3 ms·

I don't think this post is a good way to frame the argument. In particular, it's pretty hyperbolic when it comes to the effectiveness of Gates' philanthropic ef

by sayrer 18y ago

I don't think this post is a good way to frame the argument. In particular, it's pretty hyperbolic when it comes to the effectiveness of Gates' philanthropic efforts. Like, what kind of madman would oppose the greatest giving campaign the world has ever seen? America's earlier robber barons showed similar changes of heart. It seems incredibly misguided to frame an abusive monopoly as a triumph of laissez faire economics. Adam Smith would not approve.

mattmaroon 18y ago
I was more saying that you shouldn't attack Gates FOR his philanthropy, as Stallman does. Not that his giving makes his business practices or proprietary software immune to criticism.
- gwniobombux 18y ago
  Nope, Stallman does not attack Gates FOR his philanthropy. That's misstating the facts. He questions the mode of operation of the Gates Foundation based on an LA Times article, possibly this one: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx0...
- bitdiddle 18y ago
  I agree that one shouldn't attack Gates FOR his philanthropy, but one should look closely at that foundation before forming judgments one way or the other. There are lots of questions about it with respect to his views on drug patents and one can legitimately question the investments. After all, the Perkins institute for the blind was founded by a drug dealer. Moreover I didn't read the RMS as attacking the foundation. I was put off by the tone of many of the blogs pieces about the RMS article. I've never seen RMS as "bitter" about MS. I think it was good timing on his part during this little love fest at Gates' retirement to point out that MS has not done much for computing science. RMS has given programmers a lot, much of it for free (as in beer and as in freedom). The only thing he seemed to be bitter about is the Linux versus Gnu/Linux thing. I suppose this reflects my age, I felt the same way about the Arc bashing when it was released. RMS walks the talk, say what you want about him but you know where he stands. I wish we all had a similar regard for the US constitution.

by sayrer 18y ago

mattmaroon 18y ago

I was more saying that you shouldn't attack Gates FOR his philanthropy, as Stallman does. Not that his giving makes his business practices or proprietary software immune to criticism.

gwniobombux 18y ago
Nope, Stallman does not attack Gates FOR his philanthropy. That's misstating the facts. He questions the mode of operation of the Gates Foundation based on an LA Times article, possibly this one: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx0...
bitdiddle 18y ago
I agree that one shouldn't attack Gates FOR his philanthropy, but one should look closely at that foundation before forming judgments one way or the other. There are lots of questions about it with respect to his views on drug patents and one can legitimately question the investments. After all, the Perkins institute for the blind was founded by a drug dealer. Moreover I didn't read the RMS as attacking the foundation. I was put off by the tone of many of the blogs pieces about the RMS article. I've never seen RMS as "bitter" about MS. I think it was good timing on his part during this little love fest at Gates' retirement to point out that MS has not done much for computing science. RMS has given programmers a lot, much of it for free (as in beer and as in freedom). The only thing he seemed to be bitter about is the Linux versus Gnu/Linux thing. I suppose this reflects my age, I felt the same way about the Arc bashing when it was released. RMS walks the talk, say what you want about him but you know where he stands. I wish we all had a similar regard for the US constitution.