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

Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters

esr.ibiblio.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 168 posts

Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters

#21

Post by papsosouid »

kamaal wrote: post #17
_delirium wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you read much of his writing style, or any of his disputes with others? They seem to always end up in hyperbolic, very personal polemics, like this one. Look up his encounters over the years with Bruce Perens, or RMS several times, or anyone ESR considers a "left-liberal". Also, climate scientists are malevolent frauds, in his view, Barack Obama is the worst president and anyone who can't see that is intellectua…

The difference is RMS is a fanatic with tons of accomplishments in his bag. Blog Noise to work ratio is too high in ESR's case. I don't know what his contributions to software are. Or when was the last time I heard some major contribution from him. He always seems to find something to bad mouth. I would consider RMS a super achiever compared to ESR.

Right, RMS at least used to write code. ESR has always been a creepy hacker fanboy, latching on to and idolizing hacker culture, but has never been part of it, and never produced any code.

Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters

#22

Post by dpark »

einhverfr wrote: post #19
marquis wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>not releasing the source is evil I believe it's a cultural necessity given how we make money as software developers. Hardware developers have a buffer in terms of actual production, which requires significant investment. You can reverse engineer any hardware you have in your hands but it's unlikely given 2012 technology that you can mass-produce it and steal revenue from the copied source (patents notwithstanding).…

Some areas where open source software is the norm: 1) Web servers 2) compilers for UNIX and embedded application development 3) ISP infrastructure I am sure there are plenty of others. My business is trying to bring LedgerSMB to this area regarding mid-range accounting and ERP. Open source can be effectively monatized in more ways than proprietary software. As LedgerSMB 1.4 comes along we'll be shifting from consulti…

Not coincidentally, those are also areas where there's basically no longer any profit to be made. No one makes money selling web servers or compilers for Unix, because it's not possible to compete on price with "free".

The businesses that make money from open source typically do so by selling something else on top. Google doesn't sell open source. They sell services. Red Hat doesn't sell open source. They sell support to large businesses. ISPs sell bandwidth. Etc.

Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters

#24

Post by gwern »

I find it funny ESR thinks he or 'Open Source' have made much progress; I would have thought the existence of patent trolls - things fanatics like RMS have been warning about for literally decades and been mocked as fanatics for just as long - would force even the most obtuse to acknowledge their foresight. Guess not.

Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters

#25

Post by brlewis »

One of my commenters reports that he showed my essay on evaluating the harm from closed-source software to Richard Stallman, who became upset by it.

Anybody have a link to this comment? I couldn't find it.

[EDIT] After an hour nobody claims to have found it. Is there a real comment, or is ESR just fantasizing about RMS caring what ESR writes?

Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters

#26

Post by brlewis »

papsosouid wrote: post #21
kamaal wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is RMS is a fanatic with tons of accomplishments in his bag. Blog Noise to work ratio is too high in ESR's case. I don't know what his contributions to software are. Or when was the last time I heard some major contribution from him. He always seems to find something to bad mouth. I would consider RMS a super achiever compared to ESR.

Right, RMS at least used to write code. ESR has always been a creepy hacker fanboy, latching on to and idolizing hacker culture, but has never been part of it, and never produced any code.

ESR did not bring us emacs or gcc, but he has made some contributions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/software.html

I'm most grateful for vc-mode in emacs.

(I'm merely addressing a factual point and in no way excusing the way ESR treats RMS in writing.)

Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters

#27

Post by smithzvk »

marquis wrote: post #7
Karunamon wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>His 'fanatical' language of evil etc. is because he truly believes those things to be evil. Any fanatic truly believes themselves to be right. That said, I'm a free software advocate. I see where the guy is coming from. I agree on most points. The one that I absolutely cannot get behind is that not releasing the source is evil.

>not releasing the source is evil I believe it's a cultural necessity given how we make money as software developers. Hardware developers have a buffer in terms of actual production, which requires significant investment. You can reverse engineer any hardware you have in your hands but it's unlikely given 2012 technology that you can mass-produce it and steal revenue from the copied source (patents notwithstanding).…

It is interesting that you should bring up SpaceX. If SpaceX used the GPL, there is nothing to say that you would ever get to explore that source code. The only time you would be guaranteed the source is if you have a rocket of your own and are using their control system, which is arguably when this becomes more than just a wonderful curiosity and becomes truly important.

The GPL doesn't stop software developers from making money, only certain software developers that would like to market their software software in certain ways, like sell it as if it is a scarce commodity when it is not. Although I'll have to take his word for it, RMS is quick to point out that the vast majority of software is produced under private contracts or internally. Under these situations, the GPL has no "not getting paid" issues for developers as the software you produce under contract is the companies to distribute under the GPL or not distribute. In fact, the FSF has an explicit statement that NDAs for contracted GPL work are acceptable (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DevelopChangesUnde...). RMS doesn't have a problem with companies keeping their secrets or with developers not allowing you to see the source code they write so long as it isn't on your computer. The flip side is that he does have a problem with the independent developer that wants to write a closed source program and milk it for all it's worth by selling it by the copy or the subscription to end users. Admittedly this is a well represented group on Hacker News and amongst entrepreneurs in general, probably because copying bits can be a quick and/or easy way to make money when compared to getting paid for the actual development directly.

To his credit, RMS has been fairly clear (at least recently) that writing GPL software to sell copies is not a viable business model. And no, I don't think that developing proprietary software so that you can force a false scarcity should be called evil, but perhaps immoral is not too far off, and certainly sketchy.

edit: Actually, on second thought, I think RMS hasn't been clear on this; he seems to refuse to answer the question because it is irrelevant. If the business practice is immoral, it doesn't matter if it is viable. I took his silence as conceding the point.

Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters

#28

Post by mindcrime »

Mmm... generally speaking, I'm an ESR fan, but I think he's a bit wrong (and a bit right here. What I mean is, yes, RMS almost certainly is a fanatic. I doubt RMS himself would disagree with that characterization (although I don't know him and have never asked him; so it's just a hunch). But, the question is, is RMS harmful to the F/OSS culture (to the extent that one can talk about any sort of homogeneous "F/OSS culture")? On this point, I'm unconvinced.

In fact, I'll argue that, whether despite his fanaticism or because of it, RMS has been - and remains - a positive influence on the F/OSS world. No, his position and his rantings aren't for everyone but they are for some and to the some who are deeply inspired by his actions, the "RMS as messianic figure" thing is probably very valuable. And considering their are fanatics on the "opposing team" (if you will), like certain people who refer to the GPL as communist, I believe a certain measure of fanaticism is good, in terms of counter-balancing the opposing fanaticism.

The mainstream of culture itself will likely always hang somewhere in the middle. But one has to wonder where things would wind up without Stallman and the FSF proselytizing so strenuously for Free Software.

Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters

#29

Post by [deleted] »

mindcrime wrote: post #28

Mmm... generally speaking, I'm an ESR fan, but I think he's a bit wrong (and a bit right here. What I mean is, yes, RMS almost certainly is a fanatic. I doubt RMS himself would disagree with that characterization (although I don't know him and have never asked him; so it's just a hunch). But, the question is, is RMS harmful to the F/OSS culture (to the extent that one can talk about any sort of homogeneous "F/OSS cul…

[deleted]

Re: Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters

#30

Post by meric »

I found ESR's comment interesting: ">In setting this stance, we push the Overton window further to our side, allowing pragmatists to be able to say, “We’re not extremists, like Stallman” and gain more credibility.

This is actually reasonable. I’ve used Stallman this way myself – he more or less begs for it. But I don’t think you’re answering the usual intent of the claim “the moral viewpoint is essential”, which has nothing to do with anything as cold-blooded as gaming the Overton window and everything to do with deep-seated convictions in the speaker."

Post reply on HN