Why do people not understand that the Stallman meme was ironic?

Why does it matter what moot says? We care about stallman because the guy is correct. Proprietary software has proven time and time again that it exists primarily to shaft users, whereas free software empowers users

...

Name a piece of proprietary software from the last five years that doesn't work against its users in some way.

Window 10 (installing itself and spying on you)
OSU! (taking screenshots and uploading them)
Volkswagen's car software (faking emissions data)
iTunes (deleting stuff off your PC)
Game Maker 7 (breaking permanently because the company that handled the DRM went bankrupt)

I could go on for ages.

First I've ever heard of this. Do you have a sauce?

blog.vellumatlanta.com/2016/05/04/apple-stole-my-music-no-seriously/

You tried.

I don't understand this autistic rage against open source software that's not free as in muh sharung.
There could be two reasons why open source couldn't be free.
a) Education material. They are for practice only and copyrighted, otherwise SICP would be the equal of StackOverflow.
b) Transparency. A company may want to gain their users' trust by open sourcing their software. Rather than be grateful for this, you tards rage over how you can't copy and paste something someone worked on for a long time ("substantial portions", writes even in your GPL.)

I think the point was, that there is a clear difference, and not the ethical implications of said difference.

>>>/feminism/

Why do people not understand that the /k/ube meme was ironic?

It's intended to be mocking people that support guns

The artist made the /k/ube with anti gun feelings and he personally doesn't support gun rights, when he used the /k/ube meme on /k/ what he was saying was "Anyone who uses guns is a baby killing bloodloving Triple-K supporting murder maniac who enjoys sacrificing other humans for fun". He wasn't endorsing ownership of weapons or guns themselves, it was the exact opposite. Using the /k/ube to smear those that support free ownership of gnus.

There is only a small amount of software that's open source but not free. Open source actually means a lot more than "you can look at the source code". Your examples are not open source.

Open Source is for regular people. Free Software is for Hippies, Socialists, and Faggots like OP. The best thing to come from the FSF is the GPL, specifically v2

I'm actually the guy that first suggested we name it the murder /k/ube. But that's where my contribution ended. I thought it was metal when I was it, and it's metal now. So now you know that it was never meant to be ironic.

Oh the irony.

Every single time.

That comparison is indicative of a meager understanding, at best, of FLOSS' goals and the problem inherent in proprietary models (namely security and support). If you're savy with politics and econ/social structures, that's fantastic, but don't treat it like a 1:1 $replacement for your lack of understanding in other areas.

You guys need to leave your basements.

Open Source is for cucks and Faggots like OP. Free Software is for regular people. The best thing to come from the FSF is the GPL, specifically v3

...

...

B-but Linux is for l33t hackers such as myself! It was so hard to install I had to read an entire wiki page and everything!

I'd just like to interject for moment. What you're refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux!

NO IT ISN'T YOU FUCKING JEW NIGGER LINUS DID ALL THE HARD WORK AND STALLJEW JUST SAT THERE ATE HIS FOOT SHAVINGS AND TOOK ALL THE CREDIT
t. Linus "impaling kikes on pikes" Torvalds

Why doesn't the Linux Foundation just re-create all the software that makes up a UNIX system and give it Linux branding so they can have an OS that's just plain old "Linux"?

They'd probably get it done before GNU could release a stable Hurd, plus they could move away from that damn dirty GPL they all hate so much, and as a bonus they'd get freetards to shut the fuck up.

0/10

and then again, how many people can program a compiler, a text editor or a debugger that will be praised by millions of programmers around the world?

There are already replacements for practically all of them, they're just relatively uncommon and rarely used together. The only one I am aware of that uses GNU alternatives everywhere, instead of just partially replacing GNU, is Alpine Linux. It uses busybox instead of the GNU coreutils and musl instead of glibc, and doesn't even have bash by default. It's not a GNU/Linux distribution, it's a Linux distribution!

It still uses GCC, so it doesn't use GNU alternatives everywhere (but then again, so does OpenBSD). It does package bash and the coreutils, so it's pretty easy to turn into GNU/Linux if you want to.

Because irony can hardly be written unless it's extremely hyperbolized and even in that case we come upon on Poe's law.

You don't know that. That might be your personal interpretation of it, but as memes evolve everyone has their use of it I guess.

I don't know why m00t is in this discussion because you just shoe him in here, but that doesn't really matter. He wouldn't have 4chan without 2chan.

Why should I care what he thinks?

Overall, not related to Holla Forums and I rate this bait 2/10 merely just because its your first

...

yes

yes

yes

No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.

Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.

One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?

(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.

Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.

You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.

Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?

If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:

Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.

Thanks for listening.

Are you saying that this linux can run on a computer without GNU underneath it, at all ? As in, without a boot disk, without any drivers, and without any services ?

That sounds preposterous to me.

If it were true (and I doubt it), then companies would be selling computers without a GNU. This clearly is not happening, so there must be some error in your calculations. I hope you realise that GNU is more than just Emacs ? Its a whole system that runs the computer from start to finish, and that is a very difficult thing to acheive. A lot of people dont realise this.

The Free Software Foundation just spent $9 billion and many years to create Trisquel, so it does not sound reasonable that some new alternative could just snap into existence overnight like that. It would take billions of dollars and a massive effort to achieve. IBM tried, and spent a huge amount of money developing OS/2 but could never keep up with GNU. Apple tried to create their own system for years, but finally gave up recently and moved to Intel and BSD.

Its just not possible that a kernel like the Linux could be extended to the point where it runs the entire computer from start to finish, without using some of the more critical parts of GNU. Not possible.

I think you need to re-examine your assumptions.

So was Hotwheels

You don't have anything else left.

This kind of "people" often pops out.

Hilarious.
For some time I insisted on using Windows to test our software with the same OS our users use. Foolish waste of time. It ended up being way more efficient to develop on Linux and just fire up a VM to test on Windows once in a while.

The holohoax isn't real and open source is a good thing.