Can we delete the Stallman sticky already? It hearkens back

Dennis Ritchie was a corporate tool for AT&T.

Richard Stallman is a revolutionary for ethical computing.

Worshiping a dead guy is religious

>>56525830
we're not fedora tippers here

Fuck off, this is our meme and ours only. He represents /g/ and I bet 99% of everyone here is proud of that, if you aren't is because you are the newfag killing the board.

>>56525871
I remember when this was a guro board kid

>>56525871

Proud Anon right here

>>56525899
I just hope we go back to techloligy.

>>56525922
gb2/l/

>>56525803
it should be a picture of tim cook

File: 1465744988295.jpg (24KB, 418x438px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 418x438px

>>56525803
Fucking Terry Davis, I thought we went over this already

how about the chinkshit bunny

Voting for Stallman.

>>56525953
This is ok too.

Anybody but Stallman desu

The sticky wasn't well received at all.

The guy had been spamming his fucking wiki that nobody used for months, explicitly against board rules and pissing on any pc building thread he could find.

The original sticky went something along the lines of don't ask for advice, google it, check out my cool wiki!

It was edited after over 9000 people complained that the sticky was fucking pointless to add even more asinine shit to justify its existence.

File: 1473385295426.png (110KB, 286x217px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 286x217px

>>56525842
>he says, while a FedoraPad general sits on the front page

File: carmack neck fucked up.jpg (43KB, 796x600px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 796x600px

>>56525803
RMS is a fucking joke of a man.

I lost all respect when he started eating warts off his feet.

Disgusting autistic manchild who's a mental wackjob.

Put this guy up for a year. Let's see how the fame of being on top of /g/ affects him.

File: c7185590cf634773b4d56490e26aec1e.jpg (85KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1280x800px

>>56526020
Carmack = Le 90s Shootans Man

He means nothing to anyone who isn't a retarded gamer faggot.

Dennis Ritchie was a cuckold loser.

>>56526047
he's one of the greatest programmers that ever lived. RMS cant' even program his timer.

Dennis Ritchie has blank, expressionless, soulless eyes.

Is it because of his autism?

File: watch-linus-torvalds-has-his-name-written-on-a-t-33-fighter-jet-aircraft-487295-3.jpg (312KB, 1538x2302px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1538x2302px

>he prefers some broke childless fat pedo bum that lives in the janitors closet at MIT to Linus torvalds

Another reason to ditch Stallman: people are posting him on /ck/
>>8078616

>>56526058
>>56526083
Heathen scum. Go write a language 5% as good as C!

>>56526074
He just wrote stripped-down, streamlined game engines so id could run its arcadey shooters on low-end PC hardware.

You're seriously comparing him to the co-creator of UNIX and C?

>>56526047
see this >>56526074

File: kc tier.jpg (60KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 800x533px

>>56526090
Stallman is a very old meme on Finnish 4chan ylilauta.

>>56526114
see >>56526110

File: 1360612895903.jpg (230KB, 950x854px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 950x854px

I propose we put in Big Billy G instead

>>56525803
>talentless

Uhm, no.

1970s Stallman was pretty much the most advanced hacker mankind has ever seen.

There's a course at MIT right now, called 'Adventures in Advanced Symbolic Programming taught by Sussman to grad students.

Some of the reading is the shit Sussman and Stallman did back in the 1970s proving correctness of circuit boards and especially Dependency Directed backtracking which is all the rage in parallel/concurrentAI research right now.

People also forget Stallman was the top student in Math 55 at harvard which is notoriously the world's hardest math course. The guy absolutely is not a 'hack' nor 'talentless'.

The weirdo experimental shit him and Sussman did in the 70s is just now being realized because we have the hardware to do it, like simulating 1000 core processors to realize the paper 'Art of the Propagator'.

The only reason people hate Stallman is politics, which is too bad because he really is the best hacker that has ever lived. Remember he spent an entire year working 16hrs per day nonstop to reverse engineer proprietary shit and all of us benefit today in 2016 DIRECTLY from that effort.

>>56526142
It's been 40 years

It's time to let go

>>56526142
Oops forgot link https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/gjs/6.945/readings/

This is an amazing course, you can fully realize autonomous AI with this

Stallman is to us what the Swastika was to the third Reich.

>>56526158
Nothing has changed.

have you read TAOCP? They are just now starting to implement half the stuff in there in modern databases. Modern being, in memory, non disk caching dbms systems like Carnagie Mellon's experimental dbms and MemSQL and other NewSQL systems.

The people who wrote those systems, did so in the 1970s. it's only now we can start implementing them.

>>56526130
Bill Gates is a spoiled brat who was in a position to outsmart a clueless IBM, gradually establish a platform monopoly throughout the 80s, and watch his competitors implode under market pressure in the 90s.

He's a far better businessman than he was a programmer.

>>56526168
LITTLE WHITE

>>56526196
Niggers

>>56525803
I have to agree. In what way does Stallman represent technology? He's only known for having fanatical religious beliefs about ownership. He's a /pol/tard, not /g/,

Throw up Kelly Johnson, Edison, or da Vinci. Someone who had actual ideas about technology, not just philosophical hangups about how it's being implemented.

>>56526206
>Edison
>Not Tesla
Might as well put Steve Jobs there, if that is the case.

>>56525803
You joking OP?

Have you seen how autistic /g/ is? RMS is absolutely the PERFECT dude to have at the top of the board.

>>56526224
>>>/x/

>>56526224
>tesla
redditへ帰れ

>>56526224
shut the fuck up

>>56526206
What the fuck.

Has nobody here taken an actual computer science course? Read Knuth? Read any Sussman?

I will explain modern computer science, modern as you look up the syllabus of any CMU or MIT calendar RIGHT NOW and you will see nothing but 1940s-1990s research. Esp mid 70s, and esp early 90s.

Mid 70s, early 90s was the "golden age" of computer science. This is when we developed concurrency rules. This is when we theorized AI completely, machine learning and computer vision. All of it done in theory then PROVED with formal logic and invariants running through fictional languages to prove correctness of massively, distributed learning languages, that can see, hear and read in order to learn.

It's only in 2016 that we can finally put together all this previous theory and if you go on any CMU course and read the lecture PDFs, they will continually reference that whatever research they are currently doing was already done by........ (wait for it) Sussman and Stallman in 1976.

>>56526238
>>56526241
>>56526247
>Edison Internet Defense Force
Fuck off kikes.

>>56525936
/g/ is a board devoted to technology not sjw shit, pull your head out of your ass.

>>56526268
sup TheOatmeal

>>56526273
>not sjw
>communist Jew in the sticky
jej

>>56525803
Stallman was once a great hacker, and now he spends his time defending the freedom of computer users. He has a cult following because people admire his hard work and dedication.

>>56526020
ad hominem attack, not related to his achievements

>>56526316
Not an argument.

>>56525953
Off topic but I met God today. Turns out TempleOS is pretty easy to just try out on a live CD and it's some cool stuff.

>>56526326
because he is political he also attracts this kinds of venom which is unfortunate that all the plebs have no idea the level of hacker Stallman was.

seriously has been nobody on earth at that level since, even Sussman/MIT regards him in such respect that Stallman is allowed to live on MIT campus to this day for free

you can disagree with his politics but attacking him as 'untalented' is insane, Stallman's productivity and PhD level research he was doing in the mid 70s should be the bar you want to reach in life. Stallman could easily have been the next Gates or Jobs, but he threw all that away simply because of history. While he was going to Harvard he became obsessed with history and realized that history consistently repeats itself.

If you want to understand why Stallman makes the (seemingly) insane decisions that he does, like disallowing any kind of plug in architecture for GCC, this explains it: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html

Stallman thinking in terms of centuries, not years. He looks 100 years from now and says what kind of future will it be? What it corporations control all the software? Well, they can control what we read, what we learn, spy on us, lock us into their monopoly ect. Stallman predicted proprietary reading devices long before they were even on the drafting research board at Apple or Amazon.

This is how you understand Stallman and his crazy politics. What will it look like, in 2060? What if CPUs all had TPM's that prevented any modification of software. What if CPUs develop microcode that demand you pay a license in order to develop for their CPU.

>>56526391
go to bed richard

>no longer represents the userbase of this board
>what a talentless hack he is.
Seems he represents us perfectly!

>>56526391
Companies are doing that precisely because he has no power, no influence, no money

He could've easily become like Gates or Jobs and have actual control over industry, but no, he become a waste of space instead.

In principle yes. The sticky should show Sussman or any of the Bell Labs guys, Ritchie/Kernighan/Thompson, but in practice none of this board is old enough to understand why these people are important.

When some guy made a thread criticizing something that RMS said about Chávez, asspained people that have never set foot in Venezuela started defending him, because "sure, chávez steals shit, but I bet that anyone else that comes into power will steal more!!"

His political beliefs ("free software" included here) line up with /g/'s.

>>56526391
Further, the most import takeaway from Stallman's dystopic future is the notion of licenses in order to use a compiler, debugger, or even a programming language.

Think about it. Everything is attributing closer and closer to being digital abstractions. A hacker could fuck all that up, prevent government control, ect. All it will take is one hacker fucking with medical implants 20 years from now to have all compilers and other software tools become regulated (because by that time, they'll all be proprietary)

There's also a lot of software "engineers" walking around lately declaring themselves "engineers". A real engineer, like civil/electrical ect not only cannot obtain specialty tools without having a license but they can't call themselves "engineeer" legally without passing a national body of standards.

This is the future. Software engineering will be fully regulated due to the 2025 hacker wars that will decimate the planet. Anybody engaged in software "engineering" will have to apply and be granted access to tools in order to compile software or use an interpreter.

CPUs will prevent any other method through proprietary microcode rejecting attempts to use their registers unlicensed.

This isn't a joke, this is the future and Stallman saw it in 1976 and decided the only way to stop it was to do what he is doing now. Unfortunately greed, money, fools and politics got in the way and we're basically screwed. When LLVM rolled it was the final nail in the coffin of GNU and Stallman admits this. In 6 years, you will need a license to use LLVM as it will be the only authorized compiler for Intel/AMD/ARM and there will be no way to bypass this.

When this happens you will toss all your devices into a polluted river and join me in the woods writing email clients on a an ancient 3000 core CPU that can still run C++/C before the CPU signatures happened.

>>56525953
My vote

>>56525953
fucking cia niggers stopping him from being stickied

yea hes pretty cool i guess. his feet are pretty gross though :p

File: pic.gif (281KB, 490x639px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 490x639px

What about pic related

>>56526391
>>56526496
Holy shit, you are scaring me anon. I don't want to live in a completely proprietary world.

>>56525803
Nice try Linus

Fuck off corporate kike.

Stallman represents freedom.

>>56526741
Stalinman represents communism and cultural marxism.

>>56526755
His politics sucks (SJW shit), but his software freedom movement is worthwhile. I just pretend he never said that SJW shit.

>>56526142
>Uhm, no.
Kill yourself you beta cuck.

>>56525953
If you don't approve, you're a dumb fuck nigger.

Only one way to solve this

http://www.strawpoll.me/11192705

>>56525953
this

>>56525819
>ethical computer
I'm still trying to understand why he considers propietary software inmoral.
Most of his arguments are more trust issues rather than an argument for a implicit inmorality.

File: FOSS vs. socialism.png (98KB, 700x500px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 700x500px

>>56526755

>>56525953
Jokes aside, we need this guy in the sticky

>>56526827
FOSS isn't socialist
Stallman is

>>56526110
>stallman
>co creator of UNIX and C
What?

>>56525953
This. Terry Davis is the essence of /g/

>>56525953
Pls

>"The Brits are moving to ban 'hacking tools'. Take my unassembler from my cold dead hands. NRA is for guns; IRA is for computers."

KEK

>>56526803
See, while we've got some laudable candidates here, whoever is on the sticky is going to be the topic of arguments and people's shitty opinions, so it should be someone who is worthy of such shitty opinions.

That basically leaves Stallman and Terry Davis.

>>56526827
>the state enforces GPL dictatorship
How is this any different?

http://weev.livejournal.com/409835.html

Dear clueless assholes: stop bashing bash and GNU.
This is a defense of the most prolific and dedicated public servant that has graced the world in my lifetime. One man has added hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars of value to the global economy. This man has worked tirelessly for the benefit of everyone around him. It is impossible to name a publicly traded company that has not somehow benefitted from his contributions, and many have benefitted to the tune of billions. In return for the countless billions of wealth that people made from the fruits of his labor, he was rewarded with poverty and ridicule. Now that the world is done taking from him, they are heading to the next step of villifying him as incompetent.

I speak of Richard Stallman, progenitor of the free software movement and creator of GNU (as in GNU/Linux, the most widely deployed operating system in the world, and GNU bash, the tool that has caused so much shellshock lately). He's a hero to me, and anyone that honestly evaluates the landscape of computing's history would conclude that there's few whose contributions may equal his in importance. I place only Ken, Ritchie, and Turing by his side. It is shameful that anyone need to write an essay telling people to stop bashing this man who has worked for free to provide us with some of the greatest software ever written, but I see a number of people who I normally respect defaming the man. Beyond that, irresponsible publications such as the Guardian take the chance to talk shit on Stallman and spew some anti-free software garbage. Over the past few years hating Stallman has become somewhat trendy among the Silicon Valley crowd, and every HN thread involving Stallman spews childish insults about him.

I have, for years, used bash as a central tool in my kit. I have written bash one-liners to spam millions of people with subversive messages and shift the market cap of publicly traded companies by the billions in intraday trading. Like many other GNU tools offered to us at no cost by the Free Software Foundation, I use it frequently to wonderful effect. It is more often than not the first tool I consider when confronted with a problem. It is seriously that useful.

Shellshock is not a critical failure in bash. It is a critical failure in thousands of people who knew a tool so useful that they decided to deploy it far beyond its scope. A tool so resilient that it it did not fall over when everyone deployed against best practices. Everyone knew in the nineties that when you execute a UNIX command with untrusted input, you clear away the environment variables first. Anyone that has untrusted input embedded within a shell script does not know what they are doing. The fact that there is a way to get bash to execute untrusted code is unsurprising. The thing that surprises me is the sheer number of developers who thought it would be otherwise in complete contrast to UNIX parables and common sense.

The real story here, if there is one beyond a piece of software having bugs like all software does, is the Sisyphean responsibility that was placed on one man's shoulders. The world took and took from Richard Stallman thanklessly. All the financiers and tech moguls that made hundreds of billions of dollars off of his work never once wrote him a single check to help him maintain the software their fortunes relied on. After decades of thankless service, a mob of people finally turn upon him like the jackals they are, deriding him as incompetent for a small series of bugs. Richard Stallman accomplished more than any paid developer. They also deride him as a senile fool for his eccentricities. He's always been eccentric. I've talked with him rather recently and guarantee he can code any of his pitiful critics under the fucking table. The world should have given the GNU project some money to hire developers and security auditors. Hell, it should have given Stallman a place to sleep that isn't a couch at a university. There is no fucking justice in this world.

This is a bit of theatre that has played out over and over again. Large and critical pieces of code are heavily relied on, and nobody wants to support them. OpenSSL anyone? Just as print and broadcast technologies were stolen from the people that invented them, the Internet is being hijacked by a bunch of sniveling international bankers that profit off of the effort of those before them. The brave and brilliant men and women who laboured for the Internet's creation will never see a dime for themselves or their offspring. Parasites having the nerve to insult and deride those they leeched from infuriates me.

File: weev.jpg (42KB, 752x501px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 752x501px

>>56527079
>weev

I, unlike some people, haven't made billions from Stallman's work. That doesn't mean I won't remember what he's done, and what he continues to do for general computation and the Internet. Not a single day goes by that I will not be thankful for his work. You people are pieces of shit. I am disgusted, and you can pry my Emacs from my cold, dead NANDs.

Yeah, /g/ is full of discord using applefaggots now

>>56525803
Sticky picture should be changed to Steve jobs holding a nvidia gpu, wearing a razor hat.

>>56527079
>http://weev.livejournal.com/409835.html
>>56527088
>>56527104
>>56527109
my hero

>>56525803
Dennis Ritchie should definitely be sticky. He did more for computing and has a better image.

>>56526110
>Not knowing John Carmack is a way better programmer than Gnu Stallman
>Carmack revolutionned the gaming industry so many times
>Doom engine with raycasting, Quake engine with real time 3D, Quake II and its double renderer swappable in-game, Quake III and its super duper optimised af engine, Doom 3 that killed everyone else because no one else had textures this sexy and shadow/light handling

File: john_Carmack_working.jpg (41KB, 468x332px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 468x332px

New sticky image

>>56527206
>not knowing Carmack credits Stallman/Sussman for all his work

Read his twitter sometime, esp when he decided to go through SICP and made it into a presentation because of how good it was, how he credited Stallman for the compiler that allowed him to make all those games. ect.

We all like Carmack, but he wouldn't have ever created quake/doom, or cmdr keen if there wasn't a free compiler to use. People forget, there was only proprietary compilers in the 80s/90s besides GCC, and they were full of bugs. Nothing was getting made unless you worked at a university and had access to Bell Labs compiler (for money) or used GCC.

>>56526391
>Stallman could easily have been the next Gates or Jobs
lol

>>56526822
Whoever controls the software controls the computer. Proprietary software companies are asking users to respect their proprietary software. This proprietary software will contain restrictions about how a person is to use their own computer! Users are encouraged to install software that forbid them to control their own computer! This on its own is not the only immoral part of proprietary software. The other immoral part is that software owners do not want their users to have friends. They want society to live a life that is divided and restricted by them - the owners of the proprietary software.

File: 0.jpg (30KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x360px

I only care about the code, not the person, so i don't care who is on the stupid sticky.

>>56525819
You mean

Dennis Ritchie made a difference

Richard Stallman is a self-serving, self-styled philosopher ultimately operating on the intellectual level of a "BECAUSE IT WOULD BE BETTER!" pseudo-intellectual describing their own ridiculous utopia that primarily caters to their personal desires rather than smoothly operating as a system that produces the greatest benefit for present and future humanity

The most telling sign of stallman's idiocy is that he makes exceptions for some kinds of data that are not source code. He's not an ethics man, he's a spoiled software tweaker that hates any and all obstructions to his hobby - most likely because he is really horrible at writing software himself and needs the aid of thousands of unpaid laborers to make a slightly less horrible turd. None of stallman's major projects have ever been truly original, nor are any of them maintained or developed by stallman anymore. Even emacs originated as an extension of someone else's project (some teco macros), and was then rebooted as a clone of still, someone else's project (gosmacs). His philosophy is, simply put, great for a mediocre to horrible programmer, and horrid for anyone with marketable skill, or even a lack of programming skill but a wealth of social and monetary ability through which desired software and software features can be obtained.

>>56527384
>stallman
>having a significant amount of code still circulating in any GNU/shit software

RSI too bad to program
but not too bad to respond to every email and beg for WYSIWYG editing in emacs

>>56527440
Why is it important that Stallman write a project that was original? I don't know why you believe that important free software doesn't produce the greatest benefit for present and future humanity.

Stallman makes distinctions between works of practical function and works of personal (artistic) expression. Works of practical function should be free. Works of published personal expression should be allowed for distribution without variance.

>>56527487
You missed the part where stallman's entire philosophy is based in selfish need instead of some grand ethical crusade

If it doesn't pertain to his selfish desires, it's not an ethical issue. The classic case of a jew rambling about business ethics and taxation when his own bank account is at risk and turning away when he's on the right side of the cash flow.

Money is money, even if it's nots yours
Data is data, even if you don't care to modify it

Indeed, you don't NEED absolutely all of your money unmolested, and you don't NEED to modify or study all software, let alone have the source to exercise the four "freedoms" in the first place. There are more viable alternatives to dealing with proprietary software than to dealing with an unfairly taxed stack of cash, but they're greatly reduced if you are an incompetent programmer among your peers. From this, comes stallman's idiocy.

If he were to be honest and state that he is more interested in material benefits and practicality than ANY ethics, freedom, or right vs. wrong, he might actually be somewhat respectable, but his non-stop rambling about having a moral high ground is a fucking joke.

>>56527371
>whoever controls the software controls the computer
I can control the software by simply not allowing it run.

>>56527371
See that? Those are trust issues.

>>56527371
analyzing binaries is impossible
so is setting up an environment that controls what can run is how

seriously programming is hard

so all software has to be free! so people can do it for you, and you don't even have to have money, or social skills.

>>56527533
That's pretty much the only practical control you have when you choose proprietary software. With that level of control, I could not consider it as "controlling the software".

Stallman is an autistic weirdo who loves to talk about technology and constantly tries to convince the lesser sheeple that they are simply wrong.

He is /g/ incarnate.

Ken Thompson or Rob Pike?
>>56525819
What if he used AT&T as a tool to further his programming?

>>56527529
I missed that because it doesn't exist. You are seeing things that are not there. You say he's rambling about a moral high ground but his moral high ground isn't about ethics! If he is arguing about ethics, then he's arguing about a moral high ground. We he says he's arguing about ethics and freedom.

>>56527567
Meanwhile, script kids on windows have been using dll injection to control proprietary software more than the typical linux fucktard has ever bothered to.

Open source is great for infrastructure-level software because the programmer base is more closely tied to the user base, rather than a marketing department that thinks it knows the user base.

"Free" software is needlessly restrictive communist crap that removes man's right to own the means of production in order to "free" lesser men from the "slavery" of having to do work, exchange goods and services, and generally participate in society.

>>56527440
this

>>56527601
He says he has a moral high ground, but he doesn't. He only thinks he does, but his ethics are invalid and inconsistent.

In ethical terms, stallman is a 13 year old who has a convoluted code of conduct for acceptable violations of copyright law based on personal finance and how much they like the copyright holder.

>>56527564
Analyzing binary programs in order to study and modify its behavior is just as practical as painting a house using a truckload of toothpicks: it's technically possible but nobody achieves non-trivial results in this way.

>>56527603
Dll injection can only control and give insight to trivial parts of the program. It's not the kind of control I expect when I have access to the source code. When I have access to the source code, I am able to rip out parts of that program and place it into a different program to make use of it. I can do things like port the program to a different architect/OS platform. DLL code injection is trivial compared to this.

File: a waifu for ants.gif (13KB, 150x150px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 150x150px

>>56527624
sounds more like trying to decipher GNU's code to be honest family

>>56527655
maybe if you weren't an autist neet you wouldn't have to port other peoples programs to your shitty hobby OS

File: linus.01.jpg (24KB, 159x220px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 159x220px

How about Linus, the creator of Linux?

>>56525803
Th GNU license is on almost every piece of academic software. How can you imply he has done nothing? His license is instrumental to way scientists (ppl who do shit) share and distribute software. His ideology aligns with some of the best collaborative efforts in STEM fields and further.

The only way you can come to the opinion you've spouted out like a petulant child is if you
A: only consider Stallmans recent activity (21st century.. and
B: have little to no experience with academic software.
Stallman is and always will be relevant to the CULTURE of programming. Perhaps not specific pieces of software or technology, but to the ideals of the community. This is a board, a discussion forum, a place where people talk meta, this should factor into your thinking about the sticky.

TBQH I think it should be Terry tho. He is more in keeping with 4chan's culture as a whole. VOTE FOR TERRY

>>56527371
I understand now: Stallman is framing a trade off as a inmorality, only because he loses some degree of control (And of course, ignoring the fact that you still can choose running free software if you can't. That doesn't make it intrinsecally moral or ethical)
I find this ironical, considering that he supports a left wing candidate.

Richard Stallman is a bad man since he has shown multiple times that he genuinely does not care about free hardware.
Your software is only as free as the hardware it runs on.

>>56527622
Stallman's ethics in user freedom in software is consistent. If you believe Stallman's ethics in software is convoluted, then you really don't understand his argument. Anything you say about his ethics is flawed if you base it on this understanding.

>>56527601
>If he is arguing about ethics, then he's arguing about a moral high ground.
Do your learn ethics with a hairdresser ?

File: 1341159407270.png (604KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

604KB, 800x533px

maybe this picture instead

>>56527719
kek

>>56527683
The user who chooses proprietary software is the victim, he is not the one who is wrong. The people who are immoral are the people attaching restrictions to proprietary software and encouraging users to respect these restrictions. The immoral people are the owners/distributors of proprietary software.

>>56527706
>Stallman's ethics in user freedom in software is consistent
Is consistent like a nice house build over sand.

>>56527691
Stallman wants free hardware for everybody and encourages people to sell this. Stallman has made the choice to champion the cause of free software and let other people champion the cause of free hardwrae.

>>56525803
i actually have hidden the sticky, fuck that communist pig, I would not hate him if he was sane person that just wants everyone to benefit from the free software, but being a communist is different so fuck him

>>56525803
No, because /g/ are GNU/Shills.

>>56527741
>The user who chooses proprietary software is the victim, he is not the one who is wrong.
How can he being a victim if he is choosing to use propietary software?
>The people who are immoral are the people attaching restrictions to proprietary software and encouraging users to respect these restrictions.
Since there's alternatives to propietary software, and alternatives to not using software at all, how this situation is considered inmoral?
Perhaps raises good questions about trusting the vendor, but doesn't make it inmoral per se. You're only framing the situation in a manicheaist way.
>The immoral people are the owners/distributors of proprietary software.
No, it doesn't follow.

>>56527760
You're retarded. Stallman has said multiple times that he doesn't care about free hardware because "p-people wouldn't be able to manufacture it themselves" and "I don't care about looking at the firmware and hardware of my microwave oven!!!"
Pro tip: free firmware != free hardware. Stallman does not care about free hardware.

>>56527782
That's right. I'm paid big dosh just for this post alone. GNU pays so much more than Microsoft, Apple, Sony and Samsung combined with all that GNU money coming in.

>>56526185
no shit Sherlock. thanks for reading off wiki for me. were you even born when this happened?

>>56525803
Freetard here, I agree; let's remove RMS, it just doesn't fit anymore.
/g/ has turned into pure consume whoring trash full of Windows users and other tech illiterate frogposters.

>>56527793
Users choose to be a victim. Just because they've willing made the choice doesn't change the fact that they chose to let other people control them.

>Since there's alternatives to propietary software, and alternatives to not using software at all, how this situation is considered inmoral?
It's immoral because it exists to encourage users to give control to the software vendors. Whether you choose to trust a vendor completely doesn't change the fact that they alone control the software. Users are completely forbidden to study, modify and improve the software. In case you missed it, I will restate it again, the immorality of the software vendor is this: the vendor encourages users to give them control via their software. This argument is the basis of everything and you cannot understand Stallman if you do not understand this argument.

>>56527795
How do you define free hardware? Stallman doesn't champion free hardware because he has chosen to dedicate his life to this one thing leaving other people to take up this cause.

>>56527796
>Implying you can only shill for money
>Implying freedomfags don't shill for the pure euphoria of being part of a secret club that some how implies intelligence because of using an OS that only half works on your computer

>>56527890
Hardware to which all schematics, vhdl/verilog, and manufacturing info is available for each part.
Such so that the hardware can be audited.

>>56527907
If that's what it takes, I'd agree with Stallman and say that I don't need it. All I need is freedom in the firmware and access to the technical hardware specifications to do a full audit of my computers.

>>56527923
>I don't need freedom
Also you can't have anyone audit a circuitboard or CPU with a microscope if they don't have schematics.
Hardware specs are easy to fudge.

>>56527891
Is it really shilling if no money is involved? If I say "go buy some shoes, any shoes", you'd say that I'm shilling for the shoe industry.

>>56527533
That's not even the case with many 1st and 3rd party Windows programs. They can keep themselves open in the background, or open themselves at random times. All yu can do is uninstall the program and hope that what you uninstalled was actually the whole program, and not just a decoy of some sort. You can never know with proprietary software.

>>56527928
If I was to audit hardware, all I need to know is the specification of what inputs to put in and what outputs to expect. Auditing a blackbox is okay for me. I believe that works of practical function should be free. So if I find that the specs were wrong, I consider it my right to publish errata of the specs to the Internet given that hardware specifications are works of practical function.

>>56527930
The definition of a shill is
>an accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others.
Money doesn't have to be involved. Freedomfags are shills by definition because they swindle people into installing a shit OS through social engineering, i.e using words like "freedom" and phases like "objectively better" while samefagging to make it appear that Linux is a more popular OS on /g/ than it probably is.

>>56527866
They can't be a victim if they choose it. That's how consent works. Of course, there's a power assimetry, but isn't like a dictatorship where you aren't not allowed to consent.
After all, the government will not chase me if I decide to ditch my computer and internet.
>It's immoral because it exists to encourage users to give control to the software vendors
There is the trade off. You lose some degree of control. Yes. You instead will gain the benefits of the closed source software. If this situation is made in a voluntary manner, and you aren't coerced at all of choosing some tools, then the situation isn't inmoral per se. You only have to solve trust issues.
This is the same situation of the citizens and the state. No, in fact, this situation is even better, because nobody will torture you if you simply refuse to use propietary software at all.
If that was true, then Stallman should have died or being tortured a long time ago.
>the vendor encourages users to give them control via their software. This argument is the basis of everything and you cannot understand Stallman if you do not understand this argument.
I can't understand how he manages to make this trade off situation in a black-and-white issue, calling it inmoral (Since he doesn't appear to be against the consent of free individuals and this situation is one of these) and call it a day. The only reason he gives that could work is that "knowledge must be free" and he doesn't state why knowledge must be free. That alone is a whole ethical issue per se.

>>56527938
Well, I can choose not turn on my computer.
See that? I still have choices.

File: SO.ANYWAY.jpg (21KB, 250x351px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 250x351px

>>56525953
BLAZING
FUCKING
FAST

>>56525953
>DIVINE
>FUCKING
>INTELLECT

I've been saying for a while that Rms is a cunt, it should be torvalds or Ritchie or even someone memetic like rob pike

>>56526541

correct answer

>>56527992
>They can't be a victim if they choose it. That's how consent works.
I disagree. I believe people can be victims even with full knowledge and consent in what they choose. I don't believe that having choices to choose implies having freedom. In the case of proprietary software, the only way to have freedom is to reject it. To choose the proprietary software means to let other people control your computing. If that's what you personally want, that's your choice but you can't complain that you want freedom while remaining in that choice.

>I can't understand how he manages to make this trade off situation in a black-and-white issue, calling it inmoral (Since he doesn't appear to be against the consent of free individuals and this situation is one of these) and call it a day.
Whoever controls the software controls the computer. It's black and white that users are forbidden to control the proprietary software. Stallman says that users who wants to be free should reject proprietary software. Users who are free use free software. Users can choose all they want but users cannot be free using proprietary software because they have made the choice to restrict themselves and obey the software owner's control.

>>56528080
>I disagree. I believe people can be victims even with full knowledge and consent in what they choose
How they can be victims if those choices are full informed and consented?
>I don't believe that having choices to choose implies having freedom
This could be a good objection in other contexts, but in this one is a fucking contradiction. How the fuck you can reject proprietary software and choose to use free software, believe that is right, and the same time, believe that you say you aren't free?
For what are you saying, you could perfectly not be free using free software, and that defeats the whole purpose of FSF-style free software, at least in your situation.
>Whoever controls the software controls the computer.
Not at all.
They can't control the presence or absence of power supply .
They can't send the police if choose to work without a connection to internet, or if I don't want
They can't force me to install proprietary software if this computer hasn't software.
Yes, they're limited forms of control, but still are significant. That automatically makes the black-and-white issue a shades-of-grey one.
If you choose proprietary software, is because you trust it. You trust the vendor has described the software properly.
You can't modify it, but you haven't to program it, and thus you gain time, convenience and freedom to do other things.
It's a trade off after all. That's I'm saying.

>>56528080
>you're not free because your situation is less than ideal
>less than ideal for who?
>me, the hobby programmer/hacker, of course
>YOU'RE NOT FREE BECAUSE IF I WERE YOU I WOULDN'T BE FREE TO DO WHAT I WANT

the way of the freetard is the autism

>If you use a phone you have no privacy
>but i know i can be tracked and put it in a foil bag if i don't want to
>Yeah but i'm super paranoid and don't want to be tracked ever, so you're having your privacy violated
>excuse me man but your'e basically saying someone just wronged me because i opened a window in my house
>I WOULD NEVER OPEN A WINDOW, FUCKING NORMIES, YOU'RE LETTING THE GOVERNMENT OPPRESS YOU. HOW CAN YOU WALK AROUND IN PANTIES WITH A WINDOW OPEN? ZERO FREEDOM.

freetardism.

>>56528300
less shitposty post

Freetard philosophy
>you are a victim, because you are in a situation i would never enter into, i can not comprehend minds other than my own

>>56525819
your mother was a revolutionary for my dick

>>56525803
It hearkens back to last year.

>>56528300
Fun fact: They miss the point every time they invoke the government argument to use free software.
If freetards cared about freedom, then they should be combating the government, instead of promoting software that consumes your time and makes your slave of your computer.

File: migken.gif (209KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 640x426px

ken > ritchie

>>56528253
I refer to this definition of victim in the context where I use it: a person who has come to feel helpless and passive in the face of misfortune or ill-treatment. People who choose proprietary software are helpless and passive while in their agreement to accept it. Proprietary software owners often mistreat their users but this is not a guarantee. What is a guarantee is that users choose to give their control over their own computer to other people. This is an act of willing servitude: it's servitude because users ask permission whenever they want something different in the software and this position cannot a position of freedom.

>How the fuck you can reject proprietary software and choose to use free software, believe that is right, and the same time, believe that you say you aren't free?
A user who has chosen the restrictions of proprietary software is not free. As soon as they reject those restrictions, the user gets their freedom back.

>Whoever controls the software controls the computer.
If you disagree with this, then you will be completely confused about any argument that Stallman makes. I'll give you a hint right now: just because you've agreed to let other people control your computer doesn't change the fact that they're controlling your computer. You will regain control over your computer as soon as you stop their control over it. Whether the software controls the power supply or your access to the Internet is trivial. Users who are forbidden to control the software are also forbidden to control the computer.

I'm saying that trade-offs are your choice but not all choices imply that you have freedom.

>>56525803
My theory is sticky permissions were lost 4 years ago in the "mootout" and nobody actually know how to change them without going code level and messing something up. Thats why we have the same old retarded sticky for 4 years now

>>56528413
Why do you believe that pressing political issues of one subject means that we have to completely ignore the lesser political issues? Government issues like corruption and overreach are certainly important but are not the only issue to consider in our society.

>>56526496
When will LLVM compile the linux kernel?

>>56526116
Fucking newfag, ylilauta isnt even an old board you twat.

>>56528934
I thought it was already complete.

>>56526142
>Remember he spent an entire year working 16hrs per day nonstop to reverse engineer proprietary shit and all of us benefit today in 2016 DIRECTLY from that effort.

You mean copy unix shit? Wasnt that successful, was it, hurd's been dead in the water for 30 years

>>56528974
GNU's been very successful even without Hurd. You don't need Hurd to use the GNU OS in this age.

>>56527793
>alternatives to not using software at all
no
>alternatives to propietary software
not in practice a lot of the time

>>56527992
>They can't be a victim if they choose it
that's completely retarded, you can manipulate people into """"choosing"""" something that they wouldn't have done otherwise. If it's expected to pay for software, then people aren't going to get the idea of using free Software instead. You can't say they choose to pay.

>>56529268
Free software doesn't mean "money is not allowed". We encourage everybody to start selling free software.

>>56526428
>he has no power, no influence, no money
>What is a GPL Violation
>put a small preface in front of my code disallowing commercial use but allowing free use
>company uses it for commercial purposes anyway
>sue them for millions
lmao

>>56529329
The GPL doesn't restrict using the software for commercial use. Google uses plenty of GPL software for commercial use and nobody has a problem with the fact that they use GPL software.

File: AcidPepeRARE.jpg (149KB, 550x535px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 550x535px

Richard Stallman is a god amongst men.

>>56529361
/thread

>>56526179
>in memory, non disk caching
there's only so much memory around, and it's hard to predict some of the hardware developments that have happened like:
Memory becoming much slower(compared to CPU) thus "further away"(as in, takes longer to access etc.) from the CPU, leading to large caches in the CPU itself.
-singlecore performance hitting a brick wall
-Linux becoming the only relevant OS in many areas
>>56528974
>GNU
>not successful
pick 1
Linux without gnu code is difficult even nowadays

>>56525803
>It hearkens back to a different era of /g/ that no longer represents the userbase of this board. By now, most people on /g/ have come to realize what a talentless hack he is.
Same applies to K & R, son.

>>56525953
This. His schizophrenia 100% represents /g/.

>>56526098
Done.

>>56527981
>shit OS
tell me an area where performance really matters where a proprietary OS has more than 5% marketshare.

>>56527971
you get the specs for intel CPUs, but that won't help you deal with backdoors like the ME
>>56527907
then chinese companys sell knockoffs for a fraction of the price. Can you really trust chinese companys?

File: andy.jpg (83KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 800x600px

>>56528422
If you actually were able to come up with such an assessment, then you would know that their canonical names are "ken" and "dennis" (or "ken" and "dmr").

File: 1464992420517-2.jpg (9KB, 234x216px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 234x216px

>>56529361
Reincarnation of Jesus.

/s

File: Gentoo_Penguin_AdF.jpg (2MB, 1920x1272px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1272px

>yfw you realise Ken Thompson is single handedly responsible for every modern programming language having parentheses after IF statements
he should be gassed at least for that

True /g/ is either Linus or Terry

>see this thread
install gentoo

File: ahmed-clockmaker.jpg (136KB, 760x473px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 760x473px

>>56525803
This Kid
>hes a pajeet
>hes a terrororist
>hes a bomb maker
all things g loves

>>56526956
DRM doesn't need a Government to be enforced, only math.

>>56527672
A qt
From?

File: womenintech.jpg (59KB, 960x578px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 960x578px

>>56530353

File: 1446072392343.jpg (23KB, 231x363px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 231x363px

>>56530353
>that pirated windows

>>56525803
>talentless hack
>icon of /g/

I think it suits us well actually.

>>56525803
Mods should delete you instead faggot

File: 1472941134969.jpg (54KB, 576x842px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 576x842px

>>56530563
t. Gnu/faggot

File: 2016-09-10_15-41-07[1].jpg (97KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1280x720px

>>56529542

John McAfee also qualifies for that, and is a massive surveillance loony.

>not filtering the sticky

Install gentoo

>>56525953
this. remember to vote for the terry banner too.

>>56530558
kek'ed

>>56525803
Why not 'Hello World' on a dark background?

>>56526349
Yeah it is. It may not be valid, but it is an argument.

>>56525953
Do it CIA Nigger shill mods

>>56527440
>>56525819


They're both smarter more impressive individuals that have left a great mark on computing than anyone posting in this thread.

Do you guys feel special when you talk shit about people that are more accomplished and more famous than you? It's probably the lowest tier personality trait you can have.

File: maki.jpg (51KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1024x576px

>>56525803
>>56525953
We've been through this before. Maki is the queen of /g/ and you're a newfag if you don't know that. Make maki the sticky, she represents /g/ properly with her tech knowledge.

>>56526510
underrated post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbBkAdNc88w

File: Ada_Lovelace_1838.jpg (45KB, 631x786px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 631x786px

A better option.

>>56532229
Who?

>>56525819
THIS>>56525819

>>56532240
bitch invented binary you nigger

>>56532285
She probably took credit for male success like women always do.

>>56532285
I really doubt that.

>>56526247
>>56526241
>>56526238
Gtfo faggots

>>56532285
she was the first "programmer",
you kike

>>56525803
Gtfo troll

>>56532293
>>56532311
fucking /pol/r9k/ mongoloids

>>56532367
She wasn't even a programmer

>>56532568
Fuck off white knight cuck. She had a vagina, she's not special. Bitch just gets credit because she's a woman, they're always taking credit for what men did.

File: amu VN.png (783KB, 802x640px) Image search: [Google]

783KB, 802x640px

>>56532073
>maki
maybe for you new kids but Amu is a classic /g/ girl

>>56532661
>she had a vagine so she's not special
dick-worshipping poltard faggot detected

>>56532928
Pussy worshiping reddit cuck detected. She won't sleep with you for defending m'lady on 4chan. Women are not loyal and they're not special. They'll cuck you and take all your belongings and half of your money in court of law with its anti-male laws.

File: john mccarthy.jpg (70KB, 546x769px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 546x769px

I agree with OP. I think when it comes to influence among programming languages and computing environments, this is the top guy.

Stallman is a joke. The only thing I tip my fedora at for him is the authoring of Emacs. And I'm personally making a Emacs replacement as we speak. And it's going to have Apache license.

>>56528438
>muh positive freedom
You still can't justify adequaty why using propietary software is bad.

>>56525803
Why wouldn't you want a Stallman sticky on the Stallman board?

File: 1411493346208.jpg (525KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

525KB, 1920x1080px

>>56527384
You're posting the inferior meme, my man. Here let me hook you up.

Stallman - disgusting neckbeard pedo with flawed opinions and a warped world view
Users of /g/ - much the same

Stallman sticky remains.

>>56525803
To actually represent the userbase of /g/ we need to use Maki as sticky

File: LyZy5PV.gif (1MB, 500x211px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x211px

>>56532229
bueno

File: 13942625_160865107654748_1427634769_n.jpg (36KB, 480x436px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 480x436px

>>56532073
>maki

this tbqh.desu.fampai

>>56525803
>>56525953
Fuck all of you.
Iwakura Lain is the ONLY girl worth representing /g/.

I like Stallman. I like GNU, I have nothing against permissive licenses but rather launch programs Copyleft, due safeguards against corporations and disgusting people and thus preserve public monumentum.
Just do not like Copyleft who have any bad intention, usually large corporations or any developer who wants to make money with some GNU library library, and failed.