7 ms·

This is why I get very angry whenever somebody calls Stallman a nut. He's not a nut. He's a visionary; albeit a very pessimistic and dystopian one. Call him cra

by kunai 13y ago

This is why I get very angry whenever somebody calls Stallman a nut. He's not a nut. He's a visionary; albeit a very pessimistic and dystopian one. Call him crazy now, but in 2023 you'll look back at what he said now, and you'll see how it's all right and wish you'd done something. Anything. But no. Free software is not business-oriented. He's a nut because of his privacy advocation; he must have something to hide. Let's just ignore him, and start startups and get everyone to accept our vendor lock-in and remain blissfully unaware how we're harming everyone.

GuiA 13y ago
Stallman's only "flaw" (but I'm not even sure it is one, actually), IMO, is that he could be more tactful about spreading his message. If most nerds don't take him seriously, why would any average non-techie person?
- jlgreco 13y ago
  The message he spreads is one that likely would not be well received with any delivery. People hate bad news.
  - pyre 13y ago
    People will receive bad news better if you know how to communicate and engage with them. As an example, the angry vegan on the street shouting, "Shame! Shame on you!" doesn't convince you to go vegan. The vegan that engages you in rational debate and shows you how a vegan lifestyle isn't as hard/daunting as it seems, may convince you. It's foolish to realize that people will ignore bad news from some unkempt academic that seems a bit off, rather than by a clean-cut smooth-talker in an expensive suit.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      A vegan that is explaining to you how easy their lifestyle is can hardly be said to be bringing you bad news. On the other hand a vegan that is calmly/politely/diplomatically explaining their point of view on the ethics of eating meat could be said to be bringing bad news, and I expect you will find that vegans are 'heard' far less often when they discuss that topic. I certainly tune them out and start getting annoyed when they go down that route, no matter how diplomatically they do it. The bizarre dual nature of patriotism and politics in the US makes it even worse for anyone looking to bring Stallman's message to the public. Telling people that "the system is not flawless and world would be wonderful if only 'those other jerks' stopped trying to subvert the system" is somewhere between "eating a hotdog is like eating your child" and "cows should be able to vote in elections". People have too much emotional stake in that system being the right system. Many of them have literally killed for it, or known people who were killed for it. They've lost sons, daughters, fathers and grandfathers who were fighting for it. They put people currently fighting for it on a pedestal of unconditional support. They have romantic notions of people before them fighting and dying for it. Maybe there is somebody out there charismatic enough to convince the general population to consider fundamental flaws with the system itself, but I don't think that such a person has really been seen in politics for many many years. Well, you can take a shortcut if you appeal to stronger allegiances than faith in American democracy... but those shortcuts drive us in the wrong direction.
      - chc 13y ago
        A vegan telling you about how easy an ethical lifestyle can be is still telling you, albeit very nicely, that our society is engaged in institutional atrocities and that you are complicit in them. They are just not dwelling on the negatives.
        jlgreco 13y ago
        The point is that those are things that people do not want to hear. This is why vegans, no matter how polite they are, rarely find a receptive audience when they talk about those things.
        pyre 13y ago
        People rarely like bad news when it means great change. If you can convince them that the change isn't as daunting as they might initially conceive, you've got your foot in the door. An example, "Beef is bad for you, but chicken/turkey is better." Sure you might miss steaks, but most recipes that call for ground beef could easily be substituted with ground turkey or chicken with little fuss.
        jessaustin 13y ago
        People rarely like bad news when it means great change. Isn't this exactly what jlgreco said? You've argued yourself in a circle.
        pyre 13y ago
        jlgreco: | vegans, no matter how polite they are, rarely find a | receptive audience This is what I was responding to with that comment.
pwg 13y ago
> Call him crazy now, but in 2023 you'll look back at what he said now, and you'll see how it's all right You don't have to wait until 2023. The linked posting has a copyright date of 2001, and the wording of the last few paragraphs implies it was written late in 2001 a few months after 9/11. And in the middle, is this sentence: "What I am worried about is massive surveillance of all aspects of life: of our phone calls, of our email, and of our physical movements." Which we have all now learned over the last few days is actually what has been happening, for far longer than anyone realized. So you only have to look at this article with what we know today, to realize how correct his warnings actually were/are.
- astrodust 13y ago
  > Which we have all now learned over the last few days is actually what has been happening, for far longer than anyone realized. Ever since Carnivore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software)) was uncovered, it's been obvious that a lot is going on behind the scenes. When the massive wire-tapping operation at AT&T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A) was brought to light, the scale and pervasiveness of this became clear. This was years ago. It's been safe to assume that all telephone conversations, text messages, instant messages, VOIP calls, email traffic, and all unencrypted web traffic is or could be subject to inspection, capture, and archiving. If it's not encrypted, it can be captured. If it is encrypted, it might be possible to decrypt it, you'll probably never know. Facebook has long been suspected of being partially owned and/or controlled by the CIA (http://www.globalresearch.ca/facebook-the-cia-conspiracy/12685 http://www.globalresearch.ca/facebook-the-cia-conspiracy/126...), and who could blame the CIA for taking an interest in such a valuable dataset. It's not clear if this is true, but if you're truly surprised that it's the case, you're far more of an optimist than I am. The only thing surprising about this is that it leaked out, not that it was happening in the first place.
  - theatraine 13y ago
    The Onion's parody on Facebook's CIA ownership is now sounding eerily accurate. For those who haven't seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqggW08BWO0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqggW08BWO0
Ayabashi 13y ago
While I agree with the broader point, the number of lives lost is a really poor metric. I don't know why so many people tout it as if it is supposed to prove something. It is one quantifiable measure, sure, but it is a pretty bad one.
gyardley 13y ago
It's possible for someone to be visionary about some things and nuts about others. Stallman seems to be right about the government's actions after 2001. That doesn't automatically mean he's right about the way I should or shouldn't run my business.
- kunai 13y ago
  He may not be in most cases; but usually if you're going to sell proprietary or closed-source software, you should at least give back to the community somehow with an open source project. Of course, it's not always right. And that's fine; the issue is yours, not mine. What he IS right about is that licensed software limits the user's freedom. That's unequivocal, you can't deny it.
  - tbrownaw 13y ago
    What he IS right about is that licensed software limits the user's freedom. That's unequivocal, you can't deny it. This becomes much less clear if you bother to consider things like how that software came to exist in the first place. Consider that there are things you can do, things you can't (or aren't permitted to) do, and things outside of possibility (eg web browsing before the internet was invented). Requiring software to be Free/unrestricted reduces "things you can't do", which given a fixed set of possibilities increases "things you can do". But the set of possibilities is not fixed. Depending on how any particular software being free affects the rate that things are removed from "outside of possibility", it could either increase or decrease the amount of "things you can do". Edit: Is your freedom defined by how much you can do, by how much you can't do, or by the ratio of how much you can vs can't do? It's silly to be concerned only with the second of those.
    - rhizome 13y ago
      Since this kind of negative can't be quantified, it has to be defined by how much you can do. The fewer the fences, the greater the freedom.
    - dsrguru 13y ago
rfnslyr 13y ago
>But no. Free software is not business-oriented. He's a nut because of his privacy advocation; he must have something to hide. Let's just ignore him, and start startups and get everyone to accept our vendor lock-in and remain blissfully unaware how we're harming everyone. Could you please expand on this?
- kunai 13y ago
  Github. I use Github, and I love it, but they're closed-source, in spite of so many free software projects being hosted on the site itself. It's ironic. Now, of course, Github doesn't have vendor lock-in because it runs on Git, and you can switch to Gitorious should you need to, but nobody will be there, and there's no features. In essence, you either use Github and it's awesome yet closed-source interface, or you just do local revision control or use a hosting site nobody uses. It's a vicious cycle. What if Github changes something? We can't change it back. What if they implement a backdoor to leak code out to third-parties? We can't change it back. We can't move anywhere else either, because everyone uses Github. You can apply this scenario to perhaps more critical applications as well. Office is one more example.
  - astrodust 13y ago
    Github is a business, and I think they're fairly entitled to have some closed source components, something proprietary to differentiate themselves. They also create a lot of open-source software that can be used as an alternative to what they do. If Github becomes a poisonous influence, people can and will abandon that platform and move to something better. It happened to Sourceforge and it can happen again.
    - jasonlotito 13y ago
      > Github is a business, and I think they're fairly entitled to have some closed source components No one debates that. However, it doesn't mean it's good for you. Even Github has vendor lock-in (Github is more than just git).
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
astrodust 13y ago
It's not that he's factually incorrect, it's that his conclusions are insane and that's what makes him dangerous. Like Glenn Beck, he starts in the realm of reasonable and ends up painting a picture that's surreal. His solution to these problems is to disconnect, to remove himself from the equation to the best of his ability. No cellular phone. No internet connection. No credit cards. Cash only. Don't use web services. Turn off cookies and JavaScript and Java. His answer to any problem seems to be to boycott it, as if that'll change things. Who but Stallman can operate like this? Not even secret agents are as paranoid, they're trained to hide in plain sight. What someone in his position should be doing is talking about how to avoid this dystopian future by promoting standards, accountability, and more transparency. They should be engaging with law enforcement to understand their need for information and protect a person's right to privacy. There's a legal framework out there that needs updating by people that understand technology, but if they're all stubbornly opposed to co-operating, more stupidly out of touch laws will be passed. This is why the EFF and organizations like it are extremely important. They're not advocating shutting down the internet just because it's being wiretapped. They're not hiding in a cave while invasive laws are being passed.
- throwaway420 13y ago
  I object to you calling his conclusion insane. While his response to this (almost completely removing himself from society) is unrealistic for the majority of people, his conclusions here are not insane, and are frighteningly accurate and prescient. I actually disagree with Stallman on a lot of political issues, but highlighting the dangers to liberty in the wake of attacks is completely sane. The only thing about Stallman that I find insane is his personal grooming habits/food choices.
- ninjac0der 13y ago
  "Who but Stallman can operate like this?" I think the real question is why people pretend they cannot and end up acting helpless. My co-workers can't even say no to $startup that acts like it's a requirement that you put your picture and bio on the company website. Some will grunt and complain about it, then act like I did something wrong when refusing this request (which is never presented as a request, of course). People are the problem here, the government is doing exactly what I would expect when you have a bunch of ineffectual serfs running around.
stiff 13y ago
Most criticism of Stallman boils down to the fact that people are reluctant to resign from even the slightest bit of what is convenient or pleasurable, even if ethically this would be the right thing to do or even if it is likely to cause harm in the long-term. I mean I have never seen anyone criticize Stallman in a logically or ethically coherent way, most people just whine that they are not going to stop using Facebook or their mobile because they won't.

by kunai 13y ago

GuiA 13y ago

Stallman's only "flaw" (but I'm not even sure it is one, actually), IMO, is that he could be more tactful about spreading his message. If most nerds don't take him seriously, why would any average non-techie person?

jlgreco 13y ago
The message he spreads is one that likely would not be well received with any delivery. People hate bad news.
- pyre 13y ago
  People will receive bad news better if you know how to communicate and engage with them. As an example, the angry vegan on the street shouting, "Shame! Shame on you!" doesn't convince you to go vegan. The vegan that engages you in rational debate and shows you how a vegan lifestyle isn't as hard/daunting as it seems, may convince you. It's foolish to realize that people will ignore bad news from some unkempt academic that seems a bit off, rather than by a clean-cut smooth-talker in an expensive suit.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    A vegan that is explaining to you how easy their lifestyle is can hardly be said to be bringing you bad news. On the other hand a vegan that is calmly/politely/diplomatically explaining their point of view on the ethics of eating meat could be said to be bringing bad news, and I expect you will find that vegans are 'heard' far less often when they discuss that topic. I certainly tune them out and start getting annoyed when they go down that route, no matter how diplomatically they do it. The bizarre dual nature of patriotism and politics in the US makes it even worse for anyone looking to bring Stallman's message to the public. Telling people that "the system is not flawless and world would be wonderful if only 'those other jerks' stopped trying to subvert the system" is somewhere between "eating a hotdog is like eating your child" and "cows should be able to vote in elections". People have too much emotional stake in that system being the right system. Many of them have literally killed for it, or known people who were killed for it. They've lost sons, daughters, fathers and grandfathers who were fighting for it. They put people currently fighting for it on a pedestal of unconditional support. They have romantic notions of people before them fighting and dying for it. Maybe there is somebody out there charismatic enough to convince the general population to consider fundamental flaws with the system itself, but I don't think that such a person has really been seen in politics for many many years. Well, you can take a shortcut if you appeal to stronger allegiances than faith in American democracy... but those shortcuts drive us in the wrong direction.
    - chc 13y ago
      A vegan telling you about how easy an ethical lifestyle can be is still telling you, albeit very nicely, that our society is engaged in institutional atrocities and that you are complicit in them. They are just not dwelling on the negatives.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        The point is that those are things that people do not want to hear. This is why vegans, no matter how polite they are, rarely find a receptive audience when they talk about those things.
        pyre 13y ago
        People rarely like bad news when it means great change. If you can convince them that the change isn't as daunting as they might initially conceive, you've got your foot in the door. An example, "Beef is bad for you, but chicken/turkey is better." Sure you might miss steaks, but most recipes that call for ground beef could easily be substituted with ground turkey or chicken with little fuss.
        jessaustin 13y ago
        People rarely like bad news when it means great change. Isn't this exactly what jlgreco said? You've argued yourself in a circle.
        pyre 13y ago
        jlgreco: | vegans, no matter how polite they are, rarely find a | receptive audience This is what I was responding to with that comment.

pwg 13y ago

> Call him crazy now, but in 2023 you'll look back at what he said now, and you'll see how it's all right You don't have to wait until 2023. The linked posting has a copyright date of 2001, and the wording of the last few paragraphs implies it was written late in 2001 a few months after 9/11. And in the middle, is this sentence: "What I am worried about is massive surveillance of all aspects of life: of our phone calls, of our email, and of our physical movements." Which we have all now learned over the last few days is actually what has been happening, for far longer than anyone realized. So you only have to look at this article with what we know today, to realize how correct his warnings actually were/are.

astrodust 13y ago
> Which we have all now learned over the last few days is actually what has been happening, for far longer than anyone realized. Ever since Carnivore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software)) was uncovered, it's been obvious that a lot is going on behind the scenes. When the massive wire-tapping operation at AT&T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A) was brought to light, the scale and pervasiveness of this became clear. This was years ago. It's been safe to assume that all telephone conversations, text messages, instant messages, VOIP calls, email traffic, and all unencrypted web traffic is or could be subject to inspection, capture, and archiving. If it's not encrypted, it can be captured. If it is encrypted, it might be possible to decrypt it, you'll probably never know. Facebook has long been suspected of being partially owned and/or controlled by the CIA (http://www.globalresearch.ca/facebook-the-cia-conspiracy/12685 http://www.globalresearch.ca/facebook-the-cia-conspiracy/126...), and who could blame the CIA for taking an interest in such a valuable dataset. It's not clear if this is true, but if you're truly surprised that it's the case, you're far more of an optimist than I am. The only thing surprising about this is that it leaked out, not that it was happening in the first place.
- theatraine 13y ago
  The Onion's parody on Facebook's CIA ownership is now sounding eerily accurate. For those who haven't seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqggW08BWO0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqggW08BWO0

Ayabashi 13y ago

While I agree with the broader point, the number of lives lost is a really poor metric. I don't know why so many people tout it as if it is supposed to prove something. It is one quantifiable measure, sure, but it is a pretty bad one.

gyardley 13y ago

It's possible for someone to be visionary about some things and nuts about others. Stallman seems to be right about the government's actions after 2001. That doesn't automatically mean he's right about the way I should or shouldn't run my business.

kunai 13y ago
He may not be in most cases; but usually if you're going to sell proprietary or closed-source software, you should at least give back to the community somehow with an open source project. Of course, it's not always right. And that's fine; the issue is yours, not mine. What he IS right about is that licensed software limits the user's freedom. That's unequivocal, you can't deny it.
- tbrownaw 13y ago
  What he IS right about is that licensed software limits the user's freedom. That's unequivocal, you can't deny it. This becomes much less clear if you bother to consider things like how that software came to exist in the first place. Consider that there are things you can do, things you can't (or aren't permitted to) do, and things outside of possibility (eg web browsing before the internet was invented). Requiring software to be Free/unrestricted reduces "things you can't do", which given a fixed set of possibilities increases "things you can do". But the set of possibilities is not fixed. Depending on how any particular software being free affects the rate that things are removed from "outside of possibility", it could either increase or decrease the amount of "things you can do". Edit: Is your freedom defined by how much you can do, by how much you can't do, or by the ratio of how much you can vs can't do? It's silly to be concerned only with the second of those.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    Since this kind of negative can't be quantified, it has to be defined by how much you can do. The fewer the fences, the greater the freedom.
  - dsrguru 13y ago

rfnslyr 13y ago

>But no. Free software is not business-oriented. He's a nut because of his privacy advocation; he must have something to hide. Let's just ignore him, and start startups and get everyone to accept our vendor lock-in and remain blissfully unaware how we're harming everyone. Could you please expand on this?

kunai 13y ago
Github. I use Github, and I love it, but they're closed-source, in spite of so many free software projects being hosted on the site itself. It's ironic. Now, of course, Github doesn't have vendor lock-in because it runs on Git, and you can switch to Gitorious should you need to, but nobody will be there, and there's no features. In essence, you either use Github and it's awesome yet closed-source interface, or you just do local revision control or use a hosting site nobody uses. It's a vicious cycle. What if Github changes something? We can't change it back. What if they implement a backdoor to leak code out to third-parties? We can't change it back. We can't move anywhere else either, because everyone uses Github. You can apply this scenario to perhaps more critical applications as well. Office is one more example.
- astrodust 13y ago
  Github is a business, and I think they're fairly entitled to have some closed source components, something proprietary to differentiate themselves. They also create a lot of open-source software that can be used as an alternative to what they do. If Github becomes a poisonous influence, people can and will abandon that platform and move to something better. It happened to Sourceforge and it can happen again.
  - jasonlotito 13y ago
    > Github is a business, and I think they're fairly entitled to have some closed source components No one debates that. However, it doesn't mean it's good for you. Even Github has vendor lock-in (Github is more than just git).

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

astrodust 13y ago

It's not that he's factually incorrect, it's that his conclusions are insane and that's what makes him dangerous. Like Glenn Beck, he starts in the realm of reasonable and ends up painting a picture that's surreal. His solution to these problems is to disconnect, to remove himself from the equation to the best of his ability. No cellular phone. No internet connection. No credit cards. Cash only. Don't use web services. Turn off cookies and JavaScript and Java. His answer to any problem seems to be to boycott it, as if that'll change things. Who but Stallman can operate like this? Not even secret agents are as paranoid, they're trained to hide in plain sight. What someone in his position should be doing is talking about how to avoid this dystopian future by promoting standards, accountability, and more transparency. They should be engaging with law enforcement to understand their need for information and protect a person's right to privacy. There's a legal framework out there that needs updating by people that understand technology, but if they're all stubbornly opposed to co-operating, more stupidly out of touch laws will be passed. This is why the EFF and organizations like it are extremely important. They're not advocating shutting down the internet just because it's being wiretapped. They're not hiding in a cave while invasive laws are being passed.

throwaway420 13y ago
I object to you calling his conclusion insane. While his response to this (almost completely removing himself from society) is unrealistic for the majority of people, his conclusions here are not insane, and are frighteningly accurate and prescient. I actually disagree with Stallman on a lot of political issues, but highlighting the dangers to liberty in the wake of attacks is completely sane. The only thing about Stallman that I find insane is his personal grooming habits/food choices.
ninjac0der 13y ago
"Who but Stallman can operate like this?" I think the real question is why people pretend they cannot and end up acting helpless. My co-workers can't even say no to $startup that acts like it's a requirement that you put your picture and bio on the company website. Some will grunt and complain about it, then act like I did something wrong when refusing this request (which is never presented as a request, of course). People are the problem here, the government is doing exactly what I would expect when you have a bunch of ineffectual serfs running around.

stiff 13y ago

Most criticism of Stallman boils down to the fact that people are reluctant to resign from even the slightest bit of what is convenient or pleasurable, even if ethically this would be the right thing to do or even if it is likely to cause harm in the long-term. I mean I have never seen anyone criticize Stallman in a logically or ethically coherent way, most people just whine that they are not going to stop using Facebook or their mobile because they won't.