Interview With Richard Stallman 807
An anonymous reader writes "KernelTrap has a fascinating and lengthy interview with Richard Stallman who founded the GNU Project in 1984, and the Free Software Foundation in 1985. He also originally authored a number of well known and highly used development tools, including the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), the GNU symbolic debugger (GDB) and GNU Emacs.
The interview covers a wide range of topics, from rms's early years, to his current role in the Free Software Foundation. He discusses the current state of GNU/Hurd, the problems with non-free software, and much more."
Headline could use a subject (Score:3, Insightful)
Stallman gets it... (Score:4, Insightful)
btw frell off sock-puppets. `(
Re:He Doesn't Get It (Score:5, Insightful)
No sane person would sit down and write their own C compiler+debugger from scratch because he didn't like the licenses of the currently available compilers.
Stallman is gonzo batshit crazy, and that's why he was able to start a movement - normal people would have evaluated the difficulties and not even tried. If his movemement hadn't caught on, Stallman would still be labouring by himself, in obscurity, trying to make his vision a reality.
BTW, the market hasn't been slowly squeezing out Open Source, quite the contrary.
Re:He Doesn't Get It (Score:5, Insightful)
> viable
That's not his problem. Or at least, it's not just his problem. You can't blame someone for identifying problems and coming up with solutions just because most people don't understand their worth at the moment. Current womens/black/animal rights were won through slow, unpopular and sometimes illegal methods, and people criticized those at the time too. When people can't tape programmes off the tv or listen to music they've bought on CD (or wherever) in the car is when people will start to pay more attention to some of these issues.
Re:He Doesn't Get It (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He Doesn't Get It (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do slashdotters hate RMS so much? I hope you realise that slashdot (and all such sites) would not have been here if it wasn't for RMS' efforts.
Re:He Doesn't Get It (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think he deserves the credit for the current state of things. GCC is now the result of 1000s of contributors and several dozen active developers none of whom are RMS.
But does anyone know their [GCC developers] names? Hell, I couldn't even name one off the top of my head. [Mark Mitchell comes to mind but I don't think thats right]...
Re:He Doesn't Get It (Score:4, Insightful)
Software patents (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:He Doesn't Get It (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:He Doesn't Get It (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't care about your freedoms, then you're an idiot who doesn't deserve to have them. The beauty is that if you think I'm wrong, by inference you must take Stallman's side as truth.
You talk about RMS like he has "missed" something. Do you think a guy who has been fighting this hard since 1984 hasn't had time to contemplate his goal? I think perhaps it's you who has missed something.
And on a more personal note, you're a fucking retard.
Cue the assinine comments... (Score:5, Insightful)
- RMS was useful at one time but he should now leave serious persons do the real work.
- RMS is too extreme
- RMS is a crackpot
- RMS is a communist
- RMS is a dirty hippy that smells bad
- GNU/Linux is childish/idotic/ego-driven
- The GPL is not free/ viral etc...
I just wish for once all the idiots who will inevitably spout their mouth would just shut up.
Richard Stallman has consistently proved he was a true visionnary. He forsaw the problems with software and copyright law 20 years ago and devised an extremely clever answer : the GPL.
Not only that but he gave us great software to work with. Some he wrote himself (GCC, GDB, Emacs), some he inspired others [fsf.org] to write.
He warned us many times when few would listen. About the importance of protecting freedom. About the importance of tracking copyright ownership. About software patents. About the right to read [gnu.org]. Every time he's been criticized, ridiculed or dismissed as a lunatic and every time he was right.
It is time to recognize Richard Stallman's place in history as a great modern philosopher.
So I, for one, would like to thank deeply RMS for dedicating his life to our freedom. For standing tall when no one else would.
Live long, RMS, and never give up.
Re:Full of himself? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm, somebody is full of themselves.. but it doesn't seem to be RMS.
A bit of reading comprehension and critical analysis would go a long way, you know.
As is amply clear from the article, RMS doesn't see his major contribution to be code. He has coded, and he enjoys coding, but his cause is not to produce code - it is to spread the free software ideology. Now, you might agree with that ideology, or you might not, but to intentionally misread somebody's words in an attempt to characterize them as 'full of themselves' is arrogant, small-minded, and spiteful.
For what RMS considers important (the promotion of the Free Software ideology), he IS indispensable. There is no-one else that is as well-known, respected, and staunchly committed to the FS movement as Stallman is. And that's what he cares about, so he is correct when he calls himself 'indispensable'.
You might scoff at the 'respected' comment, but trust me when I say that there are a lot of people (including me), that are not in complete agreement with his philosophy, who still respect him - because he acts in good faith, has good intentions, and makes his intentions clear. RMS is the fucking ephitamy of a straight shooter. And that's a lot more than you can say about most people.
-Laxitive
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Talk about a bunch of ungrateful children...
He is now and has been consistent in his views. He hasn't changed his message. The fact that his message is still relevant after 20 years should say something.
Richard Stallman, over the past 20 years, has done more than most of you put together will do in your entire lifetime and all you can do is complain and make fun of him for it.
Re:He Doesn't Get It (Score:3, Insightful)
Public domain software existed before RMS started his FSF and GCC/GDB projects.
But GCC is probably the biggest reason that free software runs on just about anything now. Before GCC became widespread, porting software used to be a major bitch. GCC changed that, mainly because it was one of the first ANSI C implementations that worked well.
"Free Software" vs. "Open Source" (Score:2, Insightful)
"...for our readers that may therefore be confused themselves, can you explain the differences, and why it is important to get it right?"
Richard Stallman: "...In the free software movement, our goal is to be free to share and cooperate. We say that non-free software is antisocial because it tramples the users' freedom, and we develop free software to escape from that..."
I found this to be the vaguest answer possible to the question. As someone who is not on the front lines of "Open Source vs Free Software", his response does nothing to clarify his position and only adds to the confusion for me. Are we talking licenses? How is non-free software anti-social? Does it not play well with others? Does it run with scissors? Sit in a dark room listening to emo music all day?
After reading the entire interview, I'm sort of sick of seeing him respond with the word "freedom" without really clarifying.
Re:He Doesn't Get It (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:He Doesn't Get It (Score:3, Insightful)
That said (or ranted), us Slashtrolls' reaction to this is too predictable. Why is the OSS community, on the whole, so antipathetic toward RMS? Is it because he's become such a dogmatic preacher? Is it that he's always been so, but now that we're nearly on top, we'd rather not be reminded of our moral obligations? Is it that we only respect the one with the latest Freshmeat entry?
Re:He Doesn't Get It (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cue the assinine comments... (Score:1, Insightful)
BSD style licenses are about free software. The GPL is about pushing his own agenda.
Re:He Doesn't Get It (Score:5, Insightful)
What he failed to note, however, is that people don't care about doing what's right. The vast majority of the public doesn't even care about losing some freedom (such as the FCC broadcast flag issue he mentions). What the public cares about is discomfort.
As long as a loss of freedom, even a "big" freedom, does not manifest itself in the form of present discomfort, a person has no motivation to change. Folks like Stallman who feel a present discomfort due to future possibilities are a rare breed, and while there is a danger in worrying too much about possibilities there is value in thinking about the future.
However, since most people only care about the discomfort they feel "now", it will be hard to get political change. We will probably see some soon as there are a lot of people feeling "now" discomfort due to the international trade policies (you cannot blame capitalism for sending jobs to lower-cost providers, even if the companies that do it abuse the power, because that is what capitalism is designed to do. Capitalism is working just fine!).
I'm also not quite sure what Stallman thinks people will do for food if people quit their jobs over non-free software. And you have to ask the question, if people "donate" money to you for writing non-free software (i.e., they pay you for your services as a programmer rather than for the right to use and control the software), is it really non-free?
Anyway, those are just a few thoughts. In summary, I don't think any of Stallman's "solutions" are real solutions as they merely mitigate the symptoms; they don't eliminate the cause, which is basic human selfishness.
Re:oh. that man is sooo funny.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd hardly classify that as a religious level. Most people have certain principles that they won't compromise. For instance I refuse to work for the DOD or a company that is contracted by them. I refuse to work for any organization that develops weapons systems or supports them. Is my unwillingness to be part of the war machine on the religious level? I wouldn't say so.
He is sooo wacky.
I would argue that an individual who has no principles which can't be bought is truly the whacky one.
Re:oh. that man is sooo funny.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you work for a company that is using child labour? Would you work for a company that uses slave labour? I certainly would not; child labour and slavery is anti-social IMHO.
RMS thinks and feels that not-free software is anti-social. You might start a debate on that (and against RMS, well, I would put my money on him), but please refrain calling someone who 'fights'/works for freedom of other people wacky.
RMS is one of the few extremists in this world that actually make this world a better place.
Re:Trade Policy (Score:3, Insightful)
If a large corporation offers to move one of its factories to a country with a GDP less than that of, say, Nevada, in return for some tax breaks, do you think the government of that country will say no?
After a couple of years, if that corporation says that wages are climbing too quickly and it may have to leave if it isn't stopped, do you think the government will sit by and do nothing? Or do you think they might move ahead with measures to reduce further wage increases?
If you're saying that that's what the people in that country have to put up with in order to be given a better standard of living at some point in the future, that's bullshit. Corporations these days play countries off against each other to ensure that they get the best deal they can, and they ensure that this state of affairs won't change by locking in countries to free-trade agreements, which are enforced for them by larger, wealthier countries.
The world ain't black and white, and smartass soundbites like "protectionism only prolongs the poverty" don't help people living on an annual wage lower than your weekly junk-food budget.
GNU/Linux? No. (Score:4, Insightful)
As I wrote in the comment [kerneltrap.org] to another KernelTrap story, using the term "GNU/Linux" (referring to the GCC and glibc essential role in the system) is totally misleading.
Both GCC and glibc are in the current state despite the RMS and FSF efforts. For GCC, remember the situation from the 2.8 times, when an independent team (egcs) had to fork GCC, because the FSF-managed development of GCC was dead. In the same way remember years of work that H.J.Lu invested in Linux libc, because GNU libc was unmaintained and unusable. And of course the work of Ulrich Drepper, who took GNU libc2 and developed it into a form usable in Linux-based system. Ulrich considers none of his work on glibc to be a part of a GNU project (details here [redhat.com], see the bottom part of the text). And it looks like even the present situation in the GCC development is the same [kerneltrap.org] (anonymous comment at KernelTrap).
So I can say run GCC/glibc/perl/X.org/TeX/etc/Linux system, but it has nothing special to do with GNU and FSF, and I just prefer the short name "Linux" (named after a single biggest, always-running, and essential component of the system).
What is Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
JA: What about the programmers...
Richard Stallman: What about them? The programmers writing non-free software? They are doing something antisocial. They should get some other job.
JA: Such as?
Richard Stallman: There are thousands of different jobs people can have in society without developing non-free software. You can even be a programmer. Most paid programmers are developing custom software--only a small fraction are developing non-free software. The small fraction of proprietary software jobs are not hard to avoid.
So if one freely decides to write a program and not divulge the code, then that person is antisocial? Hey - I don't accuse Colonel Sanders of being antisocial just because he keeps his 11 secret herbs and spices a "secret". And I don't accuse Bill Gates of being antisocial because he refuses to divulge the code to Microsoft Bob. He may be a numbnut, but whom am I to accuse someone of being "antisocial".
This word "freedom"
Re:Speaking of GCC... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Refuting RMS? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you're possibly missing the point of some of those replies.
If someone walks up to you and says, "If you work on this software application we will give you this much money", and you do that, and then you find that someone else is willing to give you even more money to work on a similar application, and so on, you end up making a lot of money.
Now, if somebody else comes up to you and says, "If you work on solving this problem, you might or might not make some money, and you might or might not become famous among a fairly obscure group of people", would you do that? Or would you continue trying to make more money?
In your case, you might answer that you would go and work on that problem in exchange for the chance to gain some recognition and maybe some money - but I think you'd find a majority of people wouldn't; they'd choose making more money.
I'm not saying that this is necessarily a good thing, but this is how our society mostly works at the moment, and people who have been inculcated with this viewpoint would most likely find it very difficult to move around to a position closer to Stallman's way of thinking.
Re:oh. that man is sooo funny.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Trade Policy (Score:4, Insightful)
There is trade and then there is trade. In one case you have a bunch of totally psychopatic and anti-social artificial personalities called corporations seeking to abuse differences in income between countries to make less then 1% if US population even richer and on the other hand you have attempts to control the flow of goods and services in order to ensure that the local populations' standard of living actually goes up as trade increases and the standard of living of the country to which the goods are exported does not decrease as a result.
Yes I do buy into the Naomi Klein "BS" as well as many other people who thought these sort of things do. It is the prophets of Ayn Randish unrestricted capitalism that is creating such economic wonderlands as Iraq who are in the wrong on this one.
Re:Full of himself? (Score:4, Insightful)
And what a kernel. Personally I doubt it boils down to monolithic vs micro kernels or other architecture decisions. I reckon simply that Linux was seen as a dynamic development process driven by practical requirements rather than politics. An example of this is Linus' decision to use non-GPL SCM tools for developing the kernel, simply because they were better than the free alternatives.
Frankly nothing about HURD supports any notion that Linux is ultimately doomed. It's a hobbiests OS that feels like Linux ten years ago but without any clear purpose. I can't see any possible benefit for using it, except for someone who wants to play with a GPL'd Mach kernel. All other cited reasons such as the supposed stability benefits have long since been disproven.
Re:Stallman gets it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Think of all the criticism against George Bush for being unrigid and unchanging in his views regardless of the situation. "No one can tell him he's wrong," said the ads. Well, that's how some feel about Stallman.
Re:Refuting RMS? (Score:1, Insightful)
Heroin is just a substance that is derived from a plant that some people use.
A nuclear weapon is just a device derived from the natural laws of physics.
If there were never broader beliefs applied to these items, then we would be in some serious trouble.
The definition of 'Free' (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:oh. that man is sooo funny.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes software patents are crap. Yes we need to make sure people have the right to hack hardware they own. But when you say closed source is imoral and preventing people from copying your work is wrong. You are going into the land of the flake. When the rights of the individual are stomped on for the rights of the many you have no freedom.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cue the assinine comments... (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither Bush (either of them) nor Hitler are "visionaries", or "great people". They are just assholes. The only thing great about them is their asshole-ness. I would just qualify them them as "Great Assholes". And another thing - what thought-process made you go "hmmm... great people.... now, who would be great people? Ghandi?... nahhh, Lincoln?.... nahhh.... I know! Bush! and Hitler! they were GREAT!
"I have no control..." (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:GNU/Linux? No. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you say "GNU/Linux", you can make certain assumptions:
None of those assumptions can be made when you are talking about just "Linux".
A similar line of thinking leads people to use the term "TCP/IP" instead of just "Internet Protocol".
Obligatory Swift Quote (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have the time of inclination, check out the novel Confederacy of Dunces [amazon.com].
Free? What is Free? (Score:2, Insightful)
1)Source Code
2)The right to do ANYTHING you want with said code
I get the feeling that it's more that the code should be provided, and you can do whatever you like with said code on your own machine, but the original author has the right to limit other rights like distribution or sale. I say this because it simply makes sense to me. To say that if you're going to write a program that is meant to be distributed, you should be required to provide all code and give up all rights of ownership over said code seems to discourage serious development of anything overly complex in anything close to a timely fashion.
Freedom is all well and good, but who would have preferred we never had proprietary software to begin with? How far behind current standards would we be if companies like Apple and Microsoft had not pushed the GUI as they did? Where would modern word processing be if it weren't for WordPerfect and Office? Most free software out there now is working to emulate non-free equivalents. Does the FS/OS community have the vision to pioneer technology instead of immitate?
It's too easy to say "Apple bad! Microsoft immoral! They no give code free!" Dislike the giants all you want, but they accomplished in a few years what has taken us geeks decades to do in our free communities.
There is a place for Free as well as Non-Free software. To say one is inherently superior to another is simply ridiculous. To say one is immoral by it's nature makes you sound like a self-important maniac.
Re:oh. that man is sooo funny.... (Score:5, Insightful)
My feeling that the DOD should spend less and build less weapons systems has nothing to do with whether or not I would defend myself, my family or my country. Your argument is what we call a straw-man. Stockpiling nuclear weapons has nothing to do with defending my family, developing new nuclear weapons has nothing to do with defending my family. Its the product of a an incredibly lucrative indrustry controlling political candidates. It has to do with flawed arguments about how a nuclear war can be "winnable".
If I was drafted, if a sufficient international crisis that I felt strongly about existed(and I knew I would be sent to help it) I would willingly go and grab my gun. Unfortunately such a crisis(darfur) does exist but our troops are currently off on a debacle that could and should have been avoided.
My convictions do not preclude me from killing those attacking me, they do not disable me from defending my home and country with force. The flipside is that my desire to defend my country does not extend to allow me to wrecklessly build weapons, sell and trade them to future enemys, and to destroy innocent life only to excuse it as collatoral damage.
"Geniuses" can work on other things too. (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when should geniuses only work on that area in which they express their genius abilities? Also, RMS is upfront about what free software won't do. After explaining the way in which businesses turn the Phillipine 2-year exemption from labor into a perpetual exemption by closing up shop and establishing a new business every 2 years, RMS is asked: (emphasis mine)
It sounds to me like he realizes the limitations of free software and is quick to answer as such. If you listen to his speeches, you'll also hear him respond that if he knew a way to help get corporate money out of political campaigns, he would work on that and nothing would make him more proud. This too is not a problem free software can solve alone, perhaps playing a minor role in making such a thing happen, but it is critical that we work on this when we consider the amount of power that comes with campaign donations and how much more money multinational corporations have to put into campaigns than most ordinary people.
Re:Don't you mean (Score:1, Insightful)
Do we have to verbalize the slash?
Yes. Like RMS explained, "GNU Linux" could be misconstrued by people to mean that Linux is a GNU project. I think it's pretty sad that RMS is constantly accused of trying to get credit where GNU doesn't deserve it, and is still criticised when he explicitly denies credit GNU isn't due.
Seriously, RMS is dreaming.
A lot of people said the same thing when he was talking about a completely Free UNIX, but it happened anyway. He can't control what other people call it, but he can control what he calls it and tell people why he thinks they should do the same.
Re:Cue the assinine comments... (Score:2, Insightful)
And copyright law for software makes licenses possible. It makes it possible that others can place restrictions on what I can do with software they wrote, and I think placing restrictions is a bad thing like you.
So, of course, when I write software, I don't want to place restrictions on its use. But putting it into the public domain (what would be the total absence of restrictions) is a problem because copyright law then allows anyone to put restrictions on derivates of my work, which I again consider a bad thing.
Therefore I use the GPL as a preferred licence, because it doesn't place restrictions on the use of my software, If you, like me, think that not placing restrictions on software is important.
Re:What is Freedom (Score:1, Insightful)
OSS is Corporate Slavery (Score:1, Insightful)
Let's be honest - no matter what the license - OSS is free slave labour for the corporations.
You have an odd definition of "social" (Score:3, Insightful)
When Stallman says "social", he is going to the root of the term - talking about society.
How is it NOT harmful to society to have any one thing controlled by one person alone? How is it not harmful to have myriads of documents that are in a format no-one but Microsoft can REALLY read. How is it not harmful to have many video files that one company can control weither you see or not? How is it not harmful that you have an OS that millions of people use every day and yet are not able to modify in such a way that it is secure or built to thier satisfaction?
So anti-social, in terms of being bad for society - yes Bill Gates is Anti-Social. Just as are car companies that try to make sure you cannot repair or modify a car away from a dealer.
If you like, think of this in terms of dependancy. You are reliant on Microsoft for care and feeding of your OS, if Microsoft every went south or in a direction you did not like you are reliant on thier good graces to get a job done you could do before. But a healthier mode of existance is a compartmentalized one, an encapsulation if you will of the tools that you use that isolates your dependance from the tool makers. A socket wrench I bought 20 years ago still works to turn a bolt, but really no software I BOUGHT twenty years ago is still viable - the only software I used fifteen years ago or so that I still use today is Free Software. There is a message in that truth.
Stallman's doin' fine, but others? (Score:2, Insightful)
OSS is Personal Freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but OTOH, if Apple wants to improve that software, then they are working for me for free also. Just see what's happening with KHTML/Safari.
It's not slavery if you get to keep (and share) the fruits of your labor.
Re:Trade Policy (Score:2, Insightful)
The "free trade" agreements we hear about today are really sets of regulations that countries agree to impose. But regulated trade is the opposite of free trade. This is our modern doublespeak.
To take your example: the corporation in question only succeeds in lowering wages through government. But if the economy was truly free, the government wouldn't be getting involved, and certainly wouldn't be dictating wages.
Capitalism = market economy, laissez faire
Fascism = government/business partnership
Now I ask: what part of our economy isn't up to its eyeballs in government involvement? So which system do we have? Apply the same reasoning to international affairs, and what we have is mercantilism, not free trade.
Re:Refuting RMS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Others have addressed your "stuff" characterisation for software, so perhaps I could address the specific point above with a quote from Sam Williams' biography of RMS, Free as in Freedom [oreilly.com]:
Despite the energy he puts into the Free Software movement, you'll probably find that RMS spends a lot more time on those real causes you refer to than your average person.
Re:Stallman gets it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yea, that bastard. I mean, I want to live in a country where I can do whatever I want. Why would I want to give everyone else the same freedoms I have? That's just crazy. I should be one of the few elite who can go off and kill people without consequences while anyone outside the elite who dares even touch one of us will be brutaly executed. And maybe from time to time, we'll actually follow up on peons killing peons to make the peons think we're the only thing between them and the mindless void of everyone having the same rights.
Yea, I'm being a good bit harsh, but Stallman is about giving everyone freedoms. To some extent, yes, that does limit some of the choices you get to make. The same is true in any system of law that tries to recognize rights beyond specific classes of people. Only in a tyranny does there exist a person who has absolute freedom. The step below them is the pecking order for the next tyrant. That's not the kind of world Stallman wants for software, and I'd suppose for the world in general. I don't really want it for both either.
As extreme as it might seem to draw parallels between software and human lives, it's the same principle underlying both, and so I don't see how you can dismiss the basis as counterproductive, anti-progressive, or being unchanging. It's ideology that's the foundation for most democracies of today. It was a Declaration of Independence in the USA that laid out the injustice of a lack of representation. I can truly say I have very little representation in the software industry, no matter how much those paper voting ballots claim I can elect someone who would end or severally change copyright for the benefit of all. Today may not be the day to rise up in indignation because of the tyranny of corporations (they're tyrants in part because they're the only one in the market, a crucial step in power corrupting absolutely), but it's also not the day to lay down the pitchforks and act like everything is all fine in the world. Just perhaps the ideology of the foundation of the country a company resides in might be applied upon one of the most basic elements that compose that country.
rhetoric (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stallman gets it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Stallman doesn't argue that you should to release all your source code. He does argue that you should respect your client's freedom, e.g., the ability to change and change the source code.
You can do whatever you like. However, let's use a analogy. You are just trying to be practical and get your house painted. What does it matter whether you use lead based paint or not? Practically, lead based paint might be a better paint. However, the paint "theoretically" may contribute to health problems in your children or contaminate the environment.
The take away? There is nothing more practical than theory - especially if you wish to avoid even bigger practical problems in the future.
Re:oh. that man is sooo funny.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:oh. that man is sooo funny.... (Score:3, Insightful)
You do know that Switzerland is one of the most heavily armed nations on Earth, has compulsory military service, and (almost) every adult male keeps an assault rifle and three full magazines in their home as a matter of course?
The Swiss have remained neutral for centuries because they are double-hard bastards and no-one - not even Hitler or Stalin at their most megalomaniac - dared to attack them.
Re:I'll pay for a RMS interview generator (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm just saying RMS seems to be this very opinionated guy. He seems obsessed and overdramatisizes everything. I'm not the only one who thinks he's harming more than he's helping with his attitude.
Why does it have to be so that every time there is a disagreement, ever so civilized, on Slashdot, somebody has to shout "idiot"? Isn't it possible to be factual? This is the sort of thing that makes me read Slashdot comments more for the sake of contemptuous entertainment than true insight.
Re:Cue the assinine comments... (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft claimed network stability and security in Windows 2000. Gee, I wonder if that was due to the TCP/IP stack and user-land utilities they filched off BSD? How did this help BSD again?
Re:I'll pay for a RMS interview generator (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, Richard M. Stallman is a very opinionated guy. Thats just how visionaries are. As a visionary he is very good, unlike the dorques who keep proclaiming "200X will teh year of the Lo0nix." And unlike the soap-box material over at Wired, he made his mark on the world. He created the FSF, the GPL and a ton of software you likely use. Please tell me, ThJ, what contributions have you made so far that give you +v to claim Stallman as "obsessed" "overdramatic" and "harming more than helping?" Harming? Don't make me laugh. He created that which you claim he is harming. Of course you're not the only one who thinks that RMS doesn't belong. A thousand years ago you wouldn't be the only one thinking the world was flat too.
Re:Stallman gets it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps that's the point. Perhaps Stallman is offended by people who don't release their code. Stallman is all for freedom of choice, but he doesn't want you to choose to limit his freedom.
When Stallman says that you should release all your code free, you have the option of doing that or not doing that. When you don't release all your code free, Stallman doesn't have tho option to modify your code. Clearly only one of those represents an incursion of freedom of choice, and it's not Stallman's position! (Alternatively, opinions are a dime a dozen, but there's only one source code to Windows XP.)
Anyone who claims that GPLed libraries and software are bad because you can't make them non-free, and that they're limiting your freedom to infringe upon mine: imagine the GPLed software is already non-free. Then you can't even use it at all! I know which one's freer...