What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
80 Comments
- lolwutpear, on 05/17/2009, -7/+44The first line of Stallman's article cracks me up: "You may be running non-free programs on your computer every day without realizing it—through your web browser."
It reminds me of those things you see on network news broadcasts about some "life-threatening substance that most people have IN THEIR OWN HOME. DO YOU? Story at 11." - qwer777, on 05/17/2009, -3/+30free as in gratis != free as in libre
doesn't have to be $0 to be open source. - benologist, on 05/17/2009, -3/+26The article's garbage. They begin by arguing against relying on software as a service aka "teh cloudzzzzzzz" - a valid argument, since a lot of stuff that's "in teh cloudz!!!" is really stuff you could and should be running locally anyway - and then they start rambling on about JavaScript which is about as relevant as what color my underwear is. The underlying argument is you're relying absolutely on someone else, it doesn't matter what language/s they used to develop their hosted software.
- altgeeky1, on 05/17/2009, -1/+20You mean open source projects which make money from free software?
Sendmail
MySQL
Red Hat (yes, a distro DOES count)
SuSE
Ubuntu
even Mozilla
Some of these are sponsored projects, but that in itself is a direct result of demand for open source. The point is if you create something valuable and useful on a daily basis, you'll make money.
The trick is to come up with something NEEDED, and possibly "disruptful" (replacing a more expensive, proprietary technology...).
Do niche or vertical apps work as open source? Not usually. Not now anyways. - twiztidsinz, on 05/17/2009, -11/+29LOL!
That's so cool and original how you use "$" inplace of the "S" in "MS"!!! - akphidelt, on 05/17/2009, -15/+31If you develop something wouldn't you want to get paid for it?
- eugene2k, on 05/17/2009, -2/+18I think Linus said it all, when he said: "Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested. 99% of that I run tends to be open source, but that's _my_ choice, dammit."
- vbgamer45, on 05/17/2009, -4/+19I agree why would you work for free do not see other trades doing work for free why should programmers work for free. I tried for a while users hardly ever donate and or contribute to the projects.
- altgeeky1, on 05/17/2009, -1/+15That's a very interesting statement, considering you knew before you said it, that open source folks don't provide "24/7 servers".. they provide code.
There ARE OSS projects doing things Google does. Maybe too many projects. Webmail and calendars have been around for AGES.
Much of the value in Google's apps are how they've tied things together waith such polish. If you think about it, that's exactly what a Linux distribution does.. takes existing code, and adds integration and polish value to it.
Forgetting Google's servers for a moment, there's a pretty strong disincentive to clone Google's polish and integration... they're doing a good job, and avoid being too evil. Should OSS projects take on every project in the world just because it's proprietary? Probably not. Maybe if Google turns evil... - dusanmal, on 05/17/2009, -0/+12Open Source obsession aside, author makes one much bigger "prediction" mistake many do these days:
"In 10 years' time your desktop computer will almost certainly run nearly all your programs over the internet, with your OS being a relatively thin shell that fires up a web browser and points you towards the net."
Just because "cloud" is fashionable these days doesn't mean it will dominate the future. Issue these predictions fail to see is that hardware is still on the path of cheaper-more powerful. "Cloud computing" missed its day back at the time of mainframes. If we have had internet capacity of today at that time, "cloud" could have gotten the foothold. But, nowadays and in predictable future (10 yrs) there is simply no reason to rely completely on web-services (because of damn' powerful damn' cheap local machines). To match local capabilities for millions of users at the time web services need both good net' infrastructure (which at least in USA providers are not wiling to provide reasonably) and still expensive supercomputing capabilities just to come close to what can be done locally (and cheaply).
"Cloud" will be very useful part of the future computing but I bet you'll still do most at your local PC. My bet would be on "personal clouds" - your own server at home you could access from where ever you are, caring less for Google (or anyone else) apps' online. And without any (really unnecessary) services to do so from other parties (ex. today's GoToMyPC). Open Source will certainly have solutions for that. Proprietary OS's will match it. Matter of taste. - GiggleStick, on 05/17/2009, -0/+12It's a trick question, he's not wearing any.
- SPThom, on 05/17/2009, -3/+13Sensationalized BS. I love open-source, but most of the complaints about the "Javascript Trap" aren't even practical. Of course web companies are going to try to obfuscate their javascript... They have business models, and too bad, so sad, those business models don't include handing you all the building blocks for free.
This is one of those "free beer vs. free recipe for beer" arguments that bores me to tears. Don't like it? Don't drink it. If you want your own open-source Google Doc clone, go build it. - TomKarpik, on 05/17/2009, -14/+24I don't see the open-source crowd providing a just-as-capable replacement for Gmail, Google Calendars, Office Live, complete with 24/7 reliable servers.
Until the whiners put up, I say they should shut up. - FyberOptic, on 05/17/2009, -5/+15Stallman is a nutjob, and anyone else who is worried about the Javascript in their browser not being "free" is just as bad. If you want to use somebody's website, then you take what comes with it. Modifying them to use your own code to interact with their servers would arguably be against most terms of service in the first place.
If you don't like something about a website, then don't use it. It's that simple. No ifs, ands, or buts. - Rekutyn, on 05/17/2009, -5/+13This article is terrible.
- Dr.Neko, on 05/16/2009, -13/+20Thanks for the article. This brought up my awareness on the trap. I don't want us to go in circles with online closed-source apps.
- KAMiKAZOW, on 05/17/2009, -1/+8No, because you are still free to spread it. You are not free to put words into his mouth he never said.
- brianpeiris, on 05/17/2009, -0/+7@akphidelt I think you missed the point. The article does not claim that all software *must* be free. It just says that if a company decides to make software closed-source (whether or not it is free to use) it should include meta-data that informs the user of it's non-open nature and licensing details.
It's not about forcing anyone to do anything. It's just about making people aware of the services they use. - MindStalker, on 05/17/2009, -1/+8His real argument isn't such the "javascript is evil" or anything like that, but his real argument is don't trust the internet sites for services that are vital for your business.
- StormyAaron, on 05/17/2009, -0/+6Vbgamer, the (official) Windows version of Xchat.
- Choobie, on 05/17/2009, -1/+6What color is your underwear? It very well could be relevant but we don't know until you tell us.
/s
(but seriously, what color is it?) - tdmeth, on 05/17/2009, -1/+6I liked his stuff until I read this one. I really don't see why he feels "If it's not open source, it is PURE MOLTEN EVIL!" Yes, open source is an important part of the community, but privately created/maintained software is what has brought us to where we are today. Without it, computers would only be used by the 2% of the population who use Linux. (And yes, for the record, I do use Linux.)
- jackflap, on 05/16/2009, -1/+6Richard Stallman should read http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.0694v2
- alexforcefive, on 05/17/2009, -2/+7Copyright © 2009 Future Publishing, all rights reserved
- SwabTheDeck, on 05/17/2009, -1/+6Buried for not actually having anything to do with linux.
- sartan, on 05/17/2009, -4/+8This sounds a little biased and loaded;
No -- Running GPL code on your server, and serving content based on that code, isn't a loophole, or technicality. Nobody is distributing /code/. This is not being repackaged, nor stolen. This is really the exact thing that makes open source just great and fine. If I need to patch something in my webserver to write my own module - so be it! The Affero GPL is anti-productive to the open source community; Corporations rely on the open-endedness of the GPL in order for them to be able to use said software. Imagine not being able to use apache /at all/, simply because it was GPL, and simply because you had to change a few lines of code. Affero has high hopes, but immediately you'll lose enterprise support and resource dedication of GPL projects.
"Identi.ca is a service that's built on the GNU Affero GPL, which is a modified version of the GPL that closes a loophole enabling people to make alterations to GPL software without releasing those changes. (The GPL says you must release your changes only when you distribute them and technically web servers aren't distributing code, as they're run at the server.)" - NoDitchDigging, on 05/17/2009, -3/+7It seems that way sometimes. Every time I see Stallman ranting about yet another technology that is evil and non-free yet powers an enormous portion of the world's IT infrastructure, I start to see the parallels. Not just religion, but in politics too. Religious and political zealots commonly demonize everything that is not explicitly their idea.
- vbgamer45, on 05/17/2009, -7/+10Name a couple projects that are paid but open source? Not too many most of them are spun off into a free version based on the source.
- AngelaQ, on 05/17/2009, -2/+5It's all about redefining the word "free" to mean "open source".
- Hellahulla, on 05/17/2009, -1/+4Best point so far. You get a dig and a cookie.
- secrity, on 05/17/2009, -1/+4Many projects are started to satisfy a need of the original author. Many people contribute to projects for recognition or ego. Many companies contribute code, hours, and equipment to FOSS projects.
- jamesmcm, on 05/17/2009, -0/+3Free as in freedom, not price.
This is especially true of online services where it is much more the service you are paying for than the software itself. - kdorf, on 05/17/2009, -6/+9Does anybody else find it ironic that Stallman's article is licensed under "Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0"? (see the bottom of the page)
- deroderugridder, on 05/17/2009, -2/+4this is just an anti-google article.
Thought it would talk about the danger of using Ajax frameworks which are not open-source.
In other words which will cripple your site the moment the company hosting them is no longer providing them online. - FKnight, on 05/17/2009, -0/+2@argoff:
So do you know where I can get the source code for Google Docs? - tuxchick, on 05/20/2009, -0/+2So how is that different from what RMS said? He is advocating giving us the tools and information to make informed choices. I guess that is wrong?
- 5Horizons, on 05/17/2009, -5/+7He's calling for something that an insignificant number of people care about.
- brassrocket, on 05/17/2009, -4/+6Man, a lot of mad folks here. All Stallman is calling for is a way for Javascript apps to identify their licensing terms so that people who don't want to run closed code as a matter of principle don't have to. He mentions a mod to NoScript as well as a way for browsers to search for Free-license alternatives. What's the problem?
- popfrogs2, on 05/17/2009, -0/+2What's the point of yet another licensing scheme, when the FreeBSD license fits the bill perfectly? It's for dicks that want to snatch something free from the community and lock the code away in their vault and even release a commercial product without compensating the creators of said code.
I realize this is somewhat practical for many industries (such as defense, where reinventing the wheel is a waste of time but releasing the modified source could have national security implications), but that's why it exists as it does, to be a viable alternative to the GNU model and cover exceptions. - PrestoVivace, on 06/03/2009, -0/+1For those who are interested, my notes on Richard Stallman's presentation to the Yorktown High School Free Software Club http://technoflak.blogspot.com/2004/03/richard-sta ...
- PrestoVivace, on 06/03/2009, -0/+1Corrent URL
http://technoflak.blogspot.com/2004/04/richard-sta ... - popfrogs2, on 05/17/2009, -0/+1Yeah, everyone making these cloud predictions is basing them on the current Gmail and Google Apps scenario. It assumes that everyone will be connected all the time, which although sounds great as a concept, fails the litmus test with reality. Thanks to dead zones, rural areas, mountainous regions, etc. many things will still need to be stored and run locally for end users.
There are pluses and minuses to cloud concepts, the major minus being that you don't house your own data (which means it's not yours to lose) but which also means you depend on a third party to store and protect your data. Anyone that has dealt with a hosting provider can easily imagine data leaks between virtualized servers becoming a problem in the future. - argoff, on 05/17/2009, -1/+2I think it's important to differentiate between a natural monopoly, and an unnatural monopoly. A natural monopoly is like where if I owned my gas station on a popular intersection, nobody is forced to use it, but the very position of my location steers customers my way and makes me money. An unnatural monopoly would be where if I had a cozy relationship with a city bureaucrat who imposed and granted gas station licenses. And I got a license, but nobody else in town did.
Microsoft had an unnatural monopoly. They gained their position by using copyright regulations to pound down anybody who dared use their OS without permission, or a licensing fee. Google is a natural monopoly. They own the brand name, they own the fat pipes, and they own the powerful data centres. Now maybe someday google will decide to pound down anybody who dare uses a copy of gmail, but since javascript contains the source, that kind of strategy is unlikely to succeed. With a little bit of tweaking, any competent engineer could make a perfect reverse engineered copy. Anyone with a big data centre and big pipes could take them on, and take them down if they got too arrogant. Notice how yahoo wouldn't let people pop email without charge, and so eventually people got fed up and migrated to google in mass.
The GPL was good, not because it forced people to share, but because it made it so you couldn't criminalize people for copying. So far, it seems the reality with online web apps is that is not an issue. - StupidTook, on 05/17/2009, -1/+2The problem with Stallman and other opensource geeks is that they value the fact of using free software more than anything else. They are okay with all shortcomings and defects of free soft because they hardly do any serious work with it. The ultimate goal of their work on computer is To Have Only Free Software Installed.
"The Javascript Trap" is complete WTF from the very first line to the end. I would've thought it was a neat joke if it was posted 1,5 months earlier. Keep up the good work, Richard, people should know the truth about mental health of open source community. - Emused, on 06/01/2009, -0/+1Well Mr. Dicksmack, if you had ever seen a corporate licensing agreement from M$, you might understand the "$" sign.
- MtheoryX, on 05/17/2009, -1/+2...it's beginning to sound a lot... like... linuuuuxxxx....ev'ry where you go...
/singing - LingNoi, on 05/17/2009, -2/+3Stallman lives in his freedom bubble. He used to be relevant however after almost completing his life time goal of GNU (which he wrongfully claims all credit for) he's becoming more distant with pathetic attempts like this.
- jim5272, on 05/18/2009, -0/+1This is NOT trivial... Sure for a programmer it may be, but for G-Ma trying to look at clothes to buy online and gets a popup "DANGER NON FREE CODE ABOUT TO BE RUN!!!!!!!!"
Ya right, let's get serious people, free is only important if you can still feed your families! - TomKarpik, on 05/18/2009, -0/+1I understand the server-client divide clearly, being a UNIX sysadmin and all ...
The OSS people only have part of the picture -- they provide software that is capable of doing some of these things, but it's up to companies like Google to provide the service itself. And if you're sitting there using a free service on Google's servers, what right do you have to complain about Google or what they may or may not be doing?
It costs money to set up, maintain, and keep running a datacenter or two (or 100) of servers -- money the OSS crowd could only dream of (and I'm not counting the likes of Redhat (etc.) here, they have their own story). -
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is