4 ms·
I used to 100% feel the same, but at some point I realized the problem was me, not him, in not viscerally understanding his goals. His stated goals are very cl
by tgma 1y ago
I used to 100% feel the same, but at some point I realized the problem was me, not him, in not viscerally understanding his goals. His stated goals are very clear, but the audience usually has somewhat overlapping, but nevertheless distinct goals. This is indeed at the very core of Open Source-Free Software feud. The base is almost entirely the same people, yet the ideologies are not the same, and in a very interesting way: the differences are critical to RMS's ideology, but minute to the other side. Thus, the other side thinks of a crazy guy ruining the whole thing for nothing or very little, and evaluates him as net negative for "the cause." Well, it is absolutely true, for their cause, not his.
I think his take on what compromises are valid and what aren't makes this clear:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.en.html
In fact, this particular incident, re Android, a seemingly "open" system, is a perfect example of the importance of his PoV in particular, as it illustrates that Open Source ideology would not have been enough to ensure the user is in control.
- takluyver 1y agoI don't think Stallman is an effective spokesperson or campaigner for his own cause, though. Corporate-friendly open source has got enormously popular, to the point where the biggest open source collaboration platform, Github, is owned by Microsoft. Stallman is not troubling them. It's his own side he's driving to irrelevance.
- zenmac 1y ago>Github, is owned by Microsoft There was a time getting bought up by a large company seems like a great success and exit strategy. Now days the only things that I want spend my time making are things that are useful for people around me, not things that are useful for industrial military and surveillance state.
- genewitch 1y agoisn't android corporate friendly open source?
- takluyver 1y agoDefinitely, yes. That's a prime example of how corporate friendly open source has been massively successful. By contrast, the first entry on the FSF's high priority projects page is a free phone operating system. They point to Replicant, an Android fork that... does not look particularly active.
- cedilla 1y agoThe problem is: you never get to have your goals or arguments listened to when you fail to represent yourself as a basic human. That means not putting weird stuff in your mouth on camera, not looking too unkempt, not being too belligerent before you get to your points – and never, never, never discussing the fine differences between ephebophilia and pedophilia on a mailing list. His point of view and his goals are completely besides the point that he is unfit as a spokesperson for them. Sadly. Because I agree with him quite a lot, and he does have good arguments.
- jacquesm 1y agoNo, that isn't the problem. The problem is that you are comparing a human in one corner (mortal, fallible, made of meat, imperfect, objectively poor) with a very large conglomerate of corporations on the other side (immortal, disembodied, transnational, legal staff on retainer, very, very wealthy, made of paper, hard to criticize in the same way that you could criticize a person). No corporation is even going to put weird stuff in their mouth on camera or look unkempt. They'll make their arguments, reasonably, legally watertight and accompanied with bags of money through their lobbyists.
- TomLisankie 1y agoYes, he's a human. But what you are failing to mention is that those corporations are made up of humans. And don't just imagine the C-suite when I say that. I'm talking about the developers and other highly-technical positions who may care very little about what's good for the corporation they work for over the long term. Those people also have instincts around and standards for what they consider decent behavior. Many of them (just like most people from most walks of life) will just stop listening if the person making the argument seems actively antagonistic upfront even if they would agree with the main argument that person is making. Diplomacy does matter whether you like it or not. Especially before the person or people you're trying to persuade have heard your argument.
- dabockster 1y agoNo, the problem is that you’re thinking of this like Spock - purely logical. Humans aren’t logical. We absolutely trust/distrust each another based on appearances and mannerisms. This is not limited to RMS. People are prejudiced, plain and simple.
- petralithic 1y agoOne can be correct but convince no one, a modern day Cassandra.
- tgma 1y agoI would argue he's had unimaginable success in the context the movement started. Even Microsoft is fully on-board with that. It's just that the industry has grown beyond the original stakeholders to billions of people and the problem is now so much bigger and the goalposts have changed.
- umbra07 1y agoNo, sorry. By and large, when people criticize RMS for his behavior, they aren't saying "RMS being deeply associated with Open Source makes it harder for me to convince my boss to get the company to switch to X FOSS software or donate to Y project". The Open Source side of things is way bigger than RMS now. He's inconsequential to their world. No, just about everyone critiquing RMS's behavior is saying that it negatively affects his own movement. That it makes it more difficult to advocate for Free Software, that it diminishes the FSF. > Well, it is absolutely true, for their cause, not his. You have it backwards. Open Source is so much bigger than Free Software, that it's not even funny. The Open Source people are not scared of RMS affecting a movement widely accepted in almost every major tech company.