191–200 of 229 posts
> In general, in any area of art or sensation, there are many ways for something to be good, and they cannot be compared and ordered >Indian classical music (I tend to enjoy Carnatic more than Hindustani) what
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if you're prepared to explain why a choice of ties is a moral imperative, and are ready for the ridicule of people who don't agree with you.
Except that, in explaining his choice of no ties at all, RMS resorts precisely to moral imperatives.
While his eccentricities mirror those of a mad scientist (or really just an institutionalized person, depending on whom you ask), you cannot deny that RMS is a genius. His work in free software has enabled much recursive work in the computer science fields that wouldn't be possible without his contributions. gcc is without a doubt still the most advanced compiler available today. The GNU coreutils are nowhere near th…
With the caveat that I haven't looked at gcc since I can't judge it, I can deny he's a "genius" when it comes to software and systems. I think he's a bit like me, a scientist type who's very good in these fields (and better than I). But compared to the true genius types in these fields, such as Guy Steele and David Moon, well, we qualitatively aren't at that level. After all, he's going to go down in history first an…
Ouch, rms wouldn't be pleased with that statement ;) "we do not accept being mislabeled as open source supporters" -- rms
This thread reflects how little HN has to do with hacker culture those days. I read the article and enjoyed very much his description of the process by which he learns foreign languages and how he tries to make maximum use of every bit of free time. Then I went to the comments and saw the batshit comments about ties. Time to rename the site to "Hater News".
Hacker News is too much about becoming rich to have much love for Stallman.
"...I do use airline frequent flier numbers because the airlines demand to know my identity anyway." "...However, I absolutely refuse to take Amtrak trains because they check passengers ID (sometimes, not all the time)." Are these two statements contradictory, or is there something special about what Amtrak do that threatens privacy more than the disclosure of identity to an airline? This is a genuine question, I hav…
How does he reconcile using somebody else's cell phone to make a call if he's not willing to use one himself?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With the caveat that I haven't looked at gcc since I can't judge it, I can deny he's a "genius" when it comes to software and systems. I think he's a bit like me, a scientist type who's very good in these fields (and better than I). But compared to the true genius types in these fields, such as Guy Steele and David Moon, well, we qualitatively aren't at that level. After all, he's going to go down in history first an…
he's going to go down in history first and foremost as the founder of the modern open source movement Ouch, rms wouldn't be pleased with that statement ;) "we do not accept being mislabeled as open source supporters" -- rms
ADDED: To my knowledge, there are two areas where he's really, truly, significantly innovated: EMACS and GNU/FSF. The EMACS innovations are just not the stuff of serious history, however much we appreciate them while we're using it. GNU/FSF, that's big, and while (more than) minimal technical merit was required for it make a difference, the innovation was not technical per se (well, unless you look at the legal side, i.e. the GPL). Again, I'm trying to see how "history" will view him.
I myself use FOSS when I'm talking to an audience that knows it, but many if not most general historians are unlikely to make such fine distinctions, unless we get some really major object lesson in why his version of free software is really what we should be doing.
E.g. imagine a major spying on citizens, or more likely subjects, scandal from opening microphones by closed (enough) software. I know some land line phone system designers have deliberately made that impossible.
(I do, BTW, empathize with his cellphone attitude, I own one candybar "3rd world" cellphone that's almost always turned off unless I'm rendezvousing/coordinating with someone and/or it's an emergency. Mostly because of lifestyle and penny pinching, but I never forget that whenever I turn it on I'm saying "here I am!" to the towers it connects to, and on or officially off, it's almost never in a place where eavesdropping would be useful. And, hmmm, yep, when I'm out it's almost always with my father, and I take advantage of his always carrying and primarily using a cellphone.
Hmmm, come to think of it, there are a number of reasons we got along with each other, despite me being an unhidden arch-conservative type and he a rather liberal type, e.g. neither of us are very trusting of the powers that be.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copy pasta much? > But here on Hacker News (of all places), let's instead criticize his personal preferences on fucking ties. So someone writes about their personal life, and then people discuss it. What the heck does a whole bunch of honorary doctorates from Latin America have to do with this? Obviously the people in Latin America like him. As far as I'm concerned, a single actual doctorate is worth more than all of…
Perhaps a nit, but he didn't "write" any version of EMACS to my knowledge, just improved existing versions of them, in the two cases I'm most familiar with, making a significant qualitative difference. Guy Steele provided the start of the first (in that there were 3 or so visual TECO systems, each with its own key bindings etc., and he got enough people to agree on one), and RMS took off with it and made it into much…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that, in explaining his choice of no ties at all, RMS resorts precisely to moral imperatives.
By my reading, he says people who wear ties because they feel they need to are complicit. If you just honestly like ties, I don't think he has any beef with you, provided you're not trying to force them on others.
How does he reconcile using somebody else's cell phone to make a call if he's not willing to use one himself?
He doesn't say that owning a cellphone is wrong; he says he doesn't want to be tracked by using one. Using someone else's doesn't help track that person (they're being tracked regardless), so why would it be contradictory?