
Dr. Stallman responded to my open letter - AlexeyMK
http://alexeymk.com/dear-dr-stallman-the-aftermath
======
fingerprinter
I was giving feedback to a subordinate once a long time ago and the person
replied "I'll take feedback if I think it's valid". On its face, a perfectly
reasonable reply, even if antagonistic. The problem in that case was the reply
was endemic of a further, much deeper attitude misalignment, one that I had to
take care of right away.

I view this reply as nearly exactly the same thing. On it's face, it might be
a reasonable response, but knowing what we know about RMS, it just shows more
of his lack of humility, ability to empathize with others and general
disconnectedness from the "movement" and "community".

As someone might say in war time, RMS is a general for a different type of
fight...he is ill equipped to handle the current one.

~~~
Duff
RMS is a man with deep seated principles -- a radical. He has a vision that is
well thought out and extreme by most people's standards. We need radicals as a
society, people who see the world in black and white bring needed clarity to
those of us who live in a world that consists of shades of grey.

Asking someone like Stallman to moderate his message displays a profound
misunderstanding of who he is and what he stands for.

~~~
cynicalkane
William F. Buckley, a man who was, politically, very different from Stallman,
showed us that you can be a deeply radical and influential person without
being childish or unreasonable. In fact, he was instrumental in kicking the
nuts--Randists, Birchers, and so on--out of the movement he helped to found,
neoconservativism.

Though I suspect most people here (me included) would mostly disagree with
him, you have to admit things went pretty well for the neocons.

Asking someone like Stallman to not moderate his message through the
collimator of reason shows a profound misunderstanding of how to stand for
something and how to influence people. I hate the idea that you have to be a
troll in order to make a point.

~~~
Duff
The point is that you don't ask a radical to moderate themselves and get a
productive result -- it just isn't who they are.

Likewise, if Buckley were alive, you probably would not have been successful
at getting him to become a cheerleader for the tea party mob.

The answer to the "out there"-ness of Stallman are the mainstream people and
companies that make open source work in the real world. The answer to the
maniacs on the opposite side of the argument -- organizations like RIAA and
RightHaven, are the content owners who embrace creative commons or make art
available at no cost.

------
jsomers
_I am skeptical of advice from people who disagree with what I stand for._

As a rule this is a pretty impoverished epistemic strategy.

~~~
cicada
For all RMS knows, this advice could be alexey's way of manipulating him into
working against what he values.

If alexey is honest in his sincerity, he could reiterate his points more
strongly with evidence. 'It looks like a crazy marginalized perspective' is
something to think about, but there's no weight to the argument offered. Does
RMS's talks do worse than expected? Is it caused by people ending up with this
opinion after hearing him?

How much time should he devote to exploring unsupported ideas from those who
disagree, versus his own ideas for persuasion?

~~~
bluedanieru
This is absurd. We're not talking about measuring the rate of cellular mitosis
in a lab, this is about how persuasive Stallman is as a speaker for his cause.
You can follow him around to 50+ speaking engagements meticulously collecting
metrics and come to the same conclusion you'd get listening to the buzz after
a few of them and adhering to rules of thumb for public speaking developed
over the past 5000 years, if you'd like. The difference is if everyone did it
your way no one would ever get anything done (and they'd probably do it
worse).

And let's not act as though this guy is in some camp that is opposite to
Stallman's in the first place. They clearly share a lot of same values.

>How much time should he devote to exploring unsupported ideas from those who
disagree, versus his own ideas for persuasion?

Perhaps you should more clearly explain the link between the efficacy of a
person's rhetorical strategies and their opinion on a given subject first.

~~~
prodigal_erik
Same values? When Alexey wrote

> We live in a world where having the technological edge makes the difference
> between success and failure; asking us to just give up that edge for a
> theoretical idea of freedom is not going to work.

he embraced pure expedience and pretty much disclaimed having any values he'd
go out of his way to uphold in this area.

~~~
ugh
Hm, that’s not how I read that sentence at all. It doesn’t sound like he is
stating any values of his own in this sentence to me. Where do you see his
values? I don’t see them.

~~~
_pius
_Where do you see his values? I don’t see them._

I think that's the point.

~~~
ugh
Ok, so where do you see his absence of values? This reads to me like a value-
neutral statement. We just don't know them and shouldn't make any claims about
them.

~~~
_pius
I think Stallman would probably agree with the famous Howard Zinn quote: "You
can't be neutral on a moving train."

~~~
ugh
I don't mean neutral in the sense of "having neutral values", I just mean that
he does not explicitly express his values. We do not know his values.

------
zach
So basically, "I see you've written me with some advice. However, you may have
overlooked the fact that I'm Richard Stallman."

~~~
chao-
Having seen him give his spiel at Rice University a few years ago, I came away
from it with thoughts nearly identical to the original letter. Your comment
here fits the tone he used when responding to the few questions that were
allowed at the talk I saw (if memory serves, he went over time and so Q&A was
abbreviated).

His strongest points discussed the indoctrination of children into using only
proprietary software while in schools. He avoided a conspiratorial tone and
set up his case very well. I was impressed, but also disappointed when he
didn't expand on it for very long, at least when compared to the topics laden
with more hyperbolic rhetoric.

------
stephenjudkins
A friend of mine (a relatively well-known person who has contributed a good
deal to free software) once introduced himself to Richard Stallman. Richard
Stallman immediately told him he was evil because he had once worked for
Microsoft.

Behavior like that, where Stallman immediately alienated a potential ally,
does little but harm the free software cause. The only thing it enhances is
Richard Stallman's reputation among a small (and probably dwindling) group of
radical free software advocates.

~~~
guelo
You must remember how many times Microsoft has used underhanded or illegal
tactics and lies against its opponents including GPL and Gnu/Linux. They even
secretly funded the SCO attack. To contribute to such an organization seems
evil to me.

~~~
sgift
According to Wikipedia Microsoft had 89000 employees in 2010. Do you really
think all of them agree with every "underhanded" tactic Microsoft used over
the years? Or should be damned for things Microsoft did (maybe even before
they worked for Microsoft)?

Working for Microsoft is still a job, not a lifetime decision. And attributing
a job with "evil" sounds like a hyperbole (ignoring jobs that involve killing
people, that's a different matter).

------
jeandenis
I'd count that response as a win. An "I am skeptical" from RMS is really mild
-- it's like he actually told you he'd take what you said into consideration.

He'll be so very brutally honest if he disagrees with you.

~~~
nkassis
Yeah I think it's important to remember that the guy is pretty busy, probably
gets more than one of these kind of emails (probably on both sides) a week.
Also some of the hardcore free software crowd is pretty radical and these are
the kind of people he probably deals with the most thus that could shape his
opinion of things.

~~~
bhickey
He could have at least had the good sense to say something like...

    
    
      I am skeptical of your position. I wrote an essay on a similar topic back in 1988, here's a link.

~~~
Typhon
Which essay are you referring to ?

~~~
bhickey
I'm not referring to a particular essay. RMS has a large body of work. The
point I'm making is that rather than dismiss a critic in that manner, he could
have pointed him to something useful. If he'd done that, folks on HN wouldn't
be grumbling about RMS being <something_bad>.

------
bane
Our issue with Stallman is us expecting something of him that he's not the
appropriate person to give.

Stallman is a seed planter, he's come up with a powerful _pure_ idea, planted
the seed, and now years later most people agree that many of these ideas have
merit -- the world is a better place with free software.

Now that we've all caught on (or so we think) to this idea, we want Stallman
to pragmatically carry it forward, to grow the movement. But to do so, you
have to acknowledge certain, _impure_ realities about Free software in the
real world. Stallman, as essentially a theoretician, is not the right person
to acknowledge those things. The real world gets messy, growing a movement
involves marshaling conflicting people, it involves Politics.

Stallman doesn't get Politics, he's not a pragmatist, it's not in his blood
and he's just not the right person to take his idea past seed planting into
orchard growing. It takes a completely different kind of person. Expecting to
be anything more than what he is will only ever leave one disappointed.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
Stallman isn't the tide that raises all boats. Before the GPL we had the BSD
licence and when I was a kid, things were just put into the public domain.

I think its very arguable if RMS and his group had anything to do with OSS
success. Their attempt to build HURD is a huge failure and Linus's success may
have more to do with his better management skills and the desire to build a
free OS and an easy way to collaborate.

~~~
bane
_Before the GPL we had the BSD licence and when I was a kid, things were just
put into the public domain._

That's really a great point. I've found Stallman's remarks about those
alternate takes on Free (non-GPL, but also open source) rather off-putting and
frankly silly myself. Some of his responses remind me of this scene

<http://www.viddler.com/explore/loopytube/videos/819/>

------
cubicle67
_I am skeptical of advice from people who disagree with what I stand for._

I imagine this is what George Lucas kept saying whilst working on the Star
Wars Prequels

~~~
Joakal
That doesn't seem true. Look to Lord of the Rings where the director kept in
touch with the LOTR communities to ensure the authenticity of the series. It's
even reflected in the credits that's jokingly purported to be the names of
everyone in NZ.

George Lucas probably listened to investors over customers.

~~~
bluedanieru
I think that's what the parent was getting at. George Lucas pretty obviously
got trapped in his own asshole sometime between Howard the Duck and Willow,
and it shows in the prequels. Peter Jackson engaged the wider community and
got heaps of conflicting ideas and advice to draw from.

~~~
cubicle67
that was exactly my point, thanks.

------
skimbrel
Okay, rms is officially being an ass here. That response is the grown-up
equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "Nyah nyah I can't
hear you!".

He is, at this point, no better than fundamentalist Christians who refuse to
even entertain the smallest possibility of the notion that any piece of what
they're doing is wrong.

Intellectual discussion requires all parties involved to be open to an
exchange of ideas. Rejecting a source of ideas out of hand because it
disagrees with your ideas is ultimately only going to hurt you.

~~~
rhizome
He's a fundamentalist and has been for some time now. This isn't news, and
Christians didn't _invent religion_ , so yeah, there is a connection between
rejecting the author's "ideas," and the author not accepting the Founder's
principles.

I don't like baseball, should I be commissioner? The author is talking out of
turn and deserved that one-sentence reply.

Notice anything funny about this followup post, by the way? The author links
to all kinds of praise, but doesn't link at all to the original letter! I
don't know if he expects the world to have memorized or bookmarked it already,
but it sure tells you where his priorities are. I bet he silently updates it
with a link, but the fact remains that it didn't even occur to him to link
back to the original article.

Finally, why is it more important for RMS to stop marginalizing himself than
it is for the author to stop trying to drag RMS to compromise? I'm no RMS
fanboy, but the author sure seems to think him an idiot who doesn't know what
he's doing. Have you read the original post? Here's a sample of the author's
compelling rationale:

    
    
      Dr. Stallman, Google Docs is really useful. I imagine you're unlikely
      to have tried the service yourself, abstaining as you have from proprietary
      software for the past several decades.  It may be worth trying the
      service out, if only to better relate to your target audience.
    

_Several decades!_

~~~
AlexeyMK
Link to original article added (albeit not silently). Fair point, though the
oversight came more from negligence than malice (I figured only the HN crowd
that had seen the original article would be interested).

Anyways, the whole 'speaking out of turn' thing kind of rubs me the wrong way.

~~~
rhizome
I'm only using the Google Docs as an example, but it's written like you're
trying to convince your mom.

RMS wrote fucking emacs, dude. Do you know what emacs _is_? I've never used it
and I probably know more about it than I do vi, which I _do_ use every day,
and have for the past 15 years! I'm not arguing from authority with that, btw,
just an illustration about how much _I don't use emacs_. That said, let's not
even countenance gcc and gdb.

There are myriad issues I could take issue with RMS over, but his need for
advice on word processors is not one of them. He already has one. Everybody
knows this. He wrote it. _35 years ago_. A zillion other people use it too.

"Talking out of turn" was the wrong way to articulate that, so sorry about
that. Ask anybody who knows me and they'll tell you I'm not much for
hierarchies and authority (I'm certainly not afraid of being negged on HN),
and I don't put RMS on a pedestal, but he has several important, long-
standing, and long-recognized accomplishments in the history of personal
computing, and computing in general (cf. his AI algo he wrote before emacs,
still in use). This is undeniable. Google Docs! Sorry dude, I just can't get
over it!

Thing is, I bet all of this was already spelled out in the HN thread for the
original letter post, which I didn't read. Did you?

~~~
kelnos
Not claiming Google Docs is amazing (it's not), but since when was emacs good
for collaborative real-time document editing over the internet?

Regardless, having made important contributions to computing does not let you
off the hook when you act like an ass.

~~~
jpk
Indeed. rhizome's quote is taken out of context. The google docs example isn't
about word processing, it's about collaborative editing. When your options are
using a tool like google docs or emailing around a file, only staunch idealism
would make a person side with email. That was Alexy's point. Mainstream
pragmatists aren't going to dump a technically superior tool because a
seemingly crazy idealist told them it is the Right Thing to Do.

------
roryokane
Isn’t Stallman’s reply just an ad hominem? I presume “what I stand for” in
Stallman’s response refers to the concept of all software being free. But even
if Alexey disagrees with that premise, it’s still possible for his advice to
be sound.

It certainly didn’t look like Alexey was trying to sabotage the free software
movement by giving bad advice – many people in the HN discussion of the open
letter agreed with the advice.

------
raganwald
Alexy, was this message you received published in a public forum or private
correspondence? If it was normally a private channel, does Mr. Stallman have a
standard policy of accepting that his private emails may be published? If not,
did you set that expectation?

I don't want to jump to a lot of conclusions here, but what I'm seeing is a
real lack of sincerity in your actions by writing him an open letter instead
of sending him a private email, then publishing what appears at first glance
to be a private response.

I may have it wrong, so please set me straight: Are you really trying to
influence him, or are you using him as a foil for sharing your views with us?

~~~
raganwald
Mr. Braithwaite, did you ever take that test yourself? What sincerity can you
claim when you wrap your criticism in a faux-question and then pose that
question in a public forum?

------
dvse
Say what you will, but every ingredient for the world RMS has described in
"The Right to Read"[1] is by now well in place.

"Pragmatic" line of thinking will likely land us in the most restrictive
police state in history.

1\. <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html>

~~~
davidw
> the most restrictive police state in history.

This is the sort of hyperbole the author was originally arguing against.

~~~
dvse
Did Himmler have the technology to continuously monitor movements and verbal
and written communications of every citizen?

~~~
Legion
We also "have the technology" to obliterate the planet many times over. You
need a few more facts than just "having the technology" to start inferring
things.

~~~
dvse
You have it - either obliteration or (as an optimistic scenario) total control
enacted with the justification of preventing splinter groups from achieving
said obliteration.

And while someone should think about these things I do admit that something
else might work better to win mind share for the FSF.

------
JanezStupar
Here's my POV. If you can't understand what RMS is saying or what he is about
- then probably you are not his target audience.

Stop telling him to water down his act. He can't and he must not. He is
somewhat prescient on these issues (as he has proven more than once) and to
lower his tone would be to admit defeat.

He is the prime mover and as such he is not Your momma's evangelist - he is
your momma's evangelist's evangelist. Don't listen to him if you don't like
him - you can always get to hear it by proxy that will be more suitable to
your ears.

~~~
kelnos
I think the problem is that the mainstream doesn't view RMS/free software and
open source as different things. When RMS gets in front of a group of people
and shoots his mouth off (I heard him speak at FOSDEM in 2005 and had a
similar reaction as Alexey), he hurts the rest of us who don't have such
extreme views.

I don't need to hear his or anyone else's evangelism on free or open source
software. I already know where I stand. Alexey's original open letter pointed
out that some of his friends who'd never heard of the FSF before walked out of
Stallman's speech because they were put off by what he was saying. In those
people's eyes, that reflects poorly not only on RMS and the FSF, but on open
source as a whole. And _that's_ what pisses me off about Stallman.

~~~
JanezStupar
Yes everybody agrees that his manners suck. But that is not what FSF or
Stallman is about. The key question is of whether he is right about practical
implications of sharing or not sharing, which mostly he is.

He is not only obnoxious and unlikeable person in history that sports a true
genius. So let people who are capable of understanding what he is saying and
also have the ability to translate to masses do their work.

That might be you - so go ahead and don't pay any attention to RMS if you
don't want to. However you might want to calibrate yourself on RMS once and
awhile :).

He is a human being and an exceptional one at that. And saying: Richard be
like this or Richard be like that, accomplishes nothing. It's like telling a
rose not to grow thorns.

~~~
kelnos
_The key question is of whether he is right about practical implications of
sharing or not sharing, which mostly he is._

Sure, I'll buy that, but I still believe he's a _terrible_ spokesperson for
the FSF and (intentionally or otherwise) for free/open source software as a
whole. He's not persuasive to anyone but people who already agree with him,
and he tends to come off as arrogant and condescending. And as much as I don't
want to "judge a book by its cover," many people do, and let's face it: the
man looks like a maladjusted hippie most of the time, which I don't think many
people relate to anymore. Any way you try to spin it, that's not a good way to
evoke sympathy for your cause. But yet we're kinda stuck with him.

 _However you might want to calibrate yourself on RMS once and awhile :)._

Haha, I really like how you put that, and you're very right. I was a little
afraid that I might come off similar to RMS in my original post, (incorrectly)
implying that I'd already made up my mind and wasn't interested in hearing
others' opinions. But yes, it's always good to check in now and then.

 _He is a human being and an exceptional one at that. And saying: Richard be
like this or Richard be like that, accomplishes nothing. It's like telling a
rose not to grow thorns._

Yeah, I know, but I wish the FSF could... "manage" him a bit better, and
perhaps promote as their spokesperson someone more likable and able to talk to
people without alienating them.

------
sanj
This is a nitpick, but when did RMS start calling himself "Dr."?

As far as I can tell, all of his degrees are honorary, and he never struck me
as the sort of guy who'd extend that into an actually honorific.

(Don't get me wrong -- I think he's more than capable of doing a PhD. He just
hasn't.)

~~~
16s
He has four honorary doctorates. It is his prerogative if he wishes to use
that title. From Wikipedia:

 _"Recipients of an honorary doctorate may if they wish adopt the title of
"doctor". In many countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia, New
Zealand, and the United States, it is now a matter of personal preference"_

 _"The term honorary degree is a slight misnomer: honoris causa degrees, being
awarded by a university under the terms of its charter, may be considered to
have technically the same standing, and to grant the same privileges and style
of address as their substantive counterparts, except where explicitly stated
to the contrary."_

------
3dFlatLander
I popped a comment in the original post about wanting to see some RMS code.
After doing a lot of searching, I still can't find a thing. I don't want to
get terribly off topic, but as I said, I'd always heard he was a great
programmer and would love to see some code that was of his creation.

~~~
prodigal_erik
I don't know what parts of early GCC were his, but
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emacs#GNU_Emacs> suggests Emacs 13.x or 15.x
source tarballs from around 1985 would be mostly his own work. I don't know
whether they'd still be around, though. The oldest I can find at a glance is
<http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/old-gnu/emacs/emacs-18.59.tar.gz> from 1992, and I
don't know how many other contributors there had been at that point.

------
click170
I'm a supporter of the FSF and free software but I agree that discussion is
better served without refering to conspiracy theories. It's much harder to be
take seriously when your seen as a crackpot. I'm a fan of Stallman and his
past achievements but this makes me wonder if the FSF would be better served
by a different spokesperson. Suggestions?

~~~
antoinevg
Sure, it is harder to be taken seriously when even a few people see you as a
crackpot.

On the other hand, if you're not telling the truth you'll never be taken
seriously by anyone who matters irrespective of how many people do or do not
see you as a crackpot.

~~~
kelnos
Truth? I'm not sure how anyone can characterize the statement "proprietary
software is evil" as "truth." It's merely an opinion, and a very minority
opinion at that.

------
tzs
Stallman kind of reminds me of Richard Altmayer from the Asimov store "In A
Good Cause--". Brief summary:

The story opens describing a statute of Richard Altmayer that stands in the
center of the courtyard of the capital of the galactic union. It has inscribed
a quote, "In a good cause, there are no failures", and there are three dates
inscribed. They are the three dates Altmayer went to prison for his beliefs.

The story then jumps back to the first date, and tells about the first arrest.
At that time, Earth had established many colony planets throughout the galaxy,
and many of these had become independent. They were organized into many small
groups of allies, and relations were sometimes hostile. A war had just broke
out, and Altmayer, and his friend Geoffrey Stock, had just been drafted from
college. Stock was preparing to head off to the war. Altmayer was refusing,
feeling that humanity must unite, not remain divided. Altmayer is jailed for
refusing.

The story then goes to the second incident. Stock did well in the war, and has
become a member of the Earth government. He was on the first diplomatic
mission from Earth to the one race of intelligent aliens known, the Diaboli.
There were more human planets than diaboli planets, but they were one united
race, and were expanding faster than humans. Although they required an
atmosphere that was poisonous to humans (and our atmosphere was poisonous to
them) so there was no competition for habitable planets between us and them,
there was competition for resources from non-habitable planets. The Diaboli
were taking advantage of the fact that humanity was not unified, negotiating
separate deals with different human planets.

Altmayer fears that the Diaboli are a threat to humanity, and tries to force
the issue by assassinating a Diaboli diplomatic mission on Earth, hoping to
force a war to contain the Diaboli before it is too late. (He's a pacifist
when it comes to war between human planets, because he thinks we need to be
united. He thinks a war with the Diaboli would actually help accomplish that,
as humanity would unite to fight the common enemy).

Stock knows of this plan, and tricks Altmayer, preventing the assassination,
and sending Altmayer to jail for the second time.

The story then jumps to the final arrest, which occurs many years later, when
Altmayer is an old man. The Diaboli have organized a galactic conference, to
organize a Galactic Union. They occupy most of the galaxy, and there has been
little expansion of humanity. Altmayer obtains secret documents that show that
the Diaboli have been terraforming some human-habitable planets to make them
suitable for Diaboli. Some of those worlds were occupied by small colonies.

Altmayer manages to get the documents to a broadcaster before Stock (now
leader of Earth's government) comes to arrest him. Stock tells him that the
government doesn't support the Diaboli-led plan for galactic union, but can't
support exposing the documents. No doubt Altmayer believes, Stock says, that
humanity would unite in indignation and defeat the Diaboli, but Stock knows
better. The Diaboli would deny the accusations, and several human worlds would
find it in their immediate interest to side with the Diaboli. No human worlds
could defeat the Diaboli if there were other humans fighting on the Diaboli's
side.

Altmayer is disappointed, figuring that Stock will stop the broadcast. Stock
says he is not--but after they are broadcast, Earth is going to join the
Diaboli in saying they are lies. The other human planets won't believe that--
they will think Earth is allied with the Diaboli. No other world will attack
Earth if they believe Earth and the Diaboli are cooperating, and they will
stay neutral if there is then a future war between Earth and the Diaboli.

Altmayer points out that Stock may fool the other human worlds, but the
Diaboli will know that Earth is lying when Earth says the documents are lies.
Stock then reveals that the documents ARE lies. His government made them up,
and purposefully had them leaked to Altmayer.

The story winds up with Stock visiting Altmayer in jail, to set him free. He
tells Altmayer that Earth has been at war with the Diaboli for the last six
months. He explains how when he first visited a Diaboli world, he realized it
was eventually going to be humanity or them (just as Altmayer had realized).
Since then, all of Earth's diplomatic efforts have been toward making it so
that when the war with the Diaboli came, no human world would join the
Diaboli. When the time came, the Diaboli were no match for Earth. They ha
never fought a war, whereas Earth had fought many wars with other human
planets, and so had much more experience and much better military technology.
The Diaboli main fleet has been defeated, at almost no casualties to Earth.
The other human worlds are now jumping in to declare war on the Diaboli. Most
are calling to now unite and form a galactic union. Stock wants Altmayer to be
Earth's representative to the galactic conference to form the union. Altmayer
was always the voice in the wilderness, crying for union. His words will carry
much weight.

Altmayer is stunned and doesn't understand, since Stock turns out to have been
right all along. Stock tells Altmayer that he always misunderstood human
nature. When the United Worlds is formed, and future generations look back,
they will have forgotten the purpose behind Stock's methods. He will represent
war and death. Altmayer's idealism and calls for union will be remembered
forever. Altmayer barely hears his last words as he leaves: "and when they
build their statues, they will build none for me".

~~~
scott_s
I just wanted to let you know that based on your synopsis, I went out and
bought an Asimov short story collection that contains this story. I've read
one other Asimov collection and I enjoyed it, so I figured it was time to read
another.

------
nhangen
I don't know what you would expect. Your advice was unsolicited and he treated
it as such.

I'm more intrigued by your campaign than by the advice itself. It seemed to me
that your primary goal was not to advise RMS, but to get front page HN.

------
dualboot
RMS is a little bit nutty at times. I think everyone acknowledges and accepts
this.

I prefer his eccentricities out in the open rather than him try to hide them
away.

There is value to open and honest disclosure. We live in a world with far too
much "marketing friendly" presentation.

------
st0p
Sometimes you should be skeptical of people who agree with you.

[edit] And your own reasoning ofcourse.

------
chernevik
If we're going to stand on principle, we have to admit vi was always a better
concept than emacs, and must doubt the intelligence or motives of anyone who
would divert attention from vi. emacs is just a big fork that wasted a lot of
effort that could have gone into displacing Word! Who knows where we would be
without these splitters?

Think about it. Do we _know_ that RMS is _not_ a Bill Gates plant, inserted to
dilute the momentum generated by Bill Joy? Hmmm? Improbable, yes, but not
impossible.

I just don't see how we can trust anything RMS has to say on anything.

------
Indyan
That reply has Steve Jobs written all over it. What you wrote was heartfelt,
sincere, honest, and balanced. What RMS wrote in his reply just exemplifies
why so many people ridicule and mock FSF. There is a strange tendency among
FOSS supporters to belittle everyone who uses proprietary stuff. Instead of
encouraging and inviting others to switch to FOSS, they try to belittle them
and try to coerce them into switching to FOSS by basically saying "If you use
proprietary software, you are evil".

~~~
saveriomiroddi
I hardly define "balanced" an approach which divides the world in "those who
agree with what I stand for" and "those who disagree with what I stand for".

~~~
saveriomiroddi
I misread the post, actually.

------
phillco
_\-- Sent from my ivory tower_

------
gexla
You should have set up your argument against the views of the FSF. His views
on things like 9/11 are irrelevant in this argument. We all have our crazy and
not so crazy beliefs. Sometimes the more of a splash you make in our world the
more on the crazy side your beliefs can be.

------
petercooper
Unsurprising. A childish, low-brow response from someone who uses childish,
low-brow rhetoric and imagery. A benefit of age is realizing there are very
few people who can be won over or convinced with logic and good intentions.

------
joshu
That's too bad. Hardly surprising, though.

------
pacaro
Sadly this falls under the category of "Intellectual honesty, lack of".

Apparently found in both the cathedral and the bazaar.

