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

31–40 of 168 posts

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

#31

Post by mindcrime »

[deleted] wrote: post #29
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]

but he is a negative influence on getting people, and especially companies, to adopt FOSS in the first place.

Is he really though? I mean, superficially one might assume such a thing about a lightning-rod figure like rms, but is there any actual evidence of this? And, if there is, is there actually any way to quantify this effect and weight it against the positive effect he has?

I can't prove my case either, but I still believe that - on balance - rms is a positive influence. Note that I'm not saying I agree with him on everything... I'm no Stallman acolyte or anything. I just think esr is overstating the case for any damage done by rms.

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

#32

Post by Shamanmuni »

ubernostrum wrote: post #12
nextstep wrote: post #8

This post repeats a very weak argument over and over: RMS uses messianic language which alienates potential allies. Ok. But do you think strict adherence to the principles of the FSF are good? This piece doesn't even address the core issues of RMS's position, and just accuses him of phrasing his point poorly.

I sense that you did not read the essay. The point is that two people can agree on a particular goal that needs to be achieved, while disagreeing -- perhaps quite strongly -- on the means appropriate and best suited to achieve that goal. RMS' approach to a business which produces proprietary software is, essentially, "Your business is evil, you are evil, and I will crusade to end your evil." ESR's approach is, essent…

OK, but you have to acknowledge that businessmen and engineers are not the only people who could be interested in FOSS.

I work regularly with social scientists; they are really interested in Free Software and don't care much about Open Source. You can talk about efficiency and reduction of cost endlessly and to them it's just another "marketing speech" but if you talk about ethics and the well-being of society at large they are instantly hooked.

RMS is just a man, he can't be all things to all people. There are situations in which his rhetoric is really effective, and others in which it isn't; as simple as that. It's great to have Open Source to make an argument that businessmen will pay attention to. However, criticising the "Free Software guy" because he's not an "Open Source guy" is kind of pointless.

I think the diversity in points of view is a testament to the cultural importance of FOSS, and we should celebrate that.

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

#33

Post by pvarangot »

zbuc wrote: post #6
_delirium wrote: post #4

An argument between RMS and ESR over who's the bigger fanatic is not likely to produce very enlightening results...

ESR doesn't strike me as particularly fanatical from what I know of him. Are you thinking of something in particular?

Are you familiar with his views about Islam or Homosexuality? Those seem pretty fanatical to me, they are completely biased and downright offensive and illiterate. He equates homosexuality with paedophilia, denies HIV is the sole cause of AIDS and believes in a conspiracy to hide the true causes, and calls for the murder of religious leaders of the middle east equating them with animals. I tried multiple times to discuss this theories with him, but he called me a "marxist anti-american fag" (sic), a label that even if undisputed gives him no logical arguments against any refutation of his bizarre theories nor justifies his calls for action or even sometimes genocide.

For some time already his mind has been drifting in a sea of obscurantist choosing of statistics and a convenient selection of right-winged american-exceptionalist conspiracy theories.

I could link to his twisted essays, but although biased the entry in Rational Wiki about him sums most of the hard facts, though I suggest you ignore their opinion and go read the compiled cited writing of ESR. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond

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

#34

Post by brlewis »

meric wrote: post #30

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…

I find that comment (and the comment he's replying to) more interesting than anything in the post itself.

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

#35

Post by jiggy2011 »

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…

To be honest , most people don't even know who RMS is and that includes people who work in IT (and many people who use Linux for a living).

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

#36

Post by pjscott »

ubernostrum wrote: post #12
nextstep wrote: post #8

This post repeats a very weak argument over and over: RMS uses messianic language which alienates potential allies. Ok. But do you think strict adherence to the principles of the FSF are good? This piece doesn't even address the core issues of RMS's position, and just accuses him of phrasing his point poorly.

I sense that you did not read the essay. The point is that two people can agree on a particular goal that needs to be achieved, while disagreeing -- perhaps quite strongly -- on the means appropriate and best suited to achieve that goal. RMS' approach to a business which produces proprietary software is, essentially, "Your business is evil, you are evil, and I will crusade to end your evil." ESR's approach is, essent…

At the time of this writing, yours is the most insightful comment posted here. Also, I'm pretty sure that both RMS and ESR would consider it a decent summary of their disagreement, which is unusual in discussions about this subject.

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

#37

Post by cube13 »

smithzvk wrote: post #27
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).…

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…

>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.

I've been trying to figure out a good way to post this. It's simply a problem with the market that the code is intended for.

On one hand, you have applications like Office-style programs and web browsers. Every single computer user in the world uses those types of applications. So for those applications, the code has tremendous value as Open Source. Lots of people can go in and improve on it.

SpaceX's code, on the other hand, is incredibly specific for it's purpose. It's intended to be used with a specific hardware configuration, with users that have been trained to a high level with it's use. It's less valuable to the public, because the only people that can really make good use of the code are SpaceX engineers. Even the orbital guidance code is not that interesting, because variations of it have existed for the last half century, and it's equations and algorithms that just about any serious amateur astronomer should be aware of.

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

#38

Post by cstross »

We need people like RMS. He marks one side of the Overton Window framing the debate on freedom and software.

(Overton window: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window )

This doesn't mean he's right but what he does is necessary. If he didn't exist we'd need to invent him (or someone like him).

(Oh, and he is indeed a fanatic, but of the pacifist variety -- not the kind who's interested in killing people to enforce his views -- and therefore worth debating with.)

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

#39

Post by cheatercheater »

jgrahamc wrote: post #2

"The problem with it is the same problem with messianic religions in general; for people who are not flipped into true-believer mode by any given one, it will come off as at best creepy and insular, at worst nutty and potentially dangerous (and this remains true even for people attached to a different messianic religion)." I fit into neither of the caricatures of either a 'true believer' or someone scared of RMS. I s…

I agree with RMS on many points, but I think you're misguided:

> I've always used the GPL for licensing my open source code

ITYM "free software"

> specifically because it ensures that it stays open and that improvements are given back.

No, it does not. Any software not being redistributed does not have to publish its improvements. And even if it does publish the improvements, they don't have to be made accessible in any useful way (for example, just a source dump, rather than a version control repo). And even if it is made accessible in some useful way, often the projects don't end up contributing back upstream (Hello Ubuntu!)

> On one occasion I've been persuaded to use another license so that $CORP could use the code (http://gmsl.sf.net/) internally and I see that the non-fanatical position helped $CORP but I'm not sure it helped the greater cause of open source

They still can. You're confused about licensing and what GPL does.

HOWEVER, I do resonate with your concerns. I think the world needs to start making programs which are NOT "free" according to RMS, in that if someone uses the program, and he improves it, he has to give back to the general population. How to execute this properly is another question, but I really want to be able to release code which is a public good, rather than something everyone can take, without ever giving back.

Post reply on HN