RMS can fuck right off

This isn't even in response to anything in particular, he can just fuck off


@troubleMoney I've been trying to wrap my mind around the relationship between RMS/GNU/FSF and the rest of the (F)OSS world but I'm having trouble.

Are GNU and the FSF just extensions of RMS, or are they reasonable and worth paying attention to? I'm conflicted.

>Are GNU and the FSF just extensions of RMS
RMS created GNU and the FSF. Each one of them are separated, GNU is the project/operating system the FSF is a foundation promoting software freedom.
RMS separates posts that aren't free software related on his website see: https://stallman.org


Sorry for any misunderstanding -- I'm familiar with RMS, GNU, and the FSF, I'm mostly just having difficulty reconciling the benefits of FOSS with the detrimental effects of associating with RMS.

It seems like GNU is controlled by the FSF, which is controlled by RMS. I'd love to be corrected, but both the FSF and GNU seem to inherit all of the problems RMS brings to the table, which is a shame.



I'm sure better-qualified folks have talked more about this, but:

- inaccessibe to non-techy users
- authoritarian tendencies
- bad public relations
- really awful logos
- dogmatism
- pedantry

Most people seem to be very put off by how RMS communicates his ideas to the world, and while I agree with free software I'm not sure that marketing from RMS, GNU, or the FSF is very effective.

e.g lwn.net/SubscriberLink/753646/

--inaccessibe to non-techy users--
I agree with that but the problem is that if you want to make non-tech people understand the whole thing you need two hours and a lot of them still don't get it, non-tech just want a "it just works" box. I do not like that reasoning from them but it's like that.
Also RMS doesn't normally do it in environment which isn't non-techy he goes on campus most of the time.
--authoritarian tendencies--
People manage their project like they wish RMS decided that the gnu project won't go against his principals of the four freedoms and it withstood that promise.
Torvalds does the same btw and I don't blame him for it, I don't agree with cooperating for binary blob insertions but he does a good job managing his project.
--bad public relations--
RMS isn't a PR guy it's not his job.
Also what bad public relations ? RMS is there to promote software freedom not to comply constantly with people who think X subject is more important than software freedom.
Btw his speeches is what convinced me.
You should watch them there's one I help subtitled in French and English (with the help of people)
it's the
Title: Free Software
Date: January 7, 2001
--really awful logos--
I don't mind the original gnu logo and not all of them are bad.
What dogma ? the dogma of not letting black boxes in free software ? or are you meaning something else ?
I think that's actually very important especially with RMS, there's a lot of people saying bullshit and the only way to clean that is to be the more precise/clear possible.
@christianbundy @mangeurdenuage When working with other people I consider myself lucky if my colleagues agree on all pertinent things. Expecting them to agree with everything I find important or even most things I find important would be setting myself up for disappointment. I don't expect that much unity from my friends. I may not agree with everything RMS says or everything he does, but I still don't want the FSF to kick him out. The worst he ever seems to do is annoy people.

@petit @mangeurdenuage I think that's a good attitude to have. I don't want him kicked out of any organizations, my only point is that it seems like he holds a majority of the power over organizations with thousands of members.

I support the goals of the FSF and GNU, but I'm not very interested in heavy-handed authorities -- especially when that means yielding to someone who many have problems with.

@christianbundy @mangeurdenuage I don't understand. What would you change then? What would the change cause? :/

@petit @mangeurdenuage

I wasn't saying that *I* would make a change, I asked whether GNU and the FSF are reasonable and worth paying attention to, or whether they're just extensions of RMS.

Ideally I'd like for the FSF and GNU to be democratic projects who can reach consensus on what to do and say rather than just act as mouthpieces for RMS.

From the outside, that doesn't seem to be the case, and that seems like a missed opportunity for free software as a whole.

@christianbundy @mangeurdenuage If you'd like to know more about the FSF or GNU you can visit their websites.

The FSF openly lists their campaigns. https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/

GNU projects include gcc, emacs, gdb, GIMP, GNOME, gpg, GRUB, gzip, tar, make, M4, ncurses, the R programming language, along with most basic shell utilities. (I'm posting from an instance running on software licensed under the GNU AGPL.)

Sorry if I seem curt. It's fashionable to dismiss both of these projects these days and it's grating on me.

@petit @mangeurdenuage

I assure you the problem isn't a lack of familiarity. I've been using GNU software for over a decade and have nothing but respect for the maintainers, and I take no issues with fighting propriety and copyright.

Many people have concerns with how RMS behaves and represents the free software community, and it's frustrating to have these concerns waved away as "fashionable" rather than anyone taking responsibility or accounting for the concerns of the community.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!