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

141–150 of 168 posts

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

#141

Post by koeselitz »

cpunks wrote: post #119
cwp wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The difference between RMS and ESR is one of kind, not one of degree. Both the free software movement and the open source movement believe that open system are good, and the more open they are the better they are. The difference is in their answer to the question of "why?" RMS and his adherents believe in inalienable human right to tinker, and consider limitations to that right, such as closed source technology,…

The differences between ESR and RMS are: * RMS is technically competent. ESR is technically clueless. * ESR is more charismatic. He manages to convince people he's important. RMS has on charisma. * ESR will do everything he can do undermine RMS. It's a way of building himself up. RMS will do whatever he believes will further free software. They're both often wrong. * RMS's writings from the late nineties are propheti…

This seems a bit extreme to me. I fall more on RMS's side of things, but I also thing RMS would not characterize ESR as "technically clueless" and only doing "little bits of damage" to the movement. "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" is not an unimportant essay, if only as a pedagogy to an important shift in how development can work. I disagree strongly with ESR's attempt to divorce, as he says here, "moral thought" from software - this seems like a mistake to me - but he is not a fool or a dilettante.

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

#144

Post by jcbrand »

smsm42 wrote: post #103
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…

"it ensures that it stays open and that improvements are given back" Actually, this phrase can be understood in two ways: 1. I want to ensure that the software is improved and the improvements are shared. 2. I want to ensure that the if the software is improved, then improvements are given back. If it's not happening, I prefer it not to be improved or used. The difference between these two are the difference between…

> 2. I want to ensure that the if the software is improved, then improvements are given back. If it's not happening, I prefer it not to be improved or used.

This is false. You are free to use and improve it, even if you don't want to give your improvements back.

But then you are just not allowed to distribute the software with your changes as closed source.

> It's like one person giving to charities with no preconditions and another giving only to charities that support his political views.

That is a crap analogy.

The people who don't want to open source their improvements to GPL'd code aren't charities, they are businesses who want to make money of other people's work. The GPL provides a kind of compensation to these people for their work. Which is the guarantee that all (distributed) improvements will be GPL'd as well.

That's one of the main reasons why I like the GPL. I know I will in some form be compensated for my labour (as opposed to BSD), in the sense that any improvements to it will come back to me.

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

#145

Post by ChristianMarks »

ESR's quote of Santayana is not illuminating. He might have quoted Bernard Gert, who wrote that a fanatic is someone who violates a moral rule to follow a moral ideal. A religious fanatic violates a moral rule to follow a religious command. I am unaware that RMS is violating moral rules in the name of free software.

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

#146

Post by bonch »

cstross wrote: post #38

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 enforc…

Whenever this topic comes up, someone chimes in that we "need" Stallman, and it's never sufficiently explained why.

As for calling him a pacifist who means no harm, he has publicly stated that it's more important not to have proprietary software than for employees to be able to feed their kids (http://lunduke.com/?p=2273).

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

#147

Post by swa14 »

esr has long become open source's Colonel Kurz. Being stuck somewhere in his own little piece of the cyber jungle, together with those who adhere to his peculiar view of life.

Some might know him from his work "the Cathedral and the Bazaar", or know him as contributor to "Battle for Wesnoth". And some might even know him for his contributions to GNU (yes, really! open up the documentation to various utilities some time, and his name will be there). The problem with esr is however, his fanaticism. Where rms speaks of software, he speaks of software and its impact on society only. Whether this is done in the most effective way is open to debate. To expound on the rest of his personal political ideas, he uses his homepage. In general he makes a clear distinction between his general political stance (which everyone has one), and his ideas on software (where he can speak authoritatively).

esr's views are "all in". You are either part of "the tribe" and accept him as your "silverback gorilla" alpha-male, or you're wrong. He's been using his notoriety as a hacker to create visibility for his ideas on other aspects of life, creating, imo, a position of false authority for himself.

You can agree or disagree with rms. But irrespective of the way he presents his ideas on software, they stand on their own, they stand up to scrutiny, and can be defended by and discussed in terms of logical arguments; meaning you are free to agree or disagree with the body of ideas behind free sofware and radically differ (from rms) in any other aspect of life.

Pitting esr's and rms's ideas on free sofware as "two sides of the same coin", needs a coin in a very non-euclidian universe.

In short. esr's influence on opensource dwindled over the years, alienating readers because of tying in his views on software with his strong political beliefs. rms's influence on free software has remained strong, not because of his persona (some might say, "in spite" of), but because they are sound and selfcontaining, and don't require people to "buy into" ideas on other aspects of life that are not strictly software related.

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

#148

Post by swa14 »

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…

on >>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."

He's been around for some years now. He's had the time to formulate his thought on matters. It's okay to not know what exactly he said/wrote, but it's not okay to just make up stuff you thought he might say based on your own biases.

What he actually wrote, is: "Over the years, many companies have contributed to free software development. Some of these companies primarily developed non-free software, but the two activities were separate; thus, we could ignore their non-free products, and work with them on free software projects. Then we could honestly thank them afterward for their free software contributions, without talking about the rest of what they did." Which is a far cry from what you assumed he might have had to say about it.

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

#149

Post by Peaker »

danbmil99 wrote: post #139

I find this debate so very tedious. From a libertarian perspective, RMS's arguments are just utter bs. He's basically saying two independent parties have no right to enter into a contract that involves keeping secrets. That's what happens when you agree to a EULA. If you don't like the contract, don't accept it. People have no more right to "free software" in the RMS absolutist sense than they have right to free beer…

The parties aren't independent.

People are utterly dependent on software.

Net effects mean that people aren't free to choose the software that has the agreements they agree with.

I think the question anyone should ask -- is what kind of society do we want to live in? One where everyone controls their computers and software, or one where the norm is to surrender control of this part of your life to third parties?

Post reply on HN