Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Stallman On Free Software and GNU's 20th birthday

Posted by Hemos on Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:00 AM
from the pontificating dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Richard Stallman has written a piece on the state of free software and where it needs to go now, in celebration of GNU turning 20 today. It's available both on NewsForge and Linux.com."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CreamOfWheat (593775) * on Monday January 05 2004, @11:00AM (#7881297)
    Stallman asserts that "non-free software carries with it an antisocial system that prohibits coopoeration and community." This is MOST certainly overstating the importance of software's influence on each person's ability to cooperate and experience community. And I assert that this is where the open source movement fails. While open source software promotes cooperation and community for the developers involved in its creation, it doesn't attempt to build community by creating more user friendly tools. The general popluation doesn't care about the right to see the source code, most of the users of computers can't do any thing with the code any way. Open source project managers and developers need to better consider their end users. End users are not always other programmers, some are teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, housewives, grandparents. Usability must extend into high quality instructional programs that provide the information at the user's fingertips. Job aids and other electronic performance support tools that address the needs of the non-developer community will do more to foster cooperation and community between the developers and their users. After all what good is any application free or not without a high probability of end user acceptance?
    • Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software by smackjer (Score:3) Monday January 05 2004, @11:04AM
    • Next non-paying profession engineers by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday January 05 2004, @11:05AM
    • Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gustgr (695173) <rondina.gmail@com> on Monday January 05 2004, @11:13AM (#7881405)
      (http://gustgr.freeshell.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday October 06, @04:18AM)
      First of all, Open Source is a movement and Free Software is another. They have completly differents phylosophies and objectives as well.

      The main concept of this kind of freedom is to give users the power to copy, modify and redistribute a software or a manual. This improves life quality and the karma (not the /. one) of the human beans. This is all the GNU Project is about: try to improve socially the humans.

      If you have a free software but it isn't working well and doesn't do what you exactly need, no matter: you can just fix it because you have the source code. But if you don't know how to program, you can ask some friend of your to do it. If you don't have a programmer friend, you can hire someone to do it. That's all the beauty.

      People need to see free software as a social movement. It gives you a chance to be a better human being by sharing your knowledge with your neighboor.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:5, Insightful)

        by squiggleslash (241428) on Monday January 05 2004, @11:54AM (#7881781)
        (Last Journal: Friday November 30, @12:50PM)
        First of all, Open Source is a movement and Free Software is another. They have completly differents phylosophies and objectives as well.
        For those curious about the differences, ESR's take on it is here [catb.org]. ESR is adamant that there's no philosophical issue other than a simple issue of how to frame the movement so that people's prejudices aren't rankled. Stallman himself writes quite a good bit on why he's not happy with the Open Source movement and believes the framing is doing more harm than good which someone quoted in my journal:
        "At a trade show in late 1998, dedicated to the operating system often referred to as ``Linux'', the featured speaker was an executive from a prominent software company. He was probably invited on account of his company's decision to ``support'' that system. Unfortunately, their form of ``support'' consists of releasing non-free software that works with the system--in other words, using our community as a market but not contributing to it.

        He said, ``There is no way we will make our product open source, but perhaps we will make it `internal' open source. If we allow our customer support staff to have access to the source code, they could fix bugs for the customers, and we could provide a better product and better service.'' (This is not an exact quote, as I did not write his words down, but it gets the gist.)

        People in the audience afterward told me, ``He just doesn't get the point.'' But is that so? Which point did he not get?

        He did not miss the point of the Open Source movement. That movement does not say users should have freedom, only that allowing more people to look at the source code and help improve it makes for faster and better development. The executive grasped that point completely; unwilling to carry out that approach in full, users included, he was considering implementing it partially, within the company.

        The point that he missed is the point that ``open source'' was designed not to raise: the point that users deserve freedom."

        The full quote is here [gnu.org]
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Bootsy Collins (549938) on Monday January 05 2004, @12:20PM (#7882054)

        If you have a free software but it isn't working well and doesn't do what you exactly need, no matter: you can just fix it because you have the source code. But if you don't know how to program, you can ask some friend of your to do it. If you don't have a programmer friend, you can hire someone to do it. That's all the beauty.

        And it sounds great in principle. It's in practice that it runs into trouble. Imagine, for instance, that I'm a freelance graphic designer, or do 3D visualization work, or whatever. And imagine that there are features of Photoshop or Quark or Maya or AVS that aren't available to me in the Gimp or Sodipodi or Blender or OpenDX or whatever (actually, I think the latter two are open source but not free software, but anyway). The suggestion above would be to roll up my sleeves and program in those features. But, in our example, I can't: I'm not a programmer. Nor do I have the time to become one and do that work when all my time is spent doing the actual work for which I get paid.

        So then the second answer is to ask a programmer friend. But, even assuming I have said programmer friend, and assuming that programmer friend doesn't have something he/she would rather be doing, these aren't trivial enhancements we're talking about and such functionality will take a while.

        So then the next suggestion above is to hire someone. With what money? And how can I justify spending ten times or more the cost of some proprietary software package hiring programmers to improve (or create) a free software competitor? Especially when my hypothetical freelance business probably isn't exactly rolling in the dough.

        Well, RMS would say that the justification for spending that money to improve free software options is a dedication to freedom. And if it's really not possible to spend that money on that purpose, because I simply don't have it, then dedication to freedom demands foregoing that proprietary option, and simply doing without that feature set. But in my hypothetical case, that means doing without that client, or that income. So much for my hypothetical business; time to find another way to feed my kids.

        My example is contrived, of course. For many (most? dunno.) users of proprietary software, free software alternatives exist that will do everything they want, and do it well. But for many others, that's not true. And telling those users to simply forego doing what they want or need to do as a stand for a cause is a very big request. Of course, people have sacrificed their economic health, and much more, for the cause of freedom before. But not for something as seemingly esoteric as free software; rather, it's been the freedoms accompanying equality of race or gender or religious background under the law.

        Until RMS can persuade people that the freedom to modify the software one uses is as important as the freedom to work in the field of your choice without being held back by race or gender or religion, people and businesses are going to have a tough time justifying sacrificing their financial security for that freedom.

        Oh, and it shouldn't matter, but just in case it does: I don't have any propriety software installed on my machine, and very little open-source-but-not-free-software stuff as well. I'm not making this post because I don't believe in free software; rather, because I don't think some free software advocates really realize just what big a thing they're asking people to do, and consequently how large a burden of justifying it they have.

        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software by Shalda (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @01:12PM
      • Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software by GPLDAN (Score:1) Monday January 05 2004, @12:24PM
      • Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software by gammoth (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @12:40PM
      • 6 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:5, Informative)

      by passthecrackpipe (598773) * <<moc.liamtoh> <ta> <epipkcarcehtssap>> on Monday January 05 2004, @11:14AM (#7881410)
      Your assertion fails when you state what open source developers should and should not do in order to gain end-user acceptance. Whereas a commercial outfit has a motive to sell as many copies of the software they create just in order to survive, and must therefore carefully think about and target their audience/market, most open source developers are simply "scratching their itch", and if others can benefit from that, then fine. If they can't, then, well, tough... Projects that directly target the non-developing enduser, such as OpenOffice, and to a lesser extent KDE etc. should, of course, take the non-developer end user as their main audience, something that is very, very difficult. If you are an end user and you need easy-peasy, non technical, non developer software, you can always go for the paid-for open source software (not Free Software, usually) such as Xandros, Lindows, StarOffice, etc. there is plenty of hand holding there.

      Unless, of course, you expect handholding for free, a different case alltogether.....
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software by banzai51 (Score:3) Monday January 05 2004, @03:22PM
        • Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:4, Insightful)

          by demi (17616) on Monday January 05 2004, @05:20PM (#7885134)
          (http://slashdot.org/~demi | Last Journal: Wednesday May 30 2007, @01:36PM)

          I think this sentiment is exactly why we need to understand RMS's point in this article about the difference between the goals of popularity and preserving freedom (the core difference between the Open Source and free software movements).

          The Open Source movement is completely compatible with your philosophy: they tell you that source code availability is a good thing because it produces software that's better.

          On the other hand--and this is a point I think you've missed--free software is better because it's free. Preserving freedom is the goal, and the availability of the source code is only one necessary step on the way to that goal.

          If you choose a piece of free software, you have important freedoms, regardless of whether you ever read the source code (these are taken from the GNU project's Free Software [gnu.org] page):

          • The freedom to run the program, for any purpose - It's your damn computer, right? Don't you think you should be in charge of what you're using it for and why? Or should your software vendor? I don't want Adobe telling me I can't paint pictures of elephants because the CEO got scared by one.
          • The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor - I like to help my friends. If I want to give my friend a bite of my sandwich I don't want Safeway telling me "Sorry, your friend must buy his own sandwich from me."

          And even though you yourself do not enhance the software, when you choose free software you enjoy the side benefits of others' exercising that freedom.

          RMS makes the very clear point in this article, and in his other writings, that you are mistaken when you say:

          So for me, you're no different than MS.

          The Open Source movement would have you believe this: that Open Source software is but one competitor for popularity. But the free software movement's goal isn't popularity, it's freedom, and that is very different from Microsoft (for you and other users), because Microsoft isn't interested in preserving your freedom (which by the way doesn't make them bad guys, in my opinion, they just have a different goal).

          You see I don't care about source code

          That's fine. But you should care about freedom.

          [ Parent ]
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software (Score:5, Informative)

      by 10101001 10101001 (732688) on Monday January 05 2004, @11:18AM (#7881446)
      (Last Journal: Thursday October 04, @07:15AM)
      Apparently you didn't fully RTFA. Stallman doesn't believe the goal of getting people to use free software is popularity but because they want the freedom that comes with it. As copyright enforcement through copy protection or other means becomes progressively harsher for the end user, it'll become more clear that the reason that can motivate people to use free software isn't that everyone else uses it but because they don't want to live in an entrapped world of software. To that end, Stallman admits that people will end up using free software that's inferior to non-free software, but given enough users some might begin to help with the project. Maybe it'll be only words of support or a little money to add a feature they want, but the free software can be made superior to the non-free one and people can choose to use the free software as encouragement until it gets to that point. If anything, Stallman is encouraging the communitizing of the people in free software, not the simple leeching of something that's free. In the long term, the former will help everyone. And if end users realize that, they can accept inferior software until it becomes superior.
      [ Parent ]
    • by emil (695) on Monday January 05 2004, @11:20AM (#7881466)
      (http://rhadmin.org/)

      I read today that Win98 is nearly 25% of the desktop clients on the internet.

      If Win98 were open, somebody would be stepping in to support it as Microsoft bowed out.

      Win98 is not open, and now everyone who drank the coolaid is beginning to feel the effects of the arsenic.

      Commercial software is always a ring in your nose. The GPL can also be a ring, but it is lighter and the developing entity generally does not hold the chain as tightly.

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software by Anonymous Coward (Score:3) Monday January 05 2004, @11:31AM
    • Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software by Simonetta (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @11:47AM
    • This is an old rant .... by Vryl (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @01:44PM
    • Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software by sql*kitten (Score:1) Monday January 05 2004, @02:43PM
    • Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software by istartedi (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @02:48PM
    • Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software by jdgeorge (Score:3) Monday January 05 2004, @04:50PM
    • Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software by jrumney (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @04:53PM
    • Re:Stallman Re: Non-free software by Grizzlysmit (Score:1) Monday January 05 2004, @07:32PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 6 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Yeehaw by gantrep (Score:1) Monday January 05 2004, @11:00AM
    • OK mods... (Score:4, Funny)

      by gantrep (627089) on Monday January 05 2004, @11:35AM (#7881604)
      Just wait until it's your birthday and I don't get you a cake, a present, balloons, or sing you happy birthday. We'll see what's "redundant" then...
      [ Parent ]
  • I agree mostly.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 05 2004, @11:01AM (#7881309)
    Richard, I agree with your pitch on free software to some extent, but how exactly are we in the IT business going to make a living if all (or most) of the software is free in the future? Why shouldnt someone charge for their software if its good and useful, why should they give away the design or their work, and isnt a little commerical competition good? If software developers should work for free, why not electronic engineers, architects, every profession? Like you, I dont agree with monopolies and those that abuse them, but thats another issue. If being a professional (charging) software developer becomes "bad" or "unfashionable", then isnt that a bit unfair on good, honest and reliable developers? We dont live in a 23rd century moneyless community, and communism didnt really take off in its various guises, so what are you promoting, a utopian future in every sense, a turn away from capitalism? But how can this just apply to software?
    • Re:I agree mostly.. by Steve 'Rim' Jobs (Score:1) Monday January 05 2004, @11:03AM
    • Re:I agree mostly.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BJZQ8 (644168) on Monday January 05 2004, @11:04AM (#7881338)
      (Last Journal: Sunday October 02 2005, @11:20PM)
      You make money like everything in the GNU/FOSS movement...by charging for services, installation, operation. Electronic and engineered items are harder to pass on to someone else, who can also make a contribution; software, on the other hand, allows you to make a copy, change it, and pass it on to someone else who might also make changes. That's hard to do with a bridge or a VCR.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:I agree mostly.. by wcbarksdale (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @11:18AM
    • Re:I agree mostly.. by gustgr (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @11:22AM
    • Re:I agree mostly.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by squiggleslash (241428) on Monday January 05 2004, @11:25AM (#7881524)
      (Last Journal: Friday November 30, @12:50PM)
      but how exactly are we in the IT business going to make a living if all (or most) of the software is free in the future?
      The same way most of us programmers make a living in the IT business - being paid to write software. Most software is not written for commercial sale, and while I have no difficulty understanding why people outside of the industry aren't aware of this (as the software they see advertised on the TV, etc, is obviously for sale), I do question how anyone in the computer industry could fail to spot this rather obvious fact.

      Most software is written to solve particular problems. In my case, my business needs software to maintain and analyse volumes of financial information provided for a particular industry. A factory needs software to run its machines and process its payroll. A bank needs software to run its ATMs, to process financial transactions, to enable and log all communications between offices in a standardized way. Most of this software is customized for the needs of the end-user.

      And elsewhere, hardware manufacturers will always want operating systems to be developed and have an incentive to pour development time into improving them, as they will basic tools such as word processors and spreadsheets. Games will continue to be developed, the trend right now is to build amazing games as data hooked up to standardized, centrally developed, game engines, and I suspect we may even see game engines become a part of operating systems in the long term (something a hardware manufacturer has an active incentive to further develop) - meanwhile, nobody's going to be concerned about the notion of selling maps/scripts that use these engines.

      I see no problems with a shortage of jobs for programmers, and I believe the incentives to develop that tiny percentage of software that actually is sold today will continue to exist, just in a different form.

      [ Parent ]
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:I agree mostly.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by anthony_dipierro (543308) on Monday January 05 2004, @11:40AM (#7881654)
      (Last Journal: Tuesday November 26 2002, @05:46PM)

      Math is free, but we still have mathematicians. Laws are free (usually), but politicians still get paid to write them. Phone books are free, but people still get paid to compile them. Land title histories are free, but employees of title insurance companies still get paid to research them. "Free Software" doesn't mean software developers work for free. It's simply a matter of whether or not you want your job to be recreating stuff made by other people or creating new things.

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:I agree mostly.. by soft_guy (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @11:41AM
    • IT Business by Synn (Score:3) Monday January 05 2004, @11:47AM
      • Re:IT Business by eraserewind (Score:1) Tuesday January 06 2004, @09:18AM
    • Shorter version of your question by abe ferlman (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @11:53AM
    • Re:I agree mostly.. (Score:4, Informative)

      by nysus (162232) on Monday January 05 2004, @11:54AM (#7881782)
      You shouldn't try to make Stallman out to be something he is not. Stallman's whole argument for free software hinges on one single principle: that making an unscarce resource artificially scarce to make a profit is wrong. If you want to debate this one point, that's great. But to insinuate he is some kind of hippie-communist-crackpot for his belief, you do a disservice to logical debate.

      The goal of free software is not to create software jobs, it's goal is to promote ethical conduct. Besides, Stallman has never argued it's "bad" to charge for writing code. If someone needs their free software modified, it's perfectly OK to get paid for your work.

      So I pose this question to you, and answer it without referring to Stallman: Is it ethical to limit a naturally limitless resource to make a buck?

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:I agree mostly.. by Anonymous Coward (Score:3) Monday January 05 2004, @12:05PM
    • Re:I agree mostly.. by fermion (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @12:13PM
    • Answer: Software is a Service (Score:5, Interesting)

      by DG (989) on Monday January 05 2004, @12:16PM (#7882002)
      (http://farnorthracing.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday July 21, @10:50AM)
      Here's my answer to you:

      Software is a Service, not a Product.

      By far the largest population of people employed in IT do NOT sell software as a product to be sold. Instead, we work for other business entities providing IT services to them as part of their daily business.

      Think of the software managing bank transactions. Or shipping/receiving/supply chain management for manufacturing industries. Or common essential business services like HR/Payroll, email, web services, LDAP services, computer security, desktop management etc etc etc.

      We outnumber the people who develop software for eventual sale probably 100:1

      And not to put too fine a point on it, people like you cause people like me enormous headaches when you manage to convince my management that we Reall Really Need To Buy Your Stuff, and then it's buggy and we can't get it fixed, or you decide to End Of Life something that has been working fine for 5 years, or you go out of business, or you purposely break compatibility with similar products such that making MY crap work with that Other Product that some other sales guy managed to convince some other business unit's management to buy (to do the same thing) is nearly impossible... yadda yadda yadda.

      For us, Open Source/Free Software is a huge breath of fresh air. It is the correction of the anomaly that was "software for sale". And accordingly, we are adopting it just as fast as we can, whenever it makes technical sense (ie, the FS version meets the technical requirements) to do so - and if the Free version isn't quite up to snuff yet, we often donate time and effort to working on it to improve it to the point where we CAN use it - because one day, we'll be able to get out from under your stupid licencing charges, persistant bugs, and God knows what else.

      My quality of life depends on how often my pager goes off, and Open Source/Free Software contributes directly to that AND doesn't cost me anything to set up. The sooner I wash my hands of commercially-produced software, the happier I'll be.

      You might well be a "good, honest and reliable developer", and I feel for you, but there were "good, honest and reliable" buggy whip designers too. You may have had a good run while it lasted, but the world is changing, and it's adapt or die time.

      DG
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:I agree mostly.. by jorlando (Score:1) Monday January 05 2004, @12:30PM
    • Re:I agree mostly.. by iion_tichy (Score:1) Monday January 05 2004, @12:46PM
    • Re:I agree mostly.. by gr8_phk (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @12:51PM
    • Re:I agree mostly.. by slim (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @01:02PM
    • You're either a troller or an article-skipper... by nutsy (Score:1) Monday January 05 2004, @01:14PM
    • How to program for a living in a free world by Per Abrahamsen (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @01:17PM
    • 100% Free Software world still has programmer jobs by ChaosDiscord (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @06:52PM
    • Free as in Freedom, not price. by jbn-o (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @09:27PM
    • Re:I agree mostly.. by nathanh (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @11:07PM
    • 4 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • RMS.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tirel (692085) on Monday January 05 2004, @11:02AM (#7881321)
    Moderators: this isn't meant as a flamebait.

    I don't want to be the one dissin' RMS, but I think he needs a sanity check or just stop being a "spokesperson" for the Free software community. It is true that he has done a lot to further it's progress, but lets face it, this is the person who hates debian simply because they include THE OPTION (which, mind you, has to be enabled by editing a text config file) of downloading non-free software. This is the guy who refuses to follow the proper procedures laid out hundreds of years ago by the French revolutionaries (you
    all know what I mean), etc

    He gives the Free software community a bad name, and with him on the forefront, Free software will never be part of corporate america (which is becoming more and more synonymous with America itself.)

    Thank you for reading this.
    • Re:RMS.. by kinzillah (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @11:06AM
      • Re:RMS.. by slim (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @12:56PM
        • Re:RMS.. by kinzillah (Score:1) Monday January 05 2004, @04:37PM
          • Re:RMS.. by DeadScreenSky (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @05:41PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • I disagree by zarr (Score:1) Monday January 05 2004, @01:17PM
    • Why did you say something so untrue? How is corporate American becoming America? I own corporations, yet I have very little control over other citizens. If they don't want my products, they don't buy them from me.

      The average citizen has far more control over my corporation than I have over them. They can refuse to buy. They can open their own competitive business. They can vote in the town I am in to ban my product or my business. They can zone me out of their neighborhoods. They tax my sales and use that money in ways I disagree with. They tax my property. They tax the money I pay my employees. They tax my profits, too.

      How is Corporate America a bad thing? Corporations that are friendly with the government are given benefits (cheap loans, tariffs against competition, and even regulating competition out of the business) is NOT a free market, but a mercantilist one. America was never supposed to be mercantilist, it was supposed to be capitalist. Capitalism allows no monopoly, but mercantilism does.

      And mercantilism can only happen from government getting involved in economic planning -- ruin from the start.
      [ Parent ]
    • GNU/Richard Stallman by ScottGant (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @11:12AM
    • Re:RMS.. by Trashman (Score:3) Monday January 05 2004, @11:16AM
      • Re:RMS.. by DAldredge (Score:1) Monday January 05 2004, @11:21AM
        • Re:RMS.. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday January 05 2004, @11:34AM
      • Re:RMS.. by goldspider (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @11:42AM
        • Re:RMS.. by Trashman (Score:1) Monday January 05 2004, @01:16PM
      • Re:RMS.. by sql*kitten (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @02:32PM
      • Never may come someday. by jbn-o (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @10:54PM
    • Re:RMS.. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Gumshoe (191490) on Monday January 05 2004, @11:20AM (#7881468)
      It is true that he has done a lot to further it's progress, but lets face it, this is the person who hates debian simply because they include THE OPTION (which, mind you, has to be enabled by editing a text config file) of downloading non-free software.


      He doesn't "hate" Debian at all. That's patently untrue. He has said [ofb.biz] however, that he doesn't recommend Debian because of the free vs non-free issue and instead encourages the use of GNU/LinEx.

      This is the guy who refuses to follow the proper procedures laid out hundreds of years ago by the French revolutionaries (you all know what I mean), etc
      I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:RMS.. by tommck (Score:1) Monday January 05 2004, @11:32AM
      • Re:RMS.. by pwagland (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @11:35AM
      • Re:RMS.. by buddydawgofdavis (Score:1) Monday January 05 2004, @11:58AM
      • Re:RMS.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Valdrax (32670) on Monday January 05 2004, @12:08PM (#7881920)
        He has said [ofb.biz] however, that he doesn't recommend Debian because of the free vs non-free issue and instead encourages the use of GNU/LinEx.

        This goes to the core of what I and many others don't like about RMS -- he dislikes choice. Debian strongly encourages Free Software. Heck, they were founded on the concept of a Free Software distribution of Linux. However, because Debian offers users the option of non-Free Software, RMS no longer recommends it. In his somewhat Orwellian stance, RMS boldly claims that to be free one must not have the choice to use commercial software. He's so wrapped up in the concept that not sharing your source is an inherently Evil idea that he forgets that true Freedom includes the option to shoot yourself in the foot.

        I dislike the polarized, fanatical "either with us or with the terrorists" stance that he takes towards proprietary software. I don't like it in politics, and I don't like it in the philosophy of software development. Plus, I don't like how he has only words of criticism and scorn for those who are making moves towards his stance but have not yet fully committed to it. You're just not good enough unless you're pushing for a total abolition of non-Free Software.

        He's certainly more civil nowdays than to openly claim to hate Debian, but he certainly doesn't think it's good enough, and that's pretty much the parent poster's point.
        [ Parent ]
    • Re:RMS.. by Wordsmith (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @11:37AM
    • Re:RMS.. by squiggleslash (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @11:37AM
      • Re:RMS.. by semios (Score:1) Monday January 05 2004, @03:30PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:RMS.. by k-zed (Score:1) Monday January 05 2004, @11:40AM
    • Re:RMS.. by jdavidb (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @11:56AM
    • Re:RMS.. by woods (Score:1) Monday January 05 2004, @02:21PM
    • Re:RMS.. by qute (Score:1) Monday January 05 2004, @04:30PM
    • We don't need to kow-tow to businesses. by jbn-o (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @09:42PM
    • Re:RMS.. by Oestergaard (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @09:56PM
    • Re:RMS.. by dido (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @10:08PM
    • Re:RMS.. by nathanh (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @11:16PM
    • Re:RMS.. by gujo-odori (Score:1) Wednesday January 07 2004, @01:06AM
    • 5 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • not only GNU turns 20 (Score:5, Funny)

    by sulli (195030) * on Monday January 05 2004, @11:02AM (#7881325)
    (Last Journal: Monday October 22, @04:01PM)
    but also RMS' beard. Send the Fab Five to do something about it!
  • linux.com? (Score:5, Funny)

    by SmilingBoy (686281) on Monday January 05 2004, @11:03AM (#7881327)
    But will RMS be happy that this artcle is posted to www.linux.com and not www.gnulinux.free?
  • Hurd... by TWX (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @11:04AM
    • Re:Hurd... by lxs (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @11:11AM
    • Re:Hurd... by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Monday January 05 2004, @11:27AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Open Source and Broader Community by Steve 'Rim' Jobs (Score:1) Monday January 05 2004, @11:05AM