4 ms·

Some idols you just don't criticise right after they died. That is an insult to their memory, and to whatever makes them an idol in the first place. Steve Job

Some idols you just don't criticise right after they died. That is an insult to their memory, and to whatever makes them an idol in the first place. Steve Jobs was such an idol. His media-foo was impressive, even after he passed away. Every soul in the western world old enough to talk knew about his death at most 30 hours after his last breath. Therefore, you just don't criticize Steve jobs until next spring. I know of another way of being a tactless jerk: criticizing a religion. It won't change the fact that there is almost certainly no God, though. Edit: I am being sarcastic here. Let me rephrase: > Some idols you just can't criticise right after they died without causing serious backlash. > I know of another way of being perceived as a tactless jerk. To be clear, Steve Jobs was a champion of Treacherous Computing, and there is no God. I suggest those I have just offended to turn on their brains. (I said "those I have just offended", not "those who disagree with my statement".)

Daishiman 15y ago
Why? I don't own and I don't like Apple products. Most people I know don't own Apple products and they don't have any impact whatsoever. I respect a lot of aspects about Jobs' life, but making a successful software and hardware company is no more important a milestone than any other. If anything, Stallman's legacy will probably be felt for much longer into the future.
- loup-vaillant 15y ago
  I was being half sarcastic. I wanted to point out the religiosity around Apple. People read Stallman's statement, saw that it was about Steve Jobs doing bad things, and just shut down their brains. Some nearly accused Stallman of being happy about Job's death. Of course those strong reactions are totally unjustified. And despite what pg seem to suggest above, Stallman is very probably justified in doing his comment: Steve Jobs is being a martyr, and martyrs are nearly always a good thing for the cause they defend (here, the locked-down model of the iPhone and the iPad). The error of Stallman was purely strategic (or tactic). He didn't foresee that people wouldn't read what he wrote as he wrote it. He didn't foresee that they would quote him out of context. He didn't foresee the near-total lack of rationality of Apple fanboys. The problem is, I don't know how I could have avoided those mistakes if I were Stallman.
alecbenzer 15y ago
> Every soul in the western world old enough to talk knew about his death at most 30 hours after his last breath. So what? The same could be said about Muammar Gaddafi. > I know of another way of being a tactless jerk: criticizing a religion Criticizing a religion is innately tactless? There are certainly tactless ways of criticizing a religion that would make you out to be a jerk, but I'd think there are certainly ways of criticizing a religion without being a jerk. Steve Jobs was really in no way whatsoever an idol to me. He was a well-known public figure, which made his death news. If rms wrote an email to steve's wife about how her husband was a horrible person and that he was glad he was gone, that would be incredibly rude and tactless. Commenting on his blog about how a public figure's death affects him and his movement which he cares very deeply amount is, imo, not.
- lotu 15y ago
  >So what? The same could be said about Muammar Gaddafi. Hopefully, you can see how Muamar Gaddafi and Steve Jobs differ. Gaddafi's death was a relief, Jobs was a loss, that should have been implicit, in his argument.
  - alecbenzer 15y ago
    He seemed to be implying that because his death was such big news he was someone to admire. I was making the point that how famous your death is has nothing to do with how good of a person you are. Though the point is moot, since it seems he was being sarcastic. > Jobs was a loss The whole point here is that to RMS it was not a loss at all -- it was a gain that a large entity that opposes his movement has now been hopefully (hopefully to rms) weakened. Of course the loss of human life is a loss and all that stuff, but this isn't about Steve Jobs the person, it's about the influence he had on the world.

Daishiman 15y ago

Why? I don't own and I don't like Apple products. Most people I know don't own Apple products and they don't have any impact whatsoever. I respect a lot of aspects about Jobs' life, but making a successful software and hardware company is no more important a milestone than any other. If anything, Stallman's legacy will probably be felt for much longer into the future.

loup-vaillant 15y ago
I was being half sarcastic. I wanted to point out the religiosity around Apple. People read Stallman's statement, saw that it was about Steve Jobs doing bad things, and just shut down their brains. Some nearly accused Stallman of being happy about Job's death. Of course those strong reactions are totally unjustified. And despite what pg seem to suggest above, Stallman is very probably justified in doing his comment: Steve Jobs is being a martyr, and martyrs are nearly always a good thing for the cause they defend (here, the locked-down model of the iPhone and the iPad). The error of Stallman was purely strategic (or tactic). He didn't foresee that people wouldn't read what he wrote as he wrote it. He didn't foresee that they would quote him out of context. He didn't foresee the near-total lack of rationality of Apple fanboys. The problem is, I don't know how I could have avoided those mistakes if I were Stallman.

alecbenzer 15y ago

> Every soul in the western world old enough to talk knew about his death at most 30 hours after his last breath. So what? The same could be said about Muammar Gaddafi. > I know of another way of being a tactless jerk: criticizing a religion Criticizing a religion is innately tactless? There are certainly tactless ways of criticizing a religion that would make you out to be a jerk, but I'd think there are certainly ways of criticizing a religion without being a jerk. Steve Jobs was really in no way whatsoever an idol to me. He was a well-known public figure, which made his death news. If rms wrote an email to steve's wife about how her husband was a horrible person and that he was glad he was gone, that would be incredibly rude and tactless. Commenting on his blog about how a public figure's death affects him and his movement which he cares very deeply amount is, imo, not.

lotu 15y ago
>So what? The same could be said about Muammar Gaddafi. Hopefully, you can see how Muamar Gaddafi and Steve Jobs differ. Gaddafi's death was a relief, Jobs was a loss, that should have been implicit, in his argument.
- alecbenzer 15y ago
  He seemed to be implying that because his death was such big news he was someone to admire. I was making the point that how famous your death is has nothing to do with how good of a person you are. Though the point is moot, since it seems he was being sarcastic. > Jobs was a loss The whole point here is that to RMS it was not a loss at all -- it was a gain that a large entity that opposes his movement has now been hopefully (hopefully to rms) weakened. Of course the loss of human life is a loss and all that stuff, but this isn't about Steve Jobs the person, it's about the influence he had on the world.