4 ms·

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 Sta

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]
- dinkumthinkum 13y ago
  You're response is funny to me. It's funny because, and I know this sounds arrogant but I am 100%, 100% right and anyone that is both intelligent and honest can see this. I'm not right because I'm smart, I'm right because I have common sense. You're making this typical naive morally indignant response about promoting scarcity blah blah blah. You may be a person totally devoid of self interests but the fact is most people are not. I'm sorry Virginia. Now let us please recognize the fact that people were never stopped from following RMS moral truth throughout the history of technological innovation. Yet, many people have labored for you to have these fancy things like Teflon, integrated circuits, CT machines, all manner of strange, complicated things. We don't have a lot of evidence of great technological innovation occurring under some sort of quasi Marxist (not meant derigatorily) paradigm that was not spurred because of some desire to win a nuclear arms race or equivalent. It's just horribly naive. As far as the self-righteousness about like "we are to create value" and your strawman game ... Are you seriously suggesting programmers are worthless. =) No, I know you want donations or something and then will jibber jabber about how we all should learn to live with less, I'm not sure. I'll be honest I don't know what you're reaction but this response is hard to take seriously. You think the modern world would really fell out of Stallman's world view? You think society would really work that way? If you do, I think you are seriously misguided about reality. It may be true that Stallman is morally right, but, trust me, no one really wants to live in that world (well sure, if you've ever seen that show "Taboo" there are some out-there people, but keys get real). I will say this, your position, if it were to take hold, would be an interesting and fun, if devastating, way to shut up all those people that blather on about how "everyone needs to learn to code" ... Although if this RMS moral view took hold in the past we wouldn't have to worry about that in the first place.

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]
dinkumthinkum 13y ago
You're response is funny to me. It's funny because, and I know this sounds arrogant but I am 100%, 100% right and anyone that is both intelligent and honest can see this. I'm not right because I'm smart, I'm right because I have common sense. You're making this typical naive morally indignant response about promoting scarcity blah blah blah. You may be a person totally devoid of self interests but the fact is most people are not. I'm sorry Virginia. Now let us please recognize the fact that people were never stopped from following RMS moral truth throughout the history of technological innovation. Yet, many people have labored for you to have these fancy things like Teflon, integrated circuits, CT machines, all manner of strange, complicated things. We don't have a lot of evidence of great technological innovation occurring under some sort of quasi Marxist (not meant derigatorily) paradigm that was not spurred because of some desire to win a nuclear arms race or equivalent. It's just horribly naive. As far as the self-righteousness about like "we are to create value" and your strawman game ... Are you seriously suggesting programmers are worthless. =) No, I know you want donations or something and then will jibber jabber about how we all should learn to live with less, I'm not sure. I'll be honest I don't know what you're reaction but this response is hard to take seriously. You think the modern world would really fell out of Stallman's world view? You think society would really work that way? If you do, I think you are seriously misguided about reality. It may be true that Stallman is morally right, but, trust me, no one really wants to live in that world (well sure, if you've ever seen that show "Taboo" there are some out-there people, but keys get real). I will say this, your position, if it were to take hold, would be an interesting and fun, if devastating, way to shut up all those people that blather on about how "everyone needs to learn to code" ... Although if this RMS moral view took hold in the past we wouldn't have to worry about that in the first place.