RMS On Why Free Software Is More Important Now Than Ever Before 319
jrepin points out an article by Richard Stallman following up on the 30th anniversary of the start of his efforts on the GNU Project. RMS explains why he thinks we should continue to push for broader adoption of free software principles. He writes,
"Much has changed since the beginning of the free software movement: Most people in advanced countries now own computers — sometimes called “phones” — and use the internet with them. Non-free software still makes the users surrender control over their computing to someone else, but now there is another way to lose it: Service as a Software Substitute, or SaaSS, which means letting someone else’s server do your own computing activities. Both non-free software and SaaSS can spy on the user, shackle the user, and even attack the user. Malware is common in services and proprietary software products because the users don’t have control over them. That’s the fundamental issue: while non-free software and SaaSS are controlled by some other entity (typically a corporation or a state), free software is controlled by its users. Why does this control matter? Because freedom means having control over your own life. ... Schools — and all educational activities — influence the future of society through what they teach. So schools should teach exclusively free software, to transmit democratic values and the habit of helping other people. (Not to mention it helps a future generation of programmers master the craft.) To teach use of a non-free program is to implant dependence on its owner, which contradicts the social mission of the school. Proprietary developers would have us punish students who are good enough at heart to share software or curious enough to want to change it."
SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score:4, Interesting)
Well I'll give it a go:
One could perhaps have an entirely free software stack on ones phone. Your service providers could use free software for all the servers they run. Everything could be free software everywhere.
But, how does that stop them (the guys running the servers) having access to all of your information you have stored on their machines?
It could all be free software and they could still spy on you.
Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score:5, Interesting)
No one can stop them except you. If the entire chain from you to them is open then you will be able to see what information they might get from you and chose to not use their services.
You're still paying them. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is it that you think that if the entire chain is open that means it has to be zero cost to you the customer?
They don't follow on.
Free has more than one meaning. You're a free man, yes? Does that mean you work for zero wages?
Think on it.
If you can.
Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score:5, Insightful)
You dont need end to end trust chain.
You need your endpoints trusted and treat the rest as hostile, like you should have always been doing if you had any real interest in security. The NSA revelation's are that your endpoints are compromised.
If I have secure endpoints, the technology is out there to easily transmit data in a way that in uncrackable in any useable amount of time. There are a lot of FUD claims that came out of the Snowden release flurry floating about that just do not add up. YES if the encryption system is compromised it's cracked, but not all of them are.
Plus they dont NEED to crack your communication if they own your endpoints, and I am certain that is their current operation as it makes sense.
So secure your endpoints and stop worrying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You've made no mention of crypto. Crypto is what stops 'them' getting to see your data, not software freedom. Non-Free/closed-source crypto can never be trusted, though.
It could all be free software and they could still spy on you.
Not if this Free software was implementing proper end-to-end crypto.
Of course, in practice there might be issues with trusting them to be running the code they say they're running.
Traffic analysis; diverse double compiling (Score:5, Insightful)
Crypto is what stops 'them' getting to see your data
End-to-end cryptography won't stop "them" from seeing with whom you communicate, how often, where, and when.
Of course, in practice there might be issues with trusting them to be running the code they say they're running.
Things like "trusting trust" are why David A. Wheeler invented diverse double compiling [dwheeler.com]. Take two or more independently developed compilers, preferably Free ones such as such as GCC and Clang, and bootstrap a compiler in all of them. If the end result of both bootstrap processes is the same binary, the resulting compiler is overwhelmingly unlikely to be booby-trapped.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Ah, and then you realize that the resultant compiler produces the same output because perhaps the Ken Thompson hack is in the CPU Microcode, as Ken suggested. Furthermore, that since he got the idea from the US Air Force back before his ACM acceptance speech (in 1984), than such hack could be in essentially all the CPUs you'd purchase.
Fortunately for me, I spent my childhood tinkering with electronics and discovering compiler design without any mentors... I know my brain doesn't contain the Ken Thomps
Proving it in a discrete logic CPU (Score:2)
than such hack could be in essentially all the CPUs you'd purchase.
I don't see how such a hack could be embedded in a computer built out of discrete gates, such as the Apollo Guidance Computer or Kevin Horton's NANDputer [slashdot.org]. A chain of bootstraps starting at this sort of discrete logic could provide even stronger evidence that your compiler and login executables aren't boobytrapped. Besides, major revisions to the compiler would likely break the backdoor detection in existing CPUs.
Now we're working on a really big (noisy) Tetris game with contractors and LEDs
I wonder what Henk Rogers and Alexey Pajitnov would think [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:3)
"End-to-end cryptography won't stop "them" from seeing with whom you communicate, how often, where, and when."
It can if you have a clue how to. For example, Stenography in a photo. if EVERY SINGLE photo you post on facebook has a 2048 byte sample of /dev/random shoved inside of it, they will never know that the photo of the shaved cat actually holds a 2048 byte encrypted message in it.
It's called hiding in the noise floor, you just need to raise the noise floor.
plus with the proliferation of Social me
Monthly cap (Score:2)
if EVERY SINGLE photo you post on facebook has a 2048 byte sample of /dev/random shoved inside of it, they will never know that the photo of the shaved cat actually holds a 2048 byte encrypted message in it.
Which is part of why the telcos have introduced capped data plans. If it takes a 204800 byte page with a photo on it to send a 2048 byte message, you've just reduced your cap by 99 percent.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if you performed no optimizations you could do this. Modern compilers would almost never output identical binaries these days, because the compiler is secretly making your code not suck for the architecture.
Compiling a compiler with itself (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Use Tor or Freenet and make them transmit everything in fixed-size (padded if necessary) fixed-frequency bursts, encrypted of course. Keep every communication channel constantly saturated and if becomes impossible for an attacker to know when they're actually in use.
In the long run, though, we have to build mesh networks. The current semi-centralized model with its ISPs makes it too easy to tap or cu
Re: (Score:2)
No, if the end result is the same binary then you have woken up in a different universe [wikipedia.org]. The two binaries will never be identical.
Re: (Score:3)
Things like "trusting trust" are why David A. Wheeler invented diverse double compiling
First, you need to read "Reflections on Trusting Trust"
I read that a while back, before I read Wheeler's paper.
then consider a compiler with a payload that knows when it is compiling itself and doesn't insert the backdoor when doing so.
The whole point of the "trusting trust" attack is that it inserts some sort of propagation code when it is compiling itself. If it doesn't, you can disinfect it by having it compile itself and using the result of that.
Re:Traffic analysis; diverse double compiling (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course you can. Consider X and Y to be two compilers. X compiled by X will, of course, be different than X compiled by Y. But X compiled by (X compiled by X) should be identical to X compiled by (X compiled by Y).
Re: (Score:2)
But X compiled by (X compiled by X) should be identical to X compiled by (X compiled by Y).
that proof still doesn't rule out malicious behaviour. the expression "overwhelmingly unlikely to be booby-trapped" is not only embarrassingly unscientiffic but also naive because it simply assumes a compromised compiler can't be that smart. fail. if you want to be sure, you have to analyze the generated machine code, and good luck with that.
folks, don't get me wrong, i'm totally for free software and transparency. only like 1% of the sw i directly use is closed, and i use sw a lot, but i feel not a bit mor
Re:Traffic analysis; diverse double compiling (Score:4, Insightful)
that proof still doesn't rule out malicious behaviour.
It's not a proof - it's evidence. The point is that there are a large number of, e.g., (largely) conforming C89 compilers. Some of them are common, such as GCC, MSVC, or Boland C++. Some of them are more obscure - MIPSPro, IBM XL. Some of them are outright bizarre - the Symbolics C compiler for Lisp Machines that uses a large array as a simulated raw memory without compromising the physical memory space to C bugs comes into mind. Some of them are very simple and can be subjected to the test quite easily on both sides (as the compiler being verified, or the compiler used for verification), such as TCC. Assuming that there are booby traps in commonly distributed compiled binaries is being cautious, but thinking that the same group of attackers compromised GCC binaries, MSVC binaries, and the Symbolics C stuff in identical way is rapidly approaching clinical paranoia. You can throw a few other obscure systems into the mix and cross-check all the results. If all the binaries you end up with behave identically for a large number of binaries and a large number of inputs, you ought to be able to end up with an arbitrarily high confidence that your new binary is trustworthy. (You might even try to add arbitrary levels - if, say, the binary of X compiled by (Y compiled by Z), where X, Y and Z are all C89 compilers, generates the same outputs for the same inputs for a large number of tuples, you're as close to being certain as it is possible without inspecting the binaries by hand, since orchestrating Ken Thompson's attack in a way that would allow it to propagate through a cross product of very diverse compilers is nearly impossible.
Re:Traffic analysis; diverse double compiling (Score:4, Insightful)
you don't need to compromise all, just one that has enough spread to be a good vector
Actually, you do need to compromise all of them because that's the only way in which you can alter the behavior (not just shape) of resulting compiler binaries in an identical way. Given the maximum possible variety of compiler sources and running environments (which you ought to strive for in this kind of verification), an attack that would be able to trans-infect the bootstrapped compiler for any combination of bootstrapping and bootstrapped compiler seems infeasible. Or, to put it in different words, if your attacker has the knowledge, resources, and connections to pull off *this*, you probably have a much worse problem than merely not having a trustworthy compiler.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how that is immune to the chicken-and-egg problem. In other words, unless you write your own C compiler in raw CPU instructions (machine code), you cannot trust ANY compiler binaries.
Re:Traffic analysis; diverse double compiling (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
On a modern system things happen in parallel, not serially
Files are still serialized as a byte stream.
Different code segments will wind up in the output file in a different order
Fixable. A compiler whose author wants to prove its trustworthiness will sort the code segments as a final pass. (For the avoidance of doubt, I'm including the linker and system libraries in the "compiler".)
Re: (Score:3)
That would look completely different in the resulting binary, although its functional result would be identical. You can't detect booby-traps this way.
I think you completely missed his point. Re-read his argument. It's about compiling a single set of trusted (= verified, reviewed etc.) source files of one compiler in multiple compilers and checking if the resulting multiple binaries of the first compiler, when themselves applied to a range of programs, produce the same outputs. (Using your example, it would be equivalent to observing that both binaries perform X exactly five times.) If that is the case, either none of the original compiler binaries was bo
Re: (Score:2)
That proves absolutely nothing. How do you know the compiler doesn't produce a binary that has a payload that isn't triggered on every run? Maybe it is time sensitive. Maybe it only triggers when run on a certain piece of hardware, or on a
Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score:5, Insightful)
"But, how does that stop them (the guys running the servers) having access to all of your information you have stored on their machines?"
So exactly making the second RMS' point: beware service as a software substitute.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not service as a software substitute. No software could magically connect you to the other side of the world, that requires a service.
Re: (Score:2)
Very true, but it goes beyond that. This:
free software is controlled by its users
...is the worst piece of misinformation in Stallman's essay that is continuously repeated on Slashdot and elsewhere. Free software is controlled by the people who write it and to a (much) lesser degree by the people who are willing to read and edit the source code before compiling it and installing it. If you're Richard Stallman, congratulations! The "user" does turn out to control the software. But for 99% of the world, that's just not true, and the only value in "f
Communicating with users of the same Service (Score:4, Interesting)
Free-Software-as-a-Service gives you the freedom to choose which Service to trust, or to run your own Service if you wish.
Which doesn't help if the Service is a social network whose value lies in allowing users to communicate with other users of the same Service. Nor does it help when telcos have a blanket policy of not letting home users run their own Service. Let me know when Diaspora and some federated alternative to Twitter are ready for inexperienced end users.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which doesn't help if the Service is a social network whose value lies in allowing users to communicate with other users of the same Service. Nor does it help when telcos have a blanket policy of not letting home users run their own Service. Let me know when Diaspora and some federated alternative to Twitter are ready for inexperienced end users.
The overwhelming popularity of closed social networks and consumption oriented Internet plans would seem to indicate a societal problem that will stymie attempts at a technical solution. Perhaps these inexperienced end users could be transformed into experienced end users through some sort of process somehow. Call it education. Because like the summary says, "educational activities influence the future of society through what they teach."
Re: (Score:3)
"Which doesn't help if the Service is a social network whose value lies in allowing users to communicate with other users of the same Service."
Which is also a point covered by RMS: an enlighted society, one where education on free software and why it's important won't be wanting to exchange their privacy and freedom for some puppies' videos.
Immigration laws (Score:2)
Sounds like you need to switch to a good ISP
I imagine that most people in my country don't care enough about their rights to move the family to a city served by said good ISP. And given the state of immigration laws throughout the world, I doubt Australia would even let them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Stallman's arguments are purely philosophical for most software users. Software as a service, aka "Cloud Computing" is becoming and has become a standard for most computer users... even if they don't recognize it. Free Software is not going to reverse that unless you find some way to pull yourself off the grid... no internet, no cellular service, no land line service, etc. The entire infrastructure is open to attack and running Free Software to interact with the rest of the world doesn't insulate you from m
Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Gmail user I'm perfectly fine knowing that Google reads my mail and potentially shares that info with the Government.
Then you are a naive fool and are part of the problem.
Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score:4, Interesting)
I dare anyone, especially after mr. Snowden's revelations, to contradict mr. Stallman's points.
his points have actually little to do with snowden's revelations. if you want to be in control you need also absolute control over the hardware (down to every circuit in every chip in every device). open software alone will never protect you from government snooping or from corps selling you as big data meat. and even if you could have fully open hardware, you would need a society that knows how to use it and cares. thats unrealistic. the problem snowden reveals is sociopolitical, not technolgical. it's about actual power abuse, not about the possible means for abuse.
although i agree with most of his points because of the intrinsic value open software has for society, mixing both issues is shortsighted, sounds a lot like usual fear propaganda, just in another context.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok. How can I, as in Me personally, TRUST FOSS? Right now there are no third party Open source groups, not even the FSF that is carefully reviewing it to see what backdoors or other nefarious spying functions are added already.
I honestly see this as an opportunity for FOSS to rise to the top quickly. They need to be publicly certify that their OS is not compromised by the NSA or other faction.
Until then I assume that Linux and BSD are as compromised as Solaris,OSX, and Windows.
Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I dare anyone, especially after mr. Snowden's revelations, to contradict mr. Stallman's points.
In an economy that runs on a monetary system software projects that are able to attract and maintain larger revenue streams tend to win over software projects that are able to attract smaller revenue streams. Software as a service has shown to be superior in terms of generating revenue to software running on the client's computer for many (but certainly not all) applications. There is by the way a lot of theory that argues that monetary systems are superior to other economic systems.
So then it's kind of lik
Re: (Score:2)
I very much doubt that seeing how "money" is just a convenient one-number summary of the concept of "resource usage" which all economic systems by definition have, because economy is all about managing resources. So the statement doesn't really make sense.
Perhaps you meant capitalist systems? In which case, yes, there's a lot of theories arguing their superiority. And plenty of theories arguing the
Software in schools other than school admin (Score:5, Interesting)
Why should the school itself not be in charge of it's own stuff? Should we give the students the admin password to the grade-tracking software?
I didn't see anything in Mr. Stallman's essay implying that students should have administrative privileges on the school's authoritative instance of the grade-tracking software. But students should still have the opportunity to obtain a copy of the software to study and possibly share with other schools that friends and family attend. Besides, software to administer a school is not the only software used in a school. Mr. Stallman used the example of Adobe Photoshop. Schools shouldn't teach particular proprietary software packages. Instead, they should teach skills, and skills can be taught in free software such as GIMP.
It pays to mix up the examples (Score:2)
Really wish he'd have used Microsoft Office as the example.
Mr. Stallman has been aware for years that the public is tired of free software advocates demonizing Microsoft [gnu.org]. It pays to mix up the examples a bit, and GIMP wasn't that much harder for me to learn than Photoshop.
Re: (Score:3)
Anything against freedom is temporary at best because it is the natural state of the living to seek it.
Thus, a society must be created with maximum freedom. This can only be done by creating a more involved, intelligent, and educated citizen.
Such a person is very difficult to control, which is why once someone becomes a Power that Is, they tend to try to keep people uninvolved, stupid, and ignorant.
congratulations (Score:5, Interesting)
Thank you rms, for fighting for our freedom for 30 years!
Re:congratulations (Score:5, Funny)
>Thank you rms, for fighting for our freedom for 30 years!
Tut tut tut, it's GNU/freedom, not just "freedom".
Re:congratulations (Score:5, Informative)
The man is the real deal. Seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, rms is certainly bad for your blood pressure, especially if you are tasked with hosting him. Though I would use a different analogy, rms is best enjoyed at a distance, and preferably in writting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, I kinda liked raw ammonium chloride [wikipedia.org]. That chemistry class probably wouldn't fly today :(...
at the mercy of the owners (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing the FSF's licences haven't dealt with properly is the problem of Free software being used to TAKE control rather than GIVE it. Most of the huge SaaS providers are running Free software, adapted as they will - but with code not distributed, because it doesn't need to be as long as they're not distributing their proprietary platforms - and with all your data on their systems. Should the GPL be adapted to deal with that? Could it?
Maybe the FSF need to prepare a set of terms to explain what counts as adequate vs inadequate control over systems and data - to be more clear about e.g. how one could prepare a 'phone ecosystem which leaves control in the hands of the user. For "server" to be a person's home computer rather than Google's cloud would perhaps be a start.
Re:at the mercy of the owners (Score:5, Informative)
That certainly is seen as a problem, and the AGPL is supposed to address the loophole. Adoptions isn't that big though, although some large players like Oracle uses it for certain software packages like for example Berkeley DB.
Re: (Score:2)
It is possible, but it might also make some users of Berkeley DB release their own software packages under a compatible license.
Re:at the mercy of the owners (Score:5, Informative)
Should the GPL be adapted to deal with that? Could it?
You mean this:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html [gnu.org]
Yes it can and has been adapted for that situation.
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
Affero: you're not allowed to use code from it in an IMAP server, a networked lift control, etc. Ergo, it's not free software by FSF's own definition.
Affero is nothing like the regular GPL. The latter imposes no real burden other than a bit of disk space and/or bandwidth, the only restriction is that you can't add new restrictions. You are allowed to use GPLed code in any situation, and can only be not allowed to distribute it if some third party
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing the FSF's licences haven't dealt with properly is the problem of Free software being used to TAKE control rather than GIVE it. Most of the huge SaaS providers are running Free software, adapted as they will - but with code not distributed, because it doesn't need to be as long as they're not distributing their proprietary platforms - and with all your data on their systems. Should the GPL be adapted to deal with that? Could it?
Maybe the FSF need to prepare a set of terms to explain what counts as adequate vs inadequate control over systems and data - to be more clear about e.g. how one could prepare a 'phone ecosystem which leaves control in the hands of the user. For "server" to be a person's home computer rather than Google's cloud would perhaps be a start.
Uh, please look up the GNU Affero GPL. [gnu.org] It is intentionally one-way compatible with the GNU GPL 3.0.
So saying "One thing the FSF's licences haven't dealt with properly" is uninformed bullshit. Like with any licensing choice, it's a tradeoff between freedoms to use and freedoms to abuse. But the abuse case is important enough to the FSF that they do offer this licensing choice and make it possible to employ it in connection with GPLv3-licensed software.
Re:at the mercy of the owners (Score:5, Informative)
So saying "One thing the FSF's licences haven't dealt with properly" is uninformed bullshit.
Lol, unnecessary hostility. Since
1) Few service providers have adopted Affero; and
2) It doesn't deal with the problem of lack of "control over the computing the server does for them. It also does not tell them what other software may be running on that server, examining or changing their data in other ways." [gnu.org]; yet
3) other FSF licences are extremely popular,
the Affero licence clearly hasn't dealt with it.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Few service providers have adopted Affero
Well, duh. If your business model is to use FOSS code and not share your changes, then the last thing you're going to do is choose a license that requires you to share your changes. :)
2) It doesn't deal with the problem of lack of "control over the computing the server does for them. It also does not tell them what other software may be running on that server, examining or changing their data in other ways." [gnu.org]; yet
It deals with the problem in part. You can't know what other software is making use of data you give to them. However, it does give you the ability to just clone their service and modify it to suit your own purposes and host it on your own server.
3) other FSF licences are extremely popular
This really isn't a shortcoming in the Affero license. It is likely the reaso
Re: (Score:2)
Re 1), the aim would be to either encourage service providers who make use of something like Affero, or to simply reverse the regression to mainframes :P.
Re: (Score:2)
Re 1), the aim would be to either encourage service providers who make use of something like Affero, or to simply reverse the regression to mainframes :P.
Sure, though I'm not sure I'd consider the movement towards SaaS as a regression. The problem is the control issue, not the concept of centralized services with less reliance on clients.
Give somebody the ability to run their own server and you get all the advantages of both the cloud and FOSS. Why would I want to use an X11-only application like OpenOffice if I had a web-based application I could self-host that was just as capable?
Re: (Score:2)
The word "rabid" does come to mind, but not for GP.
Re: (Score:2)
you, who are clueless and rabidly anti-FOSS
Quoted for hilarity.
1) "Taking care of" something means dealing with it, not offering a solution which isn't really working and then saying "OK well at least we tried";
2) OK, right, you've mistaken me entirely for someone else. Or are Sunday morning trollin', which is a passable pastime.
Goes too far (Score:2)
Every time I read an RMS opinion, it seems to start at a good position and consistently attempts to be more and more idealistic to the point that he seems to be arguing a strawman
.
So schools should teach exclusively free software, to transmit democratic values and the habit of helping other people.
Malware is common in services and proprietary software products
To teach use of a non-free program is to implant dependence on its owner, which contradicts the social mission of the school.
Proprietary developers would have us punish students who are good enough at heart to share software or curious enough to want to change it.
I know he defines Malware differently from the common way (he considers DRM as malware, for example), but democratic values are less likely to be transmitted if I use Office? Proprietary developers want to punish students? I guess he means the corporations - and again, they don't generally give their source for modification, so
Re:Goes too far (Score:5, Insightful)
but democratic values are less likely to be transmitted if I use Office?
If you are a teacher, yes. If you learn office at a young age, it becomes very unlikely you will switch to anything else. It can be difficult for some people too, as the interface is different. Once the students go home and have to set up their own computer they will likely use office. They will either pay for it or not pay for it. If they don't pay they are committing a crime which can be severely punished if they get caught. If they pay then the school is basically training them to give money to a large corporation. Not only that, a specific corporation, with a partial monopoly in that market. Evidenced by the fact that you write 'Office' with a capital O and take it as a given that everyone knows you mean Microsoft® Office®.
Training kids to give money to support a monopolistic corporation does not seem to be directly in line with the principles of democracy.
Re:Goes too far (Score:5, Interesting)
but democratic values are less likely to be transmitted if I use Office?
If you are a teacher, yes. If you learn office at a young age, it becomes very unlikely you will switch to anything else. It can be difficult for some people too, as the interface is different. Once the students go home and have to set up their own computer they will likely use office. They will either pay for it or not pay for it. If they don't pay they are committing a crime which can be severely punished if they get caught. If they pay then the school is basically training them to give money to a large corporation. Not only that, a specific corporation, with a partial monopoly in that market. Evidenced by the fact that you write 'Office' with a capital O and take it as a given that everyone knows you mean Microsoft® Office®. Training kids to give money to support a monopolistic corporation does not seem to be directly in line with the principles of democracy.
This does not limit the abuse by monopoly to just school children! Our very first "home computer" was purchased so that we could become more literate in the coming "digital age". We had a 6 year old daughter and my wife and myself both needed to use fax for the purposes of both getting work and communicating. So we spent 2000 dollars on a decent 486 which could run "Windows" on top of dos. We both had used Vax at work for years and now that it was obviously being dumped and we knew that the "Windows" gui was going to dominate the very future of both our working lives. My wife insisted upon the then brand new Office which set us back another huge chunk of change and took for freaking ever to install from the set of floppies! When we upgraded the unit to the "start me up" roll me over and take it in the rear year 95 version of "Windows" our old version of office would not install PERIOD. So this was my first desperate and financially crippling experience with MSFT. We were almost bankrupted by this at the time because of health issues that occurred concurrently, so I pirated WORD so that we could still fax and my wife could keep her work communications up.
THIS EXPERIENCE SOURED ME so much against MSFT that I investigated what all the fuss was online about Red Hat. After a really good dummies book showed me that our old terminal skills could still make our older 486 work online (good old ifup ip foobar commands) and even do faxes by simply sticking in a different modem than the Win Modem we had things started to look up and the experience brought me into the light. I have never looked back. OR may I add have never "pirated" anything since!
IT WAS a revelation reading Eric Raymond and watching the antics of RMS, Linus and others, the one great rhetorical statement that always sticks in my mind and I am never going to forget is "WOULD YOU BY A CAR WITH THE HOOD WELDED SHUT?"
With companies like Corbis, and others trying to deprive and lock down the world to its very own shared historical great heritage of images online one comes to finally understand the true Ferengi like nature of those who like Milo Minderbinder with a computer have come to dominate digital communications. Do they deserve the laurels and accolades that are heaped upon them. Only history will tell, but if the young are left to believe that they are saints chances are we are headed into a digital dark age.
Thank you RMS and all the others for keeping up the good fight!
Re: (Score:3)
the one great rhetorical statement that always sticks in my mind and I am never going to forget is "WOULD YOU BY A CAR WITH THE HOOD WELDED SHUT?"
And yet, for every car I've had for the last 10-15 years, I have never opened the hood for anything other than putting in screen wash or checking oil (and maybe once in 20yrs to access the battery for a jump start) - put those on the outside and I would have no need. Otherwise I just open the hood and think "I don't even know where to start on this", close it again and take it to a garage. It's not that I don't know how an engine works or haven't stripped down and rebuilt one before - it's that modern one
Re:Goes too far (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And yet, for every car I've had for the last 10-15 years, I have never opened the hood for anything other than putting in screen wash or checking oil (and maybe once in 20yrs to access the battery for a jump start) - put those on the outside and I would have no need. Otherwise I just open the hood and think "I don't even know where to start on this", close it again and take it to a garage. It's not that I don't know how an engine works or haven't stripped down and rebuilt one before - it's that modern ones are orders of magnitude more complicated, higher precision, lower tolerance, and shoehorned in so tight that it looks like if you don't have exactly the right tool at exactly the right angle you are going to have no arms left after about three bolts.
And yet we buy these cars (in their millions) ? Why ? Because they are ten times more reliable than the ones we had 20-30yrs ago, and getting under the hood just is not as necessary anymore. "It just works". Are we any less free because of this ?
Same goes for software, I've modified my kernel, back in the 0.99something days. I think it had about 100 KLOC. Today Linux is what, 15 MLOC ? Over 100 times the size. Sure, in theory I can still get under the hood of the kernel, but in practice at 15 MLOC I am not going to touch it - it would never be economic.
Then on the services thing, if it was cheaper to get a taxi everywhere than own a car, would I own one ? Maybe for nostalgia reasons, but then again maybe not. But would I expect to be able to open the hood of the taxi when it turns up ? Do you ? Are you less free because the taxi driver doesn't let you under the hood of his taxi ?
I am afraid you have obfuscated the reason and meanings of what I posted. And certainly WIndows and Office has been anything but reliable over the years. The vendor lock in and obvious logic bomb planned obsolescence nature of Windows and "Office" is the whole reason why I learned to use and maintain OSS software. My current IBM laptop that I am writing this on will not run Windows 7 or 8 PERIOD, but it will flawlessly run some of the latest non pae capable Linux kernel based distros and all the truly great
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. Modern engines are not that much more complicated, they've just had loads of sensors and actuators added in odd locations. In some
Re: (Score:2)
If you learn office at a young age, it becomes very unlikely you will switch to anything else. It can be difficult for some people too, as the interface is different. Once the students go home and have to set up their own computer they will likely use office. They will either pay for it or not pay for it. If they don't pay they are committing a crime which can be severely punished if they get caught. If they pay then the school is basically training them to give money to a large corporation. Not only that, a specific corporation, with a partial monopoly in that market.
All true. But public schools are exactly the kind of bureaucracies that love getting locked in to proprietary stuff. RMS here is fighting some very natural tendencies of the system.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Goes too far (Score:5, Interesting)
Every time I read an RMS opinion, it seems to start at a good position and consistently attempts to be more and more idealistic to the point that he seems to be arguing a strawman.
RMS definitely is radical, but I've never known him to use strawman arguments.
I know he defines Malware differently from the common way (he considers DRM as malware, for example),
I guess he's also talking about backdoors for law enforcement (aka "legal interception") and other purposes.
but democratic values are less likely to be transmitted if I use Office? Proprietary developers want to punish students? I guess he means the corporations
His explanation indicates why he does mean proprietary developers rather than just corporations: e.g. in the US definition of core democratic values [classroomhelp.com], there are aspects like personal freedom (e.g., modifying software) and the common good (e.g., sharing things with others). Note that he's not arguing here that it should be illegal for others to write proprietary software, i.e., he's not arguing to impinge on other people's liberty.
- and again, they don't generally give their source for modification, so they might be preventing students from modifying other people's work. Is that punishing them?
It limits the possibilities for expressing their creativity. Schools should be places where encouraging creativity is one of the highest valued goals. I know that is generally not the case [ted.com] right now (amazing video, btw), but this is a (small) way in which the situation can be improved.
I won't even claim to understand what the social mission of schools are supposed to be - prepare students for functioning in society?
I'm obviously not RMS, but I'd argue they should be prepared for functioning in society, for critically thinking about that same society (and anything else), and for contributing to a society that they consider to be better than what it is today.
Prepare them for jobs? Prepare them for college? Prepare them to develop free software?
I'd say: prepare them to become the best they can be. That can include a particular kind of job, being an artist, college (about which you can have very similar discussions as about school), developing free software or any combination of the above and many more things.
Prepare them for ignoring copyrights?
Now that last part is a great a strawman on your part: encouraging students to use Free Software, which they can share and modify freely according to the copyright license terms of that same software, is by no means the same as preparing them for ignoring copyright. It mainly teaches them that there are also alternatives to software whose business model depends on artificial scarcity. They will get to know MS Office and other popular products anyway, and if you can work with OpenOffice or LibreOffice, the jump isn't that great in any case. Maybe one of the primary things schools should teach are transferable skills (of which creative thinking is probably the "übervariant").
Re: (Score:3)
How about demand scarcity verses supply scarcity? The classic argument is that proprietary software uses artificial scarcity to maintain high prices. To fund the development of software with limited demand projected prices must be set high enough to justify the cost of building it.
True the bits don't cost anything and copying is unlimited but resources to develop don't become unlimited as well. I'd love to work on the GiMP or Inkscape but don't see many job opportunities for it at the moment.
Also what if in
Re: (Score:2)
Proprietary developers want to punish students? I guess he means the corporations - and again, they don't generally give their source for modification, so they might be preventing students from modifying other people's work. Is that punishing them?
I'm guessing you've never read and understood the various EULAs that you've agreed to through the years. They generally prohibit reverse engineering and modification of the code, which, contrary to popular opinion, can be done without access to the source code. I've done it myself, back in the days before EULAs. For example, I once modified a popular 16-bit compiler so that it would utilize 32-bit native integer multiplication and division opcodes, thereby greatly speeding up the code it generated, at th
Re: (Score:2)
Every time I read an RMS opinion, it seems to start at a good position and consistently attempts to be more and more idealistic to the point that he seems to be arguing a strawman
.
Malware is common in services and proprietary software products
Ironic given that possibly the most prevalent and insidious malware that exists _in_ other products (as opposed to existing in itself and using other products as a vector) would now appear to be the backdoors placed in encryption algorithms by the NSA et al. Malware emplaced in open, free standards and widely implemented in both free and proprietary software. Free and open software spectacularly failed to prevent or detect that - as you say, it's a strawman.
To teach use of a non-free program is to implant dependence on its owner, which contradicts the social mission of the school.
Schools should _never_ teach a single _anything
Losing the battle (Score:5, Interesting)
While proprietary software won't always do things the way you want them for normal applications you could always restrict their permissions, firewall their network and most importantly unless you had a very serious leak built in the data stayed on your own computer, it might be locked up in a proprietary format with software that has forced obsolescence but I always felt the hyperbole was a bit thick. If you buy a CD you buy the mix the artist wanted you to have, you don't get the raw tracks to remix it the way you wanted it to be. Likewise when you buy a closed source game you get the game experience they wanted you to have, not all the source and assets to remake it the way you wanted it to be. All other things being equal it'd of course be desirable, but it's doesn't make it worthless or immoral to buy it without that possibility.
With "Service as a Software Substitution" as RMS calls it or as web services and the cloud as I'd call it you've got no control at all of neither the software nor the data. You can't even do the slightest change in how it works. When they want it to change, it changes and there's nothing you can do to stay on an old version the only thing you could do is to go nuclear and stop using it at all. Getting the data out and over to a competing service is often far worse and more locked up than a proprietary format. And again, they control your data. I'd be far more concerned about all my documents being on a Google Docs server somewhere than in a MS Office document on my disk under my control.
The worst part is really the way you're tied not technically to their service though, but legally. When the iTunes app store tells me they've updated their Terms of Service and asks me to answer yes or no, it's basically "Would you like to continue using your phone as normal or totally cripple all access to new software and updates?" I don't even bother reading it, it's accepting at gunpoint anyway. And I really don't feel it'd be much different with Android and the Play store. It didn't concern me much when it was primarily so I'd have a phone to play Angry Birds on (see above) because I totally don't care where my scores go, but as you start wanting to use it for more serious things it matters but there's really no opting out.
The stupid thing is that I really do like advantages of cloud syncing, I'd just like it to be against my own private server or at least in a local colo of my choice. I don't want to route it through Apple or Google or Facebook or any of the other big megacorporations. But what we need is a solid alternative, not the wailing song of RMS. He could have complained about the lack of a free kernel forever but as long as HURD wasn't an alternative it just didn't matter much until Linux came along and became usable. Give us a real alternative, based perhaps on AOSP or Ubuntu Touch (ugh) and maybe we can turn the tide. P.S. There was a poll here, 90% wouldn't change their online habits one bit after the Snowden revelations - don't assume the general public is with you.
Re: (Score:3)
I think that FOSS is really missing the boat on the cloud and SaaS.
There is nothing wrong with the cloud per-se - it is just a hosting model. The problem is that our typical licenses allow cloud providers to benefit from FOSS without giving back. FOSS authors tend not to spend much time writing cloud-ready software as a result.
If i want to use a web-based email client there really aren't any decent FOSS options available to me. They all are VERY weak in comparison to something like Gmail, and lack all th
Principle and practice (Score:2)
Stallman offers no solution to the core proble
Re: (Score:3)
Where did growth get average users via the big trusted global brands? The ability to generate plain text for govs after a user selects/wants to encrypt.
After all the years of 'growth' 'passion' 'art' 'fun' 'funding' 'wealth' and all the other generational buzzwords of closed brand name software, free software still shines with the simple reality of been: fit for purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All the best with your projects and products like Loongson will gain traction too
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't stay off the Kikuyu as it is invasive and is now taking over my lawn too.
another thing to consider (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you write as if the people in the government who are doing such things aren't criminals? I'd say they're the ones you need to fear most of all.
It's too fucking early... (Score:2)
Misrepresenting RMS is still unfair. (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot is currently running this story with the logo of the Open Source Initiative—an organization RMS has never been a part of, did not start, and which offers a different philosophy that does not agree with the philosophy of the older free software movement Stallman did start [gnu.org].
I don't know why someone would make the choice to run this story with the wrong logo attached to it, but I hope Slashdot will correct the error. It is still unfair to misrepresent RMS's opinion [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make any sense. What Richard talks about is program, and what you talk about is not programs.
Asylum (Score:2)
Not always. In my country, and many others, the state requires you to conduct all correspondence with them in Microsoft Office format
Then the leaders of your country, and many others, are intellectually disabled for insisting on a format controlled by a foreign company, especially one based in the country with a notorious NSA.
or not conduct business in the only country you are allowed to live
You appear to reject seeking asylum from a proprietary software regime.
get dragged off to jail
Can the state imprison 100% of its population?
Re: (Score:2)
Can the state imprison 100% of its population?
Perhaps not, but then again, how many people would actually protest it? How many people actually care?
It's a super sloppy double dare (Score:2)
Is that a dare?
Imprisoning the whole population would certainly be a physical challenge [wikipedia.org].
Free software on consoles (Score:2)
On phones: Android is Apache-licensed free software on a GPLv2 kernel. Otherwise, there could be no CyanogenMod.
On consoles: Perhaps Mr. Stallman might accept a Free engine with non-free mission packs, as those are works of art, not works of productivity. There do exist free engines, such as the engine of many Id games more than five years old, and they work fine on general-purpose computers such as GNU/Linux PCs and Android phones. The problem with running them on consoles is artificial, nearly equivale
I know the U.S. mobile market is screwed up (Score:3)
But that Linux kernel is at the complete mercy of the wireless carrier
Only in North America. Most of the rest of the world uses GSM and doesn't price a handset subsidy into the phone bill. If (like me) you happen to be stuck in the United States, switch to T-Mobile, the only carrier among the major carriers that respects hardware freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny that, I just built a new distribution for my phone. I did not notice any interference from Telenor - the carrier I currently use. They neither know nor care what my phone runs as long as the baseband code is not modified. Since that code is closed, buggy, probably full of evil bits and generally a nuisance I'd love to modify it but that is another story.
Re: (Score:3)
"In practice, free software is controlled by a technocratic elite."
There was a time when *all* culture was in the hands of a technocratic elite. Then society moved on and massively learnt to read write.
Programing is basically applying your rational skills and describe them in a formal language. It can be done by the masses if deemed important enough.
Free to hire anyone (Score:3)
Sure, if you don't have any programming skill then you can't hack on Free code, but you can still pay someone else to add features/fix bugs/remove Bad Things.
Exactly. Here's how I explain it to people: Free software means you get the blueprints and are free to hire anyone to make the software do what you want.
Competition between FOSS projects can alleviate this. If/when Gnome make a bunch of unpopular user-interface decisions, its users generally have the option to move to KDE or one of its other rivals.
Competitors in this sense need not even be as different as GNOME and KDE products. MATE and Cinnamon are forks of GNOME 2 and GNOME 3 that have gained a following.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if you don't have any programming skill then you can't hack on Free code, but you can still pay someone else to add features/fix bugs/remove Bad Things. Generally not so with non-Free software, and even where it is possible, they always have the power to just say no.
You can easily flip around that argument too: if you don't have any desire or skills to hack on free code, you can pay commercial software developers to make it work. Free software developers have always the power to just say no, and sometimes they have to, as they simply might not have enough developer resources to get everything working. Now, if you are a commercial software house and you say no, you might lose some of your customers, so you have an incentive to get shit working as soon as possible.
Additi
Re: (Score:2)
If you pay Mr. Hacker to modify a version of the free software you use, you are depending on him to do the job correctly and securely. Nothing stops him from building in back doors that give him access to everything and having them really makes his job much easier. You have to then have a third party review his changes and make sure he didn't compromise your security, intentionally or unintentionally.
GPLv3; Chromium OS (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Main issue with GPLv3 is that nobody uses it, because, well, they like their walled gardens.
Also worth nothing that most of the software on the walled gardens tends to avoid even GPLv2 for the same reason. About the only thing in Android that is GPLv2 is the Linux kernel.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sharing a codebase with purveyors of fine DRM? Not helping the big brands who decrypt for govs without a court order, users bulk plain text just given out.
People will be looking into ideas like the Loongson processor, the quality of OS code and software they select to use. Not seeing much "collateral damage", just good quality code on well understood CPU's.