
Why FSF Founder Richard Stallman is Wrong on Steve Jobs - diegogomes
http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2011/10/why-fsf-founder-richard-stallm.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+readwriteweb+%28ReadWriteWeb%29
======
tmhedberg
Stallman is admittedly rather tactless, particularly in his recent comment
about Jobs. To him, there is no freedom but absolute freedom; any compromise
whatsoever is unacceptable, and he will not sugar-coat his opinions to make
them more palatable to those that don't think the same way that he does. That
is undoubtedly a shortcoming on his part.

Still, I think that if you can look past his poor social graces, the man makes
some very valid points. Time and time again, he issues statements that draw
eye rolls and sneers, only to be vindicated later when his seemingly over-
dramatic predictions actually come to pass.

Dislike the man if you must. Criticize his poor diplomatic communication
skills. But his role in our technological ecosystem is vital, and I for one am
glad he's around.

~~~
Tashtego
Isn't the job of a spokesperson to figure out how to effectively communicate
the "valid points" of a movement so that people are not distracted by "the
poor social graces" of their source? Stallman's ideas don't make him a poor
spokesperson- his communication style does.

~~~
burgerbrain
That depends entirely on what the goals of the organization are.

The FSF seems to be primarily focused on providing information and tools to
those who wish to seek it. At this, I believe they do a pretty good job. There
are other organizations focused on selling the idea of F/OSS to outsiders,
such as OSI.

~~~
ugh
Not according to their own website they are not: <http://www.fsf.org/>

_First_ bullet point.

~~~
burgerbrain
And Greenpeace pickets Japanese whalers.

Realistically, these sorts of organizations are not looking for outside
support. They thrive on controversy and know their target audience well.

I don't financially support the FSF, I don't financially or intellectually
support Greenpeace, and I think the politics of groups like The Yes Men are
tedious. I also don't think any of them are going to change the world.

I do respect the hell out of all of them though.

------
redthrowaway
Free Software truly does deserve better than RMS. The guy is just about the
least-suited person to being a spokesman (or any public figure) I've seen. As
a hacker and behind-the-scenes guy, sure. But his complete lack of tact,
social skills, and presentability makes him more harmful than helpful as a
figurehead.

~~~
calibraxis
[There goes my karma...]

Since a lot of people here seemed to have an emotional reaction to Jobs'
passing, I had no desire to say anything here. But now the topic is Stallman,
and for whatever reason, people are wanting to discuss his comments.

I (and probably most people I know) don't think Stallman's comments are a big
deal. Steve was known for acting cruelly to people; apparently acted like a
sociopath. If he treated people like shit when he was alive, then it's not the
end of the world when someone says a few less-than-respectful things about him
when he's gone.

When confronted with the death of someone he disliked, I doubt Steve would be
so sentimental. (At least not inwardly.)

~~~
ugh
The problem is that Stallman is a very public spokesperson for free software
and he does an absolutely terrible job.

It’s impossible to ignore the effects he has in his role and they are
terrible.

~~~
dman
I am yet to see a press release saying a company decided to go closed source
because they disagree with what Richard Stallman says. Can you point to any
specific examples where Richard Stallman and his views have pushed a project
that was on the open source path into the closed source direction.

~~~
chc
"The open source path" includes many steps before you actually see any source
from people. Once they've released source, it's a little late to go back. But
they might be turned away from going through the trouble and risk of releasing
source in the first place if they perceive that Richard Stallman is the type
of person they'd be appeasing.

But more to the point, Stallman does not just want open-source software. He
wants _free_ software, and just based on my informal observations, his ideas
of free software seem to be losing traction these days. Yeah, there's a lot of
open-source software, but BSD, Apache, MIT and other open-source-but-not-free
licenses are taking the lion's share.

Even among projects that do use GPL, they mostly seem to prefer v2 rather than
the more-free GPL3 and AGPL.

~~~
icebraining
BSD, Apache and MIT are all Free licenses, even by Stallman's viewpoint.
They're just not _copyleft_.

He thinks the Open Source _movement_ misses the point, but he has no problems
accepting their software as Free.

------
y0ghur7_xxx
"I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone."

This means to me that Stallman is glad that Jobs is no more a malign influence
on people's computing.

 _But_ he is not glad that he is dead.

That is _exactly_ the same thing the poster says about Stallman:

"While I'd love it if Stallman would retire, or at the very least improve his
social skills, I hope he lives to be 120. As long as he's alive, there's hope
he might change. I'd never be glad that he's gone. And I'm certainly not glad
that Steve is."

Saying that you'd love it if Stallman would retire means that you would be
glad if he's gone.

~~~
cbs
_That is exactly the same thing the poster says about Stallman_

Yup. Stallman tried to separate the Job's death from the end of his influence
on the computing world. It was short and to the point and not the most
tactful, but that molehill is reaching mountain proportions. Way more has been
written about it than seems reasonable.

If you read closely you can see what has really upset people isn't just lack
of tact. Its that Stallman's ideals of computing paints Jobs' contributions as
a net negative. See this line in the article: _and insult millions of Apple
users simultaneously_. It doesn't insult me that someones ideals give them a
different opinion of a piece of plastic sitting at my house. I'm a nerd, but
my identity isn't _that_ caught up in my devices.

~~~
breck
It upset me enough that I never want to use any of RS's software again.

Are there any FSF/GPL/GNU stuff on OS X? Ubuntu? (I'm trying to think of
anything I use that is GPL/FSF/GNU).

I don't use any of Microsoft's stuff anymore because generally I've found
better alternatives. I think open source software is a better philosophy. I
think the same thing about the GPL/FSF/RS/GNU stuff, (I think it's a bad
philosophy), and I'd love to rid myself of it.

Could someone give me some pointers how I can avoid RS's stuff completely?

Thanks!

~~~
raganwald
Are you, by any chance, saying that you have certain principles that outweigh
things like convenience and fitness for purpose? That you are prepared to go
out of your way to reject the use of certain software purely because you
dislike its philosophy, and not because it’s objectively worse for you?

If so, you and Mr. Stallman have something in common.

~~~
breck
I used to use Windows, even though I had gripes, because it was okay and there
was no good alternative.

GNU/FSF/RS helped create a good alternative.

I've used their stuff, despite my gripes, because there was no good
alternative.

Now there is. There's a tremendous amount of rock solid, MIT & other licensed
open source software out there. And I want to switch to that. And ditch
GNU/FSF/RS.

It's a free marketplace, and RS & Co. have to compete too. They got me to
switch from MSFT, but now they're the ones who are behind the times IMO.

------
parfe
I don't see people reacting as harshly if it was someone like Jack Valenti
that RMS said some unkind posthumous words about. Steve Jobs did embody the
lock down of computing. I'd say Valenti and Jobs belong to the same category
of protecting the consumer from perceived evil through benevolent restriction.

I haven't seen anyone claiming Stallman is wrong. Just that he was a jerk
about the death of a revered CEO who gets worshiped as a tech prophet. Jobs
oversaw some great advances in the consumer computing market. That does not
make him immune to criticism and especially not immune to true criticism.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Valenti>

~~~
kenjackson
_I haven't seen anyone claiming Stallman is wrong._

I claim Stallman is wrong. To the extent that people may have lost freedom
along one axis, they gained it along others. And these other axis most people
consider far more important.

Everything in life has tradeoffs, and most people recognize that. Stallman
doesn't with respect to this one particular axis (a warped view of SW
freedom).

~~~
fluidcruft
What freedoms are gained from using Apple devices? Freedom to purchase things
from Apple's app store? Freedom to install iTunes?

Do you equate freedom with empowerment? I do agree that Apple's devices have
empowered people. But freedom and empowerment are not the same thing. You have
more freedom to modify and adapt a post-it note than you do an iPhone.

The freedom issue is whether people have control over the machines they invite
into their lives. Especially recently, Apple's devices force you into an
(arguably exploitative) dependency.

~~~
kenjackson
Apple devices give you freedom to not care about your device.

And your distinction between freedom and empowerment is a false one in the
real world. Freedom is generally about empowerment. Apple devices give you the
power to exercise your freedom -- except along this narrow axis that you and
Stallman seem to care so much about.

~~~
vacri
So why can't they give you freedom to root your own device or sideload your
own apps. The 'safe garden' is still there for those who want it, and those
who want more could do that of their own accord as well. Apple are
unnecessarily restrictive.

------
forgottenpaswrd
Stallman, I had this man as a host in my house in Spain as part of a free
software convention many years ago and I could tell you that he is one of the
worst mannered person I had met in person, and that conclusion was shared with
the entire LUG that had to organize it.

I appreciate what he has done with the GPL, but when speaking he could do a
disservice for the community.

Something as simple as talking about "Linux" will make him crazy, as he will
force you in a rude way to use GNU BEFORE Linux, always despising what Linux
Towards made(and this thing called Hurd was going to be way better). As he
talked it become obvious that he saw his role as more important than everybody
else.

He has "command and control", "you are with me or against me" mentality.

~~~
derleth
> Linux Towards

One day, someone is going to have to fix autocorrect. It's batting 0 for 2
here.

------
cgopalan
I have always been surprised as to why people think its offensive to talk ill
of someone just because the person is dead. Death does not change character.
If a person could be criticized for something when he was alive, he should not
be immune to that after death.

I am definitely not saying that Steve Jobs was a jerk. I admire the man. But
it seems insensible when the OP says it "offends common decency".

Also, IMHO, Stallman wasn't reckless about choosing his words. He says, he's
not glad he's dead (referring to the fact that wishing death upon someone is
not good), but he's glad he's gone (referring here to Jobs as a symbol of
antithesis of the free software movement).

The OP offers an alternate version of what Stallman could have said. Its says:

"I didn't share Steve Jobs' vision of computing, and I wish he'd chosen to
embrace free software. I'm very sorry that he's gone and we've lost the
opportunity to have that conversation. My sympathies are with his family at
this time."

When a person says something, it embodies his style and personality. Stallman
shouldnt have to say something that is not his style. Also "I am very sorry
he's gone and we've lost the opportunity to have that conversation" indicates
that Stallman wanted to engage Jobs in conversation. Who knows? Maybe Stallman
doesnt want to keep engaging in conversation. Maybe he views it as a tough
battle and is sincerely relieved that people against the fsf philosophy dont
exist anymore. If someone with similar beliefs dies tomorrow, he will count it
as one more step towards progress.

There are very few people in the world who do not offer veiled opinions.
Stallman seems to be one of them. Let us not tell him what he needs to say -
but instead think about why he said it.

~~~
kenjackson
_I have always been surprised as to why people think its offensive to talk ill
of someone just because the person is dead. Death does not change character.
If a person could be criticized for something when he was alive, he should not
be immune to that after death._

There's a time and place to show restraint.

How would you feel if one of your mom's ex-boyfriends came to her funeral and
started cursing at her? Maybe that's what he did the last time he saw her
alive, but you know what, there's a time and place for restraint. (Note, not a
dig on you and your mom at all -- but recall that Jobs has family too).

Would it have been too much for RMS to say, "I'll respectfully voice my
opinions at a later date" Apparently so.

~~~
vacri
Apples and oranges. Funerals are for people who actually know the person that
died. Everyone wailing here has never even met Jobs.

But even aside from that, RMS _did not_ 'come to the funeral'. 'The funeral'
'came to him and asked him his opinion':

"Stallman made these comments on his personal site, rather than on the FSF
site."

In your hypothetical, it's more like the funeral went to your mum's ex-
boyfriend, known to be critical of her, while he was sitting at home, asked
him for his opinion, then acted all offended when he answered as expected. The
ex-boyfriend didn't leave his house to make the mourners unhappy, he just said
his own thing in his own space.

------
jrockway
I don't think Stallman did anything wrong. Jobs undeniably set back the Free
Software community by making really good software that people were willing to
trade their freedom for. For most people, it doesn't make a difference whether
or not something is free, so these people happily accepted phones that
couldn't run Unapproved software and OSes that contain code specifically to
prevent you from tracing certain pieces of software that send information
about your computer back to Apple.

This is counter to everything that Stallman has spent his life on, so he says,
"I'm glad Jobs isn't around anymore, because he was really good at fucking my
movement over".

------
ghshephard
I'm probably the hugest fan of Apple, and Jobs there is. I grew up on
Macintoshes, own one of every iPhone and iPad. Five Apple Laptops in 11 years
(three on my bed right now.)

But, I also love Open Software, and, from Stallman's perspective, I can see
why Steve Jobs and his higher and higher walled gardens was seen as a threat
to the Open Source movement.

Now, as for me - I don't really care, because I _love_ my iPhone4, my Macbook
Air, and Terminal.App is my constant companion.

All in all I thought Stallman's response was as respectable and restrained as
it could be for someone with his unflinching posture.

~~~
RexRollman
It's okay to make the choices you have made because at least you were aware of
the choice you were making. Many people out there don't have a fucking clue.

------
lallysingh
Enough. Stallman's not /the/ leader of Free Software. He can't be, because he
doesn't lead.

He's a rude jackass that wrote some code and few licenses. He works on finding
new ways to be a jackass to get attention.

In ideas and code, sure, he's contributed a lot. But he's no leader. That's
something different.

~~~
jasonlotito
<http://www.fsf.org/about/leadership>

Not debating what you are saying. Just putting this here.

~~~
eropple
I think it's hard to say that the FSF really "leads" a whole lot these days.
I'd call the Apache Foundation the current leading lights, if I had to pick
one.

This may be influenced by the fact that their primary spokesman is not a
douchebag. Heck, I don't even know who it would be. Probably because whoever
it is doesn't try to make himself or herself the story, unlike Mr. Stallman.

------
16s
He's entitled to his opinion. He's a legend himself, just not as widely
appreciated as Mr. Jobs was.

~~~
eridius
Jobs is a legend. RMS is simply infamous.

~~~
chugger
Wrong.

Jobs is a legend.

RMS is a pig.

~~~
genieyclo
Hey chugger, I think you need to re-read the HN Welcome[1] page. Calling
someone "a pig", "a low life pig and a coward" and other ad hominem insults is
not what we do on HN. These types of comments you've been leaving all over
this story don't add to it, and reflect poorly on yourself mainly. Don't sound
like just another angry Jobs fan. If you have something worthwhile to say, say
it in a civilized manner that teaches us something or adds to the
conversation.

[1] <http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html>

------
AlfaWolph
Most people who've made an impact on society at any scale are free to have
their legacy examined and criticized when they die. This can hopefully be done
without criticizing the person behind the legacy. For instance, Hitchens wrote
a scathing piece on the legacy of Reagan right after he passed. But people who
make impacts on our world are often so married to their legacies that it is
difficult to criticize that legacy without criticizing the person. Steve Jobs
is one of those whose legacy is indistinguishable from himself partly because
he led an intensely private life. From reading Stallman's comments, I found
nothing that specifically mentioned the man, only his methods. I think that's
perfectly okay. I can only guess that most people who find fault in his words
are probably just caught up in the emotions produced from seeing one of the
largest figures in our time move on in front of our eyes. So I've got to call
RRW out on this. They posted this as the usual linkbait we're all accustomed
to. (i.e. Manufactured outrage for attention.)

------
kragen
People are complaining a lot that Stallman isn't complying with the social
norm that one does not speak ill of the dead. (And of course there are people
who are personally offended because they identify with Steve Jobs and put
Apple stickers on their car, which is just kind of pathetic. We'll leave them
to one side.) Some of them go so far as to argue that Stallman would be more
effective if he complied with those social norms, and that the FSF would be
more effective if it had a spokesperson who complied with social norms.

The point that they're missing is that Stallman is effective at what he does
precisely _because_ he violates social norms — much like Steve Jobs. Let me
tell a story.

On the 9th of September of this year, I was at the Conferencia Internacional
de Software Libre here in Buenos Aires. Partido Justicialista, the ruling
party of Argentina, has decided that free software is a good idea, and has
been trying to promote it. One of the things that they're doing is a program
called Conectar Igualdad ("Connecting Equality"), in which they're
distributing one netbook to every public high school student in the country,
1.7 million so far, dual-booting with Linux and Windows, bought with the
country's recently-renationalized pension funds.

Another of the things they did was that they organized this conference, last
year and this year, which was hosted by the National Library. Last year they
had Jon "maddog" Hall give the keynote, and he talked about this thin-client
internet-access project that he's been putting together with a bunch of folks
in Brazil, which really sounds pretty awesome. This year they had Stallman
give the keynote instead, and the auditorium was so crowded that I couldn't
get in far enough to see him, so I hung out in the library's café instead.
(This is Argentina; cafés are a necessity of civilized life, so there is one
in the library.)

So I didn't see the talk, and I didn't even see Stallman on his way out, but
boy, did I hear about it afterwards in the café. Stallman apparently spent
quite a bit of time ripping up the Conectar Igualdad program, because of the
dual-booting, because of the lack of support for kids actually running Linux,
because of the lack of source code for the modified Linux kernel that was
actually running on the machines, and for other reasons.

A person who obeyed social norms would not have considered doing this. After
all, he was the guest of the Argentine government, who had invited him to come
speak at this conference in order to reinforce their appearance of commitment
to free software. Instead, he accepted the invitation and then spent his time
shredding their appearance of commitment to free software. What a socially
incompetent loser, eh?

A week later I was at a party, and I happened to talk to a woman who works for
Conectar Igualdad. She brought up Stallman's speech and said how she had been
so happy about it, because he had said all the things that she had been
unhappy about but hadn't been able to bring up. And apparently now there are
meetings inside Conectar Igualdad to fix the problems that Stallman so
publicly criticized.

Stallman is what is colloquially known as an asshole. He has very little
concern for other people's feelings or for social norms. And it's that very
unbending nature that makes him an effective change agent. Deferring to social
norms would cripple him.

On the other hand, if he were at least _aware_ of the feelings of other
people, perhaps he could be leading a much more effective organization,
instead of alienating even most of his closest friends over the years.

~~~
bradleyland
"The point that they're missing is that Stallman is effective at what he does
precisely because he violates social norms..."

 _anecdote about Stallman ripping people up in Argentina_

"A person who obeyed social norms would not have considered doing this."

You know, there is a gulf of difference between having the courage to confront
people who violate your principles and wishing someone dead. Steve Jobs never
put a gun to anyone's head and forced them to buy an Apple computer.

The fact that Stallman is known as an asshole is nothing to be proud of. Steve
Jobs had a reputation for being tough, but he also had a reputation for
bringing deals together and building products that brought joy to millions of
people.

Arguably, Steve Jobs has put FOSS software in the hands of more desktop users
than Stallman has. Every Apple computer comes loaded with lots of FOSS
software. I'm sure that has every Stallman supporters' head spinning, but it's
a fact.

~~~
vacri
Stallman _did not_ 'wish anyone dead'

RTFA

~~~
bradleyland
This type of response reminds me very much of the type of thing that would
come from the Stallman camp. "I didn't wish him dead, I simply hold a
dismissive view of his life." Reminds me of, "I didn't lie, I simply omitted
the truth." Delivered with the same heaping pile of snark.

I suppose I could understand if Steve Jobs had committed some heinous
atrocity, but we're talking about computers here. It's so ridiculous, it
borders on sociopathic behavior. It definitely shows a complete lack of
perspective.

~~~
kragen
There are people here who believe that what happens with computers might
actually be important — that who controls our communications and computational
technology in the 21st century is a significant political issue. Stallman is
another such person.

------
karamazov
Apple products are not forced on anyone. Anyone interested in free software
can buy whatever they like and run whatever they want; those interested in the
advantages (both actual and perceived) of Apple products can get Macs, iPads,
and iPhones. This is called freedom of choice; for someone so dedicated to
freedom of software, it's surprising that RMS doesn't respect it.

~~~
vacri
there is a difference between 'choice' and 'informed choice'

------
monochromatic
> Richard Stallman is putting his feet firmly in his mouth

Is that a veiled reference to him eating the toe jam?

~~~
raganwald
Quite possibly. Would people rather we talked about the year or so that Mr.
Jobs made unusual hygiene choices of his own? Both topics seem irrelevant to
what the men in question have or haven’t accomplished.

~~~
awj
Irrational as it might be, appearance matters when someone becomes the public
face for a group.

This topic inevitably comes up when RMS is the subject of a thread. It's
_easy_ to dismiss that as maliciousness or trolling, but I think it's at least
partially a reflection of the image RMS is projecting for the FSF.

~~~
raganwald
It’s not irrational to accept that appearance matters to many if not most
people or almost every person. And when choosing someone to be a spokesperson
for FSF, that’s a valid consideration.

That being said, my observation is that if Mr. Stallman says X or Y or Z and
we are discussing what he said, we are not choosing a spokesperson, nor are we
any of “those” people. We are free to choose to evaluate what he said in a
vacuum, just as if it were posted by an AnonymousCoward. We are perfectly free
to debate X or Y or Z on their own terms.

If you or that person over there or this person over here would rather segue
into repeating the exact same conversation we had last week and the week
before that, and the month before that about how off-putting the man’s
behaviour can be at times, well, that is your privilege. It’s not irrational
to discuss it, just as it’s not irrational to discuss the fact that Apple’s
first president reportedly didn’t like Steve’s body odour stinking up his
office.

I remember when Steve’s star wasn’t quite so high in the public perception,
and people did call out his eccentricities. When his products and ideas
weren’t home runs, people complained about his autocratic ways and accused him
of being a fanatic, explaining how his lack of appreciation for the “real
world” and for “compromise” were costing Apple and NeXT. They harangued him
for his abrasive manners and habit of screaming at employees.

In the end, I see the two men as having some great similarities.

~~~
fredDouglass
hopefully stallman will be able to go out on as high a note

------
Mithrandir
I'm slightly disappointed that RMS said this, but I'm not altogether
surprised. RMS is, as others on this and the other thread have mentioned,
someone who is not big on comprise. He has done a lot for computing (GNU,
Emacs, GPL) but Jobs also did a lot for computing and was certainly more well
known then RMS; to RMS, that good Jobs did is negated by whatever 'bad' he did
(proprietary software, etc.)

Whatever non-free/non-open source Jobs did is up for debate on whether that's
'bad' or not, but that would still not wipe out any good. Of course, RMS is
perfectly entitled to his opinion, but as he _is_ the spokesperson for the FSF
he could be a bit more diplomatic without going as far as saying 'Apple
software is fine with us.' Something like 'Although Apple restricted user
rights with proprietary software and DRM in its products, Mr. Jobs was one of
the first to popularize personal computing and certainly had an impact on the
tech world. My condolences to his family.' or similar would have looked a
helluva lot better than what he wrote. Appearances to some degree do matter
for the FSF right now

Even if you disagree that Jobs had any profound or otherwise impact on
technology, he did just die. Have a bit more respect for his friends and
family.

------
Tichy
I despise it if people try to use somebodies death to exert power over other
people. This author just wants to control RMS and uses Steve Jobs to have a go
at him.

------
vasco
"He manages to offend common decency (...) and insult millions of Apple users
simultaneously."

I highly doubt that common decency as an abstract concept feels much offended.
And even if it did, I am sure it would be able to sleep at night. As to Apple
users, if they feel offended by the insult, I would advise them to watch this
little clip <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cycXuYzmzNg>

~~~
duffomelia
Or read this essay by Paul Graham: <http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html>

------
smoyer
Great article ... follow the HN conversation here:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3083349>

------
burke
That was actually surprisingly tactful for RMS. It barely came across as
offensive.

------
shipit
Richard Stallman and Steve Jobs is the same personality. Stallman's belief is
around intellectual expression as free software and Jobs' was design for
culture. In the pursuit of their ideals, both have demonstrated similar zeal
and reputation for offending people. We overlook Steve Jobs' quirks because we
cherish the beautiful products from Cupertino and we seek to absorb that into
our own process. As a culture, very few actually care for emacs or gcc. In an
alternate universe, Stallman's Lisp-ness would be worshipped and aesthetics
would be relegated to vanity.

~~~
eropple
Jobs had a well-known positive and beneficial side to him. Bad Steve did
certainly exist, but Bad Steve doesn't give that commencement address at
Stanford.

Stallman is at his core inhumane. It is not contemptible, but merely sad.

~~~
shipit
This is a late response, however, to Stallman's credit he acted on his
convictions of free software, invented GPL, gave away gcc, bash, emacs, libc,
binutils, hurd and hundreds other pieces that enabled a kid in Finland to cook
Linux. Stallman's core is exposed which cannot be said about the man who
estranged his own daughter (and he did rectify it after two years of denial)
and maintained secrecy around all aspects of his life and work.

------
jbooth
I love how these threads are always full of people saying "Oh, well I agree
with the guy in general, but look at that ridiculous beard he has!".

And then we talk about the beard for 500 words.

~~~
pedrolll
Your comment has the first mention of beard that I saw in this thread. Let's
not derail this discussion.

~~~
chadgeidel
I believe "beard" is a metaphor for "particular trait (lack of tact) about a
person (Stallman) that I find objectonable".

See "bikeshedding".

~~~
jbooth
Thanks.

------
runjake
I might argue that Mac OS X has been a gateway "drug" to Free Software/Open
Source for many who would otherwise be on Windows (which isn't a slight
against Windows, but much of the most popular OSS software is at home on
*NIX).

------
gparke
I think RMS forgets what is important about freedom. As an iOS developer, the
widespread adoption of iOS devices has allowed me to follow my own path, work
on what I love, and have the chance to see my dreams become reality. If that
isn't freedom, I don't know what is. Apple's success implies the market wants
a controlled user experience. If that means I have to use 'jailed' software to
buy my own freedom, it is a small price to pay.

------
wglb
From the famous 2005 Commencement Address: _And most important, have the
courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you
truly want to become. Everything else is secondary._

Seems to be what Stallman is doing.

------
quellhorst
I don't pay attention to people like RMS who eat stuff off their feet.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=I25UeVXrEHQ#t=111s)

------
mattbee
I rather agreed, but only because I think Stallman's achievements trump Jobs'
in the long run - <http://matthewblo.ch/34/keep-it-classy-richard-stallman/>

------
mcfunley
We have been passing a douchey-looking book called "How to Make it in
Software" around work as a joke for the last few days. On page 79 there is a
picture of RMS sitting in a chair, mouth agape, in bare feet, with both hands
on his dick.

------
sek
He is a radical, he thinks in absolutes. We need these people to get something
started because their motivation comes from seeing something black and white.
The sad thing is just, that these people often die unhappy.

------
jbp
How many people support(ed) the freedom of artists to draw Allah? It is just
non-sense that you'll be offended by someone unless you allow yourself to be
offended. You don't like the comment, you ignore.

------
ozten
Don't feed the trolls.

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

I read this as a thinly veiled tribute.

------
serge2k
> I'm very sorry that he's gone followed by > There's no need to pretend that
> Stallman liked Jobs

He said what he meant.

------
dos1
"But I see no argument whatsoever here to persuade Jobs' fans that they should
be considering free software. Just a petty expression of relief that a rival
is no longer available to compete with Stallman's cause."

To me this hit the nail on the head. As far as I can tell, Stallman was just
trying to be as inflammatory as possible. There was certainly a more tactful
way for Richard to express his opinion on the matter, and he's done nothing
but hinder his own cause with his vitriol.

------
hackermom
Day by day, statement after statement, he sounds more and more like a
religious fundamentalist nut. Sigh...

------
maximusprime
Is there a distribution of Linux that has removed all of the Gnu stuff and
anything connected to Stallman? I think there would be quite a lot of value in
that personally.

~~~
jrockway
OpenBSD has attempted this throughout the years, but mostly to align with
Theo's idea of secure C and architecture. Last I checked, though, this was not
entirely successful; they're still using gcc.

Honestly, the first thing I do on a new BSD system is to install the GNU
userspace. It's more code, but it does more, and that makes me more
productive.

But there are plenty of projects attempting to rewrite the UNIX userspace, so
join one of those and make it happen if you see "quite a lot of value in that
personally". But by writing high-quality Free software, you'd still be
advancing Stallman's agenda to let all computer users use the computer the way
they want to.

~~~
hackermom
_"...you'd still be advancing Stallman's agenda to let all computer users use
the computer the way they want to."_

Optionally under a license that is free for real.

~~~
jrockway
This really depends on how literally you take "freedom". If you think freedom
is the ability to take away other people's freedom, then you won't like the
GPL. The idea behind the GPL is to increase the amount of freedom in the
world, not to increase each individual's amount of freedom.

------
seven_stones
The article doesn't make a case for Stallman being _wrong_ , but merely for
being "offensive".

------
fredDouglass
when you create the worlds de facto compiler, debugger and maybe the world's
most powerful text editor, you can say whatever you want.

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

