What's wrong with proprietary software? Also, I'm not fond of his philosophy when it comes to programming. Not minimalist enough. Everything is bloated.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-05 22:29
His philosophy maybe enticing for impressionable college students but to everyone else living in the real world, he's a communist GNU/Pig.
I used to think he was too extremist, not anymore since the situation is getting worse and worse as he warned. For example a lot of commercial software now calls home to ask for authorization to be run.
Also I cry every time I have to waste half an hour poking with an disassembler at some piece of shit that artificially doesn't want to let me do something. That's just sad.
The real problem is that people in general don't give a shit about freedom, they just care about convenience / instant gratification. That includes me: as soon as it's cracked it's all good. That's road to ruin for sure.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-06 0:19
>>11
But can't you just not use that software that calls home? That's all I'm saying.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-06 0:21
>>10
Stallman has specifically said he disagrees with the unix philosophy of keeping each program simple and for a specific purpose.
>>12
Of course you can, so? You can also not kill people, yet folks campaign against it all the time.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-06 0:28
>>14
Hey that's a great analogy, if you're a retard. Some people's lives are too valuable to be spent handing out free software. If propriety software wasn't allowed, so many great tools wouldn't be available for the world to use. This includes all sorts of engineering applications that assist in making the products you use every day.
What's an open source alternative to solid works? Didn't think so.
>>15
I don't see Stallman prohibiting you from doing whatever you want om your machine. He just friendly warns you that it might not be in your best interests.
On the other hand, say, Microsoft or Apple are going out of their way so you can only run whatever they approve of.
>>15 If propriety software wasn't allowed, so many great tools wouldn't be available for the world to use.
That's a bold claim with fuck-all to back it up.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-06 0:47
I've just spent 15 minutes reading through his quotes on wikiquote. This guy is an autist.
[P]rostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia ... should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.
Medical marijuana grower and activist Steve McWilliams killed himself last June, rather than face 6 months in prison with no marijuana to relieve his chronic pain. If you are ever in a situation like this, don't kill yourself in private. Make your death itself be a blow against the tyrant. Plead innocent; then kill yourself in the courtroom, with the jury and journalists watching, after defying the judge by shouting, "I'm a medical marijuana grower. You were going to make those 12 honest citizens your tools for evil, but I will save them from you. May my death be on your conscience for as long as you live."
Oh and to >>17, you're wrong Writing non-free software is not an ethically legitimate activity, so if people who do this run into trouble, that's good! All businesses based on non-free software ought to fail, and the sooner the better.
Everything else is just as laughable
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-06 0:47
>>18
Then answer the question I asked right after what you quoted.
The rest are far-left views which I don't necessarily agree with. Just remember that what's prostitution today will be free speech tomorrow. They'll eventually step over something you care and it'll be too late by then.
>>19 [P]rostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia ... should be legal as long as no one is coerced.
Children can't give consent so... never?
>>21 They'll eventually step over something you care and it'll be too late by then.
Like what? It's not like they're going to legalize child abuse tomorrow, or ever for that matter.
Just remember that what's prostitution today will be free speech tomorrow.
Wait, now I'm all confused.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-06 4:09
He writes shitty bloated programs, but his philosophy is gold.
>>1,4,12,
You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish.
If you decide to answer any questions now, without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?
>>3,5
Nature, and it's funny laws of Physics and Chemistry.
>>15,20
I patented "eating." And I refuse to give you my permission for you to use the technique of "eating" or "chewing" described in Sec 4.b of Patent NO. 709585. While my friend Homo Erectus patented "fire", he decided to give it to "friends" at no bonds or penalties. I Sentence you to death and coerced familicide for the damages caused by your unauthorized usage of my patent.
>>35
From the perspective of someone smarter they aren't making an informed decision. The same argument people use for children not being able to consent.
>>36
While they might not be very bright, they are still legally responsible for their actions (unlike children). Unless you want to make over 70% of the population not legally responsible for their actions, that is.
What's wrong with proprietary software?
“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them.
>>50
Of course. That doesn't change the fact that most of society are completely unaware of the power wielded over them by proprietary software and hardware.
People have this wacky idea that you have to have evil, proprietary, spying, patent-ridden programs, or you have to have GNU-brand free software.
Richard Stallman wasn't the first person to make free/open source software, and there are other camps who don't like the proprietary stuff either (OpenBSD and Linus Torvalds are good examples). You can have both, or at the very least not force people to take sides.
Stallman's rhetoric works really well though, especially on young students, because people like the idea they're fighting for freedom and whatnot. I have personally known dozens of people who fight for their rights by using GNU but who have never written a line of code in their life.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-06 16:49
>>57 People have this wacky idea that you have to have evil, proprietary, spying, patent-ridden programs, or you have to have GNU-brand free software.
False dichotomy, why would the FSF hold a monopoly over FOSS? Equating FOSS with GNU shitware is disgusting.
Stallman's rhetoric works really well though, especially on young students, because people like the idea they're fighting for freedom and whatnot.
And because some people actually want control over the shit they bought. Have you thought about that?
>>58 why would the FSF hold a monopoly over FOSS?
Because they've conditioned certain people to feel they need GNU software? autotools is a good example.
>>38
there's nothing rational in the thought of ending the existence of your race. I'm surprised that shit-hole of a cult still exists after so many years. One would've thought they'd have given up by now.
>>63
Cults of personality are unscientific and ultimately destructive.
>>62
Making your own chips. Aside from highly autistic scientific interest, the only other reason to do that is that you are so paranoid that you think that every single chip in existence (yes, including Microchip PICs) has chinese/jewish/american/illuminati/patriarchy/etc. spyware on it.
>>65
A lot of people (myself included) only wish a drastic reduction (without actual extinction) of the human race, in the hope that someday we'll be able to get off Earth and go where no manpersonfeminist faggot man has gone before!
>>57
I don't know where you get that dichotomy from but RMS doesn't present GNU-brand free software as the only choice for free software. If this was the case, RMS would have forked the Xfree86 project to have a GNU branded X server. RMS encourages people to license their software under the GPL and has no problem with any other licence that permits the essential freedoms. RMS may not recommend people to use the CDDL (for the reason that it's not compatible with the GPL), he would happily recommend a CDDL'd program over a proprietary program.
Proprietary software is evil because users are not permitted to control the software and so, the developers maintain control over the users. Since users do not have control, it's quite possible for the developers to include user hostile features such as privacy encroaching features or DRM.
RMS started the GNU project because all software was historically free by default. At his time, people started taking software and making it proprietary. In order to deal this trend of locking up software into proprietary software, RMS began the the GNU project as a way to provide a software system that will always remain free.
I think you're making a mistake by implying that software freedom belongs only to people who have any skill in programming. Users can have absolutely zero aptitude in programming and still benefit from freedom. How? Users only need to find someone who can help: they can ask a friend for help or they can hire a professional programmer/IT guru for any sort of assistance.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-07 3:33
Proprietary software is evil because ... it's quite possible for the developers to include ...
Not all propriety software is like that. This is ridiculous.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-07 3:37
>>80
The problem with proprietary software is that it's normally illegal (through licenses or EULA/ToS) for you to check if it really is doing what it's supposed to do.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-07 6:04
>>80
You also missed this bit Proprietary software is evil because users are not permitted to control the software
The point is that users can't say for sure if a proprietary program does what it claims without any user hostile feature. The fact is, it's completely impractical to audit what a program does without access to the source. When users have access to the source code one can thoroughly audit the program's function.
The source code is a critical part of being able to control a program. The source code to proprietary software is normally withheld from the user. Users are normally forbidden to study the functioning of a proprietary program (even without the source code). The effect of withholding the source and forbidding users to study the software is: users become helpless and can only rely on the goodwill of the owner. How much control does a user have when one requires explicit permission to get changes made to a program?
Users are normally forbidden to share knowledge about the functioning of the software. Users are normally forbidden from sharing the software itself without the explicit approval of the owner. The effect of this control of knowledge means that communities are divided from helping one another. Software is a tool designed to process information and the software owners want to control the users' ability to share with one another.
When users don't control the program, the program controls the users. The developer controls the program, and through it controls the users. This nonfree or “proprietary” program is therefore an instrument of unjust power.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-07 7:39
>>81,82
Business is based on trust. If you really need to verify what something does yourself, do you inspect all ingredients and cooking method of everything you eat?
>>85 prove
in what way? the buck stops somewhere; it's called trust. and in business trust is all that matters.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-07 8:22
>>83
This unconvincing if you are trying to defend proprietary software by analogy of trusting food companies. The ones that fight all the way against labeling anything at all on their products and the myriad of tainted outbreaks every year that goes through the food system. Learning to cook from basic ingredients is an important life skill.
Trust is bullshit, business is based on laws only and contracts that are backed by those laws. Anybody peddling trust as currency of any kind should be looked at with suspicion.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-07 8:27
>>88
And why would it be any different from software then? Put a description of what the software does, the extent of guarantee the makers provide, and make it a law so that it's a binding contract.
>>89
If you want your computer security to depend on the trustworthiness of a dozen companies (as well as all of their employees), as well as the non-intrusiveness of the secret agencies in their local governments (which might include the USA or China), then sure, go ahead, trust proprietary software.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-07 10:16
>>83
I don't think the food company analogy holds, using proprietary software would then be (in your analogy) akin to eating food that it's illegal to try to find out the contents of.
I would never eat food that someone said "hey if you try to figure out what's in this we're gonna sue you", it would just make me wonder what kind of horrible things are in there.
>>89
If you had them making guarantees and those guarantees being controlled by a government entity to see that they were doing what they're supposed to be doing would be a major step up from the situation of today, but only if we are in a position where we can always trust the government and the company.
>>87
If you have purchased some free software from a company then you can prove it's doing what it's supposed to be doing all by yourself, without any dependency on the company.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-07 10:28
>>92 but only if we are in a position where we can always trust the government and the company.
which is exactly what my point was. we already put a great deal of blind trust in our governments and corporations daily for things that directly affect our bodies.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-07 10:30
>>93
I don't trust people who make it illegal for me to see what they are doing to my computer or my body. I do for instance not purchase food that I can't see the contents of, luckily it's illegal to sell food like that in my country.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-07 10:32
>>94
what about patented drugs? do you also not buy them?
>>92 free software
Please note that your argument holds for open source software as well as long as you have the freedom to share the code with others (for independent auditing).
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-07 10:33
>>93,94
In case I have to be explicit, as a special case of what I have already said, I do not buy food that makes it illegal for me check what is in it.
>>95
I have not been in a position where this has been necessary or even an option so I don't know. If they are made so that it's illegal to find out what's inside then I wouldn't use them.
>>98,101
But keep in mind that the issue of medicine is typically not the same as it is in software, therefore one should be so eager to use software ideals and apply it on medicine.
Knowing the chemical makeup a substance is one thing (I presume the patents regard the chemical makeup, I might be wrong), but do you necessarily know what effects it will have upon your body?
I would not use any drug that it's illegal to find the chemical structure of it, but I would also not use any drug that makes it illegal to research what effects it has upon the human body.
Just have to point out this gem: >>79 RMS started the GNU project because all software was historically free by default.
I hope you don't actually believe this. The reason you got the source code with programs like UNIX was because it was part of the product you bought. It wasn't because the AT&T guys were kind people who wanted to share out of the goodness of their hearts.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-07 15:25
>>83
The issue of free software isn't solely an issue of trust, the issue is about self-sovereignty (freedom) and good community relations (sharing the software).
When users don't control the program, the program controls the users. The developer controls the program, and through it controls the users.
A user that must ask permission to control the program (study the functions and change it when necessary) means the user cannot be sovereign. A user that must ask permission to control the program means the software owner controls the user. The only way for the user to regain sovereignty is to reject the software.
Rejecting proprietary software often leads to the issue that there is no adequate free alternative to the proprietary one. There are two ways to fix this shortfall. One is to petition to the owner of the software to liberate it. The Blender3D modelling software is an example of software that was once proprietary with the community coming together to pay the former owner to liberate it. The other way is to sponsor the development of a free alternative. The Cinepaint photo editing software and the KDE system is an example of this.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-07 15:36
>>104
You're misunderstanding the point. Historically speaking, all software respected the users' freedom. “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. “Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price.
Paying money for a computer with software is legitimate when the software respects the user's freedom. A modern example of this would be the Linksys WRT54G, Linux is installed and the development costs of changing modifying Linux would be included in the cost of purchasing this machine. Paying money for software apart from hardware is legitimate as long as the software respects the user's freedom.
Paying money for a computer with software is legitimate when the software respects the user's freedom. A modern example of this would be the Linksys WRT54G, Linux is installed and the development costs of changing modifying Linux would be included in the cost of purchasing this machine.
It's a bit silly when most people are just going to install DD-WRT or OpenWrt instead of using the distribution that comes with the router, though.
>>106
Cool. Now go back to the 70s and try to redistribute the copy of UNIX you paid thousands of dollars for.
Name:
Anonymous2012-11-07 18:36
>>107
It's fine to install new software over the default one. This is what freedom
>>108
I'm not sure I understand. Are you implying that freedom respecting developers cannot control their users and so, they cannot have a business model based on artificial scarcity?
>>109
Unix had some history of being free. Unix had some history of being proprietary. Users should always have the freedom to redistribute their software; users should have the implied right to choose to charge money or distribute the software gratis.
It's fine to install new software over the default one. This is what freedom
Yes, but it's silly to have to pay for software that you're not going to use.
>>110
Artificial scarcity is fine. If I write a book, it's trivial to make a copy of that book. There are print-on-demand services that charge you a few dollars. With electronic books, it's no more than the cost of bandwidth, like software. But if you want my book, you're going to buy it through my publisher or I'll hunt you down and end you.
The idea that we have one rule for ``artwork'' and another rule for ordinary ``work'' is just dumb. Even Stallman respects copyright for artistic or literary works and doesn't think it has to meet his definition of ``free''. Sticking your feet in milk is considered art now, so I think my program that took a lot more effort should give me all the same rights to do as I like with it that some hipster with a cheap Nikon camera has.
Sorry for committing the sin of wanting money. Yes, I know there are ways to make money with free software, but if I wanted to create content I'd be some sort of content creator, and if I wanted to sell support or write books I'd be a support worker or an author. Not all of us can get a million dollars from the MacArthur Foundation plus one hundred million yen from the Takeda Foundation, on top of free equipment from MIT.
>>112
Software is a tool. Like any other tool, users should be free to share tools with their friends. Software is information that is used to process data. Since software is information, nobody has to lose anything when it is shared. Artwork and other works of expression are generally not tools (such as software, design blueprints or food recipes). Users should always have the right to study, improve and share their information tools. Published artistic works do not need the right to change and improve, only the right to share.
Making money is not a sin. Restricting users of their essential freedoms is a sin. If you want to make money, you need to figure out a way that doesn't harm people. I know how to do this. I do this by selling something that isn't easily copied: I sell my expertise as a system designer. I charge a lot of money to study a business and design a software solution that works well for them. If they want to redistribute any of my solutions, they already have my implicit approval.
Propriety software are better than open source one. Long time open source contributors will tell you that it's only free software in that the time you spend on it is worthless.
People working on propriety software have incentive to work on it. Namely, money. And they can afford to have many people working on it.
>>118
capitalism is fundamentally flawed when the product can be distributed at no cost. The current model fragments intellectual property and cripples innovation as a whole. Assuming a communist country would be able to confine its innovations to its borders but share them with all of its citizens, it's researchers would be in a better position than a capitalist country because of the increase in collaboration and the number of collaborators.
>>120
This is because people are trying to use a business model that depends on artificial scarcity. That's stupid when the value exchange is for a product that has a trivial distribution cost. A far better way to work is by exchanging value for something that isn't so trivially duplicated and for something that doesn't depend on artificial scarcity. What I do is sell my time as a software design expert. People can distribute my solutions all they want but it'll take another expert to modify my software solution to fit another business.
>>121
Indeed. Programmers would still be in demand, even if their work was freely available. Of course, they would need to be compensated fpr there time somehow.
>>123
Yes, but the money would need come from somewhere when the only product that results from the labor has no scarcity. I guess rather than paying for copies of the software, people would directly pay the programmers for implementing the features. Every system at this point seems to come down to either donations or public funding.
>>132
Didn't you notice? This thread is https://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1352172222/ 1352172222
Once a get has been got, all lesser gets are meaningless. OP got quads in the OP, so dubs are now worthless.