8 ms·

Stallman's critique of software, hardware, and services as tools of social control has only become more relevant over the years. Can you imagine his search reco

by msg 14y ago

Stallman's critique of software, hardware, and services as tools of social control has only become more relevant over the years. Can you imagine his search records being rifled through by a government investigator? Or his Facebook profile being examined by an employer? No, because they don't exist. Nor can you imagine his computer being locked by a bootloader that only allows "Genuine Windows". He's not concerned about looking weird. For certain audiences this is a disadvantage. But he is concerned about tying his computing down to his core philosophy. He did it so well that you can almost hear him when he's not in the room. We should all be such effective weirdos. At some level we have to trust a substrate of computing to get anything done. Stallman's work to make that substrate as trustworthy as possible was very farsighted.

ameen 14y ago
While I certainly agree with RMS's reasons for being so committed to his philosophy, I just don't know if it would still be possible to practice in today's world. Almost every system out there, free software or otherwise is monetized one way or another, either you pay for the software, or you are the product being sold.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  Not necessarily true. While plenty of free software is funded (I don't think Stallman has particular issue with that). I'm not sure how me using the Linux Kernel, GNU System, Gnome , GIMP , Emacs or any of the other free software tools I use makes me somehow a "product".
- sbinetd 14y ago
  I'm not quite sure about that. I suppose I'm being used a testing data for RHEL by using Fedora. But on the other hand, I'm not submitting bug reports or any other form of data to Red Hat. I understand your point, and can think of some examples - but I'm struggling to apply it to the software I use.
- paulhauggis 14y ago
  This is one of the the consequences of the "free software movement". Nobody wants to pay for software anymore and hosting and development aren't free.

by msg 14y ago

ameen 14y ago

While I certainly agree with RMS's reasons for being so committed to his philosophy, I just don't know if it would still be possible to practice in today's world. Almost every system out there, free software or otherwise is monetized one way or another, either you pay for the software, or you are the product being sold.

jiggy2011 14y ago
Not necessarily true. While plenty of free software is funded (I don't think Stallman has particular issue with that). I'm not sure how me using the Linux Kernel, GNU System, Gnome , GIMP , Emacs or any of the other free software tools I use makes me somehow a "product".
sbinetd 14y ago
I'm not quite sure about that. I suppose I'm being used a testing data for RHEL by using Fedora. But on the other hand, I'm not submitting bug reports or any other form of data to Red Hat. I understand your point, and can think of some examples - but I'm struggling to apply it to the software I use.
paulhauggis 14y ago
This is one of the the consequences of the "free software movement". Nobody wants to pay for software anymore and hosting and development aren't free.