Hacker News Reader

Comment by lambda | Hacker News Reader

First of all, this article was about standing up against people bullying Stallman for personal quirks. Is that what you stand against? You think it's bad for him to be a bit weird? Or did you just read the headline, and not the article?

Also, standing against a person isn't terribly productive, unless you think that person can do no good or have no good ideas. Do you disagree with everything that Stallman says? Will Stallman saying something make you automatically disagree with a position, even if you agreed with it before?

No? Then you don't stand against Stallman. You might disagree with some of his tactics. You might stand against free software. But I'm not sure why you would state this as "standing against Stallman," as if he, personally, is an affront to you.

View on HN

I can't speak for kenjackson, but Stallman states that writing proprietary software is unethical, and I find that idea unpalatable. I generally think that its better for software to be open, but I don't think a person who writes a piece of proprietary software has taken anything away from society, nor have they done any harm. That puts me at odds with Stallman's philosophy, which is predicated on the idea that writing such software is unethical and enslaves the user.

RMS himself showed he'd accept some degrees in the evil scale. ie said Android is not really free but a great step in the right direction. He said also it is ok to use non free software, eg Google.

I'm not in his shoes nor in yours but I think there is a scale for proprietary software, ie if you write server side, it is less enslaving than client side, if your product use open formats and allow users to go away with their data, it is better than not, etc.

The assumption that proprietary software is slavery is the primary reason that I have no use for Richard Stallman.

(Secondary is, yes, his personal behavior. I don't make fun of him for his grooming or anything quite so superficial, but I think his behavior towards women in the tech community is notably not something to be proud of and his lack of common respect in other ways[1] is appalling.

[1] - "It doesn’t take special talents to reproduce—even plants can do it. On the other hand, contributing to a program like Emacs takes real skill." http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/36460 )

I don't see any thing untrue in the quote you propose to our reading. It is a bit untactful in our PC times but, guess what, I agree that RMS is not the most tactful guy in the world. I'd boldly say he might agree himself.

Slavery: It is a metaphor. A proprietary software handling my data, my content, my texts, my thoughts, my music or my relationships, and save these important personal assets into a format I cannot control, disallowing me to take it back in a useful way, is a kind of "ball and chains" that can be allegorically referred as "slavery": the user is losing important personal freedoms, most of the time unknowingly, or unknowing of the alternatives.

Stop right there. There is no slavery here. Nobody is forcing anyone to use a proprietary service or software product over a free alternative. Users now have more of a choice with FOSS alternatives than ever before.

This is a(and I really hate this term) first world problem of the greatest order. "I can't use Facebook because it's proprietary and they're evil." So what? Just don't use Facebook.

At this point(and RMS and the FSF have been a major contributors to this, for which they should be thanked), users have a choice in the software that they use. They have the freedom to choose what they want, whether it's proprietary software, OSS, or FOSS.

Slavery doesn't come into this. You believe that a product or service doesn't respect your freedom? Don't use it, or use an alternative that gives you what you want. That is the choice that Stallman has helped bring about.

> This is a(and I really hate this term) first world problem of the greatest order. "I can't use Facebook because it's proprietary and they're evil." So what? Just don't use Facebook.

You're forgetting another first world problem that many people have: peer pressure. "What, you're not on Facebook? Lol, looser." Besides, with bullshit like the Facebook Login coming up, it's not unreasonable to assume that you WILL be forced to use Facebook for many things on the web. While I personally don't care and can put up with the peer pressure, other people can't.

And people ARE being forced to use proprietary software. At home, at work, everywhere, and if it's only because they don't know any better, or have been locked in by proprietary formats. You don't always have a choice.

Furthermore, it's not just about having a choice. It's about breaking the dominance, and eventually getting rid of proprietary software altogether. The only rational choice for any human being who's interested in progress and long-term sustainability is Free Software. Proprietary software is opposed to both of these concepts.

peer pressure. "What, you're not on Facebook? Lol, looser."

Weird worldviews will result in you be treated weirdly. Deal.

And people ARE being forced to use proprietary software. At home,

Change. If it's that important to you, you will.

at work,

Quit. If it's that important to you, you will.

if it's only because they don't know any better

Then they don't care, and it's unimportant.

You don't always have a choice.

Yup. Life kinda sucks, huh? Wear a helmet.

This does not follow from...er...reality. Terribly sorry.

I write proprietary software (TEH HORRARS!). I am also interested in technological progress. The two are in no way opposed, unless as your postulate you take the really cretinous stance they they are--and once you do, well, sure, it's obvious. But that postulate is wrong and cretinous, so...

I hope you revisit some of his philosophical speeches and reconsider your position. When software runs the whole freaking world, it is entirely possible to enslave the world through onerous license, copyright, trademark, patent, etc. fees.

I've read his tripe. His postulates are wrong.

That he sees it as unethical at all makes our views incompatible. You're speaking of less evil, but I don't think proprietary software is evil at all. The idea that proprietary software being unethical is fairly fundamental to Stallman's thinking, and I can't reconcile that with my own thoughts on the subject.

Speaking to pragmatism, Stallman has unequivocally said in interviews that if you write proprietary software you should quit your job because you are doing something unethical.

Now, I'm glad Stallman is around. The FOSS movement is, I feel, very important, and its important that FOSS exists. I don't wish that Stallman would go away simply because we do not share the same fundamental beliefs regarding software. I think that would be a loss. But I'm also glad that there are like minded people like myself who do not view a proprietary app as some sort of violation of basic human freedoms.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "accept." He acknowledges that Android is a step in the right direction, being much more free software than iOS, and restricting what software end users can run less. But it's not something that he considers acceptable; he would never own an Android phone, unless it were running something like Replicant and the radio firmware were replaced by free software or locked in place (so that it acted more as hardware than as software).

The article wasn't about agreeing or disagreeing with Stallman's beliefs, it was about all the comments that inevitably pop up about how fat, weird, smelly, unkempt, etc. he is, which has absolutely nothing to do with his beliefs.

I agree. I was trying to offer a data point to lambda's question about how someone might "stand against" Stallman. I suppose I went off on a tangent. I agree with the gist behind the article that we should not attack Stallman based on the fact that he is not typical.

I still don't understand how you can "stand against" Stallman, as opposed to particular views of his. He has lots of opinions. Some of them you may share. Some of them you may not.

Just deciding that you disagree with some views that someone has and thus you stand against them entirely is a bit extreme.

Would it be possible for someone to call one of your habits unethical and you to find it palatable? If not, then palatability is probably not a good indicator of whether ethics questions directed at you are reasonable.

I don't use my feelings regarding the manner as a measure of reasonableness. I've really tried to understand Stallman's arguments, but I really can't come to agree that proprietary software is, in and of itself, unethical.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com