Rant about RMS

[coolfrood]

Thanks guys for the great interview with RMS. I'm still not done listening to it yet, but I already dislike the guy more than I ever did before. This is the first interview of RMS that I've heard, and I just can't stand the way he talks.

I like the ideals that he stands for, and I admire the fact that the fact that he is so idealistic, but I think he has a lot to learn about respecting people and respecting the other views. From what I've heard so far, he keeps belittling and berating Dann all the time ("I don't understand what you mean", "You are totally missing the point"...). Did anyone ever teach him that if you're trying to convince someone else, you have to respect their intelligence?

His definition of freedom seems to be bordering on being militant. Reminds me of GWB in some respects when he says, "You're either with us, or against us." While he may not see eye-to-eye with the the open source movement, he should at least give them some credit about changing the landscape of things and changing the playing field. If it weren't for the somewhat moderate people who think that there is a middle ground, there would probably be five people in the world listening and caring about what he says, not five million.

All said and done, he may have done a great service to humanity, and continues to do so, I find it hard to respect someone who doesn't even think that the person he is talking to is capable of intelligent though, and this other person being someone who is interviewing him and is genuinely curious to know what his views are.

[Wally Balljacker]

I tend to have a similar opinion. I agree with Richard on some of his views, but his way of thinking will never get us anywhere. To overthrow Microsoft, it takes rational, levelheaded people like Eric Raymond, who are willing to compromise in order to get wider adoption. It comes down to a lesser of two evils. What is worse, Linux with some non-free pieces, or Windows, which is completely non-free. It's all well and good to want only Free software, but it's not the reality. People want non-free codecs, drivers, and applications, and until we can accommodate that, they'll stick with Windows.

One thing I've never understood about Richard, is that he thinks all non-free software is unethical and should not be used. Yet, before the Linux kernel was developed and released under the GPL, Richard used GNU software on top of proprietary operating systems like SunOS, because he had no choice. I don't see how using Adobe Flash, or proprietary NVIDIA drivers nowadays is any different from that. Until a Free, or Open replacement can exist, how is it wrong to use the existing proprietary program?

[coolfrood]

The thing is, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if you want someone to change their opinion, or see your point of view, you don't say things like "I don't even understand what you're saying." Sure, you and I, and I suspect most of the other people don't agree with RMS's point of view, but at least we don't think he's an idiot. RMS seems to have a huge air of superiority over others who don't agree with him.

[hellonorman]

I tend to have a similar opinion. I agree with Richard on some of his views, but his way of thinking will never get us anywhere. To overthrow Microsoft, it takes rational, levelheaded people like Eric Raymond, who are willing to compromise in order to get wider adoption. It comes down to a lesser of two evils. What is worse, Linux with some non-free pieces, or Windows, which is completely non-free. It's all well and good to want only Free software, but it's not the reality. People want non-free codecs, drivers, and applications, and until we can accommodate that, they'll stick with Windows.

One thing I've never understood about Richard, is that he thinks all non-free software is unethical and should not be used. Yet, before the Linux kernel was developed and released under the GPL, Richard used GNU software on top of proprietary operating systems like SunOS, because he had no choice. I don't see how using Adobe Flash, or proprietary NVIDIA drivers nowadays is any different from that. Until a Free, or Open replacement can exist, how is it wrong to use the existing proprietary program?

His way of thinking is completely logical and you can bet that some very bright people have thought through these issues completely and carefully. In any logical thought there needs to be a starting point or premise that is true. If the premise is untrue than any logical argument that follows is faulty.

Now RMS starts with the premise of the 4 freedoms as he calls them. If you assume that the 4 freedoms are essential for software then all of his points are logically valid and make sense.

It was very clear that Linc was being aggressive and trying to frame questions in such a way to make RMS seem a lunatic and a hypocrit. I can't blame RMS for simply not putting up with that. He also made perfect sense in his answer about programmers being paid for code.

All of RMS's points are logically valid with the 4 freedoms as a premise. So the only way to debate him is to challenge the premise that the 4 freedoms are essential. Many of the questions from the tllts crew used the premise that the growth and adoption of linux was more important than software freedom. RMS was simply challenging that premise.

IMO the problem is that most people tend to agree that the 4 freedoms are a given and important. But the same people want to see linux advance more quickly. Which of course puts them in a quandry because it's become clear that the two goals are pulling opposite directions.

[Wally Balljacker]

IMO the problem is that most people tend to agree that the 4 freedoms are a given and important. But the same people want to see linux advance more quickly. Which of course puts them in a quandry because it's become clear that the two goals are pulling opposite directions.

My concern is that if Linux doesn't cater towards average Windows users quickly, we could lose a substantial amount of the market to Apple. It's great to have a completely Free operating system absent of proprietary technologies, but if only 4% of the desktop market is using it, than does it really matter? I would rather see a slightly less Free version of Linux with 30% or 40% market share. If Linux were to gain that much of a market, it would give us some serious firepower against Apple and Microsoft, and I can foresee open codecs like Vorbis, and Theora becoming the standard, due to the sheer girth of the Linux market.

[Linc]

It was very clear that Linc was being aggressive and trying to frame questions in such a way to make RMS seem a lunatic and a hypocrit. I can't blame RMS for simply not putting up with that. He also made perfect sense in his answer about programmers being paid for code.

Balogna. I was quite ill and didn't have time to prepare questions in order to make RMS look like an ass. He did that all by himself. I had very *SIMPLE* questions that he took GREAT pains to avoid answering. Not everyone has to have some alterior motive for asking a question, some of us just want a straight forward and logical answer. Not to mention he was rude, condescending and arrogant.
Apparently you don't know me or listen to the show very often. If I believe someone is a hypocrite or a lunatic, I will just tell them. I am not one to beat around the bush what so ever.

[hellonorman]

It was very clear that Linc was being aggressive and trying to frame questions in such a way to make RMS seem a lunatic and a hypocrit. I can't blame RMS for simply not putting up with that. He also made perfect sense in his answer about programmers being paid for code.

Balogna. I was quite ill and didn't have time to prepare questions in order to make RMS look like an ass. He did that all by himself. I had very *SIMPLE* questions that he took GREAT pains to avoid answering. Not everyone has to have some alterior motive for asking a question, some of us just want a straight forward and logical answer. Not to mention he was rude, condescending and arrogant.
Apparently you don't know me or listen to the show very often. If I believe someone is a hypocrite or a lunatic, I will just tell them. I am not one to beat around the bush what so ever.

Sorry Linc but I listen all the time. He calmly answered all your questions about the hardware side of things with sound logic. Then he simply wouldn't stipulate that a programmer has some inalienable right to make money writing free software. His arguments were similar to how an artist who paints makes money. They make money if someone is willing to pay for the art.

You were aggressive in that after he would make a point you would retort with "so what you are saying is...(some exaggerated nonlogical scenario)"

In terms of logic you were trounced.

[Linc]

Sorry Linc but I listen all the time. He calmly answered all your questions about the hardware side of things with sound logic. Then he simply wouldn't stipulate that a programmer has some inalienable right to make money writing free software. His arguments were similar to how an artist who paints makes money. They make money if someone is willing to pay for the art.

You were aggressive in that after he would make a point you would retort with "so what you are saying is...(some exaggerated nonlogical scenario)"

In terms of logic you were trounced.

Apparently you are listening to a different interview than I am.

[CptnObvious999]

see what politics does to people
I do think Richard kinda snapped but I guess it really doesn't make a difference.

[dann]

All of RMS's points are logically valid with the 4 freedoms as a premise. So the only way to debate him is to challenge the premise that the 4 freedoms are essential. Many of the questions from the tllts crew used the premise that the growth and adoption of linux was more important than software freedom. RMS was simply challenging that premise.

IMO the problem is that most people tend to agree that the 4 freedoms are a given and important. But the same people want to see linux advance more quickly. Which of course puts them in a quandry because it's become clear that the two goals are pulling opposite directions.

I think your right on the money here. It was my fault for dropping the ball on this point and not being prepared like I should have been. I think that these are very important issues to ponder, how moving further away from the 4 freedoms by integrating more restrictive or closed software will impact upon the community as a whole.

[Jza]

I think the opposite, linc was incredibly rude when he ask stallmans oppinion, he interviews 23 timew in 2.50 seconds of the recording after he release his question, and then he said that he hasn't finish his question.

Either he changed his question at the middle of the respond (which is what RMS said) or he just wanted to hear something else.

I think linc ask the wrong question. Linc wanted to know if there was ways of earning money producing free software. Instead he asked how can a programmer earn a living using free software.

These are very different questions, because the first one you question the money issue and the one linc ask question the programmer. RMS did reply to the first question acuratly but linc thought he missed the point, the fact is that linc missed the point of his own question. So instead of talking about ways to make money, they talked about the programmers life.

And Richard allready answer to this question in the past and is written down at the FSF site: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

The biggest issue is that instead of waiting for RMS to finish answering, linc just started asking second and third question during RMS answer. Most of this questions were about pushing the programmer to fit on the business model question that he originally never asked.

Then it just went downhill when linc mention the 'utopian' society which was very rude IMHO.

RMS address the problem of lincs question when he said that the question has too many assumptions, or 'links', like programmer only means is to program for a living. once again they talked about the programmer instead of the actual business model.

Linc kept interrupting on and on and pretty much went on which was also rude.

[snarkout]

All of RMS's points are logically valid with the 4 freedoms as a premise. So the only way to debate him is to challenge the premise that the 4 freedoms are essential. Many of the questions from the tllts crew used the premise that the growth and adoption of linux was more important than software freedom. RMS was simply challenging that premise.

IMO the problem is that most people tend to agree that the 4 freedoms are a given and important. But the same people want to see linux advance more quickly. Which of course puts them in a quandry because it's become clear that the two goals are pulling opposite directions.

I think your right on the money here. It was my fault for dropping the ball on this point and not being prepared like I should have been. I think that these are very important issues to ponder, how moving further away from the 4 freedoms by integrating more restrictive or closed software will impact upon the community as a whole.

I can't see it affecting anything unless the software is actually integrated into, say, the kernel. Even put in Richard's words, when I choose to use non-free software, I'm the biggest victim of my own actions. I just can't see how choice will taint anything. But then I'm both pragmatic and an OSS fan, so if the OSS version sucks, I wait until it doesn't before I use it.

For example, in my case I look at amarok - a year ago I griped that I loved it, but it was totally unstable. Now it's probably my single most "must have" app. I have a fairly large music library, and I wasn't happy with any of the linux offerings, so I continued to manage my music and iPod on my Mac. Then, eventually, amarok became good enough that I started using it to manage my music, generally, but still filled up my iPod on the mac. Once gnupod got good enough that I could actually use it, I ditched itunes entirely. A few months later, amarok supported the ipod better than it had (it did for a long while, but didn't support genre, artist, etc sorting). Now I use amarok exclusively for all my music needs. With the addition of magnatune music store, I'll be *buying* music with amarok soon, as well (really digging Drop Trio - funky jazz in the same vein as Galactic, but less funky, and more downtempo). At this point, I'd rather use amarok than any other music player out there - if iTunes was ported tomorrow, I wouldn't have a use for it.

Through this narrative, you can see that I had to make some "non-free" choices to meet my needs. I'm sure some folks will think I'm an asshat for soiling my hands with non-free, but to quote Conan, "TO HELL WIT YOU!" If compromise is evil, then at least consider it an evil gateway drug to the Pure F/OSS (a term I'm sure Richard doesn't care for). Maybe at some point I'll even move my music library to ogg format.

Without the ability to make concessions here and there I'd never have moved to linux as a desktop, period. I can't imagine I'm alone here.

[Patrick]

"Am I EVIL, Yes I AM!"

[bpepple]

I think the opposite, linc was incredibly rude when he ask stallmans oppinion, he interviews 23 timew in 2.50 seconds of the recording after he release his question, and then he said that he hasn't finish his question.

Either he changed his question at the middle of the respond (which is what RMS said) or he just wanted to hear something else.

I think linc ask the wrong question. Linc wanted to know if there was ways of earning money producing free software. Instead he asked how can a programmer earn a living using free software.

These are very different questions, because the first one you question the money issue and the one linc ask question the programmer. RMS did reply to the first question acuratly but linc thought he missed the point, the fact is that linc missed the point of his own question. So instead of talking about ways to make money, they talked about the programmers life.

And Richard allready answer to this question in the past and is written down at the FSF site: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

The biggest issue is that instead of waiting for RMS to finish answering, linc just started asking second and third question during RMS answer. Most of this questions were about pushing the programmer to fit on the business model question that he originally never asked.

Then it just went downhill when linc mention the 'utopian' society which was very rude IMHO.

RMS address the problem of lincs question when he said that the question has too many assumptions, or 'links', like programmer only means is to program for a living. once again they talked about the programmer instead of the actual business model.

Linc kept interrupting on and on and pretty much went on which was also rude.

Yeah, I came to the same conclusion. Seemed like Linc came in with a definite agenda, and was extremely rude. This was my first time listening to the podcast, and it certainly didn't give a good impression.

[dlz]

I've been listening to the podcast for some time now, but RMS's behavior on the show was enough to get me to sign up for the forums, see what other people thought, and express how I feel.

I think Linc was slightly rude, but at the same time I think RMS acted extremely inappropriate for most of the interview, before AND after Linc's line of questioning. He sounded very condescending the entire interview. This is the first interview I've heard with him but I have read things he's written and some of his back and forth with Linus.

RMS just seemed to repeat himself over and over again, no matter what the question was. If anything, I have to applaud the TLLTS team for not snapping at him sooner. While I understand his cause is great, his militant attitude toward everything isn't going to win him (or his cause) many friends.

I almost felt like he was insulted when he was asked to explain things, almost like he was insulted that not everyone understood exactly what he meant.