Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 124

Thread: Richard Stallman Comments On Valve For Linux

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    42

    Default

    It's funny how RMS is characterized by his detractors as a fanatic, while at the same time these self same detractors foam at the mouth sounding even more fantatical than he supposedly does.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    840

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeBooteR69 View Post
    It's funny how RMS is characterized by his detractors as a fanatic, while at the same time these self same detractors foam at the mouth sounding even more fantatical than he supposedly does.
    +1

    LOL. very true

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    RMS simply fails to realize that non-free software is *not* unethical. You can't accuse others of being unethical just because they create something that doesn't suit your own needs.

    Proprietary software is perfectly ethical and there's nothing wrong with it. Business practices of software vendors can be unethical (like Microsoft). Some EULAs can be unethical (like Microsoft and Apple.) But non-open/non-free software just by itself is not unethical.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    In the Soviet Union, everything was required to be in the Public Domain, and your work could not be considered private property.

    We don't live in the Soviet Union. Stallman wishes we did. Too bad for him.

    I agree. When I read what he said, communism was the first thing that came to mind.
    Great ideal, but what's wrong with intellectual property? There are obvious reasons for wanting a OS, core applications, and drivers open and free but games not so much.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ownagefool View Post
    RMS doesn't care about the hardware being free, just the software.

    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-sourc...-arrived/10692

    Seriously, Phoronix is nuts. Is everyone here a MS troll? :/
    What about the firmware on the cards? It's not free software, it's 100% proprietary.

    He has no problem with this firmware if the manufacturer decides to burn the firmware into the device. However if the manufacturer instead decides to download the firmware at boot time, well that's a 100% DIFFERENT STORY for some reason that I really just can't fathom.

    WHY is it that RMS doesn't care about proprietary hardware and yet they get all in a stink if the hardware manufacturer decides to make a good design decision?

    Again I say that RMS's goals are in conflict with reality as we know it.

    It JUST SO HAPPENS that I am a BIG fan of Linux and free software. I don't know RMS personally but we have met. We travel in the same social circles and we have dated the same girls. I was offered a job by the FSF but I turned it down. I've been getting paid to write linux software since 0.99pl13. Please don't accuse me of being a MS troll.

    Tell us more about why Phoronix is nuts because there are people who ask questions. Yes indeed really we should just all bow down and accept unthinkingly.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeBooteR69 View Post
    It's funny how RMS is characterized by his detractors as a fanatic, while at the same time these self same detractors foam at the mouth sounding even more fantatical than he supposedly does.
    Because it's SO MUCH MORE FUN to pick on people than it is to actually try to keep up with what they are talking about.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ownagefool View Post
    RMS doesn't care about the hardware being free, just the software.

    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-sourc...-arrived/10692

    Seriously, Phoronix is nuts. Is everyone here a MS troll? :/
    Let's talk about NUTS:

    Your video system consists of both hardware and software. You see OpenGL or some such as the API, and it's implemented by the video system. On a modern card or an old SGI Onyx, the OpenGL library is just a thin library on top of the hardware. On an older card the OpenGL functionality is coming from software. The demarcation line between the hardware and the software is pretty arbitrary, it depends on what kind of card you have, etc.

    What RMS is doing is stepping into that blob of software and hardware and making some pretty indefensible arguments about what should be free and what is irrelevant. Honestly I cannot understand how he can say that proprietary software doesn't matter if it's burned onto a card.

    Let me point out that all those arguments RMS made so long ago about the proprietary drivers on the 9th floor Xerox dover, they apply equally to the firmware on your ethernet card, or to the code on the controller processor on your hard drives.

    It's really funny that RMS claims to not care about proprietary hardware, when it was proprietary hardware that inspired him to write the GPL!
    Last edited by frantaylor; 07-30-2012 at 01:36 AM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ownagefool View Post
    I'm European, so no, thats not true.
    Are there parts (other than the 3 paragraphs where it says may not apply to European Union consumers) of the Steam subscriber agreement that do not apply to Europeans? I'm also European so I'm interested in this. I tried to search more info about this, but couldn't find anything about parts of the subscriber agreement not being valid in Europe.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frantaylor View Post
    What about the firmware on the cards? It's not free software, it's 100% proprietary.
    On your card, maybe. On my card, for sure. On his card? I doubt it.

    Your situation doesn't apply for everyone else. Firmware doesn't need to be closed sourced, especially so when you job is to make hardware most other people can't make. Moreso, when your motherboard is probably using the same proprietary software as everyone elses. For the record, you can get distros with non-free firmware.

    Quote Originally Posted by frantaylor View Post
    He has no problem with this firmware if the manufacturer decides to burn the firmware into the device. However if the manufacturer instead decides to download the firmware at boot time, well that's a 100% DIFFERENT STORY for some reason that I really just can't fathom.
    I actually think he's probably it, though if something had to be proprietary, he'd prefer it was left on the hardware itself, and that the community was given the ability to interface with it. This is because he cares about being able to use that card in his OS of choice, with his software of choice, and this practice wouldn't harm him your ability to do this. If he made a distinction of loading a binary into the card being worse than the card having a firmware pre-installed that'd be strange. I already said I don't subscribe, thus I've not read what you're pertaining to. Feel free to provide a link.

    Quote Originally Posted by frantaylor View Post
    WHY is it that RMS doesn't care about proprietary software and yet they get all in a stink if the hardware manufacturer decides to make a good design decision?

    Again I say that RMS's goals are in conflict with reality as we know it.
    Being in conflict with reality doesn't mean his views are inconsistant.


    Quote Originally Posted by frantaylor View Post
    It JUST SO HAPPENS that I am a BIG fan of Linux and free software. I don't know RMS personally but we have met. We travel in the same social circles and we have dated the same girls. I was offered a job by the FSF but I turned it down. I've been getting paid to write linux software since 0.99pl13. Please don't accuse me of being a MS troll.
    Heh.

    Quote Originally Posted by frantaylor View Post
    Tell us more about why Phoronix is nuts because there are people who ask questions. Yes indeed really we should just all bow down and accept unthinkingly.
    I specifically said I don't particularly agree with RMS but I felt you and others are misrepresenting his view point. Now you are misrepresenting my view point, which makes you either nuts, stupid, lazy or disingenuous. There are quite a lot of you around here, which is strange, because this is a place where a couple of really intelligent open source driver coders hang out, but I honestly don't know why they bother.

    Quote Originally Posted by frantaylor View Post
    Let's talk about NUTS:
    You mean like replying to the same guy twice, with basically the same content, as if you have something profound to say? I already replied to this, but I'm going to ignore you going forward unless you actually contribute something new.
    Last edited by ownagefool; 07-30-2012 at 01:34 AM.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    351

    Default Just in case

    Just in case anyone is wondering:

    I'm an advocate for a computer in which all of the computing hardware is open source. You can keep your secrets about CMOS process control, but all of the firmware, hardware schematics, etc. should be open source.

    Why? Because it's REALLY what RMS wants to do. I'd say that he must have been asleep in 6.111 but then I remember that he went to Harvard, not MIT, so he did not have to learn about how hardware works. I just think he hasn't thought through the firmware issues.

    A fully open system with all the firmware on all the devices laid bare, is the only way to go. You want to REALLY simulate your server and see where the bottlenecks are? You need it ALL. RMS is stopping halfway.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •