LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 12-10-2019, 06:57 PM   #31
freemedia2018
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2019
Distribution: various automated remasters
Posts: 216

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 208Reputation: 208Reputation: 208

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Meh, who already agrees does not matter. Good ideas stand on their own merit and I think you have a good idea with adding a "Freedom" but that shouldn't matter to you.
That's where we disagree, Part of the reason I'm here is to find out what people think is a good idea, and what people don't think is. I'd love it if the author of the Four Freedoms also liked the Fifth but I think that's unrealistic, I happen to think it's the next-best-thing if Roio approves of it. But that hardly means that it's all that matters. If it was, I could have just stuck with email and not asked people here.

I agree part-way that ideas have their own merit, though not that additional support isn't also welcome-- that includes everybody here that supports the idea. In this context, an idea that nobody even likes is hardly going to do any good.
 
Old 12-10-2019, 07:01 PM   #32
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,718

Rep: Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemedia2018 View Post
I'd love it if the author of the Four Freedoms also liked the Fifth but I think that's unrealistic,
He may. Remember back then modularity was assumed as was KISS etc...

Quote:
Originally Posted by freemedia2018 View Post
an idea that nobody even likes is hardly going to do any good.
^ systemd and with that we are back to the need for that fifth freedom.

Last edited by ChuangTzu; 12-10-2019 at 07:07 PM.
 
Old 12-10-2019, 07:44 PM   #33
freemedia2018
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2019
Distribution: various automated remasters
Posts: 216

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 208Reputation: 208Reputation: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
He may. Remember back then modularity was assumed as was KISS etc...
Obviously an argument from authority isn't ever as sound as as argument from pure logic, but in these disputes where we have already done logic for 5 years while sophistry has ruled the mailing lists and threatened all we care about... no authority would count for more in my opinion than the author of the very thing we are trying to append.

But Stallman is quieter lately and answers fewer emails than he used to. No one is more than a little surprised by this. I think it might help this reach Stallman if it gets more people backing it.

With that said, I've spent as much as 5 or 10 years trying to prove a single side point (about Free culture) to Stallman, I think his stubborness is a virtue but it's not a blessing for every individual goal. I'm saving the best voice for last before I find the ideal person to confront him with the idea. But as the discussion is public, there is of course nothing in the world I can do to prevent the question from finding him sooner.

I've asked him many questions, gotten many replies and I have learned to wait. But I know he will be consulted, as he should be. Every day that goes by, I feel like it's a better day for it than the previous.
 
Old 12-10-2019, 11:50 PM   #34
jsbjsb001
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Earth, unfortunately...
Distribution: Currently: OpenMandriva. Previously: openSUSE, PCLinuxOS, CentOS, among others over the years.
Posts: 3,881

Rep: Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
...
^ systemd and with that we are back to the need for that fifth freedom.
How so? Is anyone forcing PV to use systemd in Slackware ? Since when? How come he's not using it then ? So doesn't PV (like anyone else) have the freedom not to use systemd ?

You also assume that everyone actually agrees with every word that comes out of Stallman's mouth - not everyone does, myself included. While I don't disagree with everything he says, I certainly don't agree with everything he says.

You should also note that Stallman himself says he's never used UNIX itself before - he just happened to find it's design "OK". But even then according to himself, he still has some criticisms of it;

Quote:
Originally Posted by https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html
I never used Unix (not even for a minute) until after I decided to develop a free replacement for it (the GNU system). I chose that design to follow because it was portable and seemed fairly clean. I was never a fan of Unix; I had some criticisms of it too. But it was ok overall as a model.
There's also the point that just because FSF (or whoever else) has a list of "freedoms", it doesn't mean everyone is going to follow them. Don't you think if everyone was going to follow them (like the "UNIX philosophy"), that there might not be a number of distros using systemd ? Clearly the powers that be aren't listening... so what's adding extra "freedoms" going to change ? ...and the answer is: absolutely nothing.
 
Old 12-10-2019, 11:59 PM   #35
freemedia2018
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2019
Distribution: various automated remasters
Posts: 216

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 208Reputation: 208Reputation: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
so what's adding extra "freedoms" going to change ? ...and the answer is: absolutely nothing.
By the same argument, it certainly can't hurt anything.

I'm more worried about it doing harm than good, some people are worried that it might actually do nothing, I guess.
 
Old 12-11-2019, 05:04 AM   #36
jsbjsb001
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Earth, unfortunately...
Distribution: Currently: OpenMandriva. Previously: openSUSE, PCLinuxOS, CentOS, among others over the years.
Posts: 3,881

Rep: Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063Reputation: 2063
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemedia2018 View Post
By the same argument,
That wasn't the whole "argument", you've misquoted what I said by only quoting a part of that "argument". So here's the rest of what I said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
...
There's also the point that just because FSF (or whoever else) has a list of "freedoms", it doesn't mean everyone is going to follow them. Don't you think if everyone was going to follow them (like the "UNIX philosophy"), that there might not be a number of distros using systemd ? Clearly the powers that be aren't listening... so what's adding extra "freedoms" going to change ? ...and the answer is: absolutely nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemedia2018 View Post
it certainly can't hurt anything.
So you agree with what I said earlier on in this thread about it being a slippery slope dictating how people write software, but now you say "it certainly can't hurt anything" ? Have you changed your position ? Please do tell the world how you seem to have changed your position...

Quote:
I'm more worried about it doing harm than good, some people are worried that it might actually do nothing, I guess.
So now you do agree ?

In any case, you clearly have an agenda yourself, and I maintain what I said earlier on in this thread, in that; it's no better than M$ trying to dictate that people follow their "standards" to further their agenda and benefit nobody but themselves. Again, nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to use anything. And again, as long as there's still people willing to use GNU software, then there's still a reason for GNU developers to continue writing it. So again, you are no better than M$ itself by trying to dictate and force your agenda on to others.

At the end of the day, I'll use what suits my needs, and if I don't like it, I won't use it. It's called choice, and you like anyone else still has one.

So again, what do you expect people here to do? Band together and demand the FSF adopt YOUR agenda whether they agree with it or not ? Well, once again, write them a letter yourself if you feel that strongly about it. Learn programming and write your own software, then it can designed within the parameters of YOUR BS agenda. Otherwise this thread is nothing more than you whinging and complaining and promoting YOUR agenda. Otherwise known as hot air, or should I say a waste of server storage space...

In all honesty, do whatever you want, I'm going to exercise my choice in not responding to this thread anymore. Other than to say, funny how you manually marked the thread as [SOLVED] when it actually "solves" absolutely nothing...
 
Old 12-11-2019, 09:48 AM   #37
freemedia2018
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2019
Distribution: various automated remasters
Posts: 216

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 208Reputation: 208Reputation: 208
I usually prefer to respond to such diatribes point for point, but it starts with you saying i misquoted you, and when I look at the context you add back all I can make of it is that you displayed the rest of the post. I can't figure out how it changes the meaning of what I quoted in anyway.

I said BY THE SAME ARGUMENT, it can't hurt anything.

That isn't a change of my position-- it is a critique of your argument. It isn't my argument, it's your argument. So saying "by the same argument, it can't hurt anything" doesn't mean I am adopting your argument. I honestly thought that was obvious.

You say I have an agenda and I'm trying to force something, but all I'm trying to do is make it so that monopolies can't lock us out of our own free software ecosystem. And you're like "what gives you the right!" I mean that's what free software IS about.

I agree with the slippery slope issue, but that is where the agreement ends, and my position on that has not changed. Frankly your take on what I'm saying is nonsensical, and the reason I'm not responding to it point for point is that I think you're being inflammatory and completely unreasonable. I'm just not interested in dealing point-for-point with your over-the-top accusations and insinuations.

Come back when you can tell me what my agenda is, at least. Vague accusations are the lamest sort, it's like you're asking me to think of a reason for you, to argue against my own good intentions so you don't have to make an accusation with substance.

Beyond that, vague accusations are fallacious and avoid the point of the discussion. If there was substance at least, they could be addressed but without that they are nothing but a distraction from the topic.

Last edited by freemedia2018; 12-11-2019 at 09:57 AM.
 
Old 12-11-2019, 03:35 PM   #38
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,718

Rep: Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
How so? Is anyone forcing PV to use systemd in Slackware ? Since when? How come he's not using it then ? So doesn't PV (like anyone else) have the freedom not to use systemd ?

You also assume that everyone actually agrees with every word that comes out of Stallman's mouth - not everyone does, myself included. While I don't disagree with everything he says, I certainly don't agree with everything he says.

You should also note that Stallman himself says he's never used UNIX itself before - he just happened to find it's design "OK". But even then according to himself, he still has some criticisms of it;



There's also the point that just because FSF (or whoever else) has a list of "freedoms", it doesn't mean everyone is going to follow them. Don't you think if everyone was going to follow them (like the "UNIX philosophy"), that there might not be a number of distros using systemd ? Clearly the powers that be aren't listening... so what's adding extra "freedoms" going to change ? ...and the answer is: absolutely nothing.
jsb, relax we are having a discussion of freedoms not an inquisition.

Regarding PV (since you mentioned him): the answer is yes so far he has been able to not include systemd. If you look through other threads at LQ you will also note that he said something towards...for how long. The problem is what started out as "a faster easier to use init" grows with each release and absorbs more components that were once independent. At this rate it is not a far stretch of the imagination to see that vendor lock in is happening. As more and more "depend on it" eventually most will depend on it etc... Stating Modularity as a Freedom would say that vendor lock in cannot happen as it violates the Five Freedoms etc... Give you another example, imagine if Linus made the kernel where you could not "deblob" it, imagine if the firmware blobs were locked in and could not be decoupled, that would be a big problem, hence blobs are included and can be removed ex: Debian, Linux-Libre etc...

In the end this is what helps to prevent backdoor takeovers of Linux by nefarious groups/companies. Linux is open to contribution but its the "control" that needs to be prevented. To go back to Debian, if it is locked into systemd only then it can no longer call itself the "Universal Operating System".
 
Old 12-11-2019, 06:57 PM   #39
ntubski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 3,774

Rep: Reputation: 2081Reputation: 2081Reputation: 2081Reputation: 2081Reputation: 2081Reputation: 2081Reputation: 2081Reputation: 2081Reputation: 2081Reputation: 2081Reputation: 2081
Quote:
Originally Posted by boughtonp View Post
Here would be my fifth: replace - the freedom to not run the software, to be free to avoid vendor lock-in through appropriate modularization/encapsulation and minimized dependencies - meaning any free software can be replaced with a user's preferred alternatives.
This isn't really a freedom like the others, it seems to be more about the quality of the software. But people should be free to write crappy software too. Similar to how freedom of speech means you should be free to say dumb, wrong things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Give you another example, imagine if Linus made the kernel where you could not "deblob" it, imagine if the firmware blobs were locked in and could not be decoupled
How would that work without violating the existing 4 freedoms (specifically the freedom to change (and therefore "deblob"))?
 
Old 12-11-2019, 07:08 PM   #40
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,718

Rep: Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857Reputation: 1857
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntubski View Post
How would that work without violating the existing 4 freedoms (specifically the freedom to change (and therefore "deblob"))?
Very good question! Then again it could in the same manner that Lennart and crew sold their Daemon to rule them all as an init, people fell for it saying its opensource etc... Even RMS when asked about systemd (I believe) replied is it free software? Free software alone does not provide protection from snakes hiding as a blade of grass in an open field or a wolf wearing sheep's clothing/skin. Which is why modularity is key, as long as it can be decoupled and people can choose to use it or not then it becomes more difficult to have a backdoor-corporate-coup.
 
Old 12-11-2019, 07:31 PM   #41
freemedia2018
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2019
Distribution: various automated remasters
Posts: 216

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 208Reputation: 208Reputation: 208
On this page from gnu.org’s own website (not the original source-- it used to be hosted on the OSI website) they talk about how Microsoft (using tactics they learned from IBM):

* considers the server the area where GNU/Linux is the greatest threat (Today, Azure is their favourite solution)

* they repeatedly talk about how modularity makes GNU/Linux superior, robust and competitive

* they specifically talk about how to systematically destroy GNU/Linux by attacking that modularity

Maybe it took them two decades to do it gradually. Today, there is evidence everywhere.

Note, this started affecting Debian 5 years ago, so it really only took 15 years. Also, if you're sceptical about proxies, go back to the history of their involvements with Red Hat, SCO, Novell and Gartner. Also HP.

Maybe we do need to look out for dramatic reductions in modularity as a deliberate threat to freedom. After all, it is considered a viable attack by the company most dedicated its destruction.

Quote:
Microsoft is unique among proprietary software companies: they are the only ones who have actively tried to kill Open Source and Free Software. It’s not often someone wants to be your friend after trying to kill you for ten years
- Bradley Kuhn

https://www.gnu.org/software/fsfe/pr...alloween1.html

Quote:
Halloween Document I (Version 1.14)
Quote:
...to understand how to compete against OSS, we must target a process rather than a company.
Quote:
Linux can win as long as services / protocols are commodities.
Quote:
OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.
Quote:
If publication of this document does nothing else, I hope it will alert everyone to the stifling of competition, the erosion of consumer choice, the higher costs, and the monopoly lock-in that this tactic implies.
Quote:
"De-commoditizing" protocols means reducing choice, raising prices, and suppressing competition.
Quote:
Up till now, Linux has greatly benefited from the integration / componentization model pushed by previous UNIX's. Additionally, the organization of Apache was simplified by the relatively simple, fault tolerant specifications of the HTTP protocol and UNIX server application design.
Quote:
The `folding extended functionality' here is a euphemism for introducing nonstandard extensions (or entire alternative protocols) which are then saturation-marketed as standards, even though they're closed, undocumented or just specified enough to create an illusion of openness.
Quote:
The objective is to make the new protocols a checklist item for gullible corporate buyers, while simultaneously making the writing of third-party symbiotes for Microsoft programs next to impossible. (And anyone who succeeds gets bought out.)
Quote:
We've seen Microsoft play this game before, and they're very good at it. When it works, Microsoft wins a monopoly lock. Customers lose.
Quote:
Part of the reason that Apache was able to get a foothold and take off was because the HTTP protocol is so simple. As more and more features become layered on top of the humble web server (e.g. multi-server transaction support, POD, etc.) it will be interesting to see how the Apache team will be able to keep up.
Quote:
More component robustness. Linux and other OSS projects make it easy for developers to experiment with small components in the system without introducing regressions in other components:
Quote:
The linux development system has evolved into allowing more devs to party on it without causing huge numbers of integration issues because robustness is present at every level. This is great, long term, for overall stability and it shows."
Quote:
OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.
 
  


Reply

Tags
corporate, culture, development, freedom, fsf


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Interview with Richard Stallman: Four Essential Freedoms LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 12-20-2007 01:30 AM
LXer: The Four Freedoms Applied to Hardware LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 08-28-2007 05:30 PM
Having your freedoms trampled part 2 carrja99 General 9 09-02-2003 09:02 PM
Having your freedoms trampled carrja99 General 45 02-25-2003 10:11 PM
Terrorism related loss of freedoms finally hits home. mocnicom General 18 02-21-2003 10:50 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:45 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration