So Landuke STILL doesn't understand what Free Software means. I thought he might have learned a bit since his car-crash of a podcast with Stallman a few years ago. Apparently not. Edit: I was talking about this one, 7 years ago, not the more recent one he has apparently done with Stallman: th-cam.com/video/radmjL5OIaA/w-d-xo.html
@@protesilaos He and his buddy did a pretty disgusting follow up shortly after with Stallman not present, where they basically just ridiculed him and laughed at him whilst demonstrating further that they have absolutely no understanding of the basic difference between free software and open source, gratis software.
@@higgins007 Sad… Not surprised though. I sensed that same attitude in the video you linked. One instance that comes to mind is towards the end where it is implied that "jet lag" is clouding RMS' judgement (1h.07m.38s of the video). I can excuse a new user for conflating gratis with libre. That is why it is important to talk about our ideas/politics from time to time. There is nothing wrong with making honest mistakes, provided one is willing to learn from them. In this case though, we are not dealing with a misunderstanding per se. Bryan's argument is all about "putting food on the table", on the premise that an injustice can be somehow justified by alluding to one's emotions (feeding the kid, "I want people to succeed", etc.). The indignation and/or disbelief on his face and the relevant claims are in support of that position. Perhaps "rationalisation" is the right term, in which case I would argue that pretenses of objectivity and "playing devil's advocate" do not really help Bryan's case. I certainly agree with Richard's views in that video: free software is all about politics. RMS' unflinching commitment to this cause is a guide and inspiration. I can see though why he has so many enemies: for instance, his Malthusian take on American kids and their environmental footprint could have been handled better, mostly because it was an aside that did not reinforce his arguments on the free software front. I am not holding it against him, just making an observation.
@@protesilaos th-cam.com/video/Fn9WWVmINGg/w-d-xo.html It starts around 37:30 and it's pretty despicable. I agree that the general public and even the relatively competent computer user can't be expected to understand the whole free software thing without a bit of an introduction, but come on, these guys had been running a "Linux" podcast for years and claimed to be experts on the matter. They tried to gloss over it, but it's pretty obvious they didn't have any idea about the difference between free and gratis and had never even heard of the 4 essential freedoms. I mean come on, you're having Richard Stallman on as a guest!
@@higgins007 You are right. I am a few minutes in to the topic and they are already misconstruing RMS' concept of freedom. Stallman says that freedom is not being under someone else's control. Whereas they insist on the convenience of choosing for things. Their following discussion on the GPL that restricts one's "freedom" to turn something into an instrument for control (proprietary) renders this conflation apparent. I understand that the polysemy of terms is tricky and preconceived notions can cause confusion. Yet their insistence shows an unwillingness to truly comprehend RMS' thesis. They are not making an honest effort. Anyhow, my tone and arguments would have been very different if I was making a reply to that show. By the way, I am pinning your original comment. Others might be interested in this information.
Very good thoughts on the subject. There really needs to be a better understanding when it comes to the difference between free software and open source software, although the latter is still political even if one of its goals is to be agnostic. It seems there's a confusion where people believe politics to be this malicious subject where it all comes down to economics, corruption and discord when this isn't really the case seeing how freedom is undeniably a political concern in nature. I believe this is what urges most enthusiasts (mostly from a strictly open-source software background) to try and distance free software from its inherent political nature, a vital misunderstanding.
@Keeno Johnson Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I think you are right: technically-minded people equate politics with incessant squabbling and inefficiency. As with most plausible beliefs that turn into falsehoods once generalised, there is a kernel of truth to it. Day-to-day politics is about voicing disagreement, spreading misinformation, dealing with abuse of power, etc. I totally understand why programmers want to keep their distance. But then the nuance is lost and we fail to acknowledge the tacit political values we stand for while working on software.
We have to thank Stallman for Linux, too. Just look at the license Torvalds changed Linux to to be able to use Linux as the kernel for GNU. So you heard me right. I'm a GNU user. I won't call me a GNU/Linux user -- this name wouldn't come easily off the lips and it's not necessary to mention the kernel in the name of an operating system. The browser is also a part of an operating system. Every app is. Stallman is the reason why we have free software in the way we have it today. It was never his aim to write all the software all himself or all by the GNU Project. FreeBSD only exists because of GNU and they even followed the example and won in court so today's FreeBSD officialy isn't Unix as well! Welcome to the club. Torvalds and Stallman probably will never say this, but Linux is the kernel of GNU. I read somewhere that Torvalds thinks making Linux GPL'ed was the best decision in his life -- remarkable for a married man.
Thanks for sharing! I am okay with calling the entire system just "GNU". I actually prefer that over plain "Linux". I just tend to go with "GNU/Linux" as per the recommendations of the FSF (and Stallman). In the future, we might have a GNU/Hurd system with Guix as its package manager: still "GNU" but we can qualify the technical differences when/where necessary. At any rate, the most important piece is the underlying philosophy, which is codified in the GPL. We must never lose sight of the principles of software freedom and we must always be mindful of the political dimension of the GNU project. Can you please link to a reference on your claim about FreeBSD? I am curious to learn more about it.
@@protesilaos have you followed Guix's efforts regarding Hurd? They now provide qemu images IIRC to play with GNU/Hurd, you can pick them up from their download section.
I'm fairly conservative and yet i appreciate the goals behind Free Software and understand it's importance to user's freedom, awareness and control of software they're running, the users should control the software and not the other way around, i don't fundamentally see this as a socialism issue as i think it should be impossible for conservatives to agree with FOSS if it was fundamentally communistic or socialist in nature. I know that the idea stems from that root and that people like Torvalds and Stallman are fairly left-wing themselves, but that doesn't mean the idea of Free Software HAS to be left wing in nature. So it can have political goals without these goals fitting into left/right wing categorizations that would exclude the other "side" from being able to push for the same things, what Lunduke is talking about is specifically the modern left/right wing political divide, but you have people in both sides that agree with Free Software as a goal, perhaps for different reasons, but they align on that front and that makes it a neutral political issue that we don't need to drag conservatism or socialism into. In that way i don't see it as a "political issue" according to the left/right political divide, i see it as a movement with fairly neutral political aims that people from both camps can agree with and defend for different reasons
![“อ.เบียร์ คนตื่นธรรม” มาตามคำเรียกร้อง แหกศาสตร์ฮวงจุ้ย เตือนสติอย่างมงาย | แฉ 7 พ.ย. 67 [1/3]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5fc4S3xBNfc/mqdefault.jpg)
So Landuke STILL doesn't understand what Free Software means. I thought he might have learned a bit since his car-crash of a podcast with Stallman a few years ago. Apparently not.
Edit: I was talking about this one, 7 years ago, not the more recent one he has apparently done with Stallman:
th-cam.com/video/radmjL5OIaA/w-d-xo.html
Thanks for sharing! I was not aware of it. Certainly puts things in perspective.
@@protesilaos He and his buddy did a pretty disgusting follow up shortly after with Stallman not present, where they basically just ridiculed him and laughed at him whilst demonstrating further that they have absolutely no understanding of the basic difference between free software and open source, gratis software.
@@higgins007 Sad… Not surprised though. I sensed that same attitude in the video you linked. One instance that comes to mind is towards the end where it is implied that "jet lag" is clouding RMS' judgement (1h.07m.38s of the video).
I can excuse a new user for conflating gratis with libre. That is why it is important to talk about our ideas/politics from time to time. There is nothing wrong with making honest mistakes, provided one is willing to learn from them.
In this case though, we are not dealing with a misunderstanding per se. Bryan's argument is all about "putting food on the table", on the premise that an injustice can be somehow justified by alluding to one's emotions (feeding the kid, "I want people to succeed", etc.). The indignation and/or disbelief on his face and the relevant claims are in support of that position. Perhaps "rationalisation" is the right term, in which case I would argue that pretenses of objectivity and "playing devil's advocate" do not really help Bryan's case.
I certainly agree with Richard's views in that video: free software is all about politics. RMS' unflinching commitment to this cause is a guide and inspiration. I can see though why he has so many enemies: for instance, his Malthusian take on American kids and their environmental footprint could have been handled better, mostly because it was an aside that did not reinforce his arguments on the free software front. I am not holding it against him, just making an observation.
@@protesilaos
th-cam.com/video/Fn9WWVmINGg/w-d-xo.html
It starts around 37:30 and it's pretty despicable. I agree that the general public and even the relatively competent computer user can't be expected to understand the whole free software thing without a bit of an introduction, but come on, these guys had been running a "Linux" podcast for years and claimed to be experts on the matter. They tried to gloss over it, but it's pretty obvious they didn't have any idea about the difference between free and gratis and had never even heard of the 4 essential freedoms. I mean come on, you're having Richard Stallman on as a guest!
@@higgins007 You are right.
I am a few minutes in to the topic and they are already misconstruing RMS' concept of freedom. Stallman says that freedom is not being under someone else's control. Whereas they insist on the convenience of choosing for things. Their following discussion on the GPL that restricts one's "freedom" to turn something into an instrument for control (proprietary) renders this conflation apparent.
I understand that the polysemy of terms is tricky and preconceived notions can cause confusion. Yet their insistence shows an unwillingness to truly comprehend RMS' thesis. They are not making an honest effort.
Anyhow, my tone and arguments would have been very different if I was making a reply to that show.
By the way, I am pinning your original comment. Others might be interested in this information.
Πολύ ωραίο βίντεο. Χαίρομαι που μαθαίνω έτσι την ιστορία αλλά και την φιλοσοφία του free-software.
Very good thoughts on the subject. There really needs to be a better understanding when it comes to the difference between free software and open source software, although the latter is still political even if one of its goals is to be agnostic. It seems there's a confusion where people believe politics to be this malicious subject where it all comes down to economics, corruption and discord when this isn't really the case seeing how freedom is undeniably a political concern in nature. I believe this is what urges most enthusiasts (mostly from a strictly open-source software background) to try and distance free software from its inherent political nature, a vital misunderstanding.
@Keeno Johnson Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I think you are right: technically-minded people equate politics with incessant squabbling and inefficiency. As with most plausible beliefs that turn into falsehoods once generalised, there is a kernel of truth to it. Day-to-day politics is about voicing disagreement, spreading misinformation, dealing with abuse of power, etc. I totally understand why programmers want to keep their distance. But then the nuance is lost and we fail to acknowledge the tacit political values we stand for while working on software.
We have to thank Stallman for Linux, too. Just look at the license Torvalds changed Linux to to be able to use Linux as the kernel for GNU.
So you heard me right. I'm a GNU user. I won't call me a GNU/Linux user -- this name wouldn't come easily off the lips and it's not necessary to mention the kernel in the name of an operating system.
The browser is also a part of an operating system. Every app is. Stallman is the reason why we have free software in the way we have it today. It was never his aim to write all the software all himself or all by the GNU Project.
FreeBSD only exists because of GNU and they even followed the example and won in court so today's FreeBSD officialy isn't Unix as well! Welcome to the club.
Torvalds and Stallman probably will never say this, but Linux is the kernel of GNU. I read somewhere that Torvalds thinks making Linux GPL'ed was the best decision in his life -- remarkable for a married man.
Thanks for sharing!
I am okay with calling the entire system just "GNU". I actually prefer that over plain "Linux". I just tend to go with "GNU/Linux" as per the recommendations of the FSF (and Stallman). In the future, we might have a GNU/Hurd system with Guix as its package manager: still "GNU" but we can qualify the technical differences when/where necessary.
At any rate, the most important piece is the underlying philosophy, which is codified in the GPL. We must never lose sight of the principles of software freedom and we must always be mindful of the political dimension of the GNU project.
Can you please link to a reference on your claim about FreeBSD? I am curious to learn more about it.
@@protesilaos have you followed Guix's efforts regarding Hurd? They now provide qemu images IIRC to play with GNU/Hurd, you can pick them up from their download section.
Very interesting vlog, thanks for the video Prot!
You are welcome!
I'm fairly conservative and yet i appreciate the goals behind Free Software and understand it's importance to user's freedom, awareness and control of software they're running, the users should control the software and not the other way around, i don't fundamentally see this as a socialism issue as i think it should be impossible for conservatives to agree with FOSS if it was fundamentally communistic or socialist in nature.
I know that the idea stems from that root and that people like Torvalds and Stallman are fairly left-wing themselves, but that doesn't mean the idea of Free Software HAS to be left wing in nature.
So it can have political goals without these goals fitting into left/right wing categorizations that would exclude the other "side" from being able to push for the same things, what Lunduke is talking about is specifically the modern left/right wing political divide, but you have people in both sides that agree with Free Software as a goal, perhaps for different reasons, but they align on that front and that makes it a neutral political issue that we don't need to drag conservatism or socialism into.
In that way i don't see it as a "political issue" according to the left/right political divide, i see it as a movement with fairly neutral political aims that people from both camps can agree with and defend for different reasons
Very eloquently put. Can't wait to see you on Joe Rogan's podcast ;).
Thanks! I admit to not know who that is. Will check it.
Nailed it!
Thanks for watching!
Nice elaboration. I agree.
Thanks!
Exactly. 🙂
Thank you!