Well, the haters could always reimplement the whole infrastructure in their language of choice, wouldn't they?
It's been done at least once before for ideological reasons (and in C none-the-less) by the FSF. It should be even easier to give it a go in modern languages. I bet you can even get funding if you can write a compelling case that the wheel is actually broken!!!
This is a common FSF tactic. It doesn't always end well (both GNU TLS, and GNU Mach come to mind). Not necessarily because they do bad things, but because they aren't able to get enough people using the software to make a significant improvement.
You seem to be arguing that because X is worse than Y, we shouldn't worry about Y. Or that because Y is hard to change, we should ignore its problems. The FSF will never agree with that, though.
Well the FSF purports to be an organization that advances the cause of free software, so it's worth calling them on their bullshit. Not everyone thinks of them as a zealot organization even though it's headed by a zealot. Perhaps they should.
Also I think this issue might be fixable if there's enough outcry about it. And they really are in a tough situation because of this.
There's a legitimate argument in this article that the FSF doesn't promote a legislative program that would assist its aims (software user freedoms) and that this would be a better way to achieve those aims than relying on copyleft and the judicial system.
But it's buried under a lot of rhetoric and bike shedding about the meanings of words that is just as navel-gazing as the supposed faults of the FSF's activity.
What's the deal with this low-effort flame bait? Have you volunteered for the FSF? Are you or have you been active on the FSF or GNU mailing lists?
Certainly there are countless opportunities for reform away from elitist pedantry that are not tantamount to "being about the newest Apple products", wouldn't you agree?
Some of the original ideas might have been achieved, but they are constantly under attack one way or the other -- some more brutal, some more indirect.
There is a war going on against General Purpose Computing, and walled gardens have become the norm. We need the FSF -- or something like it -- more than ever.
'Good enough' is largely a political problem. I don't think the FSF would have gone into politics if it were possible to rewrite the world in the style of Emacs. That's a political goal, that's not a technical one.
I think we're sort of in a pre-literate society in a lot of ways, and people (or whatever) will look back on this century as sort of like the beginnings of language. And like natural language, I think computer languages and their use are going to eventually have much more interesting political implications. Especially once the concept of IP dies and we start looking at code as a conversation.
Definitely agree. I just wanted to point out that, even though it often seems otherwise, there are indeed people in the technological community who have deep problems with the FSF philosophies.
I don't know why anyone would think it is impossible, but it would take significant money and time to do it and it is unclear what benefit there would be except some small good will gained from developers that care about the FSF mission.
This is the sort of stuff that made me decide to stop donating money to the FSF. Instead of using my money to help fund the development of new and improved GNU options that will help convince people to switch, they're wasting a whole lot of time on ineffectual campaigns like this. The goal should be to make GNU so good people will want to be using it...
Wow, and this is stated explicitly? Seems like cutting off the nose to spite the face. I guess ideology is more important than code quality to the FSF. They have every right to do it, of course, but as an outsider it seems counter-productive
This is such an enormously bad take I don't even really know where to begin.
My #1 problem, I guess, is that all of his complaints seem to be false dichotomies - how is the existence of the FSF preventing you from setting up software libraries or passing legislation? The author states that it is but doesn't really explain...
In my opinion, FSF and Stallman are doing that by promoting the free software principles, sharing articles like I linked above. We probably need EFF to join this effort, too.
You're misconstruing the content of this blog post. It's about the activities of the technical support team at the FSF, not the FSF as a whole.
One of the things they've mentioned they're doing is implementing Jitsi conferencing for their staff to use. They're not writing a new piece of software, and they're not trying to stand up a big public service -- this is really just an internal project.
Thanks. I understand what the FSF is trying to do. I just think they've gone about it in a stupid way. I see it as an outgrowth if Stallman's old "microwave argument".
He is super zealous about using free software everywhere...until he isn't. His argument being that something like a microwave, despite having some non-Free software, isn't something that can be changed post-sale so he's ok using them.
1. It's actually an outdated example since we're now seeing appliances with Internet connectivity and EULAs.
2. It breaks down almost immediately with modern computer hardware. We're not running big beige towers whose only connectivity is some RS323 ports on the back. Most people are running computers with multiple highly regulated radios, internal batteries, and security subsystems. Fully user programmable functions of these are combinations of impractical, dangerous, and illegal.
I still donate every year to the FSF but these crusades just make me slap my forehead. They're feel good campaigns and encourage more harm than good.
It's been done at least once before for ideological reasons (and in C none-the-less) by the FSF. It should be even easier to give it a go in modern languages. I bet you can even get funding if you can write a compelling case that the wheel is actually broken!!!
reply