5 ms·

He's also an extreme fundamentalist. I don't think he knows what 'compromise' or 'real world' mean. He lacks taste, class and humanity.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jsavimbi 15y ago
Exactly. There is no difference between either the Phelps or the Stallman message. Insane fundamentalists looking to draw attention to themselves and their ideals through an offensive message when they know that the community is experiencing an emotional event together. It's akin to car-bombing a funeral; something only really insane or angry people do. And last time I checked, Stallman doesn't have much to be angry about.
- rdouble 15y ago
  There is no difference between either the Phelps or the Stallman message. There... uh.. seems to be a lot of difference between "god kills soldiers because gay people exist" and "software should be free." Even though his quip about Jobs's death was tacky, I'm still gonna give RMS more points than the Westboro Baptist Church.
  - jsavimbi 15y ago
    > Even though his quip about Jobs's death was tacky There's a big difference between being tacky out of ignorance and immaturity and deliberately hurtful in a public forum with a measured audience. Coupled with a sense of timing and purpose, any sane and intelligent person would be able to make that distinction. And much like a car-bomber at a funeral, what sets Stallman aside from the rest of us is the opportunistic cowardice with which he operates. If he truly felt harmed by Steve Job's actions whilst living, why didn't he make a case for him to die sooner rather than waiting for his death to be fait accompli?
    - rdouble 15y ago
      Not sure where you're trying to go with that last part, but I disagree that one can equivocate car bombing, Fred Phelps, and RMS.
      - jsavimbi 15y ago
        Guess I should've just wrote that it's wrong to kick people while they're down.
    - pjscott 15y ago
      Are you seriously asking why Stallman doesn't desire the death of his ideological opponents?
    - vacri 15y ago
      What? Stallman specifically says he's not glad Jobs is dead, but he's glad his influence is gone. He's not happy that Jobs is dead. As for opportunistic cowardice? Have you ever heard of RMS before? He's constantly saying these things, and to anyone who will listen (and some who won't). Likening Stallman to a car-bomber is far worse than what Stallman actually said - you don't really have the moral ground to call someone else an opportunistic coward.
- kragen 15y ago
  Says the guy who chose the name of a mass murderer for his HN handle.
chugger 15y ago
No one will even notice when RMS dies.
joelthelion 15y ago
>I don't think he knows what 'compromise' or 'real world' mean. Isn't that how we got a functional free software stack though? A "real world" "compromise" pragmatic guy would have bought another printer and moved on. The world needs idealists. We may not always agree with them, they sometimes sound crazy, but they play an important role.
- maximusprime 15y ago
  I'm pretty sure we've always had free software, from the moment people started writing software. Surely most of us started out downloading free software from BBSes? Remember fractint? Sorry, but if Stallman hadn't done anything, we'd still have Linux, and all the other software we enjoy today.
  - joelthelion 15y ago
    >Sorry, but if Stallman hadn't done anything, we'd still have Linux, and all the other software we enjoy today. Are you absolutely certain about that? Think about it: if for example Linus had released his kernel with a more permissive license, he might not have received as many contributions, and maybe Linux would never have become as great as it is now.
    - maximusprime 15y ago
      Personally, I'm certain it would have happened anyway. Even going further, if Linus hadn't done Linux, someone else would have hacked together a free open source Unix OS and got a following behind it. History is littered with cases where a large number of people 'discover' or 'invent' something, and then one of them happens to be credited with it, and goes down in history as "the inventor". But it was bound to happen anyway.
      - joelthelion 15y ago
        >History is littered with cases where a large number of people 'discover' or 'invent' something, and then one of them happens to be credited with it, and goes down in history as "the inventor". But it was bound to happen anyway. You could say the same of Einstein, or ... even Steve Jobs :)
vacri 15y ago
Whoah there. He may lack conventional taste and class, but he is driven by his humanity. It's his whole reason for being - to free everyone from technological shackles. He's all about doing this for the benefit of all.
- leot 15y ago
  Is he? Or is he fundamentally a troubled, self-righteous individual with an axe to grind? It's easy to rationalize this behavior as primarily altruistic, but in RMS's case I kind of doubt it.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

jsavimbi 15y ago

Exactly. There is no difference between either the Phelps or the Stallman message. Insane fundamentalists looking to draw attention to themselves and their ideals through an offensive message when they know that the community is experiencing an emotional event together. It's akin to car-bombing a funeral; something only really insane or angry people do. And last time I checked, Stallman doesn't have much to be angry about.

rdouble 15y ago
There is no difference between either the Phelps or the Stallman message. There... uh.. seems to be a lot of difference between "god kills soldiers because gay people exist" and "software should be free." Even though his quip about Jobs's death was tacky, I'm still gonna give RMS more points than the Westboro Baptist Church.
- jsavimbi 15y ago
  > Even though his quip about Jobs's death was tacky There's a big difference between being tacky out of ignorance and immaturity and deliberately hurtful in a public forum with a measured audience. Coupled with a sense of timing and purpose, any sane and intelligent person would be able to make that distinction. And much like a car-bomber at a funeral, what sets Stallman aside from the rest of us is the opportunistic cowardice with which he operates. If he truly felt harmed by Steve Job's actions whilst living, why didn't he make a case for him to die sooner rather than waiting for his death to be fait accompli?
  - rdouble 15y ago
    Not sure where you're trying to go with that last part, but I disagree that one can equivocate car bombing, Fred Phelps, and RMS.
    - jsavimbi 15y ago
      Guess I should've just wrote that it's wrong to kick people while they're down.
  - pjscott 15y ago
    Are you seriously asking why Stallman doesn't desire the death of his ideological opponents?
  - vacri 15y ago
    What? Stallman specifically says he's not glad Jobs is dead, but he's glad his influence is gone. He's not happy that Jobs is dead. As for opportunistic cowardice? Have you ever heard of RMS before? He's constantly saying these things, and to anyone who will listen (and some who won't). Likening Stallman to a car-bomber is far worse than what Stallman actually said - you don't really have the moral ground to call someone else an opportunistic coward.
kragen 15y ago
Says the guy who chose the name of a mass murderer for his HN handle.

chugger 15y ago

No one will even notice when RMS dies.

joelthelion 15y ago

>I don't think he knows what 'compromise' or 'real world' mean. Isn't that how we got a functional free software stack though? A "real world" "compromise" pragmatic guy would have bought another printer and moved on. The world needs idealists. We may not always agree with them, they sometimes sound crazy, but they play an important role.

maximusprime 15y ago
I'm pretty sure we've always had free software, from the moment people started writing software. Surely most of us started out downloading free software from BBSes? Remember fractint? Sorry, but if Stallman hadn't done anything, we'd still have Linux, and all the other software we enjoy today.
- joelthelion 15y ago
  >Sorry, but if Stallman hadn't done anything, we'd still have Linux, and all the other software we enjoy today. Are you absolutely certain about that? Think about it: if for example Linus had released his kernel with a more permissive license, he might not have received as many contributions, and maybe Linux would never have become as great as it is now.
  - maximusprime 15y ago
    Personally, I'm certain it would have happened anyway. Even going further, if Linus hadn't done Linux, someone else would have hacked together a free open source Unix OS and got a following behind it. History is littered with cases where a large number of people 'discover' or 'invent' something, and then one of them happens to be credited with it, and goes down in history as "the inventor". But it was bound to happen anyway.
    - joelthelion 15y ago
      >History is littered with cases where a large number of people 'discover' or 'invent' something, and then one of them happens to be credited with it, and goes down in history as "the inventor". But it was bound to happen anyway. You could say the same of Einstein, or ... even Steve Jobs :)

vacri 15y ago

Whoah there. He may lack conventional taste and class, but he is driven by his humanity. It's his whole reason for being - to free everyone from technological shackles. He's all about doing this for the benefit of all.

leot 15y ago
Is he? Or is he fundamentally a troubled, self-righteous individual with an axe to grind? It's easy to rationalize this behavior as primarily altruistic, but in RMS's case I kind of doubt it.