5 ms·

Goodbye Stallman

15 points by hymanroth 18y ago

Whilst respecting what Richard Stallman has achieved in the past, I just couldn't read his latest post on the <a href='http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html'>javascript</a> without getting a bit hot under the collar. His position is, in my mind, completely untenable. He sees everything through his 'free software' glasses, the same way a dyed-in-the-wool communist sees everything through his Breznospecs. It's not enough for him that a Google Docs javascript file be free (gratis) – he objects that the file is not easy to read and has no comments. The fact that removing unnecessary white space is a commonly-used practice in speeding-up page loading is not mentioned, even in passing. Seriously, what is this guy on? I have in mind a special device for Stallman, Raymond and the other open source nutters. It consists of a big plastic bag that envelops their heads and into which is pumped the aroma of roasted coffee beans. It is required that they use this apparatus until such a time as their eyes light up and they utter the required phrase. Today, more than ever, we live in a world of economic reality. In the recent past it was easy to find some chump to lend you all the money required to buy that house/car/tv you really couldn't afford, or finance your startup based on a 10 page deck and the words “web 2.0”. But things have changed. And perhaps for the better. The open software movement cares more about its users than it does its developers. Hacker kudos doesn't pay the fucking rent. I want to know whether all the people writing iPhone or Facebook apps would have tried so hard if they knew their expected return would be exactly $0? Somehow I don't think so. We've got to move away from this notion that software should be free (gratis). If you use it and can afford to pay for it then why should I give it to you for free? Note: I'm not arguing against open-source, I'm arguing against working for free. If I spend a great deal of time writing a funky database application and big_multi_national dumps Oracle in favor of my code and saves itself $20million in the process, why shouldn't I get my sniff? Seriously, why not? If the same code is used by some charity or someone's personal website then I'm happy to tip my hat and say 'glad to be of service', but not if they're Coca Cola, or Hertz, or... (you name it). If there existed a fair and balanced why of rewarding open source developers then I believe the whole sector would explode with a level of commitment and energy that would dwarf the already impressive achievements seen by the community. That time has come. It's time for revolution's founders to retire gracefully, and for a more realistic (though still ethical) guard to take its place. David Semeria Milan, Italy

tsally 18y ago
All the people that made Fedora 9 worth $10.8 billion for free disagree with you [1]. Just because you wont work for free doesn't mean other people wont. It's a pretty unbelievable display of human passion and generosity. Why criticize that? [1] http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/estimatinglinux.php http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/estimatinglinux....
mcav 18y ago
If nothing else, Stallman serves as a constant reminder that we should consider the extremes -- both free, and what would happen should freedom disappear -- in order to keep a realistic perspective.
- rms 18y ago
  We should be happy that RMS is out there fighting the good fight. Though most of us don't go quite as far as he does, our livelihood depends on the availability of Free and open source software, and the ideals of the Free Software Movement. Democratic society is built on debate. When you have people at various extremes arguing you end up somewhere in the middle and I'm glad RMS is there to skew the average.
- ratsbane 18y ago
  Stallman's Javascript proposal seemed a bit out there to me to as I was reading it but then I remembered how many of Stallman's other ideas seemed goofy at the time they were written. In 1989 the GPL was an absurd idea but now it's been hugely successful and changed everything for all of us. He's earned enough lifetime karma points for me to think carefully about what he's saying. Also, by definition radically good ideas have to start out as radical ideas.
lethain 18y ago
Stallman surely realizes that minifying JavaScript is a standard process, but it doesn't seem particularly relevant to his point. First, it not straightforward to determine the licensing for many scripts, and second it does not provide access to an unobfuscated copy of the source. In no way does he ask for JavaScript to be served without minification, but rather he asks that minified JS contain a pointer to a non-minified copy. Doing so doesn't create an additional cost for the site owner, beyond possibly requiring an extra step in a build script. I think you are pushing two distinct movements into the same box: the free software movement championed by Stallman, and the "get users first, monetize later" euphoria of the "Web 2.0" movement. The first group is pursuing a moral agenda; the second believes that it is a legitimate route to wealth. Much of what you are blaming Stallman for seems better directed at the second movement or at open source developers (who are often a very different breed than Stallman, and who--in my experience--tend to hate the GPL as an unnecessarily restrictive license). I also find your example of iPhone and Facebook applications as somewhat problematic. These platforms are ghettos where developers are dependent on the capricious rules and regulations provided by the owners. This is hard to ignore when you see traffic to applications dropping by a reported 50% after the latest redesign for Facebook, and also when independent apps like Podcaster (err, whatever the name was) barred from the AppStore because it competed with functionality that Apple's own apps provided. Opportunity abounds in both, but there are many many losers in both as well. The real winner in both these situations is Apple and Facebook. Asking forgiveness from Marx, when possible it is always best to be the landlord. My second to last point in this unfortunately disconnected response is that neither Stallman nor Web 2.0 have ever been the "guard". Both are and have always been fringe movements. The "guard" has always been large companies selling software to other large companies and making tremendous sums of money while doing so. Finally, people do get paid for open source contributions. It isn't straight forward, and the correlation between time spent and money returned is not predictable in the same way it is for an hourly consultant gig, but there is always money there for people who grasp it.

Goodbye Stallman

15 points by hymanroth 18y ago

tsally 18y ago

All the people that made Fedora 9 worth $10.8 billion for free disagree with you [1]. Just because you wont work for free doesn't mean other people wont. It's a pretty unbelievable display of human passion and generosity. Why criticize that? [1] http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/estimatinglinux.php http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/estimatinglinux....

mcav 18y ago

If nothing else, Stallman serves as a constant reminder that we should consider the extremes -- both free, and what would happen should freedom disappear -- in order to keep a realistic perspective.

rms 18y ago
We should be happy that RMS is out there fighting the good fight. Though most of us don't go quite as far as he does, our livelihood depends on the availability of Free and open source software, and the ideals of the Free Software Movement. Democratic society is built on debate. When you have people at various extremes arguing you end up somewhere in the middle and I'm glad RMS is there to skew the average.
ratsbane 18y ago
Stallman's Javascript proposal seemed a bit out there to me to as I was reading it but then I remembered how many of Stallman's other ideas seemed goofy at the time they were written. In 1989 the GPL was an absurd idea but now it's been hugely successful and changed everything for all of us. He's earned enough lifetime karma points for me to think carefully about what he's saying. Also, by definition radically good ideas have to start out as radical ideas.

lethain 18y ago

Stallman surely realizes that minifying JavaScript is a standard process, but it doesn't seem particularly relevant to his point. First, it not straightforward to determine the licensing for many scripts, and second it does not provide access to an unobfuscated copy of the source. In no way does he ask for JavaScript to be served without minification, but rather he asks that minified JS contain a pointer to a non-minified copy. Doing so doesn't create an additional cost for the site owner, beyond possibly requiring an extra step in a build script. I think you are pushing two distinct movements into the same box: the free software movement championed by Stallman, and the "get users first, monetize later" euphoria of the "Web 2.0" movement. The first group is pursuing a moral agenda; the second believes that it is a legitimate route to wealth. Much of what you are blaming Stallman for seems better directed at the second movement or at open source developers (who are often a very different breed than Stallman, and who--in my experience--tend to hate the GPL as an unnecessarily restrictive license). I also find your example of iPhone and Facebook applications as somewhat problematic. These platforms are ghettos where developers are dependent on the capricious rules and regulations provided by the owners. This is hard to ignore when you see traffic to applications dropping by a reported 50% after the latest redesign for Facebook, and also when independent apps like Podcaster (err, whatever the name was) barred from the AppStore because it competed with functionality that Apple's own apps provided. Opportunity abounds in both, but there are many many losers in both as well. The real winner in both these situations is Apple and Facebook. Asking forgiveness from Marx, when possible it is always best to be the landlord. My second to last point in this unfortunately disconnected response is that neither Stallman nor Web 2.0 have ever been the "guard". Both are and have always been fringe movements. The "guard" has always been large companies selling software to other large companies and making tremendous sums of money while doing so. Finally, people do get paid for open source contributions. It isn't straight forward, and the correlation between time spent and money returned is not predictable in the same way it is for an hourly consultant gig, but there is always money there for people who grasp it.