Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230

 

 

 

Is Richard Stallman the Enemy of Freedom?

Off-Topic discussions about science, technology, and non Debian specific topics.
Message
Author
diveli
Posts: 28
Joined: 2007-10-21 10:53
Location: Australia

#31 Post by diveli »

I'm not crying, and I'm not having trouble 'handling it', I'm just wasting quality work hours :)

I have a girlfriend and she's been a Debian user longer than me (and also happens to be a ninja), so I'm quite busy already but thanks :)

I was just unsure of your connection of Stallman to Gnome, since I believe Miguel de Icaza and perhaps another guy founded Gnome, then founded Ximian with Friedman to progress Gnome, then got snatched up (would you call this diverted, incidentally?) by Novell.. last I checked Stallman had nothing to do with it

Why don't you e-mail Stallman and ask him to explain himself? I'd be interested to hear what he says

diveli
Posts: 28
Joined: 2007-10-21 10:53
Location: Australia

#32 Post by diveli »

P.S, I'm also confused about this 'diversion' you keep shrieking about.. starting projects doesn't divert volunteers from other projects. Volunteers divert themselves, if they feel like it, to whatever else they feel like...

Now I see some other topics have just been started while I type this. They're going to divert me to read these new posts, of which the authors are now, by your logic, enemies of freedom for having published them.. :)

Primetime
Posts: 18
Joined: 2008-04-28 03:16

#33 Post by Primetime »

P.S, I'm also confused about this 'diversion' you keep shrieking about.. starting projects doesn't divert volunteers from other projects. Volunteers divert themselves, if they feel like it, to whatever else they feel like...
The biggest problem Linux faces today is that there are too many distributions. There are also too many applications that do essentially the same thing. Microsoft develops one or two versions and patches a few other versions of Windows at a time. People make it sound like the Linux volunteer effort has been an overwhelming success, but the fact remains that individual distributions have comparatively little developers compared to other operating systems. Consequently, Linux is too buggy and hard to use to compete with Windows or Mac OS X.
Now I see some other topics have just been started while I type this. They're going to divert me to read these new posts, of which the authors are now, by your logic, enemies of freedom for having published them..
Good analogy. I'm not sure how those qualify as separate projects, but OK.

Lavene
Site admin
Site admin
Posts: 4958
Joined: 2006-01-04 04:26
Location: Oslo, Norway

#34 Post by Lavene »

Freedom is always riddles with problems, the main one being too many choices.
Bread: In a normal grocery store here I have to choose between some twenty different types of bread. This is a problem both for me and the bakeries. Bakeries are constantly going bankrupt because they can not sell all their bread because there are too many others and many consumers choose to buy from other bakeries. We only need one type of bread to survive.

Politics: In my country we have too many political parties. Too many politicians work for smaller parties. I'm sure their effort could be put to better use if we only had one political party. Seem to work out well in many parts of the world.

Cars: Why so many types of cars? One ubercar would suffice. It worked in old Soviet Union after all.

A agree, I really can't stand all these freedomhaters that keep providing choice. All in all freedom sucks!! You have to make choices, make decisions and, worse off all, it's counter productive! In stead off all people thinking in unison, pulling in the same (correct) direction and work towards the only truth we get these freedom hating terrorists that's only goal is to divide and concur by injecting choices.

diveli
Posts: 28
Joined: 2007-10-21 10:53
Location: Australia

#35 Post by diveli »

Primetime wrote:The biggest problem Linux faces today
Your mistake is deciding for us all that it's a problem. I don't disagree with a lot of what you say, until you tell me it's a problem. Then I disagree. A good example follows:
Consequently, Linux is too buggy and hard to use to compete with Windows or Mac OS X.
So your argument is that it shouldn't compete. Finally I agree. I don't use Linux because I think it does a better job, or because Windows or Mac OS X is worse. I use it because I like it.
Good analogy. I'm not sure how those qualify as separate projects, but OK.
Sorry, I forgot to tell you to apt-get install rocketscience first obviously... they qualify as something *different*, is my point, and just because they're different, doesn't mean the current subject suffers for it. Your logic fails because you seem to have decided that something can only be good if it can successfully compete and win against something else.

Would Linux compete better if it standardized and became more like its competitors, in order to defeat its competitors? I don't think this should be the question, whether or not it's true. I think the question should be, so long as you have an alternative to 'teh enemy' that works for you, what difference does it make if it defeats teh enemy on a market level? You shouldn't give a ****. If you're still thinking like that, you should be using something else, because you expect a different sort of self-satisfaction out of using the product, that has nothing to do with its quality, so long as it's defeated something irrelevant.

Primetime
Posts: 18
Joined: 2008-04-28 03:16

#36 Post by Primetime »

Your logic fails because you seem to have decided that something can only be good if it can successfully compete and win against something else.

Would Linux compete better if it standardized and became more like its competitors, in order to defeat its competitors? I don't think this should be the question, whether or not it's true. I think the question should be, so long as you have an alternative to 'teh enemy' that works for you, what difference does it make if it defeats teh enemy on a market level? You shouldn't give a ****. If you're still thinking like that, you should be using something else, because you expect a different sort of self-satisfaction out of using the product, that has nothing to do with its quality, so long as it's defeated something irrelevant.
I didn't write that. Linux is useful for certain things, such as running web servers. However, it would be better if it were adopted by more people. That would reduce piracy and the spread of viruses. It would also make software more affordable.

Even if Linux were standardized, it would still be very different from Mac OS X and (especially) Windows. What I'm concerned about the most is actually the quality of Linux. I believe that it should be adopted more widely, but that is not my greatest concern.

diveli
Posts: 28
Joined: 2007-10-21 10:53
Location: Australia

#37 Post by diveli »

Lavene hits the nail on the head. We only need one type of bread to survive. The amount of choice in how you use your computer to accomplish tasks, however, has exceeded the bare minimum of a survival-related situation. We have choice.

It's ironic that Primetime seems to think that something should be 'standardized' in order to 'compete'. I think that's the classic mistake made in profiteering. It's an oxymoron.

Of course... he's free to make his own opinion.. oh, hang on, that means there's more than two opinions here... that's not good! How will we compete?!?!?! Oh right.

diveli
Posts: 28
Joined: 2007-10-21 10:53
Location: Australia

#38 Post by diveli »

Primetime wrote: I didn't write that. Linux is useful for certain things, such as running web servers. However, it would be better if it were adopted by more people. That would reduce piracy and the spread of viruses. It would also make software more affordable.

Even if Linux were standardized, it would still be very different from Mac OS X and (especially) Windows. What I'm concerned about the most is actually the quality of Linux. I believe that it should be adopted more widely, but that is not my greatest concern.
Why would it be better if it were adopted by more people? That makes no sense. The more people that adopt it, the more likely viruses and piracy would occur, I have absolutely the opposite opinion. You've completely lost me here. Viruses aren't generally written for operating systems that nobody uses... what would the point be in that? More so, evidence speaks for itself. You've completely messed up your logic.

Besides that, what difference does it make? The fact that most people don't use Linux has no effect on my ability to afford its software, since I only use Linux, and it does everything I need. It's already free. It suits me. It doesn't suit everyone else, but they don't have to use it. End of story. End of argument.

The quality of Linux according to who? If it doesn't meet your expectations of quality, either improve it, or use something else. Either option is available to you. Incidentally, that's twice as many options as you'll get with closed source operating systems that you're unable to modify.

So the other mistake you're making is thinking that the more people are involved, the better a product will get. No. What happens is that the product stretches to become as generic as it can be, to the point that less and less people have a problem with it. The side-effect of this is that it becomes so generic, its quality drops. The worse side effect is that since it's so generic and that most people are using it, it becomes easier to exploit, or rather that the effect exploitation is much bigger, because more people are disadvantaged by the exploitation.

Primetime
Posts: 18
Joined: 2008-04-28 03:16

#39 Post by Primetime »

Why would it be better if it were adopted by more people? That makes no sense. The more people that adopt it, the more likely viruses and piracy would occur, I have absolutely the opposite opinion. You've completely lost me here. Viruses aren't generally written for operating systems that nobody uses... what would the point be in that? More so, evidence speaks for itself. You've completely messed up your logic.
No. You failed to understand what I wrote. Things would be better if Linux were adopted by more people because piracy and viruses in general would become less common. Viruses have a harder time infecting Linux because the user is not an administrator by default. Pirated software is also a major cause of virus infections.
The fact that most people don't use Linux has no effect on my ability to afford its software, since I only use Linux, and it does everything I need. It's already free. It suits me. It doesn't suit everyone else, but they don't have to use it. End of story. End of argument.
I think you messed up your reasoning there. I wasn't writing about your ability to afford Linux. I was referring to the ability of others to afford high-quality software that they can actually use. Many people have to buy Windows because they can't use Linux. It's too buggy, hard to use, and the programs it supports aren't good enough.
So the other mistake you're making is thinking that the more people are involved, the better a product will get. No. What happens is that the product stretches to become as generic as it can be, to the point that less and less people have a problem with it. The side-effect of this is that it becomes so generic, its quality drops. The worse side effect is that since it's so generic and that most people are using it, it becomes easier to exploit, or rather that the effect exploitation is much bigger, because more people are disadvantaged by the exploitation.
If that's the case, then why does Linux have more bugs and less features than Windows and Max OS X?

dmn_clown
Posts: 522
Joined: 2006-12-03 23:40

#40 Post by dmn_clown »

Primetime wrote:If that's the case, then why does Linux have more bugs and less features than Windows and Max OS X?
What features at the kernel level, are missing? More importantly what features at the kernel level are missing due to patents? What features are missing because companies simply won't offer a decent driver? What features are buggy because people don't bother filing bug reports?

User avatar
saulgoode
Posts: 1445
Joined: 2007-10-22 11:34
Been thanked: 4 times

#41 Post by saulgoode »

Primetime wrote:If that's the case, then why does Linux have more bugs and less features than Windows and Max OS X?
I can not imagine how such a comparison can be made. By "Linux", do you mean the kernel? Or would it also include the tens of thousands of packages that are available as well? What is meant by "Windows" and "Mac" here? Is it all software or just what they ship as core? Macs ship a lot more software with their default product than Windows; most GNU/Linux distros ship more than Macs.

What "features" are available with Windows that aren't with GNU/Linux? Are you sure there are more features; perhaps they are just different features? Windows doesn't include any word processing, spreadsheets, or image editors to speak of (unless you count the likes of Notepad/Wordpad and MSPaint). Windows certainly doesn't include any development tools or webserver apps.

I think you would need to be more specific about how you arrive at your conclusions.
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -- Brian Kernighan

Primetime
Posts: 18
Joined: 2008-04-28 03:16

#42 Post by Primetime »

Actually, the statement about fewer features was a slip on my part. Linux isn't missing any important features that I can think of off the top of my head.

Also, I wasn't referring to the kernel. Like most people, when I say Linux, I'm referring to the operating systems that use the Linux kernel. I ranted earlier against calling them anything other than that. As for bugs, most Linux distributions that I've used are very buggy. It may sound strange but I've never used Debian. I posted about Stallman here because (among other reasons) Debian insists on calling their distribution "GNU/Linux." I have used Ubuntu 6.06, 7.10, and 8.04. I've also used Fedora 8 and openSUSE 10.2 and 10.3. I noticed serious bugs in all of them except SUSE 10.2.

User avatar
muskrat
Posts: 274
Joined: 2005-02-13 01:07
Location: Gulf-Coast TX-MX
Contact:

#43 Post by muskrat »

Things would be better if Linux were adopted by more people because piracy and viruses in general would become less common. Viruses have a harder time infecting Linux because the user is not an administrator by default. Pirated software is also a major cause of virus infections.
You fail to understand, socially misfit scum sucking bottom feeders, are not going to waste thier time on linux making viruses and trojans, muchless mal-ware, because the numbers just aren't there.

But now if Linux had the numbers that Mac or MS windoz has, then believe you me, we would see all sorts of junk built and sent out by these socially misfit scum sucking bottom feeders.

So for my part, as a humble PC repair man, I'm gald we don't have the numbers.

As for linux being Buggy, maybe if you used a real Linux kernel and system, you'd feel different. Ubuntu is a sad excuss for a Linux Distro. They have done a lot for the community, but thier distro sucks.

As for fedora it's Redhat's testing grounds, so why do you expect it to not be buggy, the word testing emplys bugs.

As for Suse, there has only been 3 or 4 major distros based off them. There's a reason for that, Debian has 30 or better.

As for the time and date you ask for before, there are several time graphes online. but this one is keep update and corrected by the author. http://futurist.se/gldt/gldt76.png

If and when you look at that timeline, you'll see Knoppix has more distros based off it than Ubuntu does. And they are both based off this superb os Debian.
Debian insists on calling their distribution GNU/Linux."
Because that is correct. Any distro that say they are linux is incorrect. They may have a linux kernel, but most of them pervert that too such as Ubuntu. Debian is a distro built of GNU and Linux so why can't we include that in our name and give them all cerdit?
The biggest problem Linux faces today is that there are too many distributions. There are also too many applications that do essentially the same thing. Microsoft develops one or two versions and patches a few other versions of Windows at a time. People make it sound like the Linux volunteer effort has been an overwhelming success, but the fact remains that individual distributions have comparatively little developers compared to other operating systems. Consequently, Linux is too buggy and hard to use to compete with Windows or Mac OS X.
The biggest problem Linux faces today???????????????????

You have a very small understanding of our problems!

The biggest problem all these volunteers face is being locked out by hardware manufactures, and having to reverse engineer all their software. IF and I repeat IF these hardware manufactures would open up to the open source community, GNU/Linux would out preform Mac or windoz in just a few short months. Also BSD and others would out preform windoz.

If you choose to disagree with me just take the example of HP nearly all thier printers work great with linux. But cannon nearly all of them are no more than door stops. HP has opened up the source to the community, at least in a large part.
Steve - Muskrat
Registered Linux user #305785.
Registered desktop PC #261727 Sidux
Registered laptop PC #310468 Debian Lenny

User avatar
BioTube
Posts: 7520
Joined: 2007-06-01 04:34

#44 Post by BioTube »

Because that is correct. Any distro that say they are linux is incorrect. They may have a linux kernel, but most of them pervert that too such as Ubuntu. Debian is a distro built of GNU and Linux so why can't we include that in our name and give them all cerdit?
Debian modifies its kernel as well. Anyone who calls the whole package Linux is welcome to their opinion, especially since GNU's involvement is pretty much limited to the lower level, basic utilities. What about X, KDE, OpenOffice and the hundreds of applications users interact with more often than anything GNU created? Why are we shortchanging them? We have to pick what goes in a name and Linux is enough, but I tolerate people who prefer GNU/Linux, but I will not suffer being told I'm wrong because I refuse to give Stall Man an ego trip.
Image
Ludwig von Mises wrote:The elite should be supreme by virtue of persuasion, not by the assistance of firing squads.

User avatar
muskrat
Posts: 274
Joined: 2005-02-13 01:07
Location: Gulf-Coast TX-MX
Contact:

#45 Post by muskrat »

but I tolerate people who prefer GNU/Linux, but I will not suffer being told I'm wrong because I refuse to give Stall Man an ego trip.
I'll grant you that. I guess I was a little strong on that point. But the rest I'll stand by. My Linux Box isn't as buggy as windoz ever was on my box. And to rate the buggyness, linux being a 1 and windoz being somewhere around 65 on a scale of 100. And most of the bug are directly related to driver issues.
Steve - Muskrat
Registered Linux user #305785.
Registered desktop PC #261727 Sidux
Registered laptop PC #310468 Debian Lenny

User avatar
FolkTheory
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-05-18 23:02

#46 Post by FolkTheory »

funniest OP ever! primetime: you should have saved this for April 1!
come to think of it i'll post this come next year's April 1 on some other distros' forums and give them a good, well deserved laugh.

notice i mentioned distros in plural. "biggest problem facing linux today"

dmn_clown
Posts: 522
Joined: 2006-12-03 23:40

#47 Post by dmn_clown »

Primetime wrote:I posted about Stallman here because (among other reasons) Debian insists on calling their distribution "GNU/Linux."
What's wrong with that? Debian has other kernels available, kfreebsd, netbsd, and hurd based around the GNU tools, so it only seems right to give credit where it is due, especially when you consider that without the userland that gnu provides the linux kernel would be nothing more than an academic curiosity in a few computer labs.

If you really want to argue that Stallman and GNU/FSF are the enemies of freedom you are going to have to change your approach entirely and look into the licensing.
I have used Ubuntu 6.06, 7.10, and 8.04. I've also used Fedora 8 and openSUSE 10.2 and 10.3. I noticed serious bugs in all of them except SUSE 10.2.
Don't worry, your lack of experience with gnu/linux on the desktop is safe with me. I won't mention it to anyone. :P

Primetime
Posts: 18
Joined: 2008-04-28 03:16

#48 Post by Primetime »

muskrat wrote:Ubuntu is a sad excuss for a Linux Distro. They have done a lot for the community, but thier distro sucks.
Absolutely. The community support isn't that great, either. SUSE's forums were more helpful to me.
muskrat wrote:As for Suse, there has only been 3 or 4 major distros based off them. There's a reason for that, Debian has 30 or better.
SUSE came after Debian, and is based on Slackware. I actually like SUSE a lot. The latest version — 11.0 — will support KDE 4, which I hear blows GNOME away. SUSE also supports the newest applications and features double-click installation like in Windows, which is a huge plus.
muskrat wrote:My Linux Box isn't as buggy as windoz ever was on my box.
That's strange. My Windows installation has some glitches, but all of them are my fault, not Microsoft's. Some were caused by viruses I caught by downloading things I shouldn't have. Others were caused by installing too many programs. (I have about 151 directories in my Program Files folder.) Some of those cause conflicts. Windows Vista had some bugs, but XP is rock-solid. Further, a lot of the bugs in Linux I've had were serious, like not booting. Most of the Windows problems are annoyances, like the volume icon disappearing.
dmn_clown wrote:...without the userland that gnu provides the linux kernel would be nothing more than an academic curiosity in a few computer labs.
Possibly, although the programmers at Berkely rewrote most of UNIX's code themselves without Stallman by 1989. Perhaps it was the license Berkely uses that motivated him not to use BSD. It is more permissive than the GPL, allowing you to do almost anything you want with the code, which would have been fine with me if I were him. Linus said that he would have used BSD if he had access to the latest version of its kernel. He didn't want to wait for the next release. Stallman could have also based HURD on the BSD kernel, but he didn't.

dmn_clown
Posts: 522
Joined: 2006-12-03 23:40

#49 Post by dmn_clown »

Further, a lot of the bugs in Linux I've had were serious, like not booting.
Was it a bug, or did you just forget to configure your boot loader properly?
Perhaps it was the license Berkely uses that motivated him not to use BSD. It is more permissive than the GPL, allowing you to do almost anything you want with the code, which would have been fine with me if I were him.
You are being slightly hypocritical here by implying that he shouldn't use his own license or write his own kernel, that he had to use someone else's work. It's kinda like saying that you love freedom of speech but the moment anyone says something you disagree with you want to enforce censorship (See the recent Lieberman/YouTube thingy).

Primetime
Posts: 18
Joined: 2008-04-28 03:16

#50 Post by Primetime »

dmn_clown wrote:Was it a bug, or did you just forget to configure your boot loader properly?
"Configure my bootloader"? Operating systems are supposed to do things like that automatically. To answer your question, though, no. Ubuntu 8.04, as an example, couldn't see my hard drive. I got it to boot by choosing an older kernel from the menu. Then after I cleared out some logs in /var from inside Windows, it wouldn't boot because it said there were corrupt inodes. I ran fsck in Knoppix, but it said the drive was fine. As another example, Ubuntu 7.10 was stuck at an 800x600 resolution even though Nvidia makes Linux drivers and I installed them.
dmn_clown wrote:You are being slightly hypocritical here by implying that he shouldn't use his own license or write his own kernel, that he had to use someone else's work. It's kinda like saying that you love freedom of speech but the moment anyone says something you disagree with you want to enforce censorship (See the recent Lieberman/YouTube thingy).
Not really, since I'm not forcing him to do anything. There's lots of things you are free to do but that are wrong, like calling your mother a bitch or you calling me a hypocrite. You're also free to start your own project and I'm free to criticize you for doing that. I've always been a believer in working together as a team instead of striking out on your own. Stallman tried to ruin Wikipedia by starting his own encyclopedia called GNUpedia. There are probably times when starting your own project is justified, but I don't think that's the case with anything Stallman has done.

Post Reply