4 ms·

> I believe free software will be recognised as one of the paradigmatic changes in how science itself is done. I think we're already there. I'm an astronomer,

by cbanek 7y ago

> I believe free software will be recognised as one of the paradigmatic changes in how science itself is done. I think we're already there. I'm an astronomer, and we (and many others) are already building platforms with software like Jupyter, dask, holoviews, etc. While RMS may have started with a great idea, I'm not sure he's super influential in actually making progress and writing software. If anything, the idea that companies will sponsor open source software has (and I'm not sure many saw that one coming). For example, nVidia supporting dask, or Bloomberg supporting Jupyter. It's the idea that was important, and less so the person IMHO. RMS had a lot of ideas, some good, and some bad. But like evolution, people take the good and run with them, and leave the bad. And we rarely remember who started the whole thing, since having the idea is generally such a small part of actually making it a reality. "We are told to remember the idea, not the man, because a man can fail. He can be caught, he can be killed and forgotten, but 400 years later, an idea can still change the world." - V for Vendetta

varjag 7y ago
> While RMS may have started with a great idea, I'm not sure he's super influential in actually making progress and writing software. I had to re-read this to be sure it's not sarcasm. RMS has some of the largest footprints in software among the living people. How can one hold an opinion about his contribution and not be aware of that?
- pessimizer 7y ago
  Maybe its a sign of your greatness when people think your contribution to the world somehow arose spontaneously, like a hurricane.
  - krapp 7y ago
    That's not a sign of greatness, so much as a sign of a cult of personality. If people believe that Free Software could never have existed without Richard Stallman, and cannot continue without him, that calls into question whether it has any lasting societal or cultural value of its own. Other software licensing paradigms don't have this problem, real or percieved. No one believes that open source will die if ESR gets hit by a bus, after all.
    - vinceguidry 7y ago
      Free software might continue without Stallman, but it doesn't follow that it would have ever existed without him. Read his auto-biography, he lays out in very convincing terms just how bleak the world of software looked when he started the FSF. You don't even have to jump back 30 years to see what that world looked like, it still exists today, inside every large corporation that hates free software, except when they can steal it and not give anything back. That nasty, back-stabbing world is what it all would have looked like without the constant efforts of the FSF to continue to advocate sharing and cooperation. It might have come about anyway, but Stallman accelerated it by at minimum decades. It should also be noted that the timing of the FSF's and GNU's founding was important, if they had tried even five years later when all computers were ensconced behind protective legal walls, they might not have gotten anywhere at all with the effort.
- cbanek 7y ago
  Apologies, and you're right. I meant to have recent in there. No doubt he's written a lot of great software (even if I'm a vim user). But I think his ideas about free software (GPL, copyleft) are more important (and hopefully more long lasting) than his code contributions, and I think he has been focusing on that impact more as well with his work at the FSF, which is good. The thoughts and ideas that he has had about free software will live on.
GoblinSlayer 7y ago
He wanted progress to happen in the field of freedom. Jupyter, dask, holoviews are free as in beer, and that's why there's little progress if not degradation in freedom.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> It's the idea that was important, and less so the person IMHO. RMS had a lot of ideas, some good, and some bad. But like evolution, people take the good and run with them, and leave the bad. And we rarely remember who started the whole thing, since having the idea is generally such a small part of actually making it a reality. While true, there's a difference between forgetting a person, and making that person forgotten. The latter seem to be happening now. > While RMS may have started with a great idea, I'm not sure he's super influential in actually making progress and writing software. If anything, the idea that companies will sponsor open source software has (and I'm not sure many saw that one coming). So a garden finally bloomed (though RMS would probably think some of these companies are weeds). It would however be unfair to say that the people that built and maintained this garden (which is an artificial hydroponic garden in the middle of a volcano) for decades weren't "influencial". The Free Software movement benefited from having someone with clear and unyielding vision. Actually, scratch that. The Free Software movement benefited from RMS the way you benefited from having a biological mother - it wouldn't be born otherwise. That some companies will sponsor Open Source wasn't that unexpected. That some of the players that now do would (Microsoft?!), that was more surprising.

by cbanek 7y ago

varjag 7y ago

> While RMS may have started with a great idea, I'm not sure he's super influential in actually making progress and writing software. I had to re-read this to be sure it's not sarcasm. RMS has some of the largest footprints in software among the living people. How can one hold an opinion about his contribution and not be aware of that?

pessimizer 7y ago
Maybe its a sign of your greatness when people think your contribution to the world somehow arose spontaneously, like a hurricane.
- krapp 7y ago
  That's not a sign of greatness, so much as a sign of a cult of personality. If people believe that Free Software could never have existed without Richard Stallman, and cannot continue without him, that calls into question whether it has any lasting societal or cultural value of its own. Other software licensing paradigms don't have this problem, real or percieved. No one believes that open source will die if ESR gets hit by a bus, after all.
  - vinceguidry 7y ago
    Free software might continue without Stallman, but it doesn't follow that it would have ever existed without him. Read his auto-biography, he lays out in very convincing terms just how bleak the world of software looked when he started the FSF. You don't even have to jump back 30 years to see what that world looked like, it still exists today, inside every large corporation that hates free software, except when they can steal it and not give anything back. That nasty, back-stabbing world is what it all would have looked like without the constant efforts of the FSF to continue to advocate sharing and cooperation. It might have come about anyway, but Stallman accelerated it by at minimum decades. It should also be noted that the timing of the FSF's and GNU's founding was important, if they had tried even five years later when all computers were ensconced behind protective legal walls, they might not have gotten anywhere at all with the effort.
cbanek 7y ago
Apologies, and you're right. I meant to have recent in there. No doubt he's written a lot of great software (even if I'm a vim user). But I think his ideas about free software (GPL, copyleft) are more important (and hopefully more long lasting) than his code contributions, and I think he has been focusing on that impact more as well with his work at the FSF, which is good. The thoughts and ideas that he has had about free software will live on.

GoblinSlayer 7y ago

He wanted progress to happen in the field of freedom. Jupyter, dask, holoviews are free as in beer, and that's why there's little progress if not degradation in freedom.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> It's the idea that was important, and less so the person IMHO. RMS had a lot of ideas, some good, and some bad. But like evolution, people take the good and run with them, and leave the bad. And we rarely remember who started the whole thing, since having the idea is generally such a small part of actually making it a reality. While true, there's a difference between forgetting a person, and making that person forgotten. The latter seem to be happening now. > While RMS may have started with a great idea, I'm not sure he's super influential in actually making progress and writing software. If anything, the idea that companies will sponsor open source software has (and I'm not sure many saw that one coming). So a garden finally bloomed (though RMS would probably think some of these companies are weeds). It would however be unfair to say that the people that built and maintained this garden (which is an artificial hydroponic garden in the middle of a volcano) for decades weren't "influencial". The Free Software movement benefited from having someone with clear and unyielding vision. Actually, scratch that. The Free Software movement benefited from RMS the way you benefited from having a biological mother - it wouldn't be born otherwise. That some companies will sponsor Open Source wasn't that unexpected. That some of the players that now do would (Microsoft?!), that was more surprising.