Is Richard Stallman the Enemy of Freedom?

If it doesn't relate to Debian, but you still want to share it, please do it here

Postby diveli » 2008-05-21 06:59

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

Postby diveli » 2008-05-21 07:04

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

Postby Primetime » 2008-05-21 07:40

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

Postby Lavene » 2008-05-21 08:30

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.
Lavene
Site admin
 
Posts: 5096
Joined: 2006-01-04 04:26
Location: Oslo, Norway

Postby diveli » 2008-05-21 10:55

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

Postby Primetime » 2008-05-21 11:21

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

Postby diveli » 2008-05-21 11:22

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

Postby diveli » 2008-05-21 11:32

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

Postby Primetime » 2008-05-21 12:04

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

Postby dmn_clown » 2008-05-21 13:48

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?
dmn_clown
 
Posts: 525
Joined: 2006-12-03 23:40

Postby saulgoode » 2008-05-21 13:49

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
User avatar
saulgoode
 
Posts: 1545
Joined: 2007-10-22 11:34

Postby Primetime » 2008-05-21 14:32

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

Postby muskrat » 2008-05-21 23:20

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
muskrat
 
Posts: 278
Joined: 2005-02-13 01:07
Location: Gulf-Coast TX-MX

Postby BioTube » 2008-05-22 00:01

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
BioTube
 
Posts: 7551
Joined: 2007-06-01 04:34

Postby muskrat » 2008-05-22 00:11

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
muskrat
 
Posts: 278
Joined: 2005-02-13 01:07
Location: Gulf-Coast TX-MX

PreviousNext

Return to Offtopic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CraigHB and 2 guests

fashionable