[voidhorse]

I get what you’re saying, but this form of argument sort of talks past the stance of the RMS’s of the world. The fact that the software being used is proprietary is a historical accident and not an attribute of the software that makes it function a certain way—it’s entirely possible to write non-proprietary life saving software.

RMS is arguing for principles and ideals. Sure when it comes down to it, it’s absurd to say we should save someone’s life because of the proprietary nature of the software, but that’s not really the point — the point is to strive for a world in which life-saving software isn’t proprietary in the first place. When one is arguing for absolute ideals, one tends to speak in absolutes and ignore historical circumstance since that’s sort of the point (though of course it’s also very silly in its own way). There’s a difference between advocating for a principle/ideal and solving concrete problems in a world that doesn’t yet meet that ideal.

If we were to constantly let proprietary software stick around because it served some crucial function and never put in the work to replace such software with non-proprietary alternatives, we’d never realize a world without proprietary software—so you can see how someone purportedly striving for that ideal really can’t capitulate.

[KennyBlanken]

You don't get what they're saying at all. There are about a thousand better ways he could have responded while still trying to convey his ideas. Instead, he said probably the single most offensive thing he could. He either did it on purpose to piss them off, or he didn't understand how offensive it would be, or he didn't care.

He has no idea how to be persuasive, no idea how to adjust his arguments or present his ideas effectively, no idea how he comes off to others, no idea how to read a room, no idea how to see other people's perspectives on issues, and doesn't care to try. He hasn't demonstrated the slightest intellectual or emotional self-improvement in thirty years.

[emptysongglass]

I disagree. The Buddha was the same way in his direct speech because the clarity of a message that would live on and instruct the lives of others thousands of years later was more important than appeasement at clarity's cost:

“Nanda, I do not praise the conception of a life even a little bit. I do not praise the conception of a [new] life for even one moment. Why is that? The conception of life is suffering. In the same way that even a little vomit stinks, Nanda, even the momentary conception of a tiny life is suffering. Nanda, a being for whom there is the arising of material form, establishment [in the womb], development, emergence [from the womb], sensation, intellect, volitions, consciousness, indeed, any being at all that is established, develops, and emerges, is miserable. Abiding [in the womb] is sickness. Emerging [from the womb] is old age and death. Nanda, for this reason, what profit is there for the one lodged in the womb, craving life so deeply?”

Nobody decided for Nvidia to make proprietary drivers for their graphics cards, neither is the customer blameless: Nvidia got its start making gaming graphics card long before it muscled into machine learning. Those gamers funded its purses and every time they did empowered the machine to continue its filthy work.

"But I need to play these games or I'll die," they cry. Well now they've got the data scientists over a barrel and it won't ever stop unless we start saying no.

[kaba0]

But it is just hypocrisy to no end. I’m fairly sure RMS do use a car/flied to the given university, etc. All of those use proprietary software.

[random314]

Honestly, the whole question and set up seems like complete fiction.

What computer scientist is working on life saving image processing on medical imaging equipment where everything is open source except for some proprietary drivers. These kind of equipment are leased, not even owned.

If the so called "lecturers" were actually physicians they wouldn't care about software licensing as the hardware itself is dramatically expensive. And the entire thing is proprietary. And why would the lecturers get "increasingly irritated". Its not like RMS is actually preventing them from using equipment. He is just giving a talk. Folks typically ask one question and sit down. Or meet privately later.

I simply can't come up with any conceivable scenario where saving someone's life us critically dependent on some proprietary graphics driver. Its downright hilarious.

What medical equipment is using a 60 layer deep NN to save lives?! These images are scanned manually by qualified physicians. And the OP claims this happened 8 years ago! You dont actually need a graphics driver to analyze image files. CPUs are good enough. Graphics drivers were not even widely used for Deep NN inference 8 years ago.

I asked the OP for details about this "talk" and ge hasn't responded.

This is a cock n bull story OP constructed because he knows linux is forced to use nvidia blobs for its graphics driver. Completely insane story, however.

This tale is taller than Mt Everest.

[thewakalix]

Did he really say those specific words? It's common, on the internet, to use quotation marks to signify "here's what I think someone else is saying, it's not my own belief". (That is also an example of such a usage.)

[kaba0]

I don’t necessarily question this exact usage, given we are talking about RMS.

[BrS96bVxXBLzf5B]

He said those exact words and despite the responses I wasn't trying to remark on his words, only pass along a small moment many of us there found memorable and funny.

[arminiusreturns]

At this point I'm seriously considering the idea of pushing for using whatever security umbrella fad of the day is to argue for imminent domaining and then forcible open sourcing infrastructure critical technology. Roll it in with a fresh healthcare for all deployment to test. Open source the resulting data, find some solutions.