9 ms·

Richard Stallman is Not the Bad Guy

46 points by nice1 17y ago

jsz0 17y ago
I'm sure he's not a bad person but he is clearly intolerant of other peoples opinions when they are in conflict with his own. He also has a bad habit of going overboard in the way he vilifies people and technologies sometimes.
artificer 17y ago
I liked this article, especially for the last known picture of RMS when he was shaved, and (more seriously) Stallman's quote at the end. This sums it all up quite well in my opinion.
rimantas 17y ago
Sometimes I want to retain my freedom not to have freedom in certain cases.
jballanc 17y ago
I think reading about the early history of the MIT AI labs and the history of LISP machines really helps to put RMS in context. Before reading about how that all played out, I was one of the ones who respected RMS's broad goals, but decried his almost radical attitude. I don't think like that any longer. Instead, I now see RMS as a sort of holocaust survivor warning against complacency when dealing with dictators. If RMS seems overly concerned with corporations co-opting free software, it's only because he's been there! (P.S. Sorry for not providing links to the LISP machine history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_machine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_machine and http://funcall.blogspot.com http://funcall.blogspot.com are probably a good jumping-off points. The tl;dr of it is: MIT AI labs developed LISP, Symbolics took MIT's work and commercialized it without giving back, the MIT AI lab guys responded by going off and forming their own LISP machine company, and that left RMS all alone at MIT and hating commercial software)
TomOfTTB 17y ago
Stallman isn't a bad guy but he's a zealot and like in every other aspect of life following a zealot generally isn't a good idea. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against him speaking his mind or his supporters speaking theirs. The difference here is between "Mono and de Icaza are evil" and "I think Mono is the wrong approach and here's why" Stallman always jumps to "people who disagree with me are evil" and that's why even his supporters are starting to wonder if he's doing more damage than good.
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  Read this and tell me whether it says "Mono and de Icaza are evil" or "I think Mono is the wrong approach and here's why": Why free software shouldn't depend on Mono or C# by Richard Stallman http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono Some quotes: "This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing. Free C# implementations permit users to run their C# programs on free platforms, which is good." "The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in Tomboy and other applications written in C#. If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them too. That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk. We should systematically arrange to depend on the free C# implementations as little as possible." Also related, the next news article: http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono
  - Zak 17y ago
    I wouldn't even read that as "Mono is the wrong approach", but as "you should not choose Mono or C# as the basis for a new free software project".
  - jeroen 17y ago
    Read this and notice that rms calls de Icaza a traitor: http://www.osnews.com/story/22225/RMS_De_Icaza_Traitor_to_Free_Software_Community http://www.osnews.com/story/22225/RMS_De_Icaza_Traitor_to_Fr... Looks more like the former (evil) to me.
    - 17y ago
joe_the_user 17y ago
One big problem I have with Mono is that it seems terminally buggy. A Mono application I was thinking of getting involved with had untraceable memory leaks to it that seemed to doom an otherwise excellent app to second-rate-ness. Further, the whole '.NET' architecture seems to be structurally so elaborate that any open source implementation would have to be buggy and incomplete since no one person would have the time to really finish or even understand all of it. So I think that even without the thread of patents, .NET is a bad thing for open source because it gives folks a continual impetus to go to the working, closed-source MS implementation.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  So, then here is a question: If .NET is so big, the spec is unmanageable and so on, why even attempt this ? There was a time when DEC shops were turning out projects between two and five times the speed of a comparable IBM shop. The advantage was that the defaults were sane and you could actually know the system. It was stable and a breeze to develop for. By bringing 'mono' or something like it into the open source community we are attempting to match microsoft at its own game, which is imho completely stupid. If open source is to succeed it should not attempt to copy the kind of architecture that you can only build and maintain with an army of programmers that will slog away at it simply because they get paid to do so.
Semiapies 17y ago
As old as the net. 1) Some guy says something obnoxious. 2) Bystanders observe, "What a dick-move." 3) Guy complains that people are trying to censor him because they dare say that they disapprove of or disagree with him. The main innovation in modern days is that for some folks, fanboys will take care of step 3 on behalf of the guy who's "under attack".
- omouse 17y ago
  Some guy says something obnoxious. In this case we basically only have one source for the statement. I don't remember seeing anyone else aside from the OSNews guy mentioning that statement. Some other blogger tried to get a transcript of the Q&A that Stallman was giving but the FSF apparently doesn't keep transcripts of Q&As (they probably didn't record video :/)
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    Please. If it's so dubious, why do the fanboys not question that remark, but immediately leap to defend it and either try to redefine "traitor" as meaning something else or declare that they agree about the supposed "treason"? Now, to be terribly fair, it's probably true that even if he didn't say it, everybody would be acting the same way. Nobody, even his fans, really doubts that he would say it. It's his style, and it's the exact sort of obnoxious remark his fanboys are used to defending and supporting. EDIT: Ultimately, my complaint is about the fanboys. Someone made a dickmove. That someone is an icon to the fanboys, but he hasn't actually done anything in years besides be an icon to them, so it's barely even a story before the fans get involved.
borism 17y ago
I looked at the link and couldn't understand a thing what exactly is RMS or author's problem again. The "article" is more of a collection of links and quotes joined together by some rant. Domain name is quite telling as well. I have seen RMS in person, I have heard his inspirational speech (that was in the days we battled EU software patents directive), I respect him as an activist and as a Hacker. I also donate to FSF. But I'm way too tired of all those internal OSS scuffles that RMS seems always to take part of.
- rit 17y ago
  Oh, not just the domain. The actual path of the article is: /2009/09/26/richard-stallman-smeared-for-truth/ Which makes me think he rethought his headline after originally writing it. Again, reiterating my earlier statement... If you want to boycott Novell, start with digging out every piece of code they have touched directly or indirectly to Linux, starting with Gnome, Mono, and a whole ton of other stuff that will reduce Linux back to 1996-level functionality.
ComputerGuru 17y ago
Sure he's not... He just has a tendency of taking things a wee tiny bit overboard, such as accusing the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation of not giving a damn about helping the millions in Africa: http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/richard-stallman-expert-in-the-art-of-fud/ http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/richard-stallman-expert-in-the...
- alecco 17y ago
  Let's see. You "ComputerGuru" and a random blogger "NeoSmart" (without even an about us page) versus BBC and LA Times. Your post and the blog post is completely out of context. Stallman quoted on his BBC article a 7 page LA Times investigation. "Dark cloud over good works of Gates Foundation" http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,2533850.story http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,2533850.st... The Gates Foundation has poured $218 million into polio and measles immunization and research worldwide, including in the Niger Delta. At the same time that the foundation is funding inoculations to protect health, The Times found, it has invested $423 million in Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Total of France — the companies responsible for most of the flares blanketing the delta with pollution, beyond anything permitted in the United States or Europe. Indeed, local leaders blame oil development for fostering some of the very afflictions that the foundation combats." Stallman's article doesn't even emphasize it as much. Its abstract reads: To pay so much attention to Bill Gates' retirement is missing the point. What really matters is not Gates, nor Microsoft, but the unethical system of restrictions that Microsoft, like many other software companies, imposes on its customers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7487060.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7487060.stm Edit: formatting.
- alecco 17y ago
  The icing on the cake: You are actually the same guy! Check out ComputerGuru's profile: about: Founder and director of NeoSmart Technologies (http://neosmart.net/) a non-profit software development and research organization. Specialization in high-performance webapps and OS kernel design. The "art of fud", indeed.
  - Semiapies 17y ago
kib2 17y ago
If I remember correctly, Stallman also launched a war against Tcl some time ago. But I never really understood why he did it. Any hint ?
- omouse 17y ago
  From the threads I'm looking up, it seems that he just disliked the language? :S
- tjr 17y ago
  http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/gnu/tcl-not http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/gnu/tcl-not
  - kib2 17y ago
    thanks tjr!
idan 17y ago
Regardless of RMS's position and community's reaction, that was just a poorly written, rambling paean to RMS. I'll concede that there are some valid points to be fished out of that article and ruminated upon but the rampant amount of RMS adulation practically drowned it out. (Full disclosure: I do indeed think that this is paranoid "they're all making fun of me" tripe. But that has no bearing on the above.)
known 17y ago
RMS sees everything in Black and White. Hence he is very Sensitive.

46 points by nice1 17y ago

jsz0 17y ago

I'm sure he's not a bad person but he is clearly intolerant of other peoples opinions when they are in conflict with his own. He also has a bad habit of going overboard in the way he vilifies people and technologies sometimes.

artificer 17y ago

I liked this article, especially for the last known picture of RMS when he was shaved, and (more seriously) Stallman's quote at the end. This sums it all up quite well in my opinion.

rimantas 17y ago

Sometimes I want to retain my freedom not to have freedom in certain cases.

jballanc 17y ago

I think reading about the early history of the MIT AI labs and the history of LISP machines really helps to put RMS in context. Before reading about how that all played out, I was one of the ones who respected RMS's broad goals, but decried his almost radical attitude. I don't think like that any longer. Instead, I now see RMS as a sort of holocaust survivor warning against complacency when dealing with dictators. If RMS seems overly concerned with corporations co-opting free software, it's only because he's been there! (P.S. Sorry for not providing links to the LISP machine history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_machine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_machine and http://funcall.blogspot.com http://funcall.blogspot.com are probably a good jumping-off points. The tl;dr of it is: MIT AI labs developed LISP, Symbolics took MIT's work and commercialized it without giving back, the MIT AI lab guys responded by going off and forming their own LISP machine company, and that left RMS all alone at MIT and hating commercial software)

TomOfTTB 17y ago

Stallman isn't a bad guy but he's a zealot and like in every other aspect of life following a zealot generally isn't a good idea. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against him speaking his mind or his supporters speaking theirs. The difference here is between "Mono and de Icaza are evil" and "I think Mono is the wrong approach and here's why" Stallman always jumps to "people who disagree with me are evil" and that's why even his supporters are starting to wonder if he's doing more damage than good.

ZeroGravitas 17y ago
Read this and tell me whether it says "Mono and de Icaza are evil" or "I think Mono is the wrong approach and here's why": Why free software shouldn't depend on Mono or C# by Richard Stallman http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono Some quotes: "This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing. Free C# implementations permit users to run their C# programs on free platforms, which is good." "The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in Tomboy and other applications written in C#. If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them too. That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk. We should systematically arrange to depend on the free C# implementations as little as possible." Also related, the next news article: http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono
- Zak 17y ago
  I wouldn't even read that as "Mono is the wrong approach", but as "you should not choose Mono or C# as the basis for a new free software project".
- jeroen 17y ago
  Read this and notice that rms calls de Icaza a traitor: http://www.osnews.com/story/22225/RMS_De_Icaza_Traitor_to_Free_Software_Community http://www.osnews.com/story/22225/RMS_De_Icaza_Traitor_to_Fr... Looks more like the former (evil) to me.
  - 17y ago

joe_the_user 17y ago

One big problem I have with Mono is that it seems terminally buggy. A Mono application I was thinking of getting involved with had untraceable memory leaks to it that seemed to doom an otherwise excellent app to second-rate-ness. Further, the whole '.NET' architecture seems to be structurally so elaborate that any open source implementation would have to be buggy and incomplete since no one person would have the time to really finish or even understand all of it. So I think that even without the thread of patents, .NET is a bad thing for open source because it gives folks a continual impetus to go to the working, closed-source MS implementation.

jacquesm 17y ago
So, then here is a question: If .NET is so big, the spec is unmanageable and so on, why even attempt this ? There was a time when DEC shops were turning out projects between two and five times the speed of a comparable IBM shop. The advantage was that the defaults were sane and you could actually know the system. It was stable and a breeze to develop for. By bringing 'mono' or something like it into the open source community we are attempting to match microsoft at its own game, which is imho completely stupid. If open source is to succeed it should not attempt to copy the kind of architecture that you can only build and maintain with an army of programmers that will slog away at it simply because they get paid to do so.

Semiapies 17y ago

As old as the net. 1) Some guy says something obnoxious. 2) Bystanders observe, "What a dick-move." 3) Guy complains that people are trying to censor him because they dare say that they disapprove of or disagree with him. The main innovation in modern days is that for some folks, fanboys will take care of step 3 on behalf of the guy who's "under attack".

omouse 17y ago
Some guy says something obnoxious. In this case we basically only have one source for the statement. I don't remember seeing anyone else aside from the OSNews guy mentioning that statement. Some other blogger tried to get a transcript of the Q&A that Stallman was giving but the FSF apparently doesn't keep transcripts of Q&As (they probably didn't record video :/)
- Semiapies 17y ago
  Please. If it's so dubious, why do the fanboys not question that remark, but immediately leap to defend it and either try to redefine "traitor" as meaning something else or declare that they agree about the supposed "treason"? Now, to be terribly fair, it's probably true that even if he didn't say it, everybody would be acting the same way. Nobody, even his fans, really doubts that he would say it. It's his style, and it's the exact sort of obnoxious remark his fanboys are used to defending and supporting. EDIT: Ultimately, my complaint is about the fanboys. Someone made a dickmove. That someone is an icon to the fanboys, but he hasn't actually done anything in years besides be an icon to them, so it's barely even a story before the fans get involved.

borism 17y ago

I looked at the link and couldn't understand a thing what exactly is RMS or author's problem again. The "article" is more of a collection of links and quotes joined together by some rant. Domain name is quite telling as well. I have seen RMS in person, I have heard his inspirational speech (that was in the days we battled EU software patents directive), I respect him as an activist and as a Hacker. I also donate to FSF. But I'm way too tired of all those internal OSS scuffles that RMS seems always to take part of.

rit 17y ago
Oh, not just the domain. The actual path of the article is: /2009/09/26/richard-stallman-smeared-for-truth/ Which makes me think he rethought his headline after originally writing it. Again, reiterating my earlier statement... If you want to boycott Novell, start with digging out every piece of code they have touched directly or indirectly to Linux, starting with Gnome, Mono, and a whole ton of other stuff that will reduce Linux back to 1996-level functionality.

ComputerGuru 17y ago

Sure he's not... He just has a tendency of taking things a wee tiny bit overboard, such as accusing the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation of not giving a damn about helping the millions in Africa: http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/richard-stallman-expert-in-the-art-of-fud/ http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/richard-stallman-expert-in-the...

alecco 17y ago
Let's see. You "ComputerGuru" and a random blogger "NeoSmart" (without even an about us page) versus BBC and LA Times. Your post and the blog post is completely out of context. Stallman quoted on his BBC article a 7 page LA Times investigation. "Dark cloud over good works of Gates Foundation" http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,2533850.story http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,2533850.st... The Gates Foundation has poured $218 million into polio and measles immunization and research worldwide, including in the Niger Delta. At the same time that the foundation is funding inoculations to protect health, The Times found, it has invested $423 million in Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Total of France — the companies responsible for most of the flares blanketing the delta with pollution, beyond anything permitted in the United States or Europe. Indeed, local leaders blame oil development for fostering some of the very afflictions that the foundation combats." Stallman's article doesn't even emphasize it as much. Its abstract reads: To pay so much attention to Bill Gates' retirement is missing the point. What really matters is not Gates, nor Microsoft, but the unethical system of restrictions that Microsoft, like many other software companies, imposes on its customers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7487060.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7487060.stm Edit: formatting.
alecco 17y ago
The icing on the cake: You are actually the same guy! Check out ComputerGuru's profile: about: Founder and director of NeoSmart Technologies (http://neosmart.net/) a non-profit software development and research organization. Specialization in high-performance webapps and OS kernel design. The "art of fud", indeed.
- Semiapies 17y ago

kib2 17y ago

If I remember correctly, Stallman also launched a war against Tcl some time ago. But I never really understood why he did it. Any hint ?

omouse 17y ago
From the threads I'm looking up, it seems that he just disliked the language? :S
tjr 17y ago
http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/gnu/tcl-not http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/gnu/tcl-not
- kib2 17y ago
  thanks tjr!

idan 17y ago

Regardless of RMS's position and community's reaction, that was just a poorly written, rambling paean to RMS. I'll concede that there are some valid points to be fished out of that article and ruminated upon but the rampant amount of RMS adulation practically drowned it out. (Full disclosure: I do indeed think that this is paranoid "they're all making fun of me" tripe. But that has no bearing on the above.)

known 17y ago

RMS sees everything in Black and White. Hence he is very Sensitive.