Submitted by “When Richard Stallman learned that a compiler architect from ATI would be speaking at MIT, he immediately started organizing a protest against ATI’s damaging free software policies. It all started, like most good protests, with a trip to Kinko’s printing to make a sign. The request came from Richard Stallman for a 3’x2′ sign, mounted and able to be carried with one hand easily. Several frustrating minutes with Inkscape, two trips to the store and one foam-core backing later, we had our sign, and it stated our message clearly in black letters on white background.”
I boycotted ATI after they reamed me on the notebook drivers for Windows, my next laptop has a Nvidia in it.
I wont get arrested and I damage ATI sales a little which brings a warm fuzzy feeling to my heart
RMS is just a thug protestor with no brains. There are smarter and more effective ways to boycott.’
Pitty the “riot squad” didn’t put the water hose on him (and some soap:)
Why doesn’t he just pick OTHER hardware and move on, there are other companies about or reverse engineer their stuff and publish it then ATI can do NOTHING except cry like RMS. Why doesnt he write to his congressman
Isn’t that what (law abiding) Americans should do? Isnt America capatialism about CHOICE? Why is RMS enforcing his views onto ATI’s choice. (just posing alternative arguemnts:) Doesnt rights of protest and public groupings only extend to “public” areas when MIT is obviously private?
I dont like Fords? I buy another brand (all owned at some level but hey thats capatilism that the free world claims is great!:)
He can always promote the Open Hardware to make a new Open Graphics Card and drivers no? Isnt that what open source software AND HARDWARE is all about?` Adding more choice and freedom? Is he admiting the open hardware community is going nowhere fast?
Open Hardware – http://openhardware.net/
Open Graphics Project – http://wiki.duskglow.com/tiki-index.php?page=Open-Graphics
Instead of him dancing about making an arse of himself why doesnt he CONTRIBUTE to those?
Edited 2006-04-30 16:47
Thug protestor? Implying that he’s not law abiding?
Did you read the article? He just stood there silently with a sign. That’s not thuggish and it’s not illegal. Hell, it’s not even impolite.
The talk was open to the public and it was even in the same building where his office is.
On private (MIT) property no? Isnt that like me standing in your bedroom one morning with a sign with my views saying “Your a fag” on a 3×2 sign? Its not thuggish and not illegal no? Its not even impolite!
It would have been funnier if ATI held up a 3×2 sign telling RMS “STFU j00 n00b”
He should have wore a white suit with it printed all over it, no sign needed
and you can say hey its a fashion statement, oh wait did I say RMS and Fashion in the same sentence?
Edited 2006-04-30 16:55
On private (MIT) property no? Isnt that like me standing in your bedroom one morning with a sign with my views saying “Your a fag” on a 3×2 sign?
If I invite the general public to my bedroom, then yes you can show up with a disparaging sign. You are the public right?
But that’s a bad analogy anyway. To make it more related you would have to be one of my flatmates (speech was in same building as RMSs office). And I would be someone who was just renting the bedroom for the weekend for the purpose of inviting the public to it. While you would be someone who had lived in the flat for years.
Edited 2006-04-30 17:07
ATI should have held up a sign with “Troll -1” on it
Going with your analogy, it’s like someone walking into your bedroom and calling you gay and you nearly being arrested for holding a placard, stating that you are in fact straight.
As an employee of MIT, and working in the department for which the talk was hosted, he has every right to be in attendance.
Actually, not. Those things alone would not give him the right to attend a meeting held in the same building. (Try busting into the board room during a board meeting of the company you work for, or into the faculty senate’s closed session, if you’re a student.)
The only thing that would give him a right to attend the meeting is if he were in the intended announced audience for the meeting. (Which, apparently, he was.)
You do realize this was an open showing at a major university campus. That has no analogy to someones bedroom, unless they hold college courses there and host a public event in their 12,000 square foot bedroom.
It does nothing for your side when you make stupid analogies.
You are clearly understimating the power of non-verbal communication. Perhaps he stood there silently, but he clearly was a distraction. Imagine if the opposite had happened… It would have created an outrage.
Rights goes both ways. As much as RMS got the right to protest, the architect from ATI got the right to transmit his message(s) without such disruptions. It’s something that “freedom advocates” seem to forget.
Unless something is really wrong in the US, a private security force cannot arrest a person. So they’re going a bit far with sensationalism in the article…
Edited 2006-04-30 17:12
It’s not a matter of having a “right” to not hear someone else’s speech in a public event, it’s simply a matter of decorum and deciding whether your actions affect change in the manner you desire. People that exercise their free expression in a way that others find annoying rather than compelling are undermining themselves at the expense of others. Something they can feel free to do, but it doesn’t make them particularly sympathetic. The vultures that sit outside of “abortion clinics” don’t exactly do themselves any favors in my mind with their exercise of free speech.
This would have been a non-event if the event coordinator (?) hadn’t contacted the police, which in protestese means “it’s on, now!”
Ok – this is really cracking me up:
“Rights goes both ways. As much as RMS got the right to protest, the architect from ATI got the right to transmit his message(s) without such disruptions. It’s something that “freedom advocates” seem to forget.”
WHACHO TALKING ABOUT WILLIS ! ??
`Transmit his message without disruptions’?
Say what? The guy was just sitting there silently … what’s `the disruption’? Just because he held a sign he was a disruption? And I really wonder:
1.) What they were thinking when they called the security. 2.) What that guy trying to get Rms out of the room thought he was doing.
No evaluation of the situation. No questions asked. No one even though `Hey, maybe, JUST MAYBE this guy has the _right_ to do this’. What kind of a dictatorship is this? What kind of attitude is this anyway? To those of you who would have their little ego hurt by an act like that of RMS (poor deers), I have an advice:
Grow up
Edited 2006-04-30 19:54
RMS wasn’t there silently sitting. He handed out flyers. What if he’d been an NVIDIA rep instead, handing out NVIDIA propaganda? Would you consider that disrupting?
In answer to your questions:
1) They weren’t thinking, or they were frightened and made a bad judgement call.
2) The cop was thinking “I need to hear both sides, and I want to hear this guy’s side in a neutral location.”
No, I can’t read the cop’s mind, but the fact that the cops arranged for Stallman to stay pretty much demonstrates they, at least, were doing their jobs well.
Even though I don’t take back any of my opinions, I’ld like to apologize if my tone was a bit arrogant – maybe I should be a little more calm. I have been in situations like the one Rms was in and I let that get into me while posting – I’m sorry. I shouldn’t have done that.
Now for the Nvidia rep: Yes they would have _every_right_ to hand out flyers. They wouldn’t be causing any problems – It’s their right to do something like that. The reason Nvidia/ATI/whatever doesn’t do stuff like this is not because they don’t have the right – it’s because they would get ridiculed for fighting for _profit_ so desperately. If I was an ATI guy I would really almost _welcome_ them to ridicule their company like this. And no -if they were quiet like RMS- I wouldn’t be disrupted.
As for the cop: ok – we weren’t there and any side could claim it’s own version of the story, but _if_ the cop asked Rms to pass outside immediately (as the folks in the article claim) it sounds to me like he was in `I-order-you-comply’ mode and didn’t care to evaluate the situation at all. And afterall seeing a quiet guy holding a sign during a lecture doesn’t make him elligible for driving him out …
As for the cop: ok – we weren’t there and any side could claim it’s own version of the story, but _if_ the cop asked Rms to pass outside immediately (as the folks in the article claim) it sounds to me like he was in `I-order-you-comply’ mode and didn’t care to evaluate the situation at all. And afterall seeing a quiet guy holding a sign during a lecture doesn’t make him elligible for driving him out …
The police are always in “I-order-you-comply” mode. That’s what “to police” means to them.
But in this case, the reason for the order appears to have been the SOP in such a case: to separate Stallman from the scene long enough to hear his side of the story in a neutral location.
It’s pretty clear that the cops were interested in evaluating the situation. They did, after all, return Stallman to the room and allow him to remain.
Isn’t that what (law abiding) Americans should do?
Protesting is entirely within the bounderies of the law.
Isnt America capatialism about CHOICE?
That’s like saying “why protest a company that pollutes your community — why not just buy from someone else?” America is a society, not a market. People are free to make choices, yes, but people are also free to try to influence societies views through protest.
Why is RMS enforcing his views onto ATI’s choice.
He isn’t enforcing his views on ATI’s choice. He’s trying to guilt them into changing their approach. Closed-source 3D drivers do hurt the free software and academic communities. The fact that only companies like Microsoft and Apple have access to the specifications that allow modern 3D cards to be programmed has stagnated open research into leveraging the power of this hardware. While it is ATI’s right to keep their driver sources closed, just as it is the right of a business to decorate their store gaudily, it’s also the right of the community to complain about the impact created on their society.
Doesnt rights of protest and public groupings only extend to “public” areas when MIT is obviously private?
This is a salient point. Technically, yes, MIT is private and they would have every right to tell RMS to leave. However, MIT is a university (and RMS is a member of the university). Universities are in theory supposed to be a forum for intellectual debate. MIT is clearly a university that is seen as carrying forward society’s debate on issues of technology (a fact that makes them more than a little bit of money!) So while MIT could have easily stifled RMS, the damage to their image likely would not have been worth it.
MIT is a university (and RMS is a member of the university).
He is?
He is a research affiliate in the Artificial Intelligence lab. He was also a graduate student there (didn’t complete his phd), and worked as a programmer in the AI lab for several years.
The fact that people don’t know RMS’ affiliations, or at least history, with MIT gives credo to the idea that they should be completely ignored.
It’s kind of funny. The worst part about this is that it looks REALLY geeky. I mean, people protest so they can stay illegally in the country; and they’re cheered. They protest about their rights to choose to terminate a pregnancy; they’re cheered. People protest about their pay wages; they’re cheered.
No one else cares enough about software to protest, apparently. So he looks like a big doofus (to be nice).
There’s really nothing wrong with it, it’s just odd. And given the rate at which IT jobs are supposed to expand in the coming decades I’d say he’s right on to think it’s important.
But go ahead. Make fun. RMS would probably find it funny.
I’ve known RMS since 1983, although we’ve been out of touch for years. And I’m getting rather sad over people’s confusing free speech issues like protesting against the government with the rights one does or doesn’t have when attending a commercial presentation.
I care about software. I’ve been in the business for over thirty years. I think RMS is wrong in a lot of what he believes, and I think the FSF has done as much harm as good over the last twenty years. None of those things have anything to do with my opinions about the meeting:
1) No one “almost arrested” stallman
2) Some functionary over-reacted, probably based on RMS’ well deserved reputation for acting out
3) RMS had a right to attend the presentation, but not to use the meeting room to further an agenda at opposition to that of the presenter — this is a commercial issue, not a legal one. If stallman wants to make a legal issue, he needs to take it up (as he has) with the government, not with corporations.
4) The cops did their job surprisingly well
I think it’s a good thing that someone stands up and does the protesting. This article is going to be read by some people who might think twice before buying anything ATI again. Same for the RFID protest.
While I don’t agree with RMS most of the time, I think it’s still a good thing for society to have RMS’.
What really disturbs me is how the whole “incident” was handled. What disturbs me even more is that this reaction seems to be the norm rather than the exception.
While I don’t agree with RMS most of the time, I think it’s still a good thing for society to have RMS’.
I disagree with his fundemantalistic nature too. While I agree that Ati is not very alt. OS friendly, I think there are much bigger targets for protests. Hey, Richard, checked the components of your PC? Your BIOS is closed source, you know, and much more important than a damn graphic card.
Hey, Richard, checked the components of your PC? Your BIOS is closed source, you know, and much more important than a damn graphic card.
Not necessarily true. He could be running using a LinuxBios or the like.
Thom I think Rms is aware of that fact about Bios much better than you are. Check FSF and see the related articles. Rms _has_ a problem with closed source Bios too. Again check fsf.org please and while you’re at it stop this `Hey Richard’ attitude. It’s not becoming for OsN staff.
Can’t he protest about more than one ting?
Nope.
At least not at the same time. Scientists claim men cannot multitask
Actually, the cops seemed to have done a good job. They asked RMS outside so they could get his side. He refused. They helped him see the error of his way. They got both sides of the story and decided, despite the over-the-top rhetoric on the intarweb, that there was no reason to arrest him, and they made arrangements that allowed him to stay and protest.
one hopes that whomever called the cops gets disciplined for wasting their time, but that’s MIT’s call.
RMS wasn’t nearly arrested. He asked if he was being arrested because that’s the thing to do when police try to detain you illegally. Asking if you’re being arrested forces the issue. See http://www.flexyourrights.org/traffic_stop_scenario
Anyway, we’re not supposed to buy ATI, but nVidia is worse because they don’t provide any specs (ATI provides specs for older chipsets), instead building dependency on their “blob” driver. The blob driver, however, gives better performance than either ATI’s blob or the open source ATI drivers. I suppose RMS who uses emacs as his shell only needs VGA, but what about those of us who want 3D acceleration? Wait for OpenGraphics?
Buy NVIDIA anyway, because religion is easy to live without. Unless you’re going to toss out lots of consumer electronics, airplanes, trains, subways, and automobiles with bits of software you’ll never obtain the source code to, you might as well not make your life needlessly difficult when using a personal computer.
Why tolerate such cartel-ish behavior from the hardware people?
We need to grow the FOSS community to the point that the community can regularly, quickly, and legally compose drivers for all hardware.
At the point where no one wastes their time with these soul-sucking binary drivers, some company will realize Much Profit in selling the hardware with the driver code.
And a swell day that will be.
I wouldn’t classify their behavior as “cartel-ish.” They’re simply emerging as an oligopoly because of the costs associated with developing the hardware and software necessary to be competitive in the 3D market, coupled with certain retardations (my bias) pertaining to intellectual property. It’s tolerable in that in the large scheme of things, it’s of minor importance to the everyday lives of people (who on a daily basis touch a few thousand different group’s pet causes, while simply going about their lives) and obsessing over it while tacitly accepting the same behavior from other businesses (probably because of myopia) means making the one aspect of your life you know something about more difficult and less efficient than it needs to be while tossing the ideals you’re proclaiming to stand for to the side everyday. If you really care, then you’ll suffer the pain and inefficiencies associated with your choice. If you don’t, though, then you have little reason to engage in masochism to be part of someone else’s idealism.
At the end of the day, some people simply want the majority that don’t care because it’s of marginal concern to them, to subsidize open this and that because paying to develop their own open this or that with the number of people that share their beliefs would cost so much more than buying the mass market products.
I never have understood why drivers ever need to be proprietary. To quote Marco Peerebom from an earlier article linked to on this site:
Marco Peereboom, one of the OpenBSD developers:
“One fills in a few structures, one hands it off to the hardware, one gets notified when the work is done. There that’s all a driver does. There is no IP in filling out a structure and handing it off to hardware.”
Made me wonder why all drivers can’t be free.
Made me wonder why all drivers can’t be free.
=============================
Even companies that pay employees to develop them?
Their product is the hardware, not the software.
>Their product is the hardware, not the software.
Driver updates can cause a HUGE difference in performance, they are an integral part of the product, don’t kid yourself.
gpierce: Their product is the hardware, not the software.
Yes and no. Some pieces of hardware actually have some of their features in the drivers and not in the actual hardware. As a result, in some cases their product is both hardware and software paired together in a single package.
Except that drivers for modern video cards are immensely more complex than that.
Ask one of the NVIDIA/ATI driver devs to explain to you the sheer size and complexity of a driver for one of their GPUs.
I am sure they have good reasons; I just had never seen anyone explain the work of a driver so succinctly.
OpenGL drivers are a bit more complicated. They’re a whole OpenGL stack, and these days, include things like optimizers and compilers.
That said, I don’t know why the source to the binary-blobs can’t be opened. Those things do little more than bang the registers and queue DMA operations. Mesa could be used for the rest of the stack.
From a false premise, one can arrive at any conclusion.
Peerebom is incorrect in his description of how drivers work, and in some instances, there’s quiet a bit of IP knowledge in the drivers.
This is most likely to happen when knowledge of the internal state machine of the device is necessary to know how to communicate with the device.
We need to grow the FOSS community to the point that the community can regularly, quickly, and legally compose drivers for all hardware.
Not going to happen. There are plenty of vendors who make more than enough money selling to customers who don’t care about religious positions. Some of those vendors don’t even have the choice. They either have legal requirements (CF FCC and SDR) or contractual obligations to their suppliers that prevent them from doing so.
Asking if you’re being arrested forces the issue.
It doesn’t. The police have fairly wide leeway when it comes to separating parties involved in some sort of altercation and they can ask you to move away without having to arrest you.
What it can do, though, is hurt your own standing with the cop when it comes to a he-said/she-said over whether you’re being disruptive.
In this instance, the cops were trying to do RMS a favor by getting him out of the room to hear his side of the story. Not, in the years I’ve known Richard, that he would recognize that.
What really disturbs me is how the whole “incident” was handled. What disturbs me even more is that this reaction seems to be the norm rather than the exception.
Maybe having the right of free speech protected by the constitution makes people feel that this is enough and actually letting others use that right is not necessary.
Or maybe they are just in for the money and were afraid ATI would retreat from funding the faculty and/or its projects.
“afraid ATI would retreat from funding the faculty”
Isn’t capatilism great
This is what America is all about no? I guess you live by the sword you die by the sword.
I think RMS just cannot handle CHOICE. He just cannot decide to move on to either a different brand or roll his own.
Edited 2006-04-30 17:04
“I think RMS just cannot handle CHOICE. He just cannot decide to move on to either a different brand or roll his own.”
Somehow you, and several other people here, got the idea that his attempts to peacefully inform people were really some kind of personal vendetta. Lucky for you folks I’m here to offer a clue to those who desperately need it.
This wasn’t some youth rebellion where people chain themselves to a doorway, holler at the top of their lungs and then get hauled off with pepper spray in their eyes. This was a perfectly legal, passive and innofensive campaign to inform people about the harmful effects of ATI’s policy on open source software and the consumers. Some of the things RMS does are so unusual compared to our modern society of sheep that I can’t help but laugh, but he’s also very commendable because he’s telling people like you and me when our best interests, rights, and freedoms are at risk.
I am just thinking – it would have been much more polite that the protest be carried near the entrance of the speech room. That’s how most protests are done. Holding a sign is disturbing in its sense. Try moving left and right and holding a sign in a theatre – and see if people believe you’re disturbing them.
As noble of an idea that RMS is pursuing, I can’t say I agree with this particular set of actions.
As for the MIT police/security being called – I would say that the organizers did that because they didn’t know what to do. RMS is civilized but some of his fellow supporters may not be so. If all hell breaks loose – then the organizers would get the blame for not getting security here earlier. The security is only there in case something happens.
Besides, asking RMS to step outside is not as discourteous as the article makes it sound. The organizers may just be wanting to ask RMS to explain his intentions before things (may) go out of hand. By refusing to discuss with the organizers (and displaying a genearlly hostile attitude), RMS’ actions escalate the situation.
The thing may not have escalated if RMS informs the organizers of the protest beforehand (or at least explain to them what they’re doing) and discusses things a little bit.
“RMS is civilized but some of his fellow supporters may not be so.”
This isn’t the first time RMS did something like this, he does have enough common sense to take level headed supporters with him. Anyone else’s actions are not his problem.
” The security is only there in case something happens.”
No, they tried to deny him entry and then they tried to kick him out during the presentation while he was sitting quietly. The campus police caused more of a disturbance than RMS did.
“Besides, asking RMS to step outside”
Did we read the same article?
“He took Richard by the upper arm and Richard loudly asked if he was being arrested. The officer pulled more and Richard yelled more. “Am I being arrested?” he asked.” (emphasis mine)
Police officers might ask politely because they are trained to, but their words and actions don’t always say the same thing.
“The thing may not have escalated if RMS informs the organizers of the protest beforehand (or at least explain to them what they’re doing) and discusses things a little bit.”
“Hello, my name is Richard Stallman and I’m going to come to your presentation with signs and pamphlets telling people bad things about your products. Please don’t tell security to deny me entrance, thanks.” *Pause for Laughter*.
Sure, you can argue that RMS might have been some kind of disturbance if you nitpick enough, but denying him the right to protest peacefully is sensorship.
This isn’t the first time RMS did something like this, he does have enough common sense to take level headed supporters with him. Anyone else’s actions are not his problem.
as the article says they were “mobilizing troops” so to speak. So there certainly could be others joining the protest from the MIT campus that’s not part of RMS’ “regulars”. You’re right that other people’s actions are not RMS’ problems – legally – then again – if it’s his campaign that kickstarted the whole thing he would be partly responsible.
No, they tried to deny him entry and then they tried to kick him out during the presentation while he was sitting quietly. The campus police caused more of a disturbance than RMS did.
Did we read the same article?
“He took Richard by the upper arm and Richard loudly asked if he was being arrested. The officer pulled more and Richard yelled more. “Am I being arrested?” he asked.” (emphasis mine)
Police officers might ask politely because they are trained to, but their words and actions don’t always say the same thing.
“Hello, my name is Richard Stallman and I’m going to come to your presentation with signs and pamphlets telling people bad things about your products. Please don’t tell security to deny me entrance, thanks.” *Pause for Laughter*.
Sure, you can argue that RMS might have been some kind of disturbance if you nitpick enough, but denying him the right to protest peacefully is sensorship.
Two things – I agree totally with you that the police did more disturbance than RMS did, and I’m not saying that they should deny him right to protest. I just believe that there are more courteous ways to set up the protest (like standing just outside of the entrance handing out flyers and standing there with the sign).
The point is, if RMS were there “to inform” then what I just said would have been enough. The only reason he was there inside holding the sign implies there is an intention to intimate the speaker from ATI. I am not saying that it’s illegal or wrong – it’s perfectly in his rights to do so. I just don’t agree with the method – I think there are more polite ways of conducting a protest than this.
Besides, pissing off one of the two biggest GPU manufacturers in the world (actually the article ended up dissing both) does not exactly help the OSS movement positively.
Btw, it’s “censorship” not “sensorship”
I think there are more polite ways of conducting a protest than this.
Thats great and all, but remember that RMS is under no obligation to live up to your expectations.
Besides, pissing off one of the two biggest GPU manufacturers in the world (actually the article ended up dissing both) does not exactly help the OSS movement positively.
I disagree. I think the way RMS conducted himself and the publicity it has generated will serve to educate the public and generally help the OSS movement.
I disagree. I think the way RMS conducted himself and the publicity it has generated will serve to educate the public and generally help the OSS movement.
The publicity is all in geek-forums. The only people ‘educated’ were geeks like us who already have strong opinions on the matter, one way or the other.
All geek forums you say? Ive read a number pointless incoherent posts in this very thread here that say otherwise.
‘geek forum’ is hardly equivalent to ‘coherent’.
Did we read the same article?
Article? It’s a propoganda piece written by people who equate closed-source software to the slave trade. You’ve got to take it with a grain (or truckload) of salt.
“Article? It’s a propoganda piece”
Actually, it’s a blog.
“written by people who equate closed-source software to the slave trade.”
I don’t know where you got that impression, but it’s a gross exaggeration. RMS and people like him just preffer the open source philosophy and distrust companies that have intentionally attacked the open source movement.
“You’ve got to take it with a grain (or truckload) of salt.”
You seem very biased.
Who is talking about the slave trade? Clearly, we have made significant progress in protecting the rights of society in the last couple of hundred years. However, fact that worse injustices occurred in the past, and continue to occur abroad, does not mean that lesser injustices in our present society should not be addressed.
We are approaching the point where you have to admit that computers are not just a convenience, but an integral part of modern society. They allow access to a vast store of human knowledge, and are tools that have enabled our modern society every bit as much as the discovery of iron-working enabled medieval society. Like it or not, we’re going to have to figure out exactly what kind of standards we, as a society, would like to have regarding access to computers. Corporations are rapidly trying to control such access in order to maximize profitability. These measures are not necessarily what is good for the continued evolution of society. This issue will have to be addressed, one way or another.
The reason he chose to protest ATI is that they were coming at MIT, where he is based.
I personally agree with his actions. He is exercising his right to free speech against a corporation with whom he disagrees. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with this, unless you dislike freedom of speech.
Isn’t capatilism great
This is what America is all about no?
Actually, no. America is economically very interventionist, only it uses the Pentagon to subsidize industry. Do you think the IT industry would be where it is without the people’s tax dollars?
Anyway, that’s besides the point. If you want to know what America stands for, just read the Constitution. In particular, have a look at the First Amendment. You might learn a thing or two.
Have a look at the EU’s Human Rights directives and peace keeping roles. You may learn a thing or two.
Actually, no. America is economically very interventionist, only it uses the Pentagon to subsidize industry. Do you think the IT industry would be where it is without the people’s tax dollars?
And the aerospace industry and the telecommunications industry, etc, etc. The DoD is a giant corporate funding program for everything from Boeing and Lockheed to small telcom businesses.
From an economic theory point of view, this isn’t really a bad thing, though. Yeah, there is a good amount of corporate welfare going on, but there is also some substantial necessary R&D going on. Modern economic theory points out that in a state of pure capitalism, corporations, which are naturally risk-averse, will under-spend on future development (R&D). This fact means that an economy in which the government, which is not risk-averse, doesn’t intervene into R&D will, while avoiding the inefficiencies inherent in taxation and government spending, still grow more slowly than a more “inefficient” one that doesn’t underspend on development.
The above observation also points out something important: nothing is simple. Economics isn’t simple, the rules of society aren’t simple, people aren’t simple. Simplistic ideas about “choice” and “freedom” and “rights” and “competition” are useless when applied to real society.
Even if the economic theory held true, (wrong forum for debunking it,) the consequence doesn’t imply that the corporate welfare approach is any better.
Over the last thirty years, the evidence has been to the contrary. As early as the mid-80s, it because obvious that DOD funded R&D wasn’t keeping pace with industrial R&D, and thus were sown the seeds of COTS (“Common Off The Shelf”) programs.
The theory is one of those “all else being equal” theories, where all else is rarely equal.
In this case, the economic impact of foreign competition was sufficent to overwhelm the entire impact of the military-industrial complex.
Perhaps he stood there silently, but he clearly was a distraction.
Not according to law.
As much as RMS got the right to protest, the architect from ATI got the right to transmit his message(s) without such disruptions.
Holding a sign is not a disruption to a speech, not matter how you’re trying to cut it, because you can simply not look at the sign and look at the speaker.
If he had been yelling (or even talking loudly) then it would have been a disruption, because you wouldn’t have been able to just “look away” and not hear him. Same thing if he had been holding the sign in front of the stage, as he would have been blocking the view. What he did was perfectly legal, which is why he wasn’t arrested.
Unless something is really wrong in the US, a private security force cannot arrest a person. So they’re going a bit far with sensationalism in the article.
Read the article again. It clearly states that it was a police officer, not a private security guard.
Holding a sign is not a disruption to a speech, not matter how you’re trying to cut it, because you can simply not look at the sign and look at the speaker.
It’s quite simple to say what you have to do, but it doesn’t exacly happen like that in reality. I am pretty sure you know this. Furthermore, it’s not only a distraction to the audience, but to the speaker, too.
If he had been yelling (or even talking loudly) then it would have been a disruption, because you wouldn’t have been able to just “look away” and not hear him. Same thing if he had been holding the sign in front of the stage, as he would have been blocking the view. What he did was perfectly legal, which is why he wasn’t arrested.
You keep raising the legality aspect. What he did might be perfectly legal, it doesn’t make it polite or efficient. Like I mentioned, I am pretty sure the opposite would have sparked an outrage among the open-source community… Kind of a double-standard.
It doesn’t mean that I disagree with him; I believe he tried to defend a good cause, just not the right way.
As for the police, I clearly read “MIT’s police force”, but it doesn’t really matter. He wouldn’t have been close to be arrested for that kind of “offense”.
I am pretty sure the opposite would have sparked an outrage among the open-source community… Kind of a double-standard.
I’m not so sure. Suppose I went to some Linux or other FLOSS talk holding a sign saying “Linux sucks! Open Source kills businesses!”. I would probably get laughed at, but I seriously doubt they’d call security on me to get me removed.
I’m not so sure. Suppose I went to some Linux or other FLOSS talk holding a sign saying “Linux sucks! Open Source kills businesses!”. I would probably get laughed at, but I seriously doubt they’d call security on me to get me removed.
You’d probably get a pickaxe rammed into your brain. That is the way of Stallinman.
small point, but colleges like MIT can have their own police force, that are actually real live police. at CMU we have a police station and the folk there are in fact actual Pittsburgh police with all that means.
Polite doesn’t matter. It’s the legality that matters. Screw “polite” if necessary.
If it’s legal, it’s perfectly okay.
What’s that supposed to mean? You think I’m trying to say that the U.S. is better than the E.U.? Because you should know that I didn’t try to say this. In fact, I’m not a U.S. citizen, and I disapprove of their foreing policy. That doesn’t mean I can’t admire their constitution…
Really, these comments are off-topic, and your response is uncalled for. Less emotion, more logic please!
True, however you can buy something and still protest the company that makes it. In fact, as a customer, your voice is even slightly louder.
Remember, not speaking out is, for all practical purposes, equivalent to agreeing. RMS did the right thing, and he exercises his constitutional rights. Disagreeing with him doesn’t mean one should decry him for what he did.
I think this is an appropriate moment to quote Voltaire: “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,”
Edited 2006-04-30 17:31
I think this is an appropriate moment to quote Voltaire: “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,”
It’s worth emphazing it strongly.
While it would be nice to have opensource drivers from ATI and Nvidia, the reality is that they are businesses, and other than Intel, really the only performance GPU manufacturers that real people can buy products based on, so by boycotting ATI, (and Nvidia), that leaves the choices down to Intel (which are not what you’d call overpowered) and S3/Via which is also closed source and not up to the same performance levels as ATI/Nvidia. So basically, RMS and friends want us all to forgo real performance for an abstract ideal, no thank you, I’ll continue making choices based on performance, cost and form factor.
People that exercise their free expression in a way that others find annoying rather than compelling are undermining themselves at the expense of others. Something they can feel free to do, but it doesn’t make them particularly sympathetic.
Again, true. However, without having been there and having talked to people afterward, you can’t assume that RMS was found to be annoying rather than compelling. In this case, however, his goal was probably more to inform than convince.
Of course, the ATI people very probably found it annoying, just like Bush and the Chinese president probably found it annoying when that Falun Gong protester heckled them at a press conference (which was disruptive mind you, and the reason she was arrested).
In this particular case, one should be careful not to project their own bias on the crowd that was attending the ATI conference. Considering this is MIT, you could be surprised about the amount of support RMS got!
Lets get this straight (not come across the story before)
Someone is protesting because a major graphics card company who pay people to develop drivers for its cards is bad because they don’t “open source” the specs so FOSS community can’t develop there own software?
hhmm, OK, there several responses to this, one tough luck its a hard world and if a commercial company develops its own software at a cost it can hardly be considered wrong if it doesn’t pass out the code freely
Does that mean you can’t complain if you don’t like it?
Yeah complain away, but reality (in my opinion) is that he’s not got a leg to stand in his argument.
I think the blokes got too much time on his hands and would be better off actually campaign against things that are actually evil in the world rather then what a company that has paid to develop software gives it away free or not.
Yeah ATI should develop for Linux and what not, but then most games manufacturers don’t develop for the Mac or Linux either why not petition them aswell
RMS puts the FUN in FUNdamentalism. *wink*
OSS fundies are like PETA extremists: if you don’t agree on their radical views, YOU’re the enemy.
You keep raising the legality aspect. What he did might be perfectly legal, it doesn’t make it polite or efficient.
Polite? Probably not, but that wasn’t the point. Politeness is rarely part of protest, and that’s not going to change anytime soon. At least he kept quiet, and has such did not go over the line.
As far as efficiency goes, I’d say it was in fact quite efficient, since we’re all talking about it here. The police intervention certainly helped, too!
Like I mentioned, I am pretty sure the opposite would have sparked an outrage among the open-source community… Kind of a double-standard.
I’d say it would depend on whether the criticism is valid or not. Your hypothetical example is too vague for me to comment on. It’s not really a matter of double standards, anyway, since we’re talking about opinions. If I agree with something and approve it, and disagree with something else and disapprove of it, it’s not double standards, because not all viewpoints are equally valid.
What I can tell you is that, if RMS had been given a speech and someone from ATI had been holding up a sign saying “Boycott RMS”, I would certainly have found it very stupid, but I would have defended the man’s right to hold the sign just as much (as long as it was his personal belief, and was not just ordered to do it for the company’s sake – companies are not real people and should not have the same rights real people do).
It doesn’t mean that I disagree with him; I believe he tried to defend a good cause, just not the right way.
That’s fine, but I personally disagree with you. I think it was the right way, because it obviously generated a lot of publicity.
As for the police, I clearly read “MIT’s police force”, but it doesn’t really matter. He wouldn’t have been close to be arrested for that kind of “offense”.
You’re right, it does say “MIT’s police force”, which is quite ambiguous. And of course, he wasn’t “nearly arrested”, in that sense the headline is misleading.
So, if a buy a can of coke, do I have the right to protest because they don’t wrote down the formula on the can?, or do I have the right to demand the formula of every Doritos bag I buy?
to silly.
Respect their rights if you want them to respect yours.
You’ve got the right to say whatever you want while not abridging the rights of others.
That doesn’t mean that people have to listen to you.
That’s really not the point. How does not having the formula to Coke affect your community?
Look guys, RMS is out there, but he’s not crazy. He’s not on a crusade to liberate all IP in existence. He believes that in this digital age, software is too important to be locked up. His goal is not to force everyone to free their software (if it was, he never would’ve created the GNU project!), but rather to create a free system that offers an alternative to closed ones. He believes that the competitive advantages of an open system will allow this system to be sustainable, and indeed, will allow this system to compete well against traditional closed ones.
So far, he’s shown a a strong willingness to do the work necessary to make the creation of such a system a reality. He didn’t lobby AT&T to release the source code to UNIX, instead, he started a project to rewrite it. His issue with driver manufacturers results simply from the fact that the free software world cannot just rewrite drivers, because they often don’t have the necessary information. Hence the lobbying for information.
This is the wrong forum to discuss whether RMS (or anyone) is crazy or not, but it’s probably reasonable to point out that the FSF has pretty much failed over the last 20 years to meet its goals. I still await the hurd.
Had it not been for AT&T dragging its feet in settling with Berkeley — in which Stallman and the FSF played no role at all — the FSF would have been a total failure, rather than a major failure.
Nvidia, ATI, et al have made it perfectly clear that they’re happy with the revenue from their PC customers and don’t have any intention of ever opening the sources to their drivers. By protesting, all RMS does is increase the likely hood that they’ll become sufficiently annoyed to drop what little support they’re currently giving the community.
There’s absolutely nothing silly about that. Of course you CAN demand the formula of coke when you buy it. When they refuse to give it to you, you have a choice. Maybe you don’t care that much and keep buying coke anyway, that’s what 99.99% people would do. Or you refuse to drink something of which you don’t know for sure the composition (which is also a parfectly valid point) and you have the right to boycott coke for this very reason.
Where’s the problem?
Sure you can demand it but for the 99.9% of the people you will look like a retard.
And the 0.1% will look at the 99.9% as retards. And some times the majority is made up of retards. They just don’t know it.
The 0.1% usually don’t care about what the 99.9% think of them. The 99.9% do however care about what the other persons in the 99.9% part think of them.
Social control…
And as you know. this world is leaded by retards so retards win.
I disagree with his fundemantalistic nature too. While I agree that Ati is not very alt. OS friendly, I think there are much bigger targets for protests. Hey, Richard, checked the components of your PC? Your BIOS is closed source, you know, and much more important than a damn graphic card.
Maybe you haven’t read this:
http://www.betanews.com/article/Stallman_Closed_BIOS_Code_Unethical…
It’s all rather sad and embarrassing frankly; and leaves one concerned at the true state of RMS’s health, that he should think this “protest” a good use of his time and aspirations. Even sadder, perhaps, that someone thought this newsworthy enough to write up on the FSF’s own site (via its blogs).
In any case, the article is full of tendentious claims. I can’t stand ATI, but it is far from clear that their software policies and those of Nvidia are “damaging”. The article’s bitter comments at the end about Nvidia are particularly unfortunate. Nvidia was early into the Linux game and has done far more than most companies to get their stuff working on the platform (most companies have done precisely nothing). Nvidia deserve quite a lot of credit for that.
An elderly gent with a sandwich board in an anonymous-looking university lecture room. Sorry, but if the FSF wants to get an effective mass movement going, someone is going to have to come up with a plan B.
This is pretty minor as far as casting doubt on Richard’s mental health. It’s just a slightly petty spectacle that was made more news-worthy because someone couldn’t play without calling in dad. Yes, the theme of the article seems to be to portray the events in the most dramatic manner possible. I’ve been to protests where jerks have chucked things and broken stuff. People should definitely have a sense of perspective here.
The FSF does need to attempt to convince people rather than annoy them if they want to effect change. Being a big proponent of free software myself, I would rather see advances in bringing people around to my way of thinking, instead of turning their brains off.
You’re right! Since there’s more than one closed source component in popular PCs, he should just keel over and give up.
From an economic theory point of view, this isn’t really a bad thing, though. Yeah, there is a good amount of corporate welfare going on, but there is also some substantial necessary R&D going on.
Of course, I totally agree. I wasn’t denouncing this, just mentioning the fact that the U.S. economical system is quite far from pure Capitalism, unlike many seem to believe. It’s in fact a mixed economy, like that of other western democracies (just a lot bigger…).
I would argue, though, that the economic rules in themselves are not that complex – it is the actual “real” economic systems that are obviously very complex (and therefore impossible to accurately predict). Same thing goes for humans. Individually, we’re not that complex, but societies are.
I didn’t think you disagreed, I was just trying to add to your point.
Further, I agree with you about complexity, though I’d point out that current economic theory, while not really complex, is not as simple as the 1800’s style theories that were long ago superceded.
I know we all get excited when a grey beard (a famous one). Stands silently with a sign. Did you know he used Inkscape how exciting!
But seriously, as an os news site. The next article I would like to appear hear is a summary or some links to what the ATI guy actually went to MIT to say.
I’m excited, I thought RMS was anti-X11! I didn’t think you could use inkscape in gnuscreen!
So, if a buy a can of coke, do I have the right to protest because they don’t wrote down the formula on the can?
Yes, you do. That right is protected by the first amendment of the Consitution of the United States.
, or do I have the right to demand the formula of every Doritos bag I buy?
You certainly have the right to demand it, though you probably won’t get it.
to silly.
What do you mean, too silly? That’s freedom of speech you’re talking about. There’s nothing silly about it.
Respect their rights if you want them to respect yours.
Whose rights did RMS impinge on? Oh, and for your information, respecting someone’s rights is not an option, it’s not a matter of reciprocity, it’s the law.
You certainly have the right to demand it, though you probably won’t get it.
the same aplies to Stallman.
So, if a buy a can of coke, do I have the right to protest because they don’t wrote down the formula on the can?
Yes, you do. That right is protected by the first amendment of the Consitution of the United States.
One needs to be careful here. You do not have the right to go to Coke’s HQ in Atlanta and demand the formula.
You do have the right to go to the goverment and protest the trade secret laws that make it legal for Coke to not divluge the formula.
“Free speech” does not mean what a lot of people seem to think it means.
I don’t think these kind of tactics are going to get us anywhere.
They would probably support open source better if there was enough demand – if enough people asked them nicely. This is better handled with diplomacy, pusuasive speaking, and petitions.
“Don’t buy from Ati” will just alienate them.
It was not really aimed at pursuading ATI so much as it was aimed at pursuading the audience. I am sure that most of the sort of people who attend speeches by ATI are aware of the FSF, but that does not mean that they are necessarily aware of the FSF’s or RMS’s stance on the subject. Not only are they now aware of his views, but they will likely think enough of this disturbance (caused by the organizers, not RMS) to give the matter attention that it might not have received at all and then make an informed decision, which may mean only supporting vendors with open specs (at least that is RMS’s hope).
They’re not a woman, they’re a company. They don’t listen to those who have nothing to barter with. So he’s aiming at the audience, not ATI. And he’s also trying to get people to tell ATI that we do actually have something to barter with, our money.
They’re not going to support FOSS because they don’t see the profitable motive in it. There’s likely not going to be enough FOSS people, ever, to convince them that it’s a major sales boom.
The way they need to be convinced is in the quality of their product. If you convince them they can develop better drivers for less money (or maybe even for the same, especially in ATI’s case) they may listen.
the same aplies to Stallman.
Of course Stallman may not get what he wants, but it’s still completely legitimate to protest it anyway. Thanks for proving my point, and utterly destroying your own.
You really ought to think these things through.
I never said he doesn’t have the right to protest, I was trying to explaing the reasons of his protest are queationable, thx for not reading well.
Edited 2006-05-01 00:53
This thread got boring when more posts were about whether holding a sign is rude or not than about the ATI issue. Jesus people, is the rudeness of holding a sign so bloody important that you have to sit on a tech news site and post comments about it? Let it go, it really isn’t a big deal.
I never said he doesn’t have the right to protest, I was trying to explaing the reasons of his protest are queationable,
…which is why you asked if someone had the right to protest if the ingredients weren’t printed on a can of Coke? Note that you did not question the validity of their demand, but rather if they had the right do make it. Whatever you tried to explain, you obviously did not succeed.
thx for not reading well.
I really don’t believe the problem is with my reading abilities. Your first sentence doesn’t even make grammatical sense…
I didn’t think you disagreed, I was just trying to add to your point.
Thanks, I guess I’m not used to that on this website!
Further, I agree with you about complexity, though I’d point out that current economic theory, while not really complex, is not as simple as the 1800’s style theories that were long ago superceded.
True, nowadays it’s all macroeconomics, thanks to Keynes (mostly). By the way, I’m currently reading Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. I highly recommend it…and stop at that because this is quite off-topic!
Just a little hint.
Keynes and his theories is being superceded – with the mentioned “simpler” 1800’s style theories.
ati reserves the right like everybody else to do want they want. i think it was rude on rms part for those actions. now, i see if he does not get his way he makes a fool of himself. I’ll buy ati if i like the product if linux or oss can not handle it who cares microsoft products can.
I think this is a bunch of much ado about nothing. I mean so ATI doesnt give Linux a lot of lovin…big whoop…its their choice. Its not like the Linux community is going to make or break ATI. Sad but that is a true fact. So trying to tell ATI to be more “open” or whatever RMS wants is a moot point because they are a corporation in the business to make money. Its kind of like telling Microsoft to make their OS open source….yeah right!
I think what Stallman did was ok in my book. Sure it would be a bit annoying and a bit distracting for the ATI rep but it is a public venue and everybody was invited, so the onus is on the ATI rep to deal with it the best he/she can. Stallman had every right to be there…not that that makes it any less annoying I think. Overall this is just silly haha.
I disagree. Whether you like it or not, we are still living in a Keynesian world.
One needs to be careful here. You do not have the right to go to Coke’s HQ in Atlanta and demand the formula.
Of course you can, as long as you’re not trespassing. Then again, Coke has absolutely no obligation to give you the formula, but if you want to protest the fact that they keep it a secret, that’s free speech.
You do have the right to go to the goverment and protest the trade secret laws that make it legal for Coke to not divluge the formula.
That would be petition the government, not protest, and it’s an entirely different matter. You seem to believe that it’s somehow illegal to protest corporations, and that the only entity one can protest to is the government. Fortunately, you are incorrect.
“Free speech” does not mean what a lot of people seem to think it means.
It certainly means more than you say it does.
You do have the right to go to the goverment and protest the trade secret laws that make it legal for Coke to not divluge the formula.
That would be petition the government, not protest, and it’s an entirely different matter. You seem to believe that it’s somehow illegal to protest corporations, and that the only entity one can protest to is the government. Fortunately, you are incorrect.
I wrote ‘protest’ and I meant ‘protest’. Petitioning is different than protest, as you say.
Your assertion demonstrates that I have not made my point clearly. Yes, as you say, there are circumstances under which one may protest the behavior of a corporation.
However, one does not have nearly the rights with respect to corporations that one has with respect to the government. Unfortunately, I did not pick a clear example of the point.
The government cannot, under any circumstances, prevent you from saying what you want about a corporation. A corporation, on the other hand, can, under a wide range of circumstances do so.
You may not enter their property to do so.
You may not disrupt their business to do so.
You may not do so in any of a number of ways that amount to restraint of trade.
You may not do so at a commercial presentation, even if open to the public. (Stallman’s behavior qualified under the later case, if ATI was doing any marketing, rather than merely presenting technical information.)
Beyond that, restrictions on what one can say about a corporation are stricter than what one can say about the government. Corporations have legal standings more similar to those of private individuals when it comes to issues of libel, for example.
You may not do so at a commercial presentation, even if open to the public. (Stallman’s behavior qualified under the later case, if ATI was doing any marketing, rather than merely presenting technical information.)
This seems to be the crux of the issue (I agree with the other points you raised). I’d be curious to know exactly in which context this is true, and if this was the case here.
Beyond that, restrictions on what one can say about a corporation are stricter than what one can say about the government. Corporations have legal standings more similar to those of private individuals when it comes to issues of libel, for example.
Indeed, we agree on this, though personally I view this as a historical aberration.
I think that corporations should either NOT be considered like people in any way, or if they are then they should be subjected to the same penalties as people if they break the law (i.e. cease operations for a certain number of years instead of being put in jail).
As it stands, corporations have MORE rights than individuals. I’m afraid that we’ve created monsters with the law that made corporations into “moral persons.”
As it stands, corporations have MORE rights than individuals. I’m afraid that we’ve created monsters with the law that made corporations into “moral persons.”
More rights and fewer responsibilites. With this I agree completely.
And I’m getting rather sad over people’s confusing free speech issues like protesting against the government with the rights one does or doesn’t have when attending a commercial presentation.
Free speech is not just for protesting against the government. It can be calls to boycott companies, or simply advocacy against their products.
Corporations continue to increase their power and influence as the democratic institutions lose theirs – it’s only natural that people begin to protest them instead of governments!
Free speech is not just for protesting against the government.
I did not say it was. I said it made me sad that people confuse what they’re allowed to do in protest with what they’re allowed to do at a commercial presentation.
Had I known it woud cause confusion I would have struck “against the government”. (It was meant as an example, not an exhaustive description of free speech rights.)
It is a myth that corporations are increasing their power as democratic instutitions lose theirs. The relative power waxes and wanes. Corporations in the United States had far more power in the early 20th century than they do in the early 21st, for example, and democratic institutional power probably peaked in the US during WW-II, and has been swinging back down since.
I did not say it was. I said it made me sad that people confuse what they’re allowed to do in protest with what they’re allowed to do at a commercial presentation.
Had I known it woud cause confusion I would have struck “against the government”. (It was meant as an example, not an exhaustive description of free speech rights.)
All right, my mistake, sorry about that. I still think that RMS’s action were legitimate. Of course, one can agree or disagree if this is a good fight or not (I tend to agree with him, if only because it’s a minor annoyance that the drivers are not updated at the same time as the kernel).
It is a myth that corporations are increasing their power as democratic instutitions lose theirs. The relative power waxes and wanes. Corporations in the United States had far more power in the early 20th century than they do in the early 21st,
I respectfully disagree. You’re thinking of what the law allows them to do in the U.S. – in that sense, you’re right, there are more regulations on them. However, I’m reflecting on the global power that transnational corporations have today, one of them being the ability to easily move operations and capital outside of the country when wages are too high (or working conditions too good) for their taste.
I’m talking raw economic power and influence, not U.S. corporate regulations. In that sense, it is true that their power has increased, while that of democratic institutions has decreased (mostly due to lack of interest from the population, truth be told).
democratic institutional power probably peaked in the US during WW-II, and has been swinging back down since.
Yes, which is exactly what I was saying.
I respectfully disagree. You’re thinking of what the law allows them to do in the U.S. – in that sense, you’re right, there are more regulations on them. However, I’m reflecting on the global power that transnational corporations have today, one of them being the ability to easily move operations and capital outside of the country when wages are too high (or working conditions too good) for their taste.
I’m talking raw economic power and influence, not U.S. corporate regulations. In that sense, it is true that their power has increased, while that of democratic institutions has decreased (mostly due to lack of interest from the population, truth be told).
Yes, I was speaking of US law, but the comment extends to multinationals. The ways in which multinational companies are gaining and extending power are different now than in the past, but again, the extent of that power is cyclic. Consider the Dutch East India Company, (the original corporation, by the way) and the power they had.
What is different about modern multi-national companies is that they no longer even pay lip service to any idea of national allegience whereas in the past the multinationals were an extention of national imperialism.
Yes, I was speaking of US law, but the comment extends to multinationals. The ways in which multinational companies are gaining and extending power are different now than in the past, but again, the extent of that power is cyclic. Consider the Dutch East India Company, (the original corporation, by the way) and the power they had.
True, butthere was little democracy in those days, so it’s hard to relativize the power of these early corporations from the people’s point of view. They were quite powerful as well, however there were fewer of them. That said, I do see your point.
What is different about modern multi-national companies is that they no longer even pay lip service to any idea of national allegience whereas in the past the multinationals were an extention of national imperialism.
Exactly. Also, while nations have become increasingly democratic, the structure of these corporations hasn’t changed much. They are still autocratic structures, except that now (as we’ve discussed in the other post) they have more rights and less responsibilities than individuals…
This is quite interesting, but a bit off-topic, so I’ll leave it at that.
Regardless of Richard Stallman’s protest or time wasting actions. I still plan to purchase a laptop** with a mid-range ATI or a NVIDIA DX10 class mobile GPU.
**For tax returns.
for those of us who DO support RMS and free software, what video card maker is best, in terms of support?
for those of us who DO support RMS and free software, what video card maker is best, in terms of support?
Probably XGI: http://www.xgitech.com
There’s also the Open Graphics project, but they don’t have a card on the market yet (or a real website, though there is a wiki).
We have quite a number of people here talking about RMS’s right to speak freely. It would be interesting to know which of them have ever pressed the mod-down button… (and no, I never pressed it)
not sure what that has to do with anything, as osnews is not a protected forum of speech
Modding someone down isn’t censoring them, the message can still be seen by clicking on the appropriate link. I personally modded down a few that were clearly off-topic (like happycamper’s comment about Windows).
It amazes me that the powers that be are so weak that they can not handle criticism. Free speech is under attack. If a man can not stand in a room and expresses his dissatisfaction quietly with a sign, what kind of country and society have we degraded to? We must restrain the police from harassing and assaulting people from preforming the legal, constitutional, and moral duties. The actions of the police office is assault, a violation of the law, and a violation of his oath.
“If a man can not stand in a room and expresses his dissatisfaction quietly with a sign, what kind of country and society have we degraded to?”
Cold War era East Germany.
“They had been told that there was a disturbance that they needed to take care of. The officer then asked what the disturbance was and the faculty member relented – they were worried that there would be an incident, but that it hadn’t yet happened.”
The officer should have stayed in the room and monitored the siuation before touching RMS.
Just a snobby college campus that pushes learners around over teachers and speakers because of more money. The student has always been second at least since the 1980s.
“They had been told that there was a disturbance that they needed to take care of. The officer then asked what the disturbance was and the faculty member relented – they were worried that there would be an incident, but that it hadn’t yet happened.”
The officer should have stayed in the room and monitored the siuation before touching RMS.