Many FSF Priority Projects Still Not Progressing

[DeiF]

So, Coreboot is supported by Google?
Then how come it wasn't selected for GSoC this year?

[Linuxhippy]

So - whats the reason behind telling everybody how much FSF sucks?
(and again and over and over posting completly unrelated stuff like the Chernobyl photos)

[elanthis]

Yeah, it's not like he is giving lots of coverage to the Apple sponsored llvm/clang development...

Knock that off. LLVM predated Apple by many years. It was created at the University of Illinois as a research project and you can find references to it on LWN and such from many, many years ago. I recall first hearing about it when some folks were thinking of making architecture-neutral RPMs back when everyone still thought the consumer CPU world might have more than two players. Clang was originally an in-house proprietary codebase at Apple created for the purpose of improving the code intelligence and refactoring capabilities of Xcode (GCC was and still is utterly incapable of being used for these purposes by intentional design; there was an article just published on LWN.net about this very topic, iirc), which they explicitly chose to Open Source out of the goodness of their hearts thank you very much because they sure didn't need to. It now has many paid developers working on it from companies like Red Hat, Google, Facebook (yes, Facebook pays people to work on a C++ compiler), AMD, and many others, not to mention a large swarm of hobbyist and freelance contributors with no corporate affiliation. Continually labeling Clang or LLVM as "an Apple product" does not make the project look bad, but it makes the fools who keep repeating it look bad.

[Sonadow]

*snip*

I'm with you on this. The ridiculous ideology that RMS and his goons are propagating over at the FSF is probably the single biggest obstacle to the success and acceptance of open-source s/w.

All that guy can do is open his mouth and complain about how 'so-and-so is not free that's why you should not use it' without even doing anything to fix the situation. For example, he spends more time complaining about how the inclusion of binary firmware in the linux kernel is an attack on freedom when these firmware blobs are the exact firmware that would have otherwise been burnt into ROM on the hardware themselves, the latter situation of which the FSF has chosen to conviniently remain mute on. They do not even realize that any device that is built with some form of intelligence MUST have firmware of sorts (example: WinPrinters which have all rendering and features offloaded to Windows, and typical printers that feature their own built-in processors to handle such tasks) residing within the firmware are company secrets (every business has its own internal secrets that are strictly guarded; you don't see NASA, the CIA etc etc releasing the source code for their missle tracking / criminal forensic software) such as optimized algorithms and whatnot that can destroy a business's competitive advantage if released. Linus recognized it right from the get go, and made it so that binary firmware is allowed into the kernel, as long as it has a freely redistributable license. Everybody gets working hardware with a free driver that plays nice with the firmware, the company gets to sell more h/w and keep its secrets, while the OSS community can improve on the driver if it's not up to snuff. Everybody wins. And the company's job is to deliver a proper firmware, because a crappy firmware will affect not just Linux, but every other operating system that it is intended to be used on.

He also scorns the creation of an open-source Skype compatibile client and believes that the community can sway the rest of the world into using a free VoIP protocol and client when so many businesses, institutions and individuals rely on Skype for their daily work and communications with clients and partners.

More importantly, he wants people to accept feature-incomplete, subpar alternatives to established, full-featured proprietary applications, tools or programs just on the basis that 'proprietary software is EVILLLLL'.

Get real; this is not going to happen. Software adoption only happens when a party has something that can offer clearly defined tangible benefits to its users. People are slowly coming round to the idea of Linux on the desktop because of its modest footprint, speed and supposed security over Windows or OS X. Telling a user to drop Flash for the joke that is LightSpark or Gnash, or Photoshop for GIMP, or Final Cut Pro / AVID / Premiere Pro for Kdenlive just because the latter is 'free and open' is just plain stupidity.

[randomizer]

For example, he spends more time complaining about how the inclusion of binary firmware in the linux kernel is an attack on freedom when these firmware blobs are the exact firmware that would have otherwise been burnt into ROM on the hardware themselves, the latter situation of which the FSF has chosen to conviniently remain mute on.

Stallman has commented on this topic himself (in fact I've heard him do so in person). Blobs in non-programmable memory are not considered a threat to freedom as defined by the FSF. The manufacturer didn't put licensing or DRM barriers in place to restrict the freedom to alter the firmware, it's physically impossible (in any practical way) to alter it, and as such it's considered by the FSF to be more of a hardware component than software. However, programmable firmware like most BIOS software is considered a bad egg.

[Hirager]

Stallman has commented on this topic himself (in fact I've heard him do so in person). Blobs in non-programmable memory are not considered a threat to freedom as defined by the FSF. The manufacturer didn't put licensing or DRM barriers in place to restrict the freedom to alter the firmware, it's physically impossible (in any practical way) to alter it, and as such it's considered by the FSF to be more of a hardware component than software. However, programmable firmware like most BIOS software is considered a bad egg.

That's a nice thinking, there. Stallman may look like a careless guy, but he did spend his whole life thinking about software freedom. I agree that FSF could be a bit more proactive, but it surely does not produce continuous crap, as some tend to think.

[XorEaxEax]

I also don't explicitly hate the Free Software Foundation, it's particularly the high priority list that I don't like for a variety of reasons, most of which I have mentioned. For such a central organization, the FSF should do more to promote the projects on the list or find assistance for them in one way or another,

Central organisation in what context? FOSS? You realize that FSF is not some rich organization, it's a non-profit organization aimed at promoting free software, that doesn't mean they have the means to employ lots of programmers to create free software. Why don't you hire some programmers Micheal?

revise the list to include more relevant projects to the widest audience of users (the CAD file and network router drivers IMHO don't really belong on there...), audit the list more vigorously

Who decides which ones are 'relevant projects'? This is a list of what FSF finds relevant, so I say to you, USE YOUR site and it's visibility then to PROMOTE what YOU think are relevant projects. You have a site which is recieving lots of hits from people interested in Linux and open source, now since you think FSF do a poor job then step up to the plate then and DO something about it. Show me your goddamn list of 'relevant projects' and your efforts to have people work on them!

and that they and others should focus upon innovating in free software rather than just trying to replace proprietary software by more or less copying their features.

Oh, the f***ing innovation bullshit, where's the f***ing innovation in proprietary software today? Please don't tell me you think Apple is innovating because then I will puke.

So you blame the FOSS alternative shortages in certain areas on FSF, despite knowing full well that they don't have the financial means to hire enough programmer to work on them.

Then you blame FSF for the lack of innovation in free software, as if they have any control of that? Furthermore where is the innovation today, is Microsoft being innovative (Zune, Silverlight, Bing, XPS, Xbox etc ad nauseum)? Apple (rounded corners!) ? I mean seriously?

Again, this is nothing but a smearing campaign as it is so one-sided it's disgusting, FSF provides the most used compiler toolchain on the planet, for free, on which the entire open source ecosystem depends and has for pretty much all it's existance. FSF provides the de facto standard userland for Linux, which in turn is the most popular open source operating kernel, both in business and home. They also created the most popular open source licence, GPL. But none of that get's any mentioning when you discuss FSF, instead you take potshots on things of which they simply have no control.

I don't know what axe you have to grind with the FSF, or if it's primarily your own or if you are just the messenger, but it's blatantly obvious that there's no objectiveness in your reporting.

[XorEaxEax]

what the &%^# does the FSF actually do?

Spread awareness of Free Open Source Software, within their limited means they also sponsor projects with limited funding. I't all right there on their wiki page, took me a second to Google.

What are they doing about locked bootloaders on Win8 ARM devices that threaten to introduce an entire class of computers (ARM laptops) that won't be allowed to run Linux?

Spreading awareness, what would you have them do? Furthermore what have you done? Also since we are talking about Micheal's judgement of FSF, wtf has Micheal done in regards to this, has he even mentioned the UEFI lockdown of ARM machines here on Phoronix? I think it would be a huge thing but I sure haven't seen anything, have I just missed it?

Where does FSF money go other than to supporting Richard Stallman? Shouldn't there be a breakdown published of how the FSF spends its money if it's non-profit?

Are you saying there isn't, also do you think we are talking of lots of money here? Yeah I know Stallman sure does wear all that bling and stuff when going around in that limo of his...

The message of the article is that the FSF is impotent... being on their list doesn't amount to squat. They don't bring money to projects, they don't attract developers...

Yes, being on a wish-list list doesn't mean the project will happen, holy sh*t! Again, there are tons of wish-lists out there, all equally 'impotent' until someone starts working on something on that list. The lists are only there to make people aware of a need, it doesn't in any way mean that someone will choose to work on it, doesn't matter if the list is on FSF's site or anywhere else.

in a cruel bit of irony, unlike the goals of the GPL, they don't seem to contribute anything back to the community.

Oh please, seriously? Just GCC and GNU userland is enough contribution for a f***ing lifetime.

Maybe it's time we consider for the hundredth time "forking" the FSF and getting an organization that has some connection to reality and knows how to get things done rather than give speeches.

'Forking' an non-profit organization, wtf? Just set up your own goddamn organization and get to work with doing a better job.

The only thing he's done in decades is make the rest of us look bad and inspire a small cult of personality.

Who is 'us'? You? Stallman does not speak for me, I choose to agree with some things he says and disagree with others. But hey, what have you done for 'the rest of us' in decades?

they don't dispute the facts he reported regarding the status of any of the projects mentioned.

Bullshit, he presented these projects as it was something other than a mere wish-list and then continued to mispresent the lack of progress in most of them as a direct failure of the FSF.

This article didn't insult or attack anyone...

Yes it did, it attacked FSF for the failure of projects on their wish-list, Micheal followed it up here in this very thread by complaining about the 'relevance' of the projects in the list and how they lacked 'innovation', as if FSF with it's meagre resources should somehow be able to fund some sort of software think-tank to come up with the 'next big thing' when even the commercial software sector which has tons of money and resources to spend on R&D seldom come up with anything even remotely 'innovative' in terms of software. Really?

but to characterize this as something other than fact-based and honest reporting is terribly unfair.

You must be working for Fox News.

[XorEaxEax]

Knock that off. LLVM predated Apple by many years.

I know exactly where LLVM originated. But that doesn't change the fact that they are the primary force behind it (they hired Chris Lattner, one of the two original creators). Also I stated clang/llvm and Clang is indeed an Apple project from the ground up and as such reflects Apple's needs (C, ObjC, C++).

which they explicitly chose to Open Source out of the goodness of their hearts thank you very much because they sure didn't need to.

A frontend is a very complex thing, and given the vast amount of code out there which needs to be tested in order for Clang to reach a high level of compability I'm not so sure they did it 'out of the goodness of their hearts'. Apple seems to open source things when they think it's beneficial to them, not because of any trace of altruism.

[randomizer]

The FSF is not purely an advocate of Free software. It also provides some degree of legal enforcement of the GPL where it holds copyright on the software whose license is being violated. You can be sure that the FSF would be pursuing many companies over GPL violations of the Linux kernel if it had the power, which the actual copyright holders of the kernel don't bother to do so themselves as they don't have a problem with it.