Hacker News Reader

Comment by lmorris84 | Hacker News Reader

I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing that I give so little thought to many of these things.

I have a Spotify subscription, I'm watching the Football on Sky Go which uses Silverlight, I'm using a browser rather than emailing myself web pages.

A lot of this is just bizarre and I just don't see non-free software as inherently evil.

View on HN

Its a bad thing. While you may not agree with Stallman's analysis of the morality of software, should everyone think about the tools they use - not just their apparent functionality, but also the broader ramifications of characteristics of said tools.

The world would be a better place if fewer people just went on autopilot and short-term gratification.

There is also an option that you can think long and hard about the tools you use and come to conclusion, that Stallman is wrong. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I parsed that as agreeing with you (albeit worded a bit awkwardly), that the "bad thing" was not thinking about it, not disagreeing with Stallman.

Exactly.

Or there is the third option to think long and hard, largely agree with Stallman, but still continue to mostly use the tools you do out of habit and practicality.

I'd say I fall into that category. He raises a lot of very important issues, however it would be too much for me to change my lifestyle to address all of those issues, and then some of his points, such as proprietary software being inherently evil, I don't agree with.

> There is also an option that you can think long and hard about the tools you use and come to conclusion,

I think this is the benefit we can gain from RMS' article. Most of what he's outlining here are very extreme executions of fundamental viewpoints. Most of us are not going to turn down watching a show on Hulu or a documentary on Netflix with our friends if we value that kind of social interaction more than having our "freedom". The important thing here is that by reading this and going "why the hell would anyone do that?", RMS has perhaps made us think about the software we use on a slightly deeper level than we usually do. Whether you or I draw the same conclusions as him is irrelevant, the most important thing is that we took a second look at the stuff we use because there's someone out there that either doesn't use it or uses it differently.

Right, its more thinking about an important topic. He's providing an awareness and opening a space for discussion.

Yes, this is a good option. I view Stallman's writings the way I view most polemics. While they're useful in understanding the roots of an idea and challenging the way things are, they often aren't practical. If everybody had to use a computer the way Stallman does, they probably wouldn't use computers.

The benefit accessibility, which unfortunately often relies on non-free software, provides is of great value to many people.

Stallman has the privilege of an education from MIT where he learned the ins-and-outs of computing and is able to function efficiently with this knowledge. I have friends who have to work for subsistence wages who simply wouldn't have the time nor the energy to learn everything about how to use fully free software, and they get huge benefits from using the Internet.

My mute brother often uses proprietary voice assistance software to speak that locks him into Apple's platform. He doesn't care. The benefits of him being able to communicate efficiently far outweigh the cost in terms of both the cost of the software and the "dangers" of using proprietary software. Admittedly, I'd like it if I could modify the source code, but it's better than starting from scratch.

Even his stance on cell phones ignores the concerns of many people. I don't know where Stallman lives, but I'm betting it's a pretty safe area for him. He can live without a cell phone because the likelihood that he will need to call 911 when he's out and about is low. Constant tracking is bad, but being assaulted is worse.

All that being said, I wish more software was free. It'd lead to more eyes on the software everyone is using which would probably improve it a lot in terms of functionality, security, and performance. It's hard for one person or a small group of people to have expertise in every area that a good piece of modern software requires.

I think this is an uncharitable reading of the page. rms' stance doesn't ignore the concerns of people, because it isn't a proclamation telling how people should live; it's just a description of how he lives.

The only parts that proscribe are the sections about DRM, and even those are not "you should sacrifice yourself to oppose DRM" but "only buy DRMed content if you can break it", which is more a personal advice than a moral commandment.

In general, rms doesn't tell software users they are bad people for using proprietary software or for allowing tracking; he's just alerting people about the dangers of doing so. His criticisms are usually solely directed at software producers and at the organizations that track people.

Fair enough. I think he comes across as looking down on people who use proprietary software, but you're right - the page is just about how he computes.

There are plenty of places rms suggests other people follow his ways,

"let's reject any social networking site which insists on connecting an account to a person's real identity"

Or just search the page for the word "should" or "you"

I agree with him but let's not pretend he isn't proselytizing

One thing I noticed is that it would be completely impossible for anyone to actually hold down a job this way.

Life is about compromise; You only have so much you can do. Mr. Stallman has decided never to compromise on his principle of freedom. We've gained some benefit from his life, though most of it has already been extracted.

Does your software choices harm you, not could harm you, but harm you? Do you want the freedoms described in all cases, or are you willing to trade some parts of them for other goods? That's the bargain you should consider.

Freedom isn't the end-all of life, nor should it be. If you want to live on principle, do so, but it really doesn't make you intrinsically better as a person.

We've gained some benefit from his life, though most of it has already been extracted.

I'm interested in how you measure future benefits of someone else's life.

The alternative is to compute like RMS does, and that's a terrible world to live in. Morality isn't as clear cut as he pretends it is.

In fairness, he isn't pretending; that is his morality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com