8 ms·

Dr. Stallman responded to my open letter

143 points by AlexeyMK 15y ago

cubicle67 15y ago
I am skeptical of advice from people who disagree with what I stand for. I imagine this is what George Lucas kept saying whilst working on the Star Wars Prequels
- Joakal 15y ago
  That doesn't seem true. Look to Lord of the Rings where the director kept in touch with the LOTR communities to ensure the authenticity of the series. It's even reflected in the credits that's jokingly purported to be the names of everyone in NZ. George Lucas probably listened to investors over customers.
  - bluedanieru 15y ago
    I think that's what the parent was getting at. George Lucas pretty obviously got trapped in his own asshole sometime between Howard the Duck and Willow, and it shows in the prequels. Peter Jackson engaged the wider community and got heaps of conflicting ideas and advice to draw from.
    - cubicle67 15y ago
      that was exactly my point, thanks.
joshu 15y ago
That's too bad. Hardly surprising, though.
jsomers 15y ago
I am skeptical of advice from people who disagree with what I stand for. As a rule this is a pretty impoverished epistemic strategy.
- icarus_drowning 15y ago
  Exactly. Shouldn't he be skeptical because he disagrees with some element of their advice? Shouldn't he be willing to engage with it, rather than dismissing it out of hand? Oh, wait-- that's what he always does when he encounters someone who disagrees with him even in the slightest, even if it simply means referring to an operating system as merely "Linux".
  - astrec 15y ago
    He didn't dismiss the advice, but indicated he was skeptical of it. Pretty mild really. As a rule I am skeptical of all advice, irrespective of how well aligned the provider may claim to be; but you can be certain I'm listening.
    - jamesaguilar 15y ago
      When your reply to criticism consists of only the statement that you are skeptical of that criticism, it is an implicit rejection of the criticism. I think almost any human would read it that way. Yes, all he said was that he was skeptical. But if Stallman really is just commenting that he is skeptical, it is a poorly timed observation. I suspect you are wrong and that he means more than the literality of what he is saying.
      - shasta 15y ago
        It's obviously a rejection, but not obviously for the reason stated. From his point of view, he's just received a forward of an "open letter" that some blogger he's never heard of has already published seeking to gather attention at his expense. My guess is that he really wanted to write "Who are you? Go fuck yourself" but thought better of it, and this was really the only point he could score given how little he knows about the blogger.
        RyanMcGreal 15y ago
        It shouldn't matter what Stallman knows about the blogger. Either the argument itself is worth responding to, or it isn't.
roryokane 15y ago
Isn’t Stallman’s reply just an ad hominem? I presume “what I stand for” in Stallman’s response refers to the concept of all software being free. But even if Alexey disagrees with that premise, it’s still possible for his advice to be sound. It certainly didn’t look like Alexey was trying to sabotage the free software movement by giving bad advice – many people in the HN discussion of the open letter agreed with the advice.
zach 15y ago
So basically, "I see you've written me with some advice. However, you may have overlooked the fact that I'm Richard Stallman."
- chao- 15y ago
  Having seen him give his spiel at Rice University a few years ago, I came away from it with thoughts nearly identical to the original letter. Your comment here fits the tone he used when responding to the few questions that were allowed at the talk I saw (if memory serves, he went over time and so Q&A was abbreviated). His strongest points discussed the indoctrination of children into using only proprietary software while in schools. He avoided a conspiratorial tone and set up his case very well. I was impressed, but also disappointed when he didn't expand on it for very long, at least when compared to the topics laden with more hyperbolic rhetoric.
skimbrel 15y ago
Okay, rms is officially being an ass here. That response is the grown-up equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "Nyah nyah I can't hear you!". He is, at this point, no better than fundamentalist Christians who refuse to even entertain the smallest possibility of the notion that any piece of what they're doing is wrong. Intellectual discussion requires all parties involved to be open to an exchange of ideas. Rejecting a source of ideas out of hand because it disagrees with your ideas is ultimately only going to hurt you.
- rhizome 15y ago
  He's a fundamentalist and has been for some time now. This isn't news, and Christians didn't invent religion, so yeah, there is a connection between rejecting the author's "ideas," and the author not accepting the Founder's principles. I don't like baseball, should I be commissioner? The author is talking out of turn and deserved that one-sentence reply. Notice anything funny about this followup post, by the way? The author links to all kinds of praise, but doesn't link at all to the original letter! I don't know if he expects the world to have memorized or bookmarked it already, but it sure tells you where his priorities are. I bet he silently updates it with a link, but the fact remains that it didn't even occur to him to link back to the original article. Finally, why is it more important for RMS to stop marginalizing himself than it is for the author to stop trying to drag RMS to compromise? I'm no RMS fanboy, but the author sure seems to think him an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing. Have you read the original post? Here's a sample of the author's compelling rationale: Dr. Stallman, Google Docs is really useful. I imagine you're unlikely to have tried the service yourself, abstaining as you have from proprietary software for the past several decades. It may be worth trying the service out, if only to better relate to your target audience. Several decades!
  - AlexeyMK 15y ago
    Link to original article added (albeit not silently). Fair point, though the oversight came more from negligence than malice (I figured only the HN crowd that had seen the original article would be interested). Anyways, the whole 'speaking out of turn' thing kind of rubs me the wrong way.
jeandenis 15y ago
I'd count that response as a win. An "I am skeptical" from RMS is really mild -- it's like he actually told you he'd take what you said into consideration. He'll be so very brutally honest if he disagrees with you.
- thaumaturgy 15y ago
  Yeah, I read that the same way, too. I've seen correspondence from RMS to people that he really disagreed with. In RMS parlance, his response to Alexey sounds like a polite form of, "I'll think about that." Meh. The internet loves it some drama.
- nkassis 15y ago
  Yeah I think it's important to remember that the guy is pretty busy, probably gets more than one of these kind of emails (probably on both sides) a week. Also some of the hardcore free software crowd is pretty radical and these are the kind of people he probably deals with the most thus that could shape his opinion of things.
  - bhickey 15y ago
    He could have at least had the good sense to say something like... I am skeptical of your position. I wrote an essay on a similar topic back in 1988, here's a link.
    - Typhon 15y ago
      Which essay are you referring to ?
      - bhickey 15y ago
        I'm not referring to a particular essay. RMS has a large body of work. The point I'm making is that rather than dismiss a critic in that manner, he could have pointed him to something useful. If he'd done that, folks on HN wouldn't be grumbling about RMS being <something_bad>.
pacaro 15y ago
Sadly this falls under the category of "Intellectual honesty, lack of". Apparently found in both the cathedral and the bazaar.
click170 15y ago
I'm a supporter of the FSF and free software but I agree that discussion is better served without refering to conspiracy theories. It's much harder to be take seriously when your seen as a crackpot. I'm a fan of Stallman and his past achievements but this makes me wonder if the FSF would be better served by a different spokesperson. Suggestions?
- antoinevg 15y ago
  Sure, it is harder to be taken seriously when even a few people see you as a crackpot. On the other hand, if you're not telling the truth you'll never be taken seriously by anyone who matters irrespective of how many people do or do not see you as a crackpot.
  - kelnos 15y ago
    Truth? I'm not sure how anyone can characterize the statement "proprietary software is evil" as "truth." It's merely an opinion, and a very minority opinion at that.
- rhizome 15y ago
  How about John Sculley?
dvse 15y ago
Say what you will, but every ingredient for the world RMS has described in "The Right to Read"[1] is by now well in place. "Pragmatic" line of thinking will likely land us in the most restrictive police state in history. 1. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
- davidw 15y ago
  > the most restrictive police state in history. This is the sort of hyperbole the author was originally arguing against.
  - dvse 15y ago
    Did Himmler have the technology to continuously monitor movements and verbal and written communications of every citizen?
    - Legion 15y ago
      We also "have the technology" to obliterate the planet many times over. You need a few more facts than just "having the technology" to start inferring things.
      - dvse 15y ago
        You have it - either obliteration or (as an optimistic scenario) total control enacted with the justification of preventing splinter groups from achieving said obliteration. And while someone should think about these things I do admit that something else might work better to win mind share for the FSF.
    - DisposaBoy 15y ago
      Godwin was right it seems...
  - yesbabyyes 15y ago
    Well, what I think dvse was saying was that pragmatic thinking (only) will lead to such a situation. I.e., we also need unrelenting people who are not pragmatic, who upholds their principles. Like Stallman. That doesn't mean that you have to be Stallman, just that it might be a good strategy to accept people who choose to live as they learn.
Indyan 15y ago
That reply has Steve Jobs written all over it. What you wrote was heartfelt, sincere, honest, and balanced. What RMS wrote in his reply just exemplifies why so many people ridicule and mock FSF. There is a strange tendency among FOSS supporters to belittle everyone who uses proprietary stuff. Instead of encouraging and inviting others to switch to FOSS, they try to belittle them and try to coerce them into switching to FOSS by basically saying "If you use proprietary software, you are evil".
- saveriomiroddi 15y ago
  I hardly define "balanced" an approach which divides the world in "those who agree with what I stand for" and "those who disagree with what I stand for".
  - saveriomiroddi 15y ago
    I misread the post, actually.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
fingerprinter 15y ago
I was giving feedback to a subordinate once a long time ago and the person replied "I'll take feedback if I think it's valid". On its face, a perfectly reasonable reply, even if antagonistic. The problem in that case was the reply was endemic of a further, much deeper attitude misalignment, one that I had to take care of right away. I view this reply as nearly exactly the same thing. On it's face, it might be a reasonable response, but knowing what we know about RMS, it just shows more of his lack of humility, ability to empathize with others and general disconnectedness from the "movement" and "community". As someone might say in war time, RMS is a general for a different type of fight...he is ill equipped to handle the current one.
- cookiecaper 15y ago
  I'm not sure this really stands up. If a person is lacking an understanding of basic principles whose comprehension is vital to the comprehension of the principle you are trying to teach, you have to first instill within them an understanding of the lacking basic principles. Of course a person must find some merit in your advice if you expect them to follow it in any meaningful way -- sometimes this merit can come from credentials, but when the advisor is some guy you just met, or worse, a stranger on the internet, an appeal to credentials or authority isn't very effective. You must convince them by pure argument. I recognize that there are times this can be very difficult or impossible if the advised individual is unwilling to "take a leap of faith" and just try a different way for a while, but if you don't have the authority that makes an individual believe your advice is worth following even if that individual can't personally see its benefits, then all you can do is hope to plant a seed. I think it's a bit much to ask someone to follow your advice just because, which is essentially what you seem to be asking here.
  - dhimes 15y ago
    Your reply doesn't actually contradict fingerprinter's. I agree with you that sometimes people just won't listen to anything they don't want to hear, and if you wish to have them consider your idea you have to let them come to the same conclusions you did organicly- that is, by planting a seed. However, it's that personality type that fingerprinter was talking about. I don't think we should feel obligated to suffer through their pathology if we can reasonably avoid it. You can point out to people like this that they are as they are, and how it is holding them back (say, by costing them business or whatever), but in my experience they are dismissive of such discussions. I think the open letter was a quite good attempt, and Stallman's response is quite telling. Note: I've never met Stallman.
stephenjudkins 15y ago
A friend of mine (a relatively well-known person who has contributed a good deal to free software) once introduced himself to Richard Stallman. Richard Stallman immediately told him he was evil because he had once worked for Microsoft. Behavior like that, where Stallman immediately alienated a potential ally, does little but harm the free software cause. The only thing it enhances is Richard Stallman's reputation among a small (and probably dwindling) group of radical free software advocates.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- foobarbazoo 15y ago
  You say that like it's a bad thing. Stallman is who he is. His time has passed. Oh well, move on. Life is to short to spend it giving advice to someone who clearly couldn't give a damn.
  - hugh3 15y ago
    Perhaps the real point of giving advice to Richard Stallman is to give advice to some of the younger folks who might be considering acting like Richard Stallman. Don't be like Richard Stallman! Even Richard Stallman can barely get away with it!
- guelo 15y ago
  You must remember how many times Microsoft has used underhanded or illegal tactics and lies against its opponents including GPL and Gnu/Linux. They even secretly funded the SCO attack. To contribute to such an organization seems evil to me.
  - sgift 15y ago
    According to Wikipedia Microsoft had 89000 employees in 2010. Do you really think all of them agree with every "underhanded" tactic Microsoft used over the years? Or should be damned for things Microsoft did (maybe even before they worked for Microsoft)? Working for Microsoft is still a job, not a lifetime decision. And attributing a job with "evil" sounds like a hyperbole (ignoring jobs that involve killing people, that's a different matter).
3dFlatLander 15y ago
I popped a comment in the original post about wanting to see some RMS code. After doing a lot of searching, I still can't find a thing. I don't want to get terribly off topic, but as I said, I'd always heard he was a great programmer and would love to see some code that was of his creation.
- prodigal_erik 15y ago
  I don't know what parts of early GCC were his, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emacs#GNU_Emacs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emacs#GNU_Emacs suggests Emacs 13.x or 15.x source tarballs from around 1985 would be mostly his own work. I don't know whether they'd still be around, though. The oldest I can find at a glance is http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/old-gnu/emacs/emacs-18.59.tar.gz http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/old-gnu/emacs/emacs-18.59.tar.gz from 1992, and I don't know how many other contributors there had been at that point.
JanezStupar 15y ago
Here's my POV. If you can't understand what RMS is saying or what he is about - then probably you are not his target audience. Stop telling him to water down his act. He can't and he must not. He is somewhat prescient on these issues (as he has proven more than once) and to lower his tone would be to admit defeat. He is the prime mover and as such he is not Your momma's evangelist - he is your momma's evangelist's evangelist. Don't listen to him if you don't like him - you can always get to hear it by proxy that will be more suitable to your ears.
- pstack 15y ago
  The problem is that some people feel some other people hurt the overall cause. There are plenty of hackers out there (using the legitimate Eric S. Raymond definition) who would respond to the antics of Anonymous with "Even if we agreed with your sentiment, the way you present yourselves hurt all of us". This is a similar case. Additionally, the response by RMS seems kind of odd. I read the original letter and it didn't imply that the author disagreed with RMS. It merely took issue with how some of the extraneous bits may undermine the rest in the eyes of a greater public. Saying that he is skeptical of advice from those who disagree with him is a non-sequitor. It's like me saying "I used to use CVS, but then I moved to Subversion and now GIT is my preferred RMS". There's a certain skill in presenting a cause and a view to a greater public that you're trying to educate. If RMS's cause is merely to preach to the converted, then what is the point? I don't think he is, however. After all, it's the Free Software Foundation. Not the Free Software Club. If the only people who listen to him are the ones who already like him, then the cause is stagnating.
- kelnos 15y ago
  I think the problem is that the mainstream doesn't view RMS/free software and open source as different things. When RMS gets in front of a group of people and shoots his mouth off (I heard him speak at FOSDEM in 2005 and had a similar reaction as Alexey), he hurts the rest of us who don't have such extreme views. I don't need to hear his or anyone else's evangelism on free or open source software. I already know where I stand. Alexey's original open letter pointed out that some of his friends who'd never heard of the FSF before walked out of Stallman's speech because they were put off by what he was saying. In those people's eyes, that reflects poorly not only on RMS and the FSF, but on open source as a whole. And that's what pisses me off about Stallman.
phillco 15y ago
-- Sent from my ivory tower
bane 15y ago
Our issue with Stallman is us expecting something of him that he's not the appropriate person to give. Stallman is a seed planter, he's come up with a powerful pure idea, planted the seed, and now years later most people agree that many of these ideas have merit -- the world is a better place with free software. Now that we've all caught on (or so we think) to this idea, we want Stallman to pragmatically carry it forward, to grow the movement. But to do so, you have to acknowledge certain, impure realities about Free software in the real world. Stallman, as essentially a theoretician, is not the right person to acknowledge those things. The real world gets messy, growing a movement involves marshaling conflicting people, it involves Politics. Stallman doesn't get Politics, he's not a pragmatist, it's not in his blood and he's just not the right person to take his idea past seed planting into orchard growing. It takes a completely different kind of person. Expecting to be anything more than what he is will only ever leave one disappointed.
- drzaiusapelord 15y ago
  Stallman isn't the tide that raises all boats. Before the GPL we had the BSD licence and when I was a kid, things were just put into the public domain. I think its very arguable if RMS and his group had anything to do with OSS success. Their attempt to build HURD is a huge failure and Linus's success may have more to do with his better management skills and the desire to build a free OS and an easy way to collaborate.
  - bane 15y ago
    Before the GPL we had the BSD licence and when I was a kid, things were just put into the public domain. That's really a great point. I've found Stallman's remarks about those alternate takes on Free (non-GPL, but also open source) rather off-putting and frankly silly myself. Some of his responses remind me of this scene http://www.viddler.com/explore/loopytube/videos/819/ http://www.viddler.com/explore/loopytube/videos/819/
  - tjr 15y ago
    Certainly free software existed before GNU. Most software was free software for years. Project GNU was started in an effort to proactively continue the tradition of free software in a computing world that was increasingly proprietary.
st0p 15y ago
Sometimes you should be skeptical of people who agree with you. [edit] And your own reasoning ofcourse.
tzs 15y ago
Stallman kind of reminds me of Richard Altmayer from the Asimov store "In A Good Cause--". Brief summary: The story opens describing a statute of Richard Altmayer that stands in the center of the courtyard of the capital of the galactic union. It has inscribed a quote, "In a good cause, there are no failures", and there are three dates inscribed. They are the three dates Altmayer went to prison for his beliefs. The story then jumps back to the first date, and tells about the first arrest. At that time, Earth had established many colony planets throughout the galaxy, and many of these had become independent. They were organized into many small groups of allies, and relations were sometimes hostile. A war had just broke out, and Altmayer, and his friend Geoffrey Stock, had just been drafted from college. Stock was preparing to head off to the war. Altmayer was refusing, feeling that humanity must unite, not remain divided. Altmayer is jailed for refusing. The story then goes to the second incident. Stock did well in the war, and has become a member of the Earth government. He was on the first diplomatic mission from Earth to the one race of intelligent aliens known, the Diaboli. There were more human planets than diaboli planets, but they were one united race, and were expanding faster than humans. Although they required an atmosphere that was poisonous to humans (and our atmosphere was poisonous to them) so there was no competition for habitable planets between us and them, there was competition for resources from non-habitable planets. The Diaboli were taking advantage of the fact that humanity was not unified, negotiating separate deals with different human planets. Altmayer fears that the Diaboli are a threat to humanity, and tries to force the issue by assassinating a Diaboli diplomatic mission on Earth, hoping to force a war to contain the Diaboli before it is too late. (He's a pacifist when it comes to war between human planets, because he thinks we need to be united. He thinks a war with the Diaboli would actually help accomplish that, as humanity would unite to fight the common enemy). Stock knows of this plan, and tricks Altmayer, preventing the assassination, and sending Altmayer to jail for the second time. The story then jumps to the final arrest, which occurs many years later, when Altmayer is an old man. The Diaboli have organized a galactic conference, to organize a Galactic Union. They occupy most of the galaxy, and there has been little expansion of humanity. Altmayer obtains secret documents that show that the Diaboli have been terraforming some human-habitable planets to make them suitable for Diaboli. Some of those worlds were occupied by small colonies. Altmayer manages to get the documents to a broadcaster before Stock (now leader of Earth's government) comes to arrest him. Stock tells him that the government doesn't support the Diaboli-led plan for galactic union, but can't support exposing the documents. No doubt Altmayer believes, Stock says, that humanity would unite in indignation and defeat the Diaboli, but Stock knows better. The Diaboli would deny the accusations, and several human worlds would find it in their immediate interest to side with the Diaboli. No human worlds could defeat the Diaboli if there were other humans fighting on the Diaboli's side. Altmayer is disappointed, figuring that Stock will stop the broadcast. Stock says he is not--but after they are broadcast, Earth is going to join the Diaboli in saying they are lies. The other human planets won't believe that--they will think Earth is allied with the Diaboli. No other world will attack Earth if they believe Earth and the Diaboli are cooperating, and they will stay neutral if there is then a future war between Earth and the Diaboli. Altmayer points out that Stock may fool the other human worlds, but the Diaboli will know that Earth is lying when Earth says the documents are lies. Stock then reveals that the documents ARE lies. His government made them up, and purposefully had them leaked to Altmayer. The story winds up with Stock visiting Altmayer in jail, to set him free. He tells Altmayer that Earth has been at war with the Diaboli for the last six months. He explains how when he first visited a Diaboli world, he realized it was eventually going to be humanity or them (just as Altmayer had realized). Since then, all of Earth's diplomatic efforts have been toward making it so that when the war with the Diaboli came, no human world would join the Diaboli. When the time came, the Diaboli were no match for Earth. They ha never fought a war, whereas Earth had fought many wars with other human planets, and so had much more experience and much better military technology. The Diaboli main fleet has been defeated, at almost no casualties to Earth. The other human worlds are now jumping in to declare war on the Diaboli. Most are calling to now unite and form a galactic union. Stock wants Altmayer to be Earth's representative to the galactic conference to form the union. Altmayer was always the voice in the wilderness, crying for union. His words will carry much weight. Altmayer is stunned and doesn't understand, since Stock turns out to have been right all along. Stock tells Altmayer that he always misunderstood human nature. When the United Worlds is formed, and future generations look back, they will have forgotten the purpose behind Stock's methods. He will represent war and death. Altmayer's idealism and calls for union will be remembered forever. Altmayer barely hears his last words as he leaves: "and when they build their statues, they will build none for me".
nhangen 15y ago
I don't know what you would expect. Your advice was unsolicited and he treated it as such. I'm more intrigued by your campaign than by the advice itself. It seemed to me that your primary goal was not to advise RMS, but to get front page HN.
sanj 15y ago
This is a nitpick, but when did RMS start calling himself "Dr."? As far as I can tell, all of his degrees are honorary, and he never struck me as the sort of guy who'd extend that into an actually honorific. (Don't get me wrong -- I think he's more than capable of doing a PhD. He just hasn't.)
- 16s 15y ago
  He has four honorary doctorates. It is his prerogative if he wishes to use that title. From Wikipedia: "Recipients of an honorary doctorate may if they wish adopt the title of "doctor". In many countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, it is now a matter of personal preference" "The term honorary degree is a slight misnomer: honoris causa degrees, being awarded by a university under the terms of its charter, may be considered to have technically the same standing, and to grant the same privileges and style of address as their substantive counterparts, except where explicitly stated to the contrary."
- wmf 15y ago
  The original author addressed him as Dr. Stallman, so perhaps RMS was just responding in kind (perhaps even ironically).
raganwald 15y ago
Alexy, was this message you received published in a public forum or private correspondence? If it was normally a private channel, does Mr. Stallman have a standard policy of accepting that his private emails may be published? If not, did you set that expectation? I don't want to jump to a lot of conclusions here, but what I'm seeing is a real lack of sincerity in your actions by writing him an open letter instead of sending him a private email, then publishing what appears at first glance to be a private response. I may have it wrong, so please set me straight: Are you really trying to influence him, or are you using him as a foil for sharing your views with us?
- raganwald 15y ago
  Mr. Braithwaite, did you ever take that test yourself? What sincerity can you claim when you wrap your criticism in a faux-question and then pose that question in a public forum?
- AlexeyMK 15y ago
  Hey, That's a fair question. I wrote the open letter and sent it to RMS in addition to publishing it; given that RMS doesn't frequent HN, it seemed insincere to do otherwise. I did not ask for explicit permission to publish his one-line response; that said, this was a response that I had heard RMS use in conversations while he was here, and did not feel that there was any reasonable violation of privacy in publishing what I considered to be a boilerplate response. As to my intentions: certainly, influencing RMS would be fantastic; that said, from reputation and from meeting in person I've found RMS to be a difficult person to convince (I tried inquiring about his position on certain issues in person, and was interrupted/dismissed several times until I gave up). More realistically, I was looking for a way to collect my thoughts on the matter and did not expect quite this much attention. If I have at all influenced any Free Software advocates that the best argument for their position is a dignified one (cynicalkane proposes William Buckley as an example), that would be a happy accomplishment.
dualboot 15y ago
RMS is a little bit nutty at times. I think everyone acknowledges and accepts this. I prefer his eccentricities out in the open rather than him try to hide them away. There is value to open and honest disclosure. We live in a world with far too much "marketing friendly" presentation.
petercooper 15y ago
Unsurprising. A childish, low-brow response from someone who uses childish, low-brow rhetoric and imagery. A benefit of age is realizing there are very few people who can be won over or convinced with logic and good intentions.
gexla 15y ago
You should have set up your argument against the views of the FSF. His views on things like 9/11 are irrelevant in this argument. We all have our crazy and not so crazy beliefs. Sometimes the more of a splash you make in our world the more on the crazy side your beliefs can be.
chernevik 15y ago
If we're going to stand on principle, we have to admit vi was always a better concept than emacs, and must doubt the intelligence or motives of anyone who would divert attention from vi. emacs is just a big fork that wasted a lot of effort that could have gone into displacing Word! Who knows where we would be without these splitters? Think about it. Do we _know_ that RMS is _not_ a Bill Gates plant, inserted to dilute the momentum generated by Bill Joy? Hmmm? Improbable, yes, but not impossible. I just don't see how we can trust anything RMS has to say on anything.

143 points by AlexeyMK 15y ago

I am skeptical of advice from people who disagree with what I stand for. I imagine this is what George Lucas kept saying whilst working on the Star Wars Prequels

Joakal 15y ago
That doesn't seem true. Look to Lord of the Rings where the director kept in touch with the LOTR communities to ensure the authenticity of the series. It's even reflected in the credits that's jokingly purported to be the names of everyone in NZ. George Lucas probably listened to investors over customers.
- bluedanieru 15y ago
  I think that's what the parent was getting at. George Lucas pretty obviously got trapped in his own asshole sometime between Howard the Duck and Willow, and it shows in the prequels. Peter Jackson engaged the wider community and got heaps of conflicting ideas and advice to draw from.
  - cubicle67 15y ago
    that was exactly my point, thanks.

joshu 15y ago

That's too bad. Hardly surprising, though.

jsomers 15y ago

I am skeptical of advice from people who disagree with what I stand for. As a rule this is a pretty impoverished epistemic strategy.

icarus_drowning 15y ago
Exactly. Shouldn't he be skeptical because he disagrees with some element of their advice? Shouldn't he be willing to engage with it, rather than dismissing it out of hand? Oh, wait-- that's what he always does when he encounters someone who disagrees with him even in the slightest, even if it simply means referring to an operating system as merely "Linux".
- astrec 15y ago
  He didn't dismiss the advice, but indicated he was skeptical of it. Pretty mild really. As a rule I am skeptical of all advice, irrespective of how well aligned the provider may claim to be; but you can be certain I'm listening.
  - jamesaguilar 15y ago
    When your reply to criticism consists of only the statement that you are skeptical of that criticism, it is an implicit rejection of the criticism. I think almost any human would read it that way. Yes, all he said was that he was skeptical. But if Stallman really is just commenting that he is skeptical, it is a poorly timed observation. I suspect you are wrong and that he means more than the literality of what he is saying.
    - shasta 15y ago
      It's obviously a rejection, but not obviously for the reason stated. From his point of view, he's just received a forward of an "open letter" that some blogger he's never heard of has already published seeking to gather attention at his expense. My guess is that he really wanted to write "Who are you? Go fuck yourself" but thought better of it, and this was really the only point he could score given how little he knows about the blogger.
      - RyanMcGreal 15y ago
        It shouldn't matter what Stallman knows about the blogger. Either the argument itself is worth responding to, or it isn't.

roryokane 15y ago

Isn’t Stallman’s reply just an ad hominem? I presume “what I stand for” in Stallman’s response refers to the concept of all software being free. But even if Alexey disagrees with that premise, it’s still possible for his advice to be sound. It certainly didn’t look like Alexey was trying to sabotage the free software movement by giving bad advice – many people in the HN discussion of the open letter agreed with the advice.

zach 15y ago

So basically, "I see you've written me with some advice. However, you may have overlooked the fact that I'm Richard Stallman."

chao- 15y ago
Having seen him give his spiel at Rice University a few years ago, I came away from it with thoughts nearly identical to the original letter. Your comment here fits the tone he used when responding to the few questions that were allowed at the talk I saw (if memory serves, he went over time and so Q&A was abbreviated). His strongest points discussed the indoctrination of children into using only proprietary software while in schools. He avoided a conspiratorial tone and set up his case very well. I was impressed, but also disappointed when he didn't expand on it for very long, at least when compared to the topics laden with more hyperbolic rhetoric.

skimbrel 15y ago

Okay, rms is officially being an ass here. That response is the grown-up equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "Nyah nyah I can't hear you!". He is, at this point, no better than fundamentalist Christians who refuse to even entertain the smallest possibility of the notion that any piece of what they're doing is wrong. Intellectual discussion requires all parties involved to be open to an exchange of ideas. Rejecting a source of ideas out of hand because it disagrees with your ideas is ultimately only going to hurt you.

rhizome 15y ago
He's a fundamentalist and has been for some time now. This isn't news, and Christians didn't invent religion, so yeah, there is a connection between rejecting the author's "ideas," and the author not accepting the Founder's principles. I don't like baseball, should I be commissioner? The author is talking out of turn and deserved that one-sentence reply. Notice anything funny about this followup post, by the way? The author links to all kinds of praise, but doesn't link at all to the original letter! I don't know if he expects the world to have memorized or bookmarked it already, but it sure tells you where his priorities are. I bet he silently updates it with a link, but the fact remains that it didn't even occur to him to link back to the original article. Finally, why is it more important for RMS to stop marginalizing himself than it is for the author to stop trying to drag RMS to compromise? I'm no RMS fanboy, but the author sure seems to think him an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing. Have you read the original post? Here's a sample of the author's compelling rationale: Dr. Stallman, Google Docs is really useful. I imagine you're unlikely to have tried the service yourself, abstaining as you have from proprietary software for the past several decades. It may be worth trying the service out, if only to better relate to your target audience. Several decades!
- AlexeyMK 15y ago
  Link to original article added (albeit not silently). Fair point, though the oversight came more from negligence than malice (I figured only the HN crowd that had seen the original article would be interested). Anyways, the whole 'speaking out of turn' thing kind of rubs me the wrong way.

jeandenis 15y ago

I'd count that response as a win. An "I am skeptical" from RMS is really mild -- it's like he actually told you he'd take what you said into consideration. He'll be so very brutally honest if he disagrees with you.

thaumaturgy 15y ago
Yeah, I read that the same way, too. I've seen correspondence from RMS to people that he really disagreed with. In RMS parlance, his response to Alexey sounds like a polite form of, "I'll think about that." Meh. The internet loves it some drama.
nkassis 15y ago
Yeah I think it's important to remember that the guy is pretty busy, probably gets more than one of these kind of emails (probably on both sides) a week. Also some of the hardcore free software crowd is pretty radical and these are the kind of people he probably deals with the most thus that could shape his opinion of things.
- bhickey 15y ago
  He could have at least had the good sense to say something like... I am skeptical of your position. I wrote an essay on a similar topic back in 1988, here's a link.
  - Typhon 15y ago
    Which essay are you referring to ?
    - bhickey 15y ago
      I'm not referring to a particular essay. RMS has a large body of work. The point I'm making is that rather than dismiss a critic in that manner, he could have pointed him to something useful. If he'd done that, folks on HN wouldn't be grumbling about RMS being <something_bad>.

pacaro 15y ago

Sadly this falls under the category of "Intellectual honesty, lack of". Apparently found in both the cathedral and the bazaar.

click170 15y ago

I'm a supporter of the FSF and free software but I agree that discussion is better served without refering to conspiracy theories. It's much harder to be take seriously when your seen as a crackpot. I'm a fan of Stallman and his past achievements but this makes me wonder if the FSF would be better served by a different spokesperson. Suggestions?

antoinevg 15y ago
Sure, it is harder to be taken seriously when even a few people see you as a crackpot. On the other hand, if you're not telling the truth you'll never be taken seriously by anyone who matters irrespective of how many people do or do not see you as a crackpot.
- kelnos 15y ago
  Truth? I'm not sure how anyone can characterize the statement "proprietary software is evil" as "truth." It's merely an opinion, and a very minority opinion at that.
rhizome 15y ago
How about John Sculley?

dvse 15y ago

Say what you will, but every ingredient for the world RMS has described in "The Right to Read"[1] is by now well in place. "Pragmatic" line of thinking will likely land us in the most restrictive police state in history. 1. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

davidw 15y ago
> the most restrictive police state in history. This is the sort of hyperbole the author was originally arguing against.
- dvse 15y ago
  Did Himmler have the technology to continuously monitor movements and verbal and written communications of every citizen?
  - Legion 15y ago
    We also "have the technology" to obliterate the planet many times over. You need a few more facts than just "having the technology" to start inferring things.
    - dvse 15y ago
      You have it - either obliteration or (as an optimistic scenario) total control enacted with the justification of preventing splinter groups from achieving said obliteration. And while someone should think about these things I do admit that something else might work better to win mind share for the FSF.
  - DisposaBoy 15y ago
    Godwin was right it seems...
- yesbabyyes 15y ago
  Well, what I think dvse was saying was that pragmatic thinking (only) will lead to such a situation. I.e., we also need unrelenting people who are not pragmatic, who upholds their principles. Like Stallman. That doesn't mean that you have to be Stallman, just that it might be a good strategy to accept people who choose to live as they learn.

Indyan 15y ago

That reply has Steve Jobs written all over it. What you wrote was heartfelt, sincere, honest, and balanced. What RMS wrote in his reply just exemplifies why so many people ridicule and mock FSF. There is a strange tendency among FOSS supporters to belittle everyone who uses proprietary stuff. Instead of encouraging and inviting others to switch to FOSS, they try to belittle them and try to coerce them into switching to FOSS by basically saying "If you use proprietary software, you are evil".

saveriomiroddi 15y ago
I hardly define "balanced" an approach which divides the world in "those who agree with what I stand for" and "those who disagree with what I stand for".
- saveriomiroddi 15y ago
  I misread the post, actually.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

fingerprinter 15y ago

I was giving feedback to a subordinate once a long time ago and the person replied "I'll take feedback if I think it's valid". On its face, a perfectly reasonable reply, even if antagonistic. The problem in that case was the reply was endemic of a further, much deeper attitude misalignment, one that I had to take care of right away. I view this reply as nearly exactly the same thing. On it's face, it might be a reasonable response, but knowing what we know about RMS, it just shows more of his lack of humility, ability to empathize with others and general disconnectedness from the "movement" and "community". As someone might say in war time, RMS is a general for a different type of fight...he is ill equipped to handle the current one.

cookiecaper 15y ago
I'm not sure this really stands up. If a person is lacking an understanding of basic principles whose comprehension is vital to the comprehension of the principle you are trying to teach, you have to first instill within them an understanding of the lacking basic principles. Of course a person must find some merit in your advice if you expect them to follow it in any meaningful way -- sometimes this merit can come from credentials, but when the advisor is some guy you just met, or worse, a stranger on the internet, an appeal to credentials or authority isn't very effective. You must convince them by pure argument. I recognize that there are times this can be very difficult or impossible if the advised individual is unwilling to "take a leap of faith" and just try a different way for a while, but if you don't have the authority that makes an individual believe your advice is worth following even if that individual can't personally see its benefits, then all you can do is hope to plant a seed. I think it's a bit much to ask someone to follow your advice just because, which is essentially what you seem to be asking here.
- dhimes 15y ago
  Your reply doesn't actually contradict fingerprinter's. I agree with you that sometimes people just won't listen to anything they don't want to hear, and if you wish to have them consider your idea you have to let them come to the same conclusions you did organicly- that is, by planting a seed. However, it's that personality type that fingerprinter was talking about. I don't think we should feel obligated to suffer through their pathology if we can reasonably avoid it. You can point out to people like this that they are as they are, and how it is holding them back (say, by costing them business or whatever), but in my experience they are dismissive of such discussions. I think the open letter was a quite good attempt, and Stallman's response is quite telling. Note: I've never met Stallman.

stephenjudkins 15y ago

A friend of mine (a relatively well-known person who has contributed a good deal to free software) once introduced himself to Richard Stallman. Richard Stallman immediately told him he was evil because he had once worked for Microsoft. Behavior like that, where Stallman immediately alienated a potential ally, does little but harm the free software cause. The only thing it enhances is Richard Stallman's reputation among a small (and probably dwindling) group of radical free software advocates.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
foobarbazoo 15y ago
You say that like it's a bad thing. Stallman is who he is. His time has passed. Oh well, move on. Life is to short to spend it giving advice to someone who clearly couldn't give a damn.
- hugh3 15y ago
  Perhaps the real point of giving advice to Richard Stallman is to give advice to some of the younger folks who might be considering acting like Richard Stallman. Don't be like Richard Stallman! Even Richard Stallman can barely get away with it!
guelo 15y ago
You must remember how many times Microsoft has used underhanded or illegal tactics and lies against its opponents including GPL and Gnu/Linux. They even secretly funded the SCO attack. To contribute to such an organization seems evil to me.
- sgift 15y ago
  According to Wikipedia Microsoft had 89000 employees in 2010. Do you really think all of them agree with every "underhanded" tactic Microsoft used over the years? Or should be damned for things Microsoft did (maybe even before they worked for Microsoft)? Working for Microsoft is still a job, not a lifetime decision. And attributing a job with "evil" sounds like a hyperbole (ignoring jobs that involve killing people, that's a different matter).

3dFlatLander 15y ago

I popped a comment in the original post about wanting to see some RMS code. After doing a lot of searching, I still can't find a thing. I don't want to get terribly off topic, but as I said, I'd always heard he was a great programmer and would love to see some code that was of his creation.

prodigal_erik 15y ago
I don't know what parts of early GCC were his, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emacs#GNU_Emacs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emacs#GNU_Emacs suggests Emacs 13.x or 15.x source tarballs from around 1985 would be mostly his own work. I don't know whether they'd still be around, though. The oldest I can find at a glance is http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/old-gnu/emacs/emacs-18.59.tar.gz http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/old-gnu/emacs/emacs-18.59.tar.gz from 1992, and I don't know how many other contributors there had been at that point.

JanezStupar 15y ago

Here's my POV. If you can't understand what RMS is saying or what he is about - then probably you are not his target audience. Stop telling him to water down his act. He can't and he must not. He is somewhat prescient on these issues (as he has proven more than once) and to lower his tone would be to admit defeat. He is the prime mover and as such he is not Your momma's evangelist - he is your momma's evangelist's evangelist. Don't listen to him if you don't like him - you can always get to hear it by proxy that will be more suitable to your ears.

pstack 15y ago
The problem is that some people feel some other people hurt the overall cause. There are plenty of hackers out there (using the legitimate Eric S. Raymond definition) who would respond to the antics of Anonymous with "Even if we agreed with your sentiment, the way you present yourselves hurt all of us". This is a similar case. Additionally, the response by RMS seems kind of odd. I read the original letter and it didn't imply that the author disagreed with RMS. It merely took issue with how some of the extraneous bits may undermine the rest in the eyes of a greater public. Saying that he is skeptical of advice from those who disagree with him is a non-sequitor. It's like me saying "I used to use CVS, but then I moved to Subversion and now GIT is my preferred RMS". There's a certain skill in presenting a cause and a view to a greater public that you're trying to educate. If RMS's cause is merely to preach to the converted, then what is the point? I don't think he is, however. After all, it's the Free Software Foundation. Not the Free Software Club. If the only people who listen to him are the ones who already like him, then the cause is stagnating.
kelnos 15y ago
I think the problem is that the mainstream doesn't view RMS/free software and open source as different things. When RMS gets in front of a group of people and shoots his mouth off (I heard him speak at FOSDEM in 2005 and had a similar reaction as Alexey), he hurts the rest of us who don't have such extreme views. I don't need to hear his or anyone else's evangelism on free or open source software. I already know where I stand. Alexey's original open letter pointed out that some of his friends who'd never heard of the FSF before walked out of Stallman's speech because they were put off by what he was saying. In those people's eyes, that reflects poorly not only on RMS and the FSF, but on open source as a whole. And that's what pisses me off about Stallman.

phillco 15y ago

-- Sent from my ivory tower

bane 15y ago

Our issue with Stallman is us expecting something of him that he's not the appropriate person to give. Stallman is a seed planter, he's come up with a powerful pure idea, planted the seed, and now years later most people agree that many of these ideas have merit -- the world is a better place with free software. Now that we've all caught on (or so we think) to this idea, we want Stallman to pragmatically carry it forward, to grow the movement. But to do so, you have to acknowledge certain, impure realities about Free software in the real world. Stallman, as essentially a theoretician, is not the right person to acknowledge those things. The real world gets messy, growing a movement involves marshaling conflicting people, it involves Politics. Stallman doesn't get Politics, he's not a pragmatist, it's not in his blood and he's just not the right person to take his idea past seed planting into orchard growing. It takes a completely different kind of person. Expecting to be anything more than what he is will only ever leave one disappointed.

drzaiusapelord 15y ago
Stallman isn't the tide that raises all boats. Before the GPL we had the BSD licence and when I was a kid, things were just put into the public domain. I think its very arguable if RMS and his group had anything to do with OSS success. Their attempt to build HURD is a huge failure and Linus's success may have more to do with his better management skills and the desire to build a free OS and an easy way to collaborate.
- bane 15y ago
  Before the GPL we had the BSD licence and when I was a kid, things were just put into the public domain. That's really a great point. I've found Stallman's remarks about those alternate takes on Free (non-GPL, but also open source) rather off-putting and frankly silly myself. Some of his responses remind me of this scene http://www.viddler.com/explore/loopytube/videos/819/ http://www.viddler.com/explore/loopytube/videos/819/
- tjr 15y ago
  Certainly free software existed before GNU. Most software was free software for years. Project GNU was started in an effort to proactively continue the tradition of free software in a computing world that was increasingly proprietary.

st0p 15y ago

Sometimes you should be skeptical of people who agree with you. [edit] And your own reasoning ofcourse.

tzs 15y ago

Stallman kind of reminds me of Richard Altmayer from the Asimov store "In A Good Cause--". Brief summary: The story opens describing a statute of Richard Altmayer that stands in the center of the courtyard of the capital of the galactic union. It has inscribed a quote, "In a good cause, there are no failures", and there are three dates inscribed. They are the three dates Altmayer went to prison for his beliefs. The story then jumps back to the first date, and tells about the first arrest. At that time, Earth had established many colony planets throughout the galaxy, and many of these had become independent. They were organized into many small groups of allies, and relations were sometimes hostile. A war had just broke out, and Altmayer, and his friend Geoffrey Stock, had just been drafted from college. Stock was preparing to head off to the war. Altmayer was refusing, feeling that humanity must unite, not remain divided. Altmayer is jailed for refusing. The story then goes to the second incident. Stock did well in the war, and has become a member of the Earth government. He was on the first diplomatic mission from Earth to the one race of intelligent aliens known, the Diaboli. There were more human planets than diaboli planets, but they were one united race, and were expanding faster than humans. Although they required an atmosphere that was poisonous to humans (and our atmosphere was poisonous to them) so there was no competition for habitable planets between us and them, there was competition for resources from non-habitable planets. The Diaboli were taking advantage of the fact that humanity was not unified, negotiating separate deals with different human planets. Altmayer fears that the Diaboli are a threat to humanity, and tries to force the issue by assassinating a Diaboli diplomatic mission on Earth, hoping to force a war to contain the Diaboli before it is too late. (He's a pacifist when it comes to war between human planets, because he thinks we need to be united. He thinks a war with the Diaboli would actually help accomplish that, as humanity would unite to fight the common enemy). Stock knows of this plan, and tricks Altmayer, preventing the assassination, and sending Altmayer to jail for the second time. The story then jumps to the final arrest, which occurs many years later, when Altmayer is an old man. The Diaboli have organized a galactic conference, to organize a Galactic Union. They occupy most of the galaxy, and there has been little expansion of humanity. Altmayer obtains secret documents that show that the Diaboli have been terraforming some human-habitable planets to make them suitable for Diaboli. Some of those worlds were occupied by small colonies. Altmayer manages to get the documents to a broadcaster before Stock (now leader of Earth's government) comes to arrest him. Stock tells him that the government doesn't support the Diaboli-led plan for galactic union, but can't support exposing the documents. No doubt Altmayer believes, Stock says, that humanity would unite in indignation and defeat the Diaboli, but Stock knows better. The Diaboli would deny the accusations, and several human worlds would find it in their immediate interest to side with the Diaboli. No human worlds could defeat the Diaboli if there were other humans fighting on the Diaboli's side. Altmayer is disappointed, figuring that Stock will stop the broadcast. Stock says he is not--but after they are broadcast, Earth is going to join the Diaboli in saying they are lies. The other human planets won't believe that--they will think Earth is allied with the Diaboli. No other world will attack Earth if they believe Earth and the Diaboli are cooperating, and they will stay neutral if there is then a future war between Earth and the Diaboli. Altmayer points out that Stock may fool the other human worlds, but the Diaboli will know that Earth is lying when Earth says the documents are lies. Stock then reveals that the documents ARE lies. His government made them up, and purposefully had them leaked to Altmayer. The story winds up with Stock visiting Altmayer in jail, to set him free. He tells Altmayer that Earth has been at war with the Diaboli for the last six months. He explains how when he first visited a Diaboli world, he realized it was eventually going to be humanity or them (just as Altmayer had realized). Since then, all of Earth's diplomatic efforts have been toward making it so that when the war with the Diaboli came, no human world would join the Diaboli. When the time came, the Diaboli were no match for Earth. They ha never fought a war, whereas Earth had fought many wars with other human planets, and so had much more experience and much better military technology. The Diaboli main fleet has been defeated, at almost no casualties to Earth. The other human worlds are now jumping in to declare war on the Diaboli. Most are calling to now unite and form a galactic union. Stock wants Altmayer to be Earth's representative to the galactic conference to form the union. Altmayer was always the voice in the wilderness, crying for union. His words will carry much weight. Altmayer is stunned and doesn't understand, since Stock turns out to have been right all along. Stock tells Altmayer that he always misunderstood human nature. When the United Worlds is formed, and future generations look back, they will have forgotten the purpose behind Stock's methods. He will represent war and death. Altmayer's idealism and calls for union will be remembered forever. Altmayer barely hears his last words as he leaves: "and when they build their statues, they will build none for me".

nhangen 15y ago

I don't know what you would expect. Your advice was unsolicited and he treated it as such. I'm more intrigued by your campaign than by the advice itself. It seemed to me that your primary goal was not to advise RMS, but to get front page HN.

sanj 15y ago

This is a nitpick, but when did RMS start calling himself "Dr."? As far as I can tell, all of his degrees are honorary, and he never struck me as the sort of guy who'd extend that into an actually honorific. (Don't get me wrong -- I think he's more than capable of doing a PhD. He just hasn't.)

16s 15y ago
He has four honorary doctorates. It is his prerogative if he wishes to use that title. From Wikipedia: "Recipients of an honorary doctorate may if they wish adopt the title of "doctor". In many countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, it is now a matter of personal preference" "The term honorary degree is a slight misnomer: honoris causa degrees, being awarded by a university under the terms of its charter, may be considered to have technically the same standing, and to grant the same privileges and style of address as their substantive counterparts, except where explicitly stated to the contrary."
wmf 15y ago
The original author addressed him as Dr. Stallman, so perhaps RMS was just responding in kind (perhaps even ironically).

raganwald 15y ago

Alexy, was this message you received published in a public forum or private correspondence? If it was normally a private channel, does Mr. Stallman have a standard policy of accepting that his private emails may be published? If not, did you set that expectation? I don't want to jump to a lot of conclusions here, but what I'm seeing is a real lack of sincerity in your actions by writing him an open letter instead of sending him a private email, then publishing what appears at first glance to be a private response. I may have it wrong, so please set me straight: Are you really trying to influence him, or are you using him as a foil for sharing your views with us?

raganwald 15y ago
Mr. Braithwaite, did you ever take that test yourself? What sincerity can you claim when you wrap your criticism in a faux-question and then pose that question in a public forum?
AlexeyMK 15y ago
Hey, That's a fair question. I wrote the open letter and sent it to RMS in addition to publishing it; given that RMS doesn't frequent HN, it seemed insincere to do otherwise. I did not ask for explicit permission to publish his one-line response; that said, this was a response that I had heard RMS use in conversations while he was here, and did not feel that there was any reasonable violation of privacy in publishing what I considered to be a boilerplate response. As to my intentions: certainly, influencing RMS would be fantastic; that said, from reputation and from meeting in person I've found RMS to be a difficult person to convince (I tried inquiring about his position on certain issues in person, and was interrupted/dismissed several times until I gave up). More realistically, I was looking for a way to collect my thoughts on the matter and did not expect quite this much attention. If I have at all influenced any Free Software advocates that the best argument for their position is a dignified one (cynicalkane proposes William Buckley as an example), that would be a happy accomplishment.

dualboot 15y ago

RMS is a little bit nutty at times. I think everyone acknowledges and accepts this. I prefer his eccentricities out in the open rather than him try to hide them away. There is value to open and honest disclosure. We live in a world with far too much "marketing friendly" presentation.

petercooper 15y ago

Unsurprising. A childish, low-brow response from someone who uses childish, low-brow rhetoric and imagery. A benefit of age is realizing there are very few people who can be won over or convinced with logic and good intentions.

gexla 15y ago

You should have set up your argument against the views of the FSF. His views on things like 9/11 are irrelevant in this argument. We all have our crazy and not so crazy beliefs. Sometimes the more of a splash you make in our world the more on the crazy side your beliefs can be.

chernevik 15y ago

If we're going to stand on principle, we have to admit vi was always a better concept than emacs, and must doubt the intelligence or motives of anyone who would divert attention from vi. emacs is just a big fork that wasted a lot of effort that could have gone into displacing Word! Who knows where we would be without these splitters? Think about it. Do we _know_ that RMS is _not_ a Bill Gates plant, inserted to dilute the momentum generated by Bill Joy? Hmmm? Improbable, yes, but not impossible. I just don't see how we can trust anything RMS has to say on anything.