8 ms·

I also see it as a sign of how terrible leader Stallman was. Don't get me wrong, I'm on his side defending Minsky and all that stuff, but recent controversies

I also see it as a sign of how terrible leader Stallman was. Don't get me wrong, I'm on his side defending Minsky and all that stuff, but recent controversies aside: Stallman is a one man army. He was a terrible organizer, more like a prophet preaching ideas, than a leader building institution. And after Stallman resigned, it became clear that there are no people to take his place. As if FSF were Stallman's little club and not an institution or organization.

Smithalicious 7y ago
It appears to me that Stallman was doing a job nobody else wanted to do. I never got the impression from him that he wanted to be some kind of president; and indeed he's distinctly not suited for the role. But I see no promising candidates for his replacement. What he lacked in skills he made up in passion and vision.
- eesmith 7y ago
  I agree that there are no promising candidates for his replacement. What I wonder is, are there people who could have been promising candidates, but which he rejected associating with? Eg, for some flaw in their ideological understanding of free software that could have been worked out over time, or because they wouldn't overlook personal issues with Stallman, or because Stallman liked his position of high priest and wanted no challengers?
  - Smithalicious 7y ago
    I don't take Stallman as someone who would compromise the free software cause because he "liked his position of high priest". As for ideological differences, I think free software is so strongly tied to Stallman that you could argue that someone who seriously ideologically disagrees with Stallman doesn't really believe in free software as it is commonly understood, which would by definition make them unsuitable to lead the FSF. Perhaps it's a problem to have a movement's ideology be so strongly tied to an individual, but now I feel like we've just looped around to the same issue again. Stallman was the one primarily creating and preaching the ideology, and it's a very effective ideology, so it's hard to see how anyone else could be "in charge". Basically, Stallman just had the right ideas on free software, he had them before "competitors", and he advocated them the hardest. He was in charge on the basis of sheer ideological merit, despite his poor skills as a communicator and a PR guy.
    - eesmith 7y ago
      How do you conclude that "it's a very effective ideology"? My observation is that it's a pretty niche ideology. Even many people who know "open source" don't know "free software". While just about everyone who knows "free software" also knows "open source software". You commented "you could argue that someone who seriously ideologically disagrees with Stallman". I will try to make a more concrete expression of my argument, which is somewhat different than your comment. If I'm 98% aligned with Stallman, but think that using "GNU/Linux" is a lost effort that's a distraction to the cause, and refuse to use it in my writings and talks supporting free software, would Stallman still work with me? Or would he reject associating with me, and not support my rise in the free software movement?
      - Smithalicious 7y ago
        Many people say open source but mean free software; there's not much software that is the former but not the latter. The success of free software is in the fact that for many developers, it is the default license; most developers will prefer free software, all else considered equal. This was not always the case. Free software is absolutely ubiquitous, has only grown for decades and has had no major schisms. That makes it a very effective ideology. >would Stallman still work with me? Yes. Stallman works with many people who disagree with many of his pet peeves.
        eesmith 7y ago
        I ... think you are talking about the licensing details, and not the respective movements/ideologies, which is what I thought we were talking about? Stallman at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... points out: > The term “open source” quickly became associated with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as making or having powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same association. Most discussion of “open source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's a typical example. A minority of supporters of open source do nowadays say freedom is part of the issue, but they are not very visible among the many that don't. ... > As a result, people from the free software movement and the open source camp often work together on practical projects such as software development. It is remarkable that such different philosophical views can so often motivate different people to participate in the same projects. Nonetheless, there are situations where these fundamentally different views lead to very different actions. So, Stallman says they are "fundamentally different" ideologies, and claims that most open source supporters are not developing open source because of issues related to software freedom. Which was the point I was trying to make. Is Stallman, or my interpretation of Stallman, incorrect?

Smithalicious 7y ago

It appears to me that Stallman was doing a job nobody else wanted to do. I never got the impression from him that he wanted to be some kind of president; and indeed he's distinctly not suited for the role. But I see no promising candidates for his replacement. What he lacked in skills he made up in passion and vision.

eesmith 7y ago
I agree that there are no promising candidates for his replacement. What I wonder is, are there people who could have been promising candidates, but which he rejected associating with? Eg, for some flaw in their ideological understanding of free software that could have been worked out over time, or because they wouldn't overlook personal issues with Stallman, or because Stallman liked his position of high priest and wanted no challengers?
- Smithalicious 7y ago
  I don't take Stallman as someone who would compromise the free software cause because he "liked his position of high priest". As for ideological differences, I think free software is so strongly tied to Stallman that you could argue that someone who seriously ideologically disagrees with Stallman doesn't really believe in free software as it is commonly understood, which would by definition make them unsuitable to lead the FSF. Perhaps it's a problem to have a movement's ideology be so strongly tied to an individual, but now I feel like we've just looped around to the same issue again. Stallman was the one primarily creating and preaching the ideology, and it's a very effective ideology, so it's hard to see how anyone else could be "in charge". Basically, Stallman just had the right ideas on free software, he had them before "competitors", and he advocated them the hardest. He was in charge on the basis of sheer ideological merit, despite his poor skills as a communicator and a PR guy.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    How do you conclude that "it's a very effective ideology"? My observation is that it's a pretty niche ideology. Even many people who know "open source" don't know "free software". While just about everyone who knows "free software" also knows "open source software". You commented "you could argue that someone who seriously ideologically disagrees with Stallman". I will try to make a more concrete expression of my argument, which is somewhat different than your comment. If I'm 98% aligned with Stallman, but think that using "GNU/Linux" is a lost effort that's a distraction to the cause, and refuse to use it in my writings and talks supporting free software, would Stallman still work with me? Or would he reject associating with me, and not support my rise in the free software movement?
    - Smithalicious 7y ago
      Many people say open source but mean free software; there's not much software that is the former but not the latter. The success of free software is in the fact that for many developers, it is the default license; most developers will prefer free software, all else considered equal. This was not always the case. Free software is absolutely ubiquitous, has only grown for decades and has had no major schisms. That makes it a very effective ideology. >would Stallman still work with me? Yes. Stallman works with many people who disagree with many of his pet peeves.
      - eesmith 7y ago
        I ... think you are talking about the licensing details, and not the respective movements/ideologies, which is what I thought we were talking about? Stallman at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... points out: > The term “open source” quickly became associated with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as making or having powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same association. Most discussion of “open source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's a typical example. A minority of supporters of open source do nowadays say freedom is part of the issue, but they are not very visible among the many that don't. ... > As a result, people from the free software movement and the open source camp often work together on practical projects such as software development. It is remarkable that such different philosophical views can so often motivate different people to participate in the same projects. Nonetheless, there are situations where these fundamentally different views lead to very different actions. So, Stallman says they are "fundamentally different" ideologies, and claims that most open source supporters are not developing open source because of issues related to software freedom. Which was the point I was trying to make. Is Stallman, or my interpretation of Stallman, incorrect?