Post your nominees for anushole of the year
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2015 10:02 am
Philosophical Vegan Forum
https://www.philosophicalvegan.com/
That was bizarre. I don't agree with everything Stallman said, but the interviewer seemed intent to not even comprehend it.Jebus wrote: 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.
Probably because he's being deontological. "Proprietary software is bad, because it's bad."brimstoneSalad wrote: I don't agree with everything Stallman said
Yes, that sounds accurate.Volenta wrote: 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.
Geez, that was dumb ;D.. they needed RIchard Dawkins on the other end to deal with thatPost 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
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.Sakana wrote: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).
Good old' Christian persecution complex. That's good news about that law, though, I hadn't heard about that. Finally.Jebus wrote: 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
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.Sakana wrote: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,
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).Sakana wrote:but I don't see how people can really get exploited in any way when the source code is open for everyone to see.
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).brimstoneSalad wrote:If you're a good and honest developer, it doesn't matter if the software you make is proprietary or not.