Stallman on Openness
tomslee.net
tomslee.net
Hell - he isn't even arguing against what Stallman says here:
>Stallman also calls on his readers to resist surveillance “by organising to develop free/libre replacement systems and web services that don’t track who uses them”. But again this is mixing up two separate things. “Web services that don’t track who uses them” can be built on proprietary software just as easily as they can be built on free/libre software.
"Develop free/libre replacement systems and web services that don't track who uses them."
Proprietary software cannot guarantee to the user that it does not track them - because the internals are hidden. Sure, you can build it and claim it but nobody should trust you. If it is FOSS, they can see it does not track them and choose to use it. Stallman asks that software be FOSS such that users can be sure it is not tracking them. He then calls upon the users to choose software that does not track them - meaning don't use FOSS software designed to track you. If FOSS non-tracking software does not exist, create it. All reasonable suggestions to avoid being tracked.
Frustratingly, Tom provides no alternative solution. He does not say why "Stallman is approaching this from the wrong angle". He just says Stallman is wrong, wrong wrong... while not even understanding the points he is trying to criticize or blatantly misrepresenting the arguments.
People have been saying that about Richard since he started being a public figure. While I'm pretty sure he's not batting 1000 he typically is proven correct in the long run, or at least partially so.
As I grew older I lost a lot of my initial enthusiasm and fanboyism for the FSF and Free/Open software in general but I still have a lot of respect for Richard and am disheartened at the negativity that's constantly pushed on him.
He definitely seems to be one of those public figure that people either love and respect or hate and despise.
But I do acknowledge that your article was civil and to the point. I should have clarified that I was generalizing my exposure to Stallman, his fans and his critics over years and not specifically talking about your article.
My comment about GNU/Linux was maybe too sarcastic, but in the article to which I was responding, Stallman did write "I developed the GNU operating system, which is often called Linux", which you have to admit is a bizarre statement.
But I really don't think I mistake free/libre for free/gratis. Even if a web service is built on FOSS, you cannot see if it is tracking you, any more than I can tell what data is in a LibreOffice spreadsheet. Surely the NSA open source effort demonstrates that in spades.
As for the alternative solution: I do agree with Stallman's third suggestion: surveillance (both corporate and state) is a legal and political problem which needs to be seen in that light.
The statement is not incorrect or bizarre and is entirely accurate. GNU is the Operating System. Linux is the Kernel. Debian runs on the GNU Operating System (using the Linux Kernel). It would be like calling Mac OS X "XNU" instead. We don't do that because it's named after the OS and not the kernel. When people refer to "Linux Distributions" they are incorrectly referring to "GNU Distributions".
I can think of several explanations for why we call it "Linux" and not "GNU" - but I don't personally give a shit. Stallman is correct that the Operating System is called Linux by most people though. Does it matter? To him, I imagine it does or he wouldn't make a big deal about it. Most people don't care though. Why? Well they probably didn't contribute to writing GNU.
>Even if a web service is built on FOSS, you cannot see if it is tracking you, any more than I can tell what data is in a LibreOffice spreadsheet.
Correct. Even if a web service is FOSS there is no way to confirm the public facing code base is the one used for the web service. That relies on a bit of trust. I believe he spoke more on this and I'd have to find it as I can't remember offhand.
I believe his terminology for "web service" is a bit different than how most people take it nowadays - so this might also be an issue of semantics. I imagine people might take it to been SAAS "web services" but I believe he uses it in a more broad scope. A lot of web services can be 'built and ran yourself' so he isn't wrong, it just isn't very practical or realistic. Which is a fine criticism.
You can be "technically correct" but still "in practice; disconnected with reality". Which is where I stand with a lot of Stallman's claims. It's not that he is wrong, it's that what he is asking for (in the modern world) is simply unrealistic and impractical.
No, its not, at least not for the thing Stallman refers to that is "often called Linux". GNU is a set of userland tools. GNU has, at best, no more claim to be the operating system than Linux does.
Actual OS's based on the Linux kernel typically combine Linux, some GNU components, and many non-GNU components. There may be a GNU operating system, but real Linux-based OS's aren't it.
>I generally do not connect to web sites from my own machine, aside from a few sites I have some special relationship with. I usually fetch web pages from other sites by sending mail to a program (see git://git.gnu.org/womb/hacks.git) that fetches them, much like wget, and then mails them back to me.
Again - we can agree on the last sentence if nothing else. I feel it is a very fair criticism.