Can you clarify why you think that makes the article deserve to be flagged?
I see it as not spam; it’s a timely post about why a senior member of the open source community is not suitable for a leadership position that they have just taken up.
How is the title baity simply because you assumed it meant the author agreed with you? There is tons of room between "great" and "the devil", so I had no clue going in which side of the "should he be on the FSF board" line the author was on. Further, how is this "part of a seemingly concerted PR campaign"? It just seems like multiple people, again, have an opinion you don't agree with. That doesn't make it "concerted", with its nefarious undertones.
No, it's not. My thoughts are my own. I wrote it after reading through various discussions and feeling a more nuanced take was generally lacking and felt I had something to add to the conversation. Nothing more, nothing less.
All that was granted to RMS, even to a degree most others don't.
The problem with RMS (and way too many other public figures) is the inability to just keep their mouths shut every once in a while.
Everyone - especially in the age of social media - would be much better off not sharing every personal opinion on every subject with the entire planet; lest they're willing and able to deal with the inevitable backlash.
That's a nice ideal, but unachievable. Social norms exist because people in general are incapable of doing exactly that.
It's not just "hard" - it's outright impossible. You're basically wishing for no one to ever be offended again for any reason.
That's not human nature, though, so the best way to avoid unnecessary drama is to stick to the old "Talk is silver, silence is golden" as far as discussing controversial (off-)topics in public is concerned.
Emphasis on 'in public' and 'off-topic', because that's what this is about. Might not be as important for the average Joe or Jane, but as soon as your name becomes entangled with the cause you fight for, it's a different story entirely.
The reason it's inevitable is because you're not addressing a specific target audience as soon as you're doing it on the internet using your actual identity or in the presence of the media as a public figure.
Sure, you can voice pretty much any opinion you can think of in certain, even quite public settings (Bars, conferences, book signings, etc.) and it wouldn't necessarily affect your life or public opinion on your person in any significant way.
As soon as the media is present, however, or if you do it on the internet, you inevitably address everyone - including the extremists and enemies to your cause who are just waiting for a slip-up - and that's just asking for an overblown out-of-proportion response.
I think there’s a few important things to understand:
1. There probably wouldn’t be free or open software if not for Stallman. We could argue it was inevitable, but frankly, Linux (the OS) wouldn’t have been built when it was without his efforts. At the time of gcc development, even compilers were big money.
2. Stallman is definitely on the autism spectrum. Nothing wrong with that, but one of the primary indicators are social issue. It’s not at all surprising he’s rigid, pedantic, etc. having met and organized event(s) with Stallman, he’s definitely a character, but I’ve never really seen him be outright mean. Simply put, he can be off putting, not politically correct and argumentative, but that’s kinda his baggage.
3. Free and Open source are definitely not the same thing. As we have seen from Amazon jacking peoples work and not giving back. Exactly what Stallman argued would happen has burned a large part of the open source community. Not saying there’s not a lot of good, but the concern was definitely warranted
I too agree, but I think there is a hidden "fight" going on. I believe RMS is the only person around that can prevent a full corporate take over of Linux.
All ready people are creating non-GPL tools in hopes of replacing their GPL cousins. And in most cases, one cannot use Linux on many devices without using closed source blobs. Right now it "seems" these blobs do not impact user privacy, but what is to stop these blobs from phoning home in the future.
Unless someone steps up to continue RMS FSF policies, he is very much needed.
> I believe RMS is the only person around that can prevent a full corporate take over of Linux.
How? What has he actually done - what have been his successes?
What can he do? He can't stop companies from writing software.
He's a champion of GPLv3, which companies are already avoiding like the plague and is driving them to development alternative SW to replace the GPLv3 tools.
> He's a champion of GPLv3, which companies are already avoiding like the plague and is driving them to development alternative SW to replace the GPLv3 tools.
The above proves my point, companies will not use the GPL-3 because thay cannot enhance Free Software with out giving back. It is all about money and Linux has turned into a big money maker for companies.
> I believe RMS is the only person around that can prevent a full corporate take over of Linux.
Conversely, I believe RMS is one of the last people in anything related to open source that can prevent a full corporate takeover of Linux.
He may be the most passionate, but the most passionate advocates for an issue are rarely those who actually make any progress on that issue. The passion itself is off-putting when one is in the direct focus of it, but it inspires others to actually do the work and make the progress.
RMS specifically is so off-putting that it is one of the first things his advocates say about him. His passionate views on free software, as well as everything else, are routinely dismissed entirely by anyone other than his closest adherents. It's hard to see how he can have any reasonable impact on any corporations that might try to "take over" Linux.
> I believe RMS is the only person around that can prevent a full corporate take over of Linux.
FSF and Stallman have no word in the decisions concerning the Linux kernel. Torvalds and Greg Kroah-Hartman, unlike RMS', seem like very pragmatical open source proponents. That's why the kernel has contributions from major companies, contains opaque binary firmware, and when it comes to GPL violations they're using carrots not sticks.
If you mean the Linux ecosystem in general, I still doubt that FSF has an impact outside its immediate proximity (the list of free GNU/Linux distributions).
Personally I find that the pragmatist side is predominant, and outside a small number of developers and users, RMS' stance on free software is not that popular.
it doesn't matter. If we medicalise socially unacceptable behavior, it hurts the victims while victimizing the transgressor. He needs to be banned from any conf and ignored by PR. The right thing to do is send him back to his mum's basement from whence he came while crucifying the ghouls at the FSF appointing him
no I wouldn't go that far, that would be cruel. but making them wear a sleave so that the rest of us know that they demand to be treated "special" would be a good start. most autistic are not even autistic but they just use it as an excuse to get away with socially inept behavior. that's why there is a "spectrum", so everybody gets a chance to be on it. not saying the disease doesn't exist, but it is made up in 95% or more of the cases that claim to be. and most of them seem to work in Tech
also thanks for the language lesson. non-native speaker so this is always welcome.
> making them wear a sleave so that the rest of us know that they demand to be treated "special" would be a good start.
Ooh, could we have Hugh Boss design it? Or why not take it a step further and keep a database of all the known autistic people and have them tattoo their ID number on their arm!
Glossing over the tremendous amount of incorrect and unfounded "information" in your hateful screed, you do recognize that what you're suggesting is what the Nazis did to the Jews and gays, correct?
> you do recognize that what you're suggesting is what the Nazis did to the Jews and gays, correct?
really? well slap my ass and call me Beyonce! it's still a lot less controversial than anything coming out of RMS's mouth.
If he can get away with controversy then I demand the same - I mean I don't care about race/color/gender/religion: but in the name of social justice I should be entitled to, if I wanted.
Do you see your hypocrisy now or are you too woke for that?
I tried but they say it's hopeless. Instead have decided to use my mental retardation as an excuse to get a position of power in a large Tech org and let woke people defend my transgressions on twotter.
Why was this comment flagged? Is it because I quoted the commenter I'm responding to? Is it because I mentioned that what was being suggested was actually identical to something the Nazis did? Is it because I typoed "Hugo Boss?"
On the contrary, we should probably medicalise everything to a degree. If someone is abusive because they are schizophrenic, that doesn't make the abuse acceptable, it makes it understandable.
The inclination to pile on angry judgment of people amounts to failing to understand why people are the way they are. The anger is valid to the extent that it is a call to STOP bad behavior, but when it goes past that into retribution, it's counterproductive.
Dangerous people shouldn't be put in positions to cause harm, but they might as well fairly be medicalised.
And RMS isn't actually dangerous, more like overall exceptionally outlier-level of ethically consistent and moral combined with some sexist cultural baggage and extreme (autism most likely) social awkwardness. Dealing with his position is not a simple black-or-white issue, it's not simple. It should be addressed, and it might be best done with sympathy to understanding his likely autism. That does not make it an excuse. Any non-autist who is creepy is creepy for some other reason that we should also wish to understand.
We all know that many people have both opinions - what matters is the content of the opinion. If all you're interested in is whether an author falls on X or Y side of some touchy decision, you're doing yourself a disservice (and doing others a disservice by implying they too should only care about that).
I find amusing that the circles that are verbally more open to neuro-diversity are also the ones that stigmatize Stallman more, considering him, "poor choice for a leadership".
Yes, strange people say socially uncomfortable stuff and behave weirdly. Often they say stuff that is not socially acceptable. We can manage this, I hope. Especially considering his real contribution to changing computing as we know it.
somebody autistic shouldn't be in a leadership position managing people. that's not what they're good at. it's like putting somebody with dementia in a chess-tournament and then complaining that "the game is rigged".
This autistic had successfully led the free software movement for more than three decades. So maybe he's more fit for the position than a PR spewing drone.
where has it taken the free software movement? nobody cares about Hurd or GNU these days because the ones getting the applause are FAANG, but not the thousands of small (or big) maintainers doing the actual work.
can you picture him as the head of a company like Nokia, CISCO, an insurance company, bank or literally any other thing outside the raggedy FSF? He would have not survived past day #1 because public perception matters in power.
I wouldn't applaud the FSF as an organization too much considering how well it has served the majority of people doing the legwork nor even as a "movement".
> Yes, strange people say socially uncomfortable stuff and behave weirdly. Often they say stuff that is not socially acceptable. We can manage this, I hope. Especially considering his real contribution to changing computing as we know it.
Sure, but I'd also rather not have a person like this represent the community I'm a part of. I also don't think we should discriminate against blind people, and we should go out of our way to accommodate them when we can (by making accessible websites for example). But I'd rather not be chauffeured by a blind person.
Stallman is a person like all of us: with his strengths and weaknesses. You can accept him as a person as he is, "warts and all" so to speak, while also declaring he's not a good person to do a particular job.
Is that the only reason? Is being creepy and obnoxious enough to reasonably be fired from certain kinds of positions? Is being fired from any position an act of cancellation? You're telling people to "grow the fuck up", but you're not being very mature in your exploration of the question.
> Is being fired from any position an act of cancellation?
My own suspicion is that "cancellation" doesn't describe the act itself, so much as the person it happens to. The general trend seems to be that, if it's someone from relatively higher on the social power scale losing a position or status due to poor behavior, it's cancellation. If it's someone from relatively lower on the social power scale, it's just the same old, run-of-the-mill social consequences that have existed since time immemorial.
Stallman is a weird-ass creepy autistic motherfucker who has, despite all that, has managed to create the Free Software movement, which is a massive achievement. Indeed, it's unlikely that FLOSS would exist at all without Stallman and his unique brand of intransigent principled autism.
Not to mention, everytime some crazy shit happens in the world of software, we all look back at his past writings and go, "Oh, Stallman was right. Again."
Is he weird, creepy, offputting, totally socially clueless, and massively unattractive? Yes.
Is he exactly the man to lead the Free Software Foundation? Also yes.
>My new idea is that the install fest could allow the devil to hang around, off in a corner of the hall, or the next room. (Actually, a human being wearing sign saying “The Devil,” and maybe a toy mask or horns.) The devil would offer to install nonfree drivers in the user’s machine to make more parts of the computer function, explaining to the user that the cost of this is using a nonfree (unjust) program.
I'll disagree that this is "cringe" (which is a word that I hate, unrelatedly), it's actually pretty funny and probably a good way to communicate their message while still conceding the compromise, in my opinion. But that's mostly a small disagreement and obviously not the main point of the article
i was so shocked when i found the open letter project trending on top of the github chart.
i have a feeling that stallman promotes other stuff that many people don't really like, and they managed to cherry pick one thing about marvin minsky and focus all the fire on that. rms is some sort of bernie sanders with a technological brain. like aaron schwartz, he's pragmatic, and that is dangerous.
frankly, i just won't trust anything trending now as aaron schwartz's name was taken from the list of founders of reddit recently and reddit has gone... well there are threads and forums about that too.
Any age of consent discussion is nonsense after all great things he did. He can have any opinion he considers wise and if somebody disagrees this disagreement has nothing to do with Free Software idea. Who knows, maybe after 100 years Stallman's point of view about consent will became common.
I am aware of them, but it wasn't mentioned in the letter this is a response to. I feel those comments were also a little bit more nuanced than some people have taken them. I've seen people describe him as a "paedophile apologist" and "rape apologist", which like some of the other terms like "transphobia" etc. also seem to be a few steps too far.
> Stallman is not exactly what I would call a shining example of the human race, and unsuitable for any sort of leadership position in particular
But here's the thing: He DID become a leader, mostly because of his confrontational nature and strength of conviction (which is how most leaders for change do things - they step on lots of toes). He DID lead these organisations (rocky or not - doesn't matter) and they DID become a strong force in the software world. To call him unsuitable for a leadership position is just ignoring history and his ability to attract followers.
You may not like him as a person. You may be creeped out by him. You may dislike a lot of what he says and does (and really, who doesn't?). But removal without due process flies in the face of everything that makes us civilised. The normal process is to issue warnings/rules with consequences, and then implement those consequences when they're ignored. This is how we do things fairly - a shot across the bow first. The alternative is mob rule and capricious, changing ex-post-facto justice, which has time and time again been demonstrated to never end well.
He led, which is good. But does that mean he is the right person to lead the foundation now? I think the article makes a really good argument on why he isn't.
His social awkwardness, his public opinion on contentious issues like abortion or what is considered rape, the fact that he makes people feel uncomfortable. These are distractions that push people away and weaken the foundation's focus on free software. He may be right on those issues, he might not be.
Mob rule is bad, cancel culture is bad. His removal at the hands of such a cancel culture mob is probably part of why he is being put back in a leadership position. But I absolutely understand why people are puzzled by the board's move to bring him back.
But the "Twitter mob" doesn't decide anything; they are free to protest and voice their concerns, which are not always done in a way I like (which is why I wrote this), but that's freedom for ya. In the end, it's still the FSF who gets to decide.
didn't click on it since the title already reveals the conclusion. I've met RMS in the 90ies on a FOSS / Linux conference and he should have never been there considering his lack of manners and social skills. He is such a strange human being that I ended up building him into my Tech-satire.
I don't think he is any more or less creepy than hundreds of others socially awkward computer scientists that I met over the decades. The difference is he has a position of power which he should never have for hundreds of reasons (not alone that he isn't good at it). He is the type of person who if I'd employ him I'd value him and protect him by keeping him in an off-site basement lab where he wouldn't even be allowed to open the door for the pizza delivery.
It's a huge problem when you're the public face of a movement and are also a mysogynyst. But this whole situation of wanting to cancel him speaks more about the FSF (who doesn't see a problem of bringing him back on to the board) and the other extremists ("blue haired social justice dweebs on twitter who hate him because they notice he is equally socially inept as them but has more power than them).
> also a mysogynyst (justifies rape and pedophilia)
Didn't the article cited debunk that? Citation needed for that claim.
He's very rigid and particular about language. He doesn't like the legal connection between age-of-consent and rape. He sees rape as this thing which MUST be forced, and MUST be violent. If it isn't both of those, it's not rape. He wants a different word for it, and a different charge. He can be very crude and inarticulate, but that opinion isn't invalid.
yeah sorry I had retracted the specifics in (brackets) for the reason you stated after not finding proper sources. apologies you were still left with the original version of my comment.
I did meet him in person back in the day and we had dinner. I'm a lot younger than him still and was just breaking into programming back then. He treated most "less experienced" people on the table like shit including myself and the evening ended with me calling him out on various things and turning him into a joke where even the people who invited him couldn't help giggling (I used to work behind a bar as a kid and am pretty good at reducing somebody to rubble with humor if needed. so in a way I did to him what he did to others and he absolutely hated it.)
perhaps you have misread? he was the one bullying his surrounding including myself. I was (compared to him) just an inexperienced child. I pick on him exactly because he picks on those weaker than him[1]. if you can't be a mentor to others (autism or not) you shouldn't be in a leadership position.
I think your opinions are obnoxious and advocating the removal of a persons rights based on his lack of social skills is such a low mark I think that by your own logic, YOU shouldn't be allowed at those meetings.
Now, luckily, I don't hold the same odd values you do, and will gladly invite you to any event I might organise once Corona is over.I just hope this turning of the tables can open your eyes to a different perspective.
Totally agree with RMS (and this word is not RMS' invention: http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/crackers.html ) Also I agree with "global heating" instead of "global warming" and almost all of his neologisms.
>Stallman’s views in general on computing are stuck somewhere about 1990.
You might think that compiler theory has advanced at least a little bit since the publication of the book of Dragon - but my opinion is that it is not.
> The “GNU Operating System” (which does not exist, has never existed, and most likely will never exist[1])
Few of us are great, and few of us are the devil. RMS has contributed greatness to the world, even if, like me, you're not a huge fan of him personally. I appreciate all he has contributed and can also recognize he isn't perfect.
All of the crybaby trolls have done zilch compared to RMS.
Part of the general effort to get RMS removed, flagged for being part of a seemingly concerted PR campaign, nothing new here.
reply