RMS, Free software and the Ubuntu CDs

[ubuntu at rio.vg]

Daniel Carrera wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-01-07 at 09:39 -0400, ubuntu at rio.vg wrote:
>> RMS is a bit of a nut.  To him, FSF is a religion.  Heck, I remember at
>> one point he was wearing robes with an old hard drive platter on his
>> head as a halo.
> 
> Uhmm... the hard disk platter thing was humour. Geez! If all you can do
> is take a joke out of context and call him nuts because of that, then
> you really have nothing. Look, the man has faults, but the worst thing I
> can find against him is that he's picky with language. That's only a
> minor fault, it's more annoying than anything else.

I was there, it was creepy.  If it was just the platter, I'd agree, but
when combined with the robe, it was creepy.  Perhaps it is an overly
emotional response, but I wanted to mention how each of them is
personally, not just in their place in the broader movement sense.

>> He might very well post that he thinks the current
>> path Gnome path of removing advanced options from the GUI entirely is a
>> bad idea, but if you read it, it's an analysis, his opinion, and he
>> isn't demanding it be changed.
> 
> You're quick to forgive Linus' human failings but at the same time look
> for every reason to hang RMS.

I don't see reasoned analysis and honesty as a human failing...

>> RMS, on the other hand, demands that anything that doesn't conform to
>> his religious view be changed,
> 
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man
> tries to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on
> unreasonable men."
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't see this as a fault, I think it's a feature. I
> also think that calling him religious is fair, because you are adding an
> emotive word that doesn't need to be there. Just say that he wants
> others (e.g. Ubuntu) to conform to his views. That would be a fair
> statement, without any emotive language thrown in. To that I would say
> that a lot of groups (Amnesty International, Green Pleace, etc) also
> want others to change to conform to their views. And that all progress
> in the world happens because of people like these.

I respect your opinion.  As I said, RMS is necessary.

>> RMS would rather have pure software than working software.
>> Torvalds would rather have working software than pure software.
> 
> These statements are mostly right, but "working software" is an
> exaggeration, which is usually unfair. Instead, let's say that RMS will
> compromise features for purity. Also consider that RMS *did* use
> proprietary software when he was making GNU, so it's not like he would
> never go hear proprietary.

I would further say:

RMS would like his software to work.
Torvalds would like his software to be open source.

Perhaps a better way of putting it:  When told about a new piece of
software, what is their first question?

RMS's first question is "Is the software free?"
Torvald's first question is "Does the software work?"

>> Maybe I'm biased because my thought process is much closer to Torvald's
>> than RMS's.  Both, I think, are necessary for the open source movement.
> 
> This seems like a very fair thing to say. In my case, I don't really
> subscribe to either Torvalds' or RMS' point of view. I have a different
> POV that is fairly different from either of theirs'.

I wouldn't say I subscribe to Torvald's view as much as his view is very
much like my own.