Richard M. Stallman is glad Jobs is gone

[gnasher729]

Contradictory. In two sentences that follow each other.

What makes you believe his ideology isn't "Free software" ? You're saying 1 sentence that you don't believe his goal is "Free" software, then the next you're saying that's what he's pushing on the world...

Hum... doesn't make sense.

VLC for iOS was in breach of the GNU/GPL. The GPL isn't about the user's freedom or the programmer's freedom like the BSD license is, it's about the source code's freedom. The GNU/GPL guarantees that once the code is out there, no one will ever fork it and close it down aside from the original copyright owner. Everyone else will be able to get, modify and distribute the resulting software. VLC for iOS did not permit such a thing.

So yes, like you say, Stallman is about pushing is ideology (just like Steve Jobs pushed his ideology, just like Gates pushed his, just like Larry Ellison and tons of other peeps push theirs every day), and that ideology is the Freedom of software.

Not contradictory at all.

I said his goal is not what he calls "free" software, but to push his ideology. For Stallman, it is not about the software, it is about Stallman. It is about having a bit of power, it is about having people do what Stallman wants them to do. As I said, for Torvalds it is about Linux, not about Torvalds. For Jobs, it was about Apple and users, not about Jobs.

With the VLC situation, I think you don't get the hilarity of the situation. Now if we ignore that it can be debated whether or not VLC for iOS was in breach of the GPL (Apple withdrew the software since one of the copyright holders objected and threatened to sue; that doesn't mean the software was in violation of the GPL license), the fact is that one group of developers was refused exactly those rights that "free" software was supposed to give them. Yes, you can find justification to do so, but that doesn't change the facts.

 

[*LTD*]

I wonder how many of those children would have suddenly been designing their own interface to the awesome window manager, which requires its users to have a working knowledge of the Lua programming language... Totally unacceptable by anyones standards eh!

Yes, it most certainly is.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Yes, it is.

I actually don't know if hes being sarcastic or not. His posts seem rather disjointed and are rather vague.

But if it matters, RedHat give away a whole lot of laptops, using a DE they developed and polished. No LUA needed.

http://one.laptop.org/

 

[FoSs10]

Desktop Linux exists. That is the goal. For it to simply exist as an option. It is not designed, marketed (there isn't any marketing) or otherwise built to compete with OS X, and not even Windows. The quality of software just doesn't exist, there is no uniformity in design, and there is simply far too much complexity for the average user to bother with.

Some of that may well be true, but I see myself as one user that can be bothered with its complexity, I look at it as being difficult to learn and god know's yes it's not the easiest thing to use, if it was everyone would be using it as I've already said. But the quality of software does indeed exist, people use it every day, when you visit some high end server serving web-pages that server is using Linux and it's serving the pages with one of the hundred of so Linux based web-servers. The lack of uniformity is simply because their are far too many different interfaces for it and users are swamped with choice very few realize there is anything besides KDE or Gnome which are the defaults they downloaded their copy of the OS with, very few then take the time to learn about anything else as they become accustomed to what ever choice they've been given.

You can't say the quality of software is lacking, take a look at DNS servers, nearly all of them are running BIND9 and yes thats something you as an open source user can happily do, download your own DNS server, download your own Web-Server, write and edit your own program, play free FPS games in full 3D glory, Edit photo and video to some of the highest professional standards using the Gnu image manipulation program (GIMP) instead of paying for photoshop. Edit music professionally with software like Rosegarden, Edit your own blue or green screen movies with Cinelerra.

You can not say with a collection of 29.000 free software packages that it lacks some quality software.

Whilst it may not be every-ones cup of tea, those that can embrace it should, change is not necessarily a bad thing.

There was a time, long ago in a galaxy far away.. when Linus may well have said it was not ready as a DE but it's come a hell of a long way since then.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Some of that may well be true, but I see myself as one user that can be bothered with its complexity, I look at it as being difficult to learn and god know's yes it's not the easiest thing to use, if it was everyone would be using it as I've already said. But the quality of software does indeed exist, people use it every day, when you visit some high end server serving web-pages that server is using Linux and it's serving the pages with one of the hundred of so Linux based web-servers. The lack of uniformity is simply because their are far too many different interfaces for it and users are swamped with choice very few realize there is anything besides KDE or Gnome which are the defaults they downloaded their copy of the OS with, very few then take the time to learn about anything else as they become accustomed to what ever choice they've been given.

You can't say the quality of software is lacking, take a look at DNS servers, nearly all of them are running BIND9 and yes thats something you as an open source user can happily do, download your own DNS server, download your own Web-Server, write and edit your own program, play free FPS games in full 3D glory, Edit photo and video to some of the highest professional standards using the Gnu image manipulation program (GIMP) instead of paying for photoshop. Edit music professionally with software like Rosegarden, Edit your own blue or green screen movies with Cinelerra.

You can not say with a collection of 29.000 free software packages that it lacks some quality software.

Except we're not saying that there isn't some quality projects in FOSS world.

 

[KnightWRX]

Not contradictory at all.

I said his goal is not what he calls "free" software, but to push his ideology. For Stallman, it is not about the software, it is about Stallman. It is about having a bit of power, it is about having people do what Stallman wants them to do. As I said, for Torvalds it is about Linux, not about Torvalds. For Jobs, it was about Apple and users, not about Jobs.

You're making him seem like a megalomaniac and frankly your opinion of him reeks of paranoia. His goal is simple : push his ideology, same as any other people you've named dropped in your post. It's about software Freedom. It's not about his personal control.

And for Jobs, it was as much about Jobs as it is about Stallman for Stallman. Please, you're applying double standards here and frankly it's disgusting.

 

[FoSs10]

Except we're not saying that there isn't some quality projects in FOSS world.

Not you the other guy..

Imagine what it felt like for me being an OS X user wanting to put OS X onto my PC then discovering I could not, not without breaking the OS X license agreement.. Can you imagine how p***ed off I was and how p***ed off other users must get when they find that licensing is so inflexible. If Job's wanted to make a lasting impression he should have made it so everyone could use OS X regardless of whether or not they owned an Apple based machine.

 

[KnightWRX]

But if the end result of software is to be utilized and modified by people, then wouldn't restricting the people's actions and uses also restrict the software.

Nope. There are no restrictions placed on the use and modification of software by the users in the GPL. The only restriction is on distribution, and that restriction is that the distribution must always include unrestricted freedom of modification and distribution.

Understand the concept. It's about the software's Freedom. It's a nuance.

 

[MorphingDragon]

It's a nuance.

I do understand the concept. It's also philosophy, which is subject critique and debate.

Funny That.

Restriction of distribution is still restriction of the end users, which is more important that the source codes freedom. BSD is no restrictions, at all on the source code or the end users.

 

[KnightWRX]

There was a time, long ago in a galaxy far away.. when Linus may well have said it was not ready as a DE but it's come a hell of a long way since then.

Linux has been as ready for the desktop for ages now. There's just no interest there for consumers or corporations. It's a niche use. I know, I was a desktop Linux user for years (learned my trade that way, pre-KDE 1.0 days, I saw the rise of Gnome because of the QT licensing connundrum, etc..) before I moved on to OS X.

Forget it, Linux on the desktop in a big way will probably never happen. It doesn't matter, it's used enough so that the open source community works on these great UI software packages and about every other app you'd ever need as an end-user.

Just enjoy what you have and relish the fact that you're one of the few that can make it work for yourself. Don't get caught up the in the market share or "usability" wars.

Restriction of distribution is still restriction of the end users

End users are just that, end users. They do not distribute by definition. And a restriction that asks that no restriction be made is kind of not a restriction in the first place.

I know you're just egging me on.

 

[FoSs10]

Just enjoy what you have and relish the fact that you're one of the few that can make it work for yourself. Don't get caught up the in the market share or "usability" wars.

Oh I shall, I wield the power of the source so step back all you nerds on Windows struggling to wait for apps to load because your running out of RAM my machine is going to fly past you with blistering speed....

 

[MorphingDragon]

Linux has been as ready for the desktop for ages now. There's just no interest there for consumers or corporations. It's a niche use. I know, I was a desktop Linux user for years (learned my trade that way) before I moved on to OS X.

Forget it, Linux on the desktop in a big way will probably never happen. It doesn't matter, it's used enough so that the open source community works on these great UI software packages and about every other app you'd ever need as an end-user.

Just enjoy what you have and relish the fact that you're one of the few that can make it work for yourself. Don't get caught up the in the market share or "usability" wars.

Thats OK, as long as Microsoft keep on looking over the KDE projects shoulders, the world will always have an after-taste of Linux.

But usability is a legit problem for a lot of the FOSS world. When I can count with my hands projects that seem to put at least some effort into making their software usable we may have a problem.

End users are just that, end users. They do not distribute by definition. And a restriction that asks that no restriction be made is kind of not a restriction in the first place.

I know you're just egging me on.

But its still a restriction. One that restricts ones right to compete effectively in a Capitalist society if one so desires.

 

[FoSs10]

Thats OK, as long as Microsoft keep on looking over the KDE projects shoulders, the world will always have an after-taste of Linux.

LOL... 2 true..

 

[KnightWRX]

But its still a restriction. One that restricts ones right to compete effectively in a Capitalist society if one so desires.

But it's not a restriction of the software. It's a restriction for the distributor. The software itself is more free than BSD or MIT licensed software which can be forked and closed down to further modifications.

 

[MorphingDragon]

But it's not a restriction of the software. It's a restriction for the distributor. The software itself is more free than BSD or MIT licensed software which can be forked and closed down to further modifications.

A restriction of the user is a restriction of the software.

The software is nothing without the user.

 

[vvswarup]

Not you the other guy..

Imagine what it felt like for me being an OS X user wanting to put OS X onto my PC then discovering I could not, not without breaking the OS X license agreement.. Can you imagine how p***ed off I was and how p***ed off other users must get when they find that licensing is so inflexible. If Job's wanted to make a lasting impression he should have made it so everyone could use OS X regardless of whether or not they owned an Apple based machine.

As much as it's Apple's responsibility to be honest and upfront, it's also your responsibility as a consumer to do your due diligence before buying. It's not like it's a trade secret that you can't load OS X on a PC.

And the fact is that Apple came up with OS X. As much as it's your right to choose what you buy as a consumer, it's Apple's right as the developer to set whatever licensing terms they deem appropriate. Mac OS X wouldn't be Mac OS X without the hardware, simple as that. The hardware and software come as a package. That's just a part of Apple's DNA.

 

[Mord]

Richard Stallman is still a jerk? Shocking.

He has a long history of being a bit of a tool, this is fairly unsurprising.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Richard Stallman is still a jerk? Shocking.

He has a long history of being a bit of a tool, this is fairly unsurprising.

He's not even Winston Churchill obnoxious, so its just incredibly abrasive even to others in the FOSS community. Linus has grace in his criticisms, Stallman not so much.

 

[Mord]

He's not even Winston Churchill obnoxious, so its just incredibly abrasive even to others in the FOSS community. Linus has grace in his criticisms, Stallman not so much.

Exactly, this would be news if the OSS community backed him, they don't. He's just a jerk with a little fame.

 

[*LTD*]

Imagine what it felt like for me being an OS X user wanting to put OS X onto my PC then discovering I could not, not without breaking the OS X license agreement.. Can you imagine how p***ed off I was and how p***ed off other users must get when they find that licensing is so inflexible.

"other users" being who? You and the minority who actually consider running OS X on a PC? The vast majority of Apple's market doesn't even dream of this. This stuff doesn't even enter into the realm of their thinkable thought, LOL. Probably because the idea is horribly deficient from a usability standpoint and negates the entire reason for OS X's existence.

So the few users who actually have a problem with running OS X on Apple machines don't even register. You can't make everyone happy, and I'm quite sure Apple will not be sacrificing their proven and wildly successful business model in order to please some geek contingent on tech sites who like to tinker. No offense intended, but let's get back to reality here. There is no demand for OS X on non-Apple hardware.

If Job's wanted to make a lasting impression he should have made it so everyone could use OS X regardless of whether or not they owned an Apple based machine.

"If" jobs wanted to make a lasting impression? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems he did. "Lasting impression" is an understatement. He's been making lasting impressions since he co-founded Apple. Where have you been for the past two weeks?

Allowing OS X to be installed on any PC *will* create a lasting impression, that's for sure: the impression that everything that made OS X great is now gone to ****. The whole point is Apple's model of vertical integration. That's what makes Macs the envy of the industry. That's what makes them the kind of computing solution that consumers open their wallets for in a recession, while the rest of the industry struggles through a downturn.

Did you not know this?

 

[roadbloc]

Richard Stallman is still a jerk? Shocking.

He has a long history of being a bit of a tool, this is fairly unsurprising.

To be fair, every genius has their downsides.

Take a look at Jobs for example, his vision was brilliant and the way he turned around Apple from near death to what it is today is amazing. But people said he was rude to staff, had a volatile temper, parked illegally and fired people over one bad line of code.

Another example would be Amy Winehouse (debatable whether she was a musical genius, but there is no doubting she got a large following). Great music, but she had awful drug and social problems.

List goes on. Elvis, Einstein, hell even Shakespeare. I understand this is no excuse for what Stallman said (whether you agree or disagree with it), but it isn't as if he is the only person considered talented who isn't impeccably perfect.

 

[phySi0]

Why exactly is he happy? Does he think Jobs' passing will mean closed, proprietary solutions will go away?

I think it's because Apple's products and ecosystem are so great! Most other proprietary solutions will probably have open source equivalents, but Apple's solutions will have that touch of magic that the free community does not think is important. I think he hopes that Jobs' magic touch will be gone and that the open source solutions can compete more easily.

 

[phySi0]

To be fair, every genius has their downsides.

Take a look at Jobs for example, his vision was brilliant and the way he turned around Apple from near death to what it is today is amazing. But people said he was rude to staff, had a volatile temper, parked illegally and fired people over one bad line of code.

Another example would be Amy Winehouse (debatable whether she was a musical genius, but there is no doubting she got a large following). Great music, but she had awful drug and social problems.

List goes on. Elvis, Einstein, hell even Shakespeare. I understand this is no excuse for what Stallman said (whether you agree or disagree with it), but it isn't as if he is the only person considered talented who isn't impeccably perfect.

Steve was not a geek. He wouldn't have been able to tell apart good code from bad. Nor did he park illegally. He parked in handicapped spots in his own car park. Volatile temper is debatable, you don't know what he got mad about. I hear stories of him being nice to people and rude to people. What may seem rude to one may seem absolutely fair to another.

 

[McGiord]

Why if someone's reputation is something you "like" it allows you to lessen a harsh comment like this one?

Maybe it is more of when he said it, than what he said.

Does free software allow the "freedom of choice"?

If I choose to pay for the software I want to use, therefore I also can get the support I pay for, why this is seen as 'evil'?

It is nonsense.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Steve was not a geek. He wouldn't have been able to tell apart good code from bad. Nor did he park illegally. He parked in handicapped spots in his own car park. Volatile temper is debatable, you don't know what he got mad about. I hear stories of him being nice to people and rude to people. What may seem rude to one may seem absolutely fair to another.

>Implying that you have to be a geek to be a good Software Engineer.

I take offence to that.