Karen makes some excellent points. She is a bright example of the new wave of patients Cardiac Disease Management companies will have to consider in the years to come. As an ICD patient myself, and one who's been fighting for access to the data in my implantable device, it's exciting to see a movement emerge!
Some day someone is going to do for software quality what Stallman has done for software freedom. When they do, Gnome and much other Gnu software is going to be hit very hard, because for all the bug fixing, for all the eyes on the code, the design quality is still piss-poor.
I'm sorry to hear the quality of medical implant software is so poor, but there is no way in hell I would run my heart on Gnome or even glibc.
@hackenschmidt I tried Gnome 3 for about a week - thought it was too... I dunno, gimicky, went back to Gnome 2 for a few days and missed it terribly, felt Gnome 2 was like driving a 50s Ford or something, so reinstalled Gnome 3 - I ain't ever going back. Try it for a while, you might learn to like it (although knowing the keyboard shortcuts is crucial for me).
Yes, but.... Who is going to develop pacemakers or any other software dependant hardware if their source code should be open (which shows a lot of how hardware works), and can easily be "improved"?
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.
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.
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.
@POMPEIVSMAGNVS 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.
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.
@tky011 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.
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).
@tky011 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.
My point is that FOSS is important for the same reasons in medical devices and on desktop computers. If a proprietary program matches the requirements, FOSS could be considered an unnecessary, non-essential luxury in both cases; but for any worthwhile task performed by software, it's important to have the freedom to verify that the program is working correctly and to ensure that it continues to work as the requirements change.
@tky011 Sure. I totally agree with you on that one. But what I'm trying to say is that on software in your body it's essential to have the source code. It's not essential on the desktop. I don't die if my browser crash.
Nobody has suggested that a proprietary browser will kill you.
I think we all agree that the importance of having freedom varies with the importance of the task. She observes that PCs are becoming more important in our lives, which means that freedom on our PCs becomes increasingly important.
If free software is desirable, which you agreed that it is, and we have no reason *not* to have it, then I conclude that software should be free. "Should" doesn't mean "must in order to survive".
@tky011 I definitely agree. What I don't agree with is the Stallman "everything has to be free or else I will not use it" way of thinking. Not that you expreced that view.
I never imagined someone would be talking about "software in my body" in my lifetime ... all the more important to have enough eyeballs to make bugs shallow (paraphrasing from Torvalds quote)
LOVED IT!
Karen makes some excellent points. She is a bright example of the new wave of patients Cardiac Disease Management companies will have to consider in the years to come. As an ICD patient myself, and one who's been fighting for access to the data in my implantable device, it's exciting to see a movement emerge!
hugooc 2 months ago
Wow amazing video I'm becoming fan of her awesome .
vishal8492 4 months ago 2
play deus ex 3, enjoy!
k0k090 5 months ago
Free is always nice. But I think the key is transparency that matters the most.
Jizhong2008 6 months ago
Some day someone is going to do for software quality what Stallman has done for software freedom. When they do, Gnome and much other Gnu software is going to be hit very hard, because for all the bug fixing, for all the eyes on the code, the design quality is still piss-poor.
I'm sorry to hear the quality of medical implant software is so poor, but there is no way in hell I would run my heart on Gnome or even glibc.
eekeenoink 6 months ago
@eekeenoink As opposed to, say, Windows XP? :-)
MrCruyffTurn 5 months ago
Gnome 3: Nice to look at, a nightmare to use..
hackenschmidt 6 months ago
@hackenschmidt I tried Gnome 3 for about a week - thought it was too... I dunno, gimicky, went back to Gnome 2 for a few days and missed it terribly, felt Gnome 2 was like driving a 50s Ford or something, so reinstalled Gnome 3 - I ain't ever going back. Try it for a while, you might learn to like it (although knowing the keyboard shortcuts is crucial for me).
MrCruyffTurn 5 months ago
Yes, but.... Who is going to develop pacemakers or any other software dependant hardware if their source code should be open (which shows a lot of how hardware works), and can easily be "improved"?
r36706 6 months ago
im so in love with you karen sandler
diogeneslaertius666 6 months ago
THINK OF THE CHILDREN (btw I wouldn't give that gnome to my children, they should learn how to use the command line first).
pete275 6 months ago 7
Yeah, GNOME 3 is pretty, but unusable.
felipec 6 months ago
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.
POMPEIVSMAGNVS 6 months ago
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.
gnuvince 6 months ago
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.
paldepind 6 months ago
@paldepind Well, she doesn't claim that it is necessary everything to be running FOSS, but that it would be better.
POMPEIVSMAGNVS 6 months ago
@POMPEIVSMAGNVS 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.
paldepind 6 months ago
@paldepind
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.
tky011 6 months ago
@tky011 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.
paldepind 6 months ago
@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).
tky011 6 months ago
@tky011 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.
paldepind 6 months ago
@paldepind
My point is that FOSS is important for the same reasons in medical devices and on desktop computers. If a proprietary program matches the requirements, FOSS could be considered an unnecessary, non-essential luxury in both cases; but for any worthwhile task performed by software, it's important to have the freedom to verify that the program is working correctly and to ensure that it continues to work as the requirements change.
tky011 6 months ago
@tky011 Sure. I totally agree with you on that one. But what I'm trying to say is that on software in your body it's essential to have the source code. It's not essential on the desktop. I don't die if my browser crash.
paldepind 6 months ago
Nobody has suggested that a proprietary browser will kill you.
I think we all agree that the importance of having freedom varies with the importance of the task. She observes that PCs are becoming more important in our lives, which means that freedom on our PCs becomes increasingly important.
If free software is desirable, which you agreed that it is, and we have no reason *not* to have it, then I conclude that software should be free. "Should" doesn't mean "must in order to survive".
tky011 6 months ago
@tky011 I definitely agree. What I don't agree with is the Stallman "everything has to be free or else I will not use it" way of thinking. Not that you expreced that view.
paldepind 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
She cares about the source code, but not about the actual hardware and how it's built?
Typical Linux retard.
livinglegend1187 6 months ago
This video blows away my mind,
I never imagined someone would be talking about "software in my body" in my lifetime ... all the more important to have enough eyeballs to make bugs shallow (paraphrasing from Torvalds quote)
yudlejoza 7 months ago
Never thought the open source was so important, considering how we rely on computers and mainly software in all aspects in our lives.
ps3code 7 months ago 15