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

Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

fsf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 139 posts

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#111

Post by azinman2 »

Splendor wrote: post #35
azinman2 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His point was that we don’t know that Minsky raped anyone from Minsky’s perspective. Go read his actual words again.

> from Minsky’s perspective Oh no, honey.

I chose my words carefully. I said his perspective as per RMS’s argument, we don’t know how things were presented to Minsky. Eg it might have seemed consensual. I said his perspective because mine is that it’s effectively rape even if consensual and legal when you have someone so young and so old, because the young person isn’t in the position to truly be consensual given their limited understanding of the world. But when the word “rape” is used, the image conjured is very specific and unlikely to have occurred in that way.

This is all assuming it’s even true, which I have a very tough time swallowing for Minsky specifically.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#112

Post by [deleted] »

danpalmer wrote: post #28
crazypython wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://stallmansupport.org/

This website does not acknowledge the harm he has done to the free software movement and therefore cannot heal any issues that he has caused. If he made a sincere apology things might be different, but as long as he and his supporters refuse to engage with criticism they won't reach a resolution.

[deleted]

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#113

Post by ulisesrmzroche »

When you're a star, you can get away with anything. That's basically it. Zero surprise.

Same reason Linus got away with bullying for so long. Some people are just born-followers, NPCs, and will lie to themselves to block away the shame.

If it was me who did this same shit, I'd be exiled. No one would be there to defend me. Where's all the brave white knights then?

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#114

Post by ashtonkem »

WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #7

One can't deny, sadly, that a software freedom geek with consistency and integrity as applied to that philosophy and insight therein of RMS's caliber doesn't yet exist. I'm afraid, for this reason alone quite a few people get to think that if you consistently apply software freedom principles in all parts of your life where you use or produce software, it must come with the baggage of all other flaws of RMS's charact…

> One can't deny, sadly, that a software freedom geek with consistency and integrity as applied to that philosophy and insight therein of RMS's caliber doesn't yet exist.

All of these statements are arguably orthogonal to actually leading the FSF. I would in fact argue that such rigid consistency is actually a serious detriment, as it explicitly lets the perfect become the enemy of the good.

> I'm afraid, for this reason alone quite a few people get to think that if you consistently apply software freedom principles in all parts of your life where you use or produce software, it must come with the baggage of all other flaws of RMS's character, complete with questionable hygiene habits and abrasive personality.

Well said.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#115

Post by ashtonkem »

blablabla123 wrote: post #59
WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #7

One can't deny, sadly, that a software freedom geek with consistency and integrity as applied to that philosophy and insight therein of RMS's caliber doesn't yet exist. I'm afraid, for this reason alone quite a few people get to think that if you consistently apply software freedom principles in all parts of your life where you use or produce software, it must come with the baggage of all other flaws of RMS's charact…

I mean for years it has been an open secret that organizations and also people are okay with certain degrees of problematic behaviours. I cannot remember how often I read blog articles linked on HN about HR departments ignoring reasonable complaints. At some point it is then also necessary to have direct words every now and then. Otherwise this system is just passed on and never improved. I also have serious doubts t…

> That said, as long as RMS didn't do anything outside of the law.

I always balk at the introduction of "the law" into these discussions. Inherently there are all kinds of behavior that is legal but can and should get you fired. Talking about the law here is just setting the bar unreasonably high.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#116

Post by shadowgovt »

underseacables wrote: post #3

That is a really well written statement in my humble opinion. It’s almost like they’re trying to tell people “look we need this guy, and yeah for many it sucks, but for the betterment of the mission and the future of free software, we have to come together because he is simply too valuable to ignore“ I was intrigued at “ The announcement by RMS at LibrePlanet was a complete surprise to staff, all those who worked so…

An organization in which one man is indispensable dies with that man.

If FSF can't see a way to exist without Stallman at the helm, I wouldn't make any long-term bets on them sticking around as an organization of relevance.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#117

Post by _nalply »

danpalmer wrote: post #4

> He has sincere regrets, especially at how anger toward him personally has negatively impacted the reputation and mission of FSF In my opinion, "I'm sorry you were offended enough to stop supporting me" is not a sincere apology. In fact this whole announcement is one big "I'm sorry you were offended" statement. It doesn't apologise for the problem, it "apologises" for not managing to sneak the announcements past peo…

I am not supporting RMS. However after what I have read from him and FSF I just accept what they say. Because I try understand what happened and not to be distracted by outrage. After all outrage is just words.

I think:

- RMS did or said something neurotypical people tend to avoid.

- There was no malice in what RMS did or said.

- People either don't understand, have a beef with RMS, or are riding the bandwagon of outrage and cancel culture.

I have family members on the spectrum so I understand that people are often clumsy, boneheaded and annoying, and so is RMS. I also learned that narcisstic people like to exploit the ineptitude of people on the spectrum. One way is to raise a ruckus about something unimportant but exploitable to raise outrage.

Please suck it up as a mistake and forgive them.

And! It's not about the real evil wrongdoings of certain other people!

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#118

Post by mariusor »

pseudalopex wrote: post #102
mariusor wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my opinion, "I'm sorry you were offended enough to stop supporting me" is not a sincere apology. I'm surprised at the lack of empathy towards what seems a pretty genuine attempt at introspection. To me it seems obvious that RMS is a person with a handicap and deserves at least a little understanding and support, especially since he is openly acknowledging his difference.

He always said he was different. His statement doesn't evince any new understanding. He portrays himself as willing to learn. People who worked with him have different stories.[1] [1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html

This is a pretty callous and uncharitable dismissal of rms' message. Everybody can better themselves despite what their peers might believe.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#119

Post by marcan_42 »

WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #7

One can't deny, sadly, that a software freedom geek with consistency and integrity as applied to that philosophy and insight therein of RMS's caliber doesn't yet exist. I'm afraid, for this reason alone quite a few people get to think that if you consistently apply software freedom principles in all parts of your life where you use or produce software, it must come with the baggage of all other flaws of RMS's charact…

RMS is only consistent in that his opinions are, consistently, where they were in the 80s, and have remained unchanged for the past 40 years. They are outdated and entirely self-inconsistent with the world in 2021, and at odds with true freedom for users.

This applies to women and inclusivity, which has been written about ad nauseam. But it also applies to their own philosophy and software freedom.

Here's a meta-thread on just how bad the FSF's and RMS's policies around software and hardware freedom are:

https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1377899929209774081

They promote making hardware less introspectable and more expensive for precisely zero benefit to users' freedom, only to the illusion of freedom. They promote hardware with giant proprietary ROMs as "respects your freedom", because you can't see them. They promote crippling hardware (a la Intel product segmentation), to permanently destroy parts which may "lure" users into using non-free software. They promote sabotaging efforts to inform users about security flaws, if fixing those flaws would require applying non-free patches to non-free software they are already running, because the patches would make that non-free software's existence evident. Their entire philosophy isn't based about the freedom to inspect, modify, and understand your software and your devices; it's based around not having any obvious binary blobs in your filesystem. In addition, some of their licenses are so utterly bad as to be completely broken (and legally untested). Their own guidance about their own licenses is bad and negligent at times. They have at least once abused their "or any later version" powers to backdoor in a relicensing exception, that was so poorly written as to have a vastly wider scope than intended.

Don't believe me? Read the above thread, the sources and explanations are all there.

RMS and the FSF do not have the slightest clue how to promote an ideology in supports of users' rights in 2021. They are an ossified organization based on outdated principles, which no longer serve users' interests. The world has moved on past the FSF.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#120

Post by marcan_42 »

gaws wrote: post #66
burnte wrote: post #18

I read this and RMS's statement. I've been saying Stallman needs to go for adecade or more, I believe his fanaticism holds back the organization and movement. However, after reading his statement, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt IF he not only sees now that he's been ofensive, but is more willing to listen to criticism in the future. If he TRULY recognizes he's got social issues and communication pro…

> he not only sees now that he's been ofensive, but is more willing to listen to criticism in the future. Spoiler alert: He won't. He's been problematic for decades, and it's extremely difficult for someone like him to change at the drop of a hat.

He's been willing to listen to criticism for 30 years alright. He just doesn't change or learn anything as a result.
Post reply on HN