Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 14th Apr 2009 15:38 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source On June 29, 2007 the Free Software Foundation released the GNU General Public License, version 3. What happened since then? Federico Biancuzzi had the opportunity to discuss many subjects with the FSF's founder and president Richard Stallman.
Order by: Score:
rofl
by google_ninja on Tue 14th Apr 2009 16:36 UTC
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

I love reading a good stallman rant

Gnash now supports most of the Flash 8 features, but the Flash target is moving so fast it is hard to catch. We therefore urge everyone: Do not publish videos in Flash, do not put Flash on a web site, complain to the webmasters of sites which use Flash substantially, and don't refer people to those sites.


Our CSRs pass around internet rage emails internally at work all the time. At our christmas parties we actually have competitions for which one is the most silly. Thinking that internet rage is going to topple flash as the only realistic way to publish media on the internet shows how far out of touch RMS has gotten. The only way to do it is make something better, but even that will take a long time and be a very difficult path to take.

Reply Score: 3

RE: rofl ?
by Kochise on Tue 14th Apr 2009 16:47 UTC in reply to "rofl"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Haven't be MP4 purposed for multipurpose video showcasting, streaming being an implemented feature ? So why focusing on FLV in MMS stream while a good MP4 should be enough ?

Kochise

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: rofl ?
by darknexus on Tue 14th Apr 2009 17:51 UTC in reply to "RE: rofl ?"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

MP4 (or mov) wouldn't satisfy stallman anymore than flash does. It's patent-encumbered, after all, regardless of what video codec used. And then, speaking of which, you have the problem of which video codec to use... and we end up in the same situation as we were in several years back, where we need a bunch of media players and/or codec packs installed to be able to play what we want.
I hate Flash as much as rms does, though for different reasons. But, as much as I hate it for being a buggy and dirt slow piece of crap, at the moment it's the only way to be sure that most people will be able to view the media you publish. It should be noted that the Flash player is a bloated piece of crap, not the flv format itself which actually plays quite smoothly... in any player except Adobe's.
And as for rms... I don't think he'll ever be satisfied with anything but using Theora, unless Dirac or Snow mature. Too bad Theora is, to put it politely, sub-par when compared to just about every other video codec in use today. Perhaps Stallman should stop ranting and start coding again?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: rofl ?
by KugelKurt on Tue 14th Apr 2009 23:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: rofl ?"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

MP4 (or mov) wouldn't satisfy stallman anymore than flash does. It's patent-encumbered

There's actually a difference. Patent issues are dependant on the legislation one is currently in.
MPEG codecs are not patented in every part of the world.
It's probably easier to take down the software patent laws in the USA than to convince Adobe to open source Flash. ;-)


And as for rms... I don't think he'll ever be satisfied with anything but using Theora, unless Dirac or Snow mature.

Dirac is mature! Unlike Theora Dirac is actually used in production environments. BBC uses Dirac.

Reply Score: 4

Theora— "It's getting better"
by gmaxwell on Thu 16th Apr 2009 02:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: rofl ?"
gmaxwell Member since:
2009-04-16

The history of lacklustre performance from Theora is almost entirely caused by the encoder, not the format itself. Sadly, most of the people in the open software world doing video codec development are doing it to enhance codecs owned by others (x264, for example).

Recently Theora has seen substantial sponsorship from companies who support the open web— Mozilla, Redhat, and Wikimedia and as a result the encoder is under active development again.

The new 'alpha' encoder is substantially better than the past encoder, and basically makes Theora far more generally competitive. Enhancements that should be found in the next alpha allowed me to produce examples showing Theora apparently outperforming H.264: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8834f/xiph_theora_11_a... (look at teraflop and gmaxwell). I wouldn't expect Theora (with the 1.1 encoder) to regularly outperform a decent H.264 encoder, as H.264 is a more modern, more complex, and more computationally expensive format. I think it's clearly premature to call it non-competitive.

Of course, quality isn't everything— YouTube managed to achieve web-video dominance with some of the lowest quality video I've ever seen. A truly free and unencumbered format has the potential to bring about levels of interoperability and compatibility which aren't possible in a world dominated by warring proprietary formats. A weaker format can have its quality offset bit a bit more bitrate in any case.

Checkout http://standblog.org/blog/post/2009/04/15/Making-video-a-first-clas... for some of the exciting things made possible when we fully embrace open technology.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: rofl ?
by google_ninja on Tue 14th Apr 2009 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE: rofl ?"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Thats my point, MP4 is an example of something being good enough, but being nowhere near displacing flash as the standard way to publish media on the web. Stallman thinking his merry band of college students will be able to accomplish anything by sending out angry letters to youtube is downright delusional.

Reply Score: 1

RE: rofl
by Moulinneuf on Wed 15th Apr 2009 03:21 UTC in reply to "rofl"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Ok ...

Why is the ridicule laughing of an anonymous employee of an anonymous company who product and work are kept anonymous of any value here ?

You said RMS is out of touch , yet you and your other alias and other anonymous friends keep trying to find and point at perceived flaws in minor detail of an interview that you obviosuly did not read or comprehend ... because you called it a rant.

The only way to do it is make something better


KDE ...

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: rofl
by google_ninja on Wed 15th Apr 2009 13:57 UTC in reply to "RE: rofl"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I don't have any other accounts on this site. I don't use my name because I don't want software I write or opinions I make on the internet to come back to my employer. I don't give my company info out, because little anecdotes like how people goof off on fridays or at christmas parties would be inappropriate to share if it would make the company look unprofessional to someone looking to do business with us.

These are concerns you do not have until you actually have a career. If you have a career, everything you write on the internet has to be done in a professional context. There are plenty of sites where I do use my real name and give my company info, and those places I would never talk about what goes on at a christmas party. This site I come to for the drama and the sillyness.

Case in point: You say that KDE is an example of making a better internet media distribution platform then flash. Seriously, wtf dude.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: rofl
by Moulinneuf on Thu 16th Apr 2009 08:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: rofl"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Are your trying to justify your anonymous cowardice , insults ,libels and lies and other identity by blaming society and your carreer ? You are to blame for all those.

There is always more then one way to do things :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDE#First_series

In November 1998, the Qt toolkit was dual-licensed under the free/open source Q Public License (QPL) & a commercial-license for proprietary software developers. The same year, the KDE Free Qt foundation[6] was created which guarantees that Qt would fall under a variant of the very liberal BSD license should Trolltech cease to exist or no free/open source version of Qt be released during 12 months. Debate continued about compatibility with the GNU General Public License (GPL), so in September 2000, Trolltech made the Unix version of the Qt libraries available under the GPL, in addition to the QPL, which eliminated the concerns of the Free Software Foundation. Trolltech continued to require licenses for developing proprietary software with Qt. The core libraries of KDE are collectively licensed under the GNU LGPL, but the only way for commercial software to make use of them was to be developed under the terms of the Qt commercial license

-----

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: rofl
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 18th Apr 2009 18:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: rofl"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't have any other accounts on this site.


That seems to be his latest rhetorical tactic: accusing anyone who disagrees with him of having (or being) a sock-puppet account. He accused me of the same thing a month or two back.

Amusingly, I haven't seem him mention exactly who he believes is a sock-puppet of who. Perhaps he believes that you and I are the same person.

Reply Score: 2

Theora+Ogg
by fithisux on Tue 14th Apr 2009 18:08 UTC
fithisux
Member since:
2006-01-22

Respect. They are open where others failed.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Theora+Ogg
by darknexus on Tue 14th Apr 2009 18:17 UTC in reply to "Theora+Ogg"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Not sure what you mean by "they are open where others failed." If theora were open, and of the same quality as even Xvid, then I'd imagine it would see wider use. At this point, however, it's not up to even Xvid's quality, it's slow to encode, and produces larger files than other encoders in addition to requiring a higher bitrate to achieve the same quality you'd get with other codecs. And as for its comparing with the new standard, h.264... let's just say not even close. Even the Theora team admits the lackluster quality, and they're attempting to correct it... but by the time Theora is up to the quality of h.264, will Theora be lagging behind again?
And as for ogg, it's a decent container, but Matroska definitely has an edge over it in flexibility though not in hardware support as of yet. Not that this is a problem, Matroska is a free and open container format too.
I respect Theora for lasting this long. I just wish Theora was to video what Vorbis is to audio, because the quality of Vorbis is amazing even at low vbr quality settings.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Theora+Ogg
by moondevil on Tue 14th Apr 2009 18:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Theora+Ogg"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

I had once the pleasure to see Stallman live, when I was doing a training at CERN.

We have to respect the guy for keeping himself so true to his principles. But I fear that on a world so full of online multimedia stuff, many of his battles are already lost.

Content creators want to use the best tools for their job, and the public just cares to watch it no matter how.

Only when DRM or patents starts getting on their way, the "joe user" cares about it. But in the sense that there is some thing that he doesn't like, without really knowing what.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Theora+Ogg
by google_ninja on Tue 14th Apr 2009 19:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Theora+Ogg"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I saw the latest REAL format (rmvb) the other day and man, it totally blew me away, especially when i saw how small the filesize was. When I was watching the mix videos on silverlight adaptive streaming seamlessly upgrading or degrading quality due to bandwidth fluctuations, or speeding up or slowing down to keep a consistent buffer, that blew me away. The first time I saw HD streaming video over the web done with On2s VP7, I thought I was living in the future.

Theora has never impressed me in the slightest, other then that it still exists, and is pushed by free software advocates, even when it has been surpassed by other free software efforts. It blew my mind when it made it into the HTML5 spec, and made me want to cry when people started talking like it would kill flash.

If it was matroska we were talking about, then yeah, adobe better watch themselves. But Theora? Come on.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Theora+Ogg
by darknexus on Tue 14th Apr 2009 19:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Theora+Ogg"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Matroska is a container format, not a codec of any kind. You can put just about anything in a Matroska file, from H.264 to Xvid to Theora for video, any audio, and even subtitles and other text streams, but Matroska itself is just the container.

Reply Score: 8

RE[4]: Theora+Ogg
by google_ninja on Wed 15th Apr 2009 13:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Theora+Ogg"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Didn't know that, thanks for the correction ;)

I probably was watching an h.264 file, although it make sense, since it had 2 audio streams and a bunch of subtitle tracks.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Theora+Ogg
by KugelKurt on Tue 14th Apr 2009 22:54 UTC in reply to "Theora+Ogg"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

Theora sucks... big time. Dirac OTOH is an awesome video codec. It works really well in an Ogg container with Vorbis audio.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by dvzt
by dvzt on Tue 14th Apr 2009 21:15 UTC
dvzt
Member since:
2008-10-23

FSF is far from victory and with Sun's business going down the drain, RMS will have even harder time making companies believe that there is money to be made with FOSS.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by dvzt
by ssa2204 on Tue 14th Apr 2009 21:32 UTC in reply to "Comment by dvzt"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

FSF is far from victory and with Sun's business going down the drain, RMS will have even harder time making companies believe that there is money to be made with FOSS.


Well the problem I have always had with this fool is simply he talks the talk, but...He really seems to live in this fantasy world that all software should be free, but doesn't really explain who pays the developers? Or should they all just get cushy jobs at MIT? I never thought it took rocket science level understanding to figure out that to pay for the cost of development for a lot of software, companies will HAVE to sell it, and in order to sell it they can NOT have closed source.

The whole Red Hat/Novell model, as well as a few others simply can not be extended to the whole world of software. The best example I can think of is game development. Games now take quite a considerable time to make, and the cost of that has to be paid somehow. Now can anyone name even one open source game that is a success? Is there a Call of Duty, or Diablo 3 open source competitor? Not even close, and for a damn good reason. Development takes time, time is money, money does not grow on trees, except for in the world of RMS.

I would not find him so damn annoying if he wasn't so god damn clueless, arrogant, ignorant, and down right foolish.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by dvzt
by karl on Tue 14th Apr 2009 21:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by dvzt"
karl Member since:
2005-07-06

You know in all likelihood RMS more thoroughly understood the software industry than you ever have, prior to you even being born. Calling him clueless is like saying that Niel Armstrong has no clue when talking about going to the moon.

RMS would answer your question simply: if you don't enjoy writing software you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place. When you write software others are going to be forced to use it. These users will be at the mercy of your software and if that software is not available in source form and allow for modification then those users have absolutely no ability to change the software to better fit their needs.

RMS's point is that their comes great responsibility with writing software-something which most softwares authors are completely oblivious to. When you realize that you yourself alone cannot shoulder the burden of that responsibility it behooves you to share your code so that others can improve the software for other users.

Right now a handful of Programs dictate how 80% of those who work with computers work-day in and day out. Those people are forced to use this software by their employers and this software becomes a tool of their employers to further dictate how these people do their jobs. When the programs are Free, the employers can hire people to improve the software for their employees, and in turn the employees can have input in the way the software works that they are forced to use.

I see nothing naieve, clueless or arrogant about such.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by dvzt
by DrillSgt on Tue 14th Apr 2009 22:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by dvzt"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"RMS would answer your question simply: if you don't enjoy writing software you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

That applies to most everything. The fact of the matter remains in that, I would guess, at least 80% of people do not truly enjoy their jobs. You know, the thing that actually puts food on the table, and which Stallman has held only briefly, then moving into that fantasy world of Academia? People write software to make money, though there may be a few who actually enjoy it and don;t want to make money off of it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by dvzt
by porcel on Wed 15th Apr 2009 09:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by dvzt"
porcel Member since:
2006-01-28

Stallman created gcc and the gnu debugger gdbug and sold them commercially for many years, which he used to live and to start off the Free Software Foundation.

He hasn't drawn a check from MIT in more than two decades and has lived off his work and a McCarthy genius award.

You seem to have very little respect for somebody that has completely changed the way major IT companies do business. There were naysayers claiming that JAVA would never enter the FLOSS realm and they were proven wrong.

Flash may eventually end up in the same place. Adobe would gain financially by having the flash format and spec fully documented under a permissive license. They could always sell flash-based content creation tools. I see no point to keeping their player and the format closed source.

Edited 2009-04-15 09:07 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by dvzt
by google_ninja on Wed 15th Apr 2009 14:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by dvzt"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

You seem to have very little respect for somebody that has completely changed the way major IT companies do business. There were naysayers claiming that JAVA would never enter the FLOSS realm and they were proven wrong.


I wouldn't go that far. He had an idea that was adapted and changed by a great many people, and that ended up changing the way major IT companies do business. ESR is what made the Open Source message palatable to people outside of academia, and RMS considers open source to completely miss the point of what he was trying to do with Free Software.

And Java is not a good comparison to flash. Sun was shipping the full source to their API for years before it went open source, and platform decisions were made through the JCP, which was basically a consortium. The big thing for them was that they didn't want incompatible forks kicking around called java. Adobe published the flash file format spec, but thats about as far as community driven as flash has ever gotten, it is a proprietary product developed in a proprietary fashion.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by dvzt
by darknexus on Tue 14th Apr 2009 22:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by dvzt"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

RMS would answer your question simply: if you don't enjoy writing software you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

So what your saying is that, if someone wants to get paid for writing software, they don't enjoy it? They don't wish to support themselves, their families, etc by doing what they enjoy? Taking it further, are you saying that no one should ever be rewarded for doing something if they enjoy it, and should only be paid for doing jobs they don't like?
I don't think RMS has much understanding of the software industry at all. This is not to say he does not understand software, but he seems to have no respect for either the developers who get paid for work they most likely do enjoy, nor respect for the economics of the situation. If that is ones fulltime job, should not that person be paid for their efforts? He dismisses economics as casually as a Christian dismisses the views of an atheist.
I have a lot of respect for the movement he started, and a lot of respect for free software and those who develop it. But, I'm sorry to have to say, I have very little respect for Stallman himself anymore. He's withdrawn into his fantasizing and it doesn't look like he'll be coming down to earth anytime soon.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by dvzt
by google_ninja on Wed 15th Apr 2009 14:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by dvzt"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

You know in all likelihood RMS more thoroughly understood the software industry than you ever have, prior to you even being born. Calling him clueless is like saying that Niel Armstrong has no clue when talking about going to the moon.


RMS has never worked in the software industry. He has been in academia his entire career, which is very, very different.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by dvzt
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 18th Apr 2009 18:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by dvzt"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

RMS has never worked in the software industry. He has been in academia his entire career, which is very, very different.


There's a term I came across a few years back that, IMO, perfectly describes Stallman: "ivory tower radical."

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by dvzt
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 18th Apr 2009 18:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by dvzt"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Calling him clueless is like saying that Niel Armstrong has no clue when talking about going to the moon.


That would only be a valid analogy if Armstrong had spent 20 odd years talking about going to the moon, without ever making it past the stratosphere.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by dvzt
by Lennie on Tue 14th Apr 2009 23:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by dvzt"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

You really don't know where most money goes that is spend on writing software, do you ? 80% is custom build, custom changes to software. If the base is Free Software (as Stallman would call it) the changes still would be needed and people would need to be paid to do it, but life would be easier because it would be easier to use an existing program.

Edited 2009-04-14 23:22 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by dvzt
by ssa2204 on Wed 15th Apr 2009 01:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by dvzt"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

You really don't know where most money goes that is spend on writing software, do you ? 80% is custom build, custom changes to software. If the base is Free Software (as Stallman would call it) the changes still would be needed and people would need to be paid to do it, but life would be easier because it would be easier to use an existing program.


Compare the number of profitable companies selling closed source software (thus employing devs) to that of companies selling OSS? Then get back to me on this...

I do not think of him as evil or bad. In fact there are areas of agreement I have with him, and areas I respect him for. But in regards to his whole position of OSS vs closed source, he just has absolutely no understanding of business models, job markets, investment, growth, and anything economic related. While he preaches a nice and rosy picture, the moment a person walks outside the door it will be easy to see that he just does not understand the world outside of his sheltered existence.

OSS, GPL, etc.. are a great addition, and certainly is nice for any development team to have choice in determining how they want to distribute software. But taken as a whole, it just simply is a fantasy model that would quite simply see the end to technological development, especially in software.

Irony is that large companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, Autodesk, etc.. are usually the companies that pay the research and investment dollars, as well as the larger endowments universities have. As a researcher, even RMS is very much paid by closed source software model, albeit very indirectly. But who exactly HAS the investment dollars to give to universities for research labs?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by dvzt
by da_Chicken on Thu 16th Apr 2009 18:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by dvzt"
da_Chicken Member since:
2006-01-01

Lennie is trying to tell you that companies and organizations that never sell any software actually employ more programmers than companies that sell software. And software that is only used in-house is neither free or non-free.

RMS has said on numerous occasions that there would still be plenty of jobs available for programmers even if people stopped writing non-free software altogether. Here's one interview where RMS mentions custom software development as an alternative to programming non-free software:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/luispo-rms-interview.html

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by dvzt
by ssa2204 on Thu 16th Apr 2009 19:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by dvzt"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

Lennie is trying to tell you that companies and organizations that never sell any software actually employ more programmers than companies that sell software. And software that is only used in-house is neither free or non-free.

RMS has said on numerous occasions that there would still be plenty of jobs available for programmers even if people stopped writing non-free software altogether. Here's one interview where RMS mentions custom software development as an alternative to programming non-free software:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/luispo-rms-interview.html


I am sure the tens of thousands of developers who would lose there jobs would be just peachy keen happy to hear that there would still be a few jobs left. Uggh, again clearly all this shows is that RMS has no clue towards business. He would rather strangle the advancement of software development in favor of advancing his own ideology.

I really can not fathom how difficult this is to understand, considering how basic this is. Is it merely a matter that some simply do not understand how the world works? Fact number one, if ALL software code was freely available, literally thousands of different applications, OS, projects, etc.. would cease to exist. Tens of thousands of developers would no longer be working as programmers, the entire job market for them would shrink, and you would see very little incentive for younger people to learn development skills.

A lot of closed source games use the same engine e.g. Quake or Half-Life in some version. What makes a game a success is mostly the design of the game's inner workings and the artwork plu story design. This is what makes the bulk of the production cost of a game.
The engine might as well be open source software. And there are lot's of open source libraries that are used for game production e.g. SDL, pyGame, ogg vorbis for music.


After you get the source code for ALL of Half Life 2, compile it, and get it running on your system, then get back to me. Using functions that are open source as a tool does not necessarily mean that Half Life 2 is open source is it. More importantly, Half Life 2 itself is not a freely available OSS game, but one that is able to be developed because it is not. Having the full game available would merely mean that nobody would purchase it, but rather simply download it. In other words Half Life would never exist. Companies that develop such software rely on the fact they can sell the software THEY develop.

But, my whole point going to the beginning is that the fact remains nobody HAS developed a game now have they? The time taken to develop such a game is beyond the means of most, so who is capable of doing so are businesses that rely on selling such software, businesses who are NOT going to want their software freely copied. Otherwise what is the freaking point of doing so?

Here is the most simple basic component of this whole argument. Software will NEVER be all FOSS. While some companies may see a strategic advantage to developing OSS (Think Digium and Asterisk) most will not. There is absolutely ZERO logic or reason behind a companies like Autodesk, Adobe, etc.. to just freely open up the books. To do so would put them all out of business. Let's not forget the tens of thousands of other employees, secretaries, sales, accounting, etc.. that would be out of a job. Then of course the investors, etc..

RMS is unfortunately 40 years behind the times.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by dvzt
by da_Chicken on Thu 16th Apr 2009 20:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by dvzt"
da_Chicken Member since:
2006-01-01

You're clearly looking at things from a salesman's point of view. RMS is not a salesman, he's a programmer. From a programmer's point of view it shouldn't really matter if you get paid for developing commercial software or custom software. It only matters from a salesman's point of view. And salesmen can always find other commodities to sell if they can't sell software.

The point that you seem to be happily ignoring is that developing commercial non-free software employs a radically smaller number of programmers than developing custom software which has never been meant to be sold or distributed to others. And if organizations and companies can't buy commercial software, there will be an increasing need to hire more programmers to do in-house software customization and development. That means more well-paid jobs for skilful programmers.

And here's a point that is worth repeating: custom in-house software, that is never distributed to others, is neither free or non-free.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by dvzt
by ssa2204 on Thu 16th Apr 2009 21:25 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by dvzt"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

You're clearly looking at things from a salesman's point of view. RMS is not a salesman, he's a programmer. From a programmer's point of view it shouldn't really matter if you get paid for developing commercial software or custom software. It only matters from a salesman's point of view. And salesmen can always find other commodities to sell if they can't sell software.

The point that you seem to be happily ignoring is that developing commercial non-free software employs a radically smaller number of programmers than developing custom software which has never been meant to be sold or distributed to others. And if organizations and companies can't buy commercial software, there will be an increasing need to hire more programmers to do in-house software customization and development. That means more well-paid jobs for skilful programmers.

And here's a point that is worth repeating: custom in-house software, that is never distributed to others, is neither free or non-free.


No I am not looking at this from a salesman's view, but as a business owner. Yes RMS is a programmer, that clearly has shown he has no understanding of business, markets, and economics 101. Your whole argument is with the end of commercial software, thus the end of the personal computer movement. First off not all businesses are going to hire developers. Second, the advancement in technology today is such that a few programmers can not equal what a commercial product could do. Already this shows a complete lack of understanding of how a business operates. You are talking about hiring several developers at a salary above $50k, when a company of say 50 employees will pay a fraction of that in software licenses. Does it really take rocket science to figure out which model is more efficiant? Which model has a better chance of survival in the market? Obvious to me from day one, a business survives by NOT hiring employees that produce no value, but in hiring employees that do produce value. The idea that businesses will just hire programmers to make up for the lack of commercial software is just down right idiotic, there is no other way to put it. The whole problem with this argument is it is fantasy, void of all reality.

Basic business 101 - Never hire employees when an alternative service or product can be obtained for a fraction of the cost.
Reality 101 - To think that commercial software is going away, is just down right idiotic. No other way to put it. There is a market for it, and where there is a market there will be businesses seeking entry.

Really at this point it is pointless to go further as the whole notion that closed source commercial software will end, it never will. This certainly does not stop people from producing FOSS, but do not entertain the notion for a fraction of a second that the business model that has been proven effective will change.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by dvzt
by Moulinneuf on Wed 15th Apr 2009 04:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by dvzt"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

So the basis of your nonsense is that nobody will pay for free software and that in your failed mind Free Software is gratis software ...

#1 People pay for Free Software
#2 Free Software is a Billion dollar market that is in almost every industry.

Why do Free Software need replacement for **games** that exist on other platform ? Answer it don't.

Your criminal defamation should not be tolerated by OsNews as they become accomplice of your crime.

Note : RMS MIT position was unpaid ...

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Comment by dvzt
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 18th Apr 2009 19:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by dvzt"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Your criminal defamation should not be tolerated by OsNews as they become accomplice of your crime.


Hmmm...

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Internet_lawyer

"During a big drama meltdown, someone claims to have been the victim of some crime such as: slander, defamation, libel, copyright infringement, harassment, spam, forgery, impersonation, whatever. The victim's sock puppets then all rise up to describe and define the alleged crime. In 99.999% of these cases, the alleged crime doesn't even come close to meaning what the e-lawyer thinks it does.

Rising to the level of e-lawyer requires that one side start spouting off a bunch of legal sounding bullshit in the most serious manner possible. A good e-lawyer will use recycled arguments from TV shows like Law & Order or Matlock. The very best e-lawyers practice during their spare time playing Phoenix Wright. And of course, everyone gets a laugh when, on the advice of an e-lawyer, some aggrieved party actually consults a real attorney and has to pay $200 to be laughed at and told they have no case."

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by dvzt
by rramalho on Wed 15th Apr 2009 10:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by dvzt"
rramalho Member since:
2007-07-11

You mix everything...

Did he ever said that software must be for free? He clearly didn't say that, and you're just being unfair.

In the FSF site, if you just try (you clearly didn't...) to understand the principles. No one said that you don't have to sell the software - in fact, the FSF sites says you should sell the software.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Comment by dvzt
by jokkel on Thu 16th Apr 2009 15:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by dvzt"
jokkel Member since:
2008-07-07

[The best example I can think of is game development. Games now take quite a considerable time to make, and the cost of that has to be paid somehow. Now can anyone name even one open source game that is a success? Is there a Call of Duty, or Diablo 3 open source competitor?

A lot of closed source games use the same engine e.g. Quake or Half-Life in some version. What makes a game a success is mostly the design of the game's inner workings and the artwork plu story design. This is what makes the bulk of the production cost of a game.
The engine might as well be open source software. And there are lot's of open source libraries that are used for game production e.g. SDL, pyGame, ogg vorbis for music.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by dvzt
by Moulinneuf on Wed 15th Apr 2009 03:25 UTC in reply to "Comment by dvzt"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

FSF is far from victory


Their goal was the creation of a Free Software OS ...

with Sun's business going down the drain


SUN is Solaris maker a proprietary OS , they are also an Open Source company not a Free Software one ...

RMS will have even harder time making companies believe that there is money to be made with FOSS.


Why would he need to convince company that FOSS work ?

Read the top 100 IT company and most of them are FOSS company ...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by dvzt
by ssa2204 on Wed 15th Apr 2009 04:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by dvzt"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

Why would he need to convince company that FOSS work ?

Read the top 100 IT company and most of them are FOSS company ...


You are either delusional, ignorant, or just don't care about lying your ass off to support an argument.

Last time I saw any list was ZDNet's top 50 Tech performers, and not ONE single company that was "FOSS" made the list. Not even Red Hat or Novell. Ironically the only "software" company on the list was Microsoft, rest being hardware or hadware/software combined (Apple & Sun).

Can you even name 3 "Top" FOSS companies? If you can, I am sure that someone can just as easily point out a competitor that is much more financially sound.

Good try though.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by dvzt
by Moulinneuf on Wed 15th Apr 2009 04:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by dvzt"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Must be why I use my real name , I am so scared of the insult by a moron anonymous coward ...

ZDNet's top 50 Tech performers


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASDAQ-100

Amazon.com, Inc
Baidu.com, Inc
eBay Inc.

Care to repeat your illegal defamtion in court ?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by dvzt
by iliks on Wed 15th Apr 2009 05:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by dvzt"
iliks Member since:
2008-07-08

bwahahaha, moulinneuf, you rock with that illegal defamation theme!

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by dvzt
by ssa2204 on Wed 15th Apr 2009 06:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by dvzt"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

Must be why I use my real name , I am so scared of the insult by a moron anonymous coward ...

" ZDNet's top 50 Tech performers


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASDAQ-100

Amazon.com, Inc
Baidu.com, Inc
eBay Inc.

Care to repeat your illegal defamtion in court ?
"

LMAO! Are you for real? God this so amusing, I do not even know where to begin.

First off, none of these companies produce FOSS, they may use it, but did your little brain just simply fail to look at the fact that the software companies listed:

Citrix Systems
Activision Blizzard
Adobe Systems Incorporated
Apple Inc
Autodesk
Intuit
Microsoft

Companies like Cisco, Sun, etc..may use FOSS in their products, but they are not software development, they are hardware. Cisco is a HARDWARE seller.

Notice the trend? Can you..see it..? The only software companies...are...all..CLOSED SOURCE.

You know what I would certainly enjoy repeating in court, so as to get it on record; you sir, are a fool in the first degree.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by dvzt
by Moulinneuf on Wed 15th Apr 2009 09:16 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by dvzt"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes , I am for real , unlike you I use my real life name ...

All those company produce and use FOSS. Your "they may use it," , show that you know it and are evn lying about it.

Cherry picking 7 company out of 100 and claiming they are the only valid one , is ridiculous and completetly pathetic , but the usual when talking with a anonymous like yourself.

I am not the one stopping you from repating it and swearing under oat.

your still a coward moron anonymous ...

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by dvzt
by WereCatf on Wed 15th Apr 2009 14:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by dvzt"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Yes , I am for real , unlike you I use my real life name .

Using one's real name in forums proves nothing in any direction.

All those company produce and use FOSS. Your "they may use it," , show that you know it and are evn lying about it.

They do produce and use F/OSS software, yes, BUT they also use and produce closed-source applications. There is no freaking way they'll ever give you access to the sources of all of their software. As such they are not F/OSS companies.

I am not the one stopping you from repating it and swearing under oat.

Oat (Avena sativa) is a species of cereal grain ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oat )

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by dvzt
by Moulinneuf on Thu 16th Apr 2009 09:10 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by dvzt"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Using one's real name in forums proves nothing in any direction.


It prove I am not afraid to have my words associated with me , usually it's because they are true or I believe them to be true ... It also so show I am not ahsame of my ancestor and of who I am.

They do produce and use F/OSS software


Witch show that company pay for it and develop for it ...

BUT they also use and produce closed-source applications.


It's there ressource and their choice ... don't mean I have to agree of support them in that choice do. Can't get anything if you never ask.

There is no freaking way they'll ever give you access to the sources of all of their software.


History show that people can and will change their minds ... Some company did give me access to the source of all their software and more will do so in the future.

As such they are not F/OSS companies.


They are more then FOSS company , they are FOSS user , contributer and funders and developers ... YOU and your ilk don't get to decide anything ... We are not gonna turn our back on Free Software contribution and license switching for compatibility sakes because it upset *something* who can't use it's real name.

0.01% multiplied by 100 000 end ups giving you a good code base to work soemthing up.

under oat = under oath , yes I make writting mistakes , but that don't change anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_oath

You want to take on RMS and the FSF why don't you all group up , remember your real name and face him and the foundation in court since you are all accusing him of something or another.

Reply Score: 2