>>1548>Stallman himself is basically the Moses of the free software movement.
That is my problem with Stallman right there. Let me point out the exact word that causes conflict here:>software
I am now reminded of the first SICP lecture where Abelson scratches the term "computer" from "computer science" and says something along the lines of>Computer science is not about computers the same way geometry is not about the compass that is used for it.
Now I can make my point: rms is the "moses" of free software, and this is an error. The only thing he created was a license
, thus his domain is within the legal and political, NOT the technological. His license could be embedded to any technological or even creative work, such as documentation, techniques, or whatever.
It may be pretty good license, but it has soykaf to do with the technological aspect that is at the core of software engineering/development. And that's exactly the problem. This confusion has worked to politize the world of software, and Stallman himself has stated that he doesn't care much about the quality
of the software but the fact that it is GPL'd.
In the modern world of hardware backdoors, bloated software and OS/hardware technology stagnation, it means very little that the source-code license is LEEBRAY where the binaries themselves could (and most likely have) been compromised.
We don't run source code (which is what's GPL'd), we run binaries. There can be no freedom if the binaries (and even the source itself) are a bloatsoykaf where you have to go through all seven rings of hell to be able to trust those binaries themselves.
Indeed, Stallman has done very little for software technology itself, by adhering to dated/faulty technology and on top of that, making it more faulty, bloating it beyond the possibility of actually doing much of it because it's already so bloated.
I used to be irritated when people would come and proselytize about how their particular technology is so much better and their particular standards are the Right way and everybody else is Wrong, but hell, at least they have standards that address the technology in one way or another, while Stallman only cares about the licensing of the software.
Problem is, GPL is so centered in the political aspects of technology (granted, one not to be neglected), that the actual intention for technology can go fuck itself, right?
Having millions of LOC, a lot of GPL'd software is unwieldy, buggy, and all of it has probably been compromised and it'd be very hard to find the malicious injection in it, or the thousands of bugs that are lurking and thus render such software unfit for the purposes of many.
Here's a list of the most prominent GPL'd software in which I don't trust AT ALL: gcc, linux, firefox, systemd.
All of this software has been used to harm it's own users because source code distribution doesn't provide a solution and most of the time it has been used as a sort of trust tag for absolutely harmful programs.
Technology is a form of art, and it should be about developing better ways to accomplish a task, more efficient and very important in today's world: More trustworthy and reliable. Not about political bantering.
The point of GPL is that one should be able to audit the code, but who will audit needlessly complex and obfuscated software in the millions of LOC? Who does? At some point it's unmantainable. Stallman is a soykaf programmer, and sadly he has only paved the way for soykaf programmers to build on top of a trainwreck OS because there is not even a stable OS on which to work in the first place, it's a bunch of ad-hoc technologies where you don't really know what is going on and can't possibly care to try and make sense of all the precarious unredable contraption.
I may be repeating myself, but I am legit mad that we are just stacking features on top of features, instead of cleaning up things we are making them more and more complicated, and thus we truly are at a dark age of technology, to which the absolute disregard of the technology itself in favor of a legal battle.
Stallman has nothing to do with technology, if anything, he is the moses of free Licensing. And I'm not sure about the "free" part. The fact that he uses that word for his particular flavor of restrictiveness doesn't make it free. I'd very much replace "free" with share-alike and then we're getting closer to using the right words for things.