Hacker News Reader

So, what's your point? That he shouldn't fight for free software because it's difficult? Imagine the world in the 80's, when there wasn't a free as in freedom OS; rms knows about compromise when there are no alternatives, he just doesn't want a non-free OS in a non-free computer when there are free alternatives. We usually call it coherence.

View on HN

The claim: "Refuses to compromise"

My response: "Is forced to compromise in the following cases"

I don't know how you managed to form your bizarre interpretation of what I said. I like the guy. I admire his ideals and approach and agree with his goals.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude, but it's not really much of a point to say "He doesn't refuse when there aren't viable alternatives". It's the same situation he was in the 80's with OS's, there wasn't a free OS for his computer, so he used a non-free one to code, a temporal compromise. When there's an alternative, even a very impractical one, he goes with that even though he could choose the other. So, "Refuses to compromise" is accurate, he refuses whenever he can.

My point is that non-free software is pervasive and impossible to avoid, even for people like RMS. That is all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com