8 ms·

I, too, was disappointed by Richard Stallman' talk. We were a bunch of students in a conference in general software engineering. And he was invited to give a ta

by phzbOx 15y ago

I, too, was disappointed by Richard Stallman' talk. We were a bunch of students in a conference in general software engineering. And he was invited to give a talk about copyright and freedom.. cool, right? Not exactly. He came in and started acting like he really didn't wanted to be there and didn't care at all about us, the place and the organizers. I'm usually not the kind to judge someone else dressing but Stallman' look was terrible. Not terrible like in "old geek" or whatever; terrible like I had pity of him. Seems like he didn't washed for days.. anyhow, let's continue for the talk. Before even starting, he started yelling "OPEN THE LIGHT", " I SAID OPEN THE GODAMN LIGHT". That was crazy as hell. Basically, what he wanted to say is "Please, open the light because I don't want my audience to fall asleep". But jesus, there's a way to say things and a way to say things. And, as much as I wanted to like him and the talk, it was extremely boring and even false at some points. And, with all that, it just makes me really sad. It makes me sad because this is such a genius and a legendary hacker but it seems that he stopped trying. It's like if you see someone trying to open a door by pulling really hard when it's clearly written push. And, you see that person getting frustrated and over frustrated about the fact that the door doesn't open. For me, Richard seems like that. There are ways to make things change. But you have to adapt. As someone already said "It's easy to go outside and whine, but true revolutioners dress up and change things from inside the system." (or something like that). Stallman could give so much if he wanted just a little bit, but he decided to keep pulling that door. Look, we get it, it's supposed to be called GNU os and not Linux. But there's a way to explain that to total newbies that don't know the history of unixes. It's not by being frustrated in front of an audience that people will understand and change their minds. Or when he talks about freedom, it seems so theoretical. Yeah right, Ubisoft should publish their code open sources and preserve the right on their assets. But comon, there are lots of money and families involved. Even thought it would be nice to have everything open source, in practice, you have to make trad-of. And, in my opinion, it's better to be practical and try to make the world a little better, rather than being an extremist and changing nothing. There's a reason why it's called Linux and not GNU; and yelling after everyone won't change that.

nimblegorilla 15y ago
I agree totally. The most frustrating part about Stallman's "free software" is that he has to control how everyone else uses it. Linux people don't even get the freedom to name their own operating system.
- jrockway 15y ago
  I don't think Stallman ever said that you don't have the freedom to call Linux Linux. He's simply asking that you don't. As you can see, it's very easy to ignore his requests. That doesn't mean he should stop making them.
  - nimblegorilla 15y ago
    Stallman has never said that people can call it just Linux if they choose. My understanding is that he refuses to interact with anyone unless they agree to call it GNU Linux. Seems like a control issue to me.
- bad_user 15y ago
  he has to control how everyone else uses it One of the goals of free software is to allow you to use it for any reason whatsoever, and I don't know if you realize what this actually means, or maybe you are to young, but once upon a time you couldn't use Visual Basic to create a Microsoft Office competitor. If by usage you mean the copy-left behavior of GPL, I think it's only fair for a software author to demand whatever the fuck he wants from the software he wrote. And it's also in everybody's right to have his own opinion on how things should be done. Linux people don't even get the freedom to name their own operating system. But in fact "Linux people" have always named their operating system however they pleased, which is really what upsets Stallman so greatly. But even so, he remained true to his original beliefs and never included such requirements in his own software or the GPL, he only bitched about it. You really should look for the definition of "freedom" in a dictionary ;) Here, I'll do that for you ... the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint Are you in any kind of confinement or physical restraint regarding the naming of Linux-based operating systems?
billpatrianakos 15y ago
I feel for you. Stallman seems to think we all live in some free love hippie commune where we can all just give source code away. The world doesn't work like that and his fundamentalist attitude doesn't take people's need to eat lunch into account. You can't deny his skill and the great work he's done. Free software has its place in this world but so does proprietary code too. This rider while not being supremely high maintenance is riddled with superfluous explanations and liberally sprinkled with his own politics. Just write a damn list and get it over with. Save your speeches for the events, not the rider.
- bad_user 15y ago
  Stallman has an uncanny ability to predict the future in regards to our industry. Everything he predicted has happened already or it will. Trusted computing? It is here, it is popular and because of Apple it is also considered cool. It doesn't matter that the device you paid for is not your property anymore, people love shiny. Also, trusted computing got rejected by the market when Microsoft tried it, but now Microsoft is back on the horse and this time they'll succeed, because hey, we'll do anything for the sake of our grandmas, including giving up liberties for our future children. Building proprietary lock-in on top of open-source? Yep. Before 2001 when OS X got released, Linux was the future of computing in our eyes. Fast forward 11 years later, go to any software-related conference and you'll see 85% of all software developers with a MacBook in their lap. Basically OS X destroyed Linux's chances on dominating the future desktop. Uncompetitive advantages by any means necessary, including patents (which is something new)? Yep ... Java may be GPL.v2, but Oracle can kick the living crap out of you by using their patents and trademarks on it. On the whole, Sun releasing OpenJDK was nothing more than a publicity stunt of a dying company, just like the JCP was, to give the illusion of an open standard. The world doesn't work like that and his fundamentalist attitude doesn't take people's need to eat lunch into account. I think he earned the right to behave like a fundamentalist. You can agree or disagree with him, but if you do disagree, you should give a more detailed answer than "the world doesn't work like that". Because in fact the world does work like that. People have always helped each other in return for favors or for the greater good. The emphasis on individuals and individual gains is rather new and our economy is the one that resists, but considering the depression we are in, our economic systems don't really do a good job apparently ;-) You may not feel it now, even though it's 2011, but our lives and the lives of our children will depend greatly on software functioning for us. When certain software will stop functioning for individuals, make no mistake about it, that will be life-threating. Also, software companies can yield great control over our lives and can do great damage already. Remember when Google was the underdog just 11 years ago? Look at them now ... with a push of a button they can delete you from the Internet. Proprietary software pays the bills, but that doesn't mean it isn't a really big socio-political problem that needs to be fixed, sooner rather than later. So yeah, keep buying iPhones, but when the shit hits the fan Stallman will be there to teach you again why it was a bad idea; or he'll be dead with nobody to take his place.
jrockway 15y ago
I see this come up in RMS threads again and again. "There are ways to make things change. But you have to adapt." Why should he? He's famous and you're not. Why should he take advice from you that's clearly not working? Also, he did change the system from the inside. This is why people deal with his quirks.
- Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
  The fact you can get away with something because you're famous is just another example of "might is right". Sure he can get away with it, but that doesn't mean that he's not being a dick at times. In terms of whose way is working: Stallman has created something that works for him but I wouldn't swap my life for his in a million years (and I'm sure he reciprocates that). But I don't think he's such a success that his life can be held up as some unimprovable template.
- glaurent 15y ago
  > he did change the system from the inside Yeah, no, not really. Linus did, by precisely following that advice : compromise and be practical. Yes, he couldn't have done it without rms's previous work, but without Linux, Free Software would have been all but forgotten by now. I'd also argue that one of the reasons why Linux is still at around 1% of the desktop market is similar : blindly following principles at the expense of convenience and practicality.
  - gjm11 15y ago
    Without Linux, maybe Free Software would now be forgotten. Without RMS, maybe nothing like Linux would ever have existed. Both RMS and Linus changed the world; I'd argue they've both changed it considerably for the better. Why does it have to be just one or the other?
    - jrockway 15y ago
      Because RMS doesn't comb his hair.
- 15y ago
loup-vaillant 15y ago
> "It's easy to go outside and whine, but true revolutioners dress up and change things from inside the system." Actually, it is also hard to change the system from within. We humans run on corrupted hardware[1], and being in the system in the first place often change us in ways we don't initially approve of. Now I think we do need people to change the system from within. But I also think we need other people who stay outside, if only to remind us of the ultimate goal. [1]:http://lesswrong.com/lw/uv/ends_dont_justify_means_among_humans/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/uv/ends_dont_justify_means_among_hum...

by phzbOx 15y ago

nimblegorilla 15y ago

I agree totally. The most frustrating part about Stallman's "free software" is that he has to control how everyone else uses it. Linux people don't even get the freedom to name their own operating system.

jrockway 15y ago
I don't think Stallman ever said that you don't have the freedom to call Linux Linux. He's simply asking that you don't. As you can see, it's very easy to ignore his requests. That doesn't mean he should stop making them.
- nimblegorilla 15y ago
  Stallman has never said that people can call it just Linux if they choose. My understanding is that he refuses to interact with anyone unless they agree to call it GNU Linux. Seems like a control issue to me.
bad_user 15y ago
he has to control how everyone else uses it One of the goals of free software is to allow you to use it for any reason whatsoever, and I don't know if you realize what this actually means, or maybe you are to young, but once upon a time you couldn't use Visual Basic to create a Microsoft Office competitor. If by usage you mean the copy-left behavior of GPL, I think it's only fair for a software author to demand whatever the fuck he wants from the software he wrote. And it's also in everybody's right to have his own opinion on how things should be done. Linux people don't even get the freedom to name their own operating system. But in fact "Linux people" have always named their operating system however they pleased, which is really what upsets Stallman so greatly. But even so, he remained true to his original beliefs and never included such requirements in his own software or the GPL, he only bitched about it. You really should look for the definition of "freedom" in a dictionary ;) Here, I'll do that for you ... the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint Are you in any kind of confinement or physical restraint regarding the naming of Linux-based operating systems?

billpatrianakos 15y ago

I feel for you. Stallman seems to think we all live in some free love hippie commune where we can all just give source code away. The world doesn't work like that and his fundamentalist attitude doesn't take people's need to eat lunch into account. You can't deny his skill and the great work he's done. Free software has its place in this world but so does proprietary code too. This rider while not being supremely high maintenance is riddled with superfluous explanations and liberally sprinkled with his own politics. Just write a damn list and get it over with. Save your speeches for the events, not the rider.

bad_user 15y ago
Stallman has an uncanny ability to predict the future in regards to our industry. Everything he predicted has happened already or it will. Trusted computing? It is here, it is popular and because of Apple it is also considered cool. It doesn't matter that the device you paid for is not your property anymore, people love shiny. Also, trusted computing got rejected by the market when Microsoft tried it, but now Microsoft is back on the horse and this time they'll succeed, because hey, we'll do anything for the sake of our grandmas, including giving up liberties for our future children. Building proprietary lock-in on top of open-source? Yep. Before 2001 when OS X got released, Linux was the future of computing in our eyes. Fast forward 11 years later, go to any software-related conference and you'll see 85% of all software developers with a MacBook in their lap. Basically OS X destroyed Linux's chances on dominating the future desktop. Uncompetitive advantages by any means necessary, including patents (which is something new)? Yep ... Java may be GPL.v2, but Oracle can kick the living crap out of you by using their patents and trademarks on it. On the whole, Sun releasing OpenJDK was nothing more than a publicity stunt of a dying company, just like the JCP was, to give the illusion of an open standard. The world doesn't work like that and his fundamentalist attitude doesn't take people's need to eat lunch into account. I think he earned the right to behave like a fundamentalist. You can agree or disagree with him, but if you do disagree, you should give a more detailed answer than "the world doesn't work like that". Because in fact the world does work like that. People have always helped each other in return for favors or for the greater good. The emphasis on individuals and individual gains is rather new and our economy is the one that resists, but considering the depression we are in, our economic systems don't really do a good job apparently ;-) You may not feel it now, even though it's 2011, but our lives and the lives of our children will depend greatly on software functioning for us. When certain software will stop functioning for individuals, make no mistake about it, that will be life-threating. Also, software companies can yield great control over our lives and can do great damage already. Remember when Google was the underdog just 11 years ago? Look at them now ... with a push of a button they can delete you from the Internet. Proprietary software pays the bills, but that doesn't mean it isn't a really big socio-political problem that needs to be fixed, sooner rather than later. So yeah, keep buying iPhones, but when the shit hits the fan Stallman will be there to teach you again why it was a bad idea; or he'll be dead with nobody to take his place.

jrockway 15y ago

I see this come up in RMS threads again and again. "There are ways to make things change. But you have to adapt." Why should he? He's famous and you're not. Why should he take advice from you that's clearly not working? Also, he did change the system from the inside. This is why people deal with his quirks.

Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
The fact you can get away with something because you're famous is just another example of "might is right". Sure he can get away with it, but that doesn't mean that he's not being a dick at times. In terms of whose way is working: Stallman has created something that works for him but I wouldn't swap my life for his in a million years (and I'm sure he reciprocates that). But I don't think he's such a success that his life can be held up as some unimprovable template.
glaurent 15y ago
> he did change the system from the inside Yeah, no, not really. Linus did, by precisely following that advice : compromise and be practical. Yes, he couldn't have done it without rms's previous work, but without Linux, Free Software would have been all but forgotten by now. I'd also argue that one of the reasons why Linux is still at around 1% of the desktop market is similar : blindly following principles at the expense of convenience and practicality.
- gjm11 15y ago
  Without Linux, maybe Free Software would now be forgotten. Without RMS, maybe nothing like Linux would ever have existed. Both RMS and Linus changed the world; I'd argue they've both changed it considerably for the better. Why does it have to be just one or the other?
  - jrockway 15y ago
    Because RMS doesn't comb his hair.
15y ago

loup-vaillant 15y ago

> "It's easy to go outside and whine, but true revolutioners dress up and change things from inside the system." Actually, it is also hard to change the system from within. We humans run on corrupted hardware[1], and being in the system in the first place often change us in ways we don't initially approve of. Now I think we do need people to change the system from within. But I also think we need other people who stay outside, if only to remind us of the ultimate goal. [1]:http://lesswrong.com/lw/uv/ends_dont_justify_means_among_humans/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/uv/ends_dont_justify_means_among_hum...