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

131–140 of 168 posts

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

#131

Post by dannyobrien »

nnethercote wrote: post #127
bane wrote: post #121

Moralists and fanatics are principally concerned with issues of ideological purity...often to the point of being willing to sacrifice tremendous parts of society in pursuit of this purity -- even as their own slice of the pie gets smaller and smaller and even when pursuit of the practical would move the world towards their ideal much more effectively. Every so often an event will happen where an ideological purist's…

"And then it suddenly stops. The creative outpouring and concrete contributions to the material world suddenly end" Here's a more prosaic possibility: he got old and/or moved into management.

He also developed (had?) RSI. See http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch09.html#15416

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

#132

Post by cheatercheater »

dpark wrote: post #87
cheatercheater wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The Affero license sounds closer to what you want. It doesn't stop someone from using the code internally without releasing improvements, but it does stop a company from building a network-based product on top of your code without releasing their improvements. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html Beyond that, though, it sounds like what you want is actually a bunch of mandatory process bureaucracy. You seem to w…

> a bunch of mandatory process bureaucracy

> pushing changes upstream from a heavily modified fork is non-trivial

> add senseless work

You're right, that's why it's difficult to come up with a balanced proposition that would alleviate the major problems of the GPL.

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

#133

Post by cwp »

raganwald wrote: post #110
cwp wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. The right to tinker is required for actual tinkering, and a right that's never exercised is pointless. Regardless, I don't consider the right to tinker an end in its self. The pleasure of tinkering is utterly unimportant compared with the good that a tinkerers work can bring into the world. As for freedom of speech, I think the analogy is flawed. The technology equivalent of speech is invention, and the freedom…

The value of free speech is the sort of society it produces, not the speech its self. With great respect, I urge you to think this kind of thing through very, very carefully. Consider freedom in the general sense, such as freedom to vote. Many post-colonial countries have freer citizens but worse economies. If freedom is useful only inasmuch as it is a means to some other practical end, we could say that these countr…

I thank you for the respect you show when you disagree. I hope I can do the same. I do indeed think about this kind of thing often and as carefully as I can.

The thing is, freedom in the general sense does produce happiness. If you doubt that, consider the contrary case, how we suffer when our freedom is taken away. In its most general sense, freedom is our ability to pursue happiness and avoid suffering. Of course our well being requires it. Freedom is good, in spite of its costs, because it makes us happy. If it didn't, why would we risk our lives and livelihoods to obtain it?

Nevertheless, I think it's important, when making moral judgements, to focus on happiness and wellbeing rather than a proxy like freedom. In a world of maximum freedom, where everyone is completely unfettered, we actually find ourselves less happy. We immediately form groups and establish social norms. We make laws. We constrain freedom in order to maximize wellbeing.

The suffering that I experience at the loss of my freedom to take what I want from those around me is exceeded by the security I feel knowing that the same protection is afforded to me. So yes, freedom is good, but so is security. So is prosperity — taxation robs me of my freedom to spend my income as I see fit, but the benefit I receive more than makes up for it. The only way I can see to measure the trade-offs between freedom, security, prosperity, health, etc is to value them for the wellbeing they bring to us, rather than try to assign value to them directly.

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

#134

Post by orangecat »

raganwald wrote: post #113
pjscott wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might as well be making up the part about black people. I checked, and ESR's actual argument is that black people have a lower average IQ than caucasians even after adjusting for things like socioeconomic status and childhood nutrition, that this IQ difference has significant effects on the observed distributions of things like income and crime, and that these same statistics prove that racial discrimination agai…

From time to time I go slumming and read the kind of thing Mr. Raymond has written, things like: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4278 He quotes something which appears to be backed up by statistics, then carries off into some social speculation. He rails against “political correctness” muzzling the truth. I have read similar things from people who feel a need to “have an honest conversation about the actions of Israel in t…

It’s a massive Ad Hominem on my part, but I can’t help but wonder when I read such passionate words, “Why is this person fixated on this particular topic?”

Because in their view, which may or may not be correct, they are injustices which receive very little mainstream attention. Is that not enough?

I’m not going to say he’s a racist.

I'm not going to say that John Doe has ever had any inappropriate relations with his students.

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

#135

Post by smsm42 »

kamaal wrote: post #125
smsm42 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So many fallacies in one post. 1. You conflate RMS being supremely talented programmer with his political strategy. ESR criticized the latter and never doubted - but actually emphasized - the former. 2. Anybody who actually read ESR article knows that RMS was never criticized for his ethnic origin, faith, belief or way of life - only for his political strategy and manner of achieving this goal. 3. Advocating violence…

I never said ESR criticized RMS because of the reasons, I mentioned. ESR is long know to write blog posts advocating US military campaigns on Middle east(Remember so far no proof found about WMD's in Iraq). He also used to write extreme hate blogs against Muslims and Islam in General, I used to follow some of his posts then. But later gave up on reading it was full of too much hate for nothing. I find it difficult to…

"I never said ESR criticized RMS because of the reasons, I mentioned."

Then why you mentioned those things in comment which discusses ESR's critique of RMS? Just because you had a random thought and had to express it before you forget it, no matter the topic? And why you immediately added "But I see ESR as a epitome of hyperbole, bad mouthing, hating people because of their belief, faith and their way of life. Advocating violence"?

Looks like is it you that is badmouthing people because of their beliefs, not ESR, and I also notice a lot of the same un-loving feeling in your responses that you attribute to ESR. I will ignore the attempt to derail the discussion and change topic to Iraq and Muslims, however, since it is completely offtopic (and again, contains multiple false statements). I just will notice that "advocating violence" in context of political discussion and political critique and meaning by it supporting actions (however they may seem wrong to you) of legitimate democratic government in totally unrelated case is extremely disingenuous.

You proceed to declare utter baloney and try to assign this baloney as if ESR ever said it, which also is obviously false and I wonder how you can expect such cheap rhetorical trick to convince anybody.

I think everybody here knows how ESR has made his name, and it has absolutely nothing to do with "bashing/thrashing/badmouthing people". Again, why you expect this obviously false statement to sound convincing to the informed audience is a mystery to me. However, (lack of) your personal respect to ESR is not important, as points he makes do not become less valid because you personally disrespect him.

The most sad part of your comment is however the last link. And the most sad part of this link is that incoherent drivel by some anonymous internet trolls which consists completely of "bashing, trashing and badmouthing", is presented as "Rational Wiki". Sad and deeply ironic.

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

#136

Post by kamaal »

cwp wrote: post #89
raganwald wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between RMS and ESR is one of kind, not one of degree Yes. RMS is concerned with morality, ESR with practicality. Also yes, for some definition of “practicality.” The open source movement is just as ardent, just as committed and just as "extreme" as the free software movement, but more successful. I don’t know how to measure commitment, but I agree that the open source movement is more successful in th…

I think that’s a fine statement to make if you qualify who “we” are. If you mean people concerned with practical objectives, you may be right. I caution against rhetoric that might be mistaken for suggesting that your point of view encompasses everyone reading your arguments. Fair point. That line was actually meant as a direct response to cstross's "We need people like RMS," but I botched the parallel construction.…

>>What I dislike about the RMS position is that it seems to consider tinkering, and perhaps geek culture in general, as inherently good and goals in their own right. I take a more utilitarian view: tinkering is good insofar we benefit from the results.

Would you say truth is beneficial only so as long as one benefits from it?

The fact is, somethings are inherently good in their own right. Eg: Non-violence.

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

#137

Post by kamaal »

smsm42 wrote: post #135
kamaal wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said ESR criticized RMS because of the reasons, I mentioned. ESR is long know to write blog posts advocating US military campaigns on Middle east(Remember so far no proof found about WMD's in Iraq). He also used to write extreme hate blogs against Muslims and Islam in General, I used to follow some of his posts then. But later gave up on reading it was full of too much hate for nothing. I find it difficult to…

"I never said ESR criticized RMS because of the reasons, I mentioned." Then why you mentioned those things in comment which discusses ESR's critique of RMS? Just because you had a random thought and had to express it before you forget it, no matter the topic? And why you immediately added "But I see ESR as a epitome of hyperbole, bad mouthing, hating people because of their belief, faith and their way of life. Advoca…

I don't know who is trolling whom here.

But you find goodness in a man known for his extreme hate writings against people of certain ethnic origins(Arabs), and people belonging to a particular race and color(blacks). Or certain preference on a way of life(like marrying people of the same gender). You consider this man good.

And now you call the people who point to this as trolls.

At this point my debate with you ends. Because I don't think we are on the plane of thinking.

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

#138

Post by Rhino55 »

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…

This is absolutely false. When RMS advocates for "free" software, what he really means is "prohibit IP protection for value-add".

Prohibition != Freedom.

This inhibits the natural development of software...it is bad for software, and it is bad for business. The GPL tries to TAKE AWAY your freedom to add value to existing GPL products by forcing you to release your source code. Fortunately the GPL is fairly ineffective in achieving its aims.

The BSD is an actually free license. When you release actually free software, there is nothing to debate because you aren't going out of your way to annoy people who are trying to bring innovative products to market that are based on your stuff.

The Free Software Foundation should give up already and call itself the "Anti-Commercial Software Cult".

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

#139

Post by danbmil99 »

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, free lunch, or free anything. (And yes, I know the 'free as in speech' slogan, but my point is that I have a right to enter into a contract, or offer someone a contract that limits their rights to share certain information I want to protect.) The fact that the thing in question is information rather than something more 'real' doesn't change the morality of the situation one bit -- it's merely a practical consideration, that bits are easy to copy, and cars and lunch are not.

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

#140

Post by gonzo »

gwern wrote: post #74
jiggy2011 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious, how does ESR make a living? He seems to spend a lot of time running his personal site (which carries no charges or ads) and has written a bunch of Open Source software. I don't see him doing anything that would put money into his bank account, or is he being sponsored by some company? If so who?

IIRC he was given a chunk of stock in a Linux IPO and while he lost most of its value in the dot-com crash, it still left him some spare change; add on consulting, royalties, the occasional job like being president, basic nerd frugal living, and you probably have the whole story.

Shrinking book royalties and the earnings of his wife, who is a lawyer.
Post reply on HN