5 ms·

I attended an RMS lecture about free software and the GNU movement. To me, RMS just seems to be too paranoid about "non-free" software to the point that it just

by s4chin 10y ago

I attended an RMS lecture about free software and the GNU movement. To me, RMS just seems to be too paranoid about "non-free" software to the point that it just seems impractical. He spoke about LibreJS and about why we should complain, but I wasn't really convinced due to the exact same reason you mentioned.

alfonsodev 10y ago
He usually says that we give up freedom in exchange of convenience. For example Facebook is convenient so, who cares about privacy ? I don't use LibreJS or plan to use it either, but I think his points are valid theoretically, implement them in our society is pretty hard but my point is, these libre tools being "impractical" doesn't invalidate the philosophical idea behind. I'd would call him idealist rather than a paranoid.
- matt4077 10y ago
  Let's not forget that he's the impractical idealist who created gcc, bison, emacs, make, the GPL. I'd bet >70% of people here work with a complete or almost-completely free software stack. Thousands of startups were probably made possible by access to tools – not just because they couldn't afford it otherwise, but also because a large part of cs education depends on a 12-year old's ability to clone stuff on github.
  - stephenr 10y ago
    > I'd bet >70% of people here work with a complete or almost-completely free software stack. 70% seems quite high if you mean "free" as rms does.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      What are you thinking of? MIT/BSD/Apache/etc are all considered Free by rms and the FSF (even if they prefer copyleft licenses).
      - stephenr 10y ago
        iOS, OS X, a heap of Sun/Oracle stuff, most Microsoft stuff. I didn't say floss isn't prolific, I just think it's unlikely 70% of people here depend on it (almost) entirely
henrikschroder 10y ago
RMS is not paranoid, he is extremely consistent in applying his philosophy. He shows by example what it's like to use only free software. For the rest of us, his ways are extremely impractical, so we compromise. We run a lot of proprietary software, and we don't really think about it. But RMS thinks about it, and tells us in every single instance exactly what we are giving up as a compromise. And in that regard he, and the FSF, are very useful, and deserves respect. The world would be a worse place without him, but we also only really need one of him.
- krapp 10y ago
  One can be paranoid and maintain a consistent worldview.
oneweekwonder 10y ago
RMS takes the polar opposite position to proprietary software. Is his viewpoint always practical; maybe, maybe not. But by creating such polar opposite he gives space for a lot more "lessor" free, more practical solutions and options. So he plays a very important guardian kind of role; which a lot of people will chalk up to paranoia.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  It's still paranoia at the end of the day. Consistent paranoia, thoughtful paranoia, but still, ultimately, paranoia. I think what bothers people about Stallman (or at least, what bothers me about him, and extrapolating) is that he takes a moralistic approach. Non free software isn't a non optimal thing to be fixed for well-thought-out reasons X, Y, and Z, it is an Evil, and you are Wrong for perpetuating it.
  - cyphar 10y ago
    It's not paranoia if proprietary software companies do take advantage of you. And they do.
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      It's the taking advantage of that's evil, not the political status of the code.
      - cyphar 10y ago
        The actual issue is that proprietary software puts you in a position where you can be taken advantage of. Free software puts you in a position where that can't happen. Sure, you can have proprietary software that doesn't spy on you. But much of it does, and even though it doesn't spy on you today it could spy on you tomorrow. So, if you consider "putting people in a situation where they have no control over their lives" as bad (I do), then the concept of proprietary software is wrong -- not just the ones that happen to misuse their power.

by s4chin 10y ago

alfonsodev 10y ago

He usually says that we give up freedom in exchange of convenience. For example Facebook is convenient so, who cares about privacy ? I don't use LibreJS or plan to use it either, but I think his points are valid theoretically, implement them in our society is pretty hard but my point is, these libre tools being "impractical" doesn't invalidate the philosophical idea behind. I'd would call him idealist rather than a paranoid.

matt4077 10y ago
Let's not forget that he's the impractical idealist who created gcc, bison, emacs, make, the GPL. I'd bet >70% of people here work with a complete or almost-completely free software stack. Thousands of startups were probably made possible by access to tools – not just because they couldn't afford it otherwise, but also because a large part of cs education depends on a 12-year old's ability to clone stuff on github.
- stephenr 10y ago
  > I'd bet >70% of people here work with a complete or almost-completely free software stack. 70% seems quite high if you mean "free" as rms does.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    What are you thinking of? MIT/BSD/Apache/etc are all considered Free by rms and the FSF (even if they prefer copyleft licenses).
    - stephenr 10y ago
      iOS, OS X, a heap of Sun/Oracle stuff, most Microsoft stuff. I didn't say floss isn't prolific, I just think it's unlikely 70% of people here depend on it (almost) entirely

henrikschroder 10y ago

RMS is not paranoid, he is extremely consistent in applying his philosophy. He shows by example what it's like to use only free software. For the rest of us, his ways are extremely impractical, so we compromise. We run a lot of proprietary software, and we don't really think about it. But RMS thinks about it, and tells us in every single instance exactly what we are giving up as a compromise. And in that regard he, and the FSF, are very useful, and deserves respect. The world would be a worse place without him, but we also only really need one of him.

krapp 10y ago
One can be paranoid and maintain a consistent worldview.

oneweekwonder 10y ago

RMS takes the polar opposite position to proprietary software. Is his viewpoint always practical; maybe, maybe not. But by creating such polar opposite he gives space for a lot more "lessor" free, more practical solutions and options. So he plays a very important guardian kind of role; which a lot of people will chalk up to paranoia.

Karunamon 10y ago
It's still paranoia at the end of the day. Consistent paranoia, thoughtful paranoia, but still, ultimately, paranoia. I think what bothers people about Stallman (or at least, what bothers me about him, and extrapolating) is that he takes a moralistic approach. Non free software isn't a non optimal thing to be fixed for well-thought-out reasons X, Y, and Z, it is an Evil, and you are Wrong for perpetuating it.
- cyphar 10y ago
  It's not paranoia if proprietary software companies do take advantage of you. And they do.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    It's the taking advantage of that's evil, not the political status of the code.
    - cyphar 10y ago
      The actual issue is that proprietary software puts you in a position where you can be taken advantage of. Free software puts you in a position where that can't happen. Sure, you can have proprietary software that doesn't spy on you. But much of it does, and even though it doesn't spy on you today it could spy on you tomorrow. So, if you consider "putting people in a situation where they have no control over their lives" as bad (I do), then the concept of proprietary software is wrong -- not just the ones that happen to misuse their power.