
Richard Stallman: "I Wished I Had Killed Myself" - Sandman
http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2010/04/richard-stallman-i-wished-i-had-killed.html
======
doki_pen
The comments in the blog talk about arrogance and how someone else would have
done what RMS did if he didn't exist. They also complain that him being a
"nutjob" has actually done harm to freedom. This line of thinking is dead
wrong. It takes someone precisely like RMS to stand for his ideal and dedicate
his life to what he believes. I, personally, feel a great debt to the man.

~~~
_delirium
The "someone else would have done it" seems particularly unlikely to me, at
least at the time. If you were to list significant bodies of free software
that were released between the FSF's founding in 1983 and the Linux kernel's
release in 1991, they're almost all GNU projects. The one significant
exception I can think of is the X consortium's decision in 1986 to freely
license X. And the stuff that started to be released starting in the early-90s
pretty much without exception built on GNU stuff (even all the free BSDs still
grudgingly include GNU code, despite 10 years of actively reducing their
reliance on it).

~~~
apotheon
"Good enough" is the enemy of "perfect".

What do you think would happen to FreeBSD if GCC vanished tomorrow? Hint: It
would probably suddenly finish incorporating some other, more freely licensed,
compiler into its base system.

~~~
SwellJoe
The question is not what would happen tomorrow...the question is what would
have happened has RMS never existed. I think there's a pretty compelling case
to be made that FreeBSD would have never happened; or at least, it would be a
very different beastie.

I don't agree with RMS on all things, but he was absolutely instrumental in
making our free software world what it is today, and just because you have
differing beliefs about what a "free" license really is doesn't mean you
should discount what he did for _your_ favorite OS.

~~~
dnsworks
_The question is not what would happen tomorrow...the question is what would
have happened has RMS never existed._

My hope is that if RMS hadn't existed, somebody who wasn't a creepy, bearded
hippy would have been the spokesperson for free software.. Hopefully somebody
more balanced who didn't work himself into a tizzy over whether to call it
"GNU/Linux or Linux" ..

~~~
loup-vaillant
The creepy, bearded, unbalanced hippy is what you see when you judge Stallman
with a glance. His words, on the other hand, are unusually balanced and
reasonable. In his essays and conferences, he wields them with extreme care,
showing he fully understand their power.

Hence his insistence over GNU/Linux. It boils down to being aware of the
origins of the system you are using: how it came into existence, and why. The
answer, of course lies in the mouth of the original author. In the case of
GNU/Linux, the name of the system directly influences which guru we are going
to listen to (Linus or Richard). This is very important, because the two men
have very different political opinions.

Plus, as far as I know, GNU is bigger than Linux, in probably everything.
Especially at the beginning of Linux. So the legitimate name of the entire
system may well be "GNU". Unfortunately, the GNU system became popular largely
thanks to the Linux kernel, and people started to use the wrong name for the
entire system. Really, "GNU/Linux" is a reasonable compromise.

~~~
SwellJoe
One doesn't even have to agree to use the term "GNU/Linux", in order to have
some respect for the man who made a huge impact on a community and culture we
all benefit from. We owe him a great deal of respect. That doesn't mean we
have to use the exact same language he uses. I don't call Linux "GNU/Linux",
for example, but I would never hurl insults at the man who made so much of
this possible. Humans have a strong sense of "other" and since RMS has decided
to be so other-ly from mainstream society, he gets a lot of flack. That
judging is a failing of the people doing the judging; weak egos attack others
to try to make themselves feel better. RMS is following his beliefs,
completely and without reservation, which is something few of us have the guts
or gumption to do. I respect him for that, even while disagreeing with him on
a few things (like the name GNU/Linux).

------
patrickgzill
An appropriate quote from George Bernard Shaw: "The reasonable man adapts
himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts
surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable
man."

------
JCThoughtscream
I don't see Stallman's statement as to whether his birth had a good impact on
the world or not as necessarily arrogant. Arguably, that's a question
everybody needs to or ends up asking themselves: on balance, has my existence
been a positive one?

While there might've been an open software advocate without Stallman, it can't
be seriously said that the world would've been better off without Stallman's
advocacy. And thus, on balance, the world's better off with Stallman than
without.

------
dzlobin
I'm glad he lived, and I'm thankful for his contributions. But holy shit, he
makes me sad everytime I see him or read about him.

This guy needs to cheer up.

~~~
Herring
He's about the worst PR possible for free software. I like his code & I mostly
drink the kool aid, I do, but he really needs to let Eben Moglen do the
talking..

------
ars
He needs to get married and have a kid.

He doesn't want to because he thinks it's too easy, but he's still a human.

~~~
dasht
He is on record as not wanting to have a kid because in his view the planet is
over-populated. Also, I don't fully understand (due to lack of inquiry into
it) his view of marriage but I'm fairly certain that "thinks it's too easy" is
not accurate.

~~~
jimmyjim
<http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/bos/533096562.html>

I'm not 100% sure if that was put up by him, but I've been told that it was.

~~~
jongraehl
Let's assume that's his post.

I'd think Stallman would have no problem finding an interested woman, provided
he emphasized his fame rather than a self-described lack of "success".

All the people grabbing cheap cool points by dumping on the man are ultimately
making it harder for him to get a date, and that's just needlessly cruel.

~~~
dgabriel
His fame is very subjective. He's not famous in a way that is attractive to
the average woman, hence his difficulty in finding an ideal mate.

I would presume that _if_ Stallman has romantic troubles, it's due to
something other than people dumping on him.

~~~
jimmyjames
You think he's not finding a woman because he's not famous in a way that's
attractive to women?

Hilarious.

How about this: he has a very arrogant personality, the ego the size of a
blimp and it's just impossible to have a conversation with him unless you
agree with every single word he says.

~~~
dgabriel
I don't think that at all. I was responding to a post that claimed RMS should
use his fame to attract women. I doubt that will work for a number of obvious
reasons.

------
derwiki
Seems to me that without the programmers who went the commercial route (Gates
et al), computers wouldn't be as widely used and his impact wouldn't be as
big. Or that someone else wouldn't have stepped up in his absence. And
statements like those quoted in the article seem just a wee bit overdramatic.

~~~
rbanffy
> programmers who went the commercial route (Gates et al)

It's a false dichotomy. There is no need to imprison (as Stallman would say)
the user and disrespect his rights (at least to use, understand, improve) in
order to be commercial. What "Gates et al" have done is to bind their users
through the software they use to manage their lives and jobs, ensuring long-
term prosperity through technological dependency.

The folks at Red Hat, Canonical and MindTouch (just to name a few I have in my
head right now) are every bit as serious as Microsoft when it comes to be
commercial and to be paid for their work.

The main difference being they show much more consideration towards their
users and customers.

~~~
chc
Red Hat, Canonical and MindTouch combined have not had as much impact on
computing as Apple or Microsoft alone. I was going to qualify that, but no, I
think it's pretty unequivocal.

Also, your selection of companies seems a bit deceptive. These companies'
profit strategies are very narrowly focused on the one market where it's
possible to make money with free software — and even that isn't really making
money from the software. You have to be in a market where people will pay
through the nose for support contracts, because the software itself isn't
making much money.

The one real exception I can think of is Mozilla, which makes decent money off
of Firefox. Otherwise, unfortunately, it does generally seem to be necessary
to bind the users enough to make them pay you for the software. (That's not a
sarcastic "unfortunately" — I do think it would be great if I could reasonably
sell free software as profitably as non-free software, but I don't see any
evidence that it's feasible.)

~~~
rbanffy
> Red Hat, Canonical and MindTouch combined have not had as much impact on
> computing as Apple or Microsoft alone.

Wouldn't that be a question of time and business model? Apple is a hardware
company and both were around when the PC (not the IBM one) was invented.

> isn't really making money from the software

It's very hard to directly make money from software sales if you grant your
customers the right to share it. Software companies make money out of the
scarcity of software ("You want Windows? Ask Microsoft"). Free software is
naturally abundant. It's possible, but not easy, to make your users pay
directly for it.

And Mozilla can't ask users to pay for it. Not only because it's infinitely
abundant (anyone can give you one) but Microsoft's IE comes bundled in the OS
most Firefox users run. Opera does that and look at their market share.

~~~
chc
And that is why it is generally necessary to "imprison" (as Stallman would
say) the user. Otherwise you're making a product that won't make money. There
are a few markets where you might find a connected business to recoup the
money you spent on software, but it's not a general business model for
development.

That's what I was getting at: It's hard to be rewarded for free software, so
there really is a dichotomy between free and commercial software. It's not
just Jobs and friends being dicks and restricting customers.

~~~
rbanffy
> you're making a product that won't make money

No. You are only making software that doesn't usually get sold. Most of it
isn't, but you can custom-develop - building upon piles of other free software
- and then license it under a free license to your client who chooses whether
to share it (always under a free license) or not. Free software can be sold. I
know this because I did it a lot.

> It's hard to be rewarded for free software

OTOH, it's much cheaper and easier to develop it. With closed software, you
have to invent your own wheels. With free and open-source software, you are
free to use the ramjet engines other people have developed.

~~~
chc
Again, you're outlining a highly specialized business plan for custom
development — not a general principle for making money with FOSS. If I freely
license my next game, I'll lose my shirt. If I create an awesome, game-
changing productivity suite and GPL it, I'll lose my shirt. If I do anything
outside of some very tiny niches, I'll lose my shirt.

There are a few small areas where FOSS is as commercially viable as anything
else, and you'll notice those are also generally the areas where it seems to
be most mature. You can't generalize those tiny areas and say that making
open-source software in general is a reliable income source.

~~~
rbanffy
It's not possible to make a business out of selling goods that are infinitely
abundant. Free software is one such thing.

Making open-source is not a direct income driver and, apart from very limited
niches, will never be, but, nevertheless, it allows a business to have full
control of its technology stack.

Company A builds a great game using a closed-source library built by company B
and company C builds another great game using, say, an LGPL library. When the
underlying platform changes, breaking both libraries, company C is not subject
to whatever the strategy of company B is and, therefore, can be first to
market with a new, compatible, version.

This is a hypothetical situation, of course, but illustrates one important
thing about free software - most people don't really make it: they use it and,
from time to time, and, if and when the need arises, add a little improvement
here or a fix there. Its strength lies in the sheer number of people that give
a little hand, scratching one another's itch.

------
flipper
I for one am very glad RMS existed to write emacs and save us all from vi.

~~~
apu
I'm glad RMS existed to write emacs and give vi users someone to look down on
;-)

~~~
flipper
Something that emacs and vi users can agree about then - we're both glad that
RMS wrote emacs!

~~~
iambvk
you have a point ;)

~~~
apotheon
Is this where we all sing kumbayah together?

------
johngalt
Either computers would be useless novelties or they would be mainstream and
lose the hacker/counterculture status. Those are the only two options. There
is no way that every person on earth was going to care about source code.
Progress is still progress even if it's not what you want.

There is plenty of fun to be had still in technology, just don't get married
to a philosophy. I learned that the hardway.

In the early days I ran a BBS. When the Internet became mainstream I remember
thinking "how do I compete?" I redoubled my efforts: upgrading modems, adding
drives/door games, increasing my software library, etc.... All the time
thinking "where's the 'community feel' on the Inet?" By the late 90s I
realized the problem was me and not the world.

~~~
r0s
_Either computers would be useless novelties or they would be mainstream and
lose the hacker/counterculture status. Those are the only two options._

Maybe you don't look at your cell phone or nintendoDS and think "hmm, there
must be some way to run irc on this thing". Maybe you don't care anymore, but
there are huge communities who do. Maybe the spirit of openness is fundamental
to the tools themselves?

------
donaq
_Sure, in his absence others may have stepped up to the job, but in this
world, he did. We can sit and imagine all we want that with a different
leader, FOSS would be better. But, that doesn't change the fact that we have
him to thank for so very much._

From the comments on the OP's blog. :)

------
Osmose
I know very little about Stallman beyond his role in the GNU Project. What
pain is he referring to that makes him wish that he had never been born? The
loss of hacker culture?

~~~
fnid2
I'm wondering too. He has a kind of "Woe is me" attitude, but all I know of
him is that he eats his toe skin in front of his audience.

I also don't know if his existence has had a net positive effect. Free
software he advocates is used to power robots, missiles, and other weapons
that kill many people. It has also taken money from developers who write good
software and shifted it to middlemen who sell services for free code, which
limits the viability of writing code and the financial options for hackers to
put a roof over their heads and food in their mouths.

If you really want to help hackers and keep the hacker culture alive, teach
the world that software has value and is worth paying for.

------
apotheon
Stallman's hubris is shocking -- and I'm not talking about his claim that the
world is a better place for him having lived. I'm talking about this line of
shit:

> I’m the last survivor of a dead culture.

~~~
jf
That quote makes a lot more sense when taken in context. It's from the 1983
epilogue to Hackers.

In 1983, there was no "free software" as we have today. No FSF, no EFF, no
Creative Commons.

Additionally, Stallman's interview is at the end of a book about the guys who
started "hacker culture". These guys did some amazing stuff: they physically
modified one of their computers to add new machine instructions, wrote
editors, compilers and games from scratch, etc, etc. Then they made their code
available for free.

When I read that quote in the book, I interpreted it as Stallman expressing
sadness over the loss of hacker culture.

~~~
ErrantX
I think that is what apotheon means! Hacker culture is far from dead; it is
alive and well, just different.

It's just him being stuck in the "glorious past" (nothing really wrong with
that) and assuming that hackers should be working with computers on that sort
of level.

Things move on; if we still had to do all that computing wouldn't have moved
on very fast :P

I heartily disagree that the culture is materially different - it's just
spread out a bit more (instead of being on the university campus' etc.)

~~~
apotheon
Hacker culture not only _is_ alive and well -- it _was_ alive and well through
those years, too. It was just less visible, and since Stallman was moving
through different circles, it wouldn't have felt as much to him like it was
all clustered around his immediate vicinity.

It is to some extent in human nature to assume that what's happening around
someone is what's happening everywhere -- but that's really no excuse for
declaring himself the last of his breed as he did. In fact, I'd say that the
rise of the cypherpunks was a stronger resurgence in the hacker culture tide
than Stallman's generation, and actually far more committed to freedom in an
essential sense.

The fact things change doesn't mean the good stuff has all died off. I think
we're a lot better off for the modern state of hacker culture than if there
was still the kind of hacker culture that existed Way Back When. Concepts of
freedom, inquiry, and improvement that are central to a hacker culture have
become more refined and encompassing than they were in those early days, which
is pretty much what happens with everything that sees long-term success; it
starts out less well-defined, and feeling more "special" because of its
rarefied nature, then grows more widespread, better defined, and more
generally applicable, thanks to the efforts of people who pick up where a
previous generation left off to add their own efforts to the continuing
evolution of the movement.

Far from being the last of his breed, he went from being an early visionary to
a late relic, from what I can see. I might not have used such harsh terms for
it, but his own statements about being the last of his kind pretty much
completes the picture of Stallman as a dinosaur who has died and is too
stubbornly attached to his own illusions to realize it.

Yeah, the culture isn't materially different. It has simply continued
developing. If it had remained exactly the same as it was for Stallman's early
peers, that wouldn't have been success. It would have been stagnation.

He should learn to take a cue from people like Ken Thompson, who has managed
to remain relevant and continue to contribute fresh new ideas to the state of
general purpose operating system design all these years. Yes, advocates for
freedom in our software development model are of critical importance; I'm not
arguing otherwise. I think, though, that Stallman's apparent idea that such
advocacy should focus on trying to recapture a communal sharing model that
worked for a very small number of people who mostly knew each other, at least
peripherally, is naive at best. Furthermore, the way Thompson and his
spiritual descendants lead by example does almost as much for effective
advocacy as the actual advocates (e.g., Bruce Perens and Theo de Raadt, to
name a couple out of many -- who are, unlike Stallman, well-known for being
currently contributing developers as well as advocates, thus lending credence
to their statements even when they're abrasive in the extreme as de Raadt can
sometimes be).

Looking at things with a critical eye, Stallman is the only guy I can think of
who is granted so much relevance as both a developer and an advocate for
freedom in software use and development whose achievements are always
described in the past tense.

------
tomkinstinch
The linked article [1] is worth reading.

1\. <http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/04/ff_hackers/all/1>

------
j_baker
"This "pain" that Stallman says he has endured makes his decision to champion
tirelessly freedom and free software for all these decades all the more
remarkable."

Alright, I realize this might be a bad statement to make on this subject...
but seriously? He's a free software advocate. It's not like he's Ghandi going
on a hunger strike or Martin Luther King Jr going to jail over his beliefs.

~~~
astrec
Stallman agrees with you:

 _"I hesitate to exaggerate the importance of this little puddle of freedom,"
he says. "Because the more well known and conventional areas of working for
freedom and a better society are tremendously important. I wouldn't say that
free software is as important as they are. It's the responsibility I
undertook, because it dropped in my lap and I saw a way I could do something
about it. But, for example, to end police brutality, to end the war on drugs,
to end the kinds of racism we still have, to help everyone have a comfortable
life, to protect the rights of people who do abortions, to protect us from
theocracy, these are tremendously important issues, far more important than
what I do. I just wish I knew how to do something about them."_ \- Free As In
Freedom by Sam Williams (p66 or p73 depending on version).

------
jimmyjames
I think that a great free open source leader has already been born but he
committed suicide, so instead, now we have Stallman.

------
jawn
After reading this I felt a deep sense of pity for RMS.

Even if he was only referring to his perceived lack of belonging, openly
fantasizing about suicide is not the sign of someone in a healthy emotional
state.

I hope very much that he has grown past this point his life.

------
petercooper
It's a real shame that inventor of the time machine, Leo Schultz, travelled
back in time from 2042 and killed himself as a child. We'll never have a time
machine now :-(

