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.
Thread beginning with comment 511510
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: I like Linus
by WorknMan on Thu 22nd Mar 2012 05:26 in reply to "RE[7]: I like Linus"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

You think that worrying about the ethical aspects of software is opposed to productivity and actually getting work done?


Depending on the situation, yes. Stallman said it himself in an article right here on this site:

http://www.osnews.com/story/25724/Interview_Richard_Stallman

If you convince people that some free software is technically superior, they might run some free software, but they will remain ready to use nonfree software in the areas where that is technically superior. They will continue to judge an important question based on superficial issues. This is just a partial success.

However, if you convince people that they deserve freedom, they will start rejecting nonfree software whether it is technically inferior or technically superior, because they will see that free software is ethically superior. They will understand the important question and judge it right. This is a full, deep success.


So basically, he says that you should use FOSS instead of proprietary software, even if you'd be more efficient and productive with the proprietary solution. You know, because things like productivity and efficiency are 'superficial issues' as far as he's concerned.

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


I didn't say you couldn't be as productive using FOSS; sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends on the app and the situation.

And what ACTIONS have they taken to achieve that goal?


I don't know; I am not Stallman's keeper. Look, if you want to evangelize one type of software over another and preach to people why you think it is superior, great. But when you start talking about one or the other being evil and wanting to do away with it... well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I'm going to label you a fanatic.

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.


I don't even know what that means. As I said before, Stallman doesn't care about freedom. Actually, let me rephrase that - Stallman cares about freedom so long as it aligns with his FOSS agenda. But if you would like the freedom to either develop or use proprietary software, well.... as he said, proprietary software is evil and should be done away with.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: I like Linus
by kwan_e on Thu 22nd Mar 2012 23:24 in reply to "RE[8]: I like Linus"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"You think that worrying about the ethical aspects of software is opposed to productivity and actually getting work done?


Depending on the situation, yes. Stallman said it himself in an article right here on this site:

http://www.osnews.com/story/25724/Interview_Richard_Stallman

If you convince people that some free software is technically superior, they might run some free software, but they will remain ready to use nonfree software in the areas where that is technically superior. They will continue to judge an important question based on superficial issues. This is just a partial success.

However, if you convince people that they deserve freedom, they will start rejecting nonfree software whether it is technically inferior or technically superior, because they will see that free software is ethically superior. They will understand the important question and judge it right. This is a full, deep success.


So basically, he says that you should use FOSS instead of proprietary software, even if you'd be more efficient and productive with the proprietary solution. You know, because things like productivity and efficiency are 'superficial issues' as far as he's concerned.
"

This is a clear cut case of you taking his words out of context. The question he was asked was:

What's the best way to advocate Free Software? Some Free Software users engage in technical debates with Microsoft and Apple fans, trying to convince them GNU/Linux is more powerful. Another group focus on philosophical and cultural aspects of Free Software and try to make people care about their freedom. Which of the two mentioned approaches are more effective?


He was asked what's the best way to ADVOCATE Free Software. He outlined how to ADVOCATE Free Software.

This is what he says at the end of that question:

I figure that users can judge for themselves whether program A is more convenient than program B. So I don't try to convince them about that sort of question, except when someone has preconceptions about free software and has not tried it. I focus on talking about freedom.


He's not saying people should prefer Free Software over a more convenient closed software because, as he clearly states, people can judge for themselves. So in the context of ADVOCACY, he is right there is more than just technical issues. He clearly still believes that ultimately the user will choose what's best for them, technically.

In fact, he just gave a really good reason for his advocacy style - for the cases where people don't want to use Free Software before trying it out. Sounds pretty pragmatic to me...

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


I didn't say you couldn't be as productive using FOSS; sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends on the app and the situation.
"

No, what you said was that the FSF's evangelism was opposed to being productive and generating code. You and others cite the fact that nothing of note in terms of software has come from the FSF in recent years.

I said that's missing the point. The actions of the FSF (and I don't say ONLY the FSF) ENABLES productivity everywhere copyright law allows the GPL. I say that people are shortsighted in their criticism against the FSF that they haven't produced useful code. Their stated goals are beyond code. Freedom is required for productivity and organizations like the FSF are needed. So are the open source lawyers. They don't produce code either, but I dare you to say they aren't enabling people to be productive.

"And what ACTIONS have they taken to achieve that goal?


I don't know; I am not Stallman's keeper. Look, if you want to evangelize one type of software over another and preach to people why you think it is superior, great. But when you start talking about one or the other being evil and wanting to do away with it... well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I'm going to label you a fanatic.
"

When someone like Stallman uses words like evil, I see it as "fantasy nerd humour". And we all know what Stallman's sense of humour is like - flat and slightly sexist. I think it's obvious that his strong language is hyperbolic on purpose and for people take him as being entirely serious about that word is paradoxically religious.

Remember, it is the religious fanatics who, for example, causes books to be banned because they contain words or concepts foreign to their beliefs whether or not the words are meant in an ironic, parodic or flippant sense.

"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.


I don't even know what that means. As I said before, Stallman doesn't care about freedom. Actually, let me rephrase that - Stallman cares about freedom so long as it aligns with his FOSS agenda. But if you would like the freedom to either develop or use proprietary software, well.... as he said, proprietary software is evil and should be done away with.
" [/q]

You don't know why productivity and "getting work done" REQUIRES freedom? Are you serious?

Reply Parent Score: 2