Recent comments in /f/freeAsInFreedom

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

celebratedrecluse wrote

Sure, I was saying in addition to your saying, not against your saying.

That's understandable. He has genuinely done a lot within that space to make things like this website possible. But it just goes to show, someone can do good works, and still do terrible unforgivable things, and ultimately outlive their own usefulness to those good works. At this point, it's just undeniable he needs to step back, if he cares about the project more than his own ego. But he's going to double down probably, because ultimately his actions were about his ego in no small part.

Any chance at growth, change, accounting for the past, grows smaller with each day he does this. his own soul will have to withstand that, but it pales in comparison to what he put people through in his daily life interactions.

Sometimes I think people double down like this, because they feel it's too late for them to change, and so they fear that and engineer a psychology around avoiding or negating that possibility.

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

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.

1

mima 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

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

yam OP wrote (edited )

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.

0

crime wrote

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

5

celebratedrecluse wrote

Reply to #Cancel We The Web? by yam

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

2

Pash wrote

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.

4