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

RMS addresses the free software community

fsf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 537 posts

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#271

Post by iajrz »

jancsika wrote: post #98

That's great, but the problem seems to be RMS's disruption of development activities. This doesn't change that. For example: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-01/msg00... Imagine taking the time to publicly explain to an out-of-practice dev why some technical feature is needed, then being accused of a "pressure campaign" that requires the out-of-practice dev to consult privately, "with people I have…

> That kind of disruption is at odds with every value FOSS devs claim to hold-- meritocratic, decentralized, etc.

You're mixing things here. :) meritocracy and decentralization are completely orthogonal to free software. They [edit: s/are/could be construed as a/] part of the open-source ethos as explored in CATB & explained by esr, not a sine-qua-non of free software.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#272

Post by simion314 »

pseudalopex wrote: post #244
simion314 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would think so because is hard to notice, I would not have believed it until I seen it with my own eyes, it was an article about RMS and there was a good discussion in the comments , in 5-10 minutes the entry was gone from the first pages, it was flagged, I think there were around 2-- comments in the end but most readers missed the article and instead they could see more then one day old stuff. My proposal is to…

People started flagging anything about Stallman because there were over 100 submissions in 2 weeks.[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713636

Yeah, but if feels not right , people should use the down vote button , then if the majority pressed down then up then is clearly something it should not be discussed. It is not right that a small number of individuals could hide something, because there is not an equivalent mechanism for a similar number of people to un-flag it.

There were different articles about RMS, so why an article that has Red Hat in it's name should stay and other that has an author less prestigious should be hidden, I mean let the community decide, we always repeat ourselves in comments when we talk about latest Apple,Facebook or Google shit so if the users upvote and discuss something then don't fucking hide it, it means it is on topic, the nes that don't want to engage can skip the article or downvote it and upvote soem other article instead that is more interesting.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#273

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #181
Osmose wrote: post #49

The Minsky defense was not the primary, most important reason RMS can't serve as an effective, inclusive leader for free software, it was just the one that got the most attention. This does nothing to address the numerous complaints of harassment towards MIT students, the _other_ times he spoke out in implicit support of pedophilia, the public gaffes that are unacceptable as a public representative (e.g. the foot ski…

Foucault, along with most french leftist intellectuals go and write a public letter in support of pedophilia and not only are they not getting in trouble for it - many of them are the ideological forerunners to modern leftism. It's not just cus of RMS saying the age of consent is wrong... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_...

Modern Americans seem to be very conflicted and in a need of a shrink.

On one hand, they seem to have this quasi genetic memory of things being an abomination unto the Lord[1], while on the other hand, it's not hip to be openly religious, so they won't openly mention the Lord[1], all the while maintaining their puritanic shackles and even have outrage at the people who don't have those shackles.

Just you wait until they realize what you wrote about Foucault and denounce any and all of his achievements ;-) It seems to be very trendy these days.

[1] The ironic bit, of course, is that the Scripture doesn't state what the age of consent should even be.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#274

Post by artificialLimbs »

It is great that RMS is trying to explore his emotional capacity and relate to others!

Shocking in these comments how many people believe that people are not responsible for their own emotions. No one can "hurt another" emotionally. It is up to each person to take the mature (and logical) stance that "I am responsible for my emotions". If something someone does or says "hurts me" emotionally, it is because I have chosen to allow that emotion, or I have not sufficiently dealt with the circumstances that have caused it to arise such that I am unable to process it in a manner which does not put the responsibility for its arising on another.

I'm not saying that if someone shoots your mother you shouldn't feel angry or sad, but that the anger or sadness is not CAUSED by another. It arises solely within you. You can see that this is true because people react wholly differently dependent upon the individual. It is within human capability to positively act from a place of clarity rather than negatively react from emotion.

It seems clear from this short page that RMS understands this.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#275

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

pseudalopex wrote: post #233
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that the discourse was very deliberately focused on the Epstein-related comments by people who felt that'd be a good way to achieve the outcome they wanted. It's undoubtedly true that RMS is often rude and offensive, but this has long been widely known and publicly discussed, so a pressure campaign on those grounds would almost certainly have flopped.

It seems to me the discussion of his Epstein related comments encouraged other people to come forward with their own grievances. I don't think most people knew he defended adults having sex with children. Or he hit on much younger women at conferences. Or the FSF unionized because of him.

I really think they did. The first two were some of the only things I knew about RMS before the current controversy prompted me to learn more.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#276

Post by linuxftw »

epakai wrote: post #260
linuxftw wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't answer for the OP but it's clear that the FSF was a in a leadership position Who cares about 'leadership position' aren't people capable of deciding things for themselves? > FSF stands for are good and important, however without an organization to promote them they will continue to wither in the modern age and bringing back RMS will not help to reverse that trend. So, people can form something similar to th…

GNU project contributions generally require copyright attribution to the FSF. This gives them standing to enforce any GPL violations, but it also makes them rather hard to replace when it comes to GPL enforcement. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html

Make your own GPL alternative if you don't approve of the FSF and how they conduct themselves. It's like saying Ford is in a leadership position, if you don't like their product, drive something else.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#277

Post by jcranmer »

simion314 wrote: post #272
pseudalopex wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People started flagging anything about Stallman because there were over 100 submissions in 2 weeks.[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713636

Yeah, but if feels not right , people should use the down vote button , then if the majority pressed down then up then is clearly something it should not be discussed. It is not right that a small number of individuals could hide something, because there is not an equivalent mechanism for a similar number of people to un-flag it. There were different articles about RMS, so why an article that has Red Hat in it's name…

You can't downvote articles; you can only flag them [if you want to express disapproval].

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#278

Post by d_tr »

stonogo wrote: post #263

It's disgusting that the FSF not only snuck the return of RMS into the end of LibrePlanet without notifying anyone, drove out the wrongthinking staff before creating a staff position on the board, and now to cap it off are writing articles instructing people on how to react to these things. RMS is not a good leader. The FSF should pay him for his work on GPL and leave him off the board. The FSF should also stop writi…

You have entirely missed the whole point of the situation, which has been going on for a while. Besides, this is about Stallman's own statement.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#279

Post by hnbad »

rantwasp wrote: post #163
Osmose wrote: post #49

The Minsky defense was not the primary, most important reason RMS can't serve as an effective, inclusive leader for free software, it was just the one that got the most attention. This does nothing to address the numerous complaints of harassment towards MIT students, the _other_ times he spoke out in implicit support of pedophilia, the public gaffes that are unacceptable as a public representative (e.g. the foot ski…

one thing that bothers me in the context of cancel culture is that it seems people put the equal sign between the work/art someone produces and their ideas outside of that area. Having wrong or plain stupid ideas does not mean you should die and all the [brilliant] work you are doing should go to waste. the bigger the target you attack, the better. right? what is your contribution to this world? they are not even clo…

The argument isn't that he contributed nothing or that his contributions are worthless. Few people are advocating for burning everything he built to the ground simply to exorcise his lingering influence once he is gone or whatever and even fewer are doing so in good faith.

The argument is that by retaining his position he is actively alienating people. Do you think he is such a phenomenal genius that keeping him is worth ten good people quitting or not joining in the first place? A hundred? A thousand? Where is the break-even point where it becomes more beneficial to keep a "genius" than being welcoming to new people who feel deeply uncomfortable around his behavior. And are you measuring him by what he has created in the past, or are you really considering his present value and likelihood of future contributions?

What if he's not so brilliant after all and you're allowing one "genius" to cost you equivalent or even superior "geniuses" with less abrasive personalities?

We like to tell stories about individual heroes, but if there is one recurring pattern in history it's that we're always standing on the shoulders of giants -- and even that imagery is misleading as it is not really just a handful of giants but armies of them, mutually supporting each other as they carry your weight.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#280

Post by benrbray »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #181
Osmose wrote: post #49

The Minsky defense was not the primary, most important reason RMS can't serve as an effective, inclusive leader for free software, it was just the one that got the most attention. This does nothing to address the numerous complaints of harassment towards MIT students, the _other_ times he spoke out in implicit support of pedophilia, the public gaffes that are unacceptable as a public representative (e.g. the foot ski…

Foucault, along with most french leftist intellectuals go and write a public letter in support of pedophilia and not only are they not getting in trouble for it - many of them are the ideological forerunners to modern leftism. It's not just cus of RMS saying the age of consent is wrong... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_...

This happened in 1977, and none of the people who signed it are public figures today, certainly not in the tech sphere. Academics who study philosophy and literature are well aware of the checkered past of the influential figures throughout history.

The implication that leftist thought is rooted in pedophilia is, I'm sure, intentional flamebait. I will just point out that, whether or not people are right to vilify Stallman, no one here is suggesting that we abandon the free software movement because one of its most prominent figures said unsavory things. So there is no logical inconsistency.

Post reply on HN