New article by Richard Stallman, Founder of the Free Software Foundation.

Oracle

If you're a supporter, or just interested in free software, and you haven't read any of the writings of Richard Stallman, I'd recommend you do. There's a new article by him on the BBC's web site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7487060.stm Stallman is widely regarded as the father of the free software movement, and is co-creator of the GNU/Linux operating system. I thought I knew about what free software meant until I read his writings (available online at Gnu.org web site). His incisive and accessible writing style presents free software ideas in a challenging and profound way.

ntlbell

Oracle wrote: »

If you're a supporter, or just interested in free software, and you haven't read any of the writings of Richard Stallman, I'd recommend you do. There's a new article by him on the BBC's web site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7487060.stm Stallman is widely regarded as the father of the free software movement, and is co-creator of the GNU/Linux operating system. I thought I knew about what free software meant until I read his writings (available online at Gnu.org web site). His incisive and accessible writing style presents free software ideas in a challenging and profound way.

He's a bit of a moron in general I find.

The BBC article is pretty embarrassing, the vast majority of people I come across in the OSS industry hold this view.

Bob the Builder

Yeah, but open source is open source. Open source isn't about taking down the competition, it's about producing something better.

Sure, Microsoft can be unsympathetic arseholes, but thats not his call to make, or to judge really.

oscarBravo

It's an opinion. If anyone has earned the right to have an opinion, it's RMS. You don't have to agree with his opinions, but until I've written the guts of an entire operating system I don't think I'll be calling anyone who has a moron.

Oracle

nevf wrote: »

Yeah, but open source is open source. Open source isn't about taking down the competition, it's about producing something better.

Sure, Microsoft can be unsympathetic arseholes, but thats not his call to make, or to judge really.

I'd agree that free software should be concerned with producing the best software possible, not criticising or destroying what's already available.

Although I wouldn't agree with your last point. It is the right of Stallman, and all computer users, to criticise and judge those who try to restrict our freedom. Microsoft limits the freedom of all computer users through restrictive EULA licensing agreements, exclusive OEM tie-ins with computer manufacturers and the development, promotion and use of DRM. Also Microsoft abuse their dominant position in the computer desktop market by developing and promoting the use of incompatible file types for popular files. This makes it more difficult for computer users to exchange documents across different computer systems. Stallman, and all computer users who value freedom, have every right to criticise and draw attention to Microsoft's abusive behavior.

Bob the Builder

Yep, I can see why you wouldn't agree with my last post, but, personally I don't agree with the way he uses his position to undermine Microsoft. Sure he could have criticized MS, but when he signs his name to the bottom to say that he's from the Free Software Foundation, then I would hope that he wouldn't just attack Microsoft.

If it were two commercial businesses, (MS & FSF), i would just say that that is business and move on. But open source works on a different platform.

for the record, i hate microsoft too, and i feel that they have used their ability to monopoly the markets for their own good. i hate having microsoft office on my laptop, but it has features that openoffice just hasn't quite caught up with yet. Also, i'm considering the move to ubuntu, but i'm still very unsure.

oscarBravo

Maybe I read a different article, but it seemed to me he's not attacking Microsoft per se. It's his usual polemic against proprietary software. The fact that it was framed as a response to Gates' retirement meant that MS got the brunt of it, which - to be fair - they pretty much deserve.

Again, if all he did was attack the "competition", I'd be critical of him too, but very few people walk the walk the way Stallman has.

oscarBravo

nevf wrote: »

i hate having microsoft office on my laptop, but it has features that openoffice just hasn't quite caught up with yet.

Curious: what features?

I can remember several years ago thinking that I couldn't live without MS Office's features. Now I run a business using OpenOffice for spreadsheets. I don't do much word processing (LyX ftw), and when I can't avoid using presentation software, Impress does all I need it to do.

ntlbell

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's an opinion. If anyone has earned the right to have an opinion, it's RMS. You don't have to agree with his opinions, but until I've written the guts of an entire operating system I don't think I'll be calling anyone who has a moron.

Writing an OS or part of one doesn't give you the license to be a fully fledged retard for the rest of your living days.

The guy is a moron and proves it almost daily.

Have a look at his opinions on OpenBSD for example if there's a prize for "most open and free OS eva" I'm sure OpenBSD would be right up there and stallman claims it's not while he put his name behind some gnu based OS which did contain NON FREE SOFTWARE in the base install.

The guy is an idiot.

oscarBravo

ntlbell wrote: »

Writing an OS or part of one doesn't give you the license to be a fully fledged retard for the rest of your living days.

Neither does writing a few inflammatory posts on message boards, but that doesn't seem to hold some people back.

The guy is a moron and proves it almost daily.

I suggest you look up the definitions of "retard" and "moron". Hint: they don't mean "someone whose opinions I disagree with".

Have a look at his opinions on OpenBSD for example if there's a prize for "most open and free OS eva" I'm sure OpenBSD would be right up there and stallman claims it's not while he put his name behind some gnu based OS which did contain NON FREE SOFTWARE in the base install.

The guy is an idiot.

He's vocal, and he's controversial. He's not always right.

He most certainly isn't an idiot.

ntlbell

oscarBravo wrote: »

Neither does writing a few inflammatory posts on message boards, but that doesn't seem to hold some people back. I suggest you look up the definitions of "retard" and "moron". Hint: they don't mean "someone whose opinions I disagree with". He's vocal, and he's controversial. He's not always right.

He most certainly isn't an idiot.

It's not about disagreeing with him.

You can't claim one of the truly Free OS's out there (When it clearly is and everyone in the world would recognize it as such bar stallman) not to be Free then put your name to a GNU based distro that ships with NON FREE software and then try and defend it.

These actions alone are enough for him to be a moron, this is just a snippet of the moronic ideas he has on Free software

oscarBravo

ntlbell wrote: »

It's not about disagreeing with him.

No, it's about being abusive towards him because you disagree with him.

You can't claim one of the truly Free OS's out there (When it clearly is and everyone in the world would recognize it as such bar stallman) not to be Free...

Did he? Link, please.

...then put your name to a GNU based distro that ships with NON FREE software...

Link, please.

These actions alone are enough for him to be a moron, this is just a snippet of the moronic ideas he has on Free software

I see you didn't bother to look up the definition of "moron".

ntlbell

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, it's about being abusive towards him because you disagree with him. Did he? Link, please. Link, please. I see you didn't bother to look up the definition of "moron".

enjoy

linky

ntlbell

oscarBravo wrote: »

I see you didn't bother to look up the definition of "moron".

1.a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.

Sounds very much like RMS

Oracle

There's nothing to be gained from critising and attacking personalities within the free software movement. It only serves as a distraction from the real objective of promoting the use of free software. It's inevitable that not everybody will agree with everything that is said. Although I'd wonder why anyone who dislikes Richard Stallman would read or post on a thread about him.

ntlbell

Oracle wrote: »

Although I'd wonder why anyone who dislikes Richard Stallman would read or post on a thread about him.

I don't have to like him to comment on him.

That's like saying why does RMS comment on MS and Bill gats if he doesn't like them :rolleyes:

His fans seems to have something in common with him anyway.

oscarBravo

ntlbell wrote: »

linky

...in which he doesn't claim that OpenBSD is not Free. So not only have you called the man names, you've lied about him. Well done.

ntlbell wrote: »

1.a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.

You think somebody who is "notable stupid" could write Emacs? Or are you just continuing to be gratuitously offensive?

oscarBravo

ntlbell wrote: »

His fans seems to have something in common with him anyway.

Explain, please.

ntlbell

oscarBravo wrote: »

...in which he doesn't claim that OpenBSD is not Free. So not only have you called the man names, you've lied about him. Well done.

You think somebody who is "notable stupid" could write Emacs? Or are you just continuing to be gratuitously offensive?

Oh he doesn't? did you read the whole thing? I think you'll find he clearly does.

The founder of the free software foundation backing a GNU based os that ships with non free software shows he's lacking in good judgment.

Moron no?

oscarBravo

ntlbell wrote: »

Oh he doesn't? did you read the whole thing? I think you'll find he clearly does.

Quote, please.

The founder of the free software foundation backing a GNU based os that ships with non free software...

I asked you for a link for this also.

...shows he's lacking in good judgment.

Moron no?

I'll reserve judgement until you've answered my questions.

ntlbell

you'll find everything in the link I gave if you choose to ignore it, that's fine.

oscarBravo

Not good enough. You got caught in a lie, and you're not prepared to admit it.

You haven't answered the question I asked in post #18 either.

ntlbell

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not good enough. You got caught in a lie, and you're not prepared to admit it.

You haven't answered the question I asked in post #18 either.

I'm not caught in any lie he names the distro's in the thread that he "supports" there's only two and another poster points to the non free code in the source

can't get any clearer really.

Try reading it before calling me a liar thanks.

oscarBravo

ntlbell wrote: »

I'm not caught in any lie...

You claimed that RMS said OpenBSD was not Free. You refused to provide a link to where he said so.

...he names the distro's in the thread that he "supports" there's only two and another poster points to the non free code in the source

One of which is actually Free, and the other he was unaware of, and has brought to the attention of the distro maintainers.

Try reading it before calling me a liar thanks.

I've read it.

With my mod hat on: reply to post #18 before posting anything else in this forum.

ntlbell

oscarBravo wrote: »

With my mod hat on: reply to post #18 before posting anything else in this forum.

I didn't think mods could demand anything from users.

It says what it says, I'm not going to make it anymore clearer

oscarBravo

ntlbell wrote: »

It says what it says, I'm not going to make it anymore clearer

Then you leave it up to me to interpret it. My interpretation is that those you consider RMS "fans" are also "idots", "morons" and "retards".

On that basis, I can't think of a good reason not to ban you from the forum.

ntlbell

oscarBravo wrote: »

Then you leave it up to me to interpret it. My interpretation is that those you consider RMS "fans" are also "idots", "morons" and "retards".

On that basis, I can't think of a good reason not to ban you from the forum.

do as you see fit.

oscarBravo

Okie dokie.

[-0-]

Oracle wrote: »

There's nothing to be gained from critising and attacking personalities within the free software movement. It only serves as a distraction from the real objective of promoting the use of free software. It's inevitable that not everybody will agree with everything that is said. Although I'd wonder why anyone who dislikes Richard Stallman would read or post on a thread about him.

Well said.

Red Alert

It's very immature to go on a personal rant about someone. RMS has some great ideas, and has done a tremendous job making GNU what it is. He's an authority of free software and personal freedoms in general. I think he's great for this work, and I agree with what he says. On the other hand, I think some of his statements and acts can hamper the introduction of Free Software into more places. And I think some of his more general rants on his web site are a bit moronic. But it doesn't take from the fact that he's done sterling work, really understands great fields and writes great articles.

fergalr

I'm going to go against my better judgment here and write a reply to this thread. :-)

I don't think that was a very good article. I'll try and provide some logical reasons why I think this.

First off, I've nothing personally against Stallman. I've seen him talk, once, on software patents, when he was in Trinity, and I have to say that the talk he gave was excellent - for the most part, very logical, coherent, well-thought out, easy to understand, and well targeted at it's audience.


I think that this article, though, doesn't succeed where that talk did.
I'll try and explain why I think this, in as logical and brief a way as I can.


The first issue I have with the article, is that it doesn't seem to be aware of, and well targeted to, it's audience.
It's in the BBC News Technology section, not Slashdot, or a debian users e-mail list. It's going to be read by the regular readers of the BBC.

The first few paragraphs compress a range of complicated and contentious issues into about a sentence each. They give no background on these issues or explanation of them, and put forward a minority viewpoint that would be different from most 'lay' peoples perceptions.
To people that aren't already aware of and well versed in the complexity of these issues this could come across as ranting, as there are so many new ideas in such a small space.

For instance consider the criticism of the 'Microsoft tax':

"Many users hate the "Microsoft tax", the retail contracts that make you pay for Windows on your computer even if you won't use it. "

That's the whole section on that issue. If you really want to explain this grievance to Joe Public, you need to do a lot better than that one sentence. Joe doesn't realise that it can be very hard to buy a computer from Dell without windows, because he's never tried to. So he really isn't going to understand what RMS is getting at here. That would take a whole article to explain, as far as Joe is concerned.

Another example of this:

" Many outside the computer field credit Microsoft for advances which it only took advantage of, such as making computers cheap and fast, and convenient graphical user interfaces. "

Again, this is a contentious issue, and again, as RMS even points out, one the regular reader isn't aware of. Most people would credit Microsoft with these innovations, as MS is the one that delivered them to the end user, and MS has received the credit for this in the court of popular opinion.
Bearing this in mind, it takes more than one throwaway sentence to change someones opinion on such an issue, and as a result, this only hurts RMS's overall argument, and, to me at least, takes from the article.

Stallman perhaps ends up coming across, to someone that's never previously heard of free software, or these issues, in the early parts of his article, as making a litany of incomprehensible, unsupported allegations - again, at odds with what people already believe.
In my mind, this is a big problem with this article, in that it doesn't cater for it's broad audience, and this problem only serves to undermine the credibility of the other points made in the article, and indeed, the whole free software movement which Stallman will be construed to represent - considering the heading of the article clearly introduces him as:

"Founder, Free Software Foundation"

The next issue with the article is the timing of the article.
One way to look at it is that the article opens with an attack on a very respected businessman and public figure, Bill Gates, as he retires who has only recently only been in the media for giving a good chunk of his fortune to charity.
The article might come across as trying to rain on this guys retirement parade, and this won't do free software's cause any favours in the mind of Joe Public who is reading it, as it seems a bit below the belt, and even bitter. It mightn't seem so bad if you have an axe to grind with Gates over some of MS's past business practices, but that's not how the normal readers of the BBC might see it.


But the strongest criticisms I have of the article, are when it makes claims, which I think it provides no logical backing for, and that seem pretty far out in left field.

"These actions are intolerable, of course, but they are not isolated events. They are systematic symptoms of a deeper wrong which most people don't recognise: proprietary software."

I think this is not going to come across as logical to many people.
Here Stallman implies that the questionable behaviour which he accuses microsoft of is a mere symptom of the fact that their software is proprietary. This, surely, is ridiculous, in that there are many companies out there writing proprietary software, that could in no way be accused of being anti-competitive ("persistently engages in anti-competitive behaviour"), facilitating political corruption (the "Solicit funds" allegation), or any of the other criticisms RMS levels at MS.
To say that all of the above were mere symptoms of proprietary software is something I believe really hasn't been shown in the article, or indeed elsewhere, and really acts to undermine the credibility of the article.
The article would seem to list a range of business practices Stallman attributes to one company that produces proprietary software, then blame proprietary software in general for those business practices, and then proceed to talk about how proprietary software can be replaced. I really don't think Stallman helps the free software movement by writing an article like this, as the claims he makes are very difficult to believe, without a lot of evidence to back them up. I thus think they will come across as irrational to the average reader..?

I won't comment overly on the rest of the article, except to say that I think from that point on, it's credibility is seriously damaged, before it introduces the reader to free software, which is a pity, as I think there is a lot of value to what's being created by the free software movement...

The final thing, I have to say, is that in writing this post, I notice it says at the bottom of the article:

"You can copy and redistribute this article under the Creative Commons Attribution Noderivs 3.0 license."

Looking quickly, this would seem to not allow me to create derivative works of it... ...which is perhaps a little ironic, considering some of the logic used in the article arguing why software should be 'free'...
...If I wanted to take the arguments used within and improve on them, modifying them, I would perhaps be not allowed to do so by the license under which Stallman provided the article...