5 ms·

> That's just what the world needs. More bikeshedding You pretty much summed up one of the two biggest issues at why the FSF has not had a larger impact on the

> That's just what the world needs. More bikeshedding You pretty much summed up one of the two biggest issues at why the FSF has not had a larger impact on the world. The organization makes issues over these kinds of details and then paints it into a "us vs. them" situation. It seems to have little interest with trying to work with people, and more insistent on making sure you follow it's dogma. The other issue is that the organization presents its arguments like a sophomoric adolescent. "Windows 7 Sins"? Who's going to take that seriously?

pessimizer 10y ago
The FSF has had a massive impact on the world. The constant discussion of how they should be presenting their message should be in the dictionary under bikeshedding. Maybe it isn't the way they're presenting their message; maybe you just don't agree with them.
- Delmania 10y ago
  > The FSF has had a massive impact on the world. It has? I'll accept that only for the conception of FLOSS. However, I would then say that the OSI and Linux Foundations have had greater impact. They relied on the RMS's license, but they have actually managed to make inroads, whereas the FSF has stayed in it's corner, shouting. > maybe you just don't agree with them. What I don't agree with is the all or nothing attitude they have. The ability to know when to compromise is crucial to working with people.
  - krapp 10y ago
    >What I don't agree with is the all or nothing attitude they have. The ability to know when to compromise is crucial to working with people. They consider nonfree software to be not merely inconvenient, but evil, a violation of fundamental human rights. Why would they ever compromise?
  - PeCaN 10y ago
    As long as the FSF controls Emacs, GCC, and coreutils they're definitely doing a little more than shouting. I mean they're ‘GNU’ in GNU/Linux, which is a bit more widespread¹ than any BSD/Linux type thing. ¹Pretty sure Android/Linux wins in sheer numbers, but GNU/Linux has been historically more important and is deployed in more scenarios than smartphones. But if we consider ‘widespread’ to mean numbers, my statement is false.
    - Delmania 10y ago
      It's Linux, not GNU/Linux. The other problem is people don't consciously associate Emacs or GCC with GNU or the FSF, they're just tools on a machine.
      - cyphar 10y ago
        It is GNU/Linux. Claiming that Linux is the most important part of the system is rewriting history (the GNU project started almost a decade before Linux was created).
        jjawssd 10y ago
        GNU would have gone nowhere without Linux. Do you really think GNU/Hurd would have taken over?
        gkya 10y ago
        Gnu over a BSD kernel could have. Linux was there at the right time.
        pessimizer 10y ago
        Honesty, Linus has been more important than Linux. Linux was just a student's side project. Linus is a force.
        cyphar 10y ago
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    > It has? I'll accept that only for the conception of FLOSS. However, I would then say that the OSI and Linux Foundations have had greater impact The OSI and Linux Foundations are results of the FSF. The FSF changed the entire face of computing, and the daily lives of every programmer in the world. > What I don't agree with is the all or nothing attitude they have. They are an ethics organization. They are consistent and clear. They do not work with organizations or individuals who actively oppose the ethics they endorse. Exactly what goals are they trying to achieve that would benefit from that? Their goals do not include getting the most users, making computers more convenient, or cheaper, producing the greatest software, or selling the most ads. They are clear about their purpose. When they attempt those things, it is solely to advance ethical goals. Specifically, who should they be working with, to what end?
    - aaronbrethorst 10y ago
      > They are an ethics organization That sounds weirdly like Scientology.
      - cyphar 10y ago
        Riiiiiight, because the FSF conducts ritual hazing? Or do they pressure people into giving them money by harassing their whole family? Or because they have created the most successful pyramid scheme in the world? Since the FSF hasn't done any of those things, I'm surprised that someone would liken an organisation trying to give freedom to all users of software as being "oddly like Scientology".
  - icebraining 10y ago
    The FSF compromises when it makes sense. In the past, rms has advocated for using non-copyleft licenses when it was a more programmatic solution. And they don't have enemies; for example, the FSF has congratulated Microsoft in the past when they released some software under a Free license. Where they don't compromise is in situations where it would go against the very purpose of the organization, and why should they?
- vacri 10y ago
  > Maybe it isn't the way they're presenting their message; maybe you just don't agree with them. I mostly agree with the FSF position and have defended Stallman on these pages many a time, donate a little bit to the Free Software Conservancy... but I have to agree with Delmania that the FSF does crap on in an adolescent manner at times. Like making pet nicknames and always using them (eg the 'Swindle'). The way the arguments are presented, it's like preaching to the choir - name-calling and in-jokes aren't exactly a dispassionate presentation of philosophy, and aren't going to win many friends who aren't already inclined that way to begin with. Stallman argues that the name-calling is actually maturity-in-disguise, and that humour is needed in fighting oppression[1]. However, he's wrong about that, and even if he was right, it's shithouse, clumsy humour that is made for the choir, not for the wider audience. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.en.htm...

pessimizer 10y ago

The FSF has had a massive impact on the world. The constant discussion of how they should be presenting their message should be in the dictionary under bikeshedding. Maybe it isn't the way they're presenting their message; maybe you just don't agree with them.

Delmania 10y ago
> The FSF has had a massive impact on the world. It has? I'll accept that only for the conception of FLOSS. However, I would then say that the OSI and Linux Foundations have had greater impact. They relied on the RMS's license, but they have actually managed to make inroads, whereas the FSF has stayed in it's corner, shouting. > maybe you just don't agree with them. What I don't agree with is the all or nothing attitude they have. The ability to know when to compromise is crucial to working with people.
- krapp 10y ago
  >What I don't agree with is the all or nothing attitude they have. The ability to know when to compromise is crucial to working with people. They consider nonfree software to be not merely inconvenient, but evil, a violation of fundamental human rights. Why would they ever compromise?
- PeCaN 10y ago
  As long as the FSF controls Emacs, GCC, and coreutils they're definitely doing a little more than shouting. I mean they're ‘GNU’ in GNU/Linux, which is a bit more widespread¹ than any BSD/Linux type thing. ¹Pretty sure Android/Linux wins in sheer numbers, but GNU/Linux has been historically more important and is deployed in more scenarios than smartphones. But if we consider ‘widespread’ to mean numbers, my statement is false.
  - Delmania 10y ago
    It's Linux, not GNU/Linux. The other problem is people don't consciously associate Emacs or GCC with GNU or the FSF, they're just tools on a machine.
    - cyphar 10y ago
      It is GNU/Linux. Claiming that Linux is the most important part of the system is rewriting history (the GNU project started almost a decade before Linux was created).
      - jjawssd 10y ago
        GNU would have gone nowhere without Linux. Do you really think GNU/Hurd would have taken over?
        gkya 10y ago
        Gnu over a BSD kernel could have. Linux was there at the right time.
        pessimizer 10y ago
        Honesty, Linus has been more important than Linux. Linux was just a student's side project. Linus is a force.
        cyphar 10y ago
- pessimizer 10y ago
  > It has? I'll accept that only for the conception of FLOSS. However, I would then say that the OSI and Linux Foundations have had greater impact The OSI and Linux Foundations are results of the FSF. The FSF changed the entire face of computing, and the daily lives of every programmer in the world. > What I don't agree with is the all or nothing attitude they have. They are an ethics organization. They are consistent and clear. They do not work with organizations or individuals who actively oppose the ethics they endorse. Exactly what goals are they trying to achieve that would benefit from that? Their goals do not include getting the most users, making computers more convenient, or cheaper, producing the greatest software, or selling the most ads. They are clear about their purpose. When they attempt those things, it is solely to advance ethical goals. Specifically, who should they be working with, to what end?
  - aaronbrethorst 10y ago
    > They are an ethics organization That sounds weirdly like Scientology.
    - cyphar 10y ago
      Riiiiiight, because the FSF conducts ritual hazing? Or do they pressure people into giving them money by harassing their whole family? Or because they have created the most successful pyramid scheme in the world? Since the FSF hasn't done any of those things, I'm surprised that someone would liken an organisation trying to give freedom to all users of software as being "oddly like Scientology".
- icebraining 10y ago
  The FSF compromises when it makes sense. In the past, rms has advocated for using non-copyleft licenses when it was a more programmatic solution. And they don't have enemies; for example, the FSF has congratulated Microsoft in the past when they released some software under a Free license. Where they don't compromise is in situations where it would go against the very purpose of the organization, and why should they?
vacri 10y ago
> Maybe it isn't the way they're presenting their message; maybe you just don't agree with them. I mostly agree with the FSF position and have defended Stallman on these pages many a time, donate a little bit to the Free Software Conservancy... but I have to agree with Delmania that the FSF does crap on in an adolescent manner at times. Like making pet nicknames and always using them (eg the 'Swindle'). The way the arguments are presented, it's like preaching to the choir - name-calling and in-jokes aren't exactly a dispassionate presentation of philosophy, and aren't going to win many friends who aren't already inclined that way to begin with. Stallman argues that the name-calling is actually maturity-in-disguise, and that humour is needed in fighting oppression[1]. However, he's wrong about that, and even if he was right, it's shithouse, clumsy humour that is made for the choir, not for the wider audience. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.en.htm...