Richard Stallman Was Right (of course)

[lxskllr]

Late last year, president Obama signed a law that makes it possible to indefinitely detain terrorist suspects without any form of trial or due process. Peaceful protesters in Occupy movements all over the world have been labelled as terrorists by the authorities. Initiatives like SOPA promote diligent monitoring of communication channels. Thirty years ago, when Richard Stallman launched the GNU project, and during the three decades that followed, his sometimes extreme views and peculiar antics were ridiculed and disregarded as paranoia - but here we are, 2012, and his once paranoid what-ifs have become reality.

http://www.osnews.com/story/25469/Ri...ight_All_Along

[shikitohno]

Aww, poor lx. I suppose Stallman is still going to get considered extreme, simply because he's one of the most forward-thinking people in an already fringe movement. Open source has become a lot more important within the computer world, but the public at large still either don't know what it is, or they think, "Ah, Linux! Yeah, I'm not good with computers, so I could never use that. I've got a Mac." They just want something that works, and if anything goes wrong, they want it to hold their hands and guide them through the process. People don't want to concern themselves with having to learn how the technology they use on a daily basis works. Apathy is the largest contributing factor to the many problems the Stallman worries about.

[sgreger1]

I think we will see a trend going forward that many thing we used to write off as "paranoia" or "conspiracy" end up being true. The reality is that the world is a complicated and often times dark place, and as information slowly starts flowing faster people will become more aware of it.

[sgreger1]

Aww, poor lx. I suppose Stallman is still going to get considered extreme, simply because he's one of the most forward-thinking people in an already fringe movement. Open source has become a lot more important within the computer world, but the public at large still either don't know what it is, or they think, "Ah, Linux! Yeah, I'm not good with computers, so I could never use that. I've got a Mac." They just want something that works, and if anything goes wrong, they want it to hold their hands and guide them through the process. People don't want to concern themselves with having to learn how the technology they use on a daily basis works. Apathy is the largest contributing factor to the many problems the Stallman worries about.

I like everything he has to say, but his views do fall someone in the general area of utopian socialist paradises etc. He is against making money off technology and wants everything to be volunteer created, non-proprietary, and without profit. While the open source community does lots of cool shit, it's still the large for-profit entities that drive most of the innovation. Good luck running OpenOffice or something without computer chips made by for-profit hardware producers like Intel too. There would be no $500 PC's that come equipped with 5 gigs of ram and a terrabyte of disk space if the whole thing was run by volunteers.

I still believe that for all the evils of capitalism, profit is what drives everything forward. If there isn't any immediate money to be made on something it ends up being some side project that gets done once you are done with your real job, which is essentially what open-source software is today; small projects that lots of people get too when they have the time, but they are still generally lagging behind most for-profit software outfits.

[shikitohno]

As I understand it, he's not inherently against people profiting off technology. He'd be fine with Windows, if Windows published their source code and didn't restrict what users can and can't do with their machines so much. Ditto for Apple. If you want to make some money off of it, that's fine, but he wants to be free to look at the code you're selling, and change it to do whatever he wants. I don't think that's a terribly naive point of view.

[Roo]

Aww, poor lx. I suppose Stallman is still going to get considered extreme, simply because he's one of the most forward-thinking people in an already fringe movement. Open source has become a lot more important within the computer world, but the public at large still either don't know what it is, or they think, "Ah, Linux! Yeah, I'm not good with computers, so I could never use that. I've got a Mac." They just want something that works, and if anything goes wrong, they want it to hold their hands and guide them through the process. People don't want to concern themselves with having to learn how the technology they use on a daily basis works. Apathy is the largest contributing factor to the many problems the Stallman worries about.

Really? Apathy? My life is fine, thanks. Let's all measure our successes on our own terms and fulfill our own roles. Myself, I prefer less time in front of the machine. But that's just me. I'm glad others feel differently and drive themselves to understand these things to advance our collective understanding.

[shikitohno]

Yes, really Roo, apathy. It's not saying anything about your life, don't know where that bit came in. But if you can't be bothered to learn how a system you use works so that you can spot it when it does something that would be bad for you, you're apathetic by definition. You chose convenience over good practice, and it could come back to bite you in the ass eventually. I'm not saying you need to be some computer genius who can write a programme in any programming language at will, but you should take the time to at least familiarize yourself with the basics of how stuff comes together. When you've got something like Windows or OS X, you can't do that, because there are entire sections of your computer that become big black holes, which you aren't allowed to look at because it's proprietary code.

Fulfilling our own roles is great and all, but when a technology becomes as ubiquitous as computers have, just saying, "I'd rather go hiking, forget it," is only going to wind up hurting yourself. I mean, did you bother to read the article? We're not just talking about the machines people use to look up porn and stupid cat pictures. Whether you like it or not, you interact with a slew of computers every day, and the potential for those systems to be used against you doesn't decrease simply because you'd rather spend less time in front of the machine. I'd argue it's exactly that kind of attitude that has created this situation. "I don't want to have to learn how to use, I just want everything to work automagically." Because of this sort of train of thought, you've had a steadily growing base of computer users from the 90s on who have little idea of how their computers do the things they do, and a ballooning population of people ripe for exploitation by malicious entities. If I told you I wasn't really interested in cars, so I never learned how to operate the headlights, breaks or indicators, you'd laugh at me for being an idiot driving around like that. Why is it any different with your computer?

And I'm not picking on these people like you who are apathetic. This is an endemic problem that should have been taken care of long ago. I'm talking about the sort of thing that should be taught to kids in school when they have computer classes. Teach the students basic system maintenance, so that when they're older they actually know how to do this, and it's a simple task for them like putting air in your tires. Instead, at least around here, the kids spend the whole year in that class playing "educational" video games, and come out of it not knowing how to do anything but click the mouse on buttons. For now, you might be able to get away with simply saying you'd rather not take the time. However, the way society is moving right now, it seems as if basic computer literacy and administration skills are going to be one of the most important skill sets you can have. I'd rather take some effort now, and be ahead of the curve when the time comes, rather than shooting myself in the foot now and lamely limping after everyone else in another 5-10 years.

[Roo]

I take your point Shiki. Some folks gravitate toward less technocentric pursuits and prefer to expend their efforts elsewhere. It's not a bad thing, as you make it out to seem, but rather important that we all "fulfill our roles", so to speak. You learned computers, I learned Chinese, for example. Which is more useful is entirely subjective. You undoubtedly know far more about the inner workings of computer systems in general, while I know far more about the computer systems supporting airline ticketing and fare structures -- knowledge which I employ daily to make money. In any case, we would all benefit from learning the inner workings of the technology we use, be it a car engine or something as simple as how to cook a decent meal. But that's not realistic -- it's not how we work. Hence, specialists and individual skill sets that help distinguish you from the next guy.

[lxskllr]

This is kind of diverging from the whole point, but you don't have know much about the inner workings of computers to appreciate the ramifications of non-free software, and government interference with core technology. Surveillance has never been easier, and people welcome it with open arms. Everything gets collected in nice little databases ready to be handed over to the government, advertisers, or anyone else who wants. Some of it leads to irritation, and some much worse. Computers are a core knowledge base, and need to be learned the same as politics, economics, basic mechanical skill, and any of the other things we use in daily life. You don't have to know enough to DO it, but you do need to know enough to UNDERSTAND it.

As I understand it, he's not inherently against people profiting off technology. He'd be fine with Windows, if Windows published their source code and didn't restrict what users can and can't do with their machines so much. Ditto for Apple. If you want to make some money off of it, that's fine, but he wants to be free to look at the code you're selling, and change it to do whatever he wants. I don't think that's a terribly naive point of view.

Yea, the "free" in free software has nothing to do with price. It's a defect of the English language that it encompasses too much. I prefer "libre", but then you'd have dumbass Americans not knowing at all what you're talking about. LibreOffice heard a bunch of crap about that name because people are stupid(The basic understanding I was talking about Roo ;^) :^D ). You're free to sell free software, and it's in fact encouraged. That actually opens up some interesting marketing ideas for charities and stuff, but nobody listens to me :^(

[shikitohno]

I take your point Shiki. Some folks gravitate toward less technocentric pursuits and prefer to expend their efforts elsewhere. It's not a bad thing, as you make it out to seem, but rather important that we all "fulfill our roles", so to speak. You learned computers, I learned Chinese, for example. Which is more useful is entirely subjective. You undoubtedly know far more about the inner workings of computer systems in general, while I know far more about the computer systems supporting airline ticketing and fare structures -- knowledge which I employ daily to make money. In any case, we would all benefit from learning the inner workings of the technology we use, be it a car engine or something as simple as how to cook a decent meal. But that's not realistic -- it's not how we work. Hence, specialists and individual skill sets that help distinguish you from the next guy.

I think you're misunderstanding how much I think people should learn. I'm not even particularly skilled, I'd call myself a competent user. I'm not even saying people should learn computers to the level I do. All I'm saying Roo, is people created this problem in part because they sit down at a computer, and instead of taking a weekend to learn things, they spend 5 minutes before saying, "This is too hard, I don't like this." I think you could learn the basics of most important tasks for taking care of your system and being able to understand how it works within 12 hours or so over a weekend. Once you have that base of knowledge, you can pick up the rest as you go along. Your thinking I mean going all out like learning a language, when in reality I'm talking more like learning the most basic phrases possible, just hello, goodbye, where's the bathoom, I think I'm dying. I really don't think that a weekend is that much of an investment to ask for. It's not like I'm saying, "Slave away at this for the next month and a half." That's why I'm saying your argument about fulfilling our own roles is no good. If this really required the amount of time people like yourself assume, then you'd have a perfectly valid point. But in reality, it's a relatively quick and painless thing. It's like learning how to make a cake. The first time, it takes you a while, and then each time after, you can do it faster and better, and at the same time even adding some more complexity to it.

If you can sit there and honestly say you are so opposed to investing 12 hours of your life in learning how to use one of the most important tools we have, or that there's something so much better you'd rather be doing that you're willing to leave yourself open to potential attacks, to being spied on, and the myriad other issues you can encounter, then I'll honestly be able to say I feel no empathy for you if it happens. To know of a danger and simply ignore it because learning how to properly deal with it is inconvenient is not a good strategy.

[sgreger1]

I get that what Stallman wants to be able to see your source code and be free to modify it, but frankly how is that fair? If I spend billions of dollars on R&D and in the process invent some super cool way of harnessing electricity or some breakthrough pharmaceutical or operating system, should I be forced to then give that information freely out to everyone to then modify it and re-sell it? If I am the one who puts in the capital and takes all the risk, and I come out with something like Microsoft Windows, should I be forced to freely give that away to everyone who contributed nothing?

The problem with taking profit out of the equation, or even in removing the proprietary nature of intellectual property, is that you have a bunch of people creating nothing and instead want Microsoft to spend all of the time and money inventing something so that once all of the work is done they can then make little tweaks to it for their liking. They want the big companies to invent it and then hand it over freely.

It's like an award winning restaurant who has a "secret ingredient", should they be forced to divulge their exact recipe so others can experiment with it?

It sounds nice but I don't think it's very viable as a model for success. I think that we should have an open market, where people can create things for profit, and use that profit to find newer and better ways of creating things. I think those people should be free to divulge their secrets or not, at their own discretion. I also think open-source software should be allowed, so that we have competition. Then the consumer has a choice between using LibreOffice or Microsoft Office, and can choose which one they want. If only open-source freeware ran the show than you would be forced to use GIMP and Adobe Photoshop would not exist. That is the problem, it should be a free and open market, that is what serves the greater number of people with the most choices and it is what drives competition.

Right now for example some open-source programs are better than paid versions of software, and some paid versions perform better than open-source versions. It's cool that Linux is open source but most people don't want Linux, so why deny them of that choice? And why force Microsoft to give away the technology that they spent billions developing?

Advocating for open source is great because open-source is everything that represents the internet. But it's not the only way, and if we relied on all volunteer open-source technology than the Chinese would have already won.

[lxskllr]

First off, software patents should be abolished. They've done more to stagnate creation than anything else affecting technology. RedHat is a very successful company that makes its money with free software. For the rest of the points, I'll leave it to RMS. He does a better job of explaining it than I can...

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html

[Roo]

If you can sit there and honestly say you are so opposed to investing 12 hours of your life in learning how to use one of the most important tools we have, or that there's something so much better you'd rather be doing that you're willing to leave yourself open to potential attacks, to being spied on, and the myriad other issues you can encounter, then I'll honestly be able to say I feel no empathy for you if it happens. To know of a danger and simply ignore it because learning how to properly deal with it is inconvenient is not a good strategy.

You're exactly right, and I am not being facetious. I'll let you know if/when shit hits the fan because I was ill prepared. And Shiki.... you BEST know damn well how to fix your car on the side of the road for your argument to hold up! If you have one that is. I need to take a 12 hour class in basic auto mechanics before I follow your computer advice, cuz I don't know shit about cars either. But dammit I can cook.

OK sorry LX, I will stop shitting all over your thread.

[EricHill78]

[lxskllr]