| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
You've got to admire RichardYou've got to admire RichardPosted Dec 19, 2007 20:37 UTC (Wed) by mingo (subscriber, #31122)In reply to: You've got to admire Richard by BrucePerens Parent article: Insufficiently free?
But he bases that on factually incorrect statements: People are unlikely to switch to a non-free operating system merely because a free program runs on it. That assertion is just false on its face - we lose many developers to Windows and Mac OS X due to the easy availability of GNU software on those platforms. (we can argue about that if you disagree with it.) So his whole line of logic fails from that point on.
(Log in to post comments)
You've got to admire Richard Posted Dec 19, 2007 20:44 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] we lose many developers to Windows and Mac OS X due to the easy availability of GNU software on those platformsI accept that. But from Richard's perspective, whether those users are on Mac or OpenBSD, we have failed entirely to teach them to appreciate their freedom, because they are not making the decision of what OS to run based on which one is entirely Free.
You've got to admire Richard Posted Dec 19, 2007 20:56 UTC (Wed) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] we lose many developers to Windows and Mac OS X due to the easy availability of GNU software on those platforms No, i mean something more subtle: we are losing developers who were previously developing on Linux, to OSX and other platforms - due to the easy availability of GNU software on those platforms. In other words: RMS is not just factually wrong, his position is harmful to free software, it leads to exactly the kind of "antisocial" phenomenon that he set out to fight: the proliferation of unfree platforms. Put differently: Richard got it exactly backwards. Factually, logically and morally as well.
Not 100% sure Posted Dec 19, 2007 21:53 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] We are losing developers who were previously developing on Linux, to OSX and other platforms - due to the easy availability of GNU software on those platforms. Do you really think it was possible to keep these people around ? Usually it goes like this: former Linux developer falls in love with MacOS and switches to it. Are you sure this same developer kept with Linux if MacOS X used Unix versions of C++ compiler and shell instead of GNU ones ? I somehow doubt it... Plus it's two-way street: we often are gaining Linux developers who were MacOS X and/or Solaris before too. Which effect is prevalent is not clear.
Not 100% sure Posted Dec 19, 2007 23:07 UTC (Wed) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] Do you really think it was possible to keep these people around ? Usually it goes like this: former Linux developer falls in love with MacOS and switches to it. Are you sure this same developer kept with Linux if MacOS X used Unix versions of C++ compiler and shell instead of GNU ones ? I somehow doubt it... The point i was trying to make is that the political pressure that Richard is using to keep Linux "pure" is strengthening the force that drives developers to other, non-free platforms. Furthermore, the easy availability of GNU tools on those platforms is giving them the momentary productivity of free platforms, but cuts off the network effects that would strengthen free software, if they were using free platforms. On the other hand, having a few "non-free" convenience tools in a Linux environment generally keeps people _on_ Linux, and lets them produce great free code. My personal 15 years experience is exactly that: i was forced to use gradually less and less un-free software. Had anyone imposed a "0% non-free software" policy on me 15 years ago i'd likely not be a free software developer today. It's really that simple. I think it's plain and obvious that the more free software someone uses, the better it is for free software in general. How Richard can claim that using 99% un-free software plus 1% free software is better than using 99% free software plus 1% un-free software is beyond my abilities to comprehend. In other words: reality is the exact opposite of what Richard claims. At which point his arguments are not even "misguided but self-consistent", they are plain "factually wrong". The real issue i believe is that i suspect Richard is well aware of these contradictions. His goal is not to have more free software, but to have more people believe in free software. Even if that results in less free software and more "social injustice". But if he were aware of that, could he admit to that? I dont think so. The fallacy in that logic is that people can easily produce great new free software even if they do not "believe" in free software as such, as defined by Richard. Simply because nature does not make the ability to produce great free software conditional on some internal mental belief condition. There's no forced 1:1 relationship between "produce great free software" and "believe in free software". The other fallacy is that if there are more people who "believe" in free software that does not necessarily result in more great free software either. (if on the other hand more people start opposing free software as a counter-culture, offseting the positive effects and marginalising free software in the end.) In other words: having more crusaders might easily result in an equally strong (or even stronger) opposing army and in a burned landscape, not in prosperity and justice.
Not 100% sure Posted Dec 20, 2007 2:37 UTC (Thu) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] I think it's plain and obvious that the more free software someone uses, the better it is for free software in general. How Richard can claim that using 99% un-free software plus 1% free software is better than using 99% free software plus 1% un-free software is beyond my abilities to comprehend. He does not claim that. As far as I can tell, he argues that the people using 99% non-free systems are using them primarily because of the 99% that is non-free, and that the 1% that is unlikely to be the deciding factor. Whether efforts to avoid pointing users of 99% free systems to use 1% of non-free software have a net positive effect (by spurring more demand for free software) or negative effect (by driving users away) on free software is a matter of opinion, depending at least in part about what values and goals you have for free software. And even if we all had the same values and goals, it is not as if we have any hard data on this question. Reasonable people can disagree about these things. But pretending that questions of opinion and differences of values are actually questions of fact is not conducive to a reasonable exchange of ideas.
Not 100% sure Posted Dec 20, 2007 11:21 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] Hi Mingo, Wishing no disrespect, but I have to wonder at: I think it's plain and obvious that the more free software someone uses, the better it is for free software in general. How Richard can claim that using 99% un-free software plus 1% free software is better than using 99% free software plus 1% un-free software is beyond my abilities to comprehend. In other words: reality is the exact opposite of what Richard claims. At which point his arguments are not even "misguided but self-consistent", they are plain "factually wrong". So RMS is factually wrong because you think something is plain and obvious? If it's obvious, could you provide some empirical data to back up your claim? I note that RMS did not claim to be factually correct, but rather stating his long-standing position on these things. I have no idea whether your view or RMSes is correct, but it's an interesting question. If these are matters of /fact/, rather than opinion - as you seem to suggest ;) - then I and others would be most curious to see data.
Not 100% sure Posted Dec 20, 2007 15:21 UTC (Thu) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] So RMS is factually wrong because you think something is plain and obvious? If it's obvious, could you provide some empirical data to back up your claim? I note that RMS did not claim to be factually correct, but rather stating his long-standing position on these things. The proof is right in this very article. Less than 1% of Linux users use a distribution that Richard approves of, still FOSS is prosperous. 1 billion lines of free code has been written in the past 15 years. If that is not enough for someone to accept that "the mix of 99% free plus 1% unfree" is fine then nothing else will. This community has literally freed itself out of the shackles of closed code via an epic effort of writing 1 billion lines of code (which is the largest ever single scientific project that mankind has undertaken) - if that is not proof, what else is? Contrast that with the following recent experience i had with FOSS developers who left Linux. I recently triggered a rather nasty bash problem (hung scripts) that i've seen for many years. I never actually realized that this was incorrect behavior, until i asked around. It turns out it was a long-standing bug in bash, but the current maintainer of GNU bash uses OSX so he never triggered it himself. Developers of FOSS working on other platforms are actively harmful to Linux and other FOSS projects - all the network effects are missing. A small proportion of unfree software on a free platform is a lot less harmful on the other hand. (but i could cite many other examples) By Richard's argument, it's better to develop and use GNU Bash on OSX than it is to use a single piece of unfree software on Linux, amongst thousands of other free packages. That is in plain contradiction with hard facts.
Not 100% sure Posted Dec 20, 2007 16:00 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] Less than 1% of Linux users use a distribution that Richard approves of, still FOSS is prosperous. ... By Richard's argument, it's better to develop and use GNU Bash on OSX than it is to use a single piece of unfree software on Linux, But that's nothing to do with RMS' position and his justification for it, which you yourself quoted: People are unlikely to switch to a non-free operating system merely because a free program runs on it. His position is whether non-free software should be recommended, not whether FOSS platforms can be successful without RMS' approval (note that RMS in that thread posted that he does indeed approve of OpenBSD), nor whether it is better to develop on unfree platforms. On these new, latter two points, you appear to be attacking a straw-man, rather than RMS' position which is the subject of this article. (Feel free to point me to posts that show you're not attacking a strawman). Developers of FOSS working on other platforms are actively harmful to Linux and other FOSS projects - all the network effects are missing. I'd be one such a developer, so I have to disagree with your assertion that I'm harmful to FOSS generally. I'll have to agree to disagree with you on a Linux monoculture being good for FOSS.
Not 100% sure Posted Jan 3, 2008 15:28 UTC (Thu) by anton (subscriber, #25547) [Link] Contrast that with the following recent experience i had with FOSS developers who left Linux. I recently triggered a rather nasty bash problem (hung scripts) that i've seen for many years. I never actually realized that this was incorrect behavior, until i asked around. It turns out it was a long-standing bug in bash, but the current maintainer of GNU bash uses OSX so he never triggered it himself.Why do you think that this maintainer left Linux? Maybe he has always been a MacOS guy who came to free software because it was available there. In any case, if the GNU software was not available on MacOS X, would we have one Linux user more, or one bash maintainer less? Also, note that the issue that RMS discussed was his recommendations; one is usually much more circumspect about recommending something than about using something. The GNU recommendations about platforms explicitly state that GNU and GNU/Linux are most important, that one should test personally on these platforms, and that supporting other platforms is optional. Is RMS a hypocrite because the bash maintainer has not followed this recommendation?
You've got to admire Richard Posted Dec 20, 2007 14:56 UTC (Thu) by sean.hunter (guest, #7920) [Link] Wholeheartedly agree with this. Additionally, the patronising attitude that users should be "led to appreciate their freedom" is also directly harmful to free software and stems from a refusal to accept a plurality of points of view. Until RMS is able to comprehend that other people might be fully informed and still honestly disagree with his point of view, almost everything he says is harmful in this way.
You've got to admire Richard Posted Dec 20, 2007 14:58 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] > That assertion is just false on its face - we lose many developers to Windows and Mac OS X due to the easy availability of GNU software on those platforms. (we can argue about that if you disagree with it.) Rather than an invitation to argue about it, which is kind of pointless, I'd prefer to see some supporting data for your assertion. Given your position, I'm sure that if anyone can produce such data, you can. However, "people are unlikely to do X because of Y" is a rather different kind of statement than just "people are unlikely to do X" - closer to speculation than assertion. Moreover, it's not an absolute statement - "are unlikely to" isn't a synonym for "won't", and the production of even a significant minority who do X, and do X only because of Y, does not affect the acceptability of the statement. On the other hand, an assertion, as you have made, that "people are doing X right now" *is* a factual claim, and *does* need to be backed up with evidence. And if you wish it to counter Stallman's statement, you'll also have to demonstrate that the presence of GNU tools on a non-free OS makes a user likely (ie. over 50% chance) to switch to that OS in itself, rather than merely reducing resistance to switching for other reasons.
|
|
||||||||||||