5 ms·

Thoughts on RMS and GNU

36 points by LaSombra 7y ago

Crinus 7y ago
I can see the purpose of GNU in the 80s and most of the 90s, but really now that anyone can post any project online and setting up a project page is as easy as downloading Fossil and throwing it somewhere[1], what function does GNU serve? [1] I mention Fossil because it is trivial to setup, Gogs, GitLab, etc would be others, in order of overall increasing complexity.
- pg_is_a_butt 7y ago
  Someone has to constantly remind people that Linux doesn't exist.
- Crinus 7y ago
  Since i see this was downvoted, i guess it was taken as an attack on GNU. To clarify, this is far from it, it was an actual question. I get what FSF's purpose is, but what is GNU's purpose?
- davexunit 7y ago
  I think it's a legitimate question to ask, and I think it's a question some GNU devs have been asking. If GNU is just a loose collection of whatever software people offer up to the "brand" in exchange for some old-school hosting services and giving absolute veto power to RMS, then there really isn't much purpose to it, and unfortunately that's what GNU feels like these days. It doesn't have to be this way. We'll see what happens, I guess.
teddyuk 7y ago
could everyone who makes up GNU who don't like RMS just fork it and work on that instead?
- gwd 7y ago
  > could everyone who makes up GNU who don't like RMS just fork it and work on that instead? Three possibilities: 1. RMS steps down. The project stays together but loses one pesron who "...does not write software...does not design software, or systems." 2. RMS refuses to step down. People who don't like his leadership stop developing on their current projects entirely. -2a. This is a relatively small number of people; the project continues, but they have at least a dozen fewer people who do actually write and/or design software. -2b. This is a large number of people; the GNU project is crippled or becomes untenable. 3. RMS refuses to step down. People who don't like his leadership fork the project. -3a. This is basically everyone. This is similar to 1, (or a combination of 1 and 2a), but with a branding change (similar to OpenOffice -> LibreOffice, or Xfree86 -> Xorg). -3b. This is about half the people. Both projects subsequently struggle to find the labor to continue operating; this is similar to 2b. -3c. This is a minority of people; the new project struggles and eventually dies. This is similar to 2a. Even though 3a would work, it's sub-optimal; but there's a significant risk of 3b. 1 is the best option if possible, so it's obviously the option to try first.
9k2jdn4339sdt23 7y ago
I think this post does RMS no justice, since it adds even more straw men to the ones already spread. > RMS started GNU so RMS decides what it is and what it can be. That would be in contradiction with the GNU principles RMS wrote himself. > I don't think RMS has the legitimacy to tell this group of largely volunteers what we should build or how we should organize ourselves. That would be in contradiction with the GNU principles. > the best thing that he could do for GNU is to stop pretending to run things Did he pretend he "run things"? > He does hold a role of accepting new projects into GNU That's one thing he says he does. > [link about the "_were_ Entirely Willing"] The part before "Entirely Willing" was not "were". It has been discussed several times that that's the opposite of what he actually wrote. > The great tragedy of RMS's tenure in the supposedly universalist FSF and GNU projects is that he behaves in a way that is particularly alienating to women. It doesn't take a genius to conclude that if you're personally driving away potential collaborators, that's a bad thing for the organization, and actively harmful to the organization's goals: software freedom is a cause that is explicitly for everyone. > The result, sadly, is that a significant proportion of those that have stuck with GNU don't see any problems with RMS. I don't see any problem with RMS because I plan to never interact with him nor with the many other people I don't like while still having the chance to give my (very) small contribution to GNU projects, which I consider a just cause. The reason I can do that is because I know that even if the author is a dick the contribution I'm making will be bound to the GNU principles. > it has also had the unfortunate effect of creating a cult of personality and a with-us-or-against-us mentality. For some, only a traitor would criticise the GNU project. It's laughable but it's a thing; I prefer to ignore these perspectives. Indeed it's laughable (and in contradiction with GNU principles, btw). > no gods! No masters! No chief!!! I agree, but seems like another straw man to me.
- eesmith 7y ago
  I think most of the statement you posted were not strawmen, but summaries of actual arguments made, followed by a response. Eg, you quoted "RMS started GNU so RMS decides what it is and what it can be", which is an argument I've heard, and which the author says "many (most?) GNU developers that still consider RMS to be GNU's rightful leader." You replied "That would be in contradiction with the GNU principles." The author seems to agree with you. So, what's the strawman? You write "Did he pretend he "run things"?" I believe that's what Stallman intended when he wrote "I am still the head of the GNU Project (the Chief GNUisance), and I intend to continue as such." at https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-09/msg00008.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-09/msg00008... .
IanSanders 7y ago
I hear all these thoughts and feelings on RMS lately. For some reason not as many on Free Software. Wonder what it will be like in, say, 5 years.
bixby42 7y ago
This was pure crap written by someone that inadvertently illustrated just how dysfunctional GNU actually is. Childish prose, childish attitude. Time to move out of mom's basement.
- 9k2jdn4339sdt23 7y ago
  > Childish prose English is not his first language. > childish attitude He is one of several contributors who share that point of view. While I don't agree with it, it's something that had to be discussed sooner or later. > inadvertently illustrated just how dysfunctional GNU actually is Has GNU been dysfunctional? To me it appears it has been more successful than many other projects with similar resources. And about Andy Wingo, the author, looking at his commits just on guile [1], he has been much more functional than most developers are. [1] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guile.git/log/ https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guile.git/log/

36 points by LaSombra 7y ago

I can see the purpose of GNU in the 80s and most of the 90s, but really now that anyone can post any project online and setting up a project page is as easy as downloading Fossil and throwing it somewhere[1], what function does GNU serve? [1] I mention Fossil because it is trivial to setup, Gogs, GitLab, etc would be others, in order of overall increasing complexity.

pg_is_a_butt 7y ago
Someone has to constantly remind people that Linux doesn't exist.
Crinus 7y ago
Since i see this was downvoted, i guess it was taken as an attack on GNU. To clarify, this is far from it, it was an actual question. I get what FSF's purpose is, but what is GNU's purpose?
davexunit 7y ago
I think it's a legitimate question to ask, and I think it's a question some GNU devs have been asking. If GNU is just a loose collection of whatever software people offer up to the "brand" in exchange for some old-school hosting services and giving absolute veto power to RMS, then there really isn't much purpose to it, and unfortunately that's what GNU feels like these days. It doesn't have to be this way. We'll see what happens, I guess.

teddyuk 7y ago

could everyone who makes up GNU who don't like RMS just fork it and work on that instead?

gwd 7y ago
> could everyone who makes up GNU who don't like RMS just fork it and work on that instead? Three possibilities: 1. RMS steps down. The project stays together but loses one pesron who "...does not write software...does not design software, or systems." 2. RMS refuses to step down. People who don't like his leadership stop developing on their current projects entirely. -2a. This is a relatively small number of people; the project continues, but they have at least a dozen fewer people who do actually write and/or design software. -2b. This is a large number of people; the GNU project is crippled or becomes untenable. 3. RMS refuses to step down. People who don't like his leadership fork the project. -3a. This is basically everyone. This is similar to 1, (or a combination of 1 and 2a), but with a branding change (similar to OpenOffice -> LibreOffice, or Xfree86 -> Xorg). -3b. This is about half the people. Both projects subsequently struggle to find the labor to continue operating; this is similar to 2b. -3c. This is a minority of people; the new project struggles and eventually dies. This is similar to 2a. Even though 3a would work, it's sub-optimal; but there's a significant risk of 3b. 1 is the best option if possible, so it's obviously the option to try first.

9k2jdn4339sdt23 7y ago

I think this post does RMS no justice, since it adds even more straw men to the ones already spread. > RMS started GNU so RMS decides what it is and what it can be. That would be in contradiction with the GNU principles RMS wrote himself. > I don't think RMS has the legitimacy to tell this group of largely volunteers what we should build or how we should organize ourselves. That would be in contradiction with the GNU principles. > the best thing that he could do for GNU is to stop pretending to run things Did he pretend he "run things"? > He does hold a role of accepting new projects into GNU That's one thing he says he does. > [link about the "_were_ Entirely Willing"] The part before "Entirely Willing" was not "were". It has been discussed several times that that's the opposite of what he actually wrote. > The great tragedy of RMS's tenure in the supposedly universalist FSF and GNU projects is that he behaves in a way that is particularly alienating to women. It doesn't take a genius to conclude that if you're personally driving away potential collaborators, that's a bad thing for the organization, and actively harmful to the organization's goals: software freedom is a cause that is explicitly for everyone. > The result, sadly, is that a significant proportion of those that have stuck with GNU don't see any problems with RMS. I don't see any problem with RMS because I plan to never interact with him nor with the many other people I don't like while still having the chance to give my (very) small contribution to GNU projects, which I consider a just cause. The reason I can do that is because I know that even if the author is a dick the contribution I'm making will be bound to the GNU principles. > it has also had the unfortunate effect of creating a cult of personality and a with-us-or-against-us mentality. For some, only a traitor would criticise the GNU project. It's laughable but it's a thing; I prefer to ignore these perspectives. Indeed it's laughable (and in contradiction with GNU principles, btw). > no gods! No masters! No chief!!! I agree, but seems like another straw man to me.

eesmith 7y ago
I think most of the statement you posted were not strawmen, but summaries of actual arguments made, followed by a response. Eg, you quoted "RMS started GNU so RMS decides what it is and what it can be", which is an argument I've heard, and which the author says "many (most?) GNU developers that still consider RMS to be GNU's rightful leader." You replied "That would be in contradiction with the GNU principles." The author seems to agree with you. So, what's the strawman? You write "Did he pretend he "run things"?" I believe that's what Stallman intended when he wrote "I am still the head of the GNU Project (the Chief GNUisance), and I intend to continue as such." at https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-09/msg00008.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-09/msg00008... .

IanSanders 7y ago

I hear all these thoughts and feelings on RMS lately. For some reason not as many on Free Software. Wonder what it will be like in, say, 5 years.

bixby42 7y ago

This was pure crap written by someone that inadvertently illustrated just how dysfunctional GNU actually is. Childish prose, childish attitude. Time to move out of mom's basement.

9k2jdn4339sdt23 7y ago
> Childish prose English is not his first language. > childish attitude He is one of several contributors who share that point of view. While I don't agree with it, it's something that had to be discussed sooner or later. > inadvertently illustrated just how dysfunctional GNU actually is Has GNU been dysfunctional? To me it appears it has been more successful than many other projects with similar resources. And about Andy Wingo, the author, looking at his commits just on guile [1], he has been much more functional than most developers are. [1] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guile.git/log/ https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guile.git/log/