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.

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.

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.

Do you want to mod this forum so what happened here today doesn't happen again?

Not to defend the behavior

Oh rly?

A friend of mine once pointed out: abusers don't abuse everyone.

Definitely. What I could be concerned about is that the threshold for what's seen as abuse is rather low for RMS, such as having a mattress in his office:

“He literally used to have a mattress on the floor of his office. He kept the door to his office open, to proudly showcase that mattress and all the implications that went with it. Many female students avoided the corridor with his office for that reason…I was one of the course 6 undergrads who avoided that part of NE43 precisely for that reason. (the mattress was also known to have shirtless people lounging on it…)”

The author immediately jumps to conclusions that it's about RMS being a pervert rather than being frugal. He's never been paid salary or travel expenses from FSF nor charged anything for his talks and events, because he doesn't want to exclude anyone, and the office was where he lived:

Until around 1998, my office at MIT was also my residence. I was even registered to vote from there.

It has to taken into the account that RMS has some powerful enemies. To me, the rape allegations against Julian Assange appeared questionable too, but it's difficult to mention this without coming across as rape apologist.

Is the following evidence about RMS's abusive behaviour, or is it some random person telling a bad text editor joke, because that is what much of the evidence against him looks like:

I recall being told early in my freshman year “If RMS hits on you, just say ‘I’m a vi user’ even if it’s not true.”

It's the pettiest things that are used against him now. We should at least examine what someone really means when they call him out for being a "creep":

Stallman is brilliant — software he’s written is at the bedrock layer of modern computing. He’s also a certifiable creep. Circa 2011, I posted a series of links regarding Stallman’s weirdness and creepiness, including video of him picking something off his foot and eating it,, his deeply hypocritical stance on cell phones and supermarket discount cards, and his truly bizarre and inadvertently hilarious 7,000-word rider for speaking engagements.

I don't really have a stake in this beyond my general ethos of fuck creeps and fuck abusers (esp abusive dudes in positions of power) but this writeup seems like a lackluster defense of Stallman by someone who, by their own admission, has literally done publicity work for the dude for years.

The author opens with this whopper: "People in the tech community know me as a high-tech publicist..." which immediately put me on alert, cause, ya know, who can you trust to deliver unbiased and sober analysis of a situation more than a PR professional? And they describe themselves as a "Silicon Valley connector" in their lil bio blurb? Ew, and no thanks. Like /u/celebratedrecluse said, immediate suspicion of likely wealthy insiders, and to echo /u/bloodrose, not everyone's experience with shitty abusive shitbots is shitty and abusive. Doesn't mean they haven't been shitty and abusive...

3/10, would not take authors stance in a debate

Once Stallman comes to a logical conclusion on an issue, he sticks by his views, does not matter the outside pressures. This could be his stance on neckties - symbols of corporate subservience, he won’t wear them. Or his stance on pronouns - "they” is always plural though he champions and frequently uses singular gender-neutral pronouns. Or his controversial views on age of consent laws, the term “First Nation,” prostitution, and other incredibly sensitive topics. Stallman will not, cannot keep a view - however unpopular - to himself.

What an asshole

The author had 9 computers in their house the early 1990s?

Jeez, that sounds expensive. This person seems wealthy and well-connected in the tech world, which I am immediately suspicious of.

It's been obvious since Day One that Richard Stallman is an odd little goblin.

Why is anyone acting suddenly shocked about it, like it's news?

The point is that he's still right though. That's why the slogan for years has been Stallman Was Right.

People getting bogged down in character assassinations and moralising, smh my head.

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.

It's from Remove Richard Stallman: Appendix A.

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.

Proprietary software sucks anyway.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Fuck stallman and fuck the fsf for taking him back

I had an OpenMoko cell phone--it was crud! I did get SSH working from a PC.

{thousands of companies with the money to back a free-as-in-freedom alternative to existing proprietary products won't spend a cent}

The profit motive.

Hilarious.

I bet if you email him about it, it would be gone in less than an hour, and you'd get a thankful response (even if the Arial font technically isn't distributed from his site or anything).