What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
43 Comments
- inactive, on 01/04/2009, -13/+35MrBuryMan.
- WithMyMind, on 01/05/2009, -3/+20I don't think open source is slowing down any time soon. As users become more tech-savvy, the demand only goes up.
I know we're not really fans of MrBabyMan, but can we just bury him instead of repeating the same discussion on the comment boards of every power-user submission? It is one thing to express your discontent with Digg's current state. It is another to worsen that state by flaming the submitter rather than discussing the actual content. - benologist, on 01/05/2009, -3/+15Silly. Linux Torvalds invented Linus who then went on to invent Linux.
- javaroast, on 01/04/2009, -2/+13Typical horrible techradar copy editing.
- jamesmcm, on 01/05/2009, -1/+12You should switch to GNU/Linux to defend your own freedom. Freedom from DRM and corporate interests.
I strongly suggest you read:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fsfs/rms-essays.pdf
and
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm
And watch:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277 ...
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9WaI6lZBSU - dikitian, on 01/05/2009, -0/+9Actually, free software is as prevalent as it ever was, probably more so now that it has been embraced by the corporate world. I work as a software engineer writing closed source code, yet 90% of all projects I have worked on are made from GNU software, or some equivalent. The other 10% is just us putting it all together so it does what we want. Even the higher ups understand that it is much more fiscally smart to donate $10,000 or so to a GNU project, and have the developers change something they may not like, than to spend $250,000 on pay software, and get the runaround from the company when you don't like what they are producing.
- mrzali, on 01/05/2009, -2/+9The 4 freedoms should be in bullet point and put it this way;
* To run the program as you wish. (Freedom 0)
* To study the source code, and change it so the program does what you wish. (Freedom 1)
* To redistribute exact copies when you wish. (Freedom 2)
* To distribute copies of your modified versions, when you wish. (Freedom 3)
Otherwise people will refer to different freedom.
source: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html - mckooiker, on 01/05/2009, -0/+5I dug you up, since you got a point in saying that "the average user" (like me and you) will never hire a developer to customize your browser and probably do not have the knowledge to customize it ourselves.
In that sense the analogy with houses is wrong.
However the example from Stallman about houses does give an idea about the freedom one is missing with closed source software. Even if you WOULD LIKE to change the source code of IE, you may not.
Maybe a better analogy could be the walls of your house? Some people paint it red, some blue, some put flower-wallpaper on it, some green wallpaper, some hire someone who does that and some do it themselves....... - mckooiker, on 01/05/2009, -0/+5The beauty of Open Source is that you can use the source code that is already there, improving it. So it saves the programmer a lot of time, since he/she can reuse the source code, accellerating the writing of the programs. So in the end the development of open source programs will go much faster than writing closed source programs, where you should re-invent the wheel again and again.
- Atomic1fire, on 01/05/2009, -0/+4I think somebody already recognized that little spelling error...
- krahzee, on 01/05/2009, -5/+8I am not a MBM fan. Let me get that out there. He is part of the group of power users on digg we all whine about.
That having been said, you' ve been a member since Jan 2008, and all you have ever said is "**** you MrBabyMan". 19 comment all saying the EXACT same thing. Hysterical
Either you don't have the balls to say it on your regular account, which is hysterical, or this is your only account and you have nothing else to say. you decide which is funnier.
At least get enough balls to type *****. It's ok, we're big boys and girls we can handle a few *****, ***** and ***** every now and then. I've even been known to throw a ***** in every now and then. - Sokkratez, on 01/05/2009, -1/+4I guess it's all about choice until someone chooses to ask a question?
- PinkyTheWinky, on 01/06/2009, -0/+3"Also, I wonder if freedom 2 would be more meaningful if we could develop languages and programming techniques that would make writing code easy enough for anyone to do it."
There are many easy programming languages, but people shut their brains off when they see code. Anyone can program, but they are too lazy to learn. - scy1192, on 01/05/2009, -0/+3you rebel
- mathcreative, on 01/06/2009, -0/+2Open Source is freedom, not free. Cause Freedom isn't free, even though it's suppost to be.
- mathcreative, on 01/06/2009, -0/+2Why is their a freedom 0. Freedom 1 is freedom 0. To really run the program as you wish, you must have the freedom to analyze the code and change it.
- anagoge, on 01/05/2009, -7/+9Is that honestly the level of intellect you possess?
Look at brickfoot's comment history: http://digg.com/users/brickfoot89 That's awfully sad. - Paulmeirense, on 01/05/2009, -0/+2ok
- JonForTheWin, on 01/05/2009, -0/+2"but, developers had to be paid for each distributed copy of their code?"
Then it wouldn't be developed to the point it is, and no one would use it. - JonForTheWin, on 01/05/2009, -0/+2"include licenced technology that simply can't be opened. "
horse *****. A company that big has more than enough resources to simply publish specs and even arm-twist contractors if necessary. - Lemguy, on 01/05/2009, -5/+7Wow thx for pointing that out. Brickfoot89 is now my hero.
- UnrealsKY, on 01/05/2009, -1/+3Feel better?
- mpn401, on 01/05/2009, -3/+4Indeed I do.
- tetsuo29, on 01/05/2009, -5/+6FTA - "When we asked asked Stallman whether non-technical users should care about his free software philosophy, he answered by comparing your computer to your house. 'If you are not a programmer, you won't know how to exercise freedom 1 directly by studying and changing the source code.' he said. 'Likewise, if you don't know carpentry you won't know how to exercise the freedom to change the walls in your house or office. Nonetheless these freedoms are still very useful, because you can exercise these freedoms indirectly by paying professionals to do the work for you.'"
The problem with Stallman's thinking, is that he's lumped all users and programs in the same category. Please tell me when the average web surfing, email sending, paper writing, media listening/watching computer user is gonna pay a programmer to customize their browser, mail reader, word processor, media player, etc. They're not. The house analogy falls apart right there. In fact, with few exceptions, each and every house is somewhat unique, and even if built from the same plans, all houses are still unique in someway and become more so overtime. Whereas each and every copy of Firefox 3.01 is identical and unless patched or updated, remains static and unchanged over time.
The house analogy might be more apt when applied to businesses, but still when would a business have any need to pay a developer to update Open Office- probably not nearly as often as when they might want some custom in-house code updated. But, oh, wait, they already own the source to the custom in-house code and so it doesn't matter to them if it's free software or not. Also, they will probably just use Firefox, Thunderbird, or Open Office in their freely distributed, non-customized form.
Now don't misunderstand, I'm not arguing against the merits of free software, I'm just saying that Stallman's analogy about houses is terrible. I'm sure there's a good argument for why users should care about having the freedom to see the source of the applications that they run, but this isn't it. - thevault314, on 01/05/2009, -2/+2I understand that disagreements happen, but for free software to prosper it's like Ben Franklin said, "We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
- ErsatzLogic, on 01/04/2009, -17/+14"While Linux Torvalds gets most of the plaudits nowadays for the Linux kernel, it was Stallman who originally posted plans for a new, and free, operating system."
Really? Linux Torvalds invented Linux? - MavRevMatt, on 01/05/2009, -8/+6Seriously? We're still bitching and moaning about "power users"?
Get over yourself. - CyberStriker, on 01/05/2009, -3/+1I dugg you up!
- Colesif, on 01/05/2009, -8/+6Linux Torvalds, eh?
- lemur, on 01/05/2009, -9/+6Stallman FTW
- phatfiend, on 01/05/2009, -9/+6buried for poweruser.
- inactive, on 01/05/2009, -6/+3I dugg you up because the smiley face you used is cute. :3
- inactive, on 01/05/2009, -7/+3I'm torn between my favorite subject, linux, and the my sworn ability not to digg pop-diggers.
- tetsuo29, on 01/05/2009, -6/+2FTA - "Those freedoms mean being able to share, edit, copy and add to software without explicit permission from the original author. The oft-repeated mantra of those four essential freedoms, courtesy of Richard Stallman, is as follows:
1. To run the program as you wish.
2. To study the source code, and change it so the program does what you wish.
3. To redistribute exact copies when you wish.
4. To distribute copies of your modified versions, when you wish."
I can't help but wonder what the state of free software would be like if people still had access to the source code, but, developers had to be paid for each distributed copy of their code? I'll bet Stallman would have a much larger pile of cash to use for his activism. it really is rather unfortunate that quality free software is kind of like your local NPR affiliate- putting out better content than the commercial alternatives, but always cash strapped and begging for a handout.
Also, I wonder if freedom 2 would be more meaningful if we could develop languages and programming techniques that would make writing code easy enough for anyone to do it. - Sokkratez, on 01/04/2009, -12/+7"Nvidia undoubtedly feels, for example, that its competitors would get some insight into Nvidia hardware and use this to their advantage. Nvidia engineers have also stated in the past that their proprietary driver include licenced technology that simply can't be opened. But similar issues haven't stopped Sun Microsystems from opening the vastly larger Java, one of the more successful open source stories."
ARE those similar issues? Does Sun sell some Java-dependant hardware that I don't know about? - Plotinus, on 01/04/2009, -14/+9Dugg for Richard Stallman and Stephen Fry
- CyberStriker, on 01/05/2009, -10/+5Buried for MrBabySPAM.
- mpn401, on 01/05/2009, -13/+7AAAAAAGGGGGGGHHHHH IT'S A POWER USER BURY THE STORY AAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH
/s - Azathothh, on 01/05/2009, -7/+1how about freedom to kick you in the balls? Should i switch to GNU/Linux for that too?
- Jyaif, on 01/05/2009, -9/+2Nvidia FTW
- chick4digg, on 01/04/2009, -14/+6freedom rawkz!!
- danthemayun, on 01/05/2009, -10/+2false. nothing is free.
bury me. - junkneo, on 01/05/2009, -10/+2The days when free software was written to make programming interesting and to show-off one's talents are no longer viable, professionaly and financially.
25 years ago there were only 5% of software makers as now.
Competition is driving the lives of free software makers out of time for attending to contribution.
Free software should addopt Wikimedia foundation's model of operation to survive.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is