Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dear Dr. Stallman: An Open Letter

alexeymk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 210 posts

Re: Dear Dr. Stallman: An Open Letter

#41

Post by jdp23 »

vog wrote: post #27
microtonal wrote: post #3

Years back, I used to be an FSF member. Not that I liked the GPL much (in fact, I mostly use the Apache License), but they raised important issues, and had a track record of investing into fine software (GNU) that I benefitted from a lot. However, their campaigns were getting so off-target, that much of my sympathy dwindled, and I ended my membership. Childish 'anti' advertising, such as 'BadVista' and DDoSing Apple'…

I'm a happy fellow of the FSFE ( http://fsfe.org/ ), the European pendant to the FSF. Sometimes we also discuss FSF campaigns, and usually agree that those would almost certainly be counter-productive here in Europe, especially things like the "Windows 7 sins". However, we always thought: Well, the USA have a different culture, so maybe this kind of campaign is needed there, and probably our style of campaign would n…

Interesting! Exaggeration often does sell well in the US, but I don't think it's required. And negativity is very much in fashion here (alas) but positivity can be even more successful. So my guess is that your campaigns would work well here too. Are Americans allowed to join the FSFE?

Re: Dear Dr. Stallman: An Open Letter

#42

Post by eliasmacpherson »

AlexeyMK wrote: post #6
michaelpinto wrote: post #4

If Stallman wasn't a crazy hippy he wouldn't have been into this cause years before even the first dot.com boom. It's unfair for someone to insist that a visionary go corporate all these years later because you feel uncomfortable. If you want to be the next generation spokesman than become that, but don't waste time trying to make a zebra shed his stripes.

Thanks for making that point. I want to make perfectly clear that I have a tremendous amount of respect for RMS and everything that he's done. By no means would I recommend that he compromise his ideology or 'go corporate.' All I'm saying is: almost everybody at his talk (already a self-selecting group) was put off by the tone and extremist nature of his delivery. His message got lost, and that sucks - it's an import…

Well at least they'll remember him and what he said up to that point. Then days/months later they'll disregard some other things he says. Later still they'll realise he was right all along about various things. That's been my experience, and it's taken me ten years to get there. I'd hope that he keeps doing what he does best.

Re: Dear Dr. Stallman: An Open Letter

#43

Post by sitkack »

prodigal_erik wrote: post #26
emilsedgh wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, rms 'won' his initial battle, which was having a free operating system. Now there are thousands of people helping free softwares to improve. He would be just another programmer if he keeps coding. What im trying to say is, if he doesnt code anymore, its probably because he doesnt think that would be a necessary contribution anymore. Or maybe he is simply tired of coding :)

He did have chronic hand pain for a while: http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch09.html#15416

Emacs had nothing to do with it.

Re: Dear Dr. Stallman: An Open Letter

#44

Post by waterhouse »

mbateman wrote: post #29

Just a quick thought from skimming this thread: It seems like there are two issues, radicalism and eccentricity. Saying that the government may have caused 9/11 is eccentric. It's crazy and "radical" in an uninteresting way, and most intelligent people will ignore it. But the idea that one shouldn't use Google docs if one values freedom is radical. I think RMS is completely and totally wrong, but the radicalism or ap…

Yes, I came to the comments intending to say that. I agree with the author that talking about 9/11 that way just makes him look crazy, but he should not in any way cut down on his free software rhetoric because of "practical" considerations.

An activist like him is selling two things: his ideas, and a call to action. If he restricted himself to giving "practical" recommendations, he would no longer be selling his ideas; he might get some people to switch to using free software, but they wouldn't be part of the "movement"; they'd switch back to proprietary software as soon as their job or some particular task required it, and then he'd be left with nothing. Whereas if he argues for his ideas, and takes them to their logical conclusion, he will convince a few people (many, if he's lucky) that will likely become members for life (if not necessarily active members) and can build a real community that has a chance of growing and eventually achieving total success.

Now, it might help to give people some things they can realistically do right now. But the life of a movement lies in its radical members, and "practicality" should not come at the expense of the promotion of the (radical) ideas. Cf. the abolitionist movement, the civil rights movement.

Re: Dear Dr. Stallman: An Open Letter

#45

Post by jdp23 »

AlexeyMK wrote: post #6
michaelpinto wrote: post #4

If Stallman wasn't a crazy hippy he wouldn't have been into this cause years before even the first dot.com boom. It's unfair for someone to insist that a visionary go corporate all these years later because you feel uncomfortable. If you want to be the next generation spokesman than become that, but don't waste time trying to make a zebra shed his stripes.

Thanks for making that point. I want to make perfectly clear that I have a tremendous amount of respect for RMS and everything that he's done. By no means would I recommend that he compromise his ideology or 'go corporate.' All I'm saying is: almost everybody at his talk (already a self-selecting group) was put off by the tone and extremist nature of his delivery. His message got lost, and that sucks - it's an import…

Alexey, I thought you made that point very clearly in your post. It's in important message, and a huge loss when he intentionally chooses language or brings in other topics that cause it to be unnecessarily marginalized.

Re: Dear Dr. Stallman: An Open Letter

#46

Post by singular »

patrickaljord wrote: post #14
emilsedgh wrote: post #8

A few points i would like to remind everyone who criticizes rms. 1) rms is a radical guy. You cannot change that. He fights for what he thinks is right. He is not the kind of person you can ask to censor himself. If he thinks u.s goverment is to blame for 9/11, no matter how saying it in a lecture seems childish, he will say it. If you invite rms for a lecture, he is coming with his radicalism. That is to be expected…

> If he thinks u.s goverment is to blame for 9/11, no matter how saying it in a lecture seems childish, he will say it. By the way he doesn't believe that. Last time I read about his opinion on the subject he said that proofs were lacking on both sides (truther and non-truther) but that it was probably the work of religious fundamentalists (either christians or muslims).

To be honest, if he believes that 'proofs are lacking on both sides' then I've just lost quite a significant amount of respect for the man.

If the 'truthers' are correct then many hundreds, if not thousands, of people decided to conspire to murder thousands of innocent civilians and, somehow, managed to prevent any leaking of this whatsoever.

On this basis alone, the idea that 9/11 was a conspiracy is insane, before we get to the fact that, as with all other conspiracy theories, there is just no evidence whatsoever (though the 'truthers' require an unattainable standard of proof from reasonable people, despite requiring none for their own beliefs) then the idea that there is 'no proof' on either side is equally unhinged.

If you can't think clearly on something so clear and obvious then it really draws into question your reliability on any subject, especially if you are 'preaching' on the subject.

I'm sorry, you just have to draw the line when you're talking about the murder of thousands of innocent people. Seriously.

Re: Dear Dr. Stallman: An Open Letter

#47

Post by kabdib »

emilsedgh wrote: post #8

A few points i would like to remind everyone who criticizes rms. 1) rms is a radical guy. You cannot change that. He fights for what he thinks is right. He is not the kind of person you can ask to censor himself. If he thinks u.s goverment is to blame for 9/11, no matter how saying it in a lecture seems childish, he will say it. If you invite rms for a lecture, he is coming with his radicalism. That is to be expected…

I like Emacs; I've been using it for 30+ years and I thank RMS for inspiring the commercial Emacs clone I use today. Pretty much everything else he's done: Whatever.

My personal interactions with RMS have drawn me to the conclusion that he's just a smart asshole, and a little crazy. Steve Jobs is like that, too. The difference is, I would jump at a chance to work with Jobs.

Re: Dear Dr. Stallman: An Open Letter

#48

Post by [deleted] »

singular wrote: post #46
patrickaljord wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If he thinks u.s goverment is to blame for 9/11, no matter how saying it in a lecture seems childish, he will say it. By the way he doesn't believe that. Last time I read about his opinion on the subject he said that proofs were lacking on both sides (truther and non-truther) but that it was probably the work of religious fundamentalists (either christians or muslims).

To be honest, if he believes that 'proofs are lacking on both sides' then I've just lost quite a significant amount of respect for the man. If the 'truthers' are correct then many hundreds, if not thousands, of people decided to conspire to murder thousands of innocent civilians and, somehow, managed to prevent any leaking of this whatsoever. On this basis alone, the idea that 9/11 was a conspiracy is insane, before…

[deleted]

Re: Dear Dr. Stallman: An Open Letter

#49

Post by rdouble »

singular wrote: post #46
patrickaljord wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If he thinks u.s goverment is to blame for 9/11, no matter how saying it in a lecture seems childish, he will say it. By the way he doesn't believe that. Last time I read about his opinion on the subject he said that proofs were lacking on both sides (truther and non-truther) but that it was probably the work of religious fundamentalists (either christians or muslims).

To be honest, if he believes that 'proofs are lacking on both sides' then I've just lost quite a significant amount of respect for the man. If the 'truthers' are correct then many hundreds, if not thousands, of people decided to conspire to murder thousands of innocent civilians and, somehow, managed to prevent any leaking of this whatsoever. On this basis alone, the idea that 9/11 was a conspiracy is insane, before…

If you can't think clearly on something so clear and obvious then it really draws into question your reliability on any subject, especially if you are 'preaching' on the subject.

I agree with your other point. However, the point I quoted is often brought up in these sorts of discussions and is totally wrong. Great minds throughout history have believed all sorts of crazy and incorrect shit at the same time they were doing great work.

Re: Dear Dr. Stallman: An Open Letter

#50

Post by rosser »

rdouble wrote: post #37
estel wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the spokesperson for the Vegetarian Society was trying to persuade others to become vegetarian by branding all farmers "murderers" and engaging in ridiculous rhetoric, I think other vegetarians might be concerned that their message wasn't being conveyed appropriately and was alienating them from the mainstream, thereby resulting in fewer vegetarians.

I can't tell if you are being facetious, but the main argument for vegetarianism is that "meat is murder."

For many of the vegetarians I've known, that's a secondary argument, the primary being a healthier lifestyle.
Post reply on HN