Live data from Hacker News

Richard Stallman: How I do my Computing

stallman.org

211–220 of 293 posts

Re: Richard Stallman: How I do my Computing

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Why is he so threatening?” In my view, because he has influence based on credibility that he does not deserve any more, and because he exerts that influence in ways that do not benefit free software.

could you estimate for me how much it would cost ycombinator-backed companies if the Free software they used did not feel the need (promoted by zealots like him) to be free? How many of these companies could not exist at all? Look at your stack. How much of the software in it are you paying for, and how much is RMS's zealotry paying for? Did you contribute anything yourself to that stack? I think you should send RMS…

> a lot of open source isn't Free in RMS's terms, but he does promote the whole open source movement as a whole

You are wrong.

"I do not advocate open source [...]" - Richard Stallman

See: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/09/15/rms_why_open_source_...

Re: Richard Stallman: How I do my Computing

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't find him threatening, but I find him offensive. The concept of freedom for human beings is an incredibly important one that people have fought and died over, and needs to be protected at all costs, even our own lives. His movement has consciously coopted the word and the emotive properties that go with it for the purpose of something that is orders of magnitude less important, the freedom of software. I would…

Freedom of the mind (which is what software freedom is) and physical freedom are equally important and you can't really be free without both. What good is being safe from physical harm if you can't express your own points of view and make your own determinations? Restricting what software you can use with a computing machine that you own is a harm and RMS is right to fight against in the way that he sees fit.

Freedom of the mind is something like 1984 thought crime. What the FSF wants is the right to modify any program, which is completely different, and I think FAR less important.

Re: Richard Stallman: How I do my Computing

#213
post #154
post #78

" I do not post on 4chan ." -- RMS

It's actually really interesting he feels the need to point that out. Possibly because the /g/ and /prog/ boards have such a fascination with him (perhaps deservedly). Stallman has famously called /g/ full of "inane comments" [1] - and I remember someone venturing far enough outside of /prog/ to mail another idol, Gerald Sussman, who said that such fandoms were "unscientific and ultimately destructive", which was ver…

Thanks for those wonderful screenies. I just intended to request further infos on the Stallman/4chan "relationship" but your posting cleared some things up. 4chan is still after all these years one of the most fascinating places around.

Re: Richard Stallman: How I do my Computing

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't find him threatening, but I find him offensive. The concept of freedom for human beings is an incredibly important one that people have fought and died over, and needs to be protected at all costs, even our own lives. His movement has consciously coopted the word and the emotive properties that go with it for the purpose of something that is orders of magnitude less important, the freedom of software. I would…

> His movement has consciously coopted the word [freedom] > for ... something ... less important I don't think you realize how ubiquitous and critical to everyday life software is becoming. It's not just "freedom to play with source code," it's freedom to travel, read and form relationships as one sees fit and without being tracked.

The ability to "Travel and form relationships" is critical, but these are orthogonal concepts to what the FSF is fighting for. Beyond that, the technology that has enabled that ability is something the FSF is fighting -- facebook and twitter -- because they don't provide source code.

Now, I wouldn't call the ability to use facebook or twitter a "freedom" either, but I think not restricting their usage is also something that is more important then the "freedom" the FSF is fighting for

Re: Richard Stallman: How I do my Computing

#215
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of the mind (which is what software freedom is) and physical freedom are equally important and you can't really be free without both. What good is being safe from physical harm if you can't express your own points of view and make your own determinations? Restricting what software you can use with a computing machine that you own is a harm and RMS is right to fight against in the way that he sees fit.

It's more than freedom of the mind--it the freedom to use and modify tools to do as you see fit. Software isn't the only industry that necessarily harmed by "closed" tools--Ivan Illich started making this point in the 1970s. If workers completely lose control of their tools, they necessarily lose freedom.

I don't buy it. A designer with Photoshop is no more empowered then a designer with Photoshop and its source code. The only people source code matters to (and helps) is programmers, but then we start leaving the realm of the FSF and start entering the realm of open source, which is rooted in practicality.

Re: Richard Stallman: How I do my Computing

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means free as in speech not beer.

Mind fart. The analogy is so bad I don't even know where to begin. It's comparing an intellectually intensive, almost craft-like, infinitely complex piece of work to a physical resource that can be routed around. [snip paragraph about capitalism/FOSS] I also think open hardware and standards are much more important than software. They mean you can build anything you'd like yourself, while allowing developers to live…

>"Can't build a tesla coil in your garage either."

What the hell? You are joking, right?

Re: Richard Stallman: How I do my Computing

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mind fart. The analogy is so bad I don't even know where to begin. It's comparing an intellectually intensive, almost craft-like, infinitely complex piece of work to a physical resource that can be routed around. [snip paragraph about capitalism/FOSS] I also think open hardware and standards are much more important than software. They mean you can build anything you'd like yourself, while allowing developers to live…

> "Can't build a tesla coil in your garage either." What the hell? You are joking, right?

It doesn't appear so, although it could be an extremely advanced form of satire.

Re: Richard Stallman: How I do my Computing

#219
How does RMS earn a living?

I often find it odd that people even talk about free software or software having to be free. There is, of course, no such thing. There's subsidized software, but no free software exists.

Linux, as an example, is probably the most expensive piece of software ever developed. Think of all the people employed at universities and businesses who devoted time paid by their employer to develop Linux. Even if they did the work at home "on their own time". The only reason this was even remotely possible is because they had gainful employment that kept a roof over their heads and paid the bills. The same is true of students who contributed to Linux. Their parents, or the government (through a loan) provided the financial support to work on Linux.

Not one of these people would have been able to work on Linux had their financial needs, need for shelter and generally "having a life" needs had not been met through either employment, parental support, loans or grants.

Free software is, at best, subsidized, and at worst, not free at all. I'll be that Linux probably cost more to develop than Windows or OSX.

Now, there's free to the end user. OK. That's fine. People will take free food, free beer, free ice-cream and free software. That's human nature.

I don't find reveling against commercial software a particularly intelligent stance. No offense intended. Those writing software for sale are simply choosing to earn a living writing software that they sell rather than doing something else to subsidize software to be given away.

If I am good at writing software, why should I be a gardener to pay for food and shelter and give away software?

Furthermore, all of the software that RMS used as the model for GNU was the result of years of expensive development and none of it was free. It's a lot easier to, say, study and learn Unix and then go off and develop a "free" Unix clone than to have to invest years upon years developing and optimizing Unix in the first place.

One of my favorite saying goes something like this: The second person who saw the wheel thought it was obvious.

I don't find waging war against non-free software a particularly honorable stance when you are standing on the shoulders of giants who devoted years and billions of dollars to evolve an industry and, yes, make money with it.

I wonder if he refuses medical attention when he goes to the hospital because the software on all of the systems at the hospital do not use free software. There's a word that describes a type of person who thinks and behaves this way and it isn't a flattering one.

Re: Richard Stallman: How I do my Computing

#220
post #21

I think it is really tough for younger people to realize that technology can be seen as a highly dangerous in different forms. Instead of trashing his principles, perhaps try to see the motivation behind them. I respect anyone who establishes their own code and adheres firmly to it. RMS meets this criteria. He is also very open and honest about his views which I find refreshing. I also think that this type of boycott…

That's the thing. You said it. Not many will see his motivations unless he spells it out and the man is an awful communicator in that he can't go two words without putting someone off. Unfortunately he's a bit of an extremist. At least that's how he presents himself. So I doubt younger folks will get where he's coming from. I'm 25 and I've read about Stallmam for only the past five years and I can tell you that what…

> Unfortunately he's a bit of an extremist.

That's my personal problem with him. The world, to him, seems black-and-white. There is good and evil, and if you don't agree with him, you're evil. He believes his views are perfect.

I also find him inconsistent. He goes so far as to view web pages by fetching them through an email account, but then uses ATMs and kiosks with non-Free software on them. He also isn't as anti-Google as he is anti-Facebook despite Google being arguably worse in terms of privacy violations.

Hopefully that's not coming off as a tone argument.

Post reply on HN