
Richard Stallman on Steve Jobs - akshay_surve
http://stallman.org/archives/2011-jul-oct.html#06_October_2011_(Steve_Jobs)
======
yesreally
For those that are kneejerkingly chastising Stallman, understand his point of
view.

OS X and iOS are not free, and Apple led by Jobs changed the way that people
thought about installing Applications on desktop operating systems as
something that requires manufacturer approval (App Store), which led the way
for others like Intel to make AppUp, etc. This restricts what the user has
access to install is more of a setback for the free software movement than
anything Microsoft ever did.

Jobs also changed the licensing program for Macintosh clones, making it too
costly for the manufacturers to continue making machines. If there were Mac
clones, then eventually perhaps freedom would have flourished.

Basically, Jobs was the ultimate technology monarchist and Stallman the
ultimate technology anarchist. (I almost said capitalist and communist, but
Stallman is all about free, not about centralized distribution and control.)

I'm not saying I agree with the man, but this is what he means by jail.

~~~
ramanujan
Look, all respect to Stallman for writing Emacs and the GNU toolchain. Among
technologists he's clearly one of the few figures on par with Jobs. Indeed,
he's also personally a difficult figure and a bit of a totalitarian about his
craft, much like Jobs himself. [Though I don't think Jobs would ever publicly
emit something like Stallman's "eulogy".]

Where Stallman falls short is in supposing that open, hackable systems are an
unmitigated good. "Just works" and "highly configurable" are often antonyms,
rather than synonyms.

Should open, hackable systems always exist or be developed as a check on
Tivoization? Yes. Are they ever going to get a dominant market share, in the
sense that the masses making voluntary decisions will choose Free
software/hardware? No.

    
    
      more of a setback for the free software movement than 
      anything Microsoft ever did.
    

No.

iOS exists because it can make tons of money to pay back its development
costs. Android exists for the same reason.

And at some point, a true mobile/touch Linux (perhaps a fork of Android) will
also exist, and the free knockoff will owe a great deal to the hundreds of
billions in dollars in capital plant installed worldwide by the for-profit,
closed originals.

Indeed, Linux itself exists because of the fact that AT&T could make a profit
off Unix, and that IBM could make money off selling computers.

So: iOS is not a setback for the free software movement. In the long term it's
a massive boost in the arm.

~~~
bluekeybox

        more of a setback for the free software movement than 
        anything Microsoft ever did.
    

Of course RMS would say something like this. Microsoft's business practices
gave RMS followers; Steve Jobs took them away. As any RMS-style self-
proclaimed bearded prophet/politician/priest/father-figure knows, it's never
been about making things but about gaining followers. The beard is not ironic.

~~~
prodigal_erik
Stallman has never left any room for doubt that his motives are genuine. It's
not about followers. There's no shortage of people telling him how to moderate
his message to attract more, yet he won't do it. I think this is another thing
people are going to grudgingly acknowledge he was right about, after a decade
or two—but that might have happened more quickly if not for the harsh
delivery.

------
flarg
Stallman is consistent and vastly intelligent and whilst his comments can be
seen as insensitive he is quite correct that Steve Jobs did suppress software
freedom.

We don't go to Stallman for sensitivity (you're a dolt if you do), we go to
him for the truth, no matter how painful. We can all do with that sometimes -
[http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/10/06/steve-jobs-succumbs-
to...](http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/10/06/steve-jobs-succumbs-to-
alternative-medicine/)

~~~
Toady
Equating the iPhone to a "jail" is goofy political hyperbole. Normal people
don't even view software in that context. It's just a piece of hardware and
software they choose to use or not use.

Stallman represents the strain of computer nerds who want to view their hobby
as the bold movement of a freedom fighter. They are out-of-touch and don't
understand what normal people think and feel. They want their nerd playground
to remain in place because it's a world they have control in.

To paraphrase you, it's sad but true.

~~~
_delirium
It's hard for me to say how representative my non-techie friends are, but
nearly all have some understanding that the App Store is tightly controlled by
Apple, and not always in ways they agree with (apps being banned or not
approved makes mainstream news semi-regularly). They accept it because they
still like the iPhone more than the alternatives, but I wouldn't say that they
are 100% happy with the way the App Store is run. Some join random "tell apple
to unban [thing]" groups on Facebook periodically.

~~~
pork
I would say that the very fact that they join "tell apple to unban..." groups
makes them non-representative.

------
marshray
Oh come on, grow a spine people. Quit whining about 'insensitive'. Just
because you die doesn't give you a free pass from criticism for more than
about 24 hours, and most people don't even get that much.

Stallman is right. Computer-as-a-jail is Jobs' legacy and I too hope it dies
with him.

vvv Edit vvv

Look at it this way: Jobs and Apple did truly amazing things in the usability
department. For that they should be rightly praised.

But none of that requires jailed computing. Most of that happened before the
lockdown got underway in earnest with the iPhone.

It would be a total tragedy if all the good and the bad concepts got conflated
here.

~~~
richcollins
His claim is that the negatives outweigh the positives and that its a good
thing that Steve Jobs no longer actively influences computing. I can't
disagree with this sentiment more. Making technology that people can actually
use is far better than making unusable technology that is open.

~~~
marshray
But it's a false dichotomy. There's nothing inherent about usability that
requires jailed computing.

I submit two examples:

1\. The Apple Mac was unquestioningly a pioneer in computer usability. Yet it
didn't need a kernel that refused to run apps that weren't "approved" with a
cryptographic signature from some central authority. (Yes the original Mac
case was closed but there was a high voltage monitor in there and it had no
upgrade plan anyway. Most later models were expandable.)

2\. I have Google Nexus S running Android that's every bit as usable, even for
nontechnical folks, as an iPhone. It's not carrier locked and the OS is
predominantly open-source, much of it even GPL. It doesn't need rooting or
jailbreaking because there's no jail to break. And guess what: there are _way_
more people "actually using" Android phones than the jailed ones from Apple.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smartphone_share_current.p...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smartphone_share_current.png)

Jobs was good at many things: leading Apple, leading product development,
advancing quality and usability, making products people want to buy, making
great profit margins. He was an incredible guy.

But just because the same person and company _also_ embraced jailed computing
doesn't mean that it's somehow a necessary condition for usability, any more
than the dictator is a necessary condition for the trains to run on time.

In fact, I think the evidence points to the contrary and it would be a shame
for this confusion to send computing on a step backwards in one direction or
another.

~~~
T-hawk
> There's nothing inherent about usability that requires jailed computing.

Not a requirement, but there is a correlation. Programming for an unjailed
ecosystem takes more effort to support the vastly wider environments on the
devices. Classic example (in an industry largely orthogonal to Apple, to
factor Apple out of the discussion): game programming for a PC versus a
console. The PC game company has to support a million different combinations
of video and sound and input hardware and operating system, which takes
mountains of effort (or cost) that the console company can put into the actual
game experience instead (or save the costs.)

This happens at smaller scales too. An iPhone developer has to support exactly
one form factor, exactly one screen size, exactly one input method. An Android
developer needs to contend with a wide range of screen sizes and resolutions
and keyboards and touch responsitivity. Sure, it's possible for the Android
developer to accommodate all those devices. But we live in the reality of the
capitalist market, where the resources to make that investment of time and
effort may not be available.

Taking choice away from the user, imposing a jailed environment, can indeed
lead to a better experience overall, in that the content producers can focus
more tightly.

~~~
marshray
Yes, this was always the argument given in support of the monopoly Microsoft
Windows used to have on commodity computer operating systems. Some proposed
that having only one platform choice was more economically efficient for the
industry as a whole. I don't think Apple was really on board with this idea
back then.

I do not think that requiring all computers have only one display resolution
for the convenience of software developers ends up being a winning strategy in
the long run. It may be a winning strategy for Apple's business of course, at
least until Apple decides to do an iPad or a "retina display" or for whatever
other reason decides that a different form factor is in their own interest.

------
rdouble
Did anyone expect him to say something different?

It's the first time I've seen his political blog. I'm always disheartened when
I find out guys who used to do cool stuff now just spend their days tweeting
or blogging about politics. It's like visiting your grandpa who used to do
woodworking and finding out he now just watches Fox News all day.

~~~
iamjustlooking
> Did anyone expect him to say something different?

He could have said nothing at all.

~~~
cvander
He had the opportunity to remain silent for sure.

------
akshay_surve
Copy pasted from the page for convenience:

 _Steve Jobs, the pioneer of the computer as a jail made cool, designed to
sever fools from their freedom, has died._

 _As Chicago Mayor Harold Washington said of the corrupt former Mayor Daley,
"I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone." Nobody deserves to have to
die - not Jobs, not Mr. Bill, not even people guilty of bigger evils than
theirs. But we all deserve the end of Jobs' malign influence on people's
computing._

 _Unfortunately, that influence continues despite his absence. We can only
hope his successors, as they attempt to carry on his legacy, will be less
effective._

~~~
bluekeybox
Wow, reads like something a psychopath would write. Reminds me of Cat's diary
entry:
[http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/humor/otherhumor/dog_cat_diar...](http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/humor/otherhumor/dog_cat_diary.htm)

~~~
Greg12x
Wow. How really? He was writing his opinion. Is that considered psychopath?

~~~
lurch_mojoff
Lack of empathy is the definition of psychopathy. A psychopath will look at
someone ran over on the street and think "too bad it ruined that nice jacket"
or something similarly disjointed form the fact that a human being is dead.
Stallman's comment is similarly unempathetic.

~~~
gatlin
A psychopath might also feel kinship with someone they've never met and defend
them like family.

 __*

Or we could stop calling each other psychopaths.

~~~
bluekeybox
> A psychopath might also feel kinship with someone they've never met and
> defend them like family

No, psychopaths don't feel kinship with anything but themselves.

~~~
gatlin
I lost a point for suggesting that we not bandy about a medical term as a
pejorative. I apologize for offending anyone.

~~~
bluekeybox
No hard feelings; nice little site you have. I would drop reference to bitter
humor from "hire me" page though; not many bosses I know like bitter people.

------
timmyd
It's interesting - I question why Stallman felt the need to say anything. Have
some respect in death - and even if he chooses to ignorantly portray himself
as an arse by continuing to poor criticism on someone 1 day after their death
- I put this to you.

If Stallmans "dream" of "everythings free" truly prevailed. Most of the
technology that we use would never have been invented anyway. The capitalist
nature of society demands returns for injections of investment, and indeed,
this is how investment generates advancement and so on. Stallman continually
criticises closed environments - and while I do applaud what he is trying to
advocate in terms of "open source" computing - I do strongly disagree with "we
all deserve the end of Jobs' malign influence on people's computing."

Really ? That "malign influence" across 4 decades is what has shaped
computing. Indeed, the typefaces representing the letters in your poorly timed
comment, Mr. Stallman, wouldn't even align. Malign indeed.

~~~
burgerbrain
There is nothing about death that demands respect. Anyone can do it, and
eventually we all _will_ do it.

~~~
steviesteveo65
This brutal rationality about death guff misses all sorts of points. People
dying makes other people feel sad, it's just how the world is. Everyone dies
and yet it's _still_ a big deal.

It's really hard to explain to someone who doesn't get it why death is a big
issue but if you don't take into account that death is a sad thing for some
people you just end up looking like a dick at the funeral.

------
smoyer
The last straw ... Good-bye Mr. Stallman - we may not agree but I won't spit
on your grave. And I'll continue making money from closed source software
_and_ contributing to open source communities whether or not you approve.

~~~
Udo
I agree, what an asshole. Saying that the world will be a better place after
someone dies should be reserved for mass murderers and lobbyists - it's a
harsh and inappropriate statement about a leading industry figure, whether you
agree with that figure or not.

For example, I violently disagree with RMS on a lot of things, but I still
believe he is a visionary, and Open Source is a valuable concept that will
always be an important part of my life. And I won't be "glad he's gone" when
his time comes. Too bad he can't do exactly that for Steve Jobs and give the
man some respect. What he displays here is nothing but irrational hate, a mean
and low move on RMSs part.

~~~
cbs
>Saying that the world will be a better place after someone dies should be
reserved for mass murderers and lobbyists

Yep. Certainly not for people that hire lobbyists though. Nothing wrong with
paying people to do something despicable, its not like you're actually doing
it yourself.

~~~
Udo
Look, I don't advocate that Jobs was a saint, far from it actually. But I
don't think the world will be a better place without him either. So yeah, I
believe people like RMS are despicable for being jubilant about another
person's demise and that won't change - no matter how hostile or snarky you
lot are about it.

Edit: obviously, I should not have used hyperbole to imply that whenever a
lobbyist dies, the world is a better place. That was rather stupid of me. I
_do_ believe the world would gain something if lobbyism didn't exist though.
So if Steve Jobs had done _nothing else_ in his life but paying lobbyists...

------
nxn
"We can only hope his successors, as they attempt to carry on his legacy, will
be less effective."

Or perhaps the hope should be to make more "effective" free software instead
of having ill wishes towards your competitors. I mean, Stallman can really
preach about free software all he wants, but most people in the consumer world
probably wont turn down a superior closed source product based on that merit
alone. The biggest factor in deciding winners or losers here is the quality of
the products being created by the two methodologies, and I am yet to be
convinced that the free software approach consistently creates the better
product.

~~~
gatlin
Fun with circles:

Nobody cares about free software. Free software then becomes the domain of
technical folks paid by big companies and amateurs. Because of this, nobody
cares about free software, so it remains the domain of:

------
akuzi
It's worth remembering that even Stallman himself admits he is mildly
autistic. Autism is often characterized by black and white thinking and lack
of empathy towards others - both of which are displayed to excess in his
comment.

~~~
pork
This is fascinating and very relevant -- do you have a source?

~~~
akuzi
<http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch03.html>

From end-note 2. "Stallman considers himself afflicted, to some degree, by
autism: a condition that, he says, makes it difficult for him to interact with
people."

------
chippy
Since when has Stallman ever been subtle? At least he is consistent. I saw
nothing wrong with his statement.

------
ugh
Stallman is as clueless about communication as ever. That’s no way to convince
people.

~~~
loumf
I don't think Stallman cares about convincing -- his role is to be an
uncompromising extremist, which he does quite well.

In any movement, you need people to set the goalpost so far away that others
can seem reasonable by comparison. They serve a purpose to the movement, but
they themselves risk being ostracized and marginalized.

On the facts, I think he's wrong about Jobs -- Apple has done a lot to make it
possible for free alternatives of some important software to exist. What they
are doing to make the web (HTML5) a reasonable alternative to Flash is almost
enough. In fact, closing iOS to Flash is the main reason that it's happening.

~~~
ugh
No, I don’t think Stallman furthers his goals in any way.

------
pasbesoin
You know, I have some feeling surrounding Jobs' passing (while I never met
him, I've known a number of people who did -- mostly from 20+ years ago), and
I've appreciated the tributes. But there is also the desire and need to
discuss it in context. Some respect may well be warranted, and there may not
be the need to rush headlong into critical analysis, but Jobs' passing does
promote a lot of attention and focus that will not continue indefinitely.

Richard's statement may seem in some ways including timing somewhat harsh, but
it's entirely consistent with his position and it is a valuable counterpoint
to the notion, and sentimentality, of Jobs as a savior of the technical -- and
broader, in various definitions (U.S. industry, design, personal achievement,
etc., etc.) -- world.

I felt that HN's front page organically filling with Jobs posts was a fitting,
and moving, tribute. But this is also HN, where we analyze and discuss things
critically. And I would expect the stories and comments to move to a full and
varied spectrum of views.

The resurrection of the Mac, and of Apple, was built in good part upon BSD.
Safari was born of Webkit. There is not just an either or in this story, there
is a co-opting and commercial progression that is quite worthy of
consideration and discussion.

There is also the fact that UNIX/Linux systems remained and remain expensive
in the commercial sphere and difficult for the typical end user to manage in
the free sphere. More and more people have been appreciating Apple products
because, for they most part, they can plug them in, turn them on, and they
"just work". It's a relief to have someone else managing "that security stuff"
(whatever latent and perhaps nascent weakenesses may as yet remain largely
unknown to the general public). And to have someone else deciding, we won't
cheapen the design and manufacturing further, to the point where things break
in six months or are uncomfortable to use.

Most of us never knew Steve, personally. It's a mark of his influence how we
nonetheless feel the effect of his passing on our lives -- at a personal
level.

But there needs to be room for a larger conversation. In part precisely
because and as a reflection of this influence, there are important matter to
discuss. Not all aspects will be flattering of Mr. Jobs. But that is the
nature of the position he inhabited and the decisions he made.

So, lets make some room for that discourse.

For my part, "free" vs "walled garden" is a critical distinction playing out
right now in the computational and communcations space. What Apple has done
and offers really does need close consideration. Monitors and controls are
general tools, readily turned to the purpose of the hand that wields them. So,
what really will work for us, on this spectrum from "anarchy" to "jail"? Is it
really a spectrum, or is it a slippery slope leading inevitably to one extreme
or the other?

Steve Jobs made some important decisions and executed them superbly. Were they
-- will they be -- the right ones?

~~~
OpieCunningham
Well said.

I generally don't agree with Stallman's viewpoint, but his voice is important.
I would neither like to see an all encompassing Jobs-world nor a Stallman-
world. As long as the one exists with the other we all have more opportunity.
The Jobs approach enables mass consumption of technology. The Stallman
approach enables fully detailed exploration of technology. Either, on their
own, severely restricts access to technology. In the case of the former,
through disseminating technology by fiat. In the case of the latter, through
disseminating technology only to the dedicated and skillful.

I don't see how either one can disappear and leave the other as the complete
dominating implementation of technology. It doesn't appear to be a
possibility. Even with market domination of the walled-garden approach, the
hacker will always have the opportunity and capability to start from scratch.
There's nothing stopping anyone from building a better mobile OS.

~~~
pork
Ironically, Jobs would be perfectly acceptable in Stallman's world -- he
(Jobs) took free software and did what he wanted with it, exercising his right
to tinker (and profit).

------
ethank
Ideology should never compromise basic decency. I should hope. It seems people
in this comment chain are assuming they are mutually exclusive: they are not.

------
llambda
RMS: standing on principle at any cost until the bitter end. What a trite,
insensitive comment to make.

------
elmindreda
I agree with rms on a lot of things, but this was truly tasteless and
disrespectful.

------
k-mcgrady
I always thought he was a bit of an a-hole but this is very disrespectful.

~~~
Greg12x
IMO I agree with him.

~~~
k-mcgrady
I don't have any problems with his beliefs, he can believe what he wants. But
publishing that 1 day after Jobs death is disrespectful. Better to just not
say anything.

~~~
Greg12x
Ah. Your right anyways. I'm just agreeing with him.

------
_fn
I would've never say that he is crazy, but this crosses the line.

------
bstewartnyc
Steve Jobs created products that people love and are more than willing to pay
for, even wait in long lines in the rain for. Even during the slowest economy
the Apple store at my local mall is filled with life. Stallman loves his
"freedom" - well Steve Jobs was free to create a profitable company and do it
his own way, apparently Stallman would like to do away with such freedoms.

------
diegogomes
I wonder why some people still hear a guy who uses email to access the
internet.

~~~
burgerbrain
Because he still makes good points.

Judge the value of statements on their merit, not on how their writer surfs
the web.

I can't believe I actually need to say that.

------
funkyboy
I am just wordless. Probably 'jerk' is the best I can say.

------
redouane
link seems down and google's cache seems old, any mirror ?

------
jeffehobbs
Constant Jackass.

------
rsanchez1
Interesting, the first guy not gushing over Jobs and hastily putting together
a tribute is Stallman.

------
noodly
I like it. :)

------
jjpf
Unfortunate comments by a deluded man.

------
diegogomes
Is stallman nuts? -> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3083536>

------
mvitti
I wonder if this guy thinks there is ANY software that is worthy of being
purchased or is it all tainted in some way? Has he ever purchased a can of
soda, a movie ticket, a laptop computer, etc.? How does he even subsist in our
corporate consumerist society without compromising his highly developed sense
of right and wrong? I don't know but gathering from his hateful disposition it
must not be easy.

~~~
Nutella2
What Stallman's for is free as in 'free speech'. Free as in 'free beer' is
something completely different.

