Stallman on the State of GNU/Linux (OfB)

> "consistently stands by his principles"
What principles? those of megalomania and delusions of grandeur? ah, and lets not forget hypocrisy, Gnu (Non)"Free" Documentation License anyone?

The GPL is a cool legal hack, I will give him that, but really, I'm a software developer, not a lawyer, so I'm not too interested in legal hacks, the less I have to do with lawyers and licenses the better, that is why I try to use the simplest and clearest licenses, like BSD or MIT.

He is a narcissistic megalomaniac, who has delusions about leading a quasi-religious movement as described here.

Sad it is to say, but I'd like killfile support on LWN :(

>b) In a stance of supreme arrogance, he tries to very specifically tell people how to think, and is intolerant of anyone who does not accept his own views. For examples of this, read the above linked attack on the BSD license, and [35]this.
Like when he stated he would potentially use MS-Windows to read his mail, given that he would be at a friends house and no other alternatives were available?
I think it's clear that the intent of this statement was that he himself would never own a computer running non-free software. But he certainly isn't intolerant of non-free software users a priori, as you seem to imply. From all the interviews, mailing lists and speeches I have heard and read I found his to be far more moderate, lucid, polite and understanding then those of other figureheads such as ie. Linus.

>c) He is a narcissistic megalomaniac, who has delusions about leading a quasi-religious movement as described [36]here. The use of the nickname St Ignutius pretty well sums it up.

It's a joke, as is rhinophytonecrophilia. Perhaps you don't like his particular brand of humour. RMS doesn't take everything he does to serious, the problem is that some people take everything he does, even if not intended so, too serious.

>d) In furtherance of c) above, he has woven an erroneous and dishonest mythology around himself, as described [37]here

As I was starting to read this, I had no clue who had written this. I assumed some old friend of Richard. At a certain point I came across "....Linus Torvalds and I later did, as accidental revolutionaries. Linus and I had to be dragged into that role and we still aren't entirely comfortable with it, "
That style of writing was so typical, it hit me, ESR. I checked (actually, I looked at the index links and saw a caption firearms! :) ), and yes it was him.
ESR has many graces, but imo historic accuracy in a story he was involved with himself together with RMS, especially one in the context of 'his revolution', is not one of them.

>I will not be conscripted into the army of *anyone* else with an agenda of *self-promotion*, simply because I myself have an agenda of *self-determination.*
indeed, but someone still owes me an decent non-ranting explanation of how RMS is guilty of self-promotion.
Also, jumping on the 'RMS sucks' bandwagon doesn't really speak in favour of *self-determination*

Hypocrite? Stallman is consistent (to a fault), and if you think otherwise, then you haven't really read what he has written. (Regarding your "point": he has consistently accepted non-copyleft licenses from an ethical standpoint, but said that from a strategic standpoint (for promoting free software) a copyleft is often better.)

Intolerant of other people's views? Yes, he has firm principles and tries to persuade others of them (not the same as the nefarious mind-control you want to impute); you may or may not agree. (He has also been willing, time and time again, to work towards a common goal with people having different principles, as long as they don't ask him to sacrifice his.) Real intolerance, however, is mudslinging and name-calling at people you don't agree with (calling them "narcissistic megalomaniacs," "egomaniacs," "delusional," "supremely arrogant," etcetera) — sound familiar?

The "St. Ignutius" thing is a joke; RMS is an atheist. Sigh.

"Stallman also is someone who would not have the slightest degree of relevance if it were not for Linux" — I'm afraid that this only demonstrates your own ignorance. Stallman and GNU were steadily increasing in prominence for years befor the Linux kernel, and arguably the kernel owes more to GNU (in that the kernel wouldn't be very useful without GNU, but the reverse is not true).

I expect I'm wasting my breath. One may or may not agree with all of Stallman's philosophy, but there's no convincing immature ideologues with a religious, irrational, intolerant hatred of RMS...oh, wait, you probably won't like it if I use the same name-calling argument style as you, will you?

I've asked a few folks what a hypocrite is, not being too certain myself.
(I'm one of those who thinks that words have meanings, and that meme
shifts occur due to weak-mindedness and hype) and many folks seem to
think that a hypocrite is someone who espouses ideals they themselve
up to which, are unable to live. Strangely, this is the human condition.
And the root of the word actually implies something else. On the fun,
side, RMS fits, because a hypocrite is supposed to be godless, And
as we all know, RMS is an atheist ;) Further, as what is supposed to
be a result of Godlessness, a hypocrite is supposed to be profane
and polluted with crimes. I don't think RMS is either of those.

But the newspeak Hypocrite, is simply someone who espouses one
idea, but lives by another. Someone who says, "You should obey
the law" but still drives 56 in a 55, but this modern definition
is a hypocrite. The worst thing you can say in a world where Bill
Gates gets to be Man of the Year, is that someone is a hypocrite.

I suppose if one were to ever modify one's posistion on a point
taken at age six, by age 60, that person may very well be a hypocrite.

Enough on that one.

I personally like RMS, have exchanged a few emails with him over the years,
and he is now, and always has been welcome at my dinner table. I think
he's a pleasant sort. I don't agree with all he says, but so what?
I think he's got a great sense of humour, and a lot of folks miss
that. I never will understand the level of hatred leveled at him, and
in a previously unspoken way, has suspected a certain lack of humour
on some folks part as being at the root that hatred.

I've got a friend, college, et al, that I've know since he was
in high school, and I'm as old as his dad. We occasionally collaborate
on stuff, and basically stay in touch with what is happening, and have
for many years. He HATES rms. I don't. He cites many of the same reasons
as you as basis for hatred. I don't see that. Hatred is emotional,
disagreement is intellectual. There is something more to it than examples
express. I don't get it. I never have. I personally think he (my friend)
and you should calm the heck down. But in truth, it's just another one
of those things I just don't understand.

I've read a lot of rms, I use his software every day. I send him money
to keep up the good work. I don't agree with him on more than just a few
things, but I do think he is pushing for a culture and society that is
better than he personally is capable of emulating (hypocrite!) and I
support that. I do not think the world would the worse off if more
folks at least made a serious (as in compromising) attempt at pushing
the ethics ball a little further up Sisyphus's hill.

--me