15 ms·

Richard Stallman: How I do my Computing

205 points by Ideka 15y ago

ktizo 15y ago
I view Richard Stallman's attitude to this as though he has set himself up as some kind of social/technological guinea-pig for the general public good. Yes, he is fanatical in several senses, especially nasal and botanical, by all accounts ( read Stallman does Dallas: http://stallman.org/articles/texas.html http://stallman.org/articles/texas.html ). But the day that Stallman cannot get on the internet, without compromising his own set of restrictions, is the day when it is literally impossible to have dominion over any computational objects that you think you own. [edit] for clarity, I thought about this, added the qualifier computational, and am not including abacuses ;)
- fleitz 15y ago
  Last time I checked iOS (the router OS) is not free, he probably does violate his own principles connecting to the Internet. Rms is like a vegan always preaching some moral high ground and always violating it whenever it becomes inconvenient.
  - ktizo 15y ago
    oh noes! we are doomed! Run for the hills, we might get a better view. (yes, you are no doubt correct. I do still view him as an unusual type of rare bearded canary that has decided to take up residence in the coal mine through some form of altruistic bloody-mindedness) [edit] Plus, whatever you may think of him, he is bloody smart.
    - fleitz 15y ago
      He may have a high IQ but I wouldn't call him smart. If he was that smart people would be using his system instead of Gates and Jobs system. Gates and Jobs are smart, he's a loud mouth with a PhD. Listening to RMS talk about Windows and iOS is like listening to Tenenbaum lecture Torvalds on how monolithic kernels are a thing of the past. His system fails to fundamentally solve problems people actually have. I'm sure RMS's systems perfectly solve RMSs problems, and that's great if you're a self-centered pretentious asshole focused solely on your own needs. Unfortunately, if you're a regular joe with average needs his system doesn't solve very many of your problems. Gates and Jobs wisely recognized that catering to the needs of others is actually better for society than focusing solely on one's own needs. Software freedom for the vast majority of people is having their spreadsheet save them hours of manual calculations so they can catch their kids ballet recital. Freedom is a tradeoff, that's why we don't live in a society ruled by natural law.
      - antihero 15y ago
        I don't know, GNU is fantastic, and one of my main issues with Linux is that it has so many binary blobs and non-free software that are required for it to run on most machines. And as far as what "most people need", "most people" would do fine with a copy of LibreOffice and Firefox running on Ubuntu or whatnot.
        fleitz 15y ago
        Yeah thats most of my issues with Linux mostly binary blobs and not the fact that my laptop won't wake up from sleep, I have to screw around everytime I plug in a projector. LibreOffice works great as long as I don't have to open any Word docs that use change tracking, or spreadsheets that involve calculations, or god forbid a powerpoint with anything but rudimentary graphics. It's a panacea I don't know why anyone would waste 2 billable hours on paying money to avoid the embarrassment of having to fuck around with your operating system for 15 minutes while you attempt to make a presentation. It's not 1994 anymore, people expect computers to work and it reflects poorly when they don't. And what am I saving this $300 for? For the privilege of being able add the code that should have been there in the first place.
        eliasmacpherson 15y ago
        Stallman's GNU quest began in response to a binary blob printer driver that he had no option but to suffer under, because it was closed source. The issues you describe are attributable to what's between the keyboard and the chair. Try getting a standard mac to work with the majority of projectors, without any adapters. The LibreOffice issues you are having are due to an arms race where Microsoft break compatibility with their previous formats each release. You have to learn to use the computer you have properly or you will embarrass yourself with it. This is true for all operating systems. Not everything is going to work exactly as you suspect, at least you're in a position to do something about it on your own linux machine. That's never going to be the case with the competition. Give it another 100 years, whose software is still going to be around, Stallman's, Jobs' or Gates'? It's not as feature complete, but it has greater longevity.
        15y ago
  - jholman 15y ago
    As michael_michael and I replied to your other comment, you have obviously failed to actually read the article in question, and are drawing conclusions without basis, when you claim that using internet routers violates his own stated principles. RMS is precisely NOT like that type of vegan (not that I think that this is at all typical of vegans, either). If indeed you think that kind of consistency is the highest good, you should hold RMS in very high regard indeed.
  - jmillikin 15y ago
    "I don't need to worry about what software is in a kiosk, pay phone, or ATM that I am using. I hope their owners migrate them to free software, for their sake, but there's no need for me to refuse to touch them until then."
  - justauser 15y ago
    If you're referring to Cisco, it's IOS. You're right though that the odds of him not touching something like IOS or JUNOS or IronWare border on close to impossible.
    - wtn 15y ago
      He meant to say "IOS", it's just that iOS autocorrects those characters.
      - whatusername 15y ago
        The joys of Original Operating System Names. Cisco IOS, IBM i, Apple iOS. Not to mention: iRMX, IRIX, IOS-XR.
  - downx3 15y ago
    How rude. Sometimes idealism isn't practical. Idealism is a goal, not an absolute.
  - batista 15y ago
    As this guy, Momus, wrote: Perhaps the problem is actually with the idea of hypocrisy itself -- the idea that consistency is a greater virtue than whatever virtue an inconsistent man might be talking about, and that personal life and public policy must always be girded up and gridded up to resemble each other. Let me put an alternative point of view. Someone living in a castle, and owning a castle, could very usefully speak about post-materialism. Someone paying five figure utility bills would be in a very good position to talk about -- and act on -- the theme of energy wastage; they would be an expert on it, and have a vested interest in change, and actually have the possibility to make changes on a scale a pauper huddled over a candle could only dream of. Ad hominem: There are many reasons a charge of hypocrisy might be reactionary and counter-productive. First of all, the hypocrisy mindset pays too much attention to people's personal lives and too little to their programmatic or ideological outlook. If someone is a visionary, or is trying to solve a widespread problem, it's likely that his personal life will reflect the problem whereas his policies will reflect the solution. It would then be pretty stupid to accuse him of saying one thing and doing another -- especially if everyone were pretty much in the same boat, at least until an alternative infrastructure is set up. A charge of hypocrisy might well be a pre-emptive strike designed to stymie future solutions to universal problems. Consistency above correctness: Consistency is the hobgoblin of petty minds. Wanting things to be less complex, and wanting people and societies to be without internal contradictions is understandable, but small-minded. It ignores the fact that it is often only by sinning ourselves that we can learn exactly why sinning is bad. At a certain point we are all saying one thing and doing another. This is, apart from anything else, a sure sign of our complexity, and of our capacity to rise above our current way of living and search for alternatives, no matter how deeply we're mired. Allow it, brothers! Give me moral perfection or give me corruption: We often strike down people with a spotted reputation only to replace them with people who are unapologetically evil. We hate to be preached at so much that we ignore the sermons we need to hear and prefer unalloyed corruption. At least it's consistent, right? At least there's no hypocrisy there! At least change is taken off the agenda! Thank Christ "hypocrisy" has absolved us of the need to feel wrong, and to make a painful change! 100 people in a room: There are 100 people in a room, all doing A Bad Thing. They know it's a bad thing, a thing that will damage the room and everyone in it, but they can't stop. Suddenly a Visionary makes a powerful and moving speech. "We must stop doing The Bad Thing!" he says. His speech is effective: everyone stops. Except the Visionary himself, who keeps doing it. This, however, is a minor detail: the room is a better, safer place. Instead of 100 people doing The Bad Thing, only one is doing it. Suddenly a Commentator gets up. "Suckers!" he shouts. "You've stopped doing The Bad Thing, but the man who made you stop still does it! You've been had... by a hypocrite!" Soon everyone in the room is doing The Bad Thing again. But tell me, please, who has damaged the room more, the Visionary or the Commentator? Who has the best chance of helping the room?
- b1daly 15y ago
  But this idea of having dominion over any computational object (or really any object) is a fantasy. Are you going generate your own electricity riding your generator bike (powered by veggies from your garden) as you code? That's where I think his ideals go off the rails, their totality beyond common sense. FOSS of various flavors is cool. Of course it's not really free though. It's created by people in the context of an advanced technological society which has numerous components, many necessary, for it's existence.
  - knewter 15y ago
    You could...use solar power. Your idea of 'beyond common sense' seems pretty limited in scope. And the F in FOSS isn't about price, it's about liberty. This is the very first thing anyone involving themselves in a discussion on FOSS should be aware of, and I feel sure that you knew that. What was the point of this comment?
    - b1daly 15y ago
      I was refering to the concept of "total dominion" over our computing devices, and trying to illustrate that this a hopeless goal. Yes, you could generate your own power, live in total isolation off the grid, attempt to make everything in your life yourself. You would fail, but you could try. But even in this, you are not free from being subject to the laws that govern where you live. This is an old debate: where should peoples freedom of behavior be controlled to the extent that it impinges on others' "freedom." This is where RMS loses me. His concept of freedom does not seem to include the concept that people should be free to conduct business in accordance with the laws of the land. In the US we are currently free to create and distribute FOSS if we want. Isn't that enough freedom? It's not totally free (in the liberty sense) but there is still a lot of freedom to do as one please with anything that you create (if its "original"). I happen to think that there are real problems with copyright now. The concepts behind the laws were derived before digital technology, and were always intended to address the commercial exploitation of original works. Not what individuals did. We have a situation now where the copyright laws are being enforced against individuals making copies of works for personal, non-commercial reasons, which feels unjust to me. I think part of the intensity behind the MPAA's legal attacks is the perception that if they give an inch, people will take a mile. And the legal foundation of copyright would be undermined by "facts on the ground." Changing the copyright laws to reflect current technology seems like a good idea.
fleitz 15y ago
If you're reading hacker news it probably means you don't share the same rigid commitment to free software as rms and thus his recommendations are virtually useless. I wonder where rms stands on airtravel or using a crosswalk given the non-free software that operates these devices.
- michael_michael 15y ago
  From further down the page: "I don't need to worry about what software is in a kiosk, pay phone, or ATM that I am using. I hope their owners migrate them to free software, for their sake, but there's no need for me to refuse to touch them until then. (I do consider what those machines and their owners might do with my personal data, but that's a different issue. My response to that issue is to minimize those activities which give them any data about me."
- jholman 15y ago
  Regarding the rigid commitments, I don't agree that reading HN means that (although of course I doubt that _anyone_ shares rms's full rigid commitment). Regarding your wondering about air travel and crosswalks, I would say that RMS addresses this concern relatively directly in the featured article. "Likewise, I don't need to worry about what software is in a kiosk, pay phone, or ATM that I am using. .... That reasoning is based on the fact that I was not responsible for setting up those machines, or for how that was done." It seems to me that it is generally only fully appropriate to post a top-level comment in the thread of an article if you have read that article.
- joshAg 15y ago
  "I firmly refuse to install non-free software or tolerate its installed presence on my computer or on computers set up for me. "However, if I am visiting somewhere and the machines available nearby happen to contain non-free software, through no doing of mine, I don't refuse to touch them. I will use them briefly for tasks such as browsing. This limited usage doesn't give my assent to the software's license, or make me responsible its being present in the computer, or make me the possessor of a copy of it, so I don't see an ethical obligation to refrain from this. Of course, I explain why they should migrate the machines to free software, but I don't push them hard, because that would be counterproductive. "Likewise, I don't need to worry about what software is in a kiosk, pay phone, or ATM that I am using. I hope their owners migrate them to free software, for their sake, but there's no need for me to refuse to touch them until then. (I do consider what those machines and their owners might do with my personal data, but that's a different issue. My response to that issue is to minimize those activities which give them any data about me.) "That reasoning is based on the fact that I was not responsible for setting up those machines, or for how that was done. By contrast, if I were to ask or lead someone to set up a computer for me to use, that would make me ethically responsible for its software load. In such a case I insist on free software, just as if the machine were mine. "Skype is another kind of exception. Using Skype to talk with someone else who is using Skype is encouraging the other to use nonfree software. So I won't use it under any circumstances." source: http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html
billpatrianakos 15y ago
Oh boy. RMS wrote yet another opinion that we just have to read. I'll be hated for this but I must state the obvious. This is a list of really boring opinions. Interesting for rms fanatics but many are barely explained and most aren't realistic to actually try out unless you want to be a software philosopher for a living. Did people just see Stallman in the title and up vote? Come on.
- flomo 15y ago
  Ditto. Stallman is an enormously interesting figure in the history of software development. But who really cares how he reads his email or books his speaking engagements? (And the less one knows about his personal life is probably for the better.)
  - billpatrianakos 15y ago
    Well that was my initial thought but to be fair those things certainly can be interesting if you're a fan of his. That said, this is really nothing new. I've read this same list many times and it's actually been linked here several times. The difference is just that in its other incarnations it was in plain text form or some other variation of the same HTML list. Then there's the fact that it really is just a self-righteous sounding list. Like if I said "I'm browsing HN on my iPad because I find it convenient for reading and I can smoke cigarettes in my garage while I carry it around". Those ridiculous details are the kind of thing you find in his lists. And of course no one is going to go all plain-text when using a computer but the way Stallman makes it sound seems like he's saying he's superior to us because he's cool enough to not need all those fancy GUI dealies. So what?
    - kunj2aan 15y ago
      >Stallman makes it sound seems like he's saying he's superior to us because he's cool enough to not need all those fancy GUI dealies I think you are completely missing his point. He is not claiming to be superior because he uses those tools, he thinks his freedoms are not restricted by them.
  - 15y ago
dill_day 15y ago
I skimmed documentation of Python after people told me it was fundametally similar to Lisp. My conclusion is that that is not so. When you start Lisp, it does `read', `eval', and `print', all of which are missing in Python. Could someone explain what he means? (Did Python not have a repl when he wrote that?)
- ajross 15y ago
  Python's read doesn't return a s-expression, nor does its print take one; they just use strings. It's eval likewise takes a string. The part missing that lisp has is the inspectable data structure containing an arbitrary parse tree and function result.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - why-el 15y ago
    I am curious, would Ruby be a good fit in this case? With its irb and all.
    - oconnor0 15y ago
      No, Ruby's implementation of it's interactive mode is similar to Python's - not via data structures, but via strings.
sgt 15y ago
I did however find this comment quite interesting. He recommends Lisp to beginner programmers. Honestly this makes me want to play with Lisp (I do just about every other popular language but I've never done Lisp): "The most powerful programming language is Lisp. If you don't know Lisp (or its variant, Scheme), you don't appreciate what a powerful language is. Once you learn Lisp you will see what is missing in most other languages. When you start a Lisp system, it enters a read-eval-print loop. Most other languages have nothing comparable to read, nothing comparable to eval, and nothing comparable to print. What gaping deficiencies! Lisp is no harder to understand than other languages. So if you have never learned to program, and you want to start, start with Lisp. If you learn to edit with Emacs, you can learn Lisp by writing editing commands for Emacs. You can use the Introduction to Programming in Emacs Lisp to learn with: it is free as in freedom, and you can order printed copies from the FSF."
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- homosaur 15y ago
  Several Lisp dialects like Scheme and Clojure are still going strong. It's a very useful language to learn even in 2012.
  - mahmud 15y ago
    specially in 2012.
- joshAg 15y ago
  Since you know how to program, I'd recommend picking up Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programming (aka SICP aka the wizard book), and reading/working through that. It does a great job of showing why lisp is awesome. Paul Graham wrote another awesome lisp book called 'on lisp', but i'd recommend SICP as a first read.
- X-Istence 15y ago
  I've learned Scheme, I've used Scheme for projects, but I don't think I would praise it like it is the one single language like he is doing.
leeoniya 15y ago
"...I fetch web pages from other sites by sending mail to a program that fetches them, much like wget, and then mails them back to me." that's one tough pill to swallow, sir.
- salgernon 15y ago
  I thought that at first too, but then I started reading blogs that were scraped and fed to my kindle. Now I find that it is much easier to read and take the time to comprehend content when the cost of following links (through the kindles ersatz browser)is so high. Since most of what I'm interested in reading centers on computers or general science, plain text formatting and lack of images isn't a problem.
- jff 15y ago
  Well, as another poster pointed out, he also has a variety of web browsers installed that he uses when he really wants to.
mrtron 15y ago
I think it is really tough for younger people to realize that technology can be seen as a highly dangerous in different forms. Instead of trashing his principles, perhaps try to see the motivation behind them. I respect anyone who establishes their own code and adheres firmly to it. RMS meets this criteria. He is also very open and honest about his views which I find refreshing. I also think that this type of boycotting/selectively using technology will become far more common with physical hardware as it rapidly develops. Robots will not smoothly integrate with everyone's tastes. Consider a highly sophisticated sex robot not noticeably different from a normal human. I can imagine there will be a strong division of people for and against this type of human intimacy replacement.
- ktizo 15y ago
  I just started idly wondering from your comment what sort of restrictions Stallman would place on a sex robot. Please don't inspire me to think of such things again.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  That's the thing. You said it. Not many will see his motivations unless he spells it out and the man is an awful communicator in that he can't go two words without putting someone off. Unfortunately he's a bit of an extremist. At least that's how he presents himself. So I doubt younger folks will get where he's coming from. I'm 25 and I've read about Stallmam for only the past five years and I can tell you that what he stands for sounds great in theory but unfortunately he's not too good at showing us how to reconcile that theory with reality. I don't think kids younger than me will ever get Stallmam. As far as I see he becomes more irrelevant in the eyes of each passing generation. Not that he's irrelevant, just that he's seen that way as you go younger. And I'd totally be willing to try out the first sex robot.
  - bobsil1 15y ago
    He sounds like a religious fundamentalist, or an Amish farmer. What a limiting worldview.
jakeonthemove 15y ago
Stallman is a smart man, a genius - that's exactly why his way of computing will never be used by most other people. I do my computing in a terribly inefficient way - Windows and GUI as much as possible to avoid text/code and throw as many apps and resources at a task as possible to make it easier/faster - I've managed to outgrow a T9600 Core 2 Duo in daily use (it's 100% loaded all the time), and now I'm on the way to doing so with a Core 2 Quad. If RMS saw me, he'd probably shoot me on the spot :-D, but still, things get done....
- kasbah 15y ago
  >If RMS saw me, he'd probably shoot me on the spot You must be thinking of ESR: http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/ http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/
  - jakeonthemove 15y ago
    Even Stallman would find the time to get a gun, for the sake of effectiveness, cleanliness and productivity on computers :D...
  - konstruktor 15y ago
    That is very distasteful. Just because someone is advocating firearms rights doesn't mean he will shoot you if you don't share his opinions.
    - jakeonthemove 15y ago
      Am I missing something? I don't even know who the guy is, and I was joking in my comment above. I am a gun nut myself, member of IPSC...
      - kasbah 15y ago
        http://www.catb.org/~esr/software.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/software.html
    - kasbah 15y ago
bfrs 15y ago
Can someone help me understand what the purpose of this is: I have several free web browsers on my laptop, but I generally do not look at web sites from my own machine, aside from a few sites operated for or by the GNU Project, FSF or me. I fetch web pages from other sites by sending mail to a program that fetches them, much like wget, and then mails them back to me.
- ramses 15y ago
  He does not want to be tracked.
  - tedunangst 15y ago
    Browsing the web using a one of a kind user agent is not a good way to avoid tracking.
  - bfrs 15y ago
    A more convenient approach might be to remote desktop at random to a pool of machines that aren't his and that other people also use, the way he uses Google search. By the way, isn't this what TOR is for?
- kamaal 15y ago
  I think its because he always has higher priorities than browsing the net. Or may be he needs some information to take a decision or for something he needs to do later. So he just puts it on a email queue. Later he can access that information from his mail box and take a look at that information. Most important people, have better things to do than browsing site all day. Infact some people even ask me to mail them some stuff I tell them is interesting and then they go back to that at their convenience.
  - bfrs 15y ago
    I guess it has more to it than time management. For time management, I think its way easier to use emacs org-mode to make a queue of websites to browse and get to them later.
- 15y ago
bfrs 15y ago
I skimmed documentation of Python after people told me it was fundametally similar to Lisp. My conclusion is that that is not so. When you start Lisp, it does `read', `eval', and `print', all of which are missing in Python. Lisp experts, what does this mean? As far as I can tell, Python has pretty good REPL facilities.
- tedunangst 15y ago
  http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3810009 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3810009
  - bfrs 15y ago
    I guess understanding the full implications of this is what Lisp Enlightenment is. http://xkcd.com/224/ http://xkcd.com/224/
- praptak 15y ago
  Python has a good REPL and it even has 'eval' and 'print', so RMS is wrong stating that all of them are missing in Python. But in principle he is right - Python does not have separate 'read' and 'eval' which is a manifestation of deeper differences.
  - turkeysandwich 15y ago
    The type of REPL he's referring to has very specific features. Read returns a parsed structure, eval evaluates a parsed structure and print writes a parsed structure. Python's REPL just deals with strings, I believe.
    - praptak 15y ago
      Yes, this is the case - Python's REPL (and eval) deals with strings and does not go through an explicit representation of the parsed code, mainly because there is no such representation in Python. There is an ast module that parses Python code but it is an add-on, not at the core of the implementation. That is what I meant by manifestation of deeper differences between Python and Lisp.
benihana 15y ago
His tone is so arrogant and condescending. >I recommend all the ethical distros — namely, those that are 100% free software. i.e.: Any distro that uses anything that I don't like, namely 100% free software, is unethical. >If you don't know Lisp (or its variant, Scheme), you don't appreciate what a powerful language is. If some random person on hacker news came out and said this, we'd call them a buffoon and say they need to get out more. When Richard Stallman says it, we lap up his words and marvel at his terse wit.
- UK-AL 15y ago
  He has a point though, lisp is unique thus you need to try it to understand it.
  - drostie 15y ago
    True. Lisps are much like snowflakes. Their uniqueness and pervasive symmetry are so important that surely, you cannot Truly Appreciate the snow if you do not examine each flake as if under a microscope to directly apprehend its beautiful symmetry. Skiers and snowboarders are largely a plague of unappreciative newbies who Don't Understand. They say that you can have "fun" in the snow without this higher-level appreciation. What children they must be.
- stiff 15y ago
  Honestly, what the hell are you talking about? He spend his life explaining why non-free software is unethical and providing free software, what this has to do with liking or not liking and what is arrogant about that? There are objective criteria by which non-free software is unethical and he certainly has the right to state his opinions on this.
  - tedunangst 15y ago
    He crossed the line when he decided OpenBSD is nonfree because the ports tree contains URLs he doesn't like. I take being called unethical as an insult.
  - 15y ago
homosaur 15y ago
The one thing I get kind of annoyed with Stallman at is that he keeps mentioning this Leemote machine he has, which runs free software even in the BIOS. He might as well say that he runs Linux on a magical unicorn. I have tried and never been able to get my hands on one of these things. I'd really like to see Stallman jump off his insistence on free for one second and maybe suggest something realistic for users who care about free software but aren't willing to work on an obscure, unavailable 7" netbook.
- m0nastic 15y ago
  Freedom Included is a company that got set up in Cambridge specifically to sell the Lemote. They ship internationally apparently through a partner (can't vouch for it). The folks who run the site seemed like decent enough people, so I think it's on the up-and-up. (I haven't bought one though) If you actually want one of these things, it looks like about $450: http://freedomincluded.com/ http://freedomincluded.com/
  - weiran 15y ago
    Ironically you have to buy it through Amazon which Stallman detests: http://stallman.org/amazon.html http://stallman.org/amazon.html.
  - datadon 15y ago
    Ironic that this ships via Amazon!
  - jussij 15y ago
    > If you actually want one of these things, it looks like about $450: Why can't I get it for free?
  - homosaur 15y ago
    Oh, it's a 10.1 inch, that actually makes it quite a bit more usable. Thanks for the link.
- X-Istence 15y ago
  I've wanted to purchase a Leemote laptop/computer for a while now, and each time I go searching for them I come back empty handed. That being said, a quick Google search did return valid results this time around, particularly that it is for sale on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Screen-Lemote-Yeeloong-8101_B-Netbook/dp/B005XH10NQ http://www.amazon.com/Screen-Lemote-Yeeloong-8101_B-Netbook/... It is a $499 dollar 10.1" netbook that runs at 1 Ghz with 1 GB of ram and a 160 GB hard disk. With a display at 1024 x 600, which is slightly smaller than an iPad 1/2 screen. If you are into freedom it might be worth it, but i'd have a hard time getting development work done on a screen that small, let alone on something running at 1 Ghz with a single core.
krollew 15y ago
I don't understand his point. I'd be very sad if set myself so strict rules. Terminal is powerful, but this doesn't mean not to user X11. I like *nix and open source, but why souldn't I use Windows (which i find very nice system since Windows 7). He says Lisp is powerful, I agree. I prefer Scheme, but it's the same strengh. However it doesn't mean I use only C and scheme. I rather use a rule - match programming language to task you do. Somethimes it's C, sometimes scheme, sometimes perl, sometimes even C#. And so on...
- ricardobeat 15y ago
  > but why souldn't I use Windows And I thought you were going to say something that made sense...
  - krollew 15y ago
    There is no way Windows could be useful? Oh c'mon, don't be fanboy. xD
shreeshga 15y ago
rms is way ahead of the times. somewhere in the future,the bearded dude will point at us and go 'hah! told you so!'
unabridged 15y ago
He seemed to cover everything but what phone he uses. Is the closed hardware of android acceptable? Or does he just stick with nonsmart phones?
- jp_sc 15y ago
  He doesn't own a cell phone at all. "Stanlin's dream" he calls them. http://www.geekosystem.com/richard-stallman-cell-phones-stalins-dream/ http://www.geekosystem.com/richard-stallman-cell-phones-stal...
  - rimantas 15y ago
    He just borrows one when needed. How convenient.
    - incosta 15y ago
      Does he use his own toilet paper, or also borrows one for the occasion?
      - reinhardt 15y ago
        Why, toilet paper must be Free too.
    - jff 15y ago
      Like my friend who lives in Europe--he comes to the US all the time but doesn't have a driver's license, so he just bums rides from all of us all the time and acts superior for doing so.
  - heidar 15y ago
    I listened to a talk he gave a few years ago and he started by going "Please turn off your global tracking devices." or something of that sort. People laughed but come to think of it, I don't think he was only joking.
    - 15y ago
rjim86 15y ago
great..
msg 15y ago
Stallman's critique of software, hardware, and services as tools of social control has only become more relevant over the years. Can you imagine his search records being rifled through by a government investigator? Or his Facebook profile being examined by an employer? No, because they don't exist. Nor can you imagine his computer being locked by a bootloader that only allows "Genuine Windows". He's not concerned about looking weird. For certain audiences this is a disadvantage. But he is concerned about tying his computing down to his core philosophy. He did it so well that you can almost hear him when he's not in the room. We should all be such effective weirdos. At some level we have to trust a substrate of computing to get anything done. Stallman's work to make that substrate as trustworthy as possible was very farsighted.
- ameen 15y ago
  While I certainly agree with RMS's reasons for being so committed to his philosophy, I just don't know if it would still be possible to practice in today's world. Almost every system out there, free software or otherwise is monetized one way or another, either you pay for the software, or you are the product being sold.
  - jiggy2011 15y ago
    Not necessarily true. While plenty of free software is funded (I don't think Stallman has particular issue with that). I'm not sure how me using the Linux Kernel, GNU System, Gnome , GIMP , Emacs or any of the other free software tools I use makes me somehow a "product".
  - sbinetd 15y ago
    I'm not quite sure about that. I suppose I'm being used a testing data for RHEL by using Fedora. But on the other hand, I'm not submitting bug reports or any other form of data to Red Hat. I understand your point, and can think of some examples - but I'm struggling to apply it to the software I use.
  - paulhauggis 15y ago
    This is one of the the consequences of the "free software movement". Nobody wants to pay for software anymore and hosting and development aren't free.
mahmud 15y ago
"I do not post on 4chan." -- RMS
- drostie 15y ago
  I only wish he had expanded on this with similar negative statements, like "I did not invent the trollface character." and "I do not like gore images." I think there are a lot of things which he does not do, and all of these might be interesting!
- mappu 15y ago
  It's actually really interesting he feels the need to point that out. Possibly because the /g/ and /prog/ boards have such a fascination with him (perhaps deservedly). Stallman has famously called /g/ full of "inane comments" [1] - and I remember someone venturing far enough outside of /prog/ to mail another idol, Gerald Sussman, who said that such fandoms were "unscientific and ultimately destructive", which was very funny at the time. 4chan is a simple enough website that (a) it would perform well on his Leemote, and (b) he probably wouldn't be threatened by e.g. non-free javascript, since there basically isn't any. I think it highlights the way 4chan is "heard and not seen" that RMS refers to "accounts", of which of course there are none, and curious again he uses the gender-inspecific "it" as if the account itself has an identity as a person, let alone any identity at all. Of course, things like this [2] (possibly NSFW) probably have a very strong influence on his opinion of 4chan. ____________________ 1. http://i.imgur.com/fhEQX.png http://i.imgur.com/fhEQX.png 2. http://i.imgur.com/WXvva.png http://i.imgur.com/WXvva.png
  - stfu 15y ago
    Thanks for those wonderful screenies. I just intended to request further infos on the Stallman/4chan "relationship" but your posting cleared some things up. 4chan is still after all these years one of the most fascinating places around.
    - DanBC 15y ago
      I haven't checked, but probably NSFW. (http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/8326/screenshotmh3.png http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/8326/screenshotmh3.png) (http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1202783375 http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1202783375) (http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/1861/screenshotlm2.png http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/1861/screenshotlm2.png) etc etc.
IvoGeorgiev 15y ago
I cannot even believe that there are people who agree with this moron. First of all, he's chasing an ideal that's not even THAT valid: not all of the crappy-written software is knowledge, not all source code is worth reading. Plus, proprietary software improves industry. Industry feeds people. Not to mention, in today's world, it is impossible to live without depending on corporations. The only way to live without someone knowing a lot about you is to live in a cave, miles away from civilization. The way he is using computers: he is just putting restrictions on himself, thinking he actually removes them. The only thing I agree with here is his opinion about Lisp.
- sgift 15y ago
  Let me just paraphrase your words the same way you've paraphrased Stallman: "If something is hard, don't try it! And if you try it: You're a moron!" You may note that this doesn't accurately reflect your words. That's the risk of paraphrasing without context and argumentation.
- matteodepalo 15y ago
  > Not to mention, in today's world, it is impossible to live without depending on corporations. His purpose is exactly to change the status quo. You can blame him for being a mediocre communicator, but he believes he can change the world and that deserves respect.
- pferreir 15y ago
  Well, in that case we disagree on everything. I am personally grateful to Stallman (and many other people) for making it possible for me to have access to simple programming tools that I wouldn't have otherwise. That may not look as important today, but it for sure was in the past, when charging for software was the natural choice ("shareware" anyone?).
hackermom 15y ago
It's like it was still 1980 around him. To me, freedom also includes choosing what I feel like and what I desire, and allowing myself to move with the times rather than against, instead of fooling myself that I strike a blow for freedom by tethering myself to the floor in every single question. All he does is putting restrictions on himself (and in the process also on other people who blindly follow his fundamentalism) rather than removing restrictions and bonds. But that's just me and where I draw my line.
- th 15y ago
  > All he does is putting restrictions on himself (and in the process also on other people who blindly follow his fundamentalism) rather than removing restrictions and bonds. I highly doubt that anyone blindly follows Stallman. Stallman acts as a living litmus test for open source. His actions seem less ridiculous in technical realms where freedom and privacy are more easily attainable and more ridiculous in areas that it is not.
b1daly 15y ago
I've only read a few writings by Richard Stallman. It seems plain to me that he is an egomaniac with some kind of rigid obsessional thinking patterns. People like this are very annoying, and ironically undermine their own case if they intend to persuade others of their views. The willingness with which he labels the practices of large swaths of the population (of the US) "unethical" would be very disturbing if he was a political leader with significant power. Oddly, the patterns I see evidenced in his writings (that I have read) remind me of the thinking used to justify totalitarian states! I think his views on his core issue of the badness of copyrighted software are not well thought out and absurd on their face. He makes a point of pointing out that the copyright laws are arbitrary, they are not some kind of natural right. One of his main arguments is that making a copy of a digital good does not destroy the usefulness of the original, or harm the person who has it in his "possession." What he is apparently oblivious to is that a system of laws is entirely a social construct. It contains huge amounts of arbitrariness. The whole concept of property is extremely abstract, unless you consider it in some kind of caveman scenario. "It is wrong to take this food that a person has in their hands because then they will be deprived of the ability to eat it." As far as I can tell that's how he thinks about property. I think a lot of his confusion is because he is an absolutist. He thinks laws should be "ethical." There is certainly an overlap between law and morality. But there are major areas of disunion. IMO, the ability to accept ambiguity in the areas of law, ethics, and personal conduct is needed to keep society humane. Just writing this to think through my thoughts. I usually try to not be judgmental of others being a fallible human, but I make exception in cases of people who have chosen a career as self appointed judges of their fellows.
- waterlesscloud 15y ago
  I understand what you're saying...and yet the internet as we know it wouldn't exist without this influence. It's an odd paradox.
- pessimizer 15y ago
  This argument could be made against anyone who stands by any conviction. The diagnosis of some psychological problem solely based on the fact that he won't agree to follow the arbitrary established order which is against his convictions is a common feature of authoritarian regimes. The accusation that if he disagrees with a system of laws because he wants them to be more ethical and less ambiguous he is undermining a social construct that is needed to keep society "humane" is worse. It's not helpful, when someone disagrees with a law or set of laws, to argue against the entire concept of disagreement with law - unless you want to either paint them as an absolutist or an anarchist. Psychological problems are usually diagnosed based on the amount of suffering of the individual, and RMS doesn't seem to be suffering at all. He has specific concerns that can be replied to specifically.
mixmastamyk 15y ago
Every time an rms article comes up trolls come out of the woodwork to rally about what a kook he is and all "the horrible things" he's done. "Why the nerve, living a life different than I would choose!? IT MUST BE STOPPED." Snooze. I've been reading this fear-mongering regularly since '97. Why is he so threatening? It's not like you have to share a studio apartment with the guy. Have any complainers contributed 1/10th as much to the public good? Highly unlikely. The sickest individuals are those who angrily rail against the unconventional in my opinion. I, for one welcome rms and nonconformists in general. Life is a lot more interesting and fruitful with them around. I appreciate my free operating system thank you, and don't pass judgements on what he does in the privacy of his own home (or blog). Watch the revolution os doc and you'll see these geeks are quite likeable, sometimes funny, and nothing to be afraid of.
- b1daly 15y ago
  He's a total conformist! It's just that the ideals he wishes everyone would conform to are solely his own.
  - b1daly 15y ago
    Why the down vote? it's a simple observation. A negative opinion on a piece of writing doesn't make someone a troll. In addition, many people, such as myself, are not familiar with Richard Stallman's work. So the discussion is not repetitive in the way it is if you have been reading and thinking about it a long time.
    - pygy_ 15y ago
      Look up the definition of conformism. It's about conforming to social norms, not personal ethics.
      - b1daly 15y ago
        I'm not being literal! Their are flavors of personal ethics. You can be a non-conformist and have ideals about behavior that don't extend to other people. Really that's the core of my annoyance with his point of view. It's just annoyance. Richard Stallman is a person of influence, but only in a narrow community. So I don't think he is dangerous. He's a person of great accomplishment, and has contributed a huge amount to the world. The idea of open source and free software does cut against the grain of the dominant corporate-state power structure in the US and that's great. I am personally concerned with the abuses of power that happen (by the powerful, all over the world). But it's not black and white. The unlawful surveillance of US citizens by our Gov't is disturbing. It's not as disturbing as launching unfounded wars on the other side of the world, but still disturbing. To the extent that Richard Stallman is fighting against the use of technology to increase the illegal use of Gov't power, then I get it. Somehow though, and I can't put my finger on it, I don't think it's the technology per se that is at the root of this type of activity. Modern computing technology is certainly being co-opted to this use. But the tensions that underly the behavior are more fundamental to the issues of power and state. At the highest levels of power, it is just damn hard to enforce any kind of law, as their is no enforcement mechanism. The gov't is just not going to let people do whatever they want in regards to technology and how it is used. We have to accept this, and fight to keep that power from being abused. An absolute stance along the lines of a super strong right to privacy obscures what is at stake. The line will never be drawn to that extreme, so I wish for a more nuanced discussion. FWIW:)
endlessvoid94 15y ago
> However, since around 1992 I have worked mainly on free software activism, which means I am too busy to do much programming. As a result, I have not had time or occasion to learn newer languages such as Perl, Python, PHP or Ruby. I'm sorry. What does this mean? What does he spend his time doing?
- SamColes 15y ago
  He tours the world giving talks and speeches.
pbhjpbhj 15y ago
>This site is maitained in a very simple way. // Emacs does have spellcheckng though, doesn't it.
- Luyt 15y ago
  spellchecking ? ;-)
kamaal 15y ago
The attitude in this difficult to understand. RMS is different, and it takes guys like him to do something different. Its like Steve Jobs. His attitude is different. Its difficult to understand that unless you are somebody like RMS himself. Sometimes this level of eccentricity and madness is needed if you are out on a lofty mission. You can question why Gandhi had to wear clothes and live the lifestyle of peasant. Or why Linus Torvalds has a bloated ego, Or why Steve Jobs behaved the way he did. These are all eccentric personalities in their own and they won't part with what they are. You will never see their energy wear off, or they running out of passion doing something. In their own eccentric style, they are what they are because they are unique. That is what sets them apart from most of us. There is very little difference between genius and insanity.
pferreir 15y ago
I do not personally approve of the "rms attitude" in general, as I find it too extreme, sometimes plain rude (I can't forget that he fell asleep during the first talk of his that I attended). It's true that he's got the kind of profile that would fit a hard-line political leader that refuses to adapt to social change. However, I believe that mixing up Stallman's attitude and discourse (and personal hygiene or lack thereof) with his legacy and the priceless contribution he gave to computing world wide is plain wrong.
redact207 15y ago
It took me 20mins to force read my way through that entire page, and the whole time all I could think was "can this guy be any more boring?"
prtamil 15y ago
wow So many Trolls. its like troll zoo.
callumjones 15y ago
I find it odd that he choses to dump platforms that also support Windows. Manufacturers adding Windows support (realistically the other way around with Linux being supported after the fact) is about giving consumers choice in how their product runs. I feel this is somewhat core to the FSF movement, a choice for how your computer runs. Why should Stallman criticise a company for allowing someone to pick the OS that best meets their needs? If a person picks Windows over a FOSS aligned OS then there is clearly something wrong in the feature-set or user interface of that FOSS OS.
- orblivion 15y ago
  For better or for worse, the Free Software movement has a strange notion of "choice". They believe that the user is entitled to complete control over their computer, which precludes Windows. To someone like me, that would mean that the user should be free to waive those rights and use Windows anyway, but to the FSF that somehow is an infraction. Who the victim is and who the oppressor in that case, is unclear to me.
- olalonde 15y ago
  > I feel this is somewhat core to the FSF movement, a choice for how your computer runs. You are mistaken. RMS thinks its immoral to use or develop proprietary software regardless of anything else.
bbsabelli 15y ago
RMS should be proud because open source has already won. His focus should not be on software freedom, it should be on data freedom. So, where is the "Free Data Foundation"?
marcofloriano 15y ago
The last true hacker ... is not very welcome at the hacker community, very weird.
a_macgregor 15y ago
Over the years Stallman has passed to be an iconic figure that contributed a lot to a fanatic out of touch with the current world. Comments like saying he was glad Steve Jobs was dead, are what in my opinion makes him a fanatic, yes Steve Jobs was a greedy asshole but being glad that he is dead doesn't portrait Stallman any better.
zach95 15y ago
I don't understand the hostility to RMS here in hackrerland. RMS is trying to recreate the best hacker environment that ever existed bar none: MIT's AI lab in the 1970's. I was alive then and knew some people there and it was all true--it was hacker nirvana. It got blown apart by his friends going off and founding some lisp machine companies that killed off lisp as a commerical language when those companies died from infighting. What does RMS want? Four freedoms that businesses want to take away from you: the ability to read, modify, share, and run the programs that you or hackers like you write. There's nothing purist about wanting control over your own program, or for it not to be closed off from you against your will. That's what happened in the 1980's, and what continues to happen with proprietary software. Obviously, as the leader of this movement RMS has to stay especially pure or no one would follow him. RMS may have his idiosyncracies, but you have to give him credit for not being hypocritical, which is more than you can say about virtually any other leader out there. I'm a really proud supporter of RMS and what he stands for because I've spent half my life being burned by proprietary software, and I'd love to go back to the garden of eden that was MIT's AI lab in the 70's and early 80's.
- paulhauggis 15y ago
  "What does RMS want? Four freedoms that businesses want to take away from you: the ability to read, modify, share, and run the programs that you or hackers like you write." He wants these at the expense of the freedoms of the people that wrote the software. If you want these freedoms, write the software yourself and distribute it. "and I'd love to go back to the garden of eden that was MIT's AI lab in the 70's and early 80's." Right. With none of the technological advances we have today. No thanks.
  - zach95 15y ago
    "He wants these at the expense of the freedoms of the people that wrote the software." Huh? These are the freedoms that the people who wrote the software should enjoy. And, I never said "with none of the technological advances", I meant the hacker culture. I think that was pretty clear. If you want to understand the culture read the book "Hackers." I understand that it's hard for some people to understand that software can be more than something to commercialize. I suspect that even though this site is called hacker news, most of the people here are not hackers and don't really respect the culture.
maschwenk 15y ago
I really respect everything he's done and his opinions, but to me he's much like a devout religious figure. His dedication to free software is akin to a Buddhist monk. I appreciate his devotion (like I do non-atheists) but respectfully disagree with his strong feelings.
olalonde 15y ago
Related post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3551345 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3551345
robomartin 15y ago
How does RMS earn a living? I often find it odd that people even talk about free software or software having to be free. There is, of course, no such thing. There's subsidized software, but no free software exists. Linux, as an example, is probably the most expensive piece of software ever developed. Think of all the people employed at universities and businesses who devoted time paid by their employer to develop Linux. Even if they did the work at home "on their own time". The only reason this was even remotely possible is because they had gainful employment that kept a roof over their heads and paid the bills. The same is true of students who contributed to Linux. Their parents, or the government (through a loan) provided the financial support to work on Linux. Not one of these people would have been able to work on Linux had their financial needs, need for shelter and generally "having a life" needs had not been met through either employment, parental support, loans or grants. Free software is, at best, subsidized, and at worst, not free at all. I'll be that Linux probably cost more to develop than Windows or OSX. Now, there's free to the end user. OK. That's fine. People will take free food, free beer, free ice-cream and free software. That's human nature. I don't find reveling against commercial software a particularly intelligent stance. No offense intended. Those writing software for sale are simply choosing to earn a living writing software that they sell rather than doing something else to subsidize software to be given away. If I am good at writing software, why should I be a gardener to pay for food and shelter and give away software? Furthermore, all of the software that RMS used as the model for GNU was the result of years of expensive development and none of it was free. It's a lot easier to, say, study and learn Unix and then go off and develop a "free" Unix clone than to have to invest years upon years developing and optimizing Unix in the first place. One of my favorite saying goes something like this: The second person who saw the wheel thought it was obvious. I don't find waging war against non-free software a particularly honorable stance when you are standing on the shoulders of giants who devoted years and billions of dollars to evolve an industry and, yes, make money with it. I wonder if he refuses medical attention when he goes to the hospital because the software on all of the systems at the hospital do not use free software. There's a word that describes a type of person who thinks and behaves this way and it isn't a flattering one.
- peterwoo 15y ago
  RMS doesn't require that software be "free as in beer". It's okay to sell and purchase software -- so long as person making payment actually ends up owning what they get. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FreeAsInBeer http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FreeAsInBeer
azernik 15y ago
I'm not sure I quite understand his criticism of Python; it most certainly acts like it has a REPL, and it actually does have a builtin functions for eval() and print() (the equivalent of read needs to do additional parsing). So what's RMS's beef with Python?
goggles99 15y ago
I was surprised to find such an article here. I thought that this site was all about promoting starups? If you think about it for a minute, Richard Stallman's point of view would eliminate most startups that ycombinator promotes (directly or indirectly). They would fail financially. He mentions using google and duckduckgo on friends computers. Do you think he would consider clicking on adverts free? I don't think so because clicking on them results in a transfer of money somewhere. Unless his definition of free is that he himself did not pay out of his own pocket for it? (someone else pays for it). If this were the case, If someone bought him a copy of windows as a gift would he use it. So I ask, why is this anti-startup (at least for the 90% of startups you see here) blog linked from here? If you disagree with my reaction/question - answer with your solution which would allow these 90% of startups to survive financially if only Richard Stallman followers used them.
- rpicard 15y ago
  I think you might misunderstand what he means by "free". https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
  - goggles99 15y ago
    No, not at all: source: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html "...Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software." What would this do to most startups today?
    - zach95 15y ago
      Most startups...do you have any data on the business model of most startups? Presumably, if a startup is working from GPLed software, it's business model would be to offer training, support, custom modification and preferential updates and features. Lots of big players like IBM, Oracle and RedHat are making billions from this approach. There's lots of untapped markets and plenty of room for entrepreneurs here too. I think that even Microsoft is getting in on this game. If it's working from MIT/BSD-licensed software, then it can close that software off and put restrictions on what people who buy it can do with it. Apple is taking this route. Startups are also free to develop their own closed source, freedom-restricted software. Of course, then they generally have to compete in quality with software which doesn't restrict user freedom. It's especially hard for startups to offer closed source freedom restricted software because customers expect startups to fail, and then they are stuck with a product that can't be maintained or updated. Startups are also free not to distribute their software in which case even with software under freedom-preserving licenses they don't have to distribute the code. They could do this for example by offering web services that used this software.
damian2000 15y ago
I'd like to know his view on the rise of the app stores on smart phones (Android and iOS for example). Although companies like Apple have undoubtedly gotten rich on the backs of developers by taking their 30% cut, I would argue that the app store model is the best market for selling software from independent software developers that has ever existed.
- zach95 15y ago
  Applying his principles, he wouldn't have a problem with the app store model, but he happens to have a problem with Apple's app store since they also restrict the freedoms of users: http://stallman.org/archives/2011-jul-oct.html#25_October_2011_(Deification_Of_Steve_Jobs) http://stallman.org/archives/2011-jul-oct.html#25_October_20... Restricting the freedom of users is not necessarily part of an app store though.
  - damian2000 15y ago
    thanks for the link - although restricting the user to a choice of half a million apps is hardly restricting their freedom ... but I guess he probably means the restrictive review process that apple uses before letting an app onto the app store. But I wonder what the alternatives are though... Android marketplace is a fair bit more open in terms of letting apps on there, and they have had significantly more security issues as a result.

205 points by Ideka 15y ago

ktizo 15y ago

I view Richard Stallman's attitude to this as though he has set himself up as some kind of social/technological guinea-pig for the general public good. Yes, he is fanatical in several senses, especially nasal and botanical, by all accounts ( read Stallman does Dallas: http://stallman.org/articles/texas.html http://stallman.org/articles/texas.html ). But the day that Stallman cannot get on the internet, without compromising his own set of restrictions, is the day when it is literally impossible to have dominion over any computational objects that you think you own. [edit] for clarity, I thought about this, added the qualifier computational, and am not including abacuses ;)

fleitz 15y ago
Last time I checked iOS (the router OS) is not free, he probably does violate his own principles connecting to the Internet. Rms is like a vegan always preaching some moral high ground and always violating it whenever it becomes inconvenient.
- ktizo 15y ago
  oh noes! we are doomed! Run for the hills, we might get a better view. (yes, you are no doubt correct. I do still view him as an unusual type of rare bearded canary that has decided to take up residence in the coal mine through some form of altruistic bloody-mindedness) [edit] Plus, whatever you may think of him, he is bloody smart.
  - fleitz 15y ago
    He may have a high IQ but I wouldn't call him smart. If he was that smart people would be using his system instead of Gates and Jobs system. Gates and Jobs are smart, he's a loud mouth with a PhD. Listening to RMS talk about Windows and iOS is like listening to Tenenbaum lecture Torvalds on how monolithic kernels are a thing of the past. His system fails to fundamentally solve problems people actually have. I'm sure RMS's systems perfectly solve RMSs problems, and that's great if you're a self-centered pretentious asshole focused solely on your own needs. Unfortunately, if you're a regular joe with average needs his system doesn't solve very many of your problems. Gates and Jobs wisely recognized that catering to the needs of others is actually better for society than focusing solely on one's own needs. Software freedom for the vast majority of people is having their spreadsheet save them hours of manual calculations so they can catch their kids ballet recital. Freedom is a tradeoff, that's why we don't live in a society ruled by natural law.
    - antihero 15y ago
      I don't know, GNU is fantastic, and one of my main issues with Linux is that it has so many binary blobs and non-free software that are required for it to run on most machines. And as far as what "most people need", "most people" would do fine with a copy of LibreOffice and Firefox running on Ubuntu or whatnot.
      - fleitz 15y ago
        Yeah thats most of my issues with Linux mostly binary blobs and not the fact that my laptop won't wake up from sleep, I have to screw around everytime I plug in a projector. LibreOffice works great as long as I don't have to open any Word docs that use change tracking, or spreadsheets that involve calculations, or god forbid a powerpoint with anything but rudimentary graphics. It's a panacea I don't know why anyone would waste 2 billable hours on paying money to avoid the embarrassment of having to fuck around with your operating system for 15 minutes while you attempt to make a presentation. It's not 1994 anymore, people expect computers to work and it reflects poorly when they don't. And what am I saving this $300 for? For the privilege of being able add the code that should have been there in the first place.
        eliasmacpherson 15y ago
        Stallman's GNU quest began in response to a binary blob printer driver that he had no option but to suffer under, because it was closed source. The issues you describe are attributable to what's between the keyboard and the chair. Try getting a standard mac to work with the majority of projectors, without any adapters. The LibreOffice issues you are having are due to an arms race where Microsoft break compatibility with their previous formats each release. You have to learn to use the computer you have properly or you will embarrass yourself with it. This is true for all operating systems. Not everything is going to work exactly as you suspect, at least you're in a position to do something about it on your own linux machine. That's never going to be the case with the competition. Give it another 100 years, whose software is still going to be around, Stallman's, Jobs' or Gates'? It's not as feature complete, but it has greater longevity.
        15y ago
- jholman 15y ago
  As michael_michael and I replied to your other comment, you have obviously failed to actually read the article in question, and are drawing conclusions without basis, when you claim that using internet routers violates his own stated principles. RMS is precisely NOT like that type of vegan (not that I think that this is at all typical of vegans, either). If indeed you think that kind of consistency is the highest good, you should hold RMS in very high regard indeed.
- jmillikin 15y ago
  "I don't need to worry about what software is in a kiosk, pay phone, or ATM that I am using. I hope their owners migrate them to free software, for their sake, but there's no need for me to refuse to touch them until then."
- justauser 15y ago
  If you're referring to Cisco, it's IOS. You're right though that the odds of him not touching something like IOS or JUNOS or IronWare border on close to impossible.
  - wtn 15y ago
    He meant to say "IOS", it's just that iOS autocorrects those characters.
    - whatusername 15y ago
      The joys of Original Operating System Names. Cisco IOS, IBM i, Apple iOS. Not to mention: iRMX, IRIX, IOS-XR.
- downx3 15y ago
  How rude. Sometimes idealism isn't practical. Idealism is a goal, not an absolute.
- batista 15y ago
  As this guy, Momus, wrote: Perhaps the problem is actually with the idea of hypocrisy itself -- the idea that consistency is a greater virtue than whatever virtue an inconsistent man might be talking about, and that personal life and public policy must always be girded up and gridded up to resemble each other. Let me put an alternative point of view. Someone living in a castle, and owning a castle, could very usefully speak about post-materialism. Someone paying five figure utility bills would be in a very good position to talk about -- and act on -- the theme of energy wastage; they would be an expert on it, and have a vested interest in change, and actually have the possibility to make changes on a scale a pauper huddled over a candle could only dream of. Ad hominem: There are many reasons a charge of hypocrisy might be reactionary and counter-productive. First of all, the hypocrisy mindset pays too much attention to people's personal lives and too little to their programmatic or ideological outlook. If someone is a visionary, or is trying to solve a widespread problem, it's likely that his personal life will reflect the problem whereas his policies will reflect the solution. It would then be pretty stupid to accuse him of saying one thing and doing another -- especially if everyone were pretty much in the same boat, at least until an alternative infrastructure is set up. A charge of hypocrisy might well be a pre-emptive strike designed to stymie future solutions to universal problems. Consistency above correctness: Consistency is the hobgoblin of petty minds. Wanting things to be less complex, and wanting people and societies to be without internal contradictions is understandable, but small-minded. It ignores the fact that it is often only by sinning ourselves that we can learn exactly why sinning is bad. At a certain point we are all saying one thing and doing another. This is, apart from anything else, a sure sign of our complexity, and of our capacity to rise above our current way of living and search for alternatives, no matter how deeply we're mired. Allow it, brothers! Give me moral perfection or give me corruption: We often strike down people with a spotted reputation only to replace them with people who are unapologetically evil. We hate to be preached at so much that we ignore the sermons we need to hear and prefer unalloyed corruption. At least it's consistent, right? At least there's no hypocrisy there! At least change is taken off the agenda! Thank Christ "hypocrisy" has absolved us of the need to feel wrong, and to make a painful change! 100 people in a room: There are 100 people in a room, all doing A Bad Thing. They know it's a bad thing, a thing that will damage the room and everyone in it, but they can't stop. Suddenly a Visionary makes a powerful and moving speech. "We must stop doing The Bad Thing!" he says. His speech is effective: everyone stops. Except the Visionary himself, who keeps doing it. This, however, is a minor detail: the room is a better, safer place. Instead of 100 people doing The Bad Thing, only one is doing it. Suddenly a Commentator gets up. "Suckers!" he shouts. "You've stopped doing The Bad Thing, but the man who made you stop still does it! You've been had... by a hypocrite!" Soon everyone in the room is doing The Bad Thing again. But tell me, please, who has damaged the room more, the Visionary or the Commentator? Who has the best chance of helping the room?
b1daly 15y ago
But this idea of having dominion over any computational object (or really any object) is a fantasy. Are you going generate your own electricity riding your generator bike (powered by veggies from your garden) as you code? That's where I think his ideals go off the rails, their totality beyond common sense. FOSS of various flavors is cool. Of course it's not really free though. It's created by people in the context of an advanced technological society which has numerous components, many necessary, for it's existence.
- knewter 15y ago
  You could...use solar power. Your idea of 'beyond common sense' seems pretty limited in scope. And the F in FOSS isn't about price, it's about liberty. This is the very first thing anyone involving themselves in a discussion on FOSS should be aware of, and I feel sure that you knew that. What was the point of this comment?
  - b1daly 15y ago
    I was refering to the concept of "total dominion" over our computing devices, and trying to illustrate that this a hopeless goal. Yes, you could generate your own power, live in total isolation off the grid, attempt to make everything in your life yourself. You would fail, but you could try. But even in this, you are not free from being subject to the laws that govern where you live. This is an old debate: where should peoples freedom of behavior be controlled to the extent that it impinges on others' "freedom." This is where RMS loses me. His concept of freedom does not seem to include the concept that people should be free to conduct business in accordance with the laws of the land. In the US we are currently free to create and distribute FOSS if we want. Isn't that enough freedom? It's not totally free (in the liberty sense) but there is still a lot of freedom to do as one please with anything that you create (if its "original"). I happen to think that there are real problems with copyright now. The concepts behind the laws were derived before digital technology, and were always intended to address the commercial exploitation of original works. Not what individuals did. We have a situation now where the copyright laws are being enforced against individuals making copies of works for personal, non-commercial reasons, which feels unjust to me. I think part of the intensity behind the MPAA's legal attacks is the perception that if they give an inch, people will take a mile. And the legal foundation of copyright would be undermined by "facts on the ground." Changing the copyright laws to reflect current technology seems like a good idea.

fleitz 15y ago

If you're reading hacker news it probably means you don't share the same rigid commitment to free software as rms and thus his recommendations are virtually useless. I wonder where rms stands on airtravel or using a crosswalk given the non-free software that operates these devices.

michael_michael 15y ago
From further down the page: "I don't need to worry about what software is in a kiosk, pay phone, or ATM that I am using. I hope their owners migrate them to free software, for their sake, but there's no need for me to refuse to touch them until then. (I do consider what those machines and their owners might do with my personal data, but that's a different issue. My response to that issue is to minimize those activities which give them any data about me."
jholman 15y ago
Regarding the rigid commitments, I don't agree that reading HN means that (although of course I doubt that _anyone_ shares rms's full rigid commitment). Regarding your wondering about air travel and crosswalks, I would say that RMS addresses this concern relatively directly in the featured article. "Likewise, I don't need to worry about what software is in a kiosk, pay phone, or ATM that I am using. .... That reasoning is based on the fact that I was not responsible for setting up those machines, or for how that was done." It seems to me that it is generally only fully appropriate to post a top-level comment in the thread of an article if you have read that article.
joshAg 15y ago
"I firmly refuse to install non-free software or tolerate its installed presence on my computer or on computers set up for me. "However, if I am visiting somewhere and the machines available nearby happen to contain non-free software, through no doing of mine, I don't refuse to touch them. I will use them briefly for tasks such as browsing. This limited usage doesn't give my assent to the software's license, or make me responsible its being present in the computer, or make me the possessor of a copy of it, so I don't see an ethical obligation to refrain from this. Of course, I explain why they should migrate the machines to free software, but I don't push them hard, because that would be counterproductive. "Likewise, I don't need to worry about what software is in a kiosk, pay phone, or ATM that I am using. I hope their owners migrate them to free software, for their sake, but there's no need for me to refuse to touch them until then. (I do consider what those machines and their owners might do with my personal data, but that's a different issue. My response to that issue is to minimize those activities which give them any data about me.) "That reasoning is based on the fact that I was not responsible for setting up those machines, or for how that was done. By contrast, if I were to ask or lead someone to set up a computer for me to use, that would make me ethically responsible for its software load. In such a case I insist on free software, just as if the machine were mine. "Skype is another kind of exception. Using Skype to talk with someone else who is using Skype is encouraging the other to use nonfree software. So I won't use it under any circumstances." source: http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html

billpatrianakos 15y ago

Oh boy. RMS wrote yet another opinion that we just have to read. I'll be hated for this but I must state the obvious. This is a list of really boring opinions. Interesting for rms fanatics but many are barely explained and most aren't realistic to actually try out unless you want to be a software philosopher for a living. Did people just see Stallman in the title and up vote? Come on.

flomo 15y ago
Ditto. Stallman is an enormously interesting figure in the history of software development. But who really cares how he reads his email or books his speaking engagements? (And the less one knows about his personal life is probably for the better.)
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  Well that was my initial thought but to be fair those things certainly can be interesting if you're a fan of his. That said, this is really nothing new. I've read this same list many times and it's actually been linked here several times. The difference is just that in its other incarnations it was in plain text form or some other variation of the same HTML list. Then there's the fact that it really is just a self-righteous sounding list. Like if I said "I'm browsing HN on my iPad because I find it convenient for reading and I can smoke cigarettes in my garage while I carry it around". Those ridiculous details are the kind of thing you find in his lists. And of course no one is going to go all plain-text when using a computer but the way Stallman makes it sound seems like he's saying he's superior to us because he's cool enough to not need all those fancy GUI dealies. So what?
  - kunj2aan 15y ago
    >Stallman makes it sound seems like he's saying he's superior to us because he's cool enough to not need all those fancy GUI dealies I think you are completely missing his point. He is not claiming to be superior because he uses those tools, he thinks his freedoms are not restricted by them.
- 15y ago

dill_day 15y ago

I skimmed documentation of Python after people told me it was fundametally similar to Lisp. My conclusion is that that is not so. When you start Lisp, it does `read', `eval', and `print', all of which are missing in Python. Could someone explain what he means? (Did Python not have a repl when he wrote that?)

ajross 15y ago
Python's read doesn't return a s-expression, nor does its print take one; they just use strings. It's eval likewise takes a string. The part missing that lisp has is the inspectable data structure containing an arbitrary parse tree and function result.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- why-el 15y ago
  I am curious, would Ruby be a good fit in this case? With its irb and all.
  - oconnor0 15y ago
    No, Ruby's implementation of it's interactive mode is similar to Python's - not via data structures, but via strings.

sgt 15y ago

I did however find this comment quite interesting. He recommends Lisp to beginner programmers. Honestly this makes me want to play with Lisp (I do just about every other popular language but I've never done Lisp): "The most powerful programming language is Lisp. If you don't know Lisp (or its variant, Scheme), you don't appreciate what a powerful language is. Once you learn Lisp you will see what is missing in most other languages. When you start a Lisp system, it enters a read-eval-print loop. Most other languages have nothing comparable to read, nothing comparable to eval, and nothing comparable to print. What gaping deficiencies! Lisp is no harder to understand than other languages. So if you have never learned to program, and you want to start, start with Lisp. If you learn to edit with Emacs, you can learn Lisp by writing editing commands for Emacs. You can use the Introduction to Programming in Emacs Lisp to learn with: it is free as in freedom, and you can order printed copies from the FSF."

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
homosaur 15y ago
Several Lisp dialects like Scheme and Clojure are still going strong. It's a very useful language to learn even in 2012.
- mahmud 15y ago
  specially in 2012.
joshAg 15y ago
Since you know how to program, I'd recommend picking up Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programming (aka SICP aka the wizard book), and reading/working through that. It does a great job of showing why lisp is awesome. Paul Graham wrote another awesome lisp book called 'on lisp', but i'd recommend SICP as a first read.
X-Istence 15y ago
I've learned Scheme, I've used Scheme for projects, but I don't think I would praise it like it is the one single language like he is doing.

leeoniya 15y ago

"...I fetch web pages from other sites by sending mail to a program that fetches them, much like wget, and then mails them back to me." that's one tough pill to swallow, sir.

salgernon 15y ago
I thought that at first too, but then I started reading blogs that were scraped and fed to my kindle. Now I find that it is much easier to read and take the time to comprehend content when the cost of following links (through the kindles ersatz browser)is so high. Since most of what I'm interested in reading centers on computers or general science, plain text formatting and lack of images isn't a problem.
jff 15y ago
Well, as another poster pointed out, he also has a variety of web browsers installed that he uses when he really wants to.

mrtron 15y ago

I think it is really tough for younger people to realize that technology can be seen as a highly dangerous in different forms. Instead of trashing his principles, perhaps try to see the motivation behind them. I respect anyone who establishes their own code and adheres firmly to it. RMS meets this criteria. He is also very open and honest about his views which I find refreshing. I also think that this type of boycotting/selectively using technology will become far more common with physical hardware as it rapidly develops. Robots will not smoothly integrate with everyone's tastes. Consider a highly sophisticated sex robot not noticeably different from a normal human. I can imagine there will be a strong division of people for and against this type of human intimacy replacement.

ktizo 15y ago
I just started idly wondering from your comment what sort of restrictions Stallman would place on a sex robot. Please don't inspire me to think of such things again.
billpatrianakos 15y ago
That's the thing. You said it. Not many will see his motivations unless he spells it out and the man is an awful communicator in that he can't go two words without putting someone off. Unfortunately he's a bit of an extremist. At least that's how he presents himself. So I doubt younger folks will get where he's coming from. I'm 25 and I've read about Stallmam for only the past five years and I can tell you that what he stands for sounds great in theory but unfortunately he's not too good at showing us how to reconcile that theory with reality. I don't think kids younger than me will ever get Stallmam. As far as I see he becomes more irrelevant in the eyes of each passing generation. Not that he's irrelevant, just that he's seen that way as you go younger. And I'd totally be willing to try out the first sex robot.
- bobsil1 15y ago
  He sounds like a religious fundamentalist, or an Amish farmer. What a limiting worldview.

jakeonthemove 15y ago

Stallman is a smart man, a genius - that's exactly why his way of computing will never be used by most other people. I do my computing in a terribly inefficient way - Windows and GUI as much as possible to avoid text/code and throw as many apps and resources at a task as possible to make it easier/faster - I've managed to outgrow a T9600 Core 2 Duo in daily use (it's 100% loaded all the time), and now I'm on the way to doing so with a Core 2 Quad. If RMS saw me, he'd probably shoot me on the spot :-D, but still, things get done....

kasbah 15y ago
>If RMS saw me, he'd probably shoot me on the spot You must be thinking of ESR: http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/ http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/
- jakeonthemove 15y ago
  Even Stallman would find the time to get a gun, for the sake of effectiveness, cleanliness and productivity on computers :D...
- konstruktor 15y ago
  That is very distasteful. Just because someone is advocating firearms rights doesn't mean he will shoot you if you don't share his opinions.
  - jakeonthemove 15y ago
    Am I missing something? I don't even know who the guy is, and I was joking in my comment above. I am a gun nut myself, member of IPSC...
    - kasbah 15y ago
      http://www.catb.org/~esr/software.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/software.html
  - kasbah 15y ago

bfrs 15y ago

Can someone help me understand what the purpose of this is: I have several free web browsers on my laptop, but I generally do not look at web sites from my own machine, aside from a few sites operated for or by the GNU Project, FSF or me. I fetch web pages from other sites by sending mail to a program that fetches them, much like wget, and then mails them back to me.

ramses 15y ago
He does not want to be tracked.
- tedunangst 15y ago
  Browsing the web using a one of a kind user agent is not a good way to avoid tracking.
- bfrs 15y ago
  A more convenient approach might be to remote desktop at random to a pool of machines that aren't his and that other people also use, the way he uses Google search. By the way, isn't this what TOR is for?
kamaal 15y ago
I think its because he always has higher priorities than browsing the net. Or may be he needs some information to take a decision or for something he needs to do later. So he just puts it on a email queue. Later he can access that information from his mail box and take a look at that information. Most important people, have better things to do than browsing site all day. Infact some people even ask me to mail them some stuff I tell them is interesting and then they go back to that at their convenience.
- bfrs 15y ago
  I guess it has more to it than time management. For time management, I think its way easier to use emacs org-mode to make a queue of websites to browse and get to them later.
15y ago

bfrs 15y ago

I skimmed documentation of Python after people told me it was fundametally similar to Lisp. My conclusion is that that is not so. When you start Lisp, it does `read', `eval', and `print', all of which are missing in Python. Lisp experts, what does this mean? As far as I can tell, Python has pretty good REPL facilities.

tedunangst 15y ago
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3810009 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3810009
- bfrs 15y ago
  I guess understanding the full implications of this is what Lisp Enlightenment is. http://xkcd.com/224/ http://xkcd.com/224/
praptak 15y ago
Python has a good REPL and it even has 'eval' and 'print', so RMS is wrong stating that all of them are missing in Python. But in principle he is right - Python does not have separate 'read' and 'eval' which is a manifestation of deeper differences.
- turkeysandwich 15y ago
  The type of REPL he's referring to has very specific features. Read returns a parsed structure, eval evaluates a parsed structure and print writes a parsed structure. Python's REPL just deals with strings, I believe.
  - praptak 15y ago
    Yes, this is the case - Python's REPL (and eval) deals with strings and does not go through an explicit representation of the parsed code, mainly because there is no such representation in Python. There is an ast module that parses Python code but it is an add-on, not at the core of the implementation. That is what I meant by manifestation of deeper differences between Python and Lisp.

benihana 15y ago

His tone is so arrogant and condescending. >I recommend all the ethical distros — namely, those that are 100% free software. i.e.: Any distro that uses anything that I don't like, namely 100% free software, is unethical. >If you don't know Lisp (or its variant, Scheme), you don't appreciate what a powerful language is. If some random person on hacker news came out and said this, we'd call them a buffoon and say they need to get out more. When Richard Stallman says it, we lap up his words and marvel at his terse wit.

UK-AL 15y ago
He has a point though, lisp is unique thus you need to try it to understand it.
- drostie 15y ago
  True. Lisps are much like snowflakes. Their uniqueness and pervasive symmetry are so important that surely, you cannot Truly Appreciate the snow if you do not examine each flake as if under a microscope to directly apprehend its beautiful symmetry. Skiers and snowboarders are largely a plague of unappreciative newbies who Don't Understand. They say that you can have "fun" in the snow without this higher-level appreciation. What children they must be.
stiff 15y ago
Honestly, what the hell are you talking about? He spend his life explaining why non-free software is unethical and providing free software, what this has to do with liking or not liking and what is arrogant about that? There are objective criteria by which non-free software is unethical and he certainly has the right to state his opinions on this.
- tedunangst 15y ago
  He crossed the line when he decided OpenBSD is nonfree because the ports tree contains URLs he doesn't like. I take being called unethical as an insult.
- 15y ago

homosaur 15y ago

The one thing I get kind of annoyed with Stallman at is that he keeps mentioning this Leemote machine he has, which runs free software even in the BIOS. He might as well say that he runs Linux on a magical unicorn. I have tried and never been able to get my hands on one of these things. I'd really like to see Stallman jump off his insistence on free for one second and maybe suggest something realistic for users who care about free software but aren't willing to work on an obscure, unavailable 7" netbook.

m0nastic 15y ago
Freedom Included is a company that got set up in Cambridge specifically to sell the Lemote. They ship internationally apparently through a partner (can't vouch for it). The folks who run the site seemed like decent enough people, so I think it's on the up-and-up. (I haven't bought one though) If you actually want one of these things, it looks like about $450: http://freedomincluded.com/ http://freedomincluded.com/
- weiran 15y ago
  Ironically you have to buy it through Amazon which Stallman detests: http://stallman.org/amazon.html http://stallman.org/amazon.html.
- datadon 15y ago
  Ironic that this ships via Amazon!
- jussij 15y ago
  > If you actually want one of these things, it looks like about $450: Why can't I get it for free?
- homosaur 15y ago
  Oh, it's a 10.1 inch, that actually makes it quite a bit more usable. Thanks for the link.
X-Istence 15y ago
I've wanted to purchase a Leemote laptop/computer for a while now, and each time I go searching for them I come back empty handed. That being said, a quick Google search did return valid results this time around, particularly that it is for sale on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Screen-Lemote-Yeeloong-8101_B-Netbook/dp/B005XH10NQ http://www.amazon.com/Screen-Lemote-Yeeloong-8101_B-Netbook/... It is a $499 dollar 10.1" netbook that runs at 1 Ghz with 1 GB of ram and a 160 GB hard disk. With a display at 1024 x 600, which is slightly smaller than an iPad 1/2 screen. If you are into freedom it might be worth it, but i'd have a hard time getting development work done on a screen that small, let alone on something running at 1 Ghz with a single core.

krollew 15y ago

I don't understand his point. I'd be very sad if set myself so strict rules. Terminal is powerful, but this doesn't mean not to user X11. I like *nix and open source, but why souldn't I use Windows (which i find very nice system since Windows 7). He says Lisp is powerful, I agree. I prefer Scheme, but it's the same strengh. However it doesn't mean I use only C and scheme. I rather use a rule - match programming language to task you do. Somethimes it's C, sometimes scheme, sometimes perl, sometimes even C#. And so on...

ricardobeat 15y ago
> but why souldn't I use Windows And I thought you were going to say something that made sense...
- krollew 15y ago
  There is no way Windows could be useful? Oh c'mon, don't be fanboy. xD

shreeshga 15y ago

rms is way ahead of the times. somewhere in the future,the bearded dude will point at us and go 'hah! told you so!'

unabridged 15y ago

He seemed to cover everything but what phone he uses. Is the closed hardware of android acceptable? Or does he just stick with nonsmart phones?

jp_sc 15y ago
He doesn't own a cell phone at all. "Stanlin's dream" he calls them. http://www.geekosystem.com/richard-stallman-cell-phones-stalins-dream/ http://www.geekosystem.com/richard-stallman-cell-phones-stal...
- rimantas 15y ago
  He just borrows one when needed. How convenient.
  - incosta 15y ago
    Does he use his own toilet paper, or also borrows one for the occasion?
    - reinhardt 15y ago
      Why, toilet paper must be Free too.
  - jff 15y ago
    Like my friend who lives in Europe--he comes to the US all the time but doesn't have a driver's license, so he just bums rides from all of us all the time and acts superior for doing so.
- heidar 15y ago
  I listened to a talk he gave a few years ago and he started by going "Please turn off your global tracking devices." or something of that sort. People laughed but come to think of it, I don't think he was only joking.
  - 15y ago

rjim86 15y ago

great..

msg 15y ago

Stallman's critique of software, hardware, and services as tools of social control has only become more relevant over the years. Can you imagine his search records being rifled through by a government investigator? Or his Facebook profile being examined by an employer? No, because they don't exist. Nor can you imagine his computer being locked by a bootloader that only allows "Genuine Windows". He's not concerned about looking weird. For certain audiences this is a disadvantage. But he is concerned about tying his computing down to his core philosophy. He did it so well that you can almost hear him when he's not in the room. We should all be such effective weirdos. At some level we have to trust a substrate of computing to get anything done. Stallman's work to make that substrate as trustworthy as possible was very farsighted.

ameen 15y ago
While I certainly agree with RMS's reasons for being so committed to his philosophy, I just don't know if it would still be possible to practice in today's world. Almost every system out there, free software or otherwise is monetized one way or another, either you pay for the software, or you are the product being sold.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  Not necessarily true. While plenty of free software is funded (I don't think Stallman has particular issue with that). I'm not sure how me using the Linux Kernel, GNU System, Gnome , GIMP , Emacs or any of the other free software tools I use makes me somehow a "product".
- sbinetd 15y ago
  I'm not quite sure about that. I suppose I'm being used a testing data for RHEL by using Fedora. But on the other hand, I'm not submitting bug reports or any other form of data to Red Hat. I understand your point, and can think of some examples - but I'm struggling to apply it to the software I use.
- paulhauggis 15y ago
  This is one of the the consequences of the "free software movement". Nobody wants to pay for software anymore and hosting and development aren't free.

mahmud 15y ago

"I do not post on 4chan." -- RMS

drostie 15y ago
I only wish he had expanded on this with similar negative statements, like "I did not invent the trollface character." and "I do not like gore images." I think there are a lot of things which he does not do, and all of these might be interesting!
mappu 15y ago
It's actually really interesting he feels the need to point that out. Possibly because the /g/ and /prog/ boards have such a fascination with him (perhaps deservedly). Stallman has famously called /g/ full of "inane comments" [1] - and I remember someone venturing far enough outside of /prog/ to mail another idol, Gerald Sussman, who said that such fandoms were "unscientific and ultimately destructive", which was very funny at the time. 4chan is a simple enough website that (a) it would perform well on his Leemote, and (b) he probably wouldn't be threatened by e.g. non-free javascript, since there basically isn't any. I think it highlights the way 4chan is "heard and not seen" that RMS refers to "accounts", of which of course there are none, and curious again he uses the gender-inspecific "it" as if the account itself has an identity as a person, let alone any identity at all. Of course, things like this [2] (possibly NSFW) probably have a very strong influence on his opinion of 4chan. ____________________ 1. http://i.imgur.com/fhEQX.png http://i.imgur.com/fhEQX.png 2. http://i.imgur.com/WXvva.png http://i.imgur.com/WXvva.png
- stfu 15y ago
  Thanks for those wonderful screenies. I just intended to request further infos on the Stallman/4chan "relationship" but your posting cleared some things up. 4chan is still after all these years one of the most fascinating places around.
  - DanBC 15y ago
    I haven't checked, but probably NSFW. (http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/8326/screenshotmh3.png http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/8326/screenshotmh3.png) (http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1202783375 http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1202783375) (http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/1861/screenshotlm2.png http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/1861/screenshotlm2.png) etc etc.

IvoGeorgiev 15y ago

I cannot even believe that there are people who agree with this moron. First of all, he's chasing an ideal that's not even THAT valid: not all of the crappy-written software is knowledge, not all source code is worth reading. Plus, proprietary software improves industry. Industry feeds people. Not to mention, in today's world, it is impossible to live without depending on corporations. The only way to live without someone knowing a lot about you is to live in a cave, miles away from civilization. The way he is using computers: he is just putting restrictions on himself, thinking he actually removes them. The only thing I agree with here is his opinion about Lisp.

sgift 15y ago
Let me just paraphrase your words the same way you've paraphrased Stallman: "If something is hard, don't try it! And if you try it: You're a moron!" You may note that this doesn't accurately reflect your words. That's the risk of paraphrasing without context and argumentation.
matteodepalo 15y ago
> Not to mention, in today's world, it is impossible to live without depending on corporations. His purpose is exactly to change the status quo. You can blame him for being a mediocre communicator, but he believes he can change the world and that deserves respect.
pferreir 15y ago
Well, in that case we disagree on everything. I am personally grateful to Stallman (and many other people) for making it possible for me to have access to simple programming tools that I wouldn't have otherwise. That may not look as important today, but it for sure was in the past, when charging for software was the natural choice ("shareware" anyone?).

hackermom 15y ago

It's like it was still 1980 around him. To me, freedom also includes choosing what I feel like and what I desire, and allowing myself to move with the times rather than against, instead of fooling myself that I strike a blow for freedom by tethering myself to the floor in every single question. All he does is putting restrictions on himself (and in the process also on other people who blindly follow his fundamentalism) rather than removing restrictions and bonds. But that's just me and where I draw my line.

th 15y ago
> All he does is putting restrictions on himself (and in the process also on other people who blindly follow his fundamentalism) rather than removing restrictions and bonds. I highly doubt that anyone blindly follows Stallman. Stallman acts as a living litmus test for open source. His actions seem less ridiculous in technical realms where freedom and privacy are more easily attainable and more ridiculous in areas that it is not.

b1daly 15y ago

I've only read a few writings by Richard Stallman. It seems plain to me that he is an egomaniac with some kind of rigid obsessional thinking patterns. People like this are very annoying, and ironically undermine their own case if they intend to persuade others of their views. The willingness with which he labels the practices of large swaths of the population (of the US) "unethical" would be very disturbing if he was a political leader with significant power. Oddly, the patterns I see evidenced in his writings (that I have read) remind me of the thinking used to justify totalitarian states! I think his views on his core issue of the badness of copyrighted software are not well thought out and absurd on their face. He makes a point of pointing out that the copyright laws are arbitrary, they are not some kind of natural right. One of his main arguments is that making a copy of a digital good does not destroy the usefulness of the original, or harm the person who has it in his "possession." What he is apparently oblivious to is that a system of laws is entirely a social construct. It contains huge amounts of arbitrariness. The whole concept of property is extremely abstract, unless you consider it in some kind of caveman scenario. "It is wrong to take this food that a person has in their hands because then they will be deprived of the ability to eat it." As far as I can tell that's how he thinks about property. I think a lot of his confusion is because he is an absolutist. He thinks laws should be "ethical." There is certainly an overlap between law and morality. But there are major areas of disunion. IMO, the ability to accept ambiguity in the areas of law, ethics, and personal conduct is needed to keep society humane. Just writing this to think through my thoughts. I usually try to not be judgmental of others being a fallible human, but I make exception in cases of people who have chosen a career as self appointed judges of their fellows.

waterlesscloud 15y ago
I understand what you're saying...and yet the internet as we know it wouldn't exist without this influence. It's an odd paradox.
pessimizer 15y ago
This argument could be made against anyone who stands by any conviction. The diagnosis of some psychological problem solely based on the fact that he won't agree to follow the arbitrary established order which is against his convictions is a common feature of authoritarian regimes. The accusation that if he disagrees with a system of laws because he wants them to be more ethical and less ambiguous he is undermining a social construct that is needed to keep society "humane" is worse. It's not helpful, when someone disagrees with a law or set of laws, to argue against the entire concept of disagreement with law - unless you want to either paint them as an absolutist or an anarchist. Psychological problems are usually diagnosed based on the amount of suffering of the individual, and RMS doesn't seem to be suffering at all. He has specific concerns that can be replied to specifically.

mixmastamyk 15y ago

Every time an rms article comes up trolls come out of the woodwork to rally about what a kook he is and all "the horrible things" he's done. "Why the nerve, living a life different than I would choose!? IT MUST BE STOPPED." Snooze. I've been reading this fear-mongering regularly since '97. Why is he so threatening? It's not like you have to share a studio apartment with the guy. Have any complainers contributed 1/10th as much to the public good? Highly unlikely. The sickest individuals are those who angrily rail against the unconventional in my opinion. I, for one welcome rms and nonconformists in general. Life is a lot more interesting and fruitful with them around. I appreciate my free operating system thank you, and don't pass judgements on what he does in the privacy of his own home (or blog). Watch the revolution os doc and you'll see these geeks are quite likeable, sometimes funny, and nothing to be afraid of.

b1daly 15y ago
He's a total conformist! It's just that the ideals he wishes everyone would conform to are solely his own.
- b1daly 15y ago
  Why the down vote? it's a simple observation. A negative opinion on a piece of writing doesn't make someone a troll. In addition, many people, such as myself, are not familiar with Richard Stallman's work. So the discussion is not repetitive in the way it is if you have been reading and thinking about it a long time.
  - pygy_ 15y ago
    Look up the definition of conformism. It's about conforming to social norms, not personal ethics.
    - b1daly 15y ago
      I'm not being literal! Their are flavors of personal ethics. You can be a non-conformist and have ideals about behavior that don't extend to other people. Really that's the core of my annoyance with his point of view. It's just annoyance. Richard Stallman is a person of influence, but only in a narrow community. So I don't think he is dangerous. He's a person of great accomplishment, and has contributed a huge amount to the world. The idea of open source and free software does cut against the grain of the dominant corporate-state power structure in the US and that's great. I am personally concerned with the abuses of power that happen (by the powerful, all over the world). But it's not black and white. The unlawful surveillance of US citizens by our Gov't is disturbing. It's not as disturbing as launching unfounded wars on the other side of the world, but still disturbing. To the extent that Richard Stallman is fighting against the use of technology to increase the illegal use of Gov't power, then I get it. Somehow though, and I can't put my finger on it, I don't think it's the technology per se that is at the root of this type of activity. Modern computing technology is certainly being co-opted to this use. But the tensions that underly the behavior are more fundamental to the issues of power and state. At the highest levels of power, it is just damn hard to enforce any kind of law, as their is no enforcement mechanism. The gov't is just not going to let people do whatever they want in regards to technology and how it is used. We have to accept this, and fight to keep that power from being abused. An absolute stance along the lines of a super strong right to privacy obscures what is at stake. The line will never be drawn to that extreme, so I wish for a more nuanced discussion. FWIW:)

endlessvoid94 15y ago

> However, since around 1992 I have worked mainly on free software activism, which means I am too busy to do much programming. As a result, I have not had time or occasion to learn newer languages such as Perl, Python, PHP or Ruby. I'm sorry. What does this mean? What does he spend his time doing?

SamColes 15y ago
He tours the world giving talks and speeches.

pbhjpbhj 15y ago

>This site is maitained in a very simple way. // Emacs does have spellcheckng though, doesn't it.

Luyt 15y ago
spellchecking ? ;-)

kamaal 15y ago

The attitude in this difficult to understand. RMS is different, and it takes guys like him to do something different. Its like Steve Jobs. His attitude is different. Its difficult to understand that unless you are somebody like RMS himself. Sometimes this level of eccentricity and madness is needed if you are out on a lofty mission. You can question why Gandhi had to wear clothes and live the lifestyle of peasant. Or why Linus Torvalds has a bloated ego, Or why Steve Jobs behaved the way he did. These are all eccentric personalities in their own and they won't part with what they are. You will never see their energy wear off, or they running out of passion doing something. In their own eccentric style, they are what they are because they are unique. That is what sets them apart from most of us. There is very little difference between genius and insanity.

pferreir 15y ago

I do not personally approve of the "rms attitude" in general, as I find it too extreme, sometimes plain rude (I can't forget that he fell asleep during the first talk of his that I attended). It's true that he's got the kind of profile that would fit a hard-line political leader that refuses to adapt to social change. However, I believe that mixing up Stallman's attitude and discourse (and personal hygiene or lack thereof) with his legacy and the priceless contribution he gave to computing world wide is plain wrong.

redact207 15y ago

It took me 20mins to force read my way through that entire page, and the whole time all I could think was "can this guy be any more boring?"

prtamil 15y ago

wow So many Trolls. its like troll zoo.

callumjones 15y ago

I find it odd that he choses to dump platforms that also support Windows. Manufacturers adding Windows support (realistically the other way around with Linux being supported after the fact) is about giving consumers choice in how their product runs. I feel this is somewhat core to the FSF movement, a choice for how your computer runs. Why should Stallman criticise a company for allowing someone to pick the OS that best meets their needs? If a person picks Windows over a FOSS aligned OS then there is clearly something wrong in the feature-set or user interface of that FOSS OS.

orblivion 15y ago
For better or for worse, the Free Software movement has a strange notion of "choice". They believe that the user is entitled to complete control over their computer, which precludes Windows. To someone like me, that would mean that the user should be free to waive those rights and use Windows anyway, but to the FSF that somehow is an infraction. Who the victim is and who the oppressor in that case, is unclear to me.
olalonde 15y ago
> I feel this is somewhat core to the FSF movement, a choice for how your computer runs. You are mistaken. RMS thinks its immoral to use or develop proprietary software regardless of anything else.

bbsabelli 15y ago

RMS should be proud because open source has already won. His focus should not be on software freedom, it should be on data freedom. So, where is the "Free Data Foundation"?

marcofloriano 15y ago

The last true hacker ... is not very welcome at the hacker community, very weird.

a_macgregor 15y ago

Over the years Stallman has passed to be an iconic figure that contributed a lot to a fanatic out of touch with the current world. Comments like saying he was glad Steve Jobs was dead, are what in my opinion makes him a fanatic, yes Steve Jobs was a greedy asshole but being glad that he is dead doesn't portrait Stallman any better.

zach95 15y ago

I don't understand the hostility to RMS here in hackrerland. RMS is trying to recreate the best hacker environment that ever existed bar none: MIT's AI lab in the 1970's. I was alive then and knew some people there and it was all true--it was hacker nirvana. It got blown apart by his friends going off and founding some lisp machine companies that killed off lisp as a commerical language when those companies died from infighting. What does RMS want? Four freedoms that businesses want to take away from you: the ability to read, modify, share, and run the programs that you or hackers like you write. There's nothing purist about wanting control over your own program, or for it not to be closed off from you against your will. That's what happened in the 1980's, and what continues to happen with proprietary software. Obviously, as the leader of this movement RMS has to stay especially pure or no one would follow him. RMS may have his idiosyncracies, but you have to give him credit for not being hypocritical, which is more than you can say about virtually any other leader out there. I'm a really proud supporter of RMS and what he stands for because I've spent half my life being burned by proprietary software, and I'd love to go back to the garden of eden that was MIT's AI lab in the 70's and early 80's.

paulhauggis 15y ago
"What does RMS want? Four freedoms that businesses want to take away from you: the ability to read, modify, share, and run the programs that you or hackers like you write." He wants these at the expense of the freedoms of the people that wrote the software. If you want these freedoms, write the software yourself and distribute it. "and I'd love to go back to the garden of eden that was MIT's AI lab in the 70's and early 80's." Right. With none of the technological advances we have today. No thanks.
- zach95 15y ago
  "He wants these at the expense of the freedoms of the people that wrote the software." Huh? These are the freedoms that the people who wrote the software should enjoy. And, I never said "with none of the technological advances", I meant the hacker culture. I think that was pretty clear. If you want to understand the culture read the book "Hackers." I understand that it's hard for some people to understand that software can be more than something to commercialize. I suspect that even though this site is called hacker news, most of the people here are not hackers and don't really respect the culture.

maschwenk 15y ago

I really respect everything he's done and his opinions, but to me he's much like a devout religious figure. His dedication to free software is akin to a Buddhist monk. I appreciate his devotion (like I do non-atheists) but respectfully disagree with his strong feelings.

olalonde 15y ago

Related post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3551345 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3551345

robomartin 15y ago

How does RMS earn a living? I often find it odd that people even talk about free software or software having to be free. There is, of course, no such thing. There's subsidized software, but no free software exists. Linux, as an example, is probably the most expensive piece of software ever developed. Think of all the people employed at universities and businesses who devoted time paid by their employer to develop Linux. Even if they did the work at home "on their own time". The only reason this was even remotely possible is because they had gainful employment that kept a roof over their heads and paid the bills. The same is true of students who contributed to Linux. Their parents, or the government (through a loan) provided the financial support to work on Linux. Not one of these people would have been able to work on Linux had their financial needs, need for shelter and generally "having a life" needs had not been met through either employment, parental support, loans or grants. Free software is, at best, subsidized, and at worst, not free at all. I'll be that Linux probably cost more to develop than Windows or OSX. Now, there's free to the end user. OK. That's fine. People will take free food, free beer, free ice-cream and free software. That's human nature. I don't find reveling against commercial software a particularly intelligent stance. No offense intended. Those writing software for sale are simply choosing to earn a living writing software that they sell rather than doing something else to subsidize software to be given away. If I am good at writing software, why should I be a gardener to pay for food and shelter and give away software? Furthermore, all of the software that RMS used as the model for GNU was the result of years of expensive development and none of it was free. It's a lot easier to, say, study and learn Unix and then go off and develop a "free" Unix clone than to have to invest years upon years developing and optimizing Unix in the first place. One of my favorite saying goes something like this: The second person who saw the wheel thought it was obvious. I don't find waging war against non-free software a particularly honorable stance when you are standing on the shoulders of giants who devoted years and billions of dollars to evolve an industry and, yes, make money with it. I wonder if he refuses medical attention when he goes to the hospital because the software on all of the systems at the hospital do not use free software. There's a word that describes a type of person who thinks and behaves this way and it isn't a flattering one.

peterwoo 15y ago
RMS doesn't require that software be "free as in beer". It's okay to sell and purchase software -- so long as person making payment actually ends up owning what they get. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FreeAsInBeer http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FreeAsInBeer

azernik 15y ago

I'm not sure I quite understand his criticism of Python; it most certainly acts like it has a REPL, and it actually does have a builtin functions for eval() and print() (the equivalent of read needs to do additional parsing). So what's RMS's beef with Python?

goggles99 15y ago

I was surprised to find such an article here. I thought that this site was all about promoting starups? If you think about it for a minute, Richard Stallman's point of view would eliminate most startups that ycombinator promotes (directly or indirectly). They would fail financially. He mentions using google and duckduckgo on friends computers. Do you think he would consider clicking on adverts free? I don't think so because clicking on them results in a transfer of money somewhere. Unless his definition of free is that he himself did not pay out of his own pocket for it? (someone else pays for it). If this were the case, If someone bought him a copy of windows as a gift would he use it. So I ask, why is this anti-startup (at least for the 90% of startups you see here) blog linked from here? If you disagree with my reaction/question - answer with your solution which would allow these 90% of startups to survive financially if only Richard Stallman followers used them.

rpicard 15y ago
I think you might misunderstand what he means by "free". https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
- goggles99 15y ago
  No, not at all: source: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html "...Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software." What would this do to most startups today?
  - zach95 15y ago
    Most startups...do you have any data on the business model of most startups? Presumably, if a startup is working from GPLed software, it's business model would be to offer training, support, custom modification and preferential updates and features. Lots of big players like IBM, Oracle and RedHat are making billions from this approach. There's lots of untapped markets and plenty of room for entrepreneurs here too. I think that even Microsoft is getting in on this game. If it's working from MIT/BSD-licensed software, then it can close that software off and put restrictions on what people who buy it can do with it. Apple is taking this route. Startups are also free to develop their own closed source, freedom-restricted software. Of course, then they generally have to compete in quality with software which doesn't restrict user freedom. It's especially hard for startups to offer closed source freedom restricted software because customers expect startups to fail, and then they are stuck with a product that can't be maintained or updated. Startups are also free not to distribute their software in which case even with software under freedom-preserving licenses they don't have to distribute the code. They could do this for example by offering web services that used this software.

damian2000 15y ago

I'd like to know his view on the rise of the app stores on smart phones (Android and iOS for example). Although companies like Apple have undoubtedly gotten rich on the backs of developers by taking their 30% cut, I would argue that the app store model is the best market for selling software from independent software developers that has ever existed.

zach95 15y ago
Applying his principles, he wouldn't have a problem with the app store model, but he happens to have a problem with Apple's app store since they also restrict the freedoms of users: http://stallman.org/archives/2011-jul-oct.html#25_October_2011_(Deification_Of_Steve_Jobs) http://stallman.org/archives/2011-jul-oct.html#25_October_20... Restricting the freedom of users is not necessarily part of an app store though.
- damian2000 15y ago
  thanks for the link - although restricting the user to a choice of half a million apps is hardly restricting their freedom ... but I guess he probably means the restrictive review process that apple uses before letting an app onto the app store. But I wonder what the alternatives are though... Android marketplace is a fair bit more open in terms of letting apps on there, and they have had significantly more security issues as a result.