3 ms·
> 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'
by 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.