4 ms·

You feel the need to censor "heck"? Seriously though, I agree. Stallman here seems to be adopting almost a religious argument, not a pragmatic one. He even ann

You feel the need to censor "heck"? Seriously though, I agree. Stallman here seems to be adopting almost a religious argument, not a pragmatic one. He even announces a refusal to use Skype because it's not free software. If he prioritizes freedom over everything else, then more power to him, but to me talking about who "wins" and "loses" on some kind of arbitrary scale of freedom does not make a compelling case against the use of excellent tools like Clang/LLVM.

zwieback 13y ago
I think that's the function of Stallman and what he will be remembered as: an absolute that's useful to measure your own position against.
- smrtinsert 13y ago
  I agree. Also it serves to be notable so people keep talking about it.
vezzy-fnord 13y ago
He even announces a refusal to use Skype because it's not free software. Which is a valid complaint given the nature of Skype. There's also tons of other reasons, though. Primarily technical ones. Either way, software freedom is an important goal and even though I don't necessarily agree with RMS in this case, I understand where he's coming from. So many people seem to have some phobia of accentuating the ethical, freedom and community contexts that the term "free software" implies, preferring the more bitterly pragmatic "open source". That and this is a very typical RMS rant. This is probably the umpteenth one of the same variation, only with $SOFTWARE being Clang/LLVM in this case. For the record, I love Clang/LLVM and support BSD licensing. For a lot of software, having an open source development model without the deeper freedom contexts is good enough.
- ygra 13y ago
  Re Skype: He also suggests just making a normal phone call. Which has pretty much the same problems: It's an opaque, closed system with pretty much the only difference that there are multiple companies controlling it instead of just one.
  - ochs 13y ago
    I don't think that's true. Phone systems are standardised. There is also free telephony software (like asterisk). The cell phone stuff is more secretive, but it's still more open than Skype, which is completely obfuscated, proprietary and centralised.
    - belorn 13y ago
      I would only add that I can own my phone. I can not own my own skype client. The complaint about using phone would be much better suited for 1950 where "the phone company" owned the phone. You called, was asked to choose between 3 different colors, and then a few days/weeks later they came and installed a phone with the clear label that said "property of the phone company".
pachydermic 13y ago
Dude. rms founded the freaking FSF. If he doesn't support free software, then what the hell is he doing? I think what he wrote here makes total sense, even if I use tons of nonfree software myself. I value convenience and performance more than rms does - to him, freedom is much more important. I think his argument is just that the whole point of GNU and the FSF is to make free software - if they compromised on that, then what would they stand for? And I think that argument makes perfect sense.
- gtirloni 13y ago
  You've got to admire RMS for that. In the previous email, ESR is essentially saying "GCC is doomed if it doesn't change, it will be legacy" and RMS response is one of no compromises. I respect that, even though I disagree almost completely and have no alignment with what the FSF proposes.
- thinkpad20 13y ago
  I understand that he needs and wants to support the cause of free software, but you can do that without making the hyperbolic statements he is making. Being as ideologically rigid as he is can be counter-productive, as people like me are less likely to take his arguments seriously if they seem to be founded more on dogma than sound arguments.

zwieback 13y ago

I think that's the function of Stallman and what he will be remembered as: an absolute that's useful to measure your own position against.

smrtinsert 13y ago
I agree. Also it serves to be notable so people keep talking about it.

vezzy-fnord 13y ago

He even announces a refusal to use Skype because it's not free software. Which is a valid complaint given the nature of Skype. There's also tons of other reasons, though. Primarily technical ones. Either way, software freedom is an important goal and even though I don't necessarily agree with RMS in this case, I understand where he's coming from. So many people seem to have some phobia of accentuating the ethical, freedom and community contexts that the term "free software" implies, preferring the more bitterly pragmatic "open source". That and this is a very typical RMS rant. This is probably the umpteenth one of the same variation, only with $SOFTWARE being Clang/LLVM in this case. For the record, I love Clang/LLVM and support BSD licensing. For a lot of software, having an open source development model without the deeper freedom contexts is good enough.

ygra 13y ago
Re Skype: He also suggests just making a normal phone call. Which has pretty much the same problems: It's an opaque, closed system with pretty much the only difference that there are multiple companies controlling it instead of just one.
- ochs 13y ago
  I don't think that's true. Phone systems are standardised. There is also free telephony software (like asterisk). The cell phone stuff is more secretive, but it's still more open than Skype, which is completely obfuscated, proprietary and centralised.
  - belorn 13y ago
    I would only add that I can own my phone. I can not own my own skype client. The complaint about using phone would be much better suited for 1950 where "the phone company" owned the phone. You called, was asked to choose between 3 different colors, and then a few days/weeks later they came and installed a phone with the clear label that said "property of the phone company".

pachydermic 13y ago

Dude. rms founded the freaking FSF. If he doesn't support free software, then what the hell is he doing? I think what he wrote here makes total sense, even if I use tons of nonfree software myself. I value convenience and performance more than rms does - to him, freedom is much more important. I think his argument is just that the whole point of GNU and the FSF is to make free software - if they compromised on that, then what would they stand for? And I think that argument makes perfect sense.

gtirloni 13y ago
You've got to admire RMS for that. In the previous email, ESR is essentially saying "GCC is doomed if it doesn't change, it will be legacy" and RMS response is one of no compromises. I respect that, even though I disagree almost completely and have no alignment with what the FSF proposes.
thinkpad20 13y ago
I understand that he needs and wants to support the cause of free software, but you can do that without making the hyperbolic statements he is making. Being as ideologically rigid as he is can be counter-productive, as people like me are less likely to take his arguments seriously if they seem to be founded more on dogma than sound arguments.