What? Your post started off "okay but mistaken" and then just descended into self-conscious gibberish.
Stallman's principles and objectives have been consistent. Just because you don't agree with them is irrelevant, even if you try to discredit them attaching derogatory labels to them: if anything you're post was a prime example of being obtuse and you've clearly gone wrong.
No, he absolutely does not want all software to be "open-source".
He espouses 4 freedoms which can only be achieved through "FREE/Libre software".
"Open-source" has different aims and he speaks against them.
The rest of your post is equally ill informed and utterly misses his points, which demonstrated either you didn't even bother watching the TEDx video before vomiting out your rather moronic post or you were incapable of understanding.
Free software is literally nothing to do with whether "it's harder to write and debug applications".
Black guy whose only qualification was a piece of paper from Sun saying he could answer questions about Java. (Shouldn't have even been called for interview really: the company was desperate to diversify away from just VB development).
I simply could not understand a single word he said! I had to stop the interview after 10 minutes.
Torvalds has always been a foul mouthed whiner and politely asking him to behave like a decent human being won't change him.
There, fixed that for you.
Torvalds has always been a self-important arsehole -and I mean that in a bad way- and he's too socially inept to even realise what a spoilt little brat he is.
Actually most copyright legislation includes the moral right to be identified as the author of your work (and to not be identified as the author of something you didn't produce).
This applies to books, but software is explicitly excluded- so your book analogy is invalid.
Yeah the problem is that the moral right, under various copyright laws, to be identified as the author of your work specifically does not apply to software.
I used to contribute to JBoss until I had this happen to me.
I wrote the very first JAAS tutorial and example code for JBoss. It was promptly stolen, the other guy's name added, mine removed and then published to the JBoss community.
I called the plagiarist, Scott Stark, out, he denied it.
I pointed out all "his" code was identical to mine including variable names, he denied it, claiming the variable names were "obvious".
I pointed out this "his" examples contained exactly the same errors as mine did, finally he admitted he'd stolen my work and added my name as a contributor.
That plus Mark Fleury's attitude drove me away and I decided never to contribute to JBoss again.
Err. Maybe I am missing something but don't you WANT the light to pass through the LCD? In other words the 1% that you claim 'gets through' is actually the wasted light and it's the other "99%" that actually provides any value?
"Sensibility refers to an acute perception of or responsiveness toward something, such as the emotions of another. This concept emerged in eighteenth-century Britain, and was closely associated with studies of sense perception as the means through which knowledge is gathered. It also became associated with sentimental moral philosophy." - Wikipedia.
Destroyed much of Britain's industry, just to remove her opponents' power base.
Politicised the police and used them to enforce her party politics: so much so that even today the Conservatives are so politically indebted to the police that they won't reform them.
She took Britain into a war over some meaningless rocks in the South Atlantic in order to divert attention from her unpopularity and an imminent kicking in the polls.
She destroyed our national rail network- selling it in parts to foreign companies that take truly enormous subsidies (far bigger than the old British Rail ever received) and ship their dubiously earned profits overseas (and certainly never actually invest it back!)- solely because she personally disliked travelling by rail.
She sold off national assets and used North Sea oil revenues to fund tax cuts for the rich.
She set the stage for that even bigger scum bag and her acolyte, Tony Blair: possibly the most personally corrupt prime minister this country has ever had.
I think you need to check the sewers under your house, I expect you'll find grammar nazis, the syntax police and the spelling fairy down there arguing over who gets to tear you a new one first;)
Slashdot Mirror
What? Your post started off "okay but mistaken" and then just descended into self-conscious gibberish.
Stallman's principles and objectives have been consistent. Just because you don't agree with them is irrelevant, even if you try to discredit them attaching derogatory labels to them: if anything you're post was a prime example of being obtuse and you've clearly gone wrong.
You're wrong.
Stallman's objectives have been the same since he established the FSF and he enumerates them as his 4 Freedoms.
The problem is that people, including you, fail to pick up that Free software is primarily about morality and ethics, not coding or technology.
Stallman has always been very clear on these points.
The confusion rests solely in your head: *your* term "free open-source" is at the heart of it.
Watch his TEDx video, you know the thing your commenting on, and he explains it all very clearly.
You're an idiot.
"...and wants all software to be open-source."
No, he absolutely does not want all software to be "open-source".
He espouses 4 freedoms which can only be achieved through "FREE/Libre software".
"Open-source" has different aims and he speaks against them.
The rest of your post is equally ill informed and utterly misses his points, which demonstrated either you didn't even bother watching the TEDx video before vomiting out your rather moronic post or you were incapable of understanding.
Free software is literally nothing to do with whether "it's harder to write and debug applications".
I had that situation face-to-face.
Black guy whose only qualification was a piece of paper from Sun saying he could answer questions about Java. (Shouldn't have even been called for interview really: the company was desperate to diversify away from just VB development).
I simply could not understand a single word he said! I had to stop the interview after 10 minutes.
How is a posting that missed the humour completely 'insightful'?
"How is their only option"?!?!
*You* said it was and I quote from your post just a few inches up:
"It's the only decent, free and customizable mobile OS with a decent app library."
Short term memory loss?
I heard you're idea's and their definately good.
"... I'm jusr grateful..."
Hand in your badge and gun, old timer.
Yet another argument for being able to moderate the posts themselves: and the editors who post them.
Torvalds has always been a foul mouthed whiner and politely asking him to behave like a decent human being won't change him.
There, fixed that for you.
Torvalds has always been a self-important arsehole -and I mean that in a bad way- and he's too socially inept to even realise what a spoilt little brat he is.
Sorry but your wrong.
For some, but by no means all, laws intent to break it is an important factor.
The fact you don't understand the difference says even more about you than calling someone 'douchey'.
You sound like a teenager.
And it's spelled 'kindergarten', idiot.
See what I did there?
Actually most copyright legislation includes the moral right to be identified as the author of your work (and to not be identified as the author of something you didn't produce).
This applies to books, but software is explicitly excluded- so your book analogy is invalid.
Yeah the problem is that the moral right, under various copyright laws, to be identified as the author of your work specifically does not apply to software.
I used to contribute to JBoss until I had this happen to me.
I wrote the very first JAAS tutorial and example code for JBoss. It was promptly stolen, the other guy's name added, mine removed and then published to the JBoss community.
I called the plagiarist, Scott Stark, out, he denied it.
I pointed out all "his" code was identical to mine including variable names, he denied it, claiming the variable names were "obvious".
I pointed out this "his" examples contained exactly the same errors as mine did, finally he admitted he'd stolen my work and added my name as a contributor.
That plus Mark Fleury's attitude drove me away and I decided never to contribute to JBoss again.
Err. Maybe I am missing something but don't you WANT the light to pass through the LCD? In other words the 1% that you claim 'gets through' is actually the wasted light and it's the other "99%" that actually provides any value?
So you're saying the Norse myths of about a thousand years ago are also Lord of the Rings knockoffs?
That word doesn't mean what you think it does:
That word doesn't mean what you think it does.
"Sensibility refers to an acute perception of or responsiveness toward something, such as the emotions of another. This concept emerged in eighteenth-century Britain, and was closely associated with studies of sense perception as the means through which knowledge is gathered. It also became associated with sentimental moral philosophy." - Wikipedia.
If that were true then outsourcing to India would have done that a long time ago.
The only losers to mass immigration and outsourcing are the citizens (obviously) and the government (less taxes).
The SOLE reason arseholes like Zuckerberk want to relax immigration controls is to keep wages low.
Care to provide evidence for your claim? I've bought many books from Amazon, not one of them contains an advert.
I think you need to check the sewers under your house, I expect you'll find grammar nazis, the syntax police and the spelling fairy down there arguing over who gets to tear you a new one first ;)