5 ms·

The more of Stallman's writing you read, the more you realize how insane that man is.

by yan 17y ago

barrkel 17y ago
http://www.jwz.org/hacks/why-cooperation-with-rms-is-impossible.mp3 http://www.jwz.org/hacks/why-cooperation-with-rms-is-impossi... (FWIW, I respect rms's purity of ideology, and I respect how it broadens the debate, but I don't think his extreme represents a desired end goal.)
- bbgm 17y ago
  And I have the opposite opinion. Ideology = a lack of flexibility and a very closed mind, neither of which is a constructive state and achieves little in the long run.
  - barrkel 17y ago
    Most people don't have the courage of conviction. To stake out a position with a mental framework that supports it, and to live by what that position implies, is difficult. I don't think one can say that RMS didn't achieve much. He supplied the seed, directly or indirectly, to many free and open software accomplishments. I don't think that would have happened if he'd been wishy-washy, flexible, easy-going guy. He'd certainly have been easier to like, but probably not as effective. And to reiterate, I don't subscribe to rms's opinion, or think he's right on everything, or anything in particular without further investigation. But I do think lack of compromise is harder than it looks.
- yan 17y ago
  What's there to respect about purity of ideology? Being pure and ignorant of other opinions is the easy way out. Learning and understanding alternate points of view and working with those people is what's worth respect, imho.
  - stcredzero 17y ago
    Being pure and ignorant of other opinions is the easy way out. There is nothing in ideological purity that demands ignorance of other opinions. And just because you're cognizant of someone's opinion, doesn't mean you have to agree. RMS can say what he wants, and I'm sure he's not ignorant of other's opinions. If you don't like what he says, don't do what he says. If you don't like his philosophy, maybe you shouldn't use GNU software? He doesn't force you to use any software. (Which is more than can be said for lots of corporations.)
    - yan 17y ago
      That's exactly opposite of what I think is actually going on. I don't want to get into a GPL vs BSD argument, but he does say people should not use commercial software, thus limiting their options to often less useful free software equivalents. And corporations do give you choice in usage as you can always opt to not buy software from them. A well-regulated commercial market is all about choice.
      - gloob 17y ago
        he does say people should not use commercial software Commercial != non-free. Stallman doesn't, to my knowledge, have an issue with the former. He rather dislikes the latter.
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    In striking martial arts, they teach you to aim your strikes at a point beyond the real point where your strike will end.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- Nelson69 17y ago
  I respect the hell out of RMS and his accomplishments. On this and some other issues I do think there is a blurriness to his ideology. Technologies don't have an intrinsic goodness or evilness to them, even DRM, it's just technology the good and the evil come from how it is used. So I look at something like Mono, it's a remarkable piece of technology. It's a fairly lightweight managed VM, just like Java but completely and 100% opensource, built on opensource for opensource. It works too and it works pretty well at what it does. There is no "good" or "evil" component to it. Now Microsoft potentially have patents that cover parts of it that they could threaten to use, that's a risk but that risk will also expire at some point. The Linux kernel also has patents that potentially cover parts of it, including patents the Microsoft owns but that's not being treated as a taboo... RMS waters his own statement down by blurring that line between technologies and how the technologies are used. Instead of bullying Miguel, he should bully MS to further clarify their stance and continue to open their position on the technologies used by Mono. he should be fighting to free that stuff rather than bash one of the biggest contributors to his movement.
stcredzero 17y ago
RMS isn't insane. It's just that he's willing to extrapolate his ideas into seemingly insane territory. He is right in that corporations are making scary inroads into our rights online and with regards to privacy. But we may not agree in terms of what to do about it. I think FOSS can "embrace and extend" just as well as Microsoft!
- youngian 17y ago
  I've always felt that RMS is basically an extremist (every movement has them). But I think that's actually a good thing. Yeah, he says some crazy things, but his ideas are always worth listening to. It's for the best that most of us don't take such a hard line, but I think it's a good thing to have someone like RMS constantly calling us out when we stray too far from the vision. The end goal should still be a world unencumbered by closed software. We don't want to get so busy implementing .NET that we forget about that.
igorgue 17y ago
and the more we forget how much RMS did. People lose respect to him, I even heard people saying: "and what did he write? Emacs? nobody use that sh*t", the fact is, a lot of todays innovation is built on top of Stallman's work.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  That's a logical fallacy. It doesn't matter how much he did, if he says or does stuff today that doesn't hold water he should be called on it. If all the software that deIcaza and Stallman helped produce would be removed from your average Ubuntu box it would probably not get into booting, let alone do something useful. That doesn't give either of them the right to pretend to speak for everybody or to try to carve up the world of software in to camps.
- axod 17y ago
  I'd say that it's very likely that if he hadn't done it, others would have. (I'm firmly in the "This man is completely insane" camp).
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    I'm not convinced of that. I think that to some extent it was RMSs traumatic early career experiences that set him on the path of extreme inspiration that drove the development of some of the most impressive amounts of code by a single individual. It takes real conviction to literally dedicate your life to projects like this, and RMS has that to spare. He's not insane, he is just the opposite of politically correct, and while that can be charming in a person that is not the perceived spokesperson of a large community when you are you'd do well to moderate your language. If you don't it costs because it gives your opponents plenty of opportunity to claim the moral high ground. The funny thing here is that if RMS really wishes to see closed source vs open source as a battlefield then his way of going about waging the war aids the enemy by giving them a couple of really good opportunities to get him bad PR. I don't think that's smart.
    - donaq 17y ago
Daishiman 17y ago
Like "the right to read" or "Why schools should use FOSS"? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html . http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/schools.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/schools.html . The essays on intellectual property? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/software-literary-patents.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/software-literary-patents.html I'm sorry, but however much I disagree with a lot of RMS's opinions the man has been making spot-on predictions about the development of proprietary software for over 20 years and time has only been proving him right. While many of us appreciate de Icaza's efforts on GNOME, all Mono has done is provide more validation to a fundamentally proprietary platform, when that effort could have been spent creating a FOSS stack that could rival Java and .NET while trying to solve some of their problems.

The more of Stallman's writing you read, the more you realize how insane that man is.

by yan 17y ago

The more of Stallman's writing you read, the more you realize how insane that man is.

http://www.jwz.org/hacks/why-cooperation-with-rms-is-impossible.mp3 http://www.jwz.org/hacks/why-cooperation-with-rms-is-impossi... (FWIW, I respect rms's purity of ideology, and I respect how it broadens the debate, but I don't think his extreme represents a desired end goal.)

bbgm 17y ago
And I have the opposite opinion. Ideology = a lack of flexibility and a very closed mind, neither of which is a constructive state and achieves little in the long run.
- barrkel 17y ago
  Most people don't have the courage of conviction. To stake out a position with a mental framework that supports it, and to live by what that position implies, is difficult. I don't think one can say that RMS didn't achieve much. He supplied the seed, directly or indirectly, to many free and open software accomplishments. I don't think that would have happened if he'd been wishy-washy, flexible, easy-going guy. He'd certainly have been easier to like, but probably not as effective. And to reiterate, I don't subscribe to rms's opinion, or think he's right on everything, or anything in particular without further investigation. But I do think lack of compromise is harder than it looks.
yan 17y ago
What's there to respect about purity of ideology? Being pure and ignorant of other opinions is the easy way out. Learning and understanding alternate points of view and working with those people is what's worth respect, imho.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  Being pure and ignorant of other opinions is the easy way out. There is nothing in ideological purity that demands ignorance of other opinions. And just because you're cognizant of someone's opinion, doesn't mean you have to agree. RMS can say what he wants, and I'm sure he's not ignorant of other's opinions. If you don't like what he says, don't do what he says. If you don't like his philosophy, maybe you shouldn't use GNU software? He doesn't force you to use any software. (Which is more than can be said for lots of corporations.)
  - yan 17y ago
    That's exactly opposite of what I think is actually going on. I don't want to get into a GPL vs BSD argument, but he does say people should not use commercial software, thus limiting their options to often less useful free software equivalents. And corporations do give you choice in usage as you can always opt to not buy software from them. A well-regulated commercial market is all about choice.
    - gloob 17y ago
      he does say people should not use commercial software Commercial != non-free. Stallman doesn't, to my knowledge, have an issue with the former. He rather dislikes the latter.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  In striking martial arts, they teach you to aim your strikes at a point beyond the real point where your strike will end.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
Nelson69 17y ago
I respect the hell out of RMS and his accomplishments. On this and some other issues I do think there is a blurriness to his ideology. Technologies don't have an intrinsic goodness or evilness to them, even DRM, it's just technology the good and the evil come from how it is used. So I look at something like Mono, it's a remarkable piece of technology. It's a fairly lightweight managed VM, just like Java but completely and 100% opensource, built on opensource for opensource. It works too and it works pretty well at what it does. There is no "good" or "evil" component to it. Now Microsoft potentially have patents that cover parts of it that they could threaten to use, that's a risk but that risk will also expire at some point. The Linux kernel also has patents that potentially cover parts of it, including patents the Microsoft owns but that's not being treated as a taboo... RMS waters his own statement down by blurring that line between technologies and how the technologies are used. Instead of bullying Miguel, he should bully MS to further clarify their stance and continue to open their position on the technologies used by Mono. he should be fighting to free that stuff rather than bash one of the biggest contributors to his movement.

stcredzero 17y ago

RMS isn't insane. It's just that he's willing to extrapolate his ideas into seemingly insane territory. He is right in that corporations are making scary inroads into our rights online and with regards to privacy. But we may not agree in terms of what to do about it. I think FOSS can "embrace and extend" just as well as Microsoft!

youngian 17y ago
I've always felt that RMS is basically an extremist (every movement has them). But I think that's actually a good thing. Yeah, he says some crazy things, but his ideas are always worth listening to. It's for the best that most of us don't take such a hard line, but I think it's a good thing to have someone like RMS constantly calling us out when we stray too far from the vision. The end goal should still be a world unencumbered by closed software. We don't want to get so busy implementing .NET that we forget about that.

igorgue 17y ago

and the more we forget how much RMS did. People lose respect to him, I even heard people saying: "and what did he write? Emacs? nobody use that sh*t", the fact is, a lot of todays innovation is built on top of Stallman's work.

jacquesm 17y ago
That's a logical fallacy. It doesn't matter how much he did, if he says or does stuff today that doesn't hold water he should be called on it. If all the software that deIcaza and Stallman helped produce would be removed from your average Ubuntu box it would probably not get into booting, let alone do something useful. That doesn't give either of them the right to pretend to speak for everybody or to try to carve up the world of software in to camps.
axod 17y ago
I'd say that it's very likely that if he hadn't done it, others would have. (I'm firmly in the "This man is completely insane" camp).
- jacquesm 17y ago
  I'm not convinced of that. I think that to some extent it was RMSs traumatic early career experiences that set him on the path of extreme inspiration that drove the development of some of the most impressive amounts of code by a single individual. It takes real conviction to literally dedicate your life to projects like this, and RMS has that to spare. He's not insane, he is just the opposite of politically correct, and while that can be charming in a person that is not the perceived spokesperson of a large community when you are you'd do well to moderate your language. If you don't it costs because it gives your opponents plenty of opportunity to claim the moral high ground. The funny thing here is that if RMS really wishes to see closed source vs open source as a battlefield then his way of going about waging the war aids the enemy by giving them a couple of really good opportunities to get him bad PR. I don't think that's smart.
  - donaq 17y ago

Daishiman 17y ago

Like "the right to read" or "Why schools should use FOSS"? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html . http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/schools.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/schools.html . The essays on intellectual property? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/software-literary-patents.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/software-literary-patents.html I'm sorry, but however much I disagree with a lot of RMS's opinions the man has been making spot-on predictions about the development of proprietary software for over 20 years and time has only been proving him right. While many of us appreciate de Icaza's efforts on GNOME, all Mono has done is provide more validation to a fundamentally proprietary platform, when that effort could have been spent creating a FOSS stack that could rival Java and .NET while trying to solve some of their problems.