Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

moonlune wrote

Fuck stallman and fuck the fsf for taking him back

11

unneeded_junes wrote

Damn... I was just getting into the free software movement. What happened?

6

emma OP wrote

Stallman resigned from his FSF and MIT positions unwillingly in September 2019 after he defended his deceased MIT colleague who had raped an underage girl on Epstein's island. This happened after ~35 years of various misogynistic antics, such as telling a woman he'd commit suicide if she didn't sleep with him.

He stayed out of the spotlight for a while, and now he's back with zero indication that he has changed, or intends to.

11

unneeded_junes wrote

Ohhhh yes the memories are flooding back now. Never heard about the suicide thing though. I wonder if Stallman is a barrier to the free software movement, even though he was the founder of the FSF.

6

emma OP wrote

All I will say is that in recent years, many in the open source crowd feel disillusioned with companies taking their code and turning them into commercial products without giving back to their communities. There's a void to be filled here, and the FSF and the free software movement won't be the ones to fill it.

7

arv wrote

such as telling a woman he'd commit suicide if she didn't sleep with him.

That's awful. Do you remember where you heard that from? It might be useful to add to the GeekFeminism article that lists other allegations and controversies he was involved in.

3

yam wrote

such as telling a woman he'd commit suicide if she didn't sleep with him.

Yea, except not really:

I don’t know if he and I were the last two left, but at a table with only the two of us, Richard Stallman told me of his misery and that he’d kill himself if I didn’t go out with him.

Not to defend the behavior but the exaggerations don't serve anyone.

−2

ziq wrote

Not to defend the behavior

Oh rly?

6

lautreamont wrote

RMS is not the free software movement, even if he did do a lot in its favor.

7

unneeded_junes wrote

I agree. But I’m still curious as to what RMS and the FSF did. Should I associate with the FSF?

6

moonlune wrote

It's shit but everything is shit. Do whatever. Just don't forget to kill your heroes.

it's mostly the same as usual, a bunch of nerds creating a culture unwelcoming for women. On top of that, RMS wrote some questionable stuff saying children could consent (afaik). He got cancelled 2 years ago and he resigned from being the leader of the FSF. An now that it has calmed down he comes back on the board of directors.

9

lautreamont wrote (edited )

If it's to maintain criticism about his statements, this might help to be in the FSF.

He's been recently claiming that he had a lot of talks with some people about child abuse, and he understood now how clearly informed consent is not a given when it comes to children. There's a slight change the guy may be honest, but of course this could be just PR to save his own face.

My is that RMS ain't the FSF, but more importantly the FSF is not FOSS. It's really just an activist group tied to MIT.

MIT are the biggest problem in all this, imo. IMT Media Lab collaborated heavily with Epstein and Bill Gates two of its past directors had a story with the Epstein scandal.

8

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

So as an anarchist, "kill your heroes". I shouldn't expect greatness from the FSF because I shouldn't expect greatness from any person or group of persons.

But I did and do want greatness from the FSF, and I think they are a disaster:

  1. Misogyny and pedophile apologetics.
  2. Counter-productive militancy in pursuit of their goals. Being active on Facebook and Instagram, for example, would give them the widest possible reach. Advocating mixed free/proprietary software as a stepping stone towards totally free computing would increase their appeal.
  3. Horrific marketing. "Software As A Service Substitute", "Defective By Design", and website aesthetics right out of 2000.
5

lautreamont wrote

pedophile apologetics.

Only part I can agree here. Also pretty sure it's "apology", not "apologetics".

Using proprietary, orwellian, closed source Internet 2.0 crap like Facebook/Instagram doesn't look like a good plan to promote FOSS and much less online privacy, lol. But they are very active on Twitter tho.

It's a failure on their part of how they didn't put more efforts in pushing for FOSS alternatives to these tech earlier, like 10 years back at least, when all they were doing is... not much. Like maybe if Pleroma/Mastodon would have been pushed in the early 10s we wouldn't have had all the Facebook mayhem.

4

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

Please forgive me for being pedantic, but "apologetics" means the defense of something through reasoned arguments. So at Raddle most of us engage in trans rights apologetics, and anarchist philosophy apologetics.

Facebook and Instagram is horrific garbage, but so is Twitter and billions on Facebook and Instagram don't use Twitter. FSF should be active on all of them, and Youtube, and everywhere else.

Ten years ago they were pushing GNU Social, Friendica, and so forth and they were actually pretty good. But then and now I don't think the promotions were reaching the right audiences or written in a way that appealed to people that were not already FOSS fans.

1

lautreamont wrote (edited )

I don't think I ever heard of Friendica, but GNU Social maybe once. The FSF have been backward for at least 10 years and that may be related to their poor support within the developer world. They yet had a chance at pushing their stuff through the education system, yet they were facing Microsoft's dominion (or maybe collaborating with it by non-competing, I dunno).

So it's like, FSF was mostly just a PR group that had a level of influence through the GPL licensing. How they got somewhat beaten at this? By inclusive open source licenses multiplying. So I think there may have been this covert war between IP and FOSS for the last 10 years.

2

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

I don't blame the FSF for losing the battle for education. First Microsoft and then later Apple and Google spent billions to get into that market, because they know most consumers that get accustomed to their products in schools will stick with them for the rest of their lives. I haven't seen the contracts, but I suspect the education discount for schools were huge because the companies viewed the project as a long term investment. A free software education system would be more costly because they couldn't subsidize the expenses from their other profits.

There has been an open war between IP and FOSS since the 1990s, and IP used permissive license software as their weapon - MIT, Apache, BSD, etc...

I don't think there's any parallel dimension with a capitalist world economy and a wildly successful FSF. There's too much money to be made by using DRM, invading privacy, and keeping trade secrets. I just suspect the FSF could be a lot more successful than they are now if they were run better - maybe have 2% of the global consumer market on FSF-approved hardware and devices instead of 0.00002%.

2

lautreamont wrote (edited )

First Microsoft and then later Apple and Google spent billions to get into that market,

Sure. You also forgot Facebook and Zoom more recently. Institutional support to tech products is a major factor in how they become mass spread. Especially for all the non-tech savvy people (who're notoriously Facebook's main crops). When you got the Facebook logo everywhere down to cereal boxes and people say "Google search it" all the time, but when "official" institutions like schools are also supporting it, you're pretty sure most people are gonna think these things cannot be avoided, ergo "there are no alternatives".

It's super fucked up now that students have been paying universities the same tuition fees for having classes on Zoom. Education system has totally bowed to Silicon Valley.

3

temtemy wrote

Being active on Facebook and Instagram, for example, would give them the widest possible reach.

People will see them as hypocritical if they do that. It also encourages people to stay on Facebook and Instagram, IMO, instead of having them migrate to free and libre platforms.

Advocating mixed free/proprietary software as a stepping stone towards totally free computing would increase their appeal.

That can actually backfire by discouraging people from ever writing free counterparts. If I don't see the need to write a replacement because this proprietary software I still use still works, then I won't write a replacement, because why do I need to?

There's already a way to get new people to use free software without compromising your principles too much, by writing free software on proprietary platforms. GNU already does that with Emacs for example on Windows. They don't advocate for keeping proprietary software on your system, but they give the option for new users to try out free software on their proprietary operating system (maybe this is what you meant?).

website aesthetics right out of 2000

I don't see the problem with this. I often like older design better than newer ones, because the older ones have matured enough to be stable, and they often use less resources.

3

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

People will see them as hypocritical if they do that. It also encourages people to stay on Facebook and Instagram, IMO, instead of having them migrate to free and libre platforms.

You can't reach the public by shouting messages from an isolated island. A good idea nobody hears might as well not be uttered, and the people listening to the FSF on free software platforms are already FSF supporters.

Advocating mixed free/proprietary software as a stepping stone towards totally free computing would increase their appeal.

That can actually backfire by discouraging people from ever writing free counterparts. If I don't see the need to write a replacement because this proprietary software I still use still works, then I won't write a replacement, because why do I need to?

If the completely free from top to bottom option doesn't meet their needs, it's a non-starter. A FOSS office suite that doesn't interact flawlessly with Microsoft Office means you'll have problem at schools, at jobs, applying for work, filing government forms, and so forth. I hate Microsoft as much as the next dues-paying FSF member, but "Use this FOSS office suite! It's great, as long as you never exchange files with anyone else!" does not work. I also believe in what the Replicant (FOSS smartphone) project is trying to do, but Replicant lacks so many essential drivers that any Replicant device is worthless, strictly inferior to feature phones from 2002 and with a lower battery life. I believe in what LibreJS does, but for example I can't find a bank or credit union that will let me do online banking without non-free JS. So LibreJS should exist, but not get much promotion.

I don't see the problem with this. I often like older design better than newer ones, because the older ones have matured enough to be stable, and they often use less resources.

https://fsf.org should not be written to appeal to people like you and me, it's got to appeal to the people who don't already believe in FOSS and don't have a hard-earned appreciation for minimalist web page aesthetics.

Is the FSF trying to make a FOSS cult, or a FOSS world? Because everything they're doing seems geared towards the former. The people that don't already understand what they stand for and agree with them face too many obstacles to join them.

2

Pash wrote

Proprietary software sucks anyway.

−2