RMS has been right about so much and continues to be proven right again and again. And he has written and maintained so much software that is the bedrock of the modern internet. I’m bewildered by the prevalent anti-RMS sentiment I see so frequently on “hacker” news. Is he opinionated? Definitely. Vocal and perhaps even forceful about asserting his opinions? Yep! But guess what, this is _his_ software and FSF vision we collectively decided to build so much on top of over the last several decades. He gets to call the shots until he really does step down and until then, we’ll, that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. Lets stop talking about him like he’s an infirm wingnut who’s past his expiration date now. His message and position has stayed the same since day one and frankly I think more of the people that depend on his work should revere and respect that a bit more instead of the relentless attitude of entitlement he seems to meet so often. There’s a crowd that has complained and continues to do so wrt Linus and it’s just as bad of a look imo.
> I’m bewildered by the prevalent anti-RMS sentiment I see so frequently on “hacker” news.
Why would it bewildering? The guy created a great thing, but is now one of the main impediments in the way of its success. I'd rather have his principles outlive him. His creation is more important than he is.
I appreciate the debate and tension around this issue on HN. I think it is dangerous to consider a situation as complex and multifaceted as RMS to be settled and not worth discussion.
That being said, I 100% agree with you! I don't care if everyone considered RMS to be a saint. Free software is about freedom and software, not a cult of personality.
I’m bewildered by the prevalent anti-RMS sentiment I see so frequently on “hacker” news.
Look at who many people here work for. Look at the power that Big Tech holds. Look at my dead comments and realise that there's a crucial battle boiling beneath the surface, one that they definitely don't want you to know about. The war on general-purpose computing is continuing and they are going after those taking the side of freedom.
This comment is a few decades late. Big Tech doesn't think of RMS, because he's really irrelevant and doesn't stand in their way.
Why? Because he does a bad job in his role of movement leader and made himself irrelevant.
He's irrelevant even in niche circles -- how often do places like HN speak of anything related to RMS other than the drama of him being removed and later re-added to the FSF? Compare with the coverage of other prominent figures. For them we typically have regular non-drama news of what they're actually doing. For RMS we mostly have discussions of "is he a dinosaur?" and once in a while, "Stallman was right about something he said 10 years ago".
I think you'd find most people who work in those companies agree with Stallman at a fundamental level, and broadly support Free Software and the ideas around it. Very few of them support Stallman or think his behavior is helping anything, however.
I think you'll find that they actually don't, and are often openly hostile to his ideas and Free Software. Companies generally prefer more permissive licensing. OSI Open Source was designed for them.
They use morality to strike against powerful men and in turn feel a snippet of power themselves.
No need to contribute to free software to the same degree as him to prove him wrong, that's too much trouble. Their contribution shall be retribution. A destructive action, instead of a more commited creative one.
"but there is genius in their hatred
there is enough genius in their hatred to kill you
to kill anybody
not wanting solitude
not understanding solitude
they will attempt to destroy anything
that differs from their own
