Coffeehouse Thread

52 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Richard Stallman just spoke to me

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    DigitalDud

    I just came out of a Q&A session with Richard Stallman that my University hosted. The general consensus I heard from people coming out of it was he's definetly an extremist and a whacko.  I have to agree and I have to say I'm pretty disappointed since he really didn't have much to say besides that "anyone who works on proprietary software is unethical and evil" (over and over).

    The only thing I kind of agree with him with is with regards to I.P. law, but for totally different reasons.

    What do you guys think of the (in)famous R.M.S?

  • User profile image
    Deactivated User

    Comment removed at user's request.

  • User profile image
    ddewbofh

    I think that his general idea (OSS software is good and all) is pretty ok but his execution is totaly cräp. His rants about proprietary software and it's evil gets tiresome. It's like he doesn't want anyone to have secrets or any piracy protection at all, just look at his stance on DRM.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    If he ever gave a talk and I was there, I'd ask these:

    • Are you a hippie?
    • Seriously?
    • ...do you ever wash your hair?
    • FOSS organisations attempt to recuperate some of their expenses through providing support and customization services, but we've seen that these in no-way are able to make up for a company's expenses, even if they were a non-profit, donations rarely make a dent in the red line either. How do you suggest companies and organisations support themselves using nothing but FOSS?

  • User profile image
    DigitalDud

    He keeps trying to take complicated problems like the protection of ideas and distill it down to something that is way too simple, like "just don't do it." Things in real-life don't work that way.

  • User profile image
    Deactivated User

    Comment removed at user's request.

  • User profile image
    koorb

    I think it's becoming clear now that the software market will always be dominated by proprietary software and always the best software will be proprietary software, that is simply because open source suffers from the same constrains as Wikipedia. The content is either not right, confusing, has been edited so much nobody dare changes what needs changing or even worse it becomes so anal that it has more resemblance to a legal document than an informative article.

    Companies share a lot of structural resemblance to governments, yet there aren't any open source governments because they always try to be too inclusive and never make the decisions that need to be made.

    Direction is also a big issue, standards compliance and they always take the approach of incremental builds which hurts security.

  • User profile image
    koorb

    Zeo wrote:

    He spoke at my university when I was in college(I found out he got payed $8400 to speak). I had the chance to ask him 4 questions about IP and the necessity to make money to fund the whole R&D cycle of innovation and he didn't answer any of my questions.
     
    However,  he did inform me that I would should go work for Microsoft.



    Did you ask if he would give you a reference?

  • User profile image
    Xaero_​Vincent

    Yea he is defiently an extremist. He refuses to face the reality that proprietary software his here to stay and that the FSF needs to acknowledge it.


    Regards,
    Vincent

  • User profile image
    IRenderable

    He is an extremist but I still respect him. He is a  damn good programmer.

  • User profile image
    Cider

    koorb wrote:

    I think it's becoming clear now that the software market will always be dominated by proprietary software and always the best software will be proprietary software, that is simply because open source suffers from the same constrains as Wikipedia. The content is either not right, confusing, has been edited so much nobody dare changes what needs changing or even worse it becomes so anal that it has more resemblance to a legal document than an informative article.




    The answer, I'm afraid, is far more simpler than that.  Due to the fact you have to sell software to customers, proprietary software tends to be customer-centric.

    Open source software has only the concerns of other developers to take in to account, and is therefore developer-centric.

    As always, the customer wins...

  • User profile image
    Xaero_​Vincent

    koorb wrote:

    I think it's becoming clear now that the software market will always be dominated by proprietary software and always the best software will be proprietary software, that is simply because open source suffers from the same constrains as Wikipedia. The content is either not right, confusing, has been edited so much nobody dare changes what needs changing or even worse it becomes so anal that it has more resemblance to a legal document than an informative article.

    Companies share a lot of structural resemblance to governments, yet there aren't any open source governments because they always try to be too inclusive and never make the decisions that need to be made.

    Direction is also a big issue, standards compliance and they always take the approach of incremental builds which hurts security.



    Wow thats completely incorrect. Open-Source software does have governments and standards bodies too. Im not just talking about Linux but any significant Open-Source project. They really couldn't survive without them; they would form into public-domain projects where chaos occurs with no direction or control.


    Regards,
    Vincent

  • User profile image
    Rowan

    W3bbo wrote:
    If he ever gave a talk and I was there, I'd ask these:

    • Are you a hippie?
    • Seriously?
    • ...do you ever wash your hair?


    Funny, that's what I'd ask you. Tongue Out

  • User profile image
    IRenderable

    Cider wrote:
    koorb wrote:

    I think it's becoming clear now that the software market will always be dominated by proprietary software and always the best software will be proprietary software, that is simply because open source suffers from the same constrains as Wikipedia. The content is either not right, confusing, has been edited so much nobody dare changes what needs changing or even worse it becomes so anal that it has more resemblance to a legal document than an informative article.




    The answer, I'm afraid, is far more simpler than that.  Due to the fact you have to sell software to customers, proprietary software tends to be customer-centric.

    Open source software has only the concerns of other developers to take in to account, and is therefore developer-centric.

    As always, the customer wins...



    For normal users I would say open source doesn't work because of what you said (Though there are lots of exceptions, RythmBox is a very good music player, XChat is a good and easy to use IRC client). However it works for servers and developer tools. GCC is good compiler, Apache is a good server, etc.

  • User profile image
    Xaero_​Vincent

    W3bbo wrote:
    If he ever gave a talk and I was there, I'd ask these:

    • Are you a hippie?
    • Seriously?
    • ...do you ever wash your hair?
    • FOSS organisations attempt to recuperate some of their expenses through providing support and customization services, but we've seen that these in no-way are able to make up for a company's expenses, even if they were a non-profit, donations rarely make a dent in the red line either. How do you suggest companies and organisations support themselves using nothing but FOSS?


    The way it works is that the company maintains control over the project but gives the open-source community tools and funding to work on the project. As a reward, the community can have the software for free, while the company makes a slighty enhanced version of it and sells it with support.

    Another concept is that companies could offer dual licensing of their products. For commercial usage customers would require licenses, while Open-Source developers can use it for free for non-commercial development. They could offer a Open-Source license that prohibits forking and protects the company.

    I'm not saying that Microsoft should try this but that it could work for many companies who try it. I believe companies like RedHat, Novell, Linspire (new), ISE, Apple, Trolltech, etc.


    Regards,
    Vincent

  • User profile image
    SCMcDonnell

    I always find it interesting how people forget about supply and demand. 

    And for those who don't forget about it, they like to think there is another option.

    SM

  • User profile image
    DoomBringer

    blatzcoder wrote:
    Cider wrote: The answer, I'm afraid, is far more simpler than that.  Due to the fact you have to sell software to customers, proprietary software tends to be customer-centric.

    Open source software has only the concerns of other developers to take in to account, and is therefore developer-centric.

    As always, the customer wins...
    Great. That means that the software I'm going to build should have an easy time selling, right? I've already built a few things where I work that huh...funny...are "very user friendly" and seem incredibly stable. In fact, with a database I built about a year and half ago, I can't recall a time when it had any issues except in the very beginning. I keep adding to it in fact, and it is used to track information across several departments.

    I agree there is a lot of open source software that isn't very attractive looking, and some of it could use some serious UI work. Like I said, Windows doesn't need my help. The Linux platform...let's just see what happens, shall we?

    I'm sure Microsoft is scared.  Since you're so legendary in coding circles, and all.

    Anyhow, RMS is a zealot.  If I was the university, I'd demand my money back.  Of course, I wouldn't host him either way.

  • User profile image
    rjdohnert

    Personally I dont know why any major college would ask him to speak.  Anyway, I think RMS is a Jacka$$.

    He lives in his own distorted reality.

    DigitalDud wrote:

    What do you guys think of the (in)famous R.M.S?

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.