Careercow Richard Stallman / rms - Dirty old communist hobo lookalike who eats his own footskin. HURD release: Never

[Jump]

Richard Stallman's Return Denounced by the EFF, Tor Project, Mozilla, and the Creator of Rust - Slashdot

Sunday IT Wire counted up the number of signatories on two open letters, one opposing Richard Stallman's return to the FSF and one supporting it. - The pro-Stallman letter had 3,632 individual signers - The anti-Stallman letter had 2,812 individual signers (plus 48 companies and...

news.slashdot.org

A long-time developer of GCC, the compiler created by the GNU Project and used in Linux distributions, has issued a call for the removal of Free Software Founder Richard Stallman from the GCC steering committee. Nathan Sidwell [also a software engineer at Facebook] said in a post directed to the committee that if it was unwilling to remove Stallman, then the panel should explain why it was not able to do so.

I don't even really like RMS or GNU but seeing who is trying to cancel him makes me pick his side. Its a power play by the corporate silicon valley scum. The biggest problem with GNU/free software isn't some crusty old hippy. It's the fact that they let shitty companies like IBM, Facebook, and google take over.

Finally, the Free Software Foundation itself has now pinned the following tweet at the top of its Twitter feed:
No LibrePlanet organizers (staff or volunteer), speakers, award winners, exhibitors, or sponsors were made aware of Richard Stallman's announcement until it was public.

Why is the FSF supporting TWITTER and not Mastodon/fediverse? None of these people in charge of the big free software organizations actually support free software. At least RMS is a true believer.

 

[Rukario]

Richard Stallman's Return Denounced by the EFF, Tor Project, Mozilla, and the Creator of Rust - Slashdot

Sunday IT Wire counted up the number of signatories on two open letters, one opposing Richard Stallman's return to the FSF and one supporting it. - The pro-Stallman letter had 3,632 individual signers - The anti-Stallman letter had 2,812 individual signers (plus 48 companies and...

news.slashdot.org

I don't even really like RMS or GNU but seeing who is trying to cancel him makes me pick his side. Its a power play by the corporate silicon valley scum. The biggest problem with GNU/free software isn't some crusty old hippy. It's the fact that they let shitty companies like IBM, Facebook, and google take over.



Why is the FSF supporting TWITTER and not Mastodon/fediverse? None of these people in charge of the big free software organizations actually support free software. At least RMS is a true believer.




View attachment 2039001

Conflicts of Interest are the rule and not the exception in the modern tech industry.

 

[grump]

I'm honestly not gonna listen to a 37-minute recording that should have been an article, and I'm obviously more skeptical of the whole free software thing than some people in this thread, but it seems to me that if Stallman's job is to be an advocate who changes people's minds about things, then he's remarkably bad at it. He's always been an absolutely impossible person to work with and done all sorts of offputting things even before the sexual harassment blowup. His hygiene, his lack of interest in appealing to anyone who isn't a stereotypical nerd out of an 80s movie, his insistence on tying together his software crusade to 100 other external political issues, etc etc. Combined with that, it seems like the only reason that the Linux products that are out there caught on is because people eventually made them actually work, which he also had almost nothing to do with - sure, many Linux OSes have some GNU code that he worked on in the Reagan administration in them, but that was around for 20 years going nowhere before a tremendous amount of work from people who would rather Stallman dropped dead actually made the system viable for the way it's used in real products by anyone outside of the recreational programming community. There's a lot of praise for Stallman here as somehow succeeding or contributing to the success of the things he advocates when it seems like he's been a tremendous net negative or irrelevant to them for some time.

Bill Gates is eliminating malaria and if you met him in a bar he could talk to you about something other than computers and politics for an hour. Stallman should consider the fact that he's WAY less personally appealing than that guy despite 35 years in a self-created PR position.

Incidentally Gates and Stallmans time at Harvard overlapped. In one of Cass Sunsteins books he notes in the dorms that Stallman was brilliant, eccentric and intense. By comparison Gates was a dullard.

Stallman doesn't care what others think of him, he only cares about his message. But he's too uncompromising and blinded to do something as basic as groom himself to help his delivery.

Bill Gates is a sociopath. A brilliant sociopath. His fame and fortune is built upon a mountain of f'ed over competitors and colleagues and all he had to do to make everybody forget about it is throw a bunch of money into your face. I know all is fair in love and capitalism and Gates can do what he wants with .....his money and he's doing some good things (and some not so good things) but you gotta be pretty naive to think he's doing all this out of the milk of human kindness. What do you buy when you have everything? Why sainthood of course, sainthood and a legacy. This charity act of his is remarkably similar to what any intelligent completely selfinterested person would do and remarkably devoid of signs of truly selfless sacrificial action. Be highly visible in your dogooding while retaining ironfisted control and consolidating power and shifting policy to your desires behind the scenes. Maybe he should cut some of the strings on that cash a bit more. Maybe even compensate the people he screwed over a bit more. Maybe if they weren't cleaned out by him they would be doing the same or even more of the charity he does and get to enjoy the accolades he's hogging. Why are we even praising him for 'changing the world' when we admit is sordid climb to be able to do so? Thats not necessarily noble its every dictator and mad scientists wet dream. Stalin and Pol Pot would change the world in positive ways if they got in the right position to not have to worry about other concerns. A mere handful of years ago Bill Gates was a ruthless business main in singleminded pursuit of aims to benefit himself. What makes you think he suddenly changed and why?

Its the ultimate chad move f*^k the world and remake it to your desires and have the world love you for it. Its like a bank robber using his stash to get elected mayor for life. Got you all fooled. Definitely smarter but far far more dangerous than some stinky hippy nerd.

 

[haunted vagina]

I'm not really planning to be Bill Gates's lawyer here but let me just suggest three things:

*The overall economic benefit from the post-1980 computerization revolution is nearly incalculable, everything you touch traces back to the fact that people who are not brilliant Harvard-educated computer scientists are able to use computers to interface with things like global supply chains, instantaneous communication with no marginal cost, digital distribution of entertainment products, and so on. What Gates and to an extent Jobs and everyone else whose businesses are oriented towards providing products that the average consumer and employee can use understand, and Stallman refuses to accept because it makes him so much less special, is that inventing something that you have to be Stallman to comprehend is almost insignificant in its social impact compared to inventing the middleman products (Windows and Office) that allow seven billion people to actually make use of that UNIX server backend that you need a degree to approach. Because this is a website where a lot of people are oriented more like Stallman than like businesspeople it's easy to overlook that having the big vision on how to actually shepherd society through something as huge as the transition to using computers for everything, and the ability to actually see it through, is way more rare and valuable than being able to code.

*I stand by my point that it's relevant that Richard Stallman is a screeching autistic baby who literally is on video sitting on the floor and crying over someone interrupting his speech, because his only modes are "literally forget that We Live In A Society and start stripping off my clothes while singing pirate shanties about text editors" and "be so terrified of human interaction that I have to white-knuckle my way through a 60 minute talk I've rote-memorized while completely dissociating from my surroundings" with no in-between whatsoever. His entire fucking job is to convince people that he's right about free software. He is a salesman trying to change people's minds about what products to use. The fact that he's this terrible at human interaction despite insisting on filling that role is why he's an ultimate cow and why he doesn't have any useful allies in his current situation.

*I guarantee that Bill Gates has a favorite kind of red wine, an opinion on who is going to win the NBA Finals this year, and a lot of stories about amusing things his kids did, and if you had to sit through a baseball game with either him or Stallman and you weren't interested in hearing about open source and the Green Party, your choice would be extremely easy. If Gates is a "sociopath" then it just means you're choosing the much more bearable of two mentally ill people.

 

[legtard respecter]

so somebody just made a half assed node.js thingy that tracks people who signed the support letter
https://github.com/sticks-stuff/highlight-RMS-supporters/
as you can see, /g/ found it and its really going down well with them:

(original threads where they found it)
https://boards.4channel.org/g/thread/80881965
https://archive.md/4jmWt

 

[Likely]

so somebody just made a half assed node.js thingy that tracks people who signed the support letter
https://github.com/sticks-stuff/highlight-RMS-supporters/
as you can see, /g/ found it and its really going down well with them:
(original threads where they found it)
https://boards.4channel.org/g/thread/80881965
https://archive.md/4jmWt

This is extremely funny. The twitter shitpit is beginning


Also, i didnt realize that red hat (the very successful software company selling enterprise linux) has pulled funding for the FSF. They were one of the most major donors. This is going to hurt the FSF coffers in a meaningful way.

https://archive.md/Dlsu4

 

[legtard respecter]

Also, i didnt realize that red hat (the very successful software company selling enterprise linux) has pulled funding for the FSF. They were one of the most major donors. This is going to hurt the FSF coffers in a meaningful way.

red hat are largely responsible for a corporate takeover of linux with their GNOME and systemd stuff anyways so i wont miss them

 

[Knight of the Rope]

so somebody just made a half assed node.js thingy that tracks people who signed the support letter
https://github.com/sticks-stuff/highlight-RMS-supporters/
as you can see, /g/ found it and its really going down well with them:
View attachment 2039721
(original threads where they found it)
https://boards.4channel.org/g/thread/80881965
https://archive.md/4jmWt

Everyone got their bingo cards ready? Let's play "I wonder what kind of person codes something like this"!

https://twitter.com/stick_twt

 

[grump]

I'm not really planning to be Bill Gates's lawyer here but let me just suggest three things:

*The overall economic benefit from the post-1980 computerization revolution is nearly incalculable, everything you touch traces back to the fact that people who are not brilliant Harvard-educated computer scientists are able to use computers to interface with things like global supply chains, instantaneous communication with no marginal cost, digital distribution of entertainment products, and so on. What Gates and to an extent Jobs and everyone else whose businesses are oriented towards providing products that the average consumer and employee can use understand, and Stallman refuses to accept because it makes him so much less special, is that inventing something that you have to be Stallman to comprehend is almost insignificant in its social impact compared to inventing the middleman products (Windows and Office) that allow seven billion people to actually make use of that UNIX server backend that you need a degree to approach. Because this is a website where a lot of people are oriented more like Stallman than like businesspeople it's easy to overlook that having the big vision on how to actually shepherd society through something as huge as the transition to using computers for everything, and the ability to actually see it through, is way more rare and valuable than being able to code.

*I stand by my point that it's relevant that Richard Stallman is a screeching autistic baby who literally is on video sitting on the floor and crying over someone interrupting his speech, because his only modes are "literally forget that We Live In A Society and start stripping off my clothes while singing pirate shanties about text editors" and "be so terrified of human interaction that I have to white-knuckle my way through a 60 minute talk I've rote-memorized while completely dissociating from my surroundings" with no in-between whatsoever. His entire fucking job is to convince people that he's right about free software. He is a salesman trying to change people's minds about what products to use. The fact that he's this terrible at human interaction despite insisting on filling that role is why he's an ultimate cow and why he doesn't have any useful allies in his current situation.

*I guarantee that Bill Gates has a favorite kind of red wine, an opinion on who is going to win the NBA Finals this year, and a lot of stories about amusing things his kids did, and if you had to sit through a baseball game with either him or Stallman and you weren't interested in hearing about open source and the Green Party, your choice would be extremely easy. If Gates is a "sociopath" then it just means you're choosing the much more bearable of two mentally ill people.

Oh I won't deny that Gates has benefited humanity in some major ways on his quest for himself. Specifically vs RMS he showed there are just some areas free software can't compete with commercial. And overall he's had a far bigger impact for good and ill.

I agree in your assessment that RMS has basically been useless compared to Bill Gates in most everything except in this one area of standing up to the SJW plague...which in my book makes him ultimately in a way a better man than Gates. Its not that much bravery or sacrifice to do the popular good thing. For all of Gates much greater material success. And its orders of magnitude greater it took the fat smelly hippy to make the unpopular stand (for now at least) on the strength of his convictions.


Its the age old question of consequentialism vs deontology.

Unless you think as I do that this woke nonsense will have severe consequences. In which case RMS wins on both counts

 

[Eli Whitney]

Everyone got their bingo cards ready? Let's play "I wonder what kind of person codes something like this"!

https://twitter.com/stick_twt

View attachment 2040303
View attachment 2040304
View attachment 2040307
View attachment 2040342
View attachment 2040366

I love how heavily autisum has been weaponized by both sides in this battle.

 

[thx1138]

lubuntu includes proprietary software, such as drivers and cpu microcode. I believe the only computers rms currently will use are systems that have hardware that happen to be completely open and run libre architectures, such as most variants of risc v

Libre, that was it. Thank you for the correction.

Stallman is a creepy kid-luster.

 

[ditto]

I'm not really planning to be Bill Gates's lawyer here but let me just suggest three things:

*The overall economic benefit from the post-1980 computerization revolution is nearly incalculable, everything you touch traces back to the fact that people who are not brilliant Harvard-educated computer scientists are able to use computers to interface with things like global supply chains, instantaneous communication with no marginal cost, digital distribution of entertainment products, and so on. What Gates and to an extent Jobs and everyone else whose businesses are oriented towards providing products that the average consumer and employee can use understand, and Stallman refuses to accept because it makes him so much less special, is that inventing something that you have to be Stallman to comprehend is almost insignificant in its social impact compared to inventing the middleman products (Windows and Office) that allow seven billion people to actually make use of that UNIX server backend that you need a degree to approach. Because this is a website where a lot of people are oriented more like Stallman than like businesspeople it's easy to overlook that having the big vision on how to actually shepherd society through something as huge as the transition to using computers for everything, and the ability to actually see it through, is way more rare and valuable than being able to code.

*I stand by my point that it's relevant that Richard Stallman is a screeching autistic baby who literally is on video sitting on the floor and crying over someone interrupting his speech, because his only modes are "literally forget that We Live In A Society and start stripping off my clothes while singing pirate shanties about text editors" and "be so terrified of human interaction that I have to white-knuckle my way through a 60 minute talk I've rote-memorized while completely dissociating from my surroundings" with no in-between whatsoever. His entire fucking job is to convince people that he's right about free software. He is a salesman trying to change people's minds about what products to use. The fact that he's this terrible at human interaction despite insisting on filling that role is why he's an ultimate cow and why he doesn't have any useful allies in his current situation.

*I guarantee that Bill Gates has a favorite kind of red wine, an opinion on who is going to win the NBA Finals this year, and a lot of stories about amusing things his kids did, and if you had to sit through a baseball game with either him or Stallman and you weren't interested in hearing about open source and the Green Party, your choice would be extremely easy. If Gates is a "sociopath" then it just means you're choosing the much more bearable of two mentally ill people.

Bill Gates is a sociopath

 

[wokelizard]

Kind of funny how being open pedophilia advocate didn't cause him to lose his position. Only when he defended the actions of human trafficker Epstein, MIT deemed that he was too inconvenient to retain. It says a lot about the state of modern academia how James Watson gets unpersoned for trying to explain group disparities, while Stallman have been able to defend pedophilia for years.

He didn't defend Epstein, he condemned Epstein. He did defend his (dead, by then) friend Minksy, by saying that 'assault' was possibly an incorrect verb to use, if the (17? 19? year old) female presented as willing and Minsky had no reason to think otherwise. If that even happened, given Minsky's wife said she was with him the whole time. He does seem to be guilty of wrongthink regarding whether consensual sex with someone that (because of their age, in some jurisdictions) is statutory rape should be called rape, given how loaded that word is.

So, I looked at the letter. Honestly, I've tried my best to keep up with RMS's utterances over the years, but I think I missed the transphobic one(s). What did he say?

I think he wrote an essay objecting to the use of the pronoun 'they' with non-binaries due to the ambiguity in some sentences with multiple subjects, and that it's already used in English as a plural, and suggested his own pronoun instead?

My takeaway is that he seems very particular about accurate use of English and will correct people in situations where non-autistic people would have massive mental alarm bells screaming not to get involved or say anything. Same with his sense of humour. Probably made a joke about pollen being plant spunk and getting some up his nose, which makes him guilty of some kind of nasal sex with plants fetish.

 

[WeWuzFinns]

He didn't defend Epstein, he condemned Epstein. He did defend his (dead, by then) friend Minksy, by saying that 'assault' was possibly an incorrect verb to use, if the (17? 19? year old) female presented as willing and Minsky had no reason to think otherwise. If that even happened, given Minsky's wife said she was with him the whole time. He does seem to be guilty of wrongthink regarding whether consensual sex with someone that (because of their age, in some jurisdictions) is statutory rape should be called rape, given how loaded that word is.

Epstein groomed and trafficked the girl when she was still a minor. While RMS defends a person who possibly benefitted from this, it is seen as a very bad hill to die on. Non-autistic people want their names no where near human trafficking and pedophilia, yet alone do any sort of damage control for them.

 

[Cardenio]

Epstein groomed and trafficked the girl when she was still a minor. While RMS defends a person who possibly benefitted from this, it is seen as a very bad hill to die on. Non-autistic people want their names no where near human trafficking and pedophilia, yet alone do any sort of damage control for them.

That's the thing, Stallman is a high functioning autistic person. And a high functioning autist can't grasp when the words they say are disturbing to others. And they get in trouble when they don't shut the fuck up.

Stallman wasn't trolling when he argued that people should be allowed to have sex with animals as long as the animal is a willing participant. It's more or less the same argument he made about adults having sex with kids. Both concepts are absolutely revolting to any healthy being including many autists. But Stallmam will write shit like this because he doesn't grasp or perhaps care that he'll look like a freak to others.

 

[Govt. Shitposting Machine]

Stallmans own views really remind me of people around his age now in like the 70s and 80s who were into more radical politics. Like they'd say some shit about whatever their views are, sounds reasonable enough, and then they start going off about their weird takes on sex. Though I guess that's not much different now anyway.
Also in case this is sort of relevant, FSF put out a statement:

(link) (archive)

Feels like vagueposting, they don't seem to be picking a side. Grab that popcorn doe because the shitflinging is only going to increase from here!

 

[Norman B. Normal]

I add my voice to the chorus that can't believe RMS didn't already have a thread here. He might well be the biggest lolcow of all time, and yet the world we live in would be so much worse if this crazy hobo hadn't fixated on an idea 40 years ago and never let go of it. It really makes ya think.

I think Eric Raymond himself is deserving of a thread...

I wholeheartedly support this, and by "support" I mean "would subscribe to, read, hand out stickers, and occasionally post arch, condescending messages that are probably not as clever as I think they are".

 

[Likely]

That's the thing, Stallman is a high functioning autistic person. And a high functioning autist can't grasp when the words they say are disturbing to others. And they get in trouble when they don't shut the fuck up.

Stallman wasn't trolling when he argued that people should be allowed to have sex with animals as long as the animal is a willing participant. It's more or less the same argument he made about adults having sex with kids. Both concepts are absolutely revolting to any healthy being including many autists. But Stallmam will write shit like this because he doesn't grasp or perhaps care that he'll look like a freak to others.

Right, and if your job is to be a spokesperson and leader and set the tone and focus for the organization, and you can't fucking distinguish when your words are disturbing, either stfu or find a new job.

I add my voice to the chorus that can't believe RMS didn't already have a thread here. He might well be the biggest lolcow of all time, and yet the world we live in would be so much worse if this crazy hobo hadn't fixated on an idea 40 years ago and never let go of it. It really makes ya think.


I wholeheartedly support this, and by "support" I mean "would subscribe to, read, hand out stickers, and occasionally post arch, condescending messages that are probably not as clever as I think they are".

View attachment 2043159

ESR's entire "career" is a wet fart and he will likely die in obscurity, feeling completely disconnected as he uses the last of his fading platform to fruitlessly rail against an ever changing culture and world. Maybe he'll fork ntp again and feel like he accomplished something.

RMS' copyleft efforts galvanized an entire subculture and led to one of the biggest positive trends in technology, information security, and culture; and. the echoes from his impact onculture will be felt for decades to come. However, I don't think RMS has contributed meaningfully since he "won" back in the early aughts.

Anyways if this was about like some weird unknown person and not someone caught in a stupid internet culture war, the majority of people defending RMS here would be demanding he be thrown in a woodchipper, which is partially why I think this whole thing is so funny.

If you look at it purely from a "is this man currently good at his job" perspective, then it's unambiguous that he should never have been put back on the board (and instead be given some well-paying but mean-nothing clever acroynym title like Freedom Advocate for Gnu)

 

[ditto]

I think Eric Raymond himself is deserving of a thread...

Sex Tips For Geeks: On Being Good In Bed​

By Eric S. Raymond

 

[Likely]