If Stallman had a problem with the preamble, he would have said so.
It's completely common knowledge that Stallman wants to abolish proprietary software entirely. You're just ignoring it because I've completely decimated your position.
There is a huge gap between believing something is wrong and imposing that belief on others. The rest of your argument is based on that leap of logiic.
I guess you're going to choose to ignore the part where it says Stallman's goals mean no proprietary software anywhere.
Not even a Stallman quote - is that the best you can do?
Yeah, let's ignore the entire interview I posted! And hell, that was just one at the top of the Google search results.
It's not just to cater to media companies. Microsoft has desperately been pushing 64-bit, and do you know why? Because the majority of Windows sales have always come from pre-installations on new computers, not retail sales. As we all know, Vista is a tough sell as it is, so Microsoft is trying to come up with as many ways as possible to convince people to upgrade (e.g., Halo will be Vista-only for no technical reason at all). 64-bit is a big part of this marketing push, and now Microsoft is crippling 32-bit version to add even more incentive.
The truth is that, while 64-bit is nice, it's not universally an improvement and is slower in many situations. Frankly, most consumers don't need 64-bit right now. How many home users need to access to 6GB of RAM?
Incidentally, OS X Leopard will be fully 64-bit/32-bit universal. It'll be one version, not separate 32-bit and 64-bit versions like Vista. And it will run 32-bit device drivers alongside 64-bit just fine, invisibly to the user. I'll be running HD playback on my 32-bit Macs just fine.
You know what, I'm getting tired of this college-dorm-room Slashdot mindset that declares, as if based on research or experience, that all judges, prosecutors, and congressmen are bought and paid for and that money rules all. There is no evidence to back that, and in fact, we have the least corrupt legal system in the world. Our system sees more prosecutions for crimes than even the U.K. So could we please stop with the lame +5 upmodded throwaway comments about how evil and corrupt you think the American judicial system is just because you saw that corrupt-judge rerun of Law & Order last week?
"Setting himself apart from the open-source movement, the founder of the Free Software Foundation doesn't believe proprietary software is OK under any circumstance. That remains a tough sell, but Stallman says the realization of his goal will help bring computer technology to people stuck on the losing side of the digital divide."
This is Stallman imposing HIS definition of freedom on others. The base definition of fascism--imposing your will on others under the guise of "freeing" them. Proprietary software is a limitation on your freedom only if you believe that to be the case. You should have the freedom to choose it if you wish, because let's face it, a lot of the time it does the job better than the OSS alternatives.
For what's worth, I think closed source applications do "restrict your freedom" in the sense that you lack the freedom to (legally?) modify them.
Which means you want to restrict the freedom to USE closed source apps.
My point, I suppose, is simply this: fascism is a very, very strong word to being throwing around so facilely. I've heard more than one free software advocate claim that proprietary software is fascist, and I don't think that baldly stupid statement is best countered by claiming its inverse.
I'm simply using the term in an academic, definitive sense to describe the imposition of a control structure on the majority, restricting its freedom in the name of enhancing its freedom.
Re:But what if Microsoft offered it all together?
on
Windows vs Mac Security
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I haven't seen anyone cry "monopoly" over that. I've just seen people cry that Microsoft is selling services to fix problems in its own OS, like with OneCare, instead of fixing the problems in Windows to begin with. And guess what, despite Vista's security enhancements, it's still based on Win32, still based on a registry, and is basically just a bunch of new APIs and rewritten subsystems on top of the same old code.
Also, there's a difference since in the Apple world, there isn't an antivirus or antispyware market, but in the Windows world, there is a huge market that's been around for over a decade, so it's a big deal when Microsoft starts bundling its own versions of these services.
For the record, OS X ships with no antivirus software. Not needed.
I am stating a strong position--you may feel it's too strong, but unless I'm actually somehow preventing you from using closed source software, it's hardly fascist.
Perhaps you haven't done research into those who support your position such as RMS. Or maybe you're just ignorant. In either case, people like RMS actually believe that you should not be allowed to use proprietary software because it's not "free." They want to enforce their brand of freedom to make you free. It's fascism.
Do please enlighten the entire assembled masses by pointing out precisely where by force, authority, or fraud I coerced you to give up your freedom to choose proprietary or free software.
You and your ilk--RMS followers who believe all proprietary software is evil and should not be used. That's the antithesis of freedom. I never said you "coerced" me, and you can't cite where yo did. I simply stated a fact--that such an imposition of your personal definition of "freedom" on others is a base for of fascism.
I acknowledge your complete lack of a counterargument to any of the points I raised.
You must be exceedingly fortunate, an ace programmer, or woefully inexperienced.
Despite your best attempts to dismiss my experience because you don't actually have a response to it, I'm your average technical user and an IT admin for a medium-sized business.
That logical fallacy right there isn't even suitable for scaring away crows, it's such an old canard. Please pardon the pun.
Dismissing things as logical fallacies is a popular strategy on Slashdot, but I'm afraid you don't actually address my point. However, I acknowledge your total lack of a counterargument here. The fact remains that there are people who impose their definition of "freedom" on others. People like you, for instance. It's a base form of fascism, really--do what I say, because I think it's "free."
Don't be obtuse. If you're really that unclear on what "freedom" means, might I suggest looking it up on the Internet?
As much as a bastion of objective truth the Internet often is, I'm well aware of what freedom is. My question is what freedom of mine is being taken away by proprietary software.
If there are working, open drivers for your hardware in that case, yes. However, if sufficient numbers of people accept binary blobs to the extent that there exist no such open drivers, they've curtailed everyone's freedom.
No, they haven't, because supply and demand means if enough demand is there for open drivers, they will be created, and people will have the freedom to continue using the binary drivers or switch to the open drivers. I'm missing what is being taken away here.
For a more dramatic example, consider using a proprietary application with a proprietary data format. Good luck switching away from that.
I've never encountered a proprietary format for my data that I couldn't convert into something else. If the demand is there, the converter is made. No freedom is being lost whatsoever. The fact I'm able to choose to use what I want, open or proprietary, actually bolsters my freedom of choice. Some people want to impose their definition of "free" onto me and tell me I shouldn't be allowed to choose proprietary software, the opposite of freedom.
What does that have to do with my freedom as a person? And don't I still have the ability to just not use Nvidia's binary blob if that becomes an issue, which proves I haven't lost any freedom?
I must say it is rather revealing how easily he is willing to compromise on this particular freedom.
Using proprietary software means I've somehow lost my freedom? I'm free to choose whatever software I wish to use to get the job done, proprietary or otherwise. Can someone explain to me what is meant by compromising on freedom by using proprietary software?
Dude, stop posting as AC. You're all over these threads defending these guys (who now have a disclaimer on their site acknowledging their use of a "modified" MacBook for the hack). I'm beginning to get suspicious.
Although I agree OS X would be targeted more and would likely see an increase in vulnerability announcements, it's important to note that OS X's infrastructure has been built on UNIX-like security from the start, and it has that going for it. Windows sees a lot of flaws because of its kludgy architecture. Win32 was developed in the single-user days, and Vista is still vulnerable to the Win32 scatter attack, for instance.
Given a hypothetical comparison between the two in which both had equal market share, I suspect (though I obviously can't prove) that OS X would see less threats from hackers due to the fact its lineage, dating back to NeXTStep, relies on UNIX technology and practices.
Dude, you've posted at least two other times as an AC account. How about growing a pair and standing behind your statements with a name?
On the website, SecurityWorks now has a disclaimer admitting they used a modified MacBook with third-party WiFi and drivers, not Apple's drivers. They've not shared code with Apple. Can you explain it?
Okay, then how about we trust the researchers who are now admitting they DIDN'T find the vulnerabilities in Apple's wireless drivers and cards as was originally claimed and instead used a modified MacBook with a third-party WiFi card (even though MacBooks comes with Airport) and driver (even though Apple includes its own drivers)?
They didn't show Apple any code and didn't give a demonstration. They now admit they used a third-party wireless card and driver on a modified MacBook. What more do you need?
What?! Did you miss last Patch Tuesday, the biggest this year? 23 vulnerabilities were patched, and even those patches are now causing problems. It's been bad all year.
Slashdot Mirror
GDI+ and Quartz are vector APIs. X has nothing to do with that, and Cairo still isn't production quality.
If Stallman had a problem with the preamble, he would have said so.
It's completely common knowledge that Stallman wants to abolish proprietary software entirely. You're just ignoring it because I've completely decimated your position.
Next.
So, in 2006, Linux finally caught up to the graphics capabilities of GDI+ and Quartz from six years ago?
:-P
Does this mean it's the "year of desktop Linux?"
Good point. I stand corrected.
I guess you're going to choose to ignore the part where it says Stallman's goals mean no proprietary software anywhere.
Yeah, let's ignore the entire interview I posted! And hell, that was just one at the top of the Google search results.
Next.
It's not just to cater to media companies. Microsoft has desperately been pushing 64-bit, and do you know why? Because the majority of Windows sales have always come from pre-installations on new computers, not retail sales. As we all know, Vista is a tough sell as it is, so Microsoft is trying to come up with as many ways as possible to convince people to upgrade (e.g., Halo will be Vista-only for no technical reason at all). 64-bit is a big part of this marketing push, and now Microsoft is crippling 32-bit version to add even more incentive.
The truth is that, while 64-bit is nice, it's not universally an improvement and is slower in many situations. Frankly, most consumers don't need 64-bit right now. How many home users need to access to 6GB of RAM?
Incidentally, OS X Leopard will be fully 64-bit/32-bit universal. It'll be one version, not separate 32-bit and 64-bit versions like Vista. And it will run 32-bit device drivers alongside 64-bit just fine, invisibly to the user. I'll be running HD playback on my 32-bit Macs just fine.
You know what, I'm getting tired of this college-dorm-room Slashdot mindset that declares, as if based on research or experience, that all judges, prosecutors, and congressmen are bought and paid for and that money rules all. There is no evidence to back that, and in fact, we have the least corrupt legal system in the world. Our system sees more prosecutions for crimes than even the U.K. So could we please stop with the lame +5 upmodded throwaway comments about how evil and corrupt you think the American judicial system is just because you saw that corrupt-judge rerun of Law & Order last week?
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-976005.html
"Setting himself apart from the open-source movement, the founder of the Free Software Foundation doesn't believe proprietary software is OK under any circumstance. That remains a tough sell, but Stallman says the realization of his goal will help bring computer technology to people stuck on the losing side of the digital divide."
This is Stallman imposing HIS definition of freedom on others. The base definition of fascism--imposing your will on others under the guise of "freeing" them. Proprietary software is a limitation on your freedom only if you believe that to be the case. You should have the freedom to choose it if you wish, because let's face it, a lot of the time it does the job better than the OSS alternatives.
Which means you want to restrict the freedom to USE closed source apps.
I'm simply using the term in an academic, definitive sense to describe the imposition of a control structure on the majority, restricting its freedom in the name of enhancing its freedom.
I haven't seen anyone cry "monopoly" over that. I've just seen people cry that Microsoft is selling services to fix problems in its own OS, like with OneCare, instead of fixing the problems in Windows to begin with. And guess what, despite Vista's security enhancements, it's still based on Win32, still based on a registry, and is basically just a bunch of new APIs and rewritten subsystems on top of the same old code.
Also, there's a difference since in the Apple world, there isn't an antivirus or antispyware market, but in the Windows world, there is a huge market that's been around for over a decade, so it's a big deal when Microsoft starts bundling its own versions of these services.
For the record, OS X ships with no antivirus software. Not needed.
Perhaps you haven't done research into those who support your position such as RMS. Or maybe you're just ignorant. In either case, people like RMS actually believe that you should not be allowed to use proprietary software because it's not "free." They want to enforce their brand of freedom to make you free. It's fascism.
You and your ilk--RMS followers who believe all proprietary software is evil and should not be used. That's the antithesis of freedom. I never said you "coerced" me, and you can't cite where yo did. I simply stated a fact--that such an imposition of your personal definition of "freedom" on others is a base for of fascism.
I acknowledge your complete lack of a counterargument to any of the points I raised.
Next.
Despite your best attempts to dismiss my experience because you don't actually have a response to it, I'm your average technical user and an IT admin for a medium-sized business.
Dismissing things as logical fallacies is a popular strategy on Slashdot, but I'm afraid you don't actually address my point. However, I acknowledge your total lack of a counterargument here. The fact remains that there are people who impose their definition of "freedom" on others. People like you, for instance. It's a base form of fascism, really--do what I say, because I think it's "free."
As much as a bastion of objective truth the Internet often is, I'm well aware of what freedom is. My question is what freedom of mine is being taken away by proprietary software.
No, they haven't, because supply and demand means if enough demand is there for open drivers, they will be created, and people will have the freedom to continue using the binary drivers or switch to the open drivers. I'm missing what is being taken away here.
I've never encountered a proprietary format for my data that I couldn't convert into something else. If the demand is there, the converter is made. No freedom is being lost whatsoever. The fact I'm able to choose to use what I want, open or proprietary, actually bolsters my freedom of choice. Some people want to impose their definition of "free" onto me and tell me I shouldn't be allowed to choose proprietary software, the opposite of freedom.
What does that have to do with my freedom as a person? And don't I still have the ability to just not use Nvidia's binary blob if that becomes an issue, which proves I haven't lost any freedom?
Can you prove that Apple did know what was going on? Often, these things are handled by the subcontractors in other countries. It happens.
Using proprietary software means I've somehow lost my freedom? I'm free to choose whatever software I wish to use to get the job done, proprietary or otherwise. Can someone explain to me what is meant by compromising on freedom by using proprietary software?
Dude, stop posting as AC. You're all over these threads defending these guys (who now have a disclaimer on their site acknowledging their use of a "modified" MacBook for the hack). I'm beginning to get suspicious.
Although I agree OS X would be targeted more and would likely see an increase in vulnerability announcements, it's important to note that OS X's infrastructure has been built on UNIX-like security from the start, and it has that going for it. Windows sees a lot of flaws because of its kludgy architecture. Win32 was developed in the single-user days, and Vista is still vulnerable to the Win32 scatter attack, for instance.
Given a hypothetical comparison between the two in which both had equal market share, I suspect (though I obviously can't prove) that OS X would see less threats from hackers due to the fact its lineage, dating back to NeXTStep, relies on UNIX technology and practices.
Dude, you've posted at least two other times as an AC account. How about growing a pair and standing behind your statements with a name?
On the website, SecurityWorks now has a disclaimer admitting they used a modified MacBook with third-party WiFi and drivers, not Apple's drivers. They've not shared code with Apple. Can you explain it?
So upgrade to iTunes 6.
Problem solved!
Next.
Um, because they now have a disclaimer on their page explaining that they used a modified MacBook with an "unnamed" third-party card and driver?
Okay, then how about we trust the researchers who are now admitting they DIDN'T find the vulnerabilities in Apple's wireless drivers and cards as was originally claimed and instead used a modified MacBook with a third-party WiFi card (even though MacBooks comes with Airport) and driver (even though Apple includes its own drivers)?
Proof, please.
They didn't show Apple any code and didn't give a demonstration. They now admit they used a third-party wireless card and driver on a modified MacBook. What more do you need?
What?! Did you miss last Patch Tuesday, the biggest this year? 23 vulnerabilities were patched, and even those patches are now causing problems. It's been bad all year.