zlacker

>>kotaKa+(OP)
The funny thing is Stallman started his fight like half a century ago and on regular days Hacker News shits on him eating something off of his foot and not being polished and diplomatic, and loves practical aspects of Corporate Open Source and gratis goodies and doesn't particularly care about Free Software.

On this day suddenly folks come out of the woodwork advocating for half baked measures to achieve what Stallman portrayed but they still hardly recognize this was EXACTLY his concern when he started the Free Software movement.

>>tgma+Rs1
Stallman actively hurts the cause with his behaviour. I'm not only talking about his eccentricities, but also the adversarial and combative language. Yes, Amazon is trying to swindle us, but few people will be convinced of that when you start your argument by calling the kindle an "Amazon swindle" every time, directly implying that anyone who has one is an idiot or even malicious.

Yes, it's unfair that someone can be 100% correct but people won't listen to them because of their appearance or mannerisms. But whining about that unfairness is unproductive. People will never listen to someone who can't stop themselves from eating stuff from their foot in public.

>>cedill+Kz1
I used to 100% feel the same, but at some point I realized the problem was me, not him, in not viscerally understanding his goals. His stated goals are very clear, but the audience usually has somewhat overlapping, but nevertheless distinct goals. This is indeed at the very core of Open Source-Free Software feud. The base is almost entirely the same people, yet the ideologies are not the same, and in a very interesting way: the differences are critical to RMS's ideology, but minute to the other side. Thus, the other side thinks of a crazy guy ruining the whole thing for nothing or very little, and evaluates him as net negative for "the cause." Well, it is absolutely true, for their cause, not his.

I think his take on what compromises are valid and what aren't makes this clear: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.en.html

In fact, this particular incident, re Android, a seemingly "open" system, is a perfect example of the importance of his PoV in particular, as it illustrates that Open Source ideology would not have been enough to ensure the user is in control.

>>tgma+LA1
The problem is: you never get to have your goals or arguments listened to when you fail to represent yourself as a basic human. That means not putting weird stuff in your mouth on camera, not looking too unkempt, not being too belligerent before you get to your points – and never, never, never discussing the fine differences between ephebophilia and pedophilia on a mailing list.

His point of view and his goals are completely besides the point that he is unfit as a spokesperson for them.

Sadly. Because I agree with him quite a lot, and he does have good arguments.

>>cedill+YQ1
> you fail to represent yourself as a basic human

You sound exactly like the people who condemned Socrates to death 24 centuries ago.