Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Richard Stallman Calls Ubuntu "Spyware"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • And replace it by what? Windows? Or, even worse, Dumbux? Lol.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by PeterKraus View Post

      *snip*

      Point #1: Now, the idea of all that was never to be the one and only option, to burn and erase all other proprietary softwares, and to make sure you can run only the "tagged" stuff. It was actually the exact opposite - to provide you with the (true) freedom of choice, with an alternative. It's like free range vs caged chicken - arguably, there the benefits of each are more clearly cut (conscience vs cost). And it also describes the current goal of FSF - you wouldn't want to buy free range eggs, only to find out that only 95% of them are really free range, and that it's at the distributor's disposal whether he decides to swap some eggs in your package for caged ones...

      *snip*

      Point #2:Stallman and people at FSF usually assume that people reading their statements are not retarded and can perform a critical analysis. I would be very surprised, if in any of their publications you found recommendations on what you "generally should and shouldn't do" (as opposed to "do to remain truly FSF-free"). In any case, I do believe what Stallman says to be incredibly relevant, especially as he is one of the only people taking such a critical stance. I do not pretend I do what he suggests I do, but I do not pretend I am running only FSF-compatible stuff either.
      Any sane, non-retarded person is not going to buy point #1 considering how RMS has made it very clear that he would outlaw closed and proprietary software given the opportunity to do so. Just as he feels he is entitled to destroy the business model of major software houses all over the world in the name of liberty. businesses have the right to protect their proprietary work using any lawful means necessary

      Point #2 is absolute rubbish as well: RMS has made it known time and again that he would rather have you use closed software on Linux than on Windows or OS X. And how is that supposed to the truly 'FSF-free'? That man just has a bone to pick with closed software, period. He has no intention of giving people that choice to choose between closed and FOSS in his little la-la land.

      I made a conscious decision to go full proprietary after using Linux for 4 years and I will fight to the death to protect my freedom to reject my freedom for the sake of powerful proprietary software that I can rely on to get what I want to do done. And to escape from all these 'you-are-using-proprietary-software-on-linux-you-are-destroying-the-philosophy-of-FOSS' attacks.

      --------------------------------------------------
      Posted from my Windows 8 PC..
      Last edited by Sonadow; 12-11-2012, 07:30 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
        I made a conscious decision to go full proprietary after using Linux for 4 years and I will fight to the death to protect my freedom to reject my freedom for the sake of powerful proprietary software
        BWAHAHAHAHAHA

        This keeps getting better and better! :rofl:

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post
          If you hate slavery, why do you advocate the GPL?
          http://noordering.wordpress.com/2009...l-is-not-free/
          Isn't one of the basic mistakes this, what he repeats in the comments?
          as a user, I would like to go ?hmm, this program doesn?t do what I want quite, I?m going to extend it with my code?, and then chose to distribute *my* code any which way I like.

          He can surely write his extensions to gpl code any way he likes and distribute *his* code any way he likes, he just can't distribute it together with gpl code under a nonfree license. And the user can completely legally get a copy of the gpl code, get the author's extensions to the code and use it together?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
            considering how RMS has made it very clear that he would outlaw closed and proprietary software given the opportunity to do so.
            Has he? I think there's a good chance he might if he had the 'power' but has he actually said this? I'd like to hear his actual words on this.

            On the other hand there's no doubt in my mind that Microsoft would have made open source illegal had they been able to. Heck, there was even the 'International Intellectual Property Alliance' consisting of RIAA/MPAA amongst others claiming that open source was 'un-american'. And let's not forget Microsoft OS chief saying 'open source stifles innovation', LOL.

            Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
            Just as he feels he is entitled to destroy the business model of major software houses all over the world in the name of liberty. businesses have the right to protect their proprietary work using any lawful means necessary
            In what context does this apply to the discussion? Is RMS somehow able to outlaw proprietary software?

            Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
            Point #2 is absolute rubbish as well: RMS has made it known time and again that he would rather have you use closed software on Linux than on Windows or OS X.
            Well obviously since he is against proprietary software he'd want people to use as little proprietary software as possible, Windows and OSX are both proprietary.

            Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
            He has no intention of giving people that choice to choose between closed and FOSS in his little la-la land.
            How could he possibly prevent it? All he can do, and is doing is to say what he thinks of proprietary software and try to provide FOSS alternatives.

            Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
            I made a conscious decision to go full proprietary after using Linux for 4 years and I will fight to the death to protect my freedom to reject my freedom for the sake of powerful proprietary software that I can rely on to get what I want to do done. And to escape from all these 'you-are-using-proprietary-software-on-linux-you-are-destroying-the-philosophy-of-FOSS' attacks.
            Your bullshit absolutely reeks.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
              Your bullshit absolutely reeks.
              I know this is not my fight, but I had to jump in here because this really isn't an argument. You see, I like watching the show this has stirred up, and I see an opportunity for a much better (and therefore much more interesting and amusing) rejoinder than "this smell like poop." You can deconstruct an argument better than that.

              Now god damn it, get in there and entertain me!

              Comment


              • Basically you should choose your software by what it does for you, not for its license.

                Comment


                • If proprietary software does its job better than any available free alternative, this is wrong. "Of course this application makes me work less efficient but it's FREEEEEE". Yawn.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post
                    If proprietary software does its job better than any available free alternative, this is wrong. "Of course this application makes me work less efficient but it's FREEEEEE". Yawn.
                    "The point is that in some cases there is Free Software you can use to do those things. In some cases maybe there's not, and when there isn't, that means, at least temporarily, to live in freedom requires a certain sacrifice. Fortunately not a big sacrifice.

                    There are times when freedom has required people to sacrifice their lives, but here we can win freedom with nothing more than an inconvenience." - Richard Stallman

                    Comment


                    • My computer is a tool, not an end in itself.

                      I could use a screwdriver to hammer a nail into the wall with just a small inconvenience. But why should I?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X