Richard Stallman To Continue As Head Of The GNU Project

[alcalde]

RMS founded GNU 1984 and FSF in 1985.
He was the only spiritual leader - no one else showed up to get any trust in all these years.
...It is a real problem of no respect for such a man who did it not for money like Gates, Jobs and the rest ... and who stood up when no one else did.
We will see if the FSF can survive that.

GNU is important, but is more about code.
I can not remember anyone giving a good talk about free software and pointing to the real critical things to take care of.

The hagiographies of Stallman are mind-blowing. Many, many people have shaped open source. Let's be honest about this for once - Stallman "stood up" because he has some sort of mental disorder that makes him fanatically devoted to something. Heck, the man used to live in his MIT office! Instead of worshiping him, people should have been taking care of him and getting him some help so maybe he could live a normal life.

His "software freedom" stuff is just bizarre and has no relevance to the real world. This is a man who declines to use the web "for personal reasons". This is the behavior of a fanatic, not an advocate. That's why the Open Source Initiative was formed - free software without the fanaticism. The world moved on from Stallman quite some time ago and open source could survive just fine without him. The FSF, like Stallman, contributes nothing now other than endorsing ancient hardware and making a list of free software alternatives we need for proprietary software (without doing a thing to fund or produce said software). It's a joke. As for giving good talks about free software - I'm quite sure I've seen many fine talks about free software where no one eats something from the bottom of their foot while speaking. :-( This man is not a good spokesperson or role model for open source software. Did you see his interview on The Linux Action Show? Despite knowing the topics beforehand, he had no answer as to how a software developer could adhere to all of his freedom rules and still earn a living. He tells Bryan Lunduke that if he can't make money from open source software he should "go work in a mine or something" and then tells Bryan he's "negative in the freedom dimension". :-( There were jokes about Stallman's pitiable performance for months after that interview. The Emperor has no clothes - when asked challenging questions, he just goes into robot mode, repeating the same thing over and over, which was the same experience I've had when interacting with him.

Basically he's spent decades coasting on the GPL license. It's time to say thanks, here's the gold watch, now goodbye. Let's find a more presentable spokesperson who can speak about open source without announcing they're glad Steve Jobs is gone before he's even buried or making women feel creepy. And someone who can say "congratulations!" when someone announces they've had a child rather than proclaiming that free software is more important. :-(

Could people please not use this list to announce information of no particular interest to the people on the list? Hundreds of thousands of babies are born every day. While the whole phenomenon is menacing, one of them by itself is not newsworthy. Nor is it a difficult achievement--even some fish can do it. (Now, if you were a seahorse, it would be more interesting, since it would be the male that gave birth.)

Following your example, I might send the list an announcement whenever a new GNU program is written. That happens less often than babies are born, it does the world a lot more good, it reflects more conscious creativity and hard work, and some of the readers might actually find the information useful.

Sorry, but we can do better than this. A lot better.

Come to think of it, this does us no favors either....

Or this....



This is what we need....

[ZeroPointEnergy]

This Stallman episode is a disgrace to the society. I don't see him being a criminal, yet he is treated as such, maybe even worse.

Thank the "cancel culture" which seems to be an epidemic in US college and in some IT circles.

[trizio]

This Stallman episode is a disgrace to the society. I don't see him being a criminal, yet he is treated as such, maybe even worse.

The fact that he's an anti-globalist, anti-capitalist nuthead doesn't help.

Frankly I cannot understand all the cult around him. I don't know, maybe the constant decline of Christianity has something to do with it. Some people need to believe in some sort of idiotic messiah, like Stallman, or Greta to carry on. They seem to have a fondness for the little guy fighting the system (even though that system is actually feeding them).

[moilami]

The hagiographies of Stallman are mind-blowing. Many, many people have shaped open source. Let's be honest about this for once - Stallman "stood up" because he has some sort of mental disorder that makes him fanatically devoted to something. Heck, the man used to live in his MIT office! Instead of worshiping him, people should have been taking care of him and getting him some help so maybe he could live a normal life.

His "software freedom" stuff is just bizarre and has no relevance to the real world. This is a man who declines to use the web "for personal reasons". This is the behavior of a fanatic, not an advocate. That's why the Open Source Initiative was formed - free software without the fanaticism. The world moved on from Stallman quite some time ago and open source could survive just fine without him. The FSF, like Stallman, contributes nothing now other than endorsing ancient hardware and making a list of free software alternatives we need for proprietary software (without doing a thing to fund or produce said software). It's a joke. As for giving good talks about free software - I'm quite sure I've seen many fine talks about free software where no one eats something from the bottom of their foot while speaking. :-( This man is not a good spokesperson or role model for open source software. Did you see his interview on The Linux Action Show? Despite knowing the topics beforehand, he had no answer as to how a software developer could adhere to all of his freedom rules and still earn a living. He tells Bryan Lunduke that if he can't make money from open source software he should "go work in a mine or something" and then tells Bryan he's "negative in the freedom dimension". :-( There were jokes about Stallman's pitiable performance for months after that interview. The Emperor has no clothes - when asked challenging questions, he just goes into robot mode, repeating the same thing over and over, which was the same experience I've had when interacting with him.

Basically he's spent decades coasting on the GPL license. It's time to say thanks, here's the gold watch, now goodbye. Let's find a more presentable spokesperson who can speak about open source without announcing they're glad Steve Jobs is gone before he's even buried or making women feel creepy. And someone who can say "congratulations!" when someone announces they've had a child rather than proclaiming that free software is more important. :-(



Sorry, but we can do better than this. A lot better.

Come to think of it, this does us no favors either....

Or this....



This is what we need....

You wrote a lot of ad hominem arguments, favoring corporate face posers. So there was no real arguments in your posting. But like that would not be enough, you begat to talk that what you want is what we need. Those are two completely different things. What you want is not what we need. It is just what you want.

Stallman brought real diversity. He set an example how to be yourself. But apparently because he did not represent any acknowledged minority the real values of new gen SJWs were let to shine: Stallman has been exhausted, he is not useful anymore, it is time to "get rid of it" and try grab his chair.

Shame on you. If I was the person leading the witch hunt I would be very ashamed of myself. I would not be able to watch myself in mirror and like what I see.

[ed31337]

I wonder if corporate shills were behind all the RMS heat? From what I can tell, they've always been displeased with the GNU GPL because it is basically designed to prevent Microsoft (and others) from being able to consume and proprietary-ize open source code. They'd much rather see academia using a BSD style license.

With RMS out, maybe the expectation is the GNU GPL could finally fade away...

[moilami]

The fact that he's an anti-globalist, anti-capitalist nuthead doesn't help.

Frankly I cannot understand all the cult around him. I don't know, maybe the constant decline of Christianity has something to do with it. Some people need to believe in some sort of idiotic messiah, like Stallman, or Greta to carry on. They seem to have a fondness for the little guy fighting the system (even though that system is actually feeding them).

What does that matter? Just more ad hominem arguments. Thought police is strong.

What does freedom mean to you?

[moilami]

I wonder if corporate shills were behind all the RMS heat? From what I can tell, they've always been displeased with the GNU GPL because it is basically designed to prevent Microsoft (and others) from being able to consume and proprietary-ize open source code. They'd much rather see academia using a BSD style license.

With RMS out, maybe the expectation is the GNU GPL could finally fade away...

Probably they thought that "idiots will cannibalize him sooner or later, we can just ignore him".

[Ananace]

I'm not personally invested much in the argument, though it seems odd that people seem entirely focused on just his (changed) views on paedophilia.

From what I saw, that particular "issue" was just one that sparked another round of discussion, and at the end of the day what caused MIT to finally stop turning a blind eye to the many claims of sexual harassment that female researchers seem to have leveled against him.

I'd love to hear from someone who's less personally invested in the whole thing, did Stallman actually keep a mattress in his office?
Did he really offer female visitors the chance to lay topless on it?
Did he really tell multiple females that he'd commit suicide if they didn't date him?
Did he really write on his own door that he was a knight of justice (And hot ladies)?

To me, the argument that it was only his views on paedophilia that led to everything that's happened seems like such a strawman if any of the other - in my opinion much worse - allegations are true.
I can really see how - if those allegations are true - he would make all female scientists and researchers extremely uncomfortable, and in that case forcing him out would most definitely be the right thing to do. After all, you do not want to alienate the entire female segment of the scientific community just for a single person.

[Dedobot]

"Some people need to believe in some sort of idiotic messiah, like Stallman, or Greta to carry on. They seem to have a fondness for the little guy fighting the system (even though that system is actually feeding them)."

Please don't compare Stallman to that poor ill and exploited kid.
Yes, Stallman is a little bit crazy but purely in positive mean
Greta's case is disgusting manipulation of disabled child.

[trizio]

What does that matter? Just more ad hominem arguments. Thought police is strong.

What does freedom mean to you?

Look, the FSF is a private entity, they can do what they want as long as they respect the rules. I don't know anything about their internal rules, but if it is a serious organization they can remove one of their members if he or she violates them, or compromises in any way their interests. There's surely some sort of procedure they can follow in cases like this. Then again, if Stallman's removal was illegitimate, he can sue them.

Now, freedom of speech doesn't imply that you can say what you want and there are no consequences whatsoever. Stallman said something I can actually agree with as a matter of fact, but that doesn't mean that his removal was illegitimate. He said what he wanted to say, he's not in jail, his opinion is not censured and he can repeat that as much as he likes. That's freedom of speech.

This reminds me of that guy working for Google. If I'm not mistaken he wrote an idiotic post against female engineers in the company forum. It's the same thing. The guy spoke his mind, he's not in jail, and he can continue to defend his trashy argument. That's freedom of speech. Google decided to lay him off, because... the heck, how can you manage a guy like that?

That said, mine were ad hominem attacks. True. I don't like socialists, I don't like communists, I don't like fascists. I like to trash them in public, though. I'm exercising my freedom of speech. I can be banned from this forum nonetheless, because maybe I'm violating some internal rules by writing this. If I got banned, it doesn't mean that the admins or moderators are compromising my freedom of speech.