4 ms·

> Note: I've never met Stallman. I have, and he is one of the kindest, smartest, most reasonable people I have ever met. He's also funny and brutally honest.

> Note: I've never met Stallman. I have, and he is one of the kindest, smartest, most reasonable people I have ever met. He's also funny and brutally honest. I asked him (this was about 6 years ago at a LUG) if Microsoft had ever attempted to intimidate him, whether through lawsuits or other means, whether subtle or overt. He paused for a second, and then simply said, "No. No intimidation of any kind." This man is just an honest, straightforward Socratic kind of guy, not a point-scoring spin-meister. I for one am overjoyed that he's remained a principled shaggy uber-hacker, resisting the never-ending suggestions that he become a palatable, bridge-building difference-splitter serving up a friendlier, diluted version of his message. Screw everything about that.

dhimes 16y ago
Perhaps "pathology" is too strong a word... But to your point, meeting someone isn't the same as knowing them. Did you get the chance to discuss, say, why the GPL license was too "contagious?" Let me say again I've neither met nor gotten to know Stallman, but let me share my experiences with this personality type, just for future reference. I've gotten to know a few people who have the type of personality I describe. In particular, I have the infrequent occasion to enjoy the company of someone who also charming, funny, intelligent- all of the things that make for a great lunch or evening. However, you'll never change his mind about anything. When he makes up his mind he is absolutely convinced he is right and there is nothing he has overlooked. And sometimes he just doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. He'll talk about how his doctor is full of shit because what the doctor said doesn't fit with his mental model that he built upon reading a couple of articles in a science magazine. Or how teachers ought to do "X" (he's never taught). Or how programming is "Y" (not a programmer). Or how the football coach should do "Z" (never played or coached). Backs everything up with solid-sounding, logical arguments. But he simply doesn't know enough facts to start with the right axioms. Very smart. Very persuasive. Very creative. And often very wrong. Interestingly, as long as their right/wrong ratio is high, they can make great leaders- at least in the beginning of a movement. Alot of people find comfort in their black and white world. But they are very difficult to deal with as a peer or in an employee/employer capacity. Tireless, pointless arguments that end with "I'm not convinced..." because NOTHING will convince them. They think they have the right axioms. Again, "pathology" may be too strong, but it's certainly a personality type I avoid all but the most casual relationships with if I can help it.
- rjbond3rd 16y ago
  I appreciate your post and the thoughtfulness behind it. I readily concede that the man is stubborn but it's just as often a virtue as a vice. How can he be "wrong" though, about something that he created from scratch, founded and has kept going strong for all these years? Also, why should he take our advice when we've obviously rejected his (in many cases)? Anyway, good post and thank you for it.
  - chernevik 15y ago
    I'm not exactly commenting on RMS. It's a point of faith for me that all our strengths can become vices, and all our weakness transformed to virtues. Any of us can be still more ourselves with some reflection and humility. But how RMS might best go about that is beyond my knowing. But let me speak to stubborn as virtue or vice. I'm a huge beneficiary of open source / free software. That culture seems founded by people who are a little bit nuts. Who can say whether more or less pragmatism would have accelerated or killed the movement? It seems to me that some of what he's saying is even more applicable today. I've only lately stuck my head into in corners of the startup culture, and maybe I'm in the wrong corners, but I'm shocked by how little technical proficiency I've found. A lot of the design and implementation seems rote, and I have to wonder if some popular frameworks risk mind capture the way Windows did in the early 90s. (Caveat: New kid! Haven't seen it all yet!) One aspect of "free" is the ability to truly design anew from an understanding of core principles, right? Even where issues of commercial trust and network privacy are solved there is still a problem with not-free, right? I think this could be a real challenge for a new generation. But we're not likely to hear the RMS take on the above, because he isn't even looking at all this stuff. From a simple rhetorical standpoint, he's missing a chance to make a possibly important point to a whole new generation. And even if he did, he's such an avowed fanatic that anything he did say would now be dismissed as a twist on his zealotry, rather than an honest concern of a viewpoint sympathetic to the generation's viewpoint. Now, is that a necessary consequence of his radicalism? Is such radicalism necessary for the communal formation of proper principles? Does every Abraham Lincoln pragmatist require a John Brown wild-eyed radical? That certainly seems like an unsatisfying outcome, and one that might be avoided with some creativity.

dhimes 16y ago

Perhaps "pathology" is too strong a word... But to your point, meeting someone isn't the same as knowing them. Did you get the chance to discuss, say, why the GPL license was too "contagious?" Let me say again I've neither met nor gotten to know Stallman, but let me share my experiences with this personality type, just for future reference. I've gotten to know a few people who have the type of personality I describe. In particular, I have the infrequent occasion to enjoy the company of someone who also charming, funny, intelligent- all of the things that make for a great lunch or evening. However, you'll never change his mind about anything. When he makes up his mind he is absolutely convinced he is right and there is nothing he has overlooked. And sometimes he just doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. He'll talk about how his doctor is full of shit because what the doctor said doesn't fit with his mental model that he built upon reading a couple of articles in a science magazine. Or how teachers ought to do "X" (he's never taught). Or how programming is "Y" (not a programmer). Or how the football coach should do "Z" (never played or coached). Backs everything up with solid-sounding, logical arguments. But he simply doesn't know enough facts to start with the right axioms. Very smart. Very persuasive. Very creative. And often very wrong. Interestingly, as long as their right/wrong ratio is high, they can make great leaders- at least in the beginning of a movement. Alot of people find comfort in their black and white world. But they are very difficult to deal with as a peer or in an employee/employer capacity. Tireless, pointless arguments that end with "I'm not convinced..." because NOTHING will convince them. They think they have the right axioms. Again, "pathology" may be too strong, but it's certainly a personality type I avoid all but the most casual relationships with if I can help it.

rjbond3rd 16y ago
I appreciate your post and the thoughtfulness behind it. I readily concede that the man is stubborn but it's just as often a virtue as a vice. How can he be "wrong" though, about something that he created from scratch, founded and has kept going strong for all these years? Also, why should he take our advice when we've obviously rejected his (in many cases)? Anyway, good post and thank you for it.
- chernevik 15y ago
  I'm not exactly commenting on RMS. It's a point of faith for me that all our strengths can become vices, and all our weakness transformed to virtues. Any of us can be still more ourselves with some reflection and humility. But how RMS might best go about that is beyond my knowing. But let me speak to stubborn as virtue or vice. I'm a huge beneficiary of open source / free software. That culture seems founded by people who are a little bit nuts. Who can say whether more or less pragmatism would have accelerated or killed the movement? It seems to me that some of what he's saying is even more applicable today. I've only lately stuck my head into in corners of the startup culture, and maybe I'm in the wrong corners, but I'm shocked by how little technical proficiency I've found. A lot of the design and implementation seems rote, and I have to wonder if some popular frameworks risk mind capture the way Windows did in the early 90s. (Caveat: New kid! Haven't seen it all yet!) One aspect of "free" is the ability to truly design anew from an understanding of core principles, right? Even where issues of commercial trust and network privacy are solved there is still a problem with not-free, right? I think this could be a real challenge for a new generation. But we're not likely to hear the RMS take on the above, because he isn't even looking at all this stuff. From a simple rhetorical standpoint, he's missing a chance to make a possibly important point to a whole new generation. And even if he did, he's such an avowed fanatic that anything he did say would now be dismissed as a twist on his zealotry, rather than an honest concern of a viewpoint sympathetic to the generation's viewpoint. Now, is that a necessary consequence of his radicalism? Is such radicalism necessary for the communal formation of proper principles? Does every Abraham Lincoln pragmatist require a John Brown wild-eyed radical? That certainly seems like an unsatisfying outcome, and one that might be avoided with some creativity.