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

61–70 of 168 posts

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

#61

Post by dtbx »

I think that ESR should employ a more radical license for his programs: the "do what the fuck you want to" public license.

If RMS want to dress like St Ignacious, do what the fuck you want.

If RMS wants to be the new Che Guevara, do what the fuck you want, man.

ESR is libertarian, and libertarianism is all about deploying that kind of license in your personal life.

RMS is not a fanatic. He's passionate, and I like his passion and his cause.

I don't think that engineering pragmatism is politically neutral. Sure, you can write a fine piece of software, but Who controls the software? For me, that's the crucial question, and I think is a very pragmatic question, indeed.

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

#62

Post by cromulent »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #48

I have a hunch that RMS will be of great interest to historians, probably more so than Steve Jobs in the long run. The overall GNU/Linux/OSS movement/project is the only thing I can think of where a work of such magnitude has been carried out on a global scale and has not been orchestrated by a single entity such as a government of corporation. Something that has been tested on this scale and succeeded as well as it…

Yes, I agree that history will treat RMS kindly. He's a curious creature. Jobs was right for his time at the crucible of personal computing, but I think RMS will be right for many times in the future, and his mark will be clearer and longer lasting.

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

#63

Post by rbanffy »

cube13 wrote: post #37
smithzvk wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It's intended to be used with a specific hardware configuration

It's that way because the Boeing CST has its own software, as does the Lockheed's Orion and the Soyuz and every unmanned spacecraft ever developed. Development costs and quality could be greatly improved if all of them shared a single codebase.

If more designs shared the codebase, it would end more modular, more maintainable and better tested.

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

#64

Post by cabalamat »

dpark wrote: post #22
einhverfr wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 suppor…

> No one makes money selling web servers or compilers for Unix, because it's not possible to compete on price with "free".

That may or may not be the case. However, it certainly doesn't stop high-quality compilers and web servers being written for Unix.

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

#65

Post by cabalamat »

> There are some advantages to this strategy. It taps into old, powerful emotional responses in human beings – the same responses that give messianic religions their power. As a way of recruiting a small hard core of dedicated followers it’s tough to beat, and sometimes – if you’re, say, the Gautama Buddha or Jesus or Mahavira – you can make it scale up. But I described it as a trap for a reason – most such attempts do not scale, remaining tiny marginal cults.

Is fanatism working for RMS? Well, the German Pirate Party regularly top 10% in the polls, which is rather better than you'd expect from a "tiny marginal cult", so one has to conclude that it is working.

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

#66

Post by kds »

It was RMS in the beginning - he built the foundations: the software (GCC, the GNU-project, Emacs), the philosophy and the values (his essays and interviews), the organisation (FSF), the copyleft legal rights (GPL).

ESR wouldn't be as recognizable as he is if he had chosen to opine on something less important and influential than RMS and his contribution.

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

#67

Post by luser001 »

pjscott wrote: post #43
pvarangot wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dis…

I dislike seeing someone's name smeared in a vague way. A bit of googling brought up the essay you mentioned regarding homosexuality, pederasty, and pedophilia: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=26 (Vagueness, begone!)

The rationalwiki article linked above links to that article and several others. So IMHO your charge of "name smeared in a vague way" is incorrect.

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

#68

Post by tjr »

brlewis wrote: post #25

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?

I suspect this is the reference:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4371&cpage=1#comment-381328

Luke Leighton writes:

i spoke to dr stallman about the assessment concepts presented here, because i think they’re fantastic and should be more formalised, and adopted more widely including by the FSF. unfortunately he was sufficiently upset by the personal references that he can’t possibly recommend that. what’s the best way to proceed?

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

#69

Post by cube13 »

rbanffy wrote: post #63
cube13 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> It's intended to be used with a specific hardware configuration It's that way because the Boeing CST has its own software, as does the Lockheed's Orion and the Soyuz and every unmanned spacecraft ever developed. Development costs and quality could be greatly improved if all of them shared a single codebase. If more designs shared the codebase, it would end more modular, more maintainable and better tested.

>It's that way because the Boeing CST has its own software, as does the Lockheed's Orion and the Soyuz and every unmanned spacecraft ever developed. Development costs and quality could be greatly improved if all of them shared a single codebase.

No, it's that way because nobody else in the world is using the specific hardware that they're using in the exact same configuration. Nobody is using the same input sensors. Nobody is using the exact same engine configuration or power.

Nobody has the same amount of fault tolerance or backup hardware.

That's what I meant.

Compared to a browser, where most of the more tricky hardware configuration issues are handled entirely by the OS.

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

#70

Post by brlewis »

tjr wrote: post #68
brlewis wrote: post #25

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?

I suspect this is the reference: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4371&cpage=1#comment-381328 Luke Leighton writes: i spoke to dr stallman about the assessment concepts presented here, because i think they’re fantastic and should be more formalised, and adopted more widely including by the FSF. unfortunately he was sufficiently upset by the personal references that he can’t possibly recommend that. what’s the best way to pr…

Thanks!
Post reply on HN