4 ms·
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 wo
by 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 ago48 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 agoWhen is an appropriate time? How about 30 years before his death, which is about when RMS started calling Apple/Steve Jobs evil.
- hugh3 15y agoYep, 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 agoyeah, 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.
- breck 15y agoIt upset me enough that I never want to use any of RS's software again. Are there any FSF/GPL/GNU stuff on OS X? Ubuntu? (I'm trying to think of anything I use that is GPL/FSF/GNU). I don't use any of Microsoft's stuff anymore because generally I've found better alternatives. I think open source software is a better philosophy. I think the same thing about the GPL/FSF/RS/GNU stuff, (I think it's a bad philosophy), and I'd love to rid myself of it. Could someone give me some pointers how I can avoid RS's stuff completely? Thanks!
- raganwald 15y agoAre you, by any chance, saying that you have certain principles that outweigh things like convenience and fitness for purpose? That you are prepared to go out of your way to reject the use of certain software purely because you dislike its philosophy, and not because it’s objectively worse for you? If so, you and Mr. Stallman have something in common.
- breck 15y agoI used to use Windows, even though I had gripes, because it was okay and there was no good alternative. GNU/FSF/RS helped create a good alternative. I've used their stuff, despite my gripes, because there was no good alternative. Now there is. There's a tremendous amount of rock solid, MIT & other licensed open source software out there. And I want to switch to that. And ditch GNU/FSF/RS. It's a free marketplace, and RS & Co. have to compete too. They got me to switch from MSFT, but now they're the ones who are behind the times IMO.
- reledi 15y agoThere's a ton of GNU and GPL software that you probably unknowingly use. If you don't use any MS software, and you don't plan on using any FSF/GNU/GPL software, then you're really limiting yourself.
- nkassis 15y agoI don't even think it's really possible to avoid it all, GNU libraries/compilers/... are used by pretty much everything that's not on Windows platform. You'd basically have to write all your software yourself.