Insufficiently free?
it becomes impossible not to wonder if one hasn't wandered into an elementary school yard by mistake. Most observers would probably conclude that Mr. Stallman has chosen to express himself with less childish terms than Mr. de Raadt. Still, this conversation came about as a result of a statement made by Mr. Stallman, one which upset the OpenBSD community greatly. It is worthwhile to look at where the disagreement was.
In particular, Richard Stallman started the discussion by saying that he cannot "recommend" OpenBSD because the "ports" system they use facilitates the installation of certain non-free packages. His reasoning comes down to this:
There are all kinds of things which can be said about the OpenBSD community, but statements that they lack a proper appreciation for freedom are not among them. This community's view of what makes a system truly free differs from that of the Free Software Foundation, but what they produce is undeniably free software. It is, arguably, one of the most free systems available, with careful attention paid to the licensing of even things like firmware blobs which are not part of the system itself. So folks in the OpenBSD community resent this sort of claim, even if they profess to care little about the opinions of the person making it.
Of course, it's not only OpenBSD which fails to pass Mr. Stallman's test. The list of recommended distributions from the GNU web site has grown recently; it now contains gNewSense, Ututo, Dynebolic, Musix, BLAG, and GNUstep. True statistics are hard to come by, of course, but your editor would be most surprised if the combined installed base of these distributions added up to a full 1% of the Linux systems in use. Most of us, in other words, are using systems which Mr. Stallman is unable to recommend.
Many of us will be using distributions like Fedora or Debian which are strongly committed to the creation of free systems. The developers behind these distributions have gone to considerable trouble to be sure that everything which is part of their system is truly free software, even when, as has happened at times, the result has been trouble for users. These distributors have clearly advanced the cause of free software greatly through their efforts over many years. One might well wonder just why Mr. Stallman cannot bring himself to recommend the result of this work.
The OpenBSD developers, though, have been asking a different question: why is the GNU project happy to enable its software to be installed on non-free systems? That is where the charges of hypocrisy come from. Mr. Stallman answered both questions together. It seems that, in his view, there is little risk of leading users astray by letting them install programs like Emacs on proprietary systems:
Thus, the risk of leading people to use a non-free system by making a free program run on it is small.
It would appear, however, that proprietary applications carry a much higher degree of risk:
It is not all that hard to see, embodied within a statement like this, a somewhat condescending view of computer users, who have to be "led" to install the right software. It is a position which disallows the recommendation of completely-free operating systems which most of us use. It places a sort of ideological purity above the vast amounts of work which have gone into the creation of a variety of free systems available for all to run.
It is, in other words, an unreasonable position - as can be seen by the fact that almost no free software users actually follow Mr. Stallman's advice when they choose their systems. Before condemning this unreasonable position, though, it's worth a quick review of the famous George Bernard Shaw quote:
There is no doubt that we have benefited from Mr. Stallman's lengthy,
sometimes unreasonable campaign. Certainly he
has no doubt on that score, saying "Free operating systems exist
today because of the campaign which I started in 1983.
" But it's
worthwhile to remember that free operating systems also exist because
thousands of others have put in hard work for many years. It seems
appropriate to wonder whether telling those people that their work
still is not free enough really helps the cause of free software.
On the other hand, one need not wonder about the value of responding to a
"refusal to recommend" with an extensive attack which ventures into pure
character assassination. Vitriolic flaming helps nobody's cause. One may
not agree with Mr. Stallman's position in this discussion, but one thing
should be said: he kept his cool, remained respectful and stayed on-topic
when others lost it completely. That is the way to promote free
software.
(Log in to post comments)
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 19, 2007 16:12 UTC (Wed) by NAR (guest, #1313) [Link]
That G.B. Shaw quote might be famous - it doesn't mean that it's true.
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 19, 2007 16:19 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]
To make it true, it suffices to replace "all progress" with "most progress".
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 19, 2007 21:01 UTC (Wed) by liljencrantz (guest, #28458) [Link]
All generalisations are false. They are not meant to be literal truths, rather to make you reevaluate your assumptions.
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 19, 2007 21:46 UTC (Wed) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link]
Are you sure your generalization about all generalizations is true?
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 19, 2007 23:53 UTC (Wed) by liljencrantz (guest, #28458) [Link]
I'm sorry. It's a Heissenjoke. If you comment on it, it is no longer funny.
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 20, 2007 1:50 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]
So if you commented on the comment which disabled the joke, did you thereby re-enable it? And am I re-disabling it with this comment? If this is so, please -- just one more comment will correct things -- so let the proper person respond ONLY ...
The GNU Herds' software distribution tag
Posted Dec 20, 2007 19:46 UTC (Thu) by davi (guest, #18853) [Link]
The GNU Herds' criteria is an outdated draft.Applying such criteria to some software distributions:
- Debian GNU/Linux is Almost-Free Software because it contains Non-Free Software BLOBs in its kernel.
- Debian GNU/Hurd is Free Software because it does not ship anything that is Non-Free Software.
- Debian GNU/NetBSD is not classified yet.
- Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is not classified yet.
- Debian is Almost-Free Software. Debian is a general term which refer to Debian GNU/Linux and all Debian ports. The Debian project offers the download of some Non-Free Software packages from its archives and website.
- Ubuntu is Partially-Free Software because it is made of many programs; some are free and some are not.
- Gobuntu is Almost-Free Software. Although Gobuntu's stated policy is to adhere to the Free Software Foundations four freedoms, it presently installs Firefox, which encourages installing non-free plugins. Gobuntu enables downloading of non-free software packages from its archives, and the use of the ubuntu.com domain promotes non-free software.
- gNewSense is Free Software because it does not ship anything that is Non-Free Software neither work to provide easy access to Non-Free Software. A Non-Free Software BLOB not removed from gNewSense is a bug. The gNewSense's policy is to delete any non-free software found in the Linux kernel or elsewhere in the GNU/Linux system.
- OpenBSD is Almost-Free Software because although it does not ship anything that is Non-Free Software it provides for easy installation of Non-Free Software through the ports system. Not many packages though: Java and a few others.
- FreeBSD and NetBSD are Almost-Free Software because provide for easy installation of some Non-Free Software products through the ports system. Besides both contain Non-Free Software BLOBs in its kernel too.
- Mac OS X is tagged as Non-Free Software.
- Microsoft Windows Vista is tagged as Non-Free Software.
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 19, 2007 16:20 UTC (Wed) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]
On the whole, RMS comes off as the most reasonable participant in the discussion. For all his reputation of extremist dogmatism, he's not the one slinging ad hominems and resorting to hyperbolic fallacies. Indeed, his patience in the face of such is almost eerie.
That said, picking this fight, however reasonably he tried to do it, was perhaps not the wisest course of action. If one pokes a hornet's nest with a stick, the hornets will overreact, yes, but it's still not a good idea.
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 19, 2007 16:47 UTC (Wed) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link]
RMS seems to view conversation as a chess match or a mathematical proof. From TFA: >One might well wonder just why Mr. Stallman cannot bring himself to recommend the result of this work. Stallman's entire position is based upon the limit as compromise approaches 0. The GPL makes great common sense, but it apparently rankles the fellow that not everyone views it as received wisdom. Once, I had a PHB that would try to tell me to do patently stupid things when technical choices for the project came up. I would look at him and say "I love you, man", rather that engage, because his ideas (e.g. 'just make all of the database fields text') were just ronngg. RMS deserves to be lovingly ignored in a similar fashion.
They didn't overreact immediately...
Posted Dec 19, 2007 17:10 UTC (Wed) by i3839 (guest, #31386) [Link]
I skimmed the start of the thread, and it all started reasonably quiet. My impression: Richard Stallman made some statements that people proved to be wrong, taking away the initial reason given to not consider OpenBSD free enough. If he would had admit his wrong then, there would be no news, but as he didn't and apparently continued discussing/arguing, Theo de Raadt had enough of it and started flaming him. After that I stopped reading. Or in other words: *poking* "Hey, stop poking us! What did we do wrong?" "You ate my sandwich." "Err, no, we didn't." "Oh..." *continues poking* ...
They didn't overreact immediately...
Posted Dec 19, 2007 20:03 UTC (Wed) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link]
> Richard Stallman made some statements that people proved to be wrong, > taking away the initial reason given to not consider OpenBSD free enough. I don't think this is true. RMS's statement is that the OpenBSD ports system contains ports for non-free software. That is a fact that is not in dispute. In his OPINION, that equates to OpenBSD recommending non-free software, so he chooses not to recommend OpenBSD. There is no "proving" that RMS's OPINION is wrong, unless you prove that the facts that he used to form his opinion are wrong--and they are not. Of course anyone is free to THINK that RMS's opinions are wrong, just as much as he is free to have them. But, there's no reason why he should be blamed for not "admitting" he is wrong when nothing that was said changes the facts. Flaming him for not changing his mind simply because you think he should is not a reasonable response. Actually I can't understand why the OpenBSD folks care whether RMS recommends their software in the first place. They obviously almost universally despise the man out of all proportion to any affront he's done to them. Sometimes I think that deep down they just enjoy flaming for flaming's sake. Breaks up the monotony of coding I guess. Certainly they're far from alone in this. As far as I can tell, RMS's positions are internally consistent. Just because they don't always inform the real-world "grey areas" most of us wrestle with doesn't mean that he's a hypocrite.
They didn't overreact immediately...
Posted Dec 19, 2007 21:52 UTC (Wed) by i3839 (guest, #31386) [Link]
You're probably right, I'm just a not very interested outsider, so I might have gotten the wrong impression (not going to scan the list again to double-check). But I can understand if people get the impression that, after each reason was refuted, another one popped up or wriggling happened (I'm not claiming that either of those actually did happen). So although RMS stayed calm, he might not have given a very sincere impression. As for the ensuing flaming, it's indeed very baffling that they react so strongly about someone's opinion they don't really care about. But what interests me here is that it started all right, and only later into the thread, after all points of disagreement/misunderstandings were discussed, it went wrong.
They didn't overreact immediately...
Posted Dec 19, 2007 20:10 UTC (Wed) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link]
Richard Stallman made some statements that people proved to be wrong, taking away the initial reason given to not consider OpenBSD free enough. If he would had admit his wrong then, there would be no news, but as he didn't and apparently continued discussing/arguing, Theo de Raadt had enough of it and started flaming him.
RMS said that he does not recommend OpenBSD because its ports systems includes specific instructions/code to install specific pieces of non-free software. No one disputes this fact as far as I can tell, although of course people can disagree with his conclusion.
What you are referring to instead, is people going after tangential points, such as the imprecision of his phrasing that the ports system "includes" non-free software (he responded here). They also attacked other points even less relevant to his position—statements that he explicitly disclaimed he wasn't sure of, e.g. whether OpenBSD includes binary firmware blobs (he was happy to hear that they don't) or whether the OpenSSH license is GPL-compatible (he said he couldn't remember, but that it didn't matter to him because it was free software).
Whether it is ethical to recommend non-free software, or give instructions on how to use it with your system, is an issue over which reasonable people can disagree, of course. (And, like many disagreements about ethics, ultimately seems to be a difference in value systems rather any factual/logical disagreement.) But let's not stoop to rhetorical tricks.
the tone of the discussion
Posted Dec 19, 2007 19:52 UTC (Wed) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link]
On the whole, RMS comes off as the most reasonable participant in the discussion. For all his reputation of extremist dogmatism, he's not the one slinging ad hominems and resorting to hyperbolic fallacies. Indeed, his patience in the face of such is almost eerie.Indeed, I found this exchange telling, and rather characteristic of the tone of the whole discussion:
Theo de Raadt: If he really hated what we do, he should stop using OpenSSH. He says he uses it. He should not. We are horrible people; he should not use our software.RMS: I don't hate what you do. I don't hate OpenBSD. I have a specific criticism of one point about OpenBSD, but that is not hatred. I appreciate many of the good things that OpenBSD does for free software.I don't think that you are horrible. You are behaving rather badly to me, but that's just a small part of what you are as a person; I would not judge you overall based on that. (I also would not reject a free program because of personal disapproval of its developer.)
It looks like you really believe I hate you and really believe I think the OpenBSD developers are horrible. But that does not come from me. I wish you could see that.
the tone of the discussion
Posted Dec 20, 2007 17:22 UTC (Thu) by jd (guest, #26381) [Link]
I believe both sides have confused specifics with generalities, and generalities with personalities, but that the OpenBSD developers have done so more than RMS. This is not a criticism of any individual - every single human being alive has fallen into that trap more than once and will do so many more times in their lifetime. Rather, it is a bug report of a potential exploit that exists within the mind. And, like any other bug report of an exploit, it merits analysis and patching. That it is a wetware bug, not a software bug, should make no difference. It is a bug and developers fix bugs. That should be the end of story.In practice, it's not that easy. The mindset that makes for a good developer appears to be exactly the opposite of that which makes for a social, tolerent and non-hostile individual. It is unclear if fixing the mind bug will break the developer capability. It's very possible. This leads to a difficult conundrum - would fixing the mental bug create a regression far worse than the bug itself?
If the answer is yes, then nothing can be done on the side of the verbally abusive developer without making things worse. Rather, the solution lies in a beter protocol handler on the part of those communicating with such developers. It's an ugly hack, but nothing better has appeared on the horizon. I would argue that Theo is probably in this category, that his aggressive, anti-social, monomaniac attitude is actually critical to his phenomenal talent as a programmer, that attempting to change him would be a disaster in the making. It's not behaviour I like or would normally encourage, but in his case it is an inevitable consequence of his particular type of genius and so I actually encourage people to make an effort to assist him in being as true to himself as possible.
In some cases, the answer will be no, but the developer won't apply the necessary fixes. In other words, fixing their behaviour won't harm anything, but they're not prepared to make those changes. A developer who won't fix a known bug in the system they can change the easiest (themselves) probably shouldn't be trusted to fix anything else and should therefore not be given so much power on mailing lists.
Finally, there will be developers who do patch their own attitudes. They may still not be who we'd like, but credit should be given for the development done and the bug fixed, no different from any other bug fix of high importance.
the tone of the discussion
Posted Dec 21, 2007 21:15 UTC (Fri) by jmmc (guest, #34939) [Link]
great synopsis. First comment that aligned most with what I was thinking (i.e. the RMS/TDR posts 'devolved' from specific -> general -> personal). I've seen RMS speak in person, (and I've seen this in other comments), he is amazingly 'steadfast' in tone, tenor and position. In the post-talk Q&A. his answers deviated not one bit from his main talk (he didn't 'let down', deflate or reposition when the group was smaller/friendlier/intimate etc.). I think Theo went much too far with his comments, but that is his 'internal programming'...I guess. '...wetware bug...', nicely placed.
You've got to admire Richard
Posted Dec 19, 2007 17:10 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]
Yes, he is uncompromising, but with himself too. Richard lives the way he would have you live. He is entirely self-consistent. I can't say that about many people.Bruce
You've got to admire Richard
Posted Dec 19, 2007 17:35 UTC (Wed) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link]
Not too sure Bruce. I do admire rms, always have, still do. That said, I think he was out of line with the criticism of openbsd ports. While I only paid attention during the first day of the 'exchange', it seemed to me that the obsd folks defended their posistion successfully, and I thought that rms would do the reasonable thing. Granted Theo raised the stakes, but that's wholly beside the point. I think rms was wrong, wrong as in incorrect. This I thought was uncharacteristic. I don't think rms would have us defend being incorrect.
You've got to admire Richard
Posted Dec 19, 2007 18:01 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]
I think rms was wrong, wrong as in incorrect.I don't see how. RMS doesn't want distributions to stop carrying non-free software. It's a pretty simple position, and he recommends the distributions that work that way. This is not anything new, and certainly not an attack on OpenBSD, he's had this stance for years.
Bruce
You've got to admire Richard
Posted Dec 19, 2007 20:37 UTC (Wed) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link]
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.
You've got to admire Richard
Posted Dec 19, 2007 20:44 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #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 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.
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...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.
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.
You've got to admire Richard
Posted Dec 19, 2007 20:37 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]
Garble alert. This should say "RMS doesn't want distributions to carry non-free software." Sorry.
You've got to admire Richard
Posted Dec 20, 2007 17:56 UTC (Thu) by jd (guest, #26381) [Link]
I totally admire RMS, and indeed yourself Bruce. There are only a few true "heros" in the software world, but I'd place you both in that category, RMS particularly for the self-consistancy and honesty of his belief system, and yourself for the enormous diplomatic efforts you have made in bringing Open Source to the attention of the wider world. In both cases, it is easy to admire and respect the person as a whole.Theo, on the other hand, is a different sort of "hero". He fits much more the role of the tragic hero with a "brilliant madness", a figure who achieves great things, amazing things, but whose very ability is also a curse, a geas if you like. His ability to communicate and probably act on any level outside of his focussed genius is limited or non-existant. It's easy to dislike such a person, and neurotypicals will likely despise him on sight, but I doubt he is how he is by choice and I also doubt there is any way to change him without harming his abilities, if he can change at all. I may not respect his attitude in the least, but I am in total awe of what he has been able to do and the brilliance of his mind. His is a rare mind of astonishing ability. It's just not the sort of mind you'd invite round for some drinks or necessarily want living next door.
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 19, 2007 17:23 UTC (Wed) by allesfresser (guest, #216) [Link]
I still hold that having Richard around is a good thing. If there were no one holding such a hard line, the top of the curve would be far below where it is, and probably none of us would be using free software. When hanging a tapestry, the stress of gravity or wind is probably hardest on the cloth right next to the grommet that's at the highest point. Similarly, the higher your lofty goal of freedom, the more stress you're going to endure. Theo and OpenBSD have set themselves just a little bit below Richard's standard, and therefore set themselves up for a lot of stress--especially when Richard wants them to come up just that little bit more. :) On another note, I've always been extremely annoyed by Theo's childish behavior, especially toward Richard. The cartoon of Richard implying that he doesn't bathe (in the liner notes for one of the 3.x releases of OpenBSD) was the thing that forever put me off using OpenBSD. There's much better-performing systems that are plenty secure enough for my uses, and their maintainers don't insult people I respect. I really appreciate the developers' contribution to the state of the art (especially their efforts in making wireless drivers available) but sadly that doesn't compensate for everything else.
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 19, 2007 17:43 UTC (Wed) by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029) [Link]
Thus, the risk of leading people to use a non-free system by making a free program run on it is small.
Wait, you mean I can run emacs on a system where I can also run TurboTax? I gotta switch!
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 19, 2007 17:46 UTC (Wed) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link]
RMS wrote to someone very close to me who authors a significant Java-based free software project a few years ago criticising his choice of programming language because Java code then needed non-free software in order to compile and run. But I think the reason for choosing to make the project free software in the first place had little to do with the author's ethical or political position; it was driven by engineering and business logic. Considering the good work RMS has done and continues to do it's probably best just to kindly humour him when he acts in this classic Aspergers manner. It is just possible that RMS might have made developing a free Java a higher priority partly on account of this conversation, and that competition from free Java projects may have encouraged Sun eventually to commit to freeing Java.
To fade away
Posted Dec 19, 2007 19:45 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]
A fight against fundamentally ill-conceived software would be a different fight. Historically, such software has vanished once its commercial support withered. When Sun finally recognizes that Java yields no commercial value, it will fade quietly.
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 21, 2007 16:43 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]
But I think the reason for choosing to make the project free software in the first place had little to do with the author's ethical or political position; it was driven by engineering and business logic.
As you told the story, this doesn't condemn RMS's actions at all. It sounds like RMS was criticizing your friend for not incorporating ethics and politics in his choice of Java.
it's probably best just to kindly humour him when he acts in this classic Aspergers manner.
I don't know why you'd need to humor him; just ignore him as you would anyone who fails to convince you he's right.
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 19, 2007 18:00 UTC (Wed) by ikm (subscriber, #493) [Link]
> "By contrast, many non-free applications are not well known, and installing one is much easier--it does not require changing everything else you do. Thus, even telling people about a non-free application could very well lead them to install it." Fighting for free software is one thing. Fighting against non-free software is quite another.
True, but...
Posted Dec 19, 2007 22:04 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
Fighting for free software is one thing. Fighting against non-free software is quite another.
RMS is doing the latter. Always did. See here:
The Free Software Foundation follows the rule that we cannot install any proprietary program on our computers except temporarily for the specific purpose of writing a free replacement for that very program. Aside from that, we feel there is no possible excuse for installing a proprietary program.
I sorely doubt that all users of Opera on *BSD will only use it "for the specific purpose of writing a free replacement for that very program".
True, but...
Posted Dec 20, 2007 13:28 UTC (Thu) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]
Something like that. Fighting for Freedom is mostly synonymous with Fighting against Oppression (unless your goal is to impliment your own version of oppression). If your fighting your fighting against something. How you choose your attack is probably more along the lines of what you guys were talking about. The tactics; Offensive vs Defensive, Negative vs Positive... That sort of thing. If you disagree with the tactics used then it's quite likely possible that your goals are not the same at all. Unless you think the other person is making a mistake on their tactics. RMS is nothing if not consistent. His problem is a communication one.. he doesn't understand how to get the other person to think along the same lines as he does. His thinking is orthogonal to many other people's thought proccesses and he can't quite adjust his message to re-route the other person's thinking. Then it doesn't help that many people are going to simply approach him with a aggressive attitude due to this quasi-celeberity status.. They already made up their minds what he was going to do and say long long before they actually talk to him. The combination is not pretty. RMS: I want to talk to about "A". OP: Your wrong about "a", nutter. RMS: I am not talking about "a", I am talking about "A" OP: Well, what about 'a->b'? I can't beleive you'd be that dense. RMS: 'a->b' doesn't enter into it, it's not about 'a', it's about 'A'. 'A' is what I am talking about and that's all. OP: WTF? Go screw yourself. I seen the it happen a lot about Free software versus programmers get paid. People assume that it's impossible to effectively make a living without restricting access to the software they make. Supply and Demand is a fundamental market concept and it's difficult to see how people make money by allowing unlimited/clonable/redistributeble supply. RMS's position seems to be that while he sees no problem with programmers charging money for working that is a entirely secondary issue to software freedom. To him Freedom is more important then profit, even though profit is good. So therefore money and supply/demand is a entirely secondary issue. Once the other person understands his position then that should be about it for the conversation if the person stedfastly disagrees with that assumption. For many people money is easily more important then freedom, especially when they view that freedom as insigificant, illusionary, or they disagree with RMS's definitions of 'Freedom' in a fudmental way. Once everybody gets to that point then that should be it. Unfortunately it rarely gets to that point before it disolves into flames. Now on the other hand I've seen people point out other times when RMS deserved to get flamed, but his bad behavior in the past is something else entirely. :)
True, but...
Posted Dec 21, 2007 4:21 UTC (Fri) by ikm (subscriber, #493) [Link]
> If your fighting your fighting against something. You can either a) make your product better, or b) make your competition look worse, hinder its adoption and so on. While it can be arguable, I'm not fond of people who do the latter. In fact, these actions can easily be defined as "enethical and antisocial" themselves, which makes the whole thing that happened somewhat dubious, and at least personally to me, quite funny.
All our slips are made by Freud :-)
Posted Mar 3, 2008 1:57 UTC (Mon) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link]
[T]hey disagree with RMS's definitions of 'Freedom' in a FUDmental way.
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 20, 2007 15:14 UTC (Thu) by sean.hunter (guest, #7920) [Link]
> Fighting for free software is one thing. Fighting against non-free software is quite another. Fighting just to get yourself noticed when the world has passed you by is a third. This is were RMS is.
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 19, 2007 19:19 UTC (Wed) by drlark (guest, #45225) [Link]
Whenever I hear either Theo or RMS (or other OSS evangelicals), my immediate reaction is usually to wretch. This little exchange was no exception. I find that flame wars like this are likened to age old question, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin." Pointless and distracting.
While I (and others) have great respect for what they (RMS and Theo) have done, it is nonetheless futile and ultimately self-defeating. RMS likes to do these drive-by flames, if for no other purpose, then to get his name out and make it look he's still relevant. Theo, on the other hand, likes to defend very vociferously and some might consider savagely OpenBSD and related projects. (Witness his diatribes regarding the lack of give back to the OpenSSH project.)
In the end, the dust will settle on this. Both sides will declare victory, and this flame war will die a death. Did anything tangible get accomplished? No. Did it help either side? No, everyone's views are still pretty much what they were/are.
The only thing that this has accomplished is to show the two communities (OBSD and GNU) that we really just can't get along (TM). And that is sad indeed.
-dan
Who is really sad this thing started and continued.
Did RMS "start" this discussion?
Posted Dec 19, 2007 20:48 UTC (Wed) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link]
LWN: In particular, Richard Stallman started the discussion ...
You: RMS likes to do these drive-by flames, if for no other purpose, then to get his name out and make it look he's still relevant.
Actually, it seems debatable whether RMS "started" this discussion (or did a "drive-by flame" as you put it).
Richard posted on the OpenBSD mailing list in response to a thread started by someone else discussing his views. If someone is discussing your views, you can hardly be blamed for responding.
The original post, in turn, was in response to an interview of RMS on BSDtalk. If you invite RMS for an interview on a BSD talk show, and ask his opinion on the BSD distros, you can hardly blame him for giving it—the same position he has applied to years to free-open/source operating system distros.
Did RMS "start" this discussion?
Posted Dec 19, 2007 21:45 UTC (Wed) by drlark (guest, #45225) [Link]
I stand corrected. I should have noted that this was taken from mid-thread. Also duly noted is that RMS was responding to someone's opinions of his views. For that, I was wrong.
However, I still do consider this "drive-by"-ish in respect to how these flame wars start and fester. IMHO, RMS was splitting hairs for mentioning his dislike of the ports system for installing non-free software. If you are to follow his rationale that use the ports tree makes it "easy" to use non-free software, then you pretty much have to lump anything that could be used, i.e. ftp, lynx, etc. BTW, the ports-tree is, like the rest of OBSD, distributed freely. Taking issue with free software that links or otherwise manipulates non-free software is just silly.
Likewise, Theo is almost good for turning an intellectual argument into a religious war (ditto, RMS). From what I have seen in Theo's writing is that he just has to interject himself in situations where it would be better to just listen.
I do stand by my original assertion that flame wars like this add no value. Upset the community. And are generally non-productive.
I have used OpenBSD. I like its security approach. I like its stability. I don't like the rhetoric that goes with it.
I like Linux, or GNU/Linux, or whatever. I mae a living off of it. My company depends upon it. I don't like the rhetoric that goes with it.
-dan
Who could care less about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin
Did RMS "start" this discussion?
Posted Dec 20, 2007 1:58 UTC (Thu) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link]
If you are to follow his rationale that use the ports tree makes it "easy" to use non-free software, then you pretty much have to lump anything that could be used, i.e. ftp, lynx, etc. BTW, the ports-tree is, like the rest of OBSD, distributed freely.
RMS responded to precisely this argument in more than one place, and you are misrepresenting his rationale. He makes a clear distinction between a port that gives a specific "recipe" of instructions for how to install a specific piece of non-free software—which, in his point of view, is effectively a recommendation of a specific piece of non-free software and hence unethical—and generic tools like "make" and "ftp" which could be used for a variety of purposes, both for free and non-free software, and hence are ethically neutral.
You may or may not agree with his basic philosophical premise that using, recommending, encouraging, or giving recipes for running specific non-free software is unethical—reasonable people can have different value judgements on this question. Attacking RMS on the grounds of logical inconsistency, on the other hand, is harder; he has a well-earned reputation for being consistent to a fault. (All too many "logical" criticisms of him seem to rely on exaggerations or misunderstandings of his point of view.)
On this specific issue, this post by RMS is pertinent:
Any general-purpose system can run non-free software, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether a distribution refers people to the non-free software or not.Since so many messages have been based on disregarding that distinction, I suggest that everyone reread the paragraph above.
Did RMS "start" this discussion?
Posted Dec 20, 2007 2:14 UTC (Thu) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link]
Who could care less about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin
That's not really a fair comparison. Most of RMS's arguments have clear practical consequences. Most notably, his rejection of non-free software as unethical led directly to GNU. Similarly, the question here of whether a distro (whether BSD or GNU/Linux) should include packages to build specific pieces of non-free software also has clear practical consequences, whichever conclusion you agree with.
I do stand by my original assertion that flame wars like this add no value. Upset the community. And are generally non-productive.
You could argue that RMS is unlikely to persuade the OpenBSD developers, and he would probably be the first to agree with you—RMS always says that he never expects to succeed in anything he tries, but he does it anyway. However, if people are going to discuss his views on a mailing list in a thread started by someone else, you can hardly blame him for trying to make sure his views are accurately described (whether or not they are agreed with). After all, mailing list archives last virtually forever and are read by many people other than the OpenBSD developers.
Accentuate the Positive
Posted Dec 19, 2007 21:42 UTC (Wed) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link]
Well, that's your opinion. I found the discussion interesting and have enjoyed learning about the perspectives of all involved (including RMS, Theo, Corbet and others). Understanding the reasons two communities don't get along is essential to patching things up. Anyway, the internet is a big place. Surely there's room even for conversations you don't find appealing.
AROS
Posted Dec 19, 2007 19:31 UTC (Wed) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link]
I'm surprised AROS is it on Richard's list of approved operating systems -- I thought AROS required a binary Kickstart ROM to boot.
Anyway, classic Theo and Richard. Richard is still dogmatic as ever, and Theo is still making an ass of himself.
AROS
Posted Dec 20, 2007 11:38 UTC (Thu) by Fats (guest, #14882) [Link]
I'm surprised AROS is it on Richard's list of approved operating systems -- I thought AROS required a binary Kickstart ROM to boot.No AROS does not need a kickstart to boot. It is a fully open source implementation of the amiga API (UAE is an emulator that needs the kickstart).
As an AROS developer myself I do find it strange though that Richard would recommend AROS. Although I can only speak for myself I think for most AROS contributors the open source thing is important but not so much the free software thing. I myself don't have (ethical or moral) problems with using and producing non-free code. I guess also most AROS devs do support the porting of proprietary programs like Hollywood, Alladin 4D etc. to AROS. So maybe someone should recommend to Richard to not recommend AROS anymore as an OS compatible with the free software religion.
greets,
Staf.
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 19, 2007 19:54 UTC (Wed) by zooko (guest, #2589) [Link]
Does anyone know why gobuntu isn't on the list of FSF-approved GNU/Linux distributions?
Insufficiently free?
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 19, 2007 22:45 UTC (Wed) by BeS (guest, #43108) [Link]
Here you can find the answere: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.misc/134522/
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 19, 2007 23:11 UTC (Wed) by zooko (guest, #2589) [Link]
Thanks. Does anyone know the official stance of Gobuntu on these two reasons which deter RMS from recommending it?
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 20, 2007 7:43 UTC (Thu) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link]
zooko wrote:Does anyone know why gobuntu isn't on the list of FSF-approved GNU/Linux distributions?
I note at Gnuherds, one of FSF's ventures, this text:
Gobuntu is Almost-Free Software. Although Gobuntu's stated policy is to adhere to the Free Software Foundations four freedoms, it presently installs Firefox, which encourages installing non-free plugins. Gobuntu enables downloading of non-free software packages from its archives, and the use of the ubuntu.com domain promotes non-free software.
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 19, 2007 20:07 UTC (Wed) by TRS-80 (guest, #1804) [Link]
RMS says:People are unlikely to switch to a non-free operating system merely because a free program runs on it.This can be shown false by example - a lot of people desire the benefits of the tight coupling of hardware and proprietory software that Mac OS offers, but OS 9 and before did not run free software well, preventing people switching. Whereas OS X does run free software well, due to its n*x underpinnings, and many former Linux and BSD users have been able to switch to it now that this is no longer a barrier to their continued productivity.
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 20, 2007 2:01 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]
You cannot disprove "are unlikely" with anecdotal evidence. His quote refers to statistics. You have to use statistics to disprove it. Anecdotes would only disprove his statement if he had said "won't".
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 20, 2007 3:34 UTC (Thu) by TRS-80 (guest, #1804) [Link]
"In other words, switchers appear to be adopting Mac OS X at twice the rate of Mac OS 9 users." Mac OS X Switcher Stories Tim O'Reilly 08/21/2002. Admittedly a reponse size of 15 is also in the realm of anecdotes, but there's plenty of other examples: "At O'Reilly conferences, Macs outnumber PCs by a huge margin, as much as 3 or 4 to 1." Tim O'Reilly again; At a PHP developer conference "almost half of the laptops there [were] mac[s]!"; "Many software developers I meet claim to be free software guys, who use open source integrated development environments and hack code in PHP, Java or Ruby exclusively, and possess Macs exclusively as well." The free software on a Mac developer paradox; of 500 people at the last RubyConf, "Everybody had a laptop, and its almost but not quite a Mac monoculture."I could dig up more examples, but I think it's hard to defend "unlikely" based on the Ruby example alone. There's a reason Leopard ships Rails (and Ruby), Python, Perl, Apache, PHP etc. - the presence of these free programs by default makes it more likely people will switch to OS X. And it's the ridiculous hoops that you have to do to get more recent versions which are making people switch back.
As a side note, it's interesting that When the bough breaks shows near the top of various google SERPs involving "linux" "mac" "os x" "oss" "switch".
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 20, 2007 13:09 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]
Individual examples do not disprove bulk statistics. Quoting several more examples still does not enter the realm of bulk statistics. You can counter statistics only with statistics. If you want to quote zillions and squillions of individual examples, go ahead, but beware that you will have then entered the realm of statistics.
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 20, 2007 15:26 UTC (Thu) by TRS-80 (guest, #1804) [Link]
Then we'll have to disagree that "unlikely" is based on statistics - I doubt he has any stats to back up his side either. If your point is that Richard is saying that it's unlikely the sole reason people switch to non-free OSen, then I'll concede that because are many differences between OSen and people switching have to make a trade-off between the features and bugs of each. However, my point is that if OS X didn't have such good free software support it would not be a candidate for switching at all amongst the class of FLOSS developers.
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 21, 2007 0:56 UTC (Fri) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]
I don't know what the heck you are arguing about. I said nothing about whether you or RMS were right or wrong. I said that "unlikely" is a statistical statement which cannot be disproved by anecdotes. I said nothing else. You have made up all sorts of arguments thathave nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote, nor even with what RMS wrote. You can disagree with some strawman statement all you want. Be my guest. But using anecdotes to counter a statistical claim is sheer nonsense.
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 21, 2007 5:42 UTC (Fri) by TRS-80 (guest, #1804) [Link]
My statement 'Then we'll have to disagree that "unlikely" is based on statistics' was an attempt at saying "unlikely" was not a statistical statement since RMS had no stats either.
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 21, 2007 10:10 UTC (Fri) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]
I don't know who is denser, you for continually misunderstanding plain English, or me for feeding the troll. RMS made a statistical assertion. You tried to refute it with anecdotes. This is as nonsensical as using science to prove religion. You are not operating in any reality which has any relationship with plain ordinary English. Whether or not he had any statistics to back up his statistical assertion is completely irrelevant to the question of your nonsensical attempt to refute it without statistics. "It's unlikely that anyone would voluntarily eat pig excrement." "Divine voluntarily ate pig excrement in Pink Flamingos." The second statement, an anecdote, does nothing to prove or disprove the statistical assertion of the first statement. Or from the opposite point of view: "It's unlikely that anyone would drink milk." "I know someone who drank milk once." Ditto on the relevance of the second statement to proving or disproving the first statement.
statistical vs anecdotal evidence
Posted Dec 21, 2007 17:32 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]
The thing is: there's no anecdote here. An anecdote would be, "my neighbor switched to OSX because it can run free software."
What TRS-80 started with is an argument in identical form to RMS's. RMS said "people usally don't ..." and TRS-80 said, "a lot of people ..."
Statistically speaking, comparing one statistical statement to another, TRS-80's claim doesn't disprove RMS's because the number of people interested in OSX may be too small fraction of everyone. BUT: it's an example, and one more than RMS gave.
Since no statistical evidence has been presented on RMS's side, I think refuting with examples is a perfectly valid approach.
"People won't usually buy unripe fruit."
"What about bananas? Those continue to ripen after you buy them, so people who don't want overripe bananas a week later buy unripe bananas."
"OK, I didn't think of that. So it's not unusual to buy unripe fruit"
statistical vs anecdotal evidence
Posted Dec 21, 2007 18:10 UTC (Fri) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]
You are oh so wrong. Here is what he said that I was responding to. "This can be shown false by example - a lot of people desire ..." An example does not disprove a statistical assertion. His example may say " a lot of ..." and be a statistical assertion itself, but it does not disprove RMS's statistical assertion.
statistical vs anecdotal evidence
Posted Dec 21, 2007 18:14 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]
OK, you're right. That statement goes too far.
Aspergers Syndrome... and the flamefests
Posted Dec 19, 2007 21:08 UTC (Wed) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link]
I think that Theo, RMS, and ESR all show different sides of the autism spectrum. Each has put out some brilliant stuff.. Theo's code, ESR's early works, and RMS's doctrines have all helped propell FLOSS software as things people could agree on or debate or use to get a larger usage.. However each of them is not very good with people issues. I know quite a lot of programmers who have a folder named 'memorable flames' where ESR or Theo has questioned their man-hood, sexual prowess, or other things because the programmer questioned some statement they made. I don't know any from RMS, but mostly people just route around him at some point when his uncompromising stance on something gets in the way.
Aspergers Syndrome... and the flamefests
Posted Dec 20, 2007 0:49 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]
I walked up to Theo one day, introduced myself and held out my hand for him to shake, and I swear he didn't notice. RMS is generally more functional than that but has very little empathy for folks who don't think the way he does.
Aspergers Syndrome... and the flamefests
Posted Dec 22, 2007 0:14 UTC (Sat) by job (guest, #670) [Link]
RMS has done some very important coding as well. And the only thing of value ESR ever did was a short paper. It's not fair to mention them together.
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 19, 2007 21:57 UTC (Wed) by Thalience (subscriber, #4217) [Link]
If only DJB had joined in as well, it would have been the Perfect Flamewar.
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 19, 2007 22:38 UTC (Wed) by allesfresser (guest, #216) [Link]
I suggest that adding Joerg Schilling, Eric Raymond, Steve Ballmer, Darl McBride, Rob Enderle and B1FF to the "conversation" would make for a more accurate match to that label.
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 20, 2007 0:54 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]
With RMS and Theo, it's not their fault that their brain is wired that way. Some of the other folks on the list are explained not in medical terms but with an abusive label.
To Be Free and Not To Be Free
Posted Dec 20, 2007 6:25 UTC (Thu) by stock (guest, #5849) [Link]
Hemingway started off with "To Have and Have Not". As times have
passed, many CEO's on a payroll successfully reached Hemingway's
objective. Sadly enough "To Have" doesn't imply one is also Free, as
one is still on a payroll.
Software arrived, with the feature of copying without quality loss.
Enter Stallman who introduced the adaptation "To Be Free and Not To Be
Free" and focused on software. The result was that all software should
be Open Source. Although Stallman already proposed this campaign in
1982, many, even to this day, ridiculize this. Today's experience shows
however he has been right.
Proprietary closed source software, today comes with many flaws which
are absent with Open Source by design. e.g. take Viruses :
If all the software used inside GNU/Linux is all 100% Open Source
Viruses are a impossibility by definition.
This should be made the 2nd head law of GNU/Linux(**)
(**) instead of GNU/Linux many other Free OS-es like OpenBSD
can be used.
To Be Free and Not To Be Free
Posted Dec 20, 2007 15:03 UTC (Thu) by nlucas (subscriber, #33793) [Link]
- "If all the software used inside GNU/Linux is all 100% Open Source
Viruses are a impossibility by definition."
You seem to be confusing some personal definition of "harder" with "impossibility".
Please don't spread this myth even further.
To Be Free and Not To Be Free
Posted Dec 20, 2007 15:36 UTC (Thu) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]
> If all the software used inside GNU/Linux is all 100% Open Source Viruses are a impossibility by definition. That's not even remotely true. Viruses for Linux are easy, it's the distribution of viruses that is difficult. A Linux ELF executable can be modified by a attacker to host a virus or other malicious payload. This is a technical thing that is very real. Just because Windows is a much much much easier target then Linux does not make Linux immune. This is why it's very important to have signed packages when doing upgrades on a system. If a attacker gains access to a server even with just binaries it's not a difficult matter to modify a binary to contain a malicious payload. Besides Viruses there are many other types of malware also. There are worms, trojans, and rootkits and there are plenty of Linux machines running out there are the internet right now that are plagued with those sort of things. Linux web servers, for example, are very regularly rooted and there are worms that troll around looking for common vunerabilities. This is because of lazy administrators and/or buggy software using buggy programming langauges. OpenSSL has a large number of vunerabilities in the past, same thing with Apache, and PHP. All of which are open source and all of which are very commonly used by lots of people. Then on top of that most web developers do not hold themselves to very high standards (except for visual quality) and many very popular pre-built web apps that use lots of server-side and client-side scripting are not written by people who have a firm understanding of what it takes to write secure software. Unless a admin is carefull about keeping up to date with everything then they are at a huge risk if they are running the most popular web apps/wiki/blogs/etc/etc. All in all it's a bit of a mess. Free/Open source software certainly does facilitate making secure software, but it does not lead directly to making secure software. If you are able to combine the time, money, manpower, and effort required to make software secure with free and open source software.. this is certainly a winning combination. But definately not a given, it's not a certainty.
To Be Free and Not To BeFree
Posted Dec 21, 2007 17:53 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]
Software arrived, with the feature of copying without quality loss.
That's not really a fundamental feature of software. The fundamental feature is that it can be copied at practically zero cost. If the copy were slightly lower quality, that wouldn't change much.
Stallman's principles apply equally to hardware, by the way, but because of the cost of copying hardware, it's generally not practical to apply them. E.g. Stallman would want me to be able to take my doorknob and have all the information and legal rights to manufacture a bunch more just like it or, better still, somewhat improved. But since it's so hard to manufacture a doorknob, there isn't much use in talking about it.
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 21, 2007 18:06 UTC (Fri) by dag- (guest, #30207) [Link]
I do not understand why the OpenBSD developers (and Theo de Raadt in particular) reply to emails from RMS if they do not think RMS is relevant. The mere fact that they do reply and characterize RMS in specific ways makes RMS seem even more relevant to them than they would admit. If someone would claim something and you don't think it is relevant, you would ignore his opinion or at least discard it with arguments, not make personal attacks. Because all that happened is: RMS gave his opinion (which was known before this thread, so highly unsurprising) and the OpenBSD people disagree with RMS his opinion out of proportion. Not that Theo de Raadt his style was surprising or unusual. I can only sympathize more with RMS for being who he is and how he expresses himself without loosing it.
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 22, 2007 22:01 UTC (Sat) by ddaa (guest, #5338) [Link]
Three brilliant men. One is an unreasonable thought leader. The second is a sociopathic software genius. The third gives us a spot on report of the encounter. That's still a fine sample of humanity. Nice article, and a good cover story, thanks Jon.
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 22, 2007 22:37 UTC (Sat) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link]
One might well wonder just why Mr. Stallman cannot bring himself to recommend the result of this work.After the fall of communism in Eastern Europe, there was a tendency that the people performing the revolution would form the first government, but would soon be superceded by another government after the revolution was over. This sparked a belief that it takes one kind of men to do a revolution, it takes another kind of personalities to govern after the revolution.
RMS's position is clearly one of a revolutionary. In 1980's he never cared about firmware blobs, but now that the major revolution is already over, he has to find new battles for himself, pushing himself more and more towards the extrem position he is in. I have friends like that: To protect animal rights, some are vegetarians. But to be "better" than the first group, some others are vegans. Yet, if you want to be even more extreme than that, you can be fenno-vegan ie eating only vegan food that has grown in Finland. (And you can eat from a dumpster too...) While it's supposed to be a quest for an ethical lifestyle, it's really just another kind of pissing contest.
None of this is to degrade the achievements of Mr RMS, which I truly appreciate. As I said, it takes one kind of personality to start the revolution, and this is about the kind of personality it usually takes. I guess GB Shaw was kind of right then.
Insufficiently free?
Posted Dec 28, 2007 18:04 UTC (Fri) by mrshiny (subscriber, #4266) [Link]
There are different forms of extremism, but there are also different battles too. Just because your hardware has a free "driver" doesn't mean the software that runs the hardware is free; if that blob contains significant software it too must be free. That is the point of the FSF, and that is the point of the battle against blobs. Back when the FSF was started, most things weren't free. The FSF replaced things one at a time until the proprietary stuff was gone and only Free stuff remained. However in the meantime hardware hasn't stood still and now contains more software than ever. This pushes the battle into new arenas. The BIOS used to do barely anything, now it's a major source of functionality for a PC. Some PCs can play music or DVDs without booting! That functionality should be exposed to the Free software too. We should be able to replace the bios or augment it, or incorporate its functionality so that GRUB can play music for you while your system boots. Some devices (like video cards or network cards) have advanced functionality that is only used by the internal software; we could replace that software and expose that functionality to the rest of the system. The fight against binary blobs is no more extremist than the original fight for Free software in the first place. As for vegetarians vs vegans vs "fenno-vegans", sure, there are different ideologies, and some groups sneer at groups they feel are weaker in resolve, but in the end it comes down to different beliefs. Is eating an egg bad, from an animal-rights perspective? Is using a binary blob in your network card bad, from a free-software perspective? Some would say yes, some no, and some would say "yes, but I have other priorities".
Insufficiently free?
Posted Jan 2, 2008 2:13 UTC (Wed) by libervisco (guest, #49767) [Link]
But the revolution is not over. If it was over we would have the majority of people running fully Free Software everywhere, including desktops, rather than still having Microsoft leech on nearly 90% of the home market as also nearly 90% of people don't give a damn or don't even know about the whole software freedom issue. RMS's goal is for as many people as possible to become aware of their freedom as it relates to their computer use and hence use of software, and building a Free operating system is just a first big milestone. Next is building all the other necessary programs as Free Software which are currently in some distros replaced by proprietary crud. And while doing this and even as a part of a method of doing this spread the awareness of importance of software freedom to ideally 100% of the world. The Free Software revolution is far from over and RMS is therefore still very much needed. The things you seem to call out as new causes are nothing new in the larger context at all - they are a part of the larger Free Software cause.