5 ms·

"I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone." This means to me that Stallman is glad that Jobs is no more a malign influence on people's computing. But he

"I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone." This means to me that Stallman is glad that Jobs is no more a malign influence on people's computing. But he is not glad that he is dead. That is exactly the same thing the poster says about Stallman: "While I'd love it if Stallman would retire, or at the very least improve his social skills, I hope he lives to be 120. As long as he's alive, there's hope he might change. I'd never be glad that he's gone. And I'm certainly not glad that Steve is." Saying that you'd love it if Stallman would retire means that you would be glad if he's gone.

rtperson 15y ago
I think you're missing an important distinction here: Stallman has not, in fact, died. The writer of the article is talking about a living person. That fundamentally changes what you're allowed, in polite society, to say about him.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Bingo. Stallman, and many of his supporters, are just missing the nuance. You simply don't say, "I'm glad he's gone" a day and a half after someone dies. Even if you are, and even if you don't mean you're glad he's dead. It's one of those unspoken rules of human interaction that Stallman just doesn't seem to get.
  - bryanlarsen 15y ago
    Which is why Stallman explicitly said "I'm not glad he's dead".
    - stock_toaster 15y ago
      People may be reacting to it regardless, possibly even subconsciously, because it was placed (and sounded) like a 'hedge' phrase.
  - MostAwesomeDude 15y ago
    So, uh, in recent years, Ken Lay, Strom Thurmond, Jack Valenti, Saddam Hussein, and Ronald Reagan all died. Quite a few people were extremely unkind to them immediately after their death, and with far harsher words than "I'm glad he's gone." People do simply say these things. Fidel Castro is widely believed to be in declining health, just like Steve Jobs a few months ago. People have been saying that they'll be glad when he's gone for a while; do you think that they'll suddenly go quiet when he passes away?
    - redthrowaway 15y ago
      With the exception of Reagan, none of those people were well-liked. In the case of of Reagan, he was about equally loved and reviled. With Jobs, even most of those who didn't like him had a grudging respect for him, and acknowledged the contributions he'd made. You can get away with saying you're glad someone's gone if there are enough people out there who feel the same way. You can't if there aren't. You can't boil it down to a logically consistent principle or moral value; it's just one of the vagaries of human interaction. You can debate the merits of such an unspoken law, but you can't deny its existence. Stallman broke that law, and that's why his comments were viewed as distasteful, whereas you could say anything you wanted about Bin Laden after he died.
      - MostAwesomeDude 15y ago
        I find it extremely telling that you added Osama bin Laden to the list. I did not mention him.
    - hugh3 15y ago
      It's okay to express gladness about the death of the truly evil (Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Osama bin Laden). It's not okay to express gladness about the death of people with whom you merely disagree, or who might have done things of which you disapprove (Strom Thurmond, Jack Valenti, Ken Lay, Steve Jobs). The dividing line is something along the lines of "Did this dude actually murder people?" (And no, I'm not interested in discussing any particular borderline cases.)
  - dorian-graph 15y ago
    I'm not particularly interested in Stallman and most of his ideas and comments. I like open source but I don't think they've completely figured out the philosophy yet and of what roles it has—this is another story, but, .. How do people on HN generally feel with the idea that we allow ourselves to be offended/annoyed OR we should act rather than react. There will forever be people who say things like this that some group of people do not like but is it not their choice to either have a knee-jerk reaction or to craft an intelligent reply or ignore the person? Basically, I don't like to allow myself to become annoyed or offended even though I've been in more than enough situations, even recently, to allow that.
    - redthrowaway 15y ago
      My concern is not with being offended (I wasn't), but with the fact that's it's just a very stupid thing for a public spokesperson to do.
cbs 15y ago
That is exactly the same thing the poster says about Stallman Yup. Stallman tried to separate the Job's death from the end of his influence on the computing world. It was short and to the point and not the most tactful, but that molehill is reaching mountain proportions. Way more has been written about it than seems reasonable. If you read closely you can see what has really upset people isn't just lack of tact. Its that Stallman's ideals of computing paints Jobs' contributions as a net negative. See this line in the article: and insult millions of Apple users simultaneously. It doesn't insult me that someones ideals give them a different opinion of a piece of plastic sitting at my house. I'm a nerd, but my identity isn't that caught up in my devices.
- msbarnett 15y ago
  48 hours after someone's death is not the appropriate time to start trying to draw distinctions between their death and their absence, and declare their influence "evil". When that's your initial reaction, there's no way you're not going to come off like a giant ass.
  - bryanlarsen 15y ago
    When is an appropriate time? How about 30 years before his death, which is about when RMS started calling Apple/Steve Jobs evil.
    - hugh3 15y ago
      Yep, it's okay to criticize someone before they die (though "evil" is usually overdoing it). And it's okay to criticize someone with a reasonable buffer after they die. But taking the opportunity of their death to criticize them is just plain tacky.
  - cbs 15y ago
    yeah, but I'm saying this is about par for the course with stallman, and even if people happened to expect tact from him, why the huge fuss? Say "Not the right time for this conversation RMS" and _move on_. By attempting to refute his point about Jobs' absence, they lose whatever higher ground they might have had about timeliness of his statement.
bitops 15y ago
Not exactly - once someone dies they cannot evolve their thinking any further. No matter how stuck, people can change. (And sometimes, yes, there is very little chance that that will happen). So as long as he's alive, there's a chance for controversy. Once he dies his followers can create gospel. Sounds cultish, I agree.

rtperson 15y ago

I think you're missing an important distinction here: Stallman has not, in fact, died. The writer of the article is talking about a living person. That fundamentally changes what you're allowed, in polite society, to say about him.

redthrowaway 15y ago
Bingo. Stallman, and many of his supporters, are just missing the nuance. You simply don't say, "I'm glad he's gone" a day and a half after someone dies. Even if you are, and even if you don't mean you're glad he's dead. It's one of those unspoken rules of human interaction that Stallman just doesn't seem to get.
- bryanlarsen 15y ago
  Which is why Stallman explicitly said "I'm not glad he's dead".
  - stock_toaster 15y ago
    People may be reacting to it regardless, possibly even subconsciously, because it was placed (and sounded) like a 'hedge' phrase.
- MostAwesomeDude 15y ago
  So, uh, in recent years, Ken Lay, Strom Thurmond, Jack Valenti, Saddam Hussein, and Ronald Reagan all died. Quite a few people were extremely unkind to them immediately after their death, and with far harsher words than "I'm glad he's gone." People do simply say these things. Fidel Castro is widely believed to be in declining health, just like Steve Jobs a few months ago. People have been saying that they'll be glad when he's gone for a while; do you think that they'll suddenly go quiet when he passes away?
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    With the exception of Reagan, none of those people were well-liked. In the case of of Reagan, he was about equally loved and reviled. With Jobs, even most of those who didn't like him had a grudging respect for him, and acknowledged the contributions he'd made. You can get away with saying you're glad someone's gone if there are enough people out there who feel the same way. You can't if there aren't. You can't boil it down to a logically consistent principle or moral value; it's just one of the vagaries of human interaction. You can debate the merits of such an unspoken law, but you can't deny its existence. Stallman broke that law, and that's why his comments were viewed as distasteful, whereas you could say anything you wanted about Bin Laden after he died.
    - MostAwesomeDude 15y ago
      I find it extremely telling that you added Osama bin Laden to the list. I did not mention him.
  - hugh3 15y ago
    It's okay to express gladness about the death of the truly evil (Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Osama bin Laden). It's not okay to express gladness about the death of people with whom you merely disagree, or who might have done things of which you disapprove (Strom Thurmond, Jack Valenti, Ken Lay, Steve Jobs). The dividing line is something along the lines of "Did this dude actually murder people?" (And no, I'm not interested in discussing any particular borderline cases.)
- dorian-graph 15y ago
  I'm not particularly interested in Stallman and most of his ideas and comments. I like open source but I don't think they've completely figured out the philosophy yet and of what roles it has—this is another story, but, .. How do people on HN generally feel with the idea that we allow ourselves to be offended/annoyed OR we should act rather than react. There will forever be people who say things like this that some group of people do not like but is it not their choice to either have a knee-jerk reaction or to craft an intelligent reply or ignore the person? Basically, I don't like to allow myself to become annoyed or offended even though I've been in more than enough situations, even recently, to allow that.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    My concern is not with being offended (I wasn't), but with the fact that's it's just a very stupid thing for a public spokesperson to do.

cbs 15y ago

That is exactly the same thing the poster says about Stallman Yup. Stallman tried to separate the Job's death from the end of his influence on the computing world. It was short and to the point and not the most tactful, but that molehill is reaching mountain proportions. Way more has been written about it than seems reasonable. If you read closely you can see what has really upset people isn't just lack of tact. Its that Stallman's ideals of computing paints Jobs' contributions as a net negative. See this line in the article: and insult millions of Apple users simultaneously. It doesn't insult me that someones ideals give them a different opinion of a piece of plastic sitting at my house. I'm a nerd, but my identity isn't that caught up in my devices.

msbarnett 15y ago
48 hours after someone's death is not the appropriate time to start trying to draw distinctions between their death and their absence, and declare their influence "evil". When that's your initial reaction, there's no way you're not going to come off like a giant ass.
- bryanlarsen 15y ago
  When is an appropriate time? How about 30 years before his death, which is about when RMS started calling Apple/Steve Jobs evil.
  - hugh3 15y ago
    Yep, it's okay to criticize someone before they die (though "evil" is usually overdoing it). And it's okay to criticize someone with a reasonable buffer after they die. But taking the opportunity of their death to criticize them is just plain tacky.
- cbs 15y ago
  yeah, but I'm saying this is about par for the course with stallman, and even if people happened to expect tact from him, why the huge fuss? Say "Not the right time for this conversation RMS" and _move on_. By attempting to refute his point about Jobs' absence, they lose whatever higher ground they might have had about timeliness of his statement.

bitops 15y ago

Not exactly - once someone dies they cannot evolve their thinking any further. No matter how stuck, people can change. (And sometimes, yes, there is very little chance that that will happen). So as long as he's alive, there's a chance for controversy. Once he dies his followers can create gospel. Sounds cultish, I agree.