>mfw email stallman about gnu/windows
>hes not completely agaisnt it
Did we lose the war, linuxfags?
(pic related)
>>53818598
he called you a bitch
>>53818598
>ubuntu + windows
>not inherently wrong
i lost faith on stallman
>>53818651
It's not inherently wrong if MS modifies code and then distributes the source.
>>53818598
This thread reminded me about the time I emailed him since I was starting linux and asked if Ubuntu would be a good choice even though I know it goes agaisnt what he believes in.
Boy, he fucking went into a rant and fucking even went as far as suggesting people that could help me install whatever distro he told me during that time.
Copy pasted the whole thing and it was almost a whole page in openoffice.
Shit.
>>53818715
>intentionally going against a sperg's beliefs
what the hell did you think was gonna happen
>>53818727
kek
>>53818659
It sort of is
>Modify it to make it work better with windows/integrate better with windows functions
>the released code is useless except to study because it can't be reimplemented into a less shitty OS (well, it could, but you'd just be deleting the windows parts and replacing them with other parts, with only trivial "new" things from MS)
>Meanwhile harmful software like Windows gains another selling point
It's basically nonfree software using free software as a selling point.
>>53818715
Pastebin it.
Isn't Trisquel just Ubuntu without nonfree shit anyway?
>>53818777
but i don't think that's what stallman thinks here
as long as we can verify the GPL parts have no botnet code, he doesn't really care
>>53818715
Why the hell did you email him asking if Ubuntu would be okay if you already knew the answer? What did you expect him to say? "Gee anon, I've been talking about this for thirty fucking years, but sure, get shat on by non-free bullshit like Ubuntu!" And he wanted to help you get yourself into a completely free distro, and somehow that's bad? He actually believes in something, whether you agree with him or not. If it were me, I would've fucking deleted your email for pissing me off, but he extended an offer to help instead. You're a fucking idiot.
>>53818659
>>53818777
Canonical is taking the place of the distributor.
>>53818598
>Dr.
>>53818598
>"""""""""Dr."""""""""
>>53818777
they keep saying it's "untouched" which if they're telling the truth, means the only thing microsoft did was write the Windows Subsystem For Linux "kernel extension/module". this design would require no modification of the linux distribution in anyway, all it does is interpret ubuntu system calls from ubuntu user space into windows system calls in windows user space. this is why it may be prone to breaking a lot later down the line, but we'll see. it sounds really tedious to make.
>>53819139
tl;dr reverse Wine
>>53819087
>>53819099
lel, he has a bunch of honorary doctorates
>>53819139
>tedious
Why? POSIX is not exactly hard to implement, and ELF binaries are undeniably easier to load and link than PE32/COFF binaries. Then pthreads is so much simpler to deal with than apartment threading ever will be, it's amazing no one had done it until now.
>>53818598
MS is trying to hold onto dev mind share for unix shops, i.e. saas paas whatever. If anything it's a fuck you to ballmerism with his 'Linux is a cancer' shit. About time.
>>53819315
>MS is trying to hold onto dev mind share for unix shops
This is not a good thing.
Watching MS sink themselves was good.
>>53818841
Hey Stallman, how's going?
Seeing many inane comments?
>Microsoft distributes free software
>bad
How could it be bad, if it gets windows users to use free software? Also, it would hardly be free software if Microsoft couldn't use it.
>>53818598
Does he respond to every email?
>>53818651
RMS is pragmatic you overly sensational faggot
>>53822302
Yes.
>he has not seen rms' cuckold e-mail
>>53822319
I don't know, RMS doesn't usually seem like the pragmatic type.
>>53818598
>Did we lose the war, linuxfags?
Nah, it'd the other way around. MS is so desperate, they are porting their software to gahnoo slash loonix (SQL server) and now they are shipping gnu software and an entire fucking distro because they know people need those to get shit done.
It's almost like MS admitting defeat.
>>53818598
>Do you want to move beyond being a fan and start helping our cause?
>See allahu-akb.ar/arrival-in-syria for suggested ways to do so.
What a faggot
>>53818598
Stallman can't fault Microsoft for distributing GNU. Stallman is actively faulting Microsoft for distributing Windows. Do you not understand this?
>>53822319
Linus is pragmatic, rms is fundamentalistic and autistic
>>53822725
Stallman is pragmatic. Instead of giving up and feeling defeated, he dedicated a significant portion of his life to writing his own operating system.
>>53822827
If he was pragmatic, he'd settle for an already existing operating system.
>>53822847
That's not being pragmatic to his politics. Stallman took action and made the things he wanted to see happen for the sake of social activism.
Do people not know the meaning of the word "pragmatic"?
> The opposite of idealistic is pragmatic, a word that describes a philosophy of "doing what works best." From Greek pragma "deed," the word has historically described philosophers and politicians who were concerned more with real-world application of ideas than with abstract notions.
>>53822957
"Pragma meaning getting things done". As in the act of doing. If writing your own OS (driven by your own sense of social activism) is not considered pragmatic, then nothing can be considered pragmatic.
>>53822998
No it doesn't, it means "doing what works best".
RMS is idealistic.
>>53823032
And taking the time to build the world you want to see is not doing what works best?
>>53823062
It's idealistic when you are facing an extremely uphill battle to do it.
>>53823086
Idealism is not pragmatic when you sit around doing nothing to your cause. Idealism is pragmatic when you actually do work to get to an achievable goal.
>>53823124
What do you call it when you're doing work to try to achieve a goal that you just can't achieve?
>>53818598
>Dr
>>53823147
Depends on what that goal is. I can jump all day long but I will never fly to the moon using my leg power. If I want to walk from Land's End to John o' Groats, then I have to apply a lot of consistent effort over a long period of time.
>>53823210
His goal is to get people to stop using non-free (as in freedom) software.
He has made some of his own non-free software, but most people continue to use mostly non-free software.
>>53818787
It doesn't matter if it has botnet code. The code explicitly says what its going to do. Its free code.
If I build a text editor that sends all of your text back to me and release it under GPL as free open source ware then the fact that it's malicious doesn't change anything. It's still free open source ware.
>>53823232
That would be a strawman argument. Stallman knows that there are only two ways for all non-free software to be stopped completely:
1) It happens by threat of violence via government fiat
2) all people of the world decide that non-free software is unethical and should always be rejected
Stallman would abhor option 1 and would never condone it. Stallman hopes for option 2 but he guesses that things won't reach that level.
Stallman's actual goal in starting the free software movement is to start and nurture a world where people voluntarily join and voluntarily cooperate in their computing affairs. He succeeded on that front.
>>53823281
Yes, but that means SOMEONE some day will read it and warn others about it.
>>53823371
That's perfectly okay. People could be warned the day of launch. The fact is that it's free and open source. This makes it inherently good even though it's malicious. People know that it's malicious and still choose to use it(or not use it).
But at the end of the day, stallman cares that it's FOSS. Not that it's malicious.
>>53823363
> Stallman's actual goal in starting the free software movement is to start and nurture a world where people voluntarily join and voluntarily cooperate in their computing affairs. He succeeded on that front.
No, I'm pretty sure his goal is not limited to this. He wants as many people to use free software as possible.
>>53818777
Then still it might be wrong, but as long as they GPL FOSS the used code it's not *inherently* wrong.
You have to allow Microsoft to use FOSS under the GPL for the license to work in the first place.
>>53823419
Of course he wants many people to use free software. He gives speeches and writes Internet articles to teach people why freedom in software is important in your own computing. He wrote the GNU OS to prove that you can use your computer in freedom. What he won't do is advocate the need for governments to outlaw proprietary software.
>>53822725
linus is a cunt
(and i'm not referring to his rudeness in e-mails that scares females or whatever, that's actually pretty funny.)
>>53818598
He's saying using GNU software isn't wrong even on Windows. What's wrong is that Windows still contains non free software.
He's not married to Linux and I'm pretty sure he's welcome a free software version of Windows even if it's Windows. It would mean he won.
>>53818777
The 4 liberties don't say anything about reimplementation in other OSs. As long as it's free it's good.
>>53824153
4 liberties are a starting point, not the alpha and the omega.
>>53824163
4 liberties are absolute. If your software's license has them then it is free software.
>>53824501
As long as it has the 4 liberties it is free.
It does not follow that
>As long as it's free it's good.
Just because it's preferable to a nonfree alternative.
>>53824136
>He's not married to Linux
I'd just like to interject for a moment.
>>53819087
>>53819099
Newfags out
