4 ms·

I'm all for OSS, but reading things like this really make me think of the community as totally nuts. I don't have the time in my life to get this worked up over

I'm all for OSS, but reading things like this really make me think of the community as totally nuts. I don't have the time in my life to get this worked up over OSS, and I don't have the time to avoid the smallest paid software package. I guess I am glad that a community like this exists to push OSS forwards, but I wonder how much this pushes away more moderate people. Would the ecosystem be as easy for a moderate like me to enter were it not for these fringe envelope pushers? Would it be slightly harder to enter, but offset by the larger number of developers not alienated by the apparent gung-ho anti-establishment attitude? In the end I think it's a benefit but it does push me away.

peterarmstrong 8y ago
Speaking of OSS: essentially the whole reason that the term "Open Source Software" exists is because the Free Software Foundation often comes across like this. "Free Software" is the brand for people who think that modest proposals like this one are reasonable; Open Source is the brand for actually pragmatic people. The fact that you'll write "I'm all for OSS, but..." shows how successful this cultural branding effort has been...
noir_lord 8y ago
Nuts or not they fight the good fight on our behalf by acting as an anchor at the other end of the spectrum. Even if I’m not as ardent about it as a beneficiary of open source in all its forms I can understand the viewpoint of those who are. There is value in that I think.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jolmg 8y ago
  > There is value in that I think. Yes, thinking does have value. :P > There is value in that, I think. Totally agree with your comment, though.
- santoshalper 8y ago
  It's a tough call. I do see the logic in what you're saying, but when I read things like this, he seems more like PETA than anything else: actively harmful to his movement. Basically a walking, talking strawman.
- a-nikolaev 8y ago
  Richard Stallman is important as a visionary. I think, his views may be really impractical short-term, but he is often spot-on long-term. Taking him seriously and listening to his opinion is worth the effort, I think.
  - laughinghan 8y ago
    Interesting. What are some examples of things he predicted in the past that were really impractical short-term, but turned out to be spot-on long-term?
    - a-nikolaev 8y ago
      I don't have specific examples off the top of my head. This is just the realization I had after reading and watching his talks and articles. You can google "stallman was right" and "stallman was wrong", and see where he got it right or not. I did some search, and this discussion seems helpful and exactly on this topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3417033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3417033
    - greymeister 8y ago
      I would say the modern state of surveillance capitalism is in a large part what rms warned about with proprietary systems being used against the user.
undecisive 8y ago
No, not the community. Richard Stallman. In any community - social, religious, utility - you have those people on the fringes. How hard they hang off the edge, and how many they can convert to "edgers" informs where the average point will be. So if the moderate software moralist is half way between Bill Gates and Richard Stallman, one would imagine that the mean average would be slightly left leaning, slightly pro FOSS, but ultimately pragmatic. Were Bill Gates any more megalomaniacal, or Richard Stallman any more bonkers, the mean might shift. The problem lies with the repugnance. Only those already willing to feel the pain are willing to align with RMS fully. To most of the rest of the world, we see pieces like this and bristle; we recognise that freedom + cost = nonfree - it's not free if we're shackling ourselves to a system that we can't use properly, or have to cart around dongles to duplicate the functionality already theoretically in our machines. However keenly we do or don't recognise the moral shackles, we'll certainly recognise the convenience shackles. Of course, FOSS isn't RMS' only soapbox. His GNU/Linux stance - to the point where he insists podcasts and publications change their name or he'll pull out last minute - creates a second repugnant pull in another direction. Again, the shackles are obvious, the moral imperative not so obvious, the sanity of the flag-bearer even less obvious. So yeah, you're not alone in it pushing you away. Thankfully, everyone within a standard deviation of the mean will ignore his ravings as he hangs on the edge. As the mean shifts, so will how far off the edge he hangs (until he drops). Feel free to go as close to the edge as you feel comfortable. And for everything else, shake your head and whisper (not my president) :D
orblivion 8y ago
We always have to weigh costs and benefits. But it's easy to make enough compromises and forget that your decisions were impure. That's why you have to have purists laying out what exactly it is you're compromising on, whether it be the FSF or your local church. Ideally we want to live something close to the "pure" lifestyle and also get the convenience we want. That requires dedication on the part of programmers to get us closer and closer to it. You can't get that kind of dedication from people who are halfway dedicated.
greymeister 8y ago
Just like rms, PETA and the ACLU do things I don't agree with, but philosophically, especially with FSF, EFF, and the ACLU, I think that their overall goal is one I agree with. No one has the time and attention to address everything, and so I am glad there are those that focus on each of these individual issues.

peterarmstrong 8y ago

Speaking of OSS: essentially the whole reason that the term "Open Source Software" exists is because the Free Software Foundation often comes across like this. "Free Software" is the brand for people who think that modest proposals like this one are reasonable; Open Source is the brand for actually pragmatic people. The fact that you'll write "I'm all for OSS, but..." shows how successful this cultural branding effort has been...

noir_lord 8y ago

Nuts or not they fight the good fight on our behalf by acting as an anchor at the other end of the spectrum. Even if I’m not as ardent about it as a beneficiary of open source in all its forms I can understand the viewpoint of those who are. There is value in that I think.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jolmg 8y ago
> There is value in that I think. Yes, thinking does have value. :P > There is value in that, I think. Totally agree with your comment, though.
santoshalper 8y ago
It's a tough call. I do see the logic in what you're saying, but when I read things like this, he seems more like PETA than anything else: actively harmful to his movement. Basically a walking, talking strawman.
a-nikolaev 8y ago
Richard Stallman is important as a visionary. I think, his views may be really impractical short-term, but he is often spot-on long-term. Taking him seriously and listening to his opinion is worth the effort, I think.
- laughinghan 8y ago
  Interesting. What are some examples of things he predicted in the past that were really impractical short-term, but turned out to be spot-on long-term?
  - a-nikolaev 8y ago
    I don't have specific examples off the top of my head. This is just the realization I had after reading and watching his talks and articles. You can google "stallman was right" and "stallman was wrong", and see where he got it right or not. I did some search, and this discussion seems helpful and exactly on this topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3417033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3417033
  - greymeister 8y ago
    I would say the modern state of surveillance capitalism is in a large part what rms warned about with proprietary systems being used against the user.

undecisive 8y ago

No, not the community. Richard Stallman. In any community - social, religious, utility - you have those people on the fringes. How hard they hang off the edge, and how many they can convert to "edgers" informs where the average point will be. So if the moderate software moralist is half way between Bill Gates and Richard Stallman, one would imagine that the mean average would be slightly left leaning, slightly pro FOSS, but ultimately pragmatic. Were Bill Gates any more megalomaniacal, or Richard Stallman any more bonkers, the mean might shift. The problem lies with the repugnance. Only those already willing to feel the pain are willing to align with RMS fully. To most of the rest of the world, we see pieces like this and bristle; we recognise that freedom + cost = nonfree - it's not free if we're shackling ourselves to a system that we can't use properly, or have to cart around dongles to duplicate the functionality already theoretically in our machines. However keenly we do or don't recognise the moral shackles, we'll certainly recognise the convenience shackles. Of course, FOSS isn't RMS' only soapbox. His GNU/Linux stance - to the point where he insists podcasts and publications change their name or he'll pull out last minute - creates a second repugnant pull in another direction. Again, the shackles are obvious, the moral imperative not so obvious, the sanity of the flag-bearer even less obvious. So yeah, you're not alone in it pushing you away. Thankfully, everyone within a standard deviation of the mean will ignore his ravings as he hangs on the edge. As the mean shifts, so will how far off the edge he hangs (until he drops). Feel free to go as close to the edge as you feel comfortable. And for everything else, shake your head and whisper (not my president) :D

orblivion 8y ago

We always have to weigh costs and benefits. But it's easy to make enough compromises and forget that your decisions were impure. That's why you have to have purists laying out what exactly it is you're compromising on, whether it be the FSF or your local church. Ideally we want to live something close to the "pure" lifestyle and also get the convenience we want. That requires dedication on the part of programmers to get us closer and closer to it. You can't get that kind of dedication from people who are halfway dedicated.

greymeister 8y ago

Just like rms, PETA and the ACLU do things I don't agree with, but philosophically, especially with FSF, EFF, and the ACLU, I think that their overall goal is one I agree with. No one has the time and attention to address everything, and so I am glad there are those that focus on each of these individual issues.