5 ms·

Look, Stallman doesn't care who he alienates. He doesn't care if you disagree. He doesn't care if he offends you. That's what zealots do. But as creepy, and p

by rosser 12y ago

Look, Stallman doesn't care who he alienates. He doesn't care if you disagree. He doesn't care if he offends you. That's what zealots do. But as creepy, and petulant, and obnoxious as I tend to find him, I'm grateful every day that he's out there, because there are things he's right about, about which he's pretty much the only person with any visibility or credibility at all to say something. More to the point, he wouldn't have that credibility if he compromised and made his position more palatable.

astrodust 12y ago
I'm glad for what he's done, but every day he's out there yelling and screaming and generally causing shit for no reason he's damaging the open-source movement. There are undoubtedly others that are able to fill that role, and while they may not be as bombastic or driven, they could be more constructive and willing to engage in serious discussion rather than mock and ridicule anything that is not pure. His stubborn refusal to use things like Google Docs makes him completely blind to what that sort of tool can do. Where's the open-source version of same? It's like to him using the MIT or BSD licenses is the same as heresy and if he had the power to, like some ordained pope, he'd excommunicate all those that refused the GNU license. That's why being "creepy, petulant and obnoxious" is a serious problem. I don't understand how he can be almost literally losing his mind about Windows, which is of no real threat to anyone, when the real problems are closed source code inside hardware embedded in cars, medical equipment and voting machines where the stakes are much, much higher. If you ask me, he's fighting the right war on the wrong battlefield.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > I'm glad for what he's done, but every day he's out there yelling and screaming and generally causing shit for no reason he's damaging the open-source movement. Well, since he overtly views the Open Source movement as harmful to the Free Software movement (which has fundamentally different goals, even if the kind of software licensing each supports overlaps considerably), that's not exactly accidental.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
hackuser 12y ago
> I'm grateful every day that he's out there ... I completely agree. Thank you RMS! > he wouldn't have that credibility if he compromised and made his position more palatable. To an extent I agree, but you can stick to your positions without snide remarks ("Swindle") or needlessly provoking on issues unrelated to your mission (9/11 truther material). Drop those things, and you can have your positions and increase credibility. They hurt the mission, as the article's author says, for no benefit.
- leephillips 12y ago
  I suspect that RMS' refusal to use a web browser limits his ability to research things thoroughly, and leads sometimes to him accepting the first version he encounters about something as the truth, especially if it supports his presuppositions.[0] He also tends to latch on to things that make his favorite targets look bad[1], even if there's really nothing there to latch on to. [0]http://lee-phillips.org/StallmanOnFinkelstein.html http://lee-phillips.org/StallmanOnFinkelstein.html [1]http://lee-phillips.org/phoneSupport/ http://lee-phillips.org/phoneSupport/
  - jasonm23 12y ago
    He really does need to know when to watch his mouth. His position on child / adult sexual freedom is alarming. Unfortunately he will continue to blunder on in this highly public space and cause just slightly more damage to his cause than good. Thankfully, FSF is not just RMS, and a huge number of people actually make all this work. Disclaimer: I am a long term GNU/Linux Emacs user, and have always felt that RMS should be taken with a jar full of salt.
crimsonalucard 12y ago
In all I think society is better off with zealots like Bill gates and a Stallman sitting at opposite ends of the table fighting it out tooth and nail.
- pdkl95 12y ago
  I'm reminded of this comment[1] by screenplay author David Simon: "Labour doesn't get to win all its arguments, capital doesn't get to. But it's in the tension, it's in the actual fight between the two, that capitalism actually becomes functional, that it becomes something that every stratum in society has a stake in, that they all share." Total devotion to pure ideology is always the wrong answer, because it implies hubris: that a problem has been totally solved, no further research is needed. People like Stallman, Gates, Rand, and Marx give us clear distillations that are really good as solving some problems, often before others even realize those problems even exist. As the above quote points out, these ideologies are not final, total solutions on their on. It is the conflict between them that bring the best results. From that conflict a good long-term planning pragmatist can try and pick out the parts that work and fix the parts that don't. Refactoring and bugfixing may not be fun, but they do keep the world working. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/david-simon-capitalism-marx-two-americas-wire http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/david-simon-cap...
- thesteamboat 12y ago
  Is Bill Gates a zealot? I'm not sure what I would have thought 10 years ago, but today that doesn't ring true to me. (Perhaps Steve Jobs is a better example?)
  - crimsonalucard 12y ago
    Perhaps, but I thought Bill Gates/microsoft better represents a person that sits at the opposite end of the table.
- rakoo 12y ago
  My thoughts exactly. I don't think anyone would like to sacrifice convenience for freedom the way Stallman does, but to me he is the maximum of the "How free can we be" scale. I believe he reminds everyone (especially open source developers) that there is always room for more freedom in the sofware we create and use, in the behaviors we engage in, and in the data we release. He remains in the software crowd's mentality reminding us that there is always room for more freedom for the user. In short he's not the Leader we want to follow, he's the Explorer telling us of the harshful yet free landscapes he lives in. We may not want to go and live where he is, but there are things we can apply back in our world.
danudey 12y ago
> about which he's pretty much the only person with any visibility or credibility at all to say something But the only people he has any visibility or credibility to are people who a) know who he is, and b) agree with him. I can't imagine any situation in which his arguments would sway someone who currently disagrees with him. I'm willing to bet that if you talked to the majority of geeks these days who weren't already using linux in 1998, most either wouldn't have heard of him, or would have heard of him in the same vein as Eric Raymond, Dennis Ritchie, or Donald Knuth: people who have done great things in computing, in times long since past, and who have no relevance to what's happening in computing today beyond those legacies. So imagine Stallman showing up to a CS class, looking and behaving like a bushman who'd been lost in the wilds of Alaska for 40 years, insinuating that the US government was responsible for 9/11 and telling them to stop using Facebook and Google Docs and cell phones. What possible credibility could he ever have? The FSF, with him at the helm, is going to continue to remain a valuable organization, but the FSF without him at the helm would be a valuable organization that would finally have a real chance at being taken seriously. Side note: I spoke to my 25-year-old coworker, and he had only the vaguest idea of who Stallman was, proving my point that, to this generation of programmers, he's almost completely irrelevant except in a historical context.
- the_af 12y ago
  Stallman gave talks to the CS crowd (and also general enthusiasts) in my country, and was well received. He is moderately well-known in Latin America.

by rosser 12y ago

astrodust 12y ago

I'm glad for what he's done, but every day he's out there yelling and screaming and generally causing shit for no reason he's damaging the open-source movement. There are undoubtedly others that are able to fill that role, and while they may not be as bombastic or driven, they could be more constructive and willing to engage in serious discussion rather than mock and ridicule anything that is not pure. His stubborn refusal to use things like Google Docs makes him completely blind to what that sort of tool can do. Where's the open-source version of same? It's like to him using the MIT or BSD licenses is the same as heresy and if he had the power to, like some ordained pope, he'd excommunicate all those that refused the GNU license. That's why being "creepy, petulant and obnoxious" is a serious problem. I don't understand how he can be almost literally losing his mind about Windows, which is of no real threat to anyone, when the real problems are closed source code inside hardware embedded in cars, medical equipment and voting machines where the stakes are much, much higher. If you ask me, he's fighting the right war on the wrong battlefield.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> I'm glad for what he's done, but every day he's out there yelling and screaming and generally causing shit for no reason he's damaging the open-source movement. Well, since he overtly views the Open Source movement as harmful to the Free Software movement (which has fundamentally different goals, even if the kind of software licensing each supports overlaps considerably), that's not exactly accidental.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

hackuser 12y ago

> I'm grateful every day that he's out there ... I completely agree. Thank you RMS! > he wouldn't have that credibility if he compromised and made his position more palatable. To an extent I agree, but you can stick to your positions without snide remarks ("Swindle") or needlessly provoking on issues unrelated to your mission (9/11 truther material). Drop those things, and you can have your positions and increase credibility. They hurt the mission, as the article's author says, for no benefit.

leephillips 12y ago
I suspect that RMS' refusal to use a web browser limits his ability to research things thoroughly, and leads sometimes to him accepting the first version he encounters about something as the truth, especially if it supports his presuppositions.[0] He also tends to latch on to things that make his favorite targets look bad[1], even if there's really nothing there to latch on to. [0]http://lee-phillips.org/StallmanOnFinkelstein.html http://lee-phillips.org/StallmanOnFinkelstein.html [1]http://lee-phillips.org/phoneSupport/ http://lee-phillips.org/phoneSupport/
- jasonm23 12y ago
  He really does need to know when to watch his mouth. His position on child / adult sexual freedom is alarming. Unfortunately he will continue to blunder on in this highly public space and cause just slightly more damage to his cause than good. Thankfully, FSF is not just RMS, and a huge number of people actually make all this work. Disclaimer: I am a long term GNU/Linux Emacs user, and have always felt that RMS should be taken with a jar full of salt.

crimsonalucard 12y ago

In all I think society is better off with zealots like Bill gates and a Stallman sitting at opposite ends of the table fighting it out tooth and nail.

pdkl95 12y ago
I'm reminded of this comment[1] by screenplay author David Simon: "Labour doesn't get to win all its arguments, capital doesn't get to. But it's in the tension, it's in the actual fight between the two, that capitalism actually becomes functional, that it becomes something that every stratum in society has a stake in, that they all share." Total devotion to pure ideology is always the wrong answer, because it implies hubris: that a problem has been totally solved, no further research is needed. People like Stallman, Gates, Rand, and Marx give us clear distillations that are really good as solving some problems, often before others even realize those problems even exist. As the above quote points out, these ideologies are not final, total solutions on their on. It is the conflict between them that bring the best results. From that conflict a good long-term planning pragmatist can try and pick out the parts that work and fix the parts that don't. Refactoring and bugfixing may not be fun, but they do keep the world working. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/david-simon-capitalism-marx-two-americas-wire http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/david-simon-cap...
thesteamboat 12y ago
Is Bill Gates a zealot? I'm not sure what I would have thought 10 years ago, but today that doesn't ring true to me. (Perhaps Steve Jobs is a better example?)
- crimsonalucard 12y ago
  Perhaps, but I thought Bill Gates/microsoft better represents a person that sits at the opposite end of the table.
rakoo 12y ago
My thoughts exactly. I don't think anyone would like to sacrifice convenience for freedom the way Stallman does, but to me he is the maximum of the "How free can we be" scale. I believe he reminds everyone (especially open source developers) that there is always room for more freedom in the sofware we create and use, in the behaviors we engage in, and in the data we release. He remains in the software crowd's mentality reminding us that there is always room for more freedom for the user. In short he's not the Leader we want to follow, he's the Explorer telling us of the harshful yet free landscapes he lives in. We may not want to go and live where he is, but there are things we can apply back in our world.

danudey 12y ago

> about which he's pretty much the only person with any visibility or credibility at all to say something But the only people he has any visibility or credibility to are people who a) know who he is, and b) agree with him. I can't imagine any situation in which his arguments would sway someone who currently disagrees with him. I'm willing to bet that if you talked to the majority of geeks these days who weren't already using linux in 1998, most either wouldn't have heard of him, or would have heard of him in the same vein as Eric Raymond, Dennis Ritchie, or Donald Knuth: people who have done great things in computing, in times long since past, and who have no relevance to what's happening in computing today beyond those legacies. So imagine Stallman showing up to a CS class, looking and behaving like a bushman who'd been lost in the wilds of Alaska for 40 years, insinuating that the US government was responsible for 9/11 and telling them to stop using Facebook and Google Docs and cell phones. What possible credibility could he ever have? The FSF, with him at the helm, is going to continue to remain a valuable organization, but the FSF without him at the helm would be a valuable organization that would finally have a real chance at being taken seriously. Side note: I spoke to my 25-year-old coworker, and he had only the vaguest idea of who Stallman was, proving my point that, to this generation of programmers, he's almost completely irrelevant except in a historical context.

the_af 12y ago
Stallman gave talks to the CS crowd (and also general enthusiasts) in my country, and was well received. He is moderately well-known in Latin America.