[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / cloveros / cuteboys / erp / fast / hydrus / in / strek / tftg ]

/techbunker/ - Technology (Bunker)

Technology (Bunker)
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Voice recorder Show voice recorder

(the Stop button will be clickable 5 seconds after you press Record)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 3 per post.


File: 26d8c174fdd3fdf⋯.png (5.43 KB, 281x180, 281:180, images.png)

 No.872

Why do people use this Freetardism "Freedoms" for anything software, when most of this is easy to argue against. This person made a good webpage explaining the errors of this.

https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/freetardism.html

But if you're not willing to go to the side, here's his writing of that section:

"The four essential freedoms A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: [1]"

Okay, so a program has to satisfy some defined freedoms to be considered "free software". But do those freedoms actually have any relevancy to actual, practical freedom?

Freedom 0

"The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0)."

"The freedom to run the program […] without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. " - You mean that, for all those years I've been using Windows programs, I've been required to communicate with some "entities"? That's funny.

"In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose" - This is actually impossible - the purpose is always defined by the programmers. And "free software" might still impose unwanted "purposes" onto you - like all the "free software" browsers on https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/ (archive). On the other hand, a nonfree software might make its purpose evident and not violate it - and will provide more actual freedom than so-called free software.. Also,

"The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not forbidden or stopped from making it run" - this is easy to violate in the so-called "free software". What prevents me from making a program that can only be run on Wednesdays? Nothing.

Freedom 1

"The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this."

Okay, here is where we start to run into serious problems. First of all, access to the source code is absolutely not a precondition for this. People have been disassembling all kinds of software forever - for example Pokemon games, which have spawned many hacks that improve (or claim to) on these games. No source code required! On the other hand, much of the so-called "free software" is untouched except by the people who control it in the first place. If a person wanted to modify Mozilla Firefox so that it "does their computing as they wish", they would have to have enough programming skill first. Then they would have to have the patience to wade through thousands of lines of code, find whatever is bothering them, and spend time trying to fix it. And when they are done, they might notice that a new version of Firefox came out with a bunch of essential security fixes that they will now have to implement. See? It's insurmountable - Mozilla ends up controlling FF anyway. Source code, therefore, does not always provide real, personal freedom - unlike what the freetards claim. Disassembling some simpler programs might be more practical…

Freedom 2

"The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2)."

Windows programs are being redistributed all the time, and probably more people are helped that way than by freetardism.

Freedom 3

"The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this."

So here is where we come to the crux of the issue, it seems. It is the distribution of modifications, that gives real freedom, according to the freetards. But does it actually? Again, you, first of all, need the programming skill to make these modifications - skill that 99% of users don't have. Then there is the issue of your version becoming obsolete by the time you finish your changes - see Freedom 1. And of course, disassembling is still a possibility - you say it's too hard? So is programming for the vast majority of people - again, no advantage for free software to be found.

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.874

completely agree with all this, except that source code with notes is a massive help over attempting disassembly of a raw executable. You can make make programs of giant size easily modifiable this way. In that way you can claim you have made it accessible to the 1% who have the skills needed.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.875

>"The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not forbidden or stopped from making it run" - this is easy to violate in the so-called "free software". What prevents me from making a program that can only be run on Wednesdays? Nothing.

Of course you can make a program that can only be run on Wednesdays, but then it wouldn't be free software.

>Freedom 1

I didn't read everything since it's just "i cant code ergo its not really free". Whoever wrote this shit doesn't understand what 'Free Software' actually means and is just saying some bullshit on the internet

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of the bullshit you wrote

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.876

>>875

Take a poll of 100 random people you find online. How many of them would know a coding language, and if so, is it enough to make a change to something very minor?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.878

>>876

being free to modify is what matters, not how many people can actually modify

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.897

>>876

Please don't conflate freedom with technical aptitude. People who have freedom are not required to have the aptitude to practise it. Freedom is about authority and self-control. It's about individuals choosing to do things without the need to ask a master for permission. Making the choice to do something for yourself without the need to ask for permission isn't the same as having technical skills to make it happen.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.913

>>872

>You mean that, for all those years I've been using Windows programs, I've been required to communicate with some "entities"?

<That's funny.

LMAO take your garbage articles somewhere else.

"Freetardism" is a literal meaningless buzzwords used by wageslaves in order to feel better about themselves.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.914

>>876

>Take a poll of 100 random people you find online. How many of them would know a coding language, and if so, is it enough to make a change to something very minor?

That's not the point. The point is that you don't have to ask anyone for permission before you can modify your software. If you cannot do it yourself then you can ask someone else to do it for you. You could even pay that person.

I am not an electrician, but that does not mean I would would want proprietary wiring in my home where only one company is allowed to make any changes. I am free to hire anyone I want to work on my wiring (or do it myself if I have the skill).

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.915

>If a person wanted to modify Mozilla Firefox so that it "does their computing as they wish"

I actually thought about doing this for a small annoyance I have in Firefox, an initial donation to any number of people working on a Firefox fork that are familiar with the codebase would likely assist me since there's a strong chance of more money going their way if they help me solve the issue. I'm not just another asshole demanding free tech support.

At the very least they'd give me some pertinent information on solving the issue more effectively, either by forwarding me to someone that might be interested or explaining why such a change is impractical to implement. Worst case scenario I'm ignored and helped fund a free software project I use all the time.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.916

>"The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not forbidden or stopped from making it run" - this is easy to violate in the so-called "free software". What prevents me from making a program that can only be run on Wednesdays? Nothing.

Imagine being this fucking retarded.

What prevents me from making your program that can only be run on Wednesdays run on Tuesdays? Nothing.

>For example, if the code arbitrarily rejects certain meaningful inputs—or even fails unconditionally—that may make the program less useful, perhaps even totally useless, but it does not deny users the freedom to run the program, so it does not conflict with freedom 0. If the program is free, the users can overcome the loss of usefulness, because freedoms 1 and 3 permit users and communities to make and distribute modified versions without the arbitrary nuisance code.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.995

That article is a load of bunk. Large sections of it can be outright refuted. I don't have the time for a full dissection right now, but the freedoms are useful and based on the time when software didn't have copyright protections.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.996

The entirety of RMS's work is just formalizing common sense, which is an unknown concept to clown world. Sometimes (1% of the time) he's wrong, and sometimes he conveys his feelings wrong, but usually he's right.

>"""The freedom to run the program […] without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. "

This is a serious problem, and either you don't live in the West and have never heard about it, or you're being disingenuous (or autistic) as the article here is. Programs should be like any other fucking product or hardware. Not some bullshit that has to communicate with someone across the world to see if it's allowed to work today.

>Freedom 1

>blah blah access to source code is not strictly a precondition

yes, not strictly, but it's a lot easier with the source code. second, distributing your code in compiled form is snake oil and you deserve to be shot for doing it, merely for being so stupid

>Freedom 2

>"The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2)."

>Windows programs are being redistributed all the time, and probably more people are helped that way than by freetardism.

He obviously means no bullshit licensing, copy protection, ties to hardware identifiers, etc.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.999

The only omission was the freedom to being able to read the goddamn shitware. GNU projects are always unreadable turds.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.1000

>>995

>>996

>defending gnu pedos

>defending the stallman pedo

lmao

>>999

All the better for (((backdoors))) to get in, right?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.1002

>>996

This. It's quite frankly amazing that our world is so shit we needed someone like RMS to step up and formalize what any decent person should already believe. You often hear

<b-but rms didn't invent the concept of free software!

which is true, but ignores the fact that he's been, by far, the most important person to spread and defend it.

I tend to disagree with some of his other social/political opinions, but he is spot-on when it comes to software freedom and technology in general.

Almost all arguments against free software boil down to either plain ignorance or bad faith.

>>1000

While there is no direct evidence about either RMS or any member of the GNU project being pedophiles, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with it even if it were the case.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.1008

>>1002

So you would defend the stallman pedo only because of his contributions to free software, and the cancerous gpl? Dumb nigger, you should be hanged.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.1017

>>1000

>$FREEDOM_MAN is pedo he said calling 17 year olds children is ridiculous

>oh shit in that case let's kill him here are all my freedoms my dear Mr. Goldbergsteinfeld please take good care of them while I crusade against the evil kiddy diddler

This state is referred to as top goy, or the highest form of gentile.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.1028

>>1017

>still defending the pedo

Have you ever thought to look beyond your miserable little gnubox? There are freer things out there.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.1034

>>1280

>just gives the preprogrammed response again

You're a literal NPC my dude.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Random][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / cloveros / cuteboys / erp / fast / hydrus / in / strek / tftg ]