Richard Stallman killed the future of open source

Before the GPL, it was acceptable to release something with the source code but not allow your customers to re-distribute the orignal source, only patches. So software development companies could build an open source product and expect to sell more than one copy of the program before everybody gets it for free from the internet.
Nowadays, nobody will give a shit if you don't release something under the GPL or a BSD license, so open source companies are forced to release overcomplicated hostile shit just so they can sell support contracts to make the softare usable.
Face it freetards, developers have mouths to feed and mortgages to pay too. Software doesn't grow on trees, the amount of work that programmers are willing to spend after work hours as a hobby is very limited and they don't care about the shit they write being particularly usable as long as it solves their particular problems, without even getting into the lack of testing and decent documentation most of the time.
This means it's accepted and expected for any company that expects to make a buck from software sales to make it closed source and this allows them to pack it full of spyware too while they're at it, because everything is either inferior open source software or superior paid, but closed source and spyware software.
Open source is great, freetardism is retarded.

Attached: 1541722568093.jpg (517x452, 28K)

Other urls found in this thread:

gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Communism fails, oh no.. who would have guessed.

Attached: images.jpg (212x238, 14K)

The church of stallman has several delusions. The 2 main ones being

1) "Open source will automatically make a project good". No, nobody gives a shit about your emulator for the Wii U. Projects like the linux kernel that has thousands working on it are few. Most open source projects have either nobody giving a shit or 90% of those that give a shit doing minor contributions.

2) "It's free". Bullshit. You restrict people from closing it and having a business. Fuck your communism. MIT licenses are better.

Anyone who makes such arguments has clearly never had a programming related job.
90% of the software produced at work is private software (not the same thing as proprietary), which still fully qualifies as free software according to the FSF.

Free software has nothing to do with communism. It's arguably libertarian, since it's about having full control of your property.

You are stupid. GPL is pure communism, MIT-type are libertarian.

Stallman ain't that great of a man, I agree. But he is not even half wrong.

The money should come from support. Fags like [thing] as a service so much, so provide an actually good service for once. Instead, people release untested betas and cuck everyone for support. You can at least try fixing it yourself if you have the code.

>2) "It's free". Bullshit. You restrict people from closing it and having a business. Fuck your communism. MIT licenses are better.
Write your own then. If you can't do that, you don't deserve to make a business from it anyway.
You just want free shit, snowflake.

I don't remember Stallman supporting Garry Johnson, but I do remember him supporting the communist.

So whom are you trying to fool commie?

Attached: mid_DSC07236_rot.jpg (675x900, 258K)

Fuck off hypocrite. Write your own GPL then too.

> money should come from support
Fuck your religion. The church of stallman pulls that out of its arse without any justification.

GPL has nothing to do with communism either. It's based on the principle that free software should atay free software.
Thanks to LLVM, for examole, we are going to see a lot more proprietary toolchains in the future.
Stop parroting the "GPL = communism" meme you read on the internet.

I thought we were talking about free software and the GPL, not Stallman himself...?

if the software was good in the first place everybody would either not need or have their own in house software you fucking retard, and the service agreements only work on corporations and increase the possibility of spyware being installed or data leaked through those subcontracted service companies
besides SAAS is not about providing support for open source software, it's about processing data on the provider's secret software that runs on their locked down service, which is literally worse than proprietary software
in short you don't have any minimal idea of what the fuck you're talking about

Wow, those were some wonderful arguments. Did you at least finish high school?

>My company sells useless products and bittorrent killed our business, now I'm going to complain and blame as many unrelated parties as I can instead of admitting it's our fault

MIT license does not defend user freedoms.

GPL is capitalism because it allows profit from private ownership. However it is also communism because it depends on a strong copyright to work. In this regard proprietary licenses are even worse communism.

Socialism != communism, fucking read a book before you post your trash here

> GPL has nothing to do with communism
It's not our fault you are incapable to have political thought.
It forces people to never have a business of closed source.
That's pure communism.
If you want true libertarianism support the MIT-type licenses.

I'm just fucking around. I don't give a fuck about free software and GPL.

But I know that you will get fucked if you buy into it. Imagine how much money Linus would have made if his kernel wasn't open source.

Now other companies make billions of dollars with his invention.

Attached: Screenshot 2018-12-22 at 11.18.47.png (540x584, 503K)

> I'm incapable to answer, let's call them young.
Good job brainlet.

>Socialism != communism, fucking read a book before you post your trash here
they both have an equal outcome, collapse of the country which implemented it.

>which still fully qualifies as free software according to the FSF
boo fucking hoo, what good does that fucking technicality do me if I it's shitty overly-specific, brittle, undocumented code that I don't even have access to? I don't need the GPL or "free software" to hire a code monkey to code me a custom solution, but neither I nor you as home users are going to hire a software company to develop custom programs for us

It's not my fault you still rely on memes you read on the internet instead of actually using that simple mind of yours.
First of all, free software does not necessarily mean non-commercial software, it's never been about money or business. You're free to sell copies.
Second, as I already said, 90% of software written in programming jobs is private software only used internally, hence free software.

>Imagine how much money Linus would have made if his kernel wasn't open source.
based and redpilled
fuck the kikes who require you to have worked for free doing open source work just to get a fucking entry level job

Attached: 1540738228644.jpg (1400x745, 272K)

>calling someone a hypocrite without an argument is worthy of a response
Maybe he was young, but you're just retarded.

You see? This is why we need this "freetardizm" or whatever. I only semi care about being full libre, but people really need to take a good whiff of reality - you're nigh-brainwashed into this stupid 'American dream', thinking money must flow like the god damned Niagara falls. You are the one who is 'religious'.

Make nice things, respect your fellow man. If money is all you want man, I feel sorry for you.

> You are stupid because you don't parrot Stallman like I do
How much more brainlet can your get?

Hypocrisy is the argument brainlet. You claimed "lol write your own BSD licensed code" and your little brain didn't think that's the same for the autists that call for everything to be GPLed for them.

what's worse, they guy invented GIT as well. Now GitHub (Microsoft) makes money with his invention.

Luckily he is a Swede and his people are tolerant to getting cúcked. Every other nationality would have blown his brains out by now.

No, closed source companies are communist. When you use their software you must obey the party at all costs and run their spyware/ads on your computer otherwise they come after you. If you try to look behind the iron curtain and change or remove it they come after you. If you try to tell anyone else what they're doing they come after you. Do not be fooled by those pinkos, they are sick.

He would have made zero because nobody would have contributed code to yet another proprietary unix. His main "invention" was to use the GPL to develop a kernel over the internet.

Ok? Free software is not a country.

Microsoft pays him for that.

You conveniently chose to completely ignore what I said and made up a completely different argument ro respond to. That's the definition of a strawman.
Most business rely on software used internally to manage processes and operations. That's by far the majority of software produced when on the job. You yourself rely on private software every day. And that's not the same thing as proprietary software, since you're not running it on your own machines.

> No, closed source companies are communist. When you use their software you must obey the party at all costs and run their spyware/ads on your computer otherwise they come after you.
You are stupid. Totalitarianism comes both from the extreme left and the extreme right.
There is nothing extreme right from BSD-code. It's very benign.
PS. Extreme right would be pure closed source. GPL is extreme left.

Yes you are unironically stupid because you're not parroting Stallman like I do, since you're attacking a concept without even understanding what it means in the first place.

> stupid because you're not parroting
yep, we have master brainlet in the thread

it's not about having a huge money flow, it's jut about building a decent life for yourself and your family.
if you expect people to work for free doing generic corporate and consumer level shit just to help their fellow man, and for this to be any sizable portion of the economy, you are a full on commie, at least admit that.
and I'm not talking about special stuff like helping crippled kids or giving food to the homeless, I get those kind of things which aim to help particularly needy people.
but expecting people to just work on a web browser or a desktop environment or an IDE in their free time and produce something that's not inferior to proprietary products for the average user is just retarded.
next time you see a bricklayer building a library, a cinema or a hospital just to give nice things to the community gimme a call, until then you're a delusional commie

Because it's not, and if you think otherwise, I'm sorry for your mental health.
Wanting code to deliberately be usable in a proprietary product is literally wanting free shit, as in price.
Wanting code to be GPL'd instead means advocating user freedom.
Lay off the memes for once.

he is a fucking genius. he could have done that all by himself, he doesn't need internet community to fix his grammatical errors or improve the readme.

He just needed someone like Steve Jobs to sell his inventions.

Thats why salespeople are the real geniuses.

>He would have made zero because nobody would have contributed code to yet another proprietary unix. His main "invention" was to use the GPL to develop a kernel over the internet.
then how do you explain his success over BSD? anyone who wanted to contribute to an open source project could do it by going the BSD route, and don't tell me they contributed just because they knew their code wasn't going to be incorporated into closed source products, that doesn't seem like a significant incentive to me.
it just seems Linux was technically better than the BSDs in some way. maybe because it was coded for x86 and the other Unixes of the time weren't and the few that were ported ran bad because they were shitty second-thought ports, and Minix was an ultra-minimalistic piece of shit

Your characterisations are meaningless, stop trying to simplify things in your mind by making them a fight between left and right, you will never be able to understand anything beyond basic comparisons if you keep doing that. Depending on the situation BSD license can be non-benign because it provides no protection for the user.

Most free software is written by paid developers at companies.

He already has thousands of sales people. BTW Linus hasn't written code in years and also the kernel is millions of lines of code at this point and it's foolish to think one person could do that.

There was also a timing thing, BSD had some legal issues and was not released publicly until a few years after Linux, also people had already been using GNU for years on other unixes, it had more features than BSD but there was a need for a kernel for it.

>Most free software is written by paid developers at companies.
and that was OPs point
the open source software that gets released from companies is unusable and brittle because it was written just for private use and not intended as fire and forget product from a company that actually expects to get paid for going to the effort to make it usable from people outside the people who specified the requirements for the software
either that or it gets overcomplicated as fuck on purpose to sell support contracts to the people who use it

The point is that you build a decent life for your country (a country you can respect), not just your family. You will keep your family fed by supporting software. But if you lack faith in your fellow man, why should others have faith in you? Why should countries exist if such is true? Can you not see the destructiveness of this behavior, where instead of people having a reason to be together for synergy, a country exists merely as some institution that collects taxes and has a military.

People lay roads for everyone to use, generate electricity, butcher animals and collect crops. But on the other hand, we have people making cars who are purposefully difficult to repair and will die fast so that a new one is bought ASAP. Making phones who are planned to be obsolete, developers selling their souls for that half a dollar worth of info their software will mine from you. Do you not see this as a sad turn of events? You are competing against your own fellow. If there were a war going on, he would carry you over his shoulder though mud while you're bleeding out. Evil people make this to be a race, don't help them realize it.

Based.

yeah, but he probably makes more money of his youtube channel

>the open source software that gets released from companies is unusable and brittle because it was written just for private use
Another strawman. You know he didn't mean the same free software that actually gets released.

>You will keep your family fed by supporting software
if you make the software easy to use like proprietary devs generally try to do, nobody will buy support because they'll all figure it out by themselves
do you think companies like to shell out for support if they could have their local IT guy set up everything for them?
>But on the other hand, we have people making cars who are purposefully difficult to repair and will die fast so that a new one is bought ASAP. Making phones who are planned to be obsolete, developers selling their souls for that half a dollar worth of info their software will mine from you. Do you not see this as a sad turn of events?
That's from bigger societal issues that freetardism won't solve, at best it'll provide temporary localized patches and generally result in inferior products because it's not easy to compete with multi-billionaire dollar companies. neither right to repair will fix a society that allows itself to be kiked left and right by corporations and politicians

If you paid nothing for it then don't be surprised when they don't give a shit about your requirements. This is the same whether it's free or proprietary.
Also a benefit of free software is that if it really is too complicated then another company could easily come along and simplify it to sell cheaper support contracts. Because of this all companies dealing in the software are incentivized to improve their support, unlike proprietary where you get vendor locked in and they have no reason to even answer your phone calls when they know you can't switch.

You know what really grinds my gears?
Google, Amazon, IBM, etc. use open source software and make billions without throwing something back. Some ~100k$ engineer is fixing the Linux kernel by issuing a pull request, while some JavaScript monkey at Google is grabbing ~200k$ for just existing.

Attached: toilet.png (472x435, 108K)

boo fucking hoo, what good does that do to me if I don't even have access to the code? I don't need the GPL or "free software" to hire a code monkey to code me a custom solution, but neither I nor you as home users are going to hire a software company to develop custom programs for us, that just a meme freetards spout to justify their myth that anyone can adapt """free software""" to their needs when it's obviously false. if people weren't constrained by money and time spent everybody might as well develop their own private solutions for everything. freetards living in lalaland as always

Companies had to contribute back their changed, polishing the product and making it more attractive to other companied.
Linus enslaved the companies into taking care of his baby.
Full authorithan communism.

if the software is both shit and they provide no support then nobody is going to buy the software in the first place you fucking retard.
if the software isn't shit then you can figure it out by yourself 99% of the time.
but let's be honest here, the average home user can afford to make a one time purchase of software without support and if the software is well written they'll figure it out themselves or a friend or family member will, but how many home users have the money to buy a contract service agreement with Redhat? the whole support thing spouted by freetards is just a retarded meme

As RMS said, "If I am the father of open source then it was through artificial insemination with stolen sperm". Open source began in the late 1990s as a way to distance a brand of free software from the inherent ideology of free software.

if the software was licensed by machine then they'd not only have to contribute back the changes, but pay him a shitload more money than the employee level salary he's receiving now
not that great to have your software taken care of when you aren't getting paid when people use it, is it?
think about it, it must be really sad to have you OS be used probably in more processor cores than Windows and yet be living on an engineer salary just like a fucking s󠀀oyboy front end dev at google

You project your inadequacies on others. Just because you can't fix programs does not mean others can't either. Using a product, even a physical one as some cheap whore that gets thrashed as soon as some vulnerability or defect shows up is not a good way to do things. It may be profitable, but it's shit.
Why would they pay their local IT guy to set it up for them when they can pay an offical (You)? People and companies alike pay for subscriptions, I don't really see where you're aiming at. And for your other point: It's about doing your part. If you won't even pretend to push the cart, do others have any reason to help you?

as a marketing term sure, but if you take it to mean software that is distributed with its source, then it goes way back than stallkike, most of the time not allowing to redistribute, actually, so you can't say it was "free software". it was just open source, just like it should've have been if it wasn't for the fat jew

>proprietary software
>easy to use
>don't milk their customers for support and consulting
I take it you've never worked for a company that uses oracle or SAP

>Freetardism
Only a slave would disparage another man for being free.

>That's from bigger societal issues that [free software] won't solve
Correct, however free software is necessary to even begin solving those issues.

They don't have to contribute back, although they are incentivized to do so. There are a lot more forks of the kernel than just ones that get mainlined.

Your whole post is pointless, RHEL is not a product for home users.

Fucking retard.
You think google and netflix are selling support for their dev tools/libs?
Their tools are free software because they get contributions back and it gets easier to hire. Their tools get better and famous and people want to work for them even more, and if they are hired they will know already how to use certain tools.
Improving your tools and hiring better is just one part of fit. There is also the economy part of commonizing the software that your paid product depends on. Trivial example: you are a hardware company, you want free software to explode the number of things users can do on your hardware so you can sell more hardware. This for new things/concepts. Unneed if software is already common.
There plenty of need for free software besides the ethical "i want to own what runs on my machine"

Open source misses the point of free software.

>You project your inadequacies on others. Just because you can't fix programs does not mean others can't either.
Oh, nice personal attack you fucking retard. Sure, everybody is going to code their personal kernel modules, whatever. Your rotten brain isn't worth arguing with.

Google has 300k$ engineers commiting to the kernel.
Every big tech commits to the kernel. And trust me, big companies pay a lot. And niches like systems C pay even more.

The post I was replying to is a personal attack. The poster (you, I suppose) claims that 1."freetards" are 2."spouting memes" and 3."justifying myths" that they are 4. incapable of modifying code of FOSS. There's more buy I care not list them. This post is no better - it comes right back with more.

If it was licensed it wouldn't be widly adopted. Lot's of companies adopted it in early days because of both frees (libre and gratis)
Without an explosion of use it wouldn't reach today's quality. Over 15k people committed on the kernel.
Remember it's roots, a student in his basement creating it, people over the internet helping him and commiting to it. Some guys deciding to use it in some hardware, and let the snowball roll.
No way linux would reach it's status as most deployed kernel if it was paid.
Linux is THE kernel. At least the only one that matters.

Not sure what you're talking about, as a home user there are many ways you can hire developers to work on things. I have known many people who do this.
Well no, the company that made them should write the kernel module. If they don't you should complain or go with a different vendor.

Money is the objective measurement of doing nice things.

Why are they burying core0?

core0 is a rich jew, and they want to kill it and take its property

he ded

>You just want free shit, snowflake.
look what he wrote:
>"It's free". Bullshit.

He said he wants free shit, then you come along and say "hurr durr you just want free shit, am i right?"
Yes you fucking retard, that's what he said.

Attached: Screenshot_2018-12-19-23-29-17.png (1280x235, 52K)

Linus is paid lots and more thousands lots of cash for the whole GNU/Linux system through the Linux Foundation, which gets the moneys from all sorts of big companies like Google, Microsoft, Facebook, IBM, anyone who wants a piece of the cake.

>Richard Stallman killed the future of open source
Good to see him still fighting. Free Software has been the best for people all along while Open Source introduced cancers like Android.

Google only cares about Linux, not GNU. Only IBM really cares about GNU.

gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

>You restrict people from closing it and having a business.
This statement reflects a common misconception which I feel needs to be addressed.

Holding a copyright does not give you any particular freedoms, what it does give you is a set of powers granted by the state in order to govern how others can copy the work (or not).

You can choose to use these powers to restrict people's copy with a proprietary license, you can choose to give people freedom to copy and modify by using copyleft, or you can go permissive/public domain and transfer many of those powers to the user, allowing them to make the decision again. By doing this you aren't giving the user freedom for themselves, you're giving them the ability to exercise power over others, which are not the same things.

Does that make sense? I think it is fair to prefer some things to be permissively licensed but it is misleading to conflate that with increased freedom when that clearly is not the case.

just use windows, enjoy your life and don't think botnet meme.

I follow a few heuristics in my daily affairs:
- don't trust people with too much melanin
- don't follow the advice of people of hebrew descent, especially if they happen to be communists.

It has served me well.

kys greedy jew.

Go home, Microsoft. You're drunk.

>"Open source will automatically make a project good"
Only a proprietary brainlet could vomit out such a statement.

Dear Asshole, you are not even fit to eat the corn out of Stallman's shit.

Attached: maxresdefault(1).jpg (1920x1080, 39K)

A GPL'd code helps workers to own their means of production and thus retaining 100% of the surplus value they make, the definition of communism.
Not that I think that's a bad thing.

This is really disappointing.

>t. retarded normie
You are like cattle to them

Stallman somehow responsible for the lack of free will of peops ayayayayyy