3 ms·
> This is partly the fault of the FSF having poor communication, of course. You've highlighted here one of the biggest reasons why the FSF is demonized. The
by Delmania 10y ago
> This is partly the fault of the FSF having poor communication, of course.
You've highlighted here one of the biggest reasons why the FSF is demonized. The organization has made and continues to make significant contributions to computing. It also sounds like many people who volunteer there also realize the need to compromise in order to move forward.
However, the FSF itself, as a few pointed out belief, is an organization focused on it ideology. While making good software is important for it to advance its agenda, the simple fact is how you say something is just as, if not more than, important as what you are saying. The message comes off just as bad as many fundamentalist religious organizations. That's going to drive away a lot of people, many of whom would agree if the message was marketed better.
- jordigh 10y agoThat better marketing is supposed to be the open source movement. It is debatable whether that has achieved the desired effect or not. It really depends on what the desired effect is. Also, the FSF does not really "compromise". If you ask them, "hey can you accept just a liiiiitle bit of non-free software", they'll say "no". A compromise can be disastrous to the FSF, in their view, akin to accepting a liiiiitle slavery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html
- rpgmaker 10y agoExactly. The people that say that "they advocate for extreme ideas" probably ignore the FSF's actual mission.
- pron 10y agoI think that their aversion to compromise -- effective in practice or not -- is an antidote to Silicon Valley's inherent is-ought fallacy when social laws are concerned: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11600803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11600803