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
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.

User avatar
MeanDean
Posts: 3866
Joined: 2007-09-01 01:14

#51 Post by MeanDean »

did you say kde4 blows.... :lol:
Primetime wrote: 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.
huh? Can you provide your source? You mean he would of used the BSD license? He could of wrote his own license too but the fact is he chose the GPL and IMO the reason linux took off was at least partially due to being under the GPL.

If i remember correctly there was a offer back in the mid-nineties to move the linux kernel to the BSD license.....didnt happen...
Stallman could have also based HURD on the BSD kernel, but he didn't.
Actually at the time GNU first started planning for a kernel BSD wasn't really free if I remeber correctly it was still wrapped up with AT&T and I don't think that lawsuit was done until mid-nineties.

As far as I know Stallman isn't really involved much with the HURD anymore, not sure he was ever involved with it that much especially after linux became licensed under the GPL. Anyway the HURD is not HIS kernel...and Stallman himself recommends the linux kernel over the HURD.

User avatar
MeanDean
Posts: 3866
Joined: 2007-09-01 01:14

#52 Post by MeanDean »

You seem to think that everything 'free' is created as a destroyer of some other project, it isn't.

stallman didnt create GNU to destroy BSD, or the HURD to destroy Linux, or GNOME (not that he created gnome anyway) to destroy KDE.

Free software projects are created to provide choice and do things differently, some live, some die, some get reincarnated, some dont.

Oh and Stallman proposed a free software encylcopedia idea in 1999 and I don't think wikipedia really started until around 2001. So I am not sure how Stallman was going to destroy a project that came later.

Ian didnt create debian to destroy slackware either btw...

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

#53 Post by Primetime »

huh? Can you provide your source?
http://gondwanaland.com/meta/history/interview.html.

As for Wikipedia, GNUpedia was started as an alternative to Nupedia, which is the precursor of Wikipedia. Both were started by Wales and Nupedia was merged into the latter.

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

#54 Post by saulgoode »

Primetime wrote: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.
Thanks for the clarification. I admit I was thinking that you'd based your assessment on some of the "expert surveys" which would compare bugs in MS Windows (sans user applications) against bugs in any and all progams offered on GNU/Linux. I should hope you'd agree it does not make sense to consider a GIMP or Firefox bug to count against Linux; especially when those same bugs appear in the Windows' version and isn't counted.

But as your bugginess assessment is based on your personal experience, I have no reason to doubt it -- especially if that experience includes Fedora and Ubuntu. My own personal experience, using Slackware for the last decade and only encountering two "bugs", is that GNU/Linux is incomprehensibly stable.

I suspect that users of Debian experience similar stability; certainly if they stick with the Stable branch, but even should their deployment be based on Testing (I think Ubuntu is insane for basing their distribution on Debian Unstable).

As for the Linux vs GNU/Linux debate, if someone tells me his name is "James", I don't call him "Jimmie"; if "Bob", I don't call him "Robert". Using the name someone wishes to be called is basic respect.

I accept that it is called Debian GNU/Linux; I also accept that it is called Slackware Linux. I prefer to employ GNU/Linux when talking about the operating system as a whole, especially when the discussion is about the freedom of the software, but I wouldn't say plain old Linux is "wrong".
Primetime wrote: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, ...
While BSD contributed some extremely significant add-ons to licensed Unixes (especially WRT networking), the goal of producing a complete operating system was not pursued until Keith Bostic started the NET/2 project in 1989. According to Mr Bostic, the NET/2 goal of producing a complete BSD OS was inspired by Richard Stallman's GNU Project (started in 1983).
Keith Bostic wrote:"I think it's highly unlikely that we ever would have gone as strongly as we did without the GNU influence. It was clearly something where they were pushing hard and we liked the idea."
When NET/2 was finished in 1991, it was a fairly complete implementation of Unix, but there were still parts of the kernel (six files) that had not been written. At this point in time, it wasn't licensing that prevented GNU from using the BSD kernel; the kernel wasn't complete.

Bill Jolitz was the main programmer who contributed those last kernel components (for the 80386 processor) and this was released as 386BSD in 1992. This was the first complete BSD distribution.

Even in 1992, using the Jolitz kernel (should we call all *BSDs distributions "Jolix" or "BSD/Jolix"?) was not an option for the GNU project because AT&T was claiming propriety over much of the BSD software. This lawsuit was not settled until 1996 and it was quite unclear at the time whether BSD would prevail. In fact, it was mainly by the omission of copyright notices in the AT&T code that BSD did prevail. At that time copyright notices were required and it was not until 1997 that copyright laws were enacted that removed that requirement. (It was also significant that much of the BSD code was produced under government contract which would demand that it be public domain).

In 1999, projects which incorporated the BSD kernel into the GNU operating system started to appear (mainly under the auspices of the Debian project). There is no GNU conspiracy to exclude BSD kernels because of permissive licensing. The GNU project does not require copyleft licenses for its software (it does require that licensing be Free Software and GPL-compatible).
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

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

#55 Post by FolkTheory »

as i understand BSD was going through legal problmes with
AT&T at the time. stallman wanted something that could be completly free of litigation and claims of ownership by companies so he started from the ground up and also designed a superior license (in terms of freedom)

User avatar
MeanDean
Posts: 3866
Joined: 2007-09-01 01:14

#56 Post by MeanDean »

Shame that the 'destroyer-previously-known-as-RMS' has failed so miserably at destroying KDE, wikipedia, and linux, and what else...
Oh I see,he never intended all this choice, he intended to destroy all choice EXCEPT his one select pick of the bunch. Yea, that is what free software is all about....yea...ok... :lol:

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

#57 Post by dmn_clown »

Primetime wrote:"Configure my bootloader"? Operating systems are supposed to do things like that automatically.
The end user should be able to configure the bootloader, if you don't understand that statement (as signified by your placing it in quotes) then you really need more experience with gnu/linux on the desktop as not everyone uses grub or lilo. :)
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.
If it couldn't see your harddrive, how did you install it? You didn't configure your bootloader properly, admit this, learn from your mistake, and don't repeat it in the future. :)
As another example, Ubuntu 7.10 was stuck at an 800x600 resolution even though Nvidia makes Linux drivers and I installed them.
Nvidia drivers are far from bug free, the latest stable drivers report some EDID's incorrectly (extremely important with a recent X server) and the last three releases from them have included a dxt5 compression rendering bug, but most likely you didn't configure xorg properly which admittedly is getting more difficult due to xorg's insistence on doing everything automatically for the user, but still your fault, admit this, learn from it, don't repeat the mistake, just don't make a broad statement that all of free software is buggy because you forget to configure it properly. :)
Not really, since I'm not forcing him to do anything.
Yes, really, because you are implying that he shouldn't have started GCC or Emacs and should have just used other's code, other posters in this thread have already stated why that wasn't possible. Now there are people that take bsd-style licensed code and effectively close it off to bsd developers by writing a gpl "wrapper," but that has nothing to do with RMS and everything to do with individual developer's choices that aren't in the spirit of free software.

User avatar
oswaldkelso
df -h | grep > 20TiB
df -h | grep > 20TiB
Posts: 1486
Joined: 2005-07-26 23:20
Location: UK
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 55 times

#58 Post by oswaldkelso »

dmn_clown wrote: Now there are people that take bsd-style licensed code and effectively close it off to bsd developers by writing a gpl "wrapper," but that has nothing to do with RMS and everything to do with individual developer's choices that aren't in the spirit of free software.
Now there are people that take bsd-style licensed code and effectively close it off to bsd developers by writing a proprietary "wrapper," but that has nothing to do with anyone and everything to do with the BSD developer's choices that are in the spirit of their free software license.

Oh and Primetime "Dawn take you all, and be stone to you!" :)
Free Software Matters
Ash init durbatulûk, ash init gimbatul,
Ash init thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
My oldest used PC: 1999 imac 333Mhz 256MB PPC abandoned by Debian

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

#59 Post by diveli »

A lot of effort has been put into ignoring the fact that so far, every point the original poster has made has been proven literally false at least 2 times over.

The sooner we all realise that, the more we can devote proper time to worthwhile matters, such as that penguin with some messed up conjunctivitis in the corner of the forum..

Ok? Thanks.

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

#60 Post by Primetime »

dmn_clown wrote:If it couldn't see your harddrive, how did you install it? You didn't configure your bootloader properly, admit this, learn from your mistake, and don't repeat it in the future. :)
You're an idiot. Are you saying that you know what happened better than I do? You weren't even there. I actually upgraded the release inside Ubuntu to 8.04. When I rebooted, it said it couldn't find hard-disk number something. I looked in fstab and the number was correct. I also looked in grub.conf and it looked OK. Even if the bootloader was screwed up, it was the installer's fault, not mine. If I have to edit text configuration files to use an OS, then that OS is a primitive piece of crap. Do you have to do that to use Debian? If so, you're a sucker for using it.
dmn_clown wrote:Nvidia drivers are far from bug free, the latest stable drivers report some EDID's incorrectly (extremely important with a recent X server) and the last three releases from them have included a dxt5 compression rendering bug, but most likely you didn't configure xorg properly which admittedly is getting more difficult due to xorg's insistence on doing everything automatically for the user, but still your fault, admit this, learn from it, don't repeat the mistake, just don't make a broad statement that all of free software is buggy because you forget to configure it properly. :)
Gee, they work fine in Windows and SUSE. I guess you just need to admit that having to rewrite configuration files on your computer is a sign that the your OS is primitive.
diveli wrote:A lot of effort has been put into ignoring the fact that so far, every point the original poster has made has been proven literally false at least 2 times over.
Actually, not one of my arguments was proven wrong. I have heard arguments against them, but no proof that they are false. Of course I am human, so I occasionally make mistakes. Ironically, you provided no proof of the assertion you just made. Even if parts of my original post were false, the central assertion is still true.
Last edited by Primetime on 2008-05-23 16:42, edited 1 time in total.

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

#61 Post by FolkTheory »

richard stallman has a beard. your argument is invalid.
Image

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

#62 Post by saulgoode »

Primetime wrote:I actually upgraded the release inside Ubuntu to 8.04. ...
You used Ubuntu, admit this, learn from your mistake, and don't repeat it in the future. :)
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

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

#63 Post by FolkTheory »

You used Ubuntu, admit this, learn from your mistake, and don't repeat it in the future. :)

he wont be able to since RMS will destroy ubuntu before then or change its name to GNU/Linux/Ubuntu/Some more GNU
Image

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

#64 Post by BioTube »

Using text files for configuration is not a sign of primitiveness - Twenty times out of twelve it works a helluva lot better than the Windows registry.


Oh and alphabetsoupbuntu is the buggiest POS I've ever seen outside of Windows.
Image
Ludwig von Mises wrote:The elite should be supreme by virtue of persuasion, not by the assistance of firing squads.

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

#65 Post by dmn_clown »

Primetime wrote:You're an idiot.
Your breath stinks.
oswaldkelso wrote: Now there are people that take bsd-style licensed code and effectively close it off to bsd developers by writing a proprietary "wrapper," but that has nothing to do with anyone and everything to do with the BSD developer's choices that are in the spirit of their free software license.
Funny how that works ;)

Post Reply