Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Mar 2012 22:47 UTC
Linux "If you meet Linus Torvalds, he comes off as a mild-mannered, down-to-earth Finnish-American. He lives with his wife Tove, three kids, a cat, a dog, a snake, a goldfish, a bunny and a pet rat in a comfortable 6000 square foot home just north of Portland's tony Lake Oswego neighborhood. The house is yellow - his favorite color - and so's the Mercedes. But he's not really like any of his neighbors. He drives his Mercedes fast, slamming the car into gear and flooring it. There's no coaxing, no hesitation. Either the hammer is down, or the car is at rest. And he has an abnormal number of stuffed penguins on his mantle." Yup, sounds like the to-the-point Fin we all know and love.
Order by: Score:
I like Linus
by WorknMan on Tue 20th Mar 2012 23:02 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

I like Linus. He seems much more pragmatic about things than Stallman. In other words, I get the impression that he sees computers and software more as tools, rather than a religion.

Reply Score: 5

RE: I like Linus
by kwan_e on Tue 20th Mar 2012 23:38 UTC in reply to "I like Linus"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

He seems much more pragmatic about things than Stallman.


Everyone says Stallman is religious, but I don't think everyone has thought it through at all.

The GPL, for example, acknowledges the fact that people would like to be rewarded for their work, so it requires people give source code back. If people don't like it, then they don't use GPL code in their own code.

BSD apologists, on the other hand, are willing to sacrifice actual freedoms in return for an ideological freedom. And if ideological freedom is not religious then I don't know what is. The pragmatic Linus Torvalds chooses to remain with the GPL for pragmatic reasons.

Who is REALLY religious in the open source world are people like Theo de Raadt. And even then, given the security work that comes out of that, I say that's not a bad thing. In this case, being religious about standards of work delivers results.

Not to mention that Stallman's predictions about our rights being taken away are widely acknowledged to be happening. People are being denied to right to read or see videos or listen to music on their own terms.

I've come to the conclusion that anyone who says Stallman is "religious" or "ideological" haven't actually thought things through at all, but rather following popular opinion because it's fashionable.

Reply Score: 16

v RE[2]: I like Linus
by lucas_maximus on Wed 21st Mar 2012 00:07 UTC in reply to "RE: I like Linus"
RE[3]: I like Linus
by Lennie on Wed 21st Mar 2012 00:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I like Linus"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

The developer can actually ask for money to create new programs and features. The GPL is very clear on that.

Only when the software is distributed to someone else, let's say the user. should the source be made available to that user.

So the user has the rights to take that work to an other developer and not be stuck with the original developer in cause of a conflict (of interrests or otherwise).

Also maybe it is just me, but AFAIK iOS on iPhone and iPad doesn't have the notion of a files either (to the user).

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: I like Linus
by lucas_maximus on Wed 21st Mar 2012 01:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I like Linus"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Also maybe it is just me, but AFAIK iOS on iPhone and iPad doesn't have the notion of a files either (to the user).


This is true.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I like Linus
by ParadoxUncreated on Wed 21st Mar 2012 08:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I like Linus"
ParadoxUncreated Member since:
2009-12-05

Closed software is a pain. Do we really need to make money of software tools? Ofcourse money can be made on servicing opensource.

I`ve seen many closed software companies come and go. Each time the same problem. What they spent their time on developing, researching and bugtesting, now has to be repeated by someone else, with more or less success, and maybe with other strenghts. Can be a real PITA if one has gotten used to some piece of software and love it.

If it was opensource, none of these problems would bother us.

Life should be all about the user experience. We are not here to put sadistic restrainments on ourselves. And that is what closed source vs opensource seems to be.

Peace.

Edited 2012-03-21 08:38 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: I like Linus
by Kochise on Wed 21st Mar 2012 15:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I like Linus"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Then create your own firm instead, share your hardware datasheets and open your software to the World. Until that happens, STFU...

Kochise

Reply Score: 2

v RE[5]: I like Linus
by ParadoxUncreated on Wed 21st Mar 2012 23:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I like Linus"
RE[6]: I like Linus
by Kochise on Thu 22nd Mar 2012 07:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I like Linus"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

I can understand your point that if the source code was open, the consumers could have been able to continue the maintenance of their acquired software, or at least pay someone else to do it. Now I'd like YOU to figure out how the world works, how you can pay your daily meal. You work on linux on your spare time, right ? You get wages for your work, as a coder or else, now you find something that help people. Would you like to give it for free if you were jobless, or get something in return that might sustain your way of life ? Dilemma ! Now you work for your living on YOUR stuff, you have hard time finding consumers, get them you paid for you to pay for your bills, would you still give your secret recipe for free, for the sake of logic ? Sorry to burst your bubble, sure some business do some pretty insane amount of money from nothing, that doesn't justify them to spread their IP for free as they have to pay their engineers and else for their job that produced these IPs. So the IP have a cost, meanly man-hours based, so you have to cover that cost with incomes, and whenever it's covered, you still have employee you should pay, so you continue to exploit those IPs to continue to cover the wages.

When I told you to create your firm, I mean, you FOSS fanboys you are like unions. Not that I dislike unions, they are a necessary itch since thos counter balance firm abuses against employee. Sometimes. After it's all a matter of lobbying, but that's not the subject. I mean, since RMS' rise, where are the free CPU with open-sourced VHDL, where are the free video cards with open drivers ? Where are the fucking free open source kernel that works ? Linux doesn't comply with GPLv3 and you moan ? Work on Hurd ! But for all of this you need incomes to sustain your daily living, and since your dogma impose you do not get paid for free software, at least how would you, since it's free and "anybody" can make changes to the software, you parasite closed hardware/software firms to get your wages. Of course you or your fellows tries to impose open source software in these companies, so that you can contribute to the "community" while being paid on the company's income. How smart !

Really, if ever free software should ever control the world, first make bugless softwares, create good specifications (where is ogg ?) and good hardware and stop spitting on the hands that feed you.

Kochise

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: I like Linus
by BluenoseJake on Wed 21st Mar 2012 14:13 UTC in reply to "RE: I like Linus"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

BSD apologists? Really? I don't even know what to say, other than perhaps OSS would make some more inroads into consumer computing if the different factions would just realize that the goal is the same, even if the license is not.

You sounds pretty religious yourself.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I like Linus
by kwan_e on Wed 21st Mar 2012 15:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I like Linus"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

BSD apologists? Really? I don't even know what to say, other than perhaps OSS would make some more inroads into consumer computing if the different factions would just realize that the goal is the same, even if the license is not.

You sounds pretty religious yourself.


Reading this thread, I've come to the conclusions that people don't even have a good idea of what being "religious" means.

It's just become a name to call someone when you have no logical reasons to back up your point of view.

Go on, tell me what exactly I've said makes me sound "pretty religious".

Hints:

"Religious" does not mean "having beliefs" and certainly not "having strong opinions".

"Religious" is probably being used where "fundamentalist" may be a better term. A part of being "religious" and "fundamentalist" involves strict ideology and some literalism.

"Religious" is not "fanatical" although it commonly does include fanatical elements. Having many different lines of argument is not fanatical. Fanatical often implies the brushing aside of logical arguments. Defense of a belief is not fanatical.

------------------------

I have no problem with people choosing either BSD or GPL licences. It's a matter of choice. The FSF lists the BSD as GPL compatible, but I have only ever come across attacks on the GPL from people who like BSD style licences. They say unbelievable things, like "GPL steals your code". GPL can't steal your code if you don't use GPL code. You are not obligated to choose GPL projects. And yet you get this line of argument from BSD apologists all the time.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: I like Linus
by BluenoseJake on Wed 21st Mar 2012 17:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I like Linus"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Well, lets see:

1. Judge other people for their choices, check.
2. Call people names for said choices (BSD apologists), check
3. tell people what the proper choice is, check.
4. See insignificant or semantic differences , as major rifts between factions, check.

Sounds like religious persecution to me. Why not let people who like BSD style licenses use them, and use what you like, without judging? OSS is about freedom, but your post is not.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: I like Linus
by kwan_e on Wed 21st Mar 2012 23:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I like Linus"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Well, lets see:

1. Judge other people for their choices, check.
2. Call people names for said choices (BSD apologists), check
3. tell people what the proper choice is, check.
4. See insignificant or semantic differences , as major rifts between factions, check.

Sounds like religious persecution to me. Why not let people who like BSD style licenses use them, and use what you like, without judging? OSS is about freedom, but your post is not.


Read my previous reply. I clearly stated I have no problem with people choosing either GPL or BSD. I did not make any statement that preferred BSD over GPL.

Calling someone an apologist is not "name calling".

Why hide the fact that BSD freedom IS ideological freedom while GPL freedom IS pragmatic freedom? People want to be paid for their work, so if it's in the form of giving back code, it's a pretty fair deal.

So:

1) No check.
2) No check.
3) No check.
4) No check.

What you have done is you've formed an opinion about me and then, without bother to have read anything, just assumed I've made points that matched all for points.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: I like Linus
by BluenoseJake on Thu 22nd Mar 2012 01:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I like Linus"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

An apologist is a derogatory term, at least in common usage. It is generally taken to mean somebody who makes excuses for something beyond rational or logical limits.

It's almost as bad as fanboy

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: I like Linus
by kwan_e on Thu 22nd Mar 2012 01:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I like Linus"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

An apologist is a derogatory term, at least in common usage. It is generally taken to mean somebody who makes excuses for something beyond rational or logical limits.

It's almost as bad as fanboy


No on both counts.

I think someone's a bit too sensitive. Why do you not go after that poster who used "Freetard"? That's more derogatory than "apologist".

Your understanding of what an apologist is is wrong, plain and simple. An apologist is someone who merely apologizes for a certain point of view. They may make excuses, or they may use rational and logical arguments.

Someone who apologizes for BSD style licences is thus a BSD apologist. It does not put down anyone for choosing the BSD licence - it merely describes those who take the step of apologizing for BSD, mainly by attacking people who choose the GPL.

The same description would apply for someone who apologizes for the GPL. In my time of following this back and forth discussion, it's mainly been BSD apologists attacking GPL users for "stealing code", forgetting the fact that they don't have to use GPL code in the first place if they don't want to pay it back.

How is that argument not an apologetic for BSD and how is that rational or logical in any way?

This is why I continue to say you lot just haven't thought things though at all. Thinking things through is not "religious".

Reply Score: 3

RE: I like Linus
by Lennie on Wed 21st Mar 2012 00:22 UTC in reply to "I like Linus"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Stallman strong believes have done a lot of the world.

Without it, Linux wouldn't exist in it's current form.

Just as an example gcc. It might not produce the best performing code. But it does produce code for a lot of architectures.

Do you think NetBSD would be available on that many platforms without gcc ?

I doubt Creative Commons would have even existed without his ideas.

Just see how many Creative Commons works there are just on Flickr alone: http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/

Without Creative Commons Wikipedia might not exist either.

Those are some of the things that popped into my head, I'm sure there are better examples.

It seems to me even Thom had to change his mind:

http://www.osnews.com/story/25469/Richard_Stallman_Was_Right_All_Al...

People complain about articles about patents on OSNews, maybe without Stallman it would have been even worse.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: I like Linus
by WorknMan on Wed 21st Mar 2012 00:57 UTC in reply to "RE: I like Linus"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Stallman strong believes have done a lot of the world.

Without it, Linux wouldn't exist in it's current form.

Just as an example gcc. It might not produce the best performing code. But it does produce code for a lot of architectures.


Stallman's strong beliefs haven't done shit for the world. Stallman (and his followers) wrote a lot of code and then gave it away, and THAT did a lot for the world. Linus did the same thing as Stallman, but doesn't have the same religious beliefs. In other words, if we'd have had more CODE from the FSF and less religion over the years from them, they'd probably have gotten a lot further than they are now.

Even some of the most religious fanatics have done good works, but that doesn't say anything about the validity of their religion. If a bunch of Christians (or Muslims) set up and run a homeless shelter, does that mean their god is real?

People complain about articles about patents on OSNews, maybe without Stallman it would have been even worse.


What does patents have to do with software licenses? Especially since even open source projects like Android are getting sued for patent violations. That is a COMPLETELY separate issue. Just because somebody patents 'slide to unlock' and sues over it doesn't mean the world needs to stop using non-free software.

Edited 2012-03-21 00:59 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: I like Linus
by Lennie on Wed 21st Mar 2012 09:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I like Linus"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Without his beliefs, Stallman wouldn't have created that code.

Reply Score: 4

v RE[4]: I like Linus
by Kebabbert on Wed 21st Mar 2012 10:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I like Linus"
v RE[5]: I like Linus
by MOS6510 on Wed 21st Mar 2012 11:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I like Linus"
RE[3]: I like Linus
by r_a_trip on Wed 21st Mar 2012 12:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I like Linus"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Just because somebody patents 'slide to unlock' and sues over it doesn't mean the world needs to stop using non-free software.

Need is a strong word. But if every end user rejected proprietary software, there wouldn't be proprietary outfits left who think patenting 'slide to unlock' is a good thing.

There is no particular incentive to patent stuff if your own licensing stipulates that patent grants are perpetual, sub-licensable, worldwide and royalty free.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: I like Linus
by kwan_e on Wed 21st Mar 2012 15:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I like Linus"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"Stallman strong believes have done a lot of the world.

Without it, Linux wouldn't exist in it's current form.

Just as an example gcc. It might not produce the best performing code. But it does produce code for a lot of architectures.


Stallman's strong beliefs haven't done shit for the world. Stallman (and his followers) wrote a lot of code and then gave it away, and THAT did a lot for the world. Linus did the same thing as Stallman, but doesn't have the same religious beliefs. In other words, if we'd have had more CODE from the FSF and less religion over the years from them, they'd probably have gotten a lot further than they are now.

Even some of the most religious fanatics have done good works, but that doesn't say anything about the validity of their religion. If a bunch of Christians (or Muslims) set up and run a homeless shelter, does that mean their god is real?
"

Firstly, I say Stallman and the FSF has done more than most religions in terms of contributing positively to humanity.

Secondly, you keep using religion to describe the activities of the FSF, but an actual explanation of why it's an accurate description is conspicuously absent. Just because everyone says it is doesn't make it so.

Thirdly, the FSF does more than code. Raising awareness is very important. In case you haven't noticed in the past 20 years, lobbyists have forcibly injected politics into technological issues and you'd be fool to focus on the code while your freedom to move is being taken from you.

Fourthly, your last argument is just pathetic and irrelevant. The FSF and Stallman's activities have measurable impact as a direct result of their stated goals. Your last argument is irrelevant and is no more than an excuse to restate that you think they're religions without having to back up that argument.

"People complain about articles about patents on OSNews, maybe without Stallman it would have been even worse.


What does patents have to do with software licenses? Especially since even open source projects like Android are getting sued for patent violations. That is a COMPLETELY separate issue. Just because somebody patents 'slide to unlock' and sues over it doesn't mean the world needs to stop using non-free software.
"

Patents have everything to do with copyright because they are forced into the Intellectual Property umbrella which is a debatable concept, but nonetheless exists due to lobbying.

Technically, you are right, but the people seeking to take away basic freedoms aren't playing a technical game. They are playing a political game.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: I like Linus
by WorknMan on Wed 21st Mar 2012 21:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I like Linus"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Fourthly, your last argument is just pathetic and irrelevant. The FSF and Stallman's activities have measurable impact as a direct result of their stated goals. Your last argument is irrelevant and is no more than an excuse to restate that you think they're religions without having to back up that argument.


This is very easy to explain. Folks like Linus use the GPL for practical reasons, because he believes that is the best license for what he is doing. Stallman and his followers use the GPL for moral reasons, regardless of whether it is practical or not, because to use a non-FSF approved license would be akin to commiting sin. He's already said everyone should use free software, regardless of whether or not is is technically superior to the non-free alternatives. If that isn't religion, I don't know what is.

Patents have everything to do with copyright because they are forced into the Intellectual Property umbrella which is a debatable concept, but nonetheless exists due to lobbying.

Technically, you are right, but the people seeking to take away basic freedoms aren't playing a technical game. They are playing a political game.


Again, you can give out the source code to something like a codec and still demand royalties for their use, so I'm not seeing how the discussion of patents is relevant to this topic. Even DRM has been used in open source software, hence the creation of the GPL v3. Every time the discussion of non-free software comes up, Freetards feel the need to bring up patents and DRM as the main reason not to use said software, even though most non-free software devs are not patent holders, and most non-free apps have no DRM at all. These things are NOT mutually exclusive. It would be like saying that since a lot of shitty, 'v0.1' alpha/beta software happens to be open source, then we should just quit using FOSS altogether to avoid these kinds of apps.

Even if you believe strongly that DRM and patents are evil and should be done away with, it doesn't help your cause to paint all non-free software devs as seal-clubbing bastards who are out to take away your freedoms, just because a select few happen to fall under this category. Most of them just want to get paid for their work, and they aren't going to make a lot of money selling support or custom versions of a $2 phone app.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: I like Linus
by kwan_e on Wed 21st Mar 2012 23:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I like Linus"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"[q]Fourthly, your last argument is just pathetic and irrelevant. The FSF and Stallman's activities have measurable impact as a direct result of their stated goals. Your last argument is irrelevant and is no more than an excuse to restate that you think they're religions without having to back up that argument.


This is very easy to explain. Folks like Linus use the GPL for practical reasons, because he believes that is the best license for what he is doing. Stallman and his followers use the GPL for moral reasons, regardless of whether it is practical or not, because to use a non-FSF approved license would be akin to commiting sin. He's already said everyone should use free software, regardless of whether or not is is technically superior to the non-free alternatives. If that isn't religion, I don't know what is.
"

Except there are NO Stallman followers. People are allowed to agree with Stallman's principles, even in part, without being a follower.

So what if he said everyone should use free software? Are people not allowed to have opinions? Having a strong opinion or belief is NOT "religion". And how has he acted on those beliefs? He used COPYRIGHT LAW and subverted it with the GPL. That's pretty pragmatic to me.

Did you know back in Darwin's day, to combat slavery, Darwin's family and associates campaigned to stop everyone buying slave sugar, even if it was too expensive at the moment. Does that make anti-slavery a religion?

You continue to prove my point that people have not thought this through. You have a really poor definition of "religion". You really don't know what is religion. By your flaky definition, anyone or anything's who is not inhumanly neutral on every subject. Hell, by your definition, the anti-software-patent movement is a religion.

"Patents have everything to do with copyright because they are forced into the Intellectual Property umbrella which is a debatable concept, but nonetheless exists due to lobbying.

Technically, you are right, but the people seeking to take away basic freedoms aren't playing a technical game. They are playing a political game.


Again, you can give out the source code to something like a codec and still demand royalties for their use, so I'm not seeing how the discussion of patents is relevant to this topic. Even DRM has been used in open source software, hence the creation of the GPL v3. Every time the discussion of non-free software comes up, Freetards feel the need to bring up patents and DRM as the main reason not to use said software, even though most non-free software devs are not patent holders, and most non-free apps have no DRM at all. These things are NOT mutually exclusive. It would be like saying that since a lot of shitty, 'v0.1' alpha/beta software happens to be open source, then we should just quit using FOSS altogether to avoid these kinds of apps.
"

You continue to miss the point that this is not a technical issue. We have to treat these in one package because the opposition, with their money and political power, are making it one package. Deal with it.

It's strange that I was called "religious" for using the term "BSD apologist" but others can use terms like "Freetard".

Even if you believe strongly that DRM and patents are evil and should be done away with, it doesn't help your cause to paint all non-free software devs as seal-clubbing bastards who are out to take away your freedoms, just because a select few happen to fall under this category. Most of them just want to get paid for their work, and they aren't going to make a lot of money selling support or custom versions of a $2 phone app.


And who of Stallman's "followers" have actually demonized people for taking money for software? It's been said time and time again that the GPL doesn't preclude monetary payments.

The most that comes from that group is the insistence that free software be preferred over binary blobs. They haven't tried to ban anything. They may have tried to create their own distros, but that's a personal choice that they haven't tried to force down other people's throats.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: I like Linus
by WorknMan on Thu 22nd Mar 2012 02:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I like Linus"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

You continue to prove my point that people have not thought this through. You have a really poor definition of "religion".


You are right, I use the term 'religion' to describe the philosophy of people who are more concerned about the moral/ethical aspects of software rather than the practical use of said software. I use that term simply because I don't know of a better one, and I think it gets the point across. In the end, Stallman cares more about freedom (or at least his warped version of it) rather than silly little things such as productivity and actually getting work done.

The most that comes from that group is the insistence that free software be preferred over binary blobs. They haven't tried to ban anything. They may have tried to create their own distros, but that's a personal choice that they haven't tried to force down other people's throats.


Quoting Stallman:

Our goal is to establish freedom for software users, and freedom is
much broader and deeper than "freedom of choice". Thus, our aim is
not just that people should be able to "make choices about software
freedom", but rather that they should actually HAVE software freedom.

Proprietary software is digital colonization, unjust and evil. Our
goal is therefore to eliminate proprietary software.
We cannot
eliminate it this year, but what we can and must do now is refuse to
legitimize it.

In the same way, the abolitionists did not seek to give people
the power to make choices about freedom or slavery. They sought
to abolish slavery.


Source:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/accessibility/2010-07/msg00055.ht...

No question about it... this guy is a fanatic. And yes, I would consider anybody who wishes to abolish FOSS to be just the same.

Edited 2012-03-22 02:07 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: I like Linus
by kwan_e on Thu 22nd Mar 2012 04:55 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I like Linus"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"You continue to prove my point that people have not thought this through. You have a really poor definition of "religion".


You are right, I use the term 'religion' to describe the philosophy of people who are more concerned about the moral/ethical aspects of software rather than the practical use of said software. I use that term simply because I don't know of a better one, and I think it gets the point across. In the end, Stallman cares more about freedom (or at least his warped version of it) rather than silly little things such as productivity and actually getting work done.
"

Another fine example of not having thought things through.

You think that worrying about the ethical aspects of software is opposed to productivity and actually getting work done? Have you or have you not seen the progress made because of certain projects adoption of open source licences?

Linux uses GPLv2. It is very successful and very active. Both corporations and hobbyists contribute to it. Highly productive. End of story.

Stallman is right to care about freedom because productivity and getting work done REQUIRES freedom. For you to make them out as opposite ideals is idiotic at best.

"The most that comes from that group is the insistence that free software be preferred over binary blobs. They haven't tried to ban anything. They may have tried to create their own distros, but that's a personal choice that they haven't tried to force down other people's throats.


Quoting Stallman:

Our goal is to establish freedom for software users, and freedom is
much broader and deeper than "freedom of choice". Thus, our aim is
not just that people should be able to "make choices about software
freedom", but rather that they should actually HAVE software freedom.

Proprietary software is digital colonization, unjust and evil. Our
goal is therefore to eliminate proprietary software.
We cannot
eliminate it this year, but what we can and must do now is refuse to
legitimize it.

In the same way, the abolitionists did not seek to give people
the power to make choices about freedom or slavery. They sought
to abolish slavery.


Source:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/accessibility/2010-07/msg00055.ht...

No question about it... this guy is a fanatic. And yes, I would consider anybody who wishes to abolish FOSS to be just the same.
"

And what ACTIONS have they taken to achieve that goal?

Basically, what we have here is people arguing "fanaticism" and "religion" based on a person having strong opinions or beliefs. What kind of philosophy course taught you this nonsense?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I like Linus
by demetrioussharpe on Wed 21st Mar 2012 05:11 UTC in reply to "RE: I like Linus"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

Do you think NetBSD would be available on that many platforms without gcc ?


In short, yes.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I like Linus
by henderson101 on Wed 21st Mar 2012 11:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I like Linus"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

BSD already existed before GNU, the only difference would be the compiler chain, really.

Reply Score: 2

Support for MATE or Cinnamon
by Jason Bourne on Tue 20th Mar 2012 23:09 UTC
Jason Bourne
Member since:
2007-06-02

One of the things I'd like to see is Linus making an "official" support to projects like Cinnamon and MATE. It's been a while since he called GNOME Shell an "unholy mess", and he's quite funny because he comes with these down to earth expressions. Sometimes you figure things out about something and there's him already with a totally down to earth opinion on that subject. I quite like his sense of humour and way of handling some of the issues in software and computing.

Reply Score: 4

Mac OS X
by Lennie on Tue 20th Mar 2012 23:25 UTC
Lennie
Member since:
2007-09-22

I had read it before, but I now have some dates to go with it:

'...around 2000, when he was still working at Transmeta, he met Steve Jobs. Jobs invited him to Apple’s Cupertino campus and tried to hire him. “Unix for the biggest user base: that was the pitch,” says Torvalds. The condition: He’d have to drop Linux development. “He wanted me to work at Apple doing non-Linux things,” he said. That was a non-starter for Torvalds. Besides, he hated Mac OS’s Mach kernel.'

What if Jobs had asked Torvalds before Apple had started on the Darwin part of the Mac OS X project ? 2000 is even before the first release of Mac OS X. The world would have been a different place.

As mentioned in the article. Jobs has design taste and Linus has engineering taste.

Not sure if they would get along in the long run though ;-)

But still interresting to think about.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Mac OS X
by henderson101 on Wed 21st Mar 2012 00:55 UTC in reply to "Mac OS X"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

What if Jobs had asked Torvalds before Apple had started on the Darwin part of the Mac OS X project ? 2000 is even before the first release of Mac OS X. The world would have been a different place.


Um... no. Darwin is based on the Mac OS X base OS. Mac OS X is based (when you rewind back throught he version to the Developer Releases) on Mac OS X Server, which in turn is based on Rhapsody, which in turn is based on OpenStep, which in turn is based on NextStep. You must then factor in that NextStep was Jobs baby back in the late 1980's. Indeed, when Next demonstrated their hardware in 1988, the OS that Mac OS X is based on existed.

Linux was first released in the Winter of 1991.

Do you see the problem with your logic? Jobs was never going to go anywhere near Linux. Even the mkLinix that Apple Sponsored used the Mach kernel.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Mac OS X
by Lennie on Wed 21st Mar 2012 09:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Mac OS X"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I've never really looked into the history of it.

I thought the Mac OS X UI and application framework was based on NextStep and so on.

I also thought the Darwin part, thus the base OS, did not exists before the Mac OS X project and was based on parts of FreeBSD and an existing micro kernel project.

My thought was, what if the base OS was Linux.

As I've not looked into it. It might not have been able to make it work. Maybe the other parts of Mac OS X just can't function without the micro kernel.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Mac OS X
by henderson101 on Wed 21st Mar 2012 11:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mac OS X"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

No. Mac OS X, as it is now, is the evolution of what Next had in 1988 (and, likely, earlier.) the same lead engineer was working on Mac OS X from the genesis of the Mach kernel at Carnigie Melon, right up till 10.5. His name is Avie Tevanian - google him.

What Apple did was slowly replace the ageing subsystems with sections of more modern BSD code (usually FreeBSD), but the project was continuous and progressive. If you look at OpenStep and then at Rhapsody, you can see the evolution towards Mac OS. You then look at Mac OS X Server 1.x (which is nothing to do with Mac OS X 10.x Server directly), and you see the basis for the Mac OS X public Betas. It was a continued evolution, not a sudden change. Yes the kernel is now XNU, but it evolved out of the Mach R&D with concepts from BSD bolted on. The driver model is akin to that of OpenStep, and Linux at the time would have been a giant step backwards.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Mac OS X
by Lennie on Wed 21st Mar 2012 11:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mac OS X"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

OK thanks for the explanation.

That is why I'm on OSNews sometimes you actually learn something :-)

Reply Score: 3

Interesting observation.
by ParadoxUncreated on Wed 21st Mar 2012 08:48 UTC
ParadoxUncreated
Member since:
2009-12-05

I was working on some DSP code. And realized how some audio DSP had been perfected since computers become commonly available.

1970`s analog and softclipping was used.
1980 first digital looahead peak limiters.
1990 more sophisticated
2000 very high level
2010 perfection.

I consider my limiter perfected. (available at https://sourceforge.net/projects/pxu/files/ )

It`s interesting to note that Linux seems to be perfected in the same way. It has reached perfection because it can run so low latency, and that means having a computer experience close to the best of vintage assembly systems.

Does that mean that software perfection is reached within 50 years of common availability of computers?

Peace!

Reply Score: 0

RE: Interesting observation.
by wannabe geek on Wed 21st Mar 2012 11:01 UTC in reply to "Interesting observation."
wannabe geek Member since:
2006-09-27



It`s interesting to note that Linux seems to be perfected in the same way. It has reached perfection because it can run so low latency, and that means having a computer experience close to the best of vintage assembly systems.

Does that mean that software perfection is reached within 50 years of common availability of computers?

Peace!


I've had plenty of time to think of it while I was waiting for my Ubuntu system to give me back my mouse pointer after opening a few Firefox tabs. I would say there's still some room for improvement ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Interesting observation.
by Kochise on Wed 21st Mar 2012 15:58 UTC in reply to "Interesting observation."
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

And Hurd is not yet even functional. Where have you been all that long ?

Kochise

Reply Score: 2