3 ms·

The big pieces of software you mentioned -- GCC and Emacs -- have been weakened in various ways because of RMS though. RMS' fear of proprietary programs accessi

The big pieces of software you mentioned -- GCC and Emacs -- have been weakened in various ways because of RMS though. RMS' fear of proprietary programs accessing certain internals, like the AST means that GCC doesn't have the extensive plugin ability that clang does, limiting the types of code analysis and transformation that can be done [1]. He has also shown himself to make knee-jerk reactions about pieces of free software which are not under control, such as his refusal to merge in basic lldb support into Emacs' gud [2], invoking the bogeyman of Apple in doing so. In the past, he has also told people to memory hole software he personally disagreed with [3]. He has done some impressive things in software development, however, his more recent points of view have had some serious problems in dealing with the relevance of users and developers today. Stallman needs a better team of people around him to advise him on modern practices, otherwise all his efforts will go to naught as people migrate to other Free tools that better recognize and respect more recent software and social practices. [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/629259/ https://lwn.net/Articles/629259/ [2] https://lwn.net/Articles/632773/ https://lwn.net/Articles/632773/ [3] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-02/msg00895.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-02/msg00895.html

rogerbinns 10y ago
While your statements are true, they are viewed through a lens of popularity. RMS goal is not popularity first. It is freedom, and history has shown that freedom is under constant attack. His positions have sometimes seemed extreme, but ended up vindicated. Try "freedom to read" for one example. The FSF clearly documents their philosophy. Do you see them not following it? https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html He can also be pragmatic and compromise. See for example the LGPL (note leading L) or one of the audio/video libraries (apologies for forgetting which one) where he was happy with a BSD license, for popularity reasons. You don't need to agree with him, but there is substance behind it, and for some freedom really does matter.
- Sanddancer 10y ago
  That's just it, all of what I described were him attacking other Free programs. Telling someone to delete mentions of a Free compiler because it could potentially be used by someone to improve proprietary software harms those working on Free software much more than those working on proprietary software, and discourages future people from working on more challenging free products. His claims of LLVM being an attack from Apple are factually questionable, given that Apple hasn't been a majority contributor to LLVM for a considerable amount of time, plus LLVM being used in a number of Free projects, like Xorg. While he's kept the same dogma, he's not kept up with what users expect from their tooling. I understand he doesn't care about popularity, however, how can you sustain a Free ecosystem if your tooling is generations behind what's available in other, still free, ecosystems. All the small compromises in the world don't matter if you're not willing to listen to people describing what is currently wanted and needed for modern software development. While Stallman has indeed kept the same ideological course, he's not kept up with the social aspects of the industry, to the detriment of everyone. That's the part that he needs to change.

rogerbinns 10y ago

While your statements are true, they are viewed through a lens of popularity. RMS goal is not popularity first. It is freedom, and history has shown that freedom is under constant attack. His positions have sometimes seemed extreme, but ended up vindicated. Try "freedom to read" for one example. The FSF clearly documents their philosophy. Do you see them not following it? https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html He can also be pragmatic and compromise. See for example the LGPL (note leading L) or one of the audio/video libraries (apologies for forgetting which one) where he was happy with a BSD license, for popularity reasons. You don't need to agree with him, but there is substance behind it, and for some freedom really does matter.

Sanddancer 10y ago
That's just it, all of what I described were him attacking other Free programs. Telling someone to delete mentions of a Free compiler because it could potentially be used by someone to improve proprietary software harms those working on Free software much more than those working on proprietary software, and discourages future people from working on more challenging free products. His claims of LLVM being an attack from Apple are factually questionable, given that Apple hasn't been a majority contributor to LLVM for a considerable amount of time, plus LLVM being used in a number of Free projects, like Xorg. While he's kept the same dogma, he's not kept up with what users expect from their tooling. I understand he doesn't care about popularity, however, how can you sustain a Free ecosystem if your tooling is generations behind what's available in other, still free, ecosystems. All the small compromises in the world don't matter if you're not willing to listen to people describing what is currently wanted and needed for modern software development. While Stallman has indeed kept the same ideological course, he's not kept up with the social aspects of the industry, to the detriment of everyone. That's the part that he needs to change.