non-Netscape browsers.
It depends on how you define "need to do". The Type/Creator system had the merit of separating the TYPE of data contained in the file from its ORIGIN. That is, on OS 9 here, I can have text files created by different programs (SimpleText, BBEdit, CodeWarrior) and they will all be linked to their corresponding apps when I double-click them, which is definitively something I "need to do" (or rather "like to be able to do", since most OSes don't let me).
Separating the file's Type from its file extension also allows you to separate the TYPE of data from its intended USE. On my system, all my code files, be they .cp, .cpp, .pas, etc. are all of type TEXT, which is logical because code IS text - it is just intended to be used by a compiler (hence its associated Creator code linking those files to CodeWarrior). This allows these files to be recognized by other apps as text files, and allowing those apps to see these files when you use their Open commands, which makes more sense to me.
To be fair, one big mistake of Type/Creator implementation in older MacOS versions is its secretive nature - there's no way to see and/or change a file's type/creator without using a power-user tool like ResEdit or FileBuddy. For applications I can understand why it's important; for files, I would've liked an "Advanced" tab somewhere allowing me to change that. (In the past I have used system extensions to add that kind of tab in my File Info window, but the version I was using no longer works with OS 9.)
Ever since I've heard about the idea of adding back-doors to encryption products in the US, I've been wondering exactly HOW this was supposed to help.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US is not the only country in the world where encryption research and development is taking place. So terrorists could still use programs like GnuPG to encrypt their communications.
In contrast, encryption research in the US would be hindered by the back-door laws. This means that US citizens wouldn't be able to (legally) access quality encryption products. It could even mean that encryption research would move elsewhere (or at least quality researchers would), which would make it more difficult to find encryption experts to hire in the US. And THAT would mean the FBI and other legal entities would have MORE trouble fighting terrorists (who, as noted, are still happily using GnuPG).
I had submitted this as a /. story quite some time ago, but it never got posted, so I'll add it as a comment here.
When I installed the first version of QNX Real-time Platform, I used their package management system to install extra developer tools and packages from the RtP CD i burned. one of those packages was essentially made up of GCC and other GNU tools. When you install packages using RtP's package manager, it sometimes pops up licences to the various packages - most often, the QNX RtP license.
Well, surprise - the GNU package popped the QNX license, too. That license is of course NOT a free software license, so it could probably be considered a GPL violation.
Or maybe it's just a mistake while building the package, leaving the default QNX license on...
I didn't install the new release of QNX RtP, so maybe this has changed. Does anyone know?
I might be wrong on this, but I thought MS announced it would drop OpenGL support in its future OSes like Windows XP.
Other Java proponents have asked Hemos to include the latest Java JRE link in his /. posts.
I think this is not really about visual programming. Actually it's far from it - it's about programing *without representation* - be it text, pictures, etc.
Yes, text *alone* might be better than pictures *alone* at representing a computer program. But the point of this is - why pick one? Maybe pictures *and* words is the best way of doing it.
I am very used to reading code. However, I have to agree with this guy about one thing: it is very difficult to grasp a program's design by reading its code. It is too complicated because you must navigate through your source files in a totally non-linear fashion. It is usually a long, tenuous and not-so-interesting project.
With a language like this, we can have the best of both worlds. Different viewers could represent the program in different ways. One viewer could show source code while the other could show the program's structure graphically. Heck, maybe you could even represent the program using various code syntax: you know Java best? we'll show you the program in Java; C is more your thing? Well, C it is then.
I think this is a great experiment, one that has the potential to give us important insights into how programs are constructed and how they are represented. Maybe the fact that these two are so interlinked in today's language is part of why programs are usually difficult to write and maintain.
> 3. Until the CRTC took their grimy mitts off
> long distance, we were still paying a fortune to
> use the phone. In some areas, the CRTC WILL
> STILL NOT ALLOW COMPETITION. I'm living in such
> an area.
Actually, ever since the CRTC took their "grimy mitts" off long distance, I AM paying a fortune to use the phone.
here in Quebec, Bell had a monopoly on long distance service which they defended by saying the higher prices on long distance was used to cover the expenses for local calls (i get unlimited local calls for a flat rate).
now since Bell has competition for long distance, my local calls rate has been going up steadily and I now pay DOUBLE the amount I was paying when Bell had a monopoly (more or less).
I don't do a lot of long distance. So for me, the monopoly was a Good Thing. i may be wrong, but I believe that competition in long distance is more beneficial to business. quite frankly, I'd rather see people pay less and business pay more. maybe that's just me. or maybe not: even the Consumer Protection Association here in Quebec was FOR the Bell monopoly, and OBJECTED to the CRTC's decision to allow competition.
sometimes you have to check behind the principles and look at what's happening in the field.
Freedom *does* have something to do with software. I buy a CD. I use the program. I buy another program that's better, so I want to give the old program to a friend. Now I'm told I can't because I don't actually own the program? What's up with that, I paid for it.
Since some sofware makers are actually trying to deny me of my freedom, it is important to me that I have a free alternative - thus, free software does help the cause of freedom.
From your post, it almost sounds like you're accusing people who support free software of lowering the value of the word "freedom" just because they are fighting for the freedom of something else than the lives of other people (or maybe their own).
Isn't it a bit contradictory to claim that someone trying to teach others about freedom is actually doing harm to the fight for freedom throughout the world? Instead, by trying to restrict the meaning of freedom to helping those in need of food, shelter, etc., you are most likely to cheapen the meaning of freedom by restricting it to a very specific aspect of the concept.
Freedom is not only about staying alive, eating food, having shelter, etc. If fact, I think this has more to do with basic human rights than freedom. Instead, freedom is considered by many to be a right in itself - meaning that after you are safe and healthy, you want to be able to express yourself, to speak to others about any subject, to be able to share your knowledge and your dreams with others, etc. After all, some people live in totalitarian countries and are healthy and safe - in China, for example. But even if their rights to life, food and shelter are assured, their right to freedom is not, because they are told that certain subjects cannot be discussed, that they cannot criticize the government, etc.
I think everyone will agree that it is more important to stay alive, eat well and find shelter than to be able to speak freely. This is a given, since you can't possible speak freely if you're sick and dying. But it does not mean that fighting for the safety of people who are in need of it should stop us from fighting for freedom.
I think that the people who believe in the freedom of software are often seen as zealots or fanatics. I think that's because people don't realize what they're missing because they grew up in a world where some of their freedom were taken away constantly. In comparison, the net grew with the help of dreamers who sought to create a mean of sharing and communicating openly with others, something that is very important for freedom. The internet is perhaps the last place where we can really hope that our right to freedom is fully kept alive. However, as the net grew and more and more companies sought to connect everyone to it, the number of people who came on the net for sharing and collaborating gradually lowered in proportion of the people who just came on the net to have fun and profit from other's hard work without sharing themselves.
The fight for freedom of software is just as important as other fights for basic human rights and such - in fact, not only is it important, but all those fights must be fought if we are to preserve those rights. It is not proper for you to criticize others because they're taking part in a fight which you find less important than the one you're taking part in. After all, many people don't take part in any of those fights, so at least the people who fight for freedom of software are surely helping more. And it's very possible for someone to help in more than one fight - after all, what's preventing me from sending money to OXFAM or the Red Cross while i'm writing free software? People have different interests and abilities, and they can use them as they wish (that, too, is part of freedom, after all). Some people go to other countries and help those in need of food and medical assistance. These people are surely admirable and I respect them a great deal - but as for me, I don't feel like I'm capable of doing that. On the other hand, I'm capable of writing software, so I can help protect freedom in my own way.
Please note that I am not an old-school hacker; in fact I am not even a hacker. I am a young programmer that grew up in the Macintosh world, and I've just recently taken interest in GNU/Linux and the world of free software. I don't agree with everything that RMS says and that's ok, since everyone is entitled to their own opinion (that doesn't mean that we can't discuss those opinions); however, even though freedom of software wasn't something I grew up with (the macintosh community is more oriented toward freeware and shareware), some of what he was saying did interest me. I do not know if proprietary software is so bad, because I still can't decide if being able to buy a piece of proprietary software (thus giving away some of your freedom) is also an important aspect of freedom (after all, shouldn't I be free of foregoing my freedom if I want to?). However, I do agree that proprietary software has often hurt the community and our freedom to share and express ourselves. Thus, supporting free software is important, I believe, because it shows those big businesses that we're not giving our freedom away without a fight.