Comments on: OSCON 2011: Karen Sandler

By: livinglegend1187

livinglegend1187 — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 06:20:29 +0000

She cares about the source code, but not about the actual hardware and how it’s built?

Typical Linux retard.

By: paldepind

paldepind — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 06:08:54 +0000

Her argumentation is flawed. She states that she want the software in her body to be FOSS (which is reasonable because her life depends on it) and in the end concludes that all software should be free. She jumps to that conclusion without further explanation or argumentation.

For a desktop computer FOSS is not an essential right. It’s a luxury. I watched this video with proprietary software (flash). I would have preferred it to be FOSS. But it’s not necessary.

By: gnuvince

gnuvince — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 06:02:53 +0000

paldepind: at ~13:05 she says “we don’t know what is going to be important, we don’t know what our lives are going to depend on”. I think that her point is that even the smallest library could find itself used in the development of a pacemaker and it is important that it can be examined, reviewed and fixed by a community of developers who are interested in that device.

By: POMPEIVSMAGNVS

POMPEIVSMAGNVS — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 05:54:59 +0000

This is an absolutely brilliant video. I have been interested in free and open source software in quite some time now, but I have never really thought of the possibility that someone’s life can depend on software to such an extent. I mean, if I were one of the developers writing that piece of proprietary software, I can safely say for myself, that I could hardly find comfort if a person dies because of a bug in my code. Opening up the code will make this much less likely of course.

By: POMPEIVSMAGNVS

POMPEIVSMAGNVS — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 05:26:56 +0000

Well, she doesn’t claim that it is necessary everything to be running FOSS, but that it would be better.

By: tky011

tky011 — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 05:21:48 +0000

Alternatives to Flash are necessary for video if you’re running any other platform than the ones Adobe currently happen to feel like supporting, or if you have any requirements that don’t align with their business interests (such as being able to keep video around for offline viewing or using a player that doesn’t deplete the battery in 1,4 seconds).

Unless you mean “necessary [to sustain life]“, but then most rights aren’t. Even having a computer at all is a luxury.

By: paldepind

paldepind — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 05:13:45 +0000

I definitely did not state that she claimed that it is necessary for all software to be free. What I really wrote was that she says that all software should be free.

By: paldepind

paldepind — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 05:06:25 +0000

First of all. I’m not talking about alternatives to Flash in any way and I have no idea why you dragged that into the discussion. When I said necessary I meant necessary to me. It is not necessary for me that Flash is FOSS.. Also open sourcing Flash would not magically make it less power hungry and available on more platforms. That is about features. And that is not what I’m talking about. I am talking about freedom. Software licenses.

By: tky011

tky011 — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 04:50:22 +0000

@paldepind
Free software gives people the freedom to make the program run on new platforms and to modify its features. That’s why I dragged it in. It’s great for you that you and Adobe happen to agree 100 % on how the program should work right now, but that is often not the case (see Stallman’s printer story).

By: paldepind

paldepind — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 04:02:54 +0000

Me and Adobe definitely don’t agree. IMO Flash should just disappear. There’s no reason for it’s existence. But my point is that it has nothing to do with it being free. Yes FOSS gives everybody the freedom to improve software. But it will not necessarily happend. Lots of free software is utter crap.