4 ms·

Personally, I've read a lot of GNU/FSF doctrine, and to me it feels very one-sided and dogmatic. I know that the FSF has been one of the loudest voices in the f

Personally, I've read a lot of GNU/FSF doctrine, and to me it feels very one-sided and dogmatic. I know that the FSF has been one of the loudest voices in the fight for free software, but maybe it wasn't the best one. Especially given the founder.

kragen 7y ago
I look forward to reading your less-one-sided philosophical analysis, then. Is it already online? I think it's easy for someone to come to the conclusion that something is "one-sided and dogmatic" when its conclusions contradict preconceived notions they hold and aren't willing or able to question. Occasionally, though, there is good-faith, well-reasoned disagreement even to well-thought-out philosophical exploration. Your case might be one of those exceptions; if so, I'd like to learn from your thinking. Given that you're leading off with an ad hominem attack on Stallman, though, in the unrebuttable form of a vague insinuation, I'm not that optimistic.
redis_mlc 7y ago
> Personally, I've read a lot of GNU/FSF doctrine, and to me it feels very one-sided and dogmatic. Of course it's dogmatic, you either have freedom or you don't. Try to decline a click-wrap agreement and see how one-sided that is. Apparently your reading did not lead to understanding. > I know that the FSF has been one of the loudest voices in the fight for free software, but maybe it wasn't the best one. It's the only one that I know of. > Especially given the founder. His results speak for themselves. Having said that, expecting somebody who is mainstream to promote radical ideas doesn't make any sense, since that's contradictory.
- NateEag 7y ago
  > His results speak for themselves. Do you mean creating the technical underpinnings for world-scale software-as-a-service systems that devour our society whole? Or do you mean slaving hopelessly for decades trying to convince people of his rightness and attempting to force a rigid, legalistic approach to humane software development on the world, only to lose what good reputation he had developed due to an utter refusal to account for human frailty, emotions, and impatience when discussing difficult topics in the public eye? To be clear, I think the media treated Stallman terribly in the debacle around Epstein's Media Lab ties. I also think his failings as a software theorist are the same ones that led to him creating a situation that could be so easily and dangerously misunderstood. My overall point is just that his results are not flawless, unmitigated good. They suggest to me that his software philosophy was not sufficient to guarantee good results.
openfuture 7y ago
You can call it 'one sided' and 'dogmatic' or you can call it 'consistent' and 'clear', seeing as it is a single entity that is broadcasting this opinion it makes sense for that single entity to be on it's own side of the argument. The larger discussion can be seen in open core, open source, shareware, proprietary software, etc. We are too used to scizhophrenic political parties with opinions all over the place. To the point that if there is a political party with a clear agenda then it is 'dogmatic' and 'one-sided' (hello extremists). The whole point of a representative democracy is that you follow the school of thought that represents your beliefs, if you can't trust any organization to stay true to their principles (hello startups getting bought by FAGMAN) then the whole system has lost it's foundational precondition (rendering it meaningless). For this reason I am glad to see FSF and GNU stick with the dogma they represent, practice what you preach. I kind of feel like this is a similar discussion as whether to separate church and state. One is clearly dogmatic while the other is supposed to be a platform for (essentially religious) discussion. The problem is that the platform has to be grounded in some principle and then you've got dogma again. Another manifestation is decentralized vs monolithic... Free software is about finding the principles to base government on so that religion can be discussed freely (policies diverging and converging). The technical problem of managing that is a version control system. I'm still waiting for them to become like governments but Subspace was launched yesterday and it is definitely in the direction of it.
eeZah7Ux 7y ago
A: explain software ethics B: spyware bad A: come on, that's one sided and dogmatic

kragen 7y ago

I look forward to reading your less-one-sided philosophical analysis, then. Is it already online? I think it's easy for someone to come to the conclusion that something is "one-sided and dogmatic" when its conclusions contradict preconceived notions they hold and aren't willing or able to question. Occasionally, though, there is good-faith, well-reasoned disagreement even to well-thought-out philosophical exploration. Your case might be one of those exceptions; if so, I'd like to learn from your thinking. Given that you're leading off with an ad hominem attack on Stallman, though, in the unrebuttable form of a vague insinuation, I'm not that optimistic.

redis_mlc 7y ago

> Personally, I've read a lot of GNU/FSF doctrine, and to me it feels very one-sided and dogmatic. Of course it's dogmatic, you either have freedom or you don't. Try to decline a click-wrap agreement and see how one-sided that is. Apparently your reading did not lead to understanding. > I know that the FSF has been one of the loudest voices in the fight for free software, but maybe it wasn't the best one. It's the only one that I know of. > Especially given the founder. His results speak for themselves. Having said that, expecting somebody who is mainstream to promote radical ideas doesn't make any sense, since that's contradictory.

NateEag 7y ago
> His results speak for themselves. Do you mean creating the technical underpinnings for world-scale software-as-a-service systems that devour our society whole? Or do you mean slaving hopelessly for decades trying to convince people of his rightness and attempting to force a rigid, legalistic approach to humane software development on the world, only to lose what good reputation he had developed due to an utter refusal to account for human frailty, emotions, and impatience when discussing difficult topics in the public eye? To be clear, I think the media treated Stallman terribly in the debacle around Epstein's Media Lab ties. I also think his failings as a software theorist are the same ones that led to him creating a situation that could be so easily and dangerously misunderstood. My overall point is just that his results are not flawless, unmitigated good. They suggest to me that his software philosophy was not sufficient to guarantee good results.

openfuture 7y ago

You can call it 'one sided' and 'dogmatic' or you can call it 'consistent' and 'clear', seeing as it is a single entity that is broadcasting this opinion it makes sense for that single entity to be on it's own side of the argument. The larger discussion can be seen in open core, open source, shareware, proprietary software, etc. We are too used to scizhophrenic political parties with opinions all over the place. To the point that if there is a political party with a clear agenda then it is 'dogmatic' and 'one-sided' (hello extremists). The whole point of a representative democracy is that you follow the school of thought that represents your beliefs, if you can't trust any organization to stay true to their principles (hello startups getting bought by FAGMAN) then the whole system has lost it's foundational precondition (rendering it meaningless). For this reason I am glad to see FSF and GNU stick with the dogma they represent, practice what you preach. I kind of feel like this is a similar discussion as whether to separate church and state. One is clearly dogmatic while the other is supposed to be a platform for (essentially religious) discussion. The problem is that the platform has to be grounded in some principle and then you've got dogma again. Another manifestation is decentralized vs monolithic... Free software is about finding the principles to base government on so that religion can be discussed freely (policies diverging and converging). The technical problem of managing that is a version control system. I'm still waiting for them to become like governments but Subspace was launched yesterday and it is definitely in the direction of it.

eeZah7Ux 7y ago

A: explain software ethics B: spyware bad A: come on, that's one sided and dogmatic