5 ms·

> We can tolerate some flaws in people who are doing good work. Sometimes people's flaws prevent them and the people they work with from doing good work. A lo

> We can tolerate some flaws in people who are doing good work. Sometimes people's flaws prevent them and the people they work with from doing good work. A lot of people I'd describe as "principled" don't want to be anywhere near Stallman for various reasons, often related to their principles. Maybe he's just cleared his orbit of anyone else who actually fits your 4 criteria, so only appears to be unique. This seems like a rather common failure mode of personality cults, tbh.

MBCook 4y ago
I agree with tolerating “some flaws”. People can be eccentric. RMS’s behavior is way past “some flaws”. No company on earth would have let him stay this long.
- pishpash 4y ago
  As if companies are the source of truth on things?
  - Espressosaurus 4y ago
    Companies aren't the source of truth, but they do represent a floor of acceptable behavior for people working together in a group. Which is what matters for this discussion.
    - r3856283 4y ago
      > they do represent a floor of acceptable behavior for people working together in a group Huh? Working together in a group at a company does not imply any kind of standard for behavior, although companies pretend outwardly that there is some professional standard they abide by. The truth is that work places are filled with all kinds of horrible human behavior, always have and always will be. People work together in bands, on art projects, on house renovations, on family housework, on adventures, on radical political movements, and it is OK for them to have complicated human relationships while they do so and capitalist companies do not deserve to have a say.
      - Tostino 4y ago
        Not agreeing or disagreeing, however I believe their point is that companies care about profit over principles and as long as an employee Disable the produce or foster work that is used to produce profit, thats is really all that matters to them. There isn't really an ideological bent there that can throw a wrench in the works unless you are doing harm as a company.
        atoav 4y ago
        Companies keep who they perceive to bring profits. Sometimes this is actually what brings profits, sometimes it isn't. Why do you think companies tend to grow huge parasitic managment systems, as they grow bigger? Not because the judgment of a company is sacrosanct, but because a company is a system that breeds and favors a certain kind of individual if the company doesn't work against that tendency constantly.
      - Espressosaurus 4y ago
        Yes, all of that is true. It is also true that they have organizations can and will get rid of people that are too toxic to work there. Sometimes the system even works! I've known of several people who, despite being brilliant engineers, repeatedly said the kinds of things you just can't say in polite company and so were eventually let go. Yes, it took too long. The system (at two separate companies) eventually worked. That's not the only reason companies will get rid of people of course, because they are ultimately capital-dedicated authoritarian organizations. But it is a reason, which is my point. And across the industry there is something akin to a floor of acceptable behavior. I cannot go into the office nude. I'm generally not allowed to abuse the other employees (however the higher up you are/the more important you are, the harder it gets to remove you, and it always relies on reporting). There is a floor, and it's in practice lower than I'd like, but it exists.
        peoplefromibiza 4y ago
        > is also true that they have organizations can and will get rid of people that are too toxic to work there define toxic. Companies often promote people that would be immediately kicked out from any other of those examples. Nobody would start a band with Elon Musk.
    - pishpash 4y ago
      Yes, the behavior of people working under a rigidly hierarchical, authoritarian structure in which they sign over all their ideas and work and have no control over them. The complete opposite of what Stallman advocates. You don't find any irony in suggesting to regulate Stallman by this norm?
      - buildartefact 4y ago
        > Emacs is not an independent project, and it isn't governed by its contributors. I'm the head of the GNU Project, and that includes Emacs. I think it might be you that’s missing the irony.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        pishpash 4y ago
        No. The confusion on your part is you think Stallman acting like this makes him part of some authoritarian structure, but it does not. He is not telling anybody how to do their work, because they can just fork his code. He is simply ignoring what they want for his project because they are not his manager or PM. Under these circumstances, what obligation has he to make nice with what some consider "acceptable behavior" for a company man?
        asdgadsgdga 4y ago
        Then why is the workpace any different? Nobody is telling you what to do, you can just get another job.
        smaudet 4y ago
        False equivalency - I agree Stallman might have had some outdated visions for his projects (word processing? Realy? Nobody cares about that anymore). I also accept the FSF/GNU don't operate like a typical authoritarian company - although I do think there are probably more similarities due to the fact power structures and human psychology dictate certain behaviors than FSF or Stalmman care to admit. But we absolutely shouldn't expect him or the FSF to operate in a similar manner, corps are what produce the toxic behaviors in the first place (not human toxic, toxic to society). Being nice and polite, and being forced to murder kids and pillage third world countries, that has always had the smack of pure evil to it to me. Maybe being polite is overrated after all. Fuck off, hitler (or whomever the evil dictator is).
    - falcolas 4y ago
      I mean, I’d much rather work professionally with RMS than a boss who farts in my face or rapes my coworkers in the Cosby room. Just saying…
      - throwaway27727 4y ago
        That is quite the false dichotomy (trichotomy?)
        falcolas 4y ago
        When the parent is attempting to say that for-profit corporations provide a "floor" of acceptable behavior, and by implication that RMS wouldn't meet this floor, I believe it's a perfectly valid comparison.
    - q-big 4y ago
      > Companies aren't the source of truth, but they do represent a floor of acceptable behavior for people working together in a group. To give a counter-example: in my observation, in academia (in particular math and physics departments), there is a lot more tolerance towards excentric traits than in companies - and collaborating in a group nevertheless works. Thus, companies are an insanely bad example to define a reasonable floor. Rather, the traits that are considered acceptable in companies are whether they are useful for making the company money. For example dark triad traits can be useful for that, so such traits are somewhat accepted in companies.
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > they do represent a floor of acceptable behavior for people working together in a group Companies represent a floor of acceptable behavior for people working together in a group in a company (and that's not even true between different companies). There are an infinite number of people working together in a group that do behave acceptably but not in the same way a company would. for example: politics, unions, military, volunteers, churches, research etc
  - supernovae 4y ago
    - pvaldes 4y ago
      Just another big claiming without any proof
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > No company on earth would have let him stay this long. Because no company on earth wanted what he wanted. If he had different flaws, ones which companies found acceptable, it is doubtful that the state of technology we enjoy today[1] would exist. [1] Almost all of which was built on free software foundations.
  - MBCook 4y ago
    I was referring solely to HR issues.
    - pishpash 4y ago
      HR issues are the subset of people issues that affect the functioning of a company. If there's no company there are no "HR issues", only personal legal issues. Has Stallman broken any laws?
      - Suzuran 4y ago
        If the sole justification for your position is "It's not illegal", that's not a good look.
        pishpash 4y ago
        Ok, let's make it, has he infringed upon the rights of others or caused them material harm, both of which have copious amounts of laws against them? Otherwise it's nothing more than you disagree with him or don't like him for whatever reason.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
roenxi 4y ago
> Maybe he's just cleared his orbit of anyone else who actually fits your 4 criteria, so only appears to be unique. They can go start their own Foundation (and those sort of people probably will do exactly that). GNU sounds silly anyway, and all the licenses are FOSS compatible. We've seen schisms already, that generally end well. The Open Source people already did that at a grand scale, it was a massive success. Stallman's entire ideology is perfectly compatible with people doing a great job out-competing him at his own game. We would be lucky to have multiple organisations working to promote freedom in the software world, in multiple different ways.

MBCook 4y ago

I agree with tolerating “some flaws”. People can be eccentric. RMS’s behavior is way past “some flaws”. No company on earth would have let him stay this long.

pishpash 4y ago
As if companies are the source of truth on things?
- Espressosaurus 4y ago
  Companies aren't the source of truth, but they do represent a floor of acceptable behavior for people working together in a group. Which is what matters for this discussion.
  - r3856283 4y ago
    > they do represent a floor of acceptable behavior for people working together in a group Huh? Working together in a group at a company does not imply any kind of standard for behavior, although companies pretend outwardly that there is some professional standard they abide by. The truth is that work places are filled with all kinds of horrible human behavior, always have and always will be. People work together in bands, on art projects, on house renovations, on family housework, on adventures, on radical political movements, and it is OK for them to have complicated human relationships while they do so and capitalist companies do not deserve to have a say.
    - Tostino 4y ago
      Not agreeing or disagreeing, however I believe their point is that companies care about profit over principles and as long as an employee Disable the produce or foster work that is used to produce profit, thats is really all that matters to them. There isn't really an ideological bent there that can throw a wrench in the works unless you are doing harm as a company.
      - atoav 4y ago
        Companies keep who they perceive to bring profits. Sometimes this is actually what brings profits, sometimes it isn't. Why do you think companies tend to grow huge parasitic managment systems, as they grow bigger? Not because the judgment of a company is sacrosanct, but because a company is a system that breeds and favors a certain kind of individual if the company doesn't work against that tendency constantly.
    - Espressosaurus 4y ago
      Yes, all of that is true. It is also true that they have organizations can and will get rid of people that are too toxic to work there. Sometimes the system even works! I've known of several people who, despite being brilliant engineers, repeatedly said the kinds of things you just can't say in polite company and so were eventually let go. Yes, it took too long. The system (at two separate companies) eventually worked. That's not the only reason companies will get rid of people of course, because they are ultimately capital-dedicated authoritarian organizations. But it is a reason, which is my point. And across the industry there is something akin to a floor of acceptable behavior. I cannot go into the office nude. I'm generally not allowed to abuse the other employees (however the higher up you are/the more important you are, the harder it gets to remove you, and it always relies on reporting). There is a floor, and it's in practice lower than I'd like, but it exists.
      - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
        > is also true that they have organizations can and will get rid of people that are too toxic to work there define toxic. Companies often promote people that would be immediately kicked out from any other of those examples. Nobody would start a band with Elon Musk.
  - pishpash 4y ago
    Yes, the behavior of people working under a rigidly hierarchical, authoritarian structure in which they sign over all their ideas and work and have no control over them. The complete opposite of what Stallman advocates. You don't find any irony in suggesting to regulate Stallman by this norm?
    - buildartefact 4y ago
      > Emacs is not an independent project, and it isn't governed by its contributors. I'm the head of the GNU Project, and that includes Emacs. I think it might be you that’s missing the irony.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - pishpash 4y ago
        No. The confusion on your part is you think Stallman acting like this makes him part of some authoritarian structure, but it does not. He is not telling anybody how to do their work, because they can just fork his code. He is simply ignoring what they want for his project because they are not his manager or PM. Under these circumstances, what obligation has he to make nice with what some consider "acceptable behavior" for a company man?
        asdgadsgdga 4y ago
        Then why is the workpace any different? Nobody is telling you what to do, you can just get another job.
        smaudet 4y ago
        False equivalency - I agree Stallman might have had some outdated visions for his projects (word processing? Realy? Nobody cares about that anymore). I also accept the FSF/GNU don't operate like a typical authoritarian company - although I do think there are probably more similarities due to the fact power structures and human psychology dictate certain behaviors than FSF or Stalmman care to admit. But we absolutely shouldn't expect him or the FSF to operate in a similar manner, corps are what produce the toxic behaviors in the first place (not human toxic, toxic to society). Being nice and polite, and being forced to murder kids and pillage third world countries, that has always had the smack of pure evil to it to me. Maybe being polite is overrated after all. Fuck off, hitler (or whomever the evil dictator is).
  - falcolas 4y ago
    I mean, I’d much rather work professionally with RMS than a boss who farts in my face or rapes my coworkers in the Cosby room. Just saying…
    - throwaway27727 4y ago
      That is quite the false dichotomy (trichotomy?)
      - falcolas 4y ago
        When the parent is attempting to say that for-profit corporations provide a "floor" of acceptable behavior, and by implication that RMS wouldn't meet this floor, I believe it's a perfectly valid comparison.
  - q-big 4y ago
    > Companies aren't the source of truth, but they do represent a floor of acceptable behavior for people working together in a group. To give a counter-example: in my observation, in academia (in particular math and physics departments), there is a lot more tolerance towards excentric traits than in companies - and collaborating in a group nevertheless works. Thus, companies are an insanely bad example to define a reasonable floor. Rather, the traits that are considered acceptable in companies are whether they are useful for making the company money. For example dark triad traits can be useful for that, so such traits are somewhat accepted in companies.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > they do represent a floor of acceptable behavior for people working together in a group Companies represent a floor of acceptable behavior for people working together in a group in a company (and that's not even true between different companies). There are an infinite number of people working together in a group that do behave acceptably but not in the same way a company would. for example: politics, unions, military, volunteers, churches, research etc
- supernovae 4y ago
  - pvaldes 4y ago
    Just another big claiming without any proof
lelanthran 4y ago
> No company on earth would have let him stay this long. Because no company on earth wanted what he wanted. If he had different flaws, ones which companies found acceptable, it is doubtful that the state of technology we enjoy today[1] would exist. [1] Almost all of which was built on free software foundations.
- MBCook 4y ago
  I was referring solely to HR issues.
  - pishpash 4y ago
    HR issues are the subset of people issues that affect the functioning of a company. If there's no company there are no "HR issues", only personal legal issues. Has Stallman broken any laws?
    - Suzuran 4y ago
      If the sole justification for your position is "It's not illegal", that's not a good look.
      - pishpash 4y ago
        Ok, let's make it, has he infringed upon the rights of others or caused them material harm, both of which have copious amounts of laws against them? Otherwise it's nothing more than you disagree with him or don't like him for whatever reason.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

roenxi 4y ago

> Maybe he's just cleared his orbit of anyone else who actually fits your 4 criteria, so only appears to be unique. They can go start their own Foundation (and those sort of people probably will do exactly that). GNU sounds silly anyway, and all the licenses are FOSS compatible. We've seen schisms already, that generally end well. The Open Source people already did that at a grand scale, it was a massive success. Stallman's entire ideology is perfectly compatible with people doing a great job out-competing him at his own game. We would be lucky to have multiple organisations working to promote freedom in the software world, in multiple different ways.