Linked by David Adams on Mon 2nd Aug 2010 03:53 UTC, submitted by fsmag
We are heading towards a world where we no longer own the hardware we buy -- and there is no point in having free software if you can't own your hardware.
Thread beginning with comment 435095
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Is it good or bad?
by westlake on Mon 2nd Aug 2010 20:24
in reply to "RE: Is it good or bad?"
Member since:2010-01-07
RE[2]: Is it good or bad?
by nt_jerkface on Tue 3rd Aug 2010 02:18
in reply to "RE: Is it good or bad?"
Member since:2009-08-26
End users are developers-in-training.
Thanks for the laugh.
99% of the population could care less about having access to the source, and that includes most programmers.
Stallman's vision is unrealistic and deluded. There are economic issues he can't account for like how to create software like Autocad that costs hundreds of millions to develop and doesn't require support. His basic response is "just do it" since he has no real answer.
Most software cannot be sold through support contracts, especially when there is free help online for just about everything.
Ads in GPL software won't work because they can be ripped out.
There is clearly software that needs to remain proprietary. Declaring AutoCad to be immoral is not a viable business model. Stallman like many ideologists before him believe that ideology will create the solutions.
Stallman's unrealistic ideology reminds me of a quote from Putin related to Communism: Like a run-away cart it is moving and you can get on it but it won't take you anywhere.
RE[3]: Is it good or bad?
by gnufreex on Wed 4th Aug 2010 16:35
in reply to "RE[2]: Is it good or bad?"
Member since:2010-05-06
RE[3]: Is it good or bad?
by sorpigal on Wed 4th Aug 2010 22:56
in reply to "RE[2]: Is it good or bad?"
Member since:2005-11-02
99% of the population could care less about having access to the source, and that includes most programmers.
I'll happily take 1% or 0.1% of the users. When I say users are developers in training I mean that the consumer version must be the same as the developer version because that way "impulse" cross-overs are possible. Though I have the knowledge I don't hack most of my devices, but I like to buy ones where I can if for some reason it becomes important.
Member since:
2005-11-02
End users are developers-in-training. Developers are also end users. If I buy the hardware I own it and should be able to do or not do anything I like with it. This is not negotiable! The user should be handed ultimate power and be left to choose whether or not to use it, because the user is me and I am a developer, and a hacker and one day I may want to do something with my phone that the distributor did not expect or permit.