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

351–360 of 537 posts

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#351

Post by andrewzah »

hnbad wrote: post #279
rantwasp wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

> 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?

There are no numbers here, so this is literally impossible to debate. You can say X, I can say Y, and it's all completely subjective.

I personally don't think that he's driving away people like people claim. RMS is involved with the gnu project, fsf, and free software (now renamed open source), but those projects are each far bigger than he is.

> 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?

Again, this is impossible to debate in good faith. There are infinite hypothetical alternate realities, what good does it do for any of us to muse over them? Maybe a "super genius" exists and is being held back by RMS' continued existence. Maybe not.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#352

Post by SuperSandro2000 »

bigbillheck wrote: post #321

People keep focusing on the Minsky thing, but if Stallman hadn't spent the last 40 years being a creep (the "emacs virgin" thing), being a creep ('tender embraces'), being abusive (the FSF unionized to protect themselves from him), being abusive ( https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/1174044770546659329 ), being abusive ( https://twitter.com/mattblaze/status/1374460763910201350 ), being a jerk ("These birth annou…

but because work done in the past seems to be more important and can overshadow everything like nothing happened.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#353

Post by odiroot »

benrbray wrote: post #280
Der_Einzige wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 St…

> This happened in 1977, and none of the people who signed it are public figures today, certainly not in the tech sphere.

Aren't Foucault, Derrida and Lyotard still big names and influences in postmodern thought (and the whole "woke" movement)?

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#354

Post by solosoyokaze »

vidarh wrote: post #334
solosoyokaze wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The questioning was about the high powered men Giuffre was trafficked to. To say it was only about Maxwell asking her to do so, is taking that quote out of context.

So in other words you admit you inferred from her deposition something she didn't actually say. It is possible Minsky did have sex with her. But to describe it as a 'credible allegation' is dishonest when it is not clear there is an allegation at all.

That's not true, like I said you're erasing the entire context of the quote.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#355

Post by iajrz »

dralley wrote: post #330
iajrz wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's also the last thing we need in a position of leadership or even as a consultant. On technical matters, you are correct; on moral matters it's a different story. Think about the moral tragedies of history; we didn't need someone saying "maybe we should not be so evil; let's be less evil - not stop, because that's disruptive and I am not an extremist, but maybe dial it down a bit?" On moral battlegrounds we need…

>On technical matters, you are correct; on moral matters it's a different story. They are intertwined. His moral positions have done incredible damage to GCC at a technical level, and lost huge amounts of marketshare to LLVM as a direct result. (Stallman thought that making the compiler more modular and extensible was totally unacceptable because it might be possible in theory to write proprietary tools that used GCC…

> His moral positions have done incredible damage to GCC at a technical level, and lost huge amounts of marketshare to LLVM as a direct result.

We can take this as a given for the purposes of the discussion.

> They are intertwined

But which has priority?

The main issue with this topic is that it's sometimes hard to see things from an angle we're so unaccustomed to.

The FSF and the GNU project are accidentally technical, morally-driven organizations. Technical superiority is never the argument for Free Software. You may be thinking about Open Source and mixing them up.

Try to see it from that point of view: if an organization exists to prevent "some evil" from happening and make it as easily as possible for "good people" to not commit and not be subjected to "that evil", it makes sense that the organization will sacrifice things that don't seem to make sense because they are avoiding as strongly as they can to make "some evil" easier to commit.

The goal is not market share; the goal is not technical superiority; the goal is not profit; the goal is to "not be evil", help others "not be evil" and not make it easier than it ever needs to be to "be evil".

Look at the "about" pages in the FSF & Gnu project websites and you will notice that it is not a bad choice for them to avoid doing some things "for market share" or "to remain competitive" when those clash with creating free software, making it easier to create free software, and make sure (within the realm of possibility) that their work cannot be used to facilitate the building of non-free software.

From the FSF's point of view loss of market share is an acceptable loss, if the alternative is "be evil". That is why, odd as it may seem, the FSF needs someone who does not compromise on that.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#356

Post by GuB-42 »

koheripbal wrote: post #207
simion314 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is one of the reasons I believe social media sites should enact age-based voting. I am not sure this works, on HN for example is easy enough for a small mob to disappear articles by flagging them, on top of that we get no reason why things were flagged or any way to undo it. Account age or karma is not enough, we need much more, make it harder to share/downvote or flag , like by making someone type at least 60…

Accounts that act poorly, usually do so in multiple ways. Banning accounts for bad behavior will likely curb other undetectable bad behavior. HN is a bit unique. I suspect it is less influenced by bad behavior because it is small enough to fly under the radar.

HN has a system where submissions get flagged and possibly downranked if the number of comments exceeds its score as it is indicative of a flame war.

It is the opposite of what social media that optimize for "engagement" do.

The HN community also has a habit of downranking controversial topics. For example, subjects like women in tech and racism tend to get buried quickly. It is not that these are not worth talking about, but I think keeping these out help a great deal at preventing bad behavior to emerge. For me, it is a win, and it is not like places where you can talk politics are lacking on the net.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#357

Post by anaerobicover »

prepend wrote: post #308

> False accusations -- real or imaginary, against me or against others -- especially anger me. I feel similarly and wonder what this is called or how many others feel similarly. It’s curious to me as I try to solve problems and filter truth from false just in general everyday life so when someone says something that seems false it sticks out to me in my thoughts. I stopped trying to correct this as it seems most peop…

Speaking as someone who shares this trait with you, you should know if you don't already: this is a characteristic of autistic brains. (Not to say that either you or I are definitely autistic.) The other people's brains put a higher weight on what you might call "agreeableness" (from the Big 5 personality traits) than on strict factual correctness.

> I stopped trying to correct this as it seems most people aren’t very receptive, to say the least.

Same; I have found it best to "keep my powder dry" so to speak, and have slowly, slowly learned to weigh my own sense of importance against various social values. I find it makes me more effective when it is indeed important.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#358

Post by solosoyokaze »

africanboy wrote: post #331
solosoyokaze wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was responding to the parent comment that claimed Giuffre was a "terrified and led" witness.

she could be, we don't know (at least I don't know) and since I don't know, I prefer to stay on the cautious side. For example Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz has now sued the woman in federal court in New York, claiming that her allegations are “lies, disparagement, defamation, harassment” that are “beyond the bounds of decency and not tolerated in civilized society.” [...] Dershowitz repeated his previous cla…

As someone who has followed the case closely, I have no problem saying I believe Giuffre. She's hardly the only Epstein victim and there's plenty of photo evidence backing up many of her other claims.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#359

Post by solosoyokaze »

africanboy wrote: post #343
solosoyokaze wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it does. It claims the allegations against Minsky are false. That has not been proven and the allegations are highly credible. It's an offensive and stupid thing to say, especially publicly, especially when you're "apologizing".

> It claims the allegations against Minsky are false. I don't think he did.

From the post:

"False accusations -- real or imaginary, against me or against others -- especially anger me. I knew Minsky only distantly, but seeing him unjustly accused made me spring to his defense. I would have done it for anyone. Police brutality makes me angry, but when the cops lie about their victims afterwards, that false accusation is the ultimate outrage for me."

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#360

Post by solosoyokaze »

myrmidon wrote: post #333
solosoyokaze wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would absolutely not work with someone who held these views. Unprofessional, disturbing and illegal.

I'm trying to understand your perspective. Would you be ok with Stallman defending Minsky if the victim had been one year older? Do you think it should be illegal to publicly defend alleged perpetrators/what Stallman did? Would you react more/less strongly if Minsky had been accused of murder, and Stallman pointed out that the crime was potentially assisted suicide? Do you not want to work with Stallman because his m…

> Would you be ok with Stallman defending Minsky if the victim had been one year older?

No.

> Do you think it should be illegal to publicly defend alleged perpetrators/what Stallman did?

No, but you should lose your job if you're in a leadership position.

> Would you react more/less strongly if Minsky had been accused of murder, and Stallman pointed out that the crime was potentially assisted suicide?

No.

> Do you not want to work with Stallman because his moral system is not solid enough to you, or do I misunderstand your position?

I would not work with him because I find him disgusting. I would not work with anyone who sexualizes the workplace. Infinitely worse when they're arguing in favor of pedophilia.

> Would you be willing to work with an ex-convict in general?

Depends on the crime, but rape and murder, absolutely not.

Post reply on HN