Post your nominees for anushole of the year

[Jebus]

I think this guy will be a strong contender:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGSrGmHsT8s

[Sakana]

I vote for this interviewer. Definetely the worst interviewer I've ever seen. The funny thing is the interview is still great (because of the interviewee )

edit: oops, this video is 3 years old. But I discovered it this month so it still counts! ;P

[Jebus]

[quote="Sakana"]I vote for this interviewer. Definetely the worst interviewer I've ever seen. The funny thing is the interview is still great (because of the interviewee )/quote]

I agree. That was the first time I heard of Stallman and he seems very sharp. I don't know if the interviewer realizes how rude he is. His nervous ticks takes over and he seems unable to listen, keep eye contact, and prepare his next question simultaneously.

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't know if the interviewer realizes how rude he is. His nervous ticks takes over and he seems unable to listen, keep eye contact, and prepare his next question simultaneously.

That was bizarre. I don't agree with everything Stallman said, but the interviewer seemed intent to not even comprehend it.
Journalism means first at least trying to understand what the other person is saying, then when you understand it you can provide challenging questions. He skipped a step.

[Volenta]

Another problem with the interviewer is just that he doesn't understand the subject, at all.

I don't agree with everything Stallman said

Probably because he's being deontological. "Proprietary software is bad, because it's bad."

He's kind of the Gary Francione of the FOSS-movement (Free and open-source software). Which means that he's right on many—if not most—points, but strives for absolutes which can't be defended anymore.

[brimstoneSalad]

Probably because he's being deontological. "Proprietary software is bad, because it's bad."

He's kind of the Gary Francione of the FOSS-movement (Free and open-source software). Which means that he's right on many—if not most—points, but strives for absolutes which can't be defended anymore.

Yes, that sounds accurate.

I was reading his essay on how Open Source gets it all wrong, and I got a really weird ideological impression from his views.
Although to his credit, he does make it clear that Open Source is not "the enemy" (although I don't think anybody is "the enemy", just that there are different approaches, some things work better for different software, and it's great to have options in the market).

[Jebus]

I'd like to nominate both Christian Adams and that smug Fox reporter, whatever his name is: http://crooksandliars.com/cltv/2015/04/ ... g-atheists

[Sakana]

Didn't think of Stallman as being deontological, though I can see that. So, is this the case instead(?): Proprietary software is not automatically bad -- it just often tends to be (because companies get carried away on some power-trip). I kinda get his point on OSS vs free software, but I don't see how people can really get exploited in any way when the source code is open for everyone to see.

I think the interviewer is on drugs, or maybe he had been instructed to try and derail the conversation at every opportunity. Since RT is more or less a propaganda machine, maybe it's not too far-fetched. </tinfoilhat>

Post by Jebus » Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:00 pm
I'd like to nominate both Christian Adams and that smug Fox reporter, whatever his name is: http://crooksandliars.com/cltv/2015/04/ ... g-atheists

Geez, that was dumb ;D.. they needed RIchard Dawkins on the other end to deal with that

[brimstoneSalad]

So, is this the case instead(?): Proprietary software is not automatically bad -- it just often tends to be (because companies get carried away on some power-trip).

Pretty much. If you're a good and honest developer, it doesn't matter if the software you make is proprietary or not. But if you're evil and you want to build spyware/adware and other things to snoop or otherwise be malicious, it will be harder to get away with it if it's open source. If your software is useful, people will just open it up, remove the nasty bits, and then distribute the fixed version, and that will tend to become more popular.

That said, it is harder to sell open source software.
Here's an article that discusses the ways you can make money with open source (although most involve investing more time for clients, like through support, and none provide a sure means to profit from the work you already did):
http://opensource.about.com/od/basics/t ... ftware.htm

For certain less restrictive licenses, there's also the option to use closed-source plugins that provide essential functions, and tivoization. But going into that could quickly turn into a small book.

I'd like to nominate both Christian Adams and that smug Fox reporter, whatever his name is: http://crooksandliars.com/cltv/2015/04/ ... g-atheists

Good old' Christian persecution complex. That's good news about that law, though, I hadn't heard about that. Finally.

[Volenta]

Didn't think of Stallman as being deontological, though I can see that. So, is this the case instead(?): Proprietary software is not automatically bad -- it just often tends to be (because companies get carried away on some power-trip). I kinda get his point on OSS vs free software,

It didn't became very clear in this interview, but he has stated elsewhere that even if proprietary software doesn't contain malicious functionality, it's immoral either way. But he isn't really able to demonstrate what other harm it can possible do.

but I don't see how people can really get exploited in any way when the source code is open for everyone to see.

Exploitation is not unthinkable in open source software. It's very thinkable that a piece of open source software contains malicious functionality, it's just that it's less likely to have it in comparison to proprietary software. Malware can be easily spotted in open source software, but it can't be guaranteed. Most users aren't going to bother to check the source code for things they might not like, and most open source software is developed by merely one or two developers. There can be many watchers to a particular project, but they rarely intervene (which might not be necessary of course).

If you're a good and honest developer, it doesn't matter if the software you make is proprietary or not.

It's a bit more complicated, because developers that are well-intentioned can still add wrong things. Not only by building in malicious functionality themselves, which happens very often in big companies, mostly because they want to profit by using models like advertising. But it's also not unusual that developers add third party libraries to their project that snoop on their users (take Google Analytics or other trackers for example).

The big problem is that as a user, it's very hard to know whether the software is malicious or not. So as a practical issue, it's better to avoid it all together if you really care about it. And that's why I still agree with Stallman a lot.