Absolute state of /world

>I can't believe /g doesn't agree with this guy
Jow Forums loves Stallman. I'm not sure why you would think that.

the people who don't like stallman are microcucks or people who have heard exaggerations of his opinions from somewhere else
all the dude wants is for software not to spy on people so they can have their privacy. what's to hate about that?

>It's another Shillman thread episode
Privacy is dead, and that old fat fuck is just minutes away from death too.

Attached: 1519191179508.png (1012x1088, 552K)

I'll be fired if I throw out my smartphone and only dare to communicate via e-mail after work ...
I need to bring food to the table is sometimes more important than the ideals I support

That's simply not true.
I actually have an idea, that might be super shit and I think Stallman would never agree.
I think proprietary software is necessary, some software will never pay the programmer's salary when open source, but when it somes to spying my idea is:
All desktop software uses an approve network interface, it can use an anonymized DRM but it will never share private information nor install any additional software.
This will not work for webshit, but would it held for desktop software?

pls respond

Attached: 1526080087040.jpg (278x278, 36K)

DRM will never truly work, but being close-sourced wouldn't be too different and the programmer could still get paid while not harming anyone. Technically doesn't even have to be proprietary, could be under BSD-0 and just have the source unavailable.

probably /lit/

But seriously guys. I think RMS philosophy is nice, but I really don't subscribe to it. I think a 1 copy per PC kind of model is fair as long as the user agreed to it.
Is there a way to route all network traffic of a software that only needs anonymized data (like cpu id) for copy protection reasons to be routed through a single .dll?
There could be a software that opens a winsocket let's say outside of that .dll as a virus.
Is that idea shit in principle, is it ok but not possible to implement? Or is it worth thinking about?

Think about making a free world with less bads, instead of painting the shackles silver. That's my take.

I think we will disagree on that.
My proposed solution could have a negative impact if very big corporations use it (I am open to discussion) but for most software, if you pay a price that you agreed to, and there is virtually no chance the software will spy on you, why is it bad?

Without free hardware, free software is pointless from a privacy point of view. Why don't more people care about non-botnetted hardware?

Trying to follow his philosophy is like being a vegan, you have to make a lot of efforts and even then there is a possibility that you make a mistake

that's a gross oversimplification of what he wants. he wants all software to be free, and only services on that software to be monetized. He thinks if you write something cool, and someone wants to pay you for it, that shouldn't be allowed. That's where he loses me. I think all software should be open source because you wouldn't purchase any other product where you weren't allowed to see what's inside, but I think people should be able to make money off the products of their labor. Stallman is a communist.

Users of nonfree software are not welcomed on Jow Forums. Go someplace else.

>why is it bad
I'm pretty sure that isn't how networking works, but let's assume it does: Who makes the standard and the software for this proposed anonymization? If it's made by corps and is not libre, all you've done is make more restrictions and added a bit of privacy in a field that shouldn't compromise it in the first place. The potential is catastrophic, and it is fair to assume that no operating system besides Windows would have access to this, making the alternatives less viable.

If we assume that this thing would be libre and have no bad actors influencing its creation and growth, you're still adding another thing that can break and might be a security hole. Hell, it could possibly make it even easier to circumvent DRM, considering the thing will have to be standardized somehow.

You don't need to follow Stallman's word perfectly. He gets things wrong like everyone else. That doesn't mean the direction he's headed is bad. My take for example is that the GPL itself is more of a teaching and that it wasn't intented to rule the world, so to speak. It's meant to make people to see information from a different perspective than the one that is forced upon us today, a non-scarce resource that we can use to better our lives, learn and create. I personally don't buy the whole 'people won't make money' thing. I'm certain that demand for software development will go down, but so what? We'd get less shitty apps and whatnot, and the oroduction climate would be colder. It would be a much better environment than today's 'thrust me not to stab you in the back' deal you get.
Privacy isn't an all or nothing affair. You have to start somewhere anyway.
>Why don't more people care about non-botnetted hardware?
There's an intel IME thread almost daily. Why do you think people wish death upon x86?
Nowhere does he say that paying for software is bad. It's perfectly fine in his eyes, as long as the software is libre.

You're a retard, he has said VERY specifically that paying for software is bad. It's why he used to use Red Hat as an example for monetizing free software, providing the software for 0 burgers but charging for support.

gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html

it's the reason Linus finally told the FSF to go fuck themselves with GPLv3, they want to even go so far as to limit what writers of code can do with it, and what people who contribute to that code do with it. They unironically want to have a totalitarian grasp of the software world where they get to decide whether or not you make money off of your software and how you do it.

take your meds

dilate

I guess it could be a security hole, but as it seems a lot of software has some kind of DRM. Wouldn't it be better if we had some kind of open source solution?
From my intuition, at leas MacOS must have something that makes that possible, not only Windows. My goal would be to minimize the impact of spying, in my opinion DRm without spying is not immoral as long as the user agrees.

have sex, lads

>I can't believe /g doesn't agree with this guy. He is 100% right.
He's not. He makes a few good points then taints them with autism and cult doctrine/new-speak.

you say that like it's a conspiracy theory and not explicitly stated by himself on his own website.

We must seize the means of development, comrades!

>You're a retard, he has said VERY specifically that paying for software is bad.
And yet I hear all the time how GPL is ok for commercial use, since you can charge for your work.

I read it once and skimmed through it just now and I found nothing similar to your claim. Can you point it out for me, please?
>it's the reason Linus finally told the FSF to go fuck themselves with GPLv3
I'm pretty sure it's because Linus has misunderstood some things about GPLv3 and because the Tivoization clause.
>Wouldn't it be better if we had some kind of open source solution?
The point of DRM is to restrict, or more commonly, delay the amount of time it takes for a crack to appear. Next to no one would agree to making an open source solution, because unless you've made incredible progress on DRM technology (unlikely to even be possible), the DRM makers themselves understand that it's just a matter of time before it's broken.
>My goal would be to minimize the impact of spying
And this is one of the main reasons why libre software is important. It allows us to see the code that would spy, and make a fork with that code removed for everyone to use. If no one but the maker has access to the source, you only have blind trust. If it's open source but restricted, no one can redistribute it after they've improved it.
>in my opinion DRm without spying is not immoral as long as the user agrees.
I'm not sure what you're implying, but for me the only moral kind of spying is done by government agencies that have acquired a warrant.

>He thinks if you write something cool, and someone wants to pay you for it, that shouldn't be allowed.
He has never once stated that he cares if software is free as in gratis. This is what I mean. You heard an exaggeration his opinions from somewhere else. In any interview with him with the inevitable “So no software should cost money” question comes up he always respond that he doesn’t give a shit if its gratis or not.

Much easier to ignore unpleasant instances of the truth

take your meds

>You're a retard, he has said VERY specifically that paying for software is bad.
What he means is that paying for a license of a digital copy of a program is retarded, as you can make unlimited copies.
He doesn't see anything wrong with paying for a physical copy.

There are atleast 3 GPL licenses out there. GPL3 being the most restrictive, and why the linux kernel still uses v2

when he turned into anti-survelliance preacher and why his opinion about this topic matters?

4chinks is proprietary -- which completely invalidates this video. And this board.

Jow Forums isn't a software

Every device you use is running proprietary code, the website your reading this on is proprietary, the electricity you're using was generated and transmitted using proprietary code, and the list goes on including all the proprietary code in the linux kernel. But don't worry about it, its ok to be a hypocrite because the head hypocrite said so.

I eat my own toe skin. I also like to chew on my to nails which I remove using my finger nails. There's nothing wrong with it. In fact it's very good for you.

Just because the current state of things is bad doesn't mean we shouldn't try and push for improvement. We all make mistakes, proprietary software and hardware are just two of them. You don't see cars going to the scrap yard when their bumper is ruined. Giving it your best and running 95% freedom software and reducing your data leaks to the government only are much, much better than what the average computer/phone user has. They are not an all or nothing affair.

newfag spotted

I hate the way that stupid fucking pajeet yells at him like a low IQ monkey, shut the fuck up and let the man explain.

where you came form

the pajeet went full 'VILL YOU LET ME TALK'

why use .org for your personal page

one shekel has been deposited into your account

Stallman needs to lose 150 pounds before he is allowed to have opinions

Attached: why_rms_sucks.jpg (1000x898, 194K)

This has never even installed gnu/Linux let alone used a respectable distro like arch or gentoo. His opinion is of no valid.

>/g doesn't agree with this guy
But we do

Attached: 1455380184235.png (129x131, 28K)

Except he wants a proprietary government to steal your libre. He is a self contradicting braindead commie

I always suspect these comments are done by legit CIAniggers

Attached: t fbi.jpg (600x712, 29K)

Not an argument.

Most people on Jow Forums do agree with Stallman when it comes to software and megacorporations.
Only contrarian nu-Jow Forums LARPers don't.

You could still stop using Jow Forums. I thought proprietary software is always bad?

>he wants all software to be free, and only services on that software to be monetized.
See? You too heard a distorted version of his views from somewhere else instead of directly reading his writings and the FSF's.
Free software means, and has always meant, free as in freedom, not price. Stallman never opposed selling software itself for money, nor did the FSF. Hell, he even sold Emacs back in the day.

There is no reason to buy software if you can get the code for free.

You don't necessarily get to have the code for free. And still, that doesn't refute what I said.

t. schizo

Why don't I get the code for free? Once one person buys it they will start sharing the code.

Linux is still GPL2 because Linus is retarded and doesn't understand the implications of tivoization.

That article doesn't really say that paying for software in itself is bad. In fact, RMS himself did sell his software oftentimes.
What's bad is paying for restrictive licenses.

>see that guy again
>wonder if he asked the crew filming the interview if the camera lens was open source or proprietary
>laugh

For all the people who are bringing up gratis vs libre, yes he sold Emacs way back when. That time is over and it has been for a long time. We don't sell software on tape anymore. Bringing that up is completely pointless and unhelpful because you're just dodging the question with a bullshit answer. Selling support or patch services are the only ways to make money, especially on AGPL3. Good fucking luck. If you're not freelancing already you're probably not cut out for that kind of work anyway. Stallman can say all these things because he already has the job of just saying these things. I'm not saying he's all bad but out him in the position of realistically cutting it as a programmer without starving and see how long he lasts.

Then sell support or patch services. You complain about this but don't complain about how the only way to make money with proprietary software is to attack the user's freedom.

This exact bullshit is what got us X as a service. rm -rf yourself user.

stallman.org(anism)

take your meds