5 ms·

Admire him for his dedication, and for his sacrifice, but his message is not getting through, and it's getting through less each day. Freedom is not an end to m

Admire him for his dedication, and for his sacrifice, but his message is not getting through, and it's getting through less each day. Freedom is not an end to most people, it is a means (source: I'm one of those people). I'm not sure what tack he needs to take, but the current one is not going to suddenly start working after so many years of not.

lifeisstillgood 13y ago
Stallman does not need to change - either his message or his tack. He is, sadly, right. And the world will hit a confluence of circumstances where we must confront the choice between free/libre software and opaque surveillance. If Mohammed waits long enough the mountain will move.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  I think the literal falsity of your metaphor speaks for itself. Mohammed can wait as long as he wants. The mountain isn't going anywhere. Things don't have to end up a certain way because it's "right" for them to. And being "right" has failed to win many a time.
  - digisign 13y ago
    Mountains actually do move, you don't notice because your lifetime is too short.
- dinkumthinkum 13y ago
  Well that's just ridiculous. You can't just hand wave and say Stallman's view is right or is the way things should be. Many would not really want to live in Stallman's Utopia. Stallman freely admits that his view probably entails a certain destruction of programming as a profession that is worth more than ditch digging or deincentivizes a lot of innovation ... I like RMS as a person, and he was a brilliant programmer at one point, but let's be honest, he might as well be using a type writer with a telegraph system. What is it that you think shows RMS as being clearly right?
  - pekk 13y ago
    Wait, are you seriously saying that programmers should create artificial scarcities and not share their work in order to ensure the value of their profession? You seem to think the profession is parasitic rather than creating value
    - mwfunk 13y ago
      Not freely sharing the fruits of one's labors is hardly "parasitic". Rather, it would be more accurate to call it "not sharing", which is a very very different thing. This whole style of argumentation is a hallmark of RMS' rhetorical style, and is something that turns off a lot of people to his message, even those who might otherwise agree with many of his principles. If you have to use hyperbolic language to demonize those you disagree with (equating programmers of proprietary software as parasites), and putting those you agree with on a pedestal (equating programming of free software as the only way to create value), then people who are not already in the choir you're preaching to (which is what you're doing) will conclude that your beliefs are basically just you romanticizing the whole situation rather than something you came to through any sort of real intellectual process that holds any weight. You could be 100% correct and no one would ever know it, because it's being expressed as a lot of kneejerk emotional reactions to a lot of things. RMS has always done the same thing, using his fundamental choice of words to smear and denigrate those he disagreed with by turning them all into strawmen, and elevating his own philosophy beyond simply espousing a particular virtue to presenting it as a stark moral choice to which any variation or disagreement is immoral. This automatically puts him into the category of people who are either wrong, or who have come to a correct conclusion through completely invalid means (pretty unlikely, but not impossible- broken clocks are right twice a day, etc.). I guess it's more exciting to think about these issues as being a bunch of stark, binary moral choices with no gray areas, and sorting everyone into those who are 100% on board with your cause one one side, and a bunch of sinners or heretics or whatever on the other side, but the historical track record for those sorts of philosophers and philosophies is not stellar, to say the least.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
ewzimm 13y ago
Because it's so easily modified and distributed, free software has become the most common software in the world. Consumers might not care about licenses, but anyone who develops software has gained an enormous amount from free software. Without the FSF and others like them, we would likely be far behind in software development because exposure to source code might be a special privilege.
Nux 13y ago
I'd love to look at some numbers. I'd say that his message gets to more and more people and the current circumstances are making free software more relevant than ever. I think the ratio of people caring (or not caring) is the same, but sheer numbers must have increased with time. How are you trusting your Windows/Macos today? :) Imo, his tack will not work any better because most people continue to not give a shit about their freedoms. Take away "convenience" or "entertainment" and you've got yourself a revolution.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  > trusting your Windows/Macos today Well enough for day-to-day purposes. And therein lies the problem with Stallman's perspective, as it affects the common man.
  - Nux 13y ago
    Voilà. :)
- dinkumthinkum 13y ago
  Oh hogwash. RMS is principled but his "all or nothing" approach is less effective than PETA. The reality is most people don't understand Stallman, neither his detractors or supporters. For most of you that "support" Stallman, he would deride your love of open source as little more being evil or masochistic. To paint detractors or non-followers of Stallman as mindless entertainment watchers or whatever is very simplistic.
tjr 13y ago
If freedom is not an end for you, but a means, in what respect is it a means?
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  Depends on what freedom you're talking about. To give one example, the freedom to vote is important to me because I think the world would get less fun if we had a monarchy or autarchy. But if there was evidence of some form of government where I didn't get to vote but I would be happier and more fulfilled? Happy to give democracy up if the evidence is convincing enough. Freedom of vote is not an end, it is a means to good governance. Similarly with most freedoms.
  - jeremyjh 13y ago
    That is simply a fantasy though. No one can ever credibly make such a guarantee. Instead what we have to rely on is the principal that given adequate individual freedoms society is mostly self-correcting. You will never get the most ideal outcomes but you certainly will not live in the worst possible world either. Free software no is different.
    - jamesaguilar 13y ago
      Hypotheticals are all fantasy. Calling mine that is a non-criticism. Also, there are some exemplars that make my view slightly less fantastic than you might say. Chinese governance is better than plenty of places that have universal suffrage, for example. > Instead what we have to rely on is the principal that given adequate individual freedoms society is mostly self-correcting. This principle has not been proved to my satisfaction.
M2Ys4U 13y ago
I don't think Stallman needs to change his approach or message. We do, however, need somebody to augment his arguments with ones that will reach people like you.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  Granted. I was inappropriately treating Stallman as "the free software movement." He does not, himself, need to change.
- dinkumthinkum 13y ago
  Rather than worrying about rhetoric, though, why don't we question whether Stallman is actually right or whether his Utopia is somewhere we really want to live?
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    Plenty of people do, for example, anyone who chooses to work at a SaaS or proprietary packaged software company. They may not question it with their words, but they do with their actions.
    - dinkumthinkum 13y ago
      =) Well, right. But I mean, I feel like those that support RMS view should question whether he is right and not just how he can package his message better. There are many that fully understand RMS AND agree with him but there are MANY that think they agree with RMS but do not really understand him. I always find it amusing when some Linux podcast has RMS on and the hosts are not very sophisticated on RMS and think "Oh, awesome, we love Linux and free software rocks and RMS is so cool and such a big name in free software, we love RMS" And then RMS comes on the show and basically tells the hosts they are worse than Pol Pot or any NAZI you could ever imagine!
  - zxcdw 13y ago
    What is his utopia? That all software would be free software? I for one would love to live in such a world. Why? Because then I could trust and be free with my computing. Now I can't, and I value my trust and freedom over conveinience and entertainment, as such I haven't opted-in for many common usages of computers and computing. It would be nice, but no thanks. Would the world be a better place if Firefox and GNU/Linux were proprietary? I doubt that. How could we trust Tor? How could we(as in the whole internet-connected world) have any form of secure communications which we could trust? In fact, I think we would see far more oppression and totalitariatism in such an alternative, I believe free software helps tremendously with this as it gives more freedom and makes it harder to take freedoms away and harder to enforce blind faith on authorities.
exceptione 13y ago
If freedom is a means then the question should be answered: to what? A man could be free or otherwise he is bound to servitude. → If freedom is a means—possibly intermediately—to obtain freedom then freedom is still an end. → If freedom is not a means—possibly intermediately—to obtain freedom then one's end will be to serve someone else.

lifeisstillgood 13y ago

Stallman does not need to change - either his message or his tack. He is, sadly, right. And the world will hit a confluence of circumstances where we must confront the choice between free/libre software and opaque surveillance. If Mohammed waits long enough the mountain will move.

jamesaguilar 13y ago
I think the literal falsity of your metaphor speaks for itself. Mohammed can wait as long as he wants. The mountain isn't going anywhere. Things don't have to end up a certain way because it's "right" for them to. And being "right" has failed to win many a time.
- digisign 13y ago
  Mountains actually do move, you don't notice because your lifetime is too short.
dinkumthinkum 13y ago
Well that's just ridiculous. You can't just hand wave and say Stallman's view is right or is the way things should be. Many would not really want to live in Stallman's Utopia. Stallman freely admits that his view probably entails a certain destruction of programming as a profession that is worth more than ditch digging or deincentivizes a lot of innovation ... I like RMS as a person, and he was a brilliant programmer at one point, but let's be honest, he might as well be using a type writer with a telegraph system. What is it that you think shows RMS as being clearly right?
- pekk 13y ago
  Wait, are you seriously saying that programmers should create artificial scarcities and not share their work in order to ensure the value of their profession? You seem to think the profession is parasitic rather than creating value
  - mwfunk 13y ago
    Not freely sharing the fruits of one's labors is hardly "parasitic". Rather, it would be more accurate to call it "not sharing", which is a very very different thing. This whole style of argumentation is a hallmark of RMS' rhetorical style, and is something that turns off a lot of people to his message, even those who might otherwise agree with many of his principles. If you have to use hyperbolic language to demonize those you disagree with (equating programmers of proprietary software as parasites), and putting those you agree with on a pedestal (equating programming of free software as the only way to create value), then people who are not already in the choir you're preaching to (which is what you're doing) will conclude that your beliefs are basically just you romanticizing the whole situation rather than something you came to through any sort of real intellectual process that holds any weight. You could be 100% correct and no one would ever know it, because it's being expressed as a lot of kneejerk emotional reactions to a lot of things. RMS has always done the same thing, using his fundamental choice of words to smear and denigrate those he disagreed with by turning them all into strawmen, and elevating his own philosophy beyond simply espousing a particular virtue to presenting it as a stark moral choice to which any variation or disagreement is immoral. This automatically puts him into the category of people who are either wrong, or who have come to a correct conclusion through completely invalid means (pretty unlikely, but not impossible- broken clocks are right twice a day, etc.). I guess it's more exciting to think about these issues as being a bunch of stark, binary moral choices with no gray areas, and sorting everyone into those who are 100% on board with your cause one one side, and a bunch of sinners or heretics or whatever on the other side, but the historical track record for those sorts of philosophers and philosophies is not stellar, to say the least.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]

ewzimm 13y ago

Because it's so easily modified and distributed, free software has become the most common software in the world. Consumers might not care about licenses, but anyone who develops software has gained an enormous amount from free software. Without the FSF and others like them, we would likely be far behind in software development because exposure to source code might be a special privilege.

Nux 13y ago

I'd love to look at some numbers. I'd say that his message gets to more and more people and the current circumstances are making free software more relevant than ever. I think the ratio of people caring (or not caring) is the same, but sheer numbers must have increased with time. How are you trusting your Windows/Macos today? :) Imo, his tack will not work any better because most people continue to not give a shit about their freedoms. Take away "convenience" or "entertainment" and you've got yourself a revolution.

jamesaguilar 13y ago
> trusting your Windows/Macos today Well enough for day-to-day purposes. And therein lies the problem with Stallman's perspective, as it affects the common man.
- Nux 13y ago
  Voilà. :)
dinkumthinkum 13y ago
Oh hogwash. RMS is principled but his "all or nothing" approach is less effective than PETA. The reality is most people don't understand Stallman, neither his detractors or supporters. For most of you that "support" Stallman, he would deride your love of open source as little more being evil or masochistic. To paint detractors or non-followers of Stallman as mindless entertainment watchers or whatever is very simplistic.

tjr 13y ago

If freedom is not an end for you, but a means, in what respect is it a means?

jamesaguilar 13y ago
Depends on what freedom you're talking about. To give one example, the freedom to vote is important to me because I think the world would get less fun if we had a monarchy or autarchy. But if there was evidence of some form of government where I didn't get to vote but I would be happier and more fulfilled? Happy to give democracy up if the evidence is convincing enough. Freedom of vote is not an end, it is a means to good governance. Similarly with most freedoms.
- jeremyjh 13y ago
  That is simply a fantasy though. No one can ever credibly make such a guarantee. Instead what we have to rely on is the principal that given adequate individual freedoms society is mostly self-correcting. You will never get the most ideal outcomes but you certainly will not live in the worst possible world either. Free software no is different.
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    Hypotheticals are all fantasy. Calling mine that is a non-criticism. Also, there are some exemplars that make my view slightly less fantastic than you might say. Chinese governance is better than plenty of places that have universal suffrage, for example. > Instead what we have to rely on is the principal that given adequate individual freedoms society is mostly self-correcting. This principle has not been proved to my satisfaction.

M2Ys4U 13y ago

I don't think Stallman needs to change his approach or message. We do, however, need somebody to augment his arguments with ones that will reach people like you.

jamesaguilar 13y ago
Granted. I was inappropriately treating Stallman as "the free software movement." He does not, himself, need to change.
dinkumthinkum 13y ago
Rather than worrying about rhetoric, though, why don't we question whether Stallman is actually right or whether his Utopia is somewhere we really want to live?
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  Plenty of people do, for example, anyone who chooses to work at a SaaS or proprietary packaged software company. They may not question it with their words, but they do with their actions.
  - dinkumthinkum 13y ago
    =) Well, right. But I mean, I feel like those that support RMS view should question whether he is right and not just how he can package his message better. There are many that fully understand RMS AND agree with him but there are MANY that think they agree with RMS but do not really understand him. I always find it amusing when some Linux podcast has RMS on and the hosts are not very sophisticated on RMS and think "Oh, awesome, we love Linux and free software rocks and RMS is so cool and such a big name in free software, we love RMS" And then RMS comes on the show and basically tells the hosts they are worse than Pol Pot or any NAZI you could ever imagine!
- zxcdw 13y ago
  What is his utopia? That all software would be free software? I for one would love to live in such a world. Why? Because then I could trust and be free with my computing. Now I can't, and I value my trust and freedom over conveinience and entertainment, as such I haven't opted-in for many common usages of computers and computing. It would be nice, but no thanks. Would the world be a better place if Firefox and GNU/Linux were proprietary? I doubt that. How could we trust Tor? How could we(as in the whole internet-connected world) have any form of secure communications which we could trust? In fact, I think we would see far more oppression and totalitariatism in such an alternative, I believe free software helps tremendously with this as it gives more freedom and makes it harder to take freedoms away and harder to enforce blind faith on authorities.

exceptione 13y ago

If freedom is a means then the question should be answered: to what? A man could be free or otherwise he is bound to servitude. → If freedom is a means—possibly intermediately—to obtain freedom then freedom is still an end. → If freedom is not a means—possibly intermediately—to obtain freedom then one's end will be to serve someone else.