Why doesn't RMS get the love he deserves?

[Wiebelhaus]

PCLOS Front page: (http://www.pclinuxos.com/)

Public Service Announcement

http://www.pclinuxos.com/images/gnu.jpg


I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as PCLinux, is in fact, GNU/PCLinux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus PCLinux. PCLinux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called PCLinux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a PCLinux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. PCLinux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. PCLinux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with PCLinux added, or GNU/PCLinux. All the so-called PCLinux distributions are really distributions of GNU/PCLinux.



~ Richard (You may call me RMS)


Why does this poor guy have to say this? Did he somewhere along the way get shafted when this thing started to take on a life of it's own? Am I misreading it or Am I misinformed? Or does this guy genuinely feel like he got screwed somehow? He's Iconic in my eyes and I'd feel sorrow for him if he didn't feel like he got the credit he deserves.

[Skripka]

Why doesn't RMS get the love he deserves?


My landlords expressly state that all furry animals must be 10lbs or less.

[earthpigg]

rms did not say that. he said something similar to that, but not that.

he did say that about GNU/Linux in general.

replacing GNU/Linux with GNU/whatever is a joke. a meme. its been going around for several months. source. (http://www.google.com/search?q=I%27d+just+like+to+interject+for+a+moment .+What+you%27re+refering+to+as) they have versions that talk about GNU/Windows, GNU/BSD, and even sillier combinations - the point being "haha, rms is a fool - look at what he is trying to take credit for!"

folks over at PCLinuxOS, apparently, has the audacity to mock rms for asserting that the GNU project may perhaps be of equal importance to the linux Kernel.

i am a bit upset at this.

edit: checked the front page of PCLinuxOS linked above. the OP was not trolling - that is indeed at their front page. wow.

[Jimleko211]

RMS originally pushed for the GNU/Linux tag because during the development of Debian, there was a fight between the "Old" Hackers, and the "New" Hackers. Old -- those around when hacking first came into being. New -- those around the age of Linus Torvalds. The Old didn't think proprietary software was good at all, the new basically said "I'll use whatever the hell does the job.".

So RMS and the main guy of Debian at the time pushed for the tag to offer unity between the hackers, so they could get the Debian project done.

I guess RMS kind of liked the tag, 'cause now he's always preaching it. In a way it's true, but an OS is not defined by applications OR the kernel. It's defined by the name. The name of that particular OS is PCLinuxOS. Not GNU/PCLinuxOS.

Get off your high horse, RMS.

[earthpigg]

Get off your high horse, RMS.

RMS did not say the quote that the deceitful individuals at PCLinuxOS are misleading you into thinking he did.

look at the website linked by OP. the quote is attributed to "Richard. You can call me rms"... Stallman is no where to be mentioned. that is no accident.

PCLinuxOS is trolling.

you can either look down at PCLinuxOS for using their front page for trolling, or you can be offended that they are mocking rms, or you can laugh at the joke, but please do not actually think rms said the quote they are attributing to 'Richard'.

[Wiebelhaus]

earthpigg , That's why I asked I'm a bit puzzled by the whole thing. I have not posted this with malicious intent in anyway , I'm genuinely confused.

[Bachstelze]

Because some people don't like him, period. Welcome to reality: RMS is not a god.

[Wiebelhaus]

Because some people don't like him, period. Welcome to reality: RMS is not a god.

Wow , I understand and respect your opinion. I honestly didn't know this thread would end up going this way , Please feel free to remove it , I'd seriously hate to be the cause of an argument thread.

[Bachstelze]

Wow , I understand and respect your opinion.

This is not my opinion, it's a fact. ;) RMS is not a god, so it is unavoidable that there will be people who don't like him, and that's the answer to your question.

[OutOfReach]

This is not my opinion, it's a fact. ;) RMS is not a god, so it is unavoidable that there will be people who don't like him, and that's the answer to your question.

No, he's not a god I sure don't worship him but I respect him and look up to him, and the way people treat him and mock him is just very ugly. It reminds me of school yard bullies.

[koenn]

Because some people don't like him, period. Welcome to reality: RMS is not a god.
noone said he was

[Icehuck]

No, he's not a god I sure don't worship him but I respect him and look up to him, and the way people treat him and mock him is just very ugly. It reminds me of school yard bullies.

Have you ever seen some of things he writes when not giving GNU slash linux speeches? With some of the stuff he says, he pretty much gets what he deserves.

[hanzomon4]

He seems to be overbearing.... arrogant,

[koenn]

RMS did not say the quote that the deceitful individuals at PCLinuxOS are misleading you into thinking he did.

PCLinuxOS is trolling.

you can either look down at PCLinuxOS for using their front page for trolling, ...
+1.
this is a low blow.

[koenn]

Have you ever seen some of things he writes when not giving GNU slash linux speeches?
most of it.


With some of the stuff he says, he pretty much gets what he deserves.
Anything in particluar ?

[Erik Trybom]

I can agree that RMS deserves to be criticized, but please keep it to the stuff that he actually said. Making stuff up to make fun of him is just wrong.

[Bachstelze]

I can agree that RMS deserves to be criticized, but please keep it to the stuff that he actually said. Making stuff up to make fun of him is just wrong.

Who was that for? I believe the PCLOS guys quoted precisely what RMS said, just replacing Linux with PCLinux (which was incredibly stupid, I don't know of any kernel named PCLinux).

[chriskin]

Have you ever seen some of things he writes when not giving GNU slash linux speeches? With some of the stuff he says, he pretty much gets what he deserves.

like what? most of his speeches seem right to me

[speedwell68]

He eats his own foot cheese...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd4PhUGPt9A

:)

[chriskin]

He eats his own foot cheese...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd4PhUGPt9A

:)

that was disgusting.-

[Icehuck]

most of it.


Anything in particluar ?

How about when he said,


"It doesn't take special talents to reproduce, even plants can do it. On the other hand, contributing to a program like Emacs takes real skill. That is really something to be proud of.

It helps more people, too."

Or when he said,

"These birth announcements also spread the myth that having a baby is something to be proud of, which fuels natalist pressure, which leads to pollution, extinction of wildlife, poverty, and ultimately mass starvation"

This was all on the emacs list.

[Katalog]

I think one of the reasons that RMS doesn't get that much love is because when he makes requests, they often come off sounding more like demands, and that gives a lot of people the impression that the guy is basically a tool. You have to admit that although he has done a tremendous amount of work in pushing the free software movement forward, he is a bit radical and people who are considered radicals are quite often very controversial figures, and as a result they don't "get the love they deserve".

As far as the whole GNU/Linux controversy goes, the story I've seen quoted most often comes from Mr. Torvalds himself, who says that it was put forth by RMS that Linux should be called GNU/Linux due to the fact that Linus used GNU tools to help build Linux, therefore in RMS opinion, no GNU gcc compiler (for example) = no Linux, so he believes that GNU should get credit for it's existence by being included in it's name. I'm sure Andrew Tannenbaum could make similar claims (and arguably with even more justification than RMS) if he were so inclined since Linux was intitially modelled after Minix to a large degree, but instead he has chosen to be more magnanimous than Mr Stallman and just let it be, so to speak. Which, now that I think about it, is probably more in keeping with the generous spirit of free software than RMS desire for recognition.

[chriskin]

I think one of the reasons that RMS doesn't get that much love is because when he makes requests, they often come off sounding more like demands, and that gives a lot of people the impression that the guy is basically a tool. You have to admit that although he has done a tremendous amount of work in pushing the free software movement forward, he is a bit radical and people who are considered radicals are quite often very controversial figures, and as a result they don't "get the love they deserve".

As far as the whole GNU/Linux controversy goes, the story I've seen quoted most often comes from Mr. Torvalds himself, who says that it was put forth by RMS that Linux should be called GNU/Linux due to the fact that Linus used GNU tools to help build Linux, therefore in RMS opinion, no GNU gcc compiler (for example) = no Linux, so he believes that GNU should get credit for it's existence by being included in it's name. I'm sure Andrew Tannenbaum could make similar claims (and arguably with even more justification than RMS) if he were so inclined since Linux was intitially modelled after Minix to a large degree, but instead he has chosen to be more magnanimous than Mr Stallman and just let it be, so to speak. Which, now that I think about it, is probably more in keeping with the generous spirit of free software than RMS desire for recognition.

i thought that R.M.S said that a modern day Linux system uses many Gnu parts, that's why it should be called GNU/Linux. Considering that Linux is the kernel, which is less than 1% of a modern day linux installation, he isn't wrong on that part.

that fact that he says it every time, that's the bad part.

[koenn]

Who was that for? I believe the PCLOS guys quoted precisely what RMS said, just replacing Linux with PCLinux (which was incredibly stupid, I don't know of any kernel named PCLinux).
They took something RMS said out of context, modified it, and (attempted to) attribute it to him.
And you don't see a problem with that ?

[Icehuck]

i thought that R.M.S said that a modern day Linux system uses many Gnu parts, that's why it should be called GNU/Linux. Considering that Linux is the kernel, which is less than 1% of a modern day linux installation, he isn't wrong on that part.

that fact that he says it every time, that's the bad part.

Except the kernel is pretty much the most important part of a linux system. Everything is designed to work with the kernel so resources can be used. All those extra things are useless without some type of kernel.

[chriskin]

Except the kernel is pretty much the most important part of a linux system. Everything is designed to work with the kernel so resources can be used. All those extra things are useless without some type of kernel.

exactly as you said . without SOME TYPE of kernel.
1)there is already work done on porting Debian to the FreeBSD kernel
2)shuttleworth said that its probably Gnu hurd's time coming soon enough

[Icehuck]

exactly as you said . without SOME TYPE of kernel.
1)there is already work done on porting Debian to the FreeBSD kernel
2)shuttleworth said that its probably Gnu hurd's time coming soon enough

Even if it's 1%, it's still the most important part.

HURD is vaporware.

[koenn]

How about when he said,

"It doesn't take special talents to reproduce, even plants can do it. On the other hand, contributing to a program like Emacs takes real skill. That is really something to be proud of.

It helps more people, too."

Or when he said,

"These birth announcements also spread the myth that having a baby is something to be proud of, which fuels natalist pressure, which leads to pollution, extinction of wildlife, poverty, and ultimately mass starvation"

This was all on the emacs list.
I thought you were talking about his essays and stuff, not quotes from a mailing list.
I don't read the emacs list, so I don't know the context of these quotes, and thus won't comment on them. They are correct, though, from a rational point of view.

[Bachstelze]

They took something RMS said out of context, modified it, and (attempted to) attribute it to him.
And you don't see a problem with that ?

The only problem I see is that it's a blatant troll. Let's move on now, it's not worth discussing for hours.

[jaxxstorm]

Even if it's 1%, it's still the most important part.

HURD is vaporware.

HURD is definitely vaporware. We'll see Duke Nukem Forever before we see HURD finished.

[Bachstelze]

Everything is designed to work with the kernel so resources can be used. All those extra things are useless without some type of kernel.

Yes, but that kernel needn't necessarily be Linux, it can be any other kernel.

The kernel is definitely not the "most important" part of a system. A system can't run without a kernel, but the same could be said of a lot of other components, so I can't see why the kernel should be more important than them.

[Icehuck]

Yes, but that kernel needn't necessarily be Linux, it can be any other kernel.

Then the BSD kernel is the major player or whatever kernel you are using. The kernel will always be the most important part.



The kernel is definitely not the "most important" part of a system. A system can't run without a kernel, but the same could be said of a lot of other components, so I can't see why the kernel should be more important than them.

I can run my machine without bash, i can run it without kde, i can run it without an xserver. I can run it without the explorer.exe shell in windows. However, I can not run it without a kernel.

[chriskin]

Even if it's 1%, it's still the most important part.

HURD is vaporware.

you avoided to talk about the already-almost-over port to freebsd kernel]

edit : i wasn't fast enough

[koenn]

Except the kernel is pretty much the most important part of a linux system. Everything is designed to work with the kernel so resources can be used. All those extra things are useless without some type of kernel.
A kernel is just as useless if it doesn't come with at least something that lets you run programs (i.e a shell of some sort), tools to manipulate files, and probably an environment that lets you write and compile programs that are compatible with that kernel. All of those were provided by GNU. so GNU/Linux isn't an unreasonable compromise, since both parts need each other to become useful.

But all of that has been explained already at length, both at gnu.org and in other threads here.


I'm off, Battlestar Gallactica is on TV.

[Icehuck]

A kernel is just as useless if it doesn't come with at least something that lets you run programs (i.e a shell of some sort), tools to manipulate files, and probably an environment that lets you write and compile programs that are compatible with that kernel. All of those were provided by GNU. so GNU/Linux isn't an unreasonable compromise, since both parts need each other to become useful.

But all of that has been explained already at length, both at gnu.org and in other threads here.


I'm off, Battlestar Gallactica is on TV.

Yes I'm very well versed on, "Free to use however you want, as long as your product isn't popular. As soon as it becomes mainstream, it needs to be named GNU/Product."

[tom66]

I guess I should say Ubuntu GNU/Linux/Xorg/GNOME because I couldn't use it without Xorg/GNOME and these are both pretty big components.

[koenn]

I guess I should say Ubuntu GNU/Linux/Xorg/GNOME because I couldn't use it without Xorg/GNOME .
In that case, I guess you should.

[koenn]

Yes I'm very well versed on, "Free to use however you want, as long as your product isn't popular. As soon as it becomes mainstream, it needs to be named GNU/Product."
oh come on, that gnu/linux thing dates from long before linux was anything vaguely resembling mainstream. You're just making stuff up now.

[Bachstelze]

oh come on, that gnu/linux thing dates from long before linux was anything vaguely resembling mainstream. You're just making stuff up now.

And whether it is mainstream now would be arguable, shall I add.

[Icehuck]

oh come on, that gnu/linux thing dates from long before linux was anything vaguely resembling mainstream. You're just making stuff up now.

You got me, I should have said popular instead. My bad

[koenn]

You got me, I should have said popular instead. My bad
even if you'd said "popular", that's pretty ralitive as well.

In any case, it's a matter of perspective: the GNU guys see Linux as a component in their GNU operating system, while the Linux folk consider whatever free (or open source) software is out there as an add-on to their Linux.
Yet the GNU guys gets flamed all over the place for their point of view, while ...

doesn't make sense.

[Chronon]

This is not my opinion, it's a fact. ;) RMS is not a god, so it is unavoidable that there will be people who don't like him, and that's the answer to your question.

I don't get what deities have to do with this. Being a god confers no a priori right to love or respect. Love (or respect) must be built and earned. It is not a given.

[earthpigg]

we are re-hashing old debates and arguments, folks.

what is new here is that a mainstream distribution of Linux and/or GNU/Linux and/or GNU/yourmom/xorg/Linux/KDE and/or whatever-you-want-to-call it is blatently trolling one of the first guys to be at all effective in resisting the trend of closing software and denying fundamental freedoms to end users.

most radicals are radical. get over it, folks at PCLinuxOS. it comes with the territory. conventional people do not resist norms. radicals do what makes sense to them, and don't give a damn what anyone else says. this is a good thing, and absolutely necessary -

- else, we Americans may as well go line up to purchase Microsoft Windows. Keeping in mind, of course, that Microsoft has a crown-licensed monopoly on operating systems, and you will be paying a 40% sales tax to the Crown of England. individuals using other operating systems will be drawn and quartered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawn_and_quartered) as traitors.

Also, every European either needs to immediately adopt Catholicism or submit to the Justice of the Holy Inquisition.

we need radicals - from Leonidas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonidas), to George Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_washington), to Martin Luther (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_luther) and dudes named for him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr), to Churchill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill), to Pope John Paul II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_paul_ii), to Bob Marley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Marley), to Ron Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul).

to mock them for being radical is ridiculous.

to expect our radicals to be radical in only one aspect of their lives and thought processes and be even remotely conventional in all other areas is idiocy.

even if you dont like or disagree with some of the folks on my list above, surely all will acknowledge that we need people like them?

[Icehuck]

even if you'd said "popular", that's pretty ralitive as well.

In any case, it's a matter of perspective: the GNU guys see Linux as a component in their GNU operating system, while the Linux folk consider whatever free (or open source) software is out there as an add-on to their Linux.
Yet the GNU guys gets flamed all over the place for their point of view, while ...

doesn't make sense.

With things like St Ingucius and Windows7sins what do you expect? GNU/FSF and it's ideals are great and all. If they even put half the effort of the windows7sins campaign into gnash, then gnash wouldn't be horrible.

[chriskin]

we are re-hashing old debates and arguments, folks.


they might be old debates, but the people that take part on the debate changed

can't see why that fact that someone else talked about it already means anything


With things like St Ingucius and Windows7sins what do you expect? GNU/FSF and it's ideals are great and all. If they even put half the effort of the windows7sins campaign into gnash, then gnash wouldn't be horrible.

+1 to that

[Chronon]

we are re-hashing old debates and arguments, folks.

what is new here is that a mainstream distribution of Linux and/or GNU/Linux and/or GNU/yourmom/xorg/Linux/KDE and/or whatever-you-want-to-call it is blatently trolling one of the first guys to be at all effective in resisting the trend of closing software and denying fundamental freedoms to end users.

most radicals are radical. get over it, folks at PCLinuxOS. it comes with the territory. conventional people do not resist norms. radicals do what makes sense to them, and don't give a damn what anyone else says. this is a good thing, and absolutely necessary -

- else, we Americans may as well go line up to purchase Microsoft Windows. Keeping in mind, of course, that Microsoft has a crown-licensed monopoly on operating systems, and you will be paying a 40% sales tax to the Crown of England. individuals using other operating systems will be drawn and quartered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawn_and_quartered) as traitors.

Also, every European either needs to immediately adopt Catholicism or submit to the Justice of the Holy Inquisition.

we need radicals - from Leonidas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonidas), to George Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_washington), to Martin Luther (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_luther) and dudes named for him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr), to Churchill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill), to Pope John Paul II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_paul_ii), to Bob Marley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Marley), to Ron Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul).

to mock them for being radical is ridiculous.

to expect our radicals to be radical in only one aspect of their lives and thought processes and be even remotely conventional in all other areas is idiocy.

even if you dont like or disagree with some of the folks on my list above, surely all will acknowledge that we need people like them?

Well said!

[Chronon]

With things like St Ingucius and Windows7sins what do you expect? GNU/FSF and it's ideals are great and all. If they even put half the effort of the windows7sins campaign into gnash, then gnash wouldn't be horrible.

Do you think that the people who work on PR are the ones doing the coding? I don't think this Malthusian argument holds up if you look carefully.

[chriskin]

Do you think that the people who work on PR are the ones doing the coding? I don't think this Malthusian argument holds up if you look carefully.

no, but they work while being paid

the same money could be given to (hire more) developers.

[Chronon]

no, but they work while being paid

the same money could be given to (hire more) developers.

True enough. However, I don't have any information on how many man hours went into that campaign. I don't really feel I am in a position to second guess the administration of the FSF. I do think advertising and outreach are important if the goal is to attract more users. I also know that development (especially of software that's meant to implement proprietary technology) does not happen in a smooth, linear fashion, so I would not feel comfortable making claims about a specific number of man hours noticeably increasing the perceived quality of a product.

[chriskin]

True enough. However, I don't have any information on how many man hours went into that campaign. I don't really feel I am in a position to second guess the administration of the FSF. I do think advertising and outreach are important if the goal is to attract more users. I also know that development (especially of software that's meant to implement proprietary technology) does not happen in a smooth, linear fashion, so I would not feel comfortable making claims about a specific number of man hours noticeably increasing the perceived quality of a product.

i think that this campaign qualifies as "preaching" and "bashing the enemy" not "advertisement of our ideal"

if you read the link on my sig, you might get to believe -like i do- that by preaching in such a way, noone will listen.

[Chronon]

i think that this campaign qualifies as "preaching" and "bashing the enemy" not "advertisement of our ideal"

if you read the link on my sig, you might get to believe -like i do- that by preaching in such a way, noone will listen.

Your original statement had nothing to do with hard sell versus soft sell. You said, "If they even put half the effort of the windows7sins campaign into gnash, then gnash wouldn't be horrible." (I don't really see how you can demonstrate that this is true.) As you can see, this doesn't criticize the direction of the campaign. It claims that tangible gains in performance would have been realized by dedicating half of the effort (I assume you mean man hours) to gnash that were put into that PR campaign.

[chriskin]

Your original statement had nothing to do with hard sell versus soft sell. You said, "If they even put half the effort of the windows7sins campaign into gnash, then gnash wouldn't be horrible." (I don't really see how you can demonstrate that this is true.) As you can see, this doesn't criticize the direction of the campaign. It claims that tangible gains in performance would have been realized by dedicating half of the effort (I assume you mean man hours) to gnash that were put into that PR campaign.

i didn't say that :)

i think that you are mistakenly under the impression that me and icehuck are the same person :)

[Chronon]

i didn't say that :)

i think that you are mistakenly under the impression that me and icehuck are the same person :)

Oops. My bad. :)

I should say "the original statement" (etc.) then.

I may have been confused because you "+1"ed that quote.

A proper response is that nobody has been talking about the effectiveness of that particular PR campaign. I expressed doubt of Icehuck's claim (not yours, sorry about that) but I never made any particular statement of support for a given ad campaign and this discussion hasn't really had anything to do with PR tactics as far as I can tell.

[travisn000]

...folks over at PCLinuxOS, apparently, has the audacity to mock rms for asserting that the GNU project may perhaps be of equal importance to the linux Kernel.

i am a bit upset at this.

edit: checked the front page of PCLinuxOS linked above. the OP was not trolling - that is indeed at their front page. wow.


They took something RMS said out of context, modified it, and (attempted to) attribute it to him.
And you don't see a problem with that ?

Just to set the record straight, the postings on the PCLinuxOS website and forum where the result of some cracker, not any of the PCLinuxOS team.

The situation has been rectified. More info can be found on the PCLinuxOS forums..

http://www.pclinuxos.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=58&topic=61757.msg499157#msg499157

[Skripka]

Just to set the record straight, the postings on the PCLinuxOS website and forum where the result of some cracker, not any of the PCLinuxOS team.

The situation has been rectified. More info can be found on the PCLinuxOS forums..

http://www.pclinuxos.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=58&topic=61757.msg499157#msg499157

This is disconcerting. Earlier this week a hacker got root access on the Arch Linux bug tracker, using the recent kernel exploit.


2 linux websites attacked in one week? Eeeeek.

[BuffaloX]

even if you dont like or disagree with some of the folks on my list above, surely all will acknowledge that we need people like them?

+1 to that.
RMS paved the way for everybody else who are "just" following in his footsteps, whether they like it or not.


Just to set the record straight, the postings on the PCLinuxOS website and forum where the result of some cracker, not any of the PCLinuxOS team.


What a relieve, thank you for posting this.

[munky99999]

Nature of the Neckbeard I'm afraid. People fear the neckbeard.

Linux Kernel 10megs ~
Gnu.. Well the directory for gnu is about 10megs :D

RMS has contributed so significantly more to linux. Yet Linus gets all the credit. Why? It's the neckbeard.

Too smart to be able to coexist with other humans. People fear RMS for his intelligence.

[earthpigg]

Linux Kernel 10megs ~
Gnu.. Well the directory for gnu is about 10megs :D

im going to suggest that the size of the program, collection of programs, or software stack is pretty much irrelevant when everything else is taken into account, excluding extreme examples.

edit: meant to convey this--


im going to suggest that the size of the program, size of the collection of programs, or size of the software stack is pretty much irrelevant when everything else is taken into account, excluding extreme examples.

ie: is GNU dd better/worse than BSD dd because its file size is bigger or smaller..... or because of functionality, robustness, etc?

[dragos240]

My answer to the first question:

He's a little.........

[earthpigg]

.....eccentric.

an absolute necessity for a radical.

[MikeTheC]

No, he's not a god I sure don't worship him but I respect him and look up to him, and the way people treat him and mock him is just very ugly. It reminds me of school yard bullies.

Allow me to quote from Babylon 5.


"Greatness is never appreciated in youth, called pride in midlife, dismissed in old age, and reconsidered in death. Because we cannot tolerate greatness in our midst, we do all we can do destroy it."

-- Lady Morella, third wife of the late Emperor Turhan

[Mateo]

He's an extremist, and I dislike extremists, as a rule.

[JillSwift]

He challenges established ideas. Nobody likes someone who challenges established ideas, they threaten working systems.

But, nothing changes or improves if ideas aren't challenged.

(I suppose I'll now be accused of being an RMS worshiper. Fallacy of the excluded middle is very popular here.)

[mkendall]

I like the neck beard theory. You know who else had a neck beard? Rasputin.

Come to think of it, has anyone ever seen RMS and Rasputin in the same room at the same time? Hmmm....

[yabbadabbadont]

I haven't read the entire thread (yet), but has anyone mentioned the incident where he picked something off of his foot... and ate it. (In front of an audience no less)

Edit: In case anyone thinks that I am making this up, just search youtube for it.

[penguindrive]

He challenges established ideas. Nobody likes someone who challenges established ideas, they threaten working systems.

But, nothing changes or improves if ideas aren't challenged.

(I suppose I'll now be accused of being an RMS worshiper. Fallacy of the excluded middle is very popular here.)


we are re-hashing old debates and arguments, folks.

what is new here is that a mainstream distribution of Linux and/or GNU/Linux and/or GNU/yourmom/xorg/Linux/KDE and/or whatever-you-want-to-call it is blatently trolling one of the first guys to be at all effective in resisting the trend of closing software and denying fundamental freedoms to end users.

most radicals are radical. get over it, folks at PCLinuxOS. it comes with the territory. conventional people do not resist norms. radicals do what makes sense to them, and don't give a damn what anyone else says. this is a good thing, and absolutely necessary -

- else, we Americans may as well go line up to purchase Microsoft Windows. Keeping in mind, of course, that Microsoft has a crown-licensed monopoly on operating systems, and you will be paying a 40% sales tax to the Crown of England. individuals using other operating systems will be drawn and quartered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawn_and_quartered) as traitors.

Also, every European either needs to immediately adopt Catholicism or submit to the Justice of the Holy Inquisition.

we need radicals - from Leonidas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonidas), to George Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_washington), to Martin Luther (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_luther) and dudes named for him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr), to Churchill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill), to Pope John Paul II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_paul_ii), to Bob Marley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Marley), to Ron Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul).

to mock them for being radical is ridiculous.

to expect our radicals to be radical in only one aspect of their lives and thought processes and be even remotely conventional in all other areas is idiocy.

even if you dont like or disagree with some of the folks on my list above, surely all will acknowledge that we need people like them?

Very well said. \agree

[earthpigg]

He's an extremist, and I dislike extremists, as a rule.

why do you dislike Sparticus?

and what bad thing did Nelson Mandela do to you?

[penguindrive]

He's an extremist, and I dislike extremists, as a rule.

That makes you an extremist. /selfhate

[schauerlich]

Reading the philosophy page (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html) on GNU.org was enough for me to dislike him.

Richard Stallman on Open Source vs Free Software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html):

A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, “I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get a copy?” This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.
The free software activist will say, “Your program is very attractive, but not at the price of my freedom. So I have to do without it. Instead I will support a project to develop a free replacement.” If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.

Richard Stallman on the LGPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html):

Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free software developers need to make advantages for each other. Using the ordinary GPL for a library gives free software developers an advantage over proprietary developers: a library that they can use, while proprietary developers cannot use it.I thought he was about peace, love and cooperation? And how does he want to achieve that - by preventing others from using free software?

Richard Stallman on "bad words" (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html):

“Digital Rights Management”
“Digital Rights Management” refers to technical schemes designed to impose restrictions on computer users. The use of the word “rights” in this term is propaganda, designed to lead you unawares into seeing the issue from the viewpoint of the few that impose the restrictions, and ignoring that of the general public on whom these restrictions are imposed.
Good alternatives include “Digital Restrictions Management”, “Digital Restrictions Malware”, and “digital handcuffs”.

“PC”
It's ok to use the abbreviation “PC” to refer to a certain kind of computer hardware, but please don't use it with the implication that the computer is running Microsoft Windows. If you install GNU/Linux on the same computer, it is still a PC.
The term “WC” has been suggested for a computer running Windows.

Get it? It's a toilet joke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flush_toilet#Water-closet_.28WC.29.2C_the_name).

Controlling the way you speak goes a long way to influencing how people think.

Richard Stallman on MyDoom (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/my_doom.html):

Despite these prevalent evils, never in my life have I seen anyone try to condemn all New Yorkers on the basis of the wrongs that only some have committed. I have not seen anyone assume that all the citizens of New York are guilty of murder, violence, robbery, perjury, or writing proprietary software.Really? Writing proprietary software is an evil akin to murder and robbery?


You get the idea. Read some of the stuff there and decide for yourself.

[KiwiNZ]

He is just one of thousands. He deserves no more than any one of the other thousands.

[marchwarden]

Really? Writing proprietary software is an evil akin to murder and robbery?

I agree with some of RMS' ideas, but not this one. It is statements like this that make RMS appear detached from reality and an embarrassment (IMO) to the OSS community.

IMO, there is a case for having both proprietary and open source software, but not one to the exclusion of the other

[samjh]

I like Richard Stallman, to an extent. That extent stretches from his founding of the Free Software Foundation, to his enthusiasm and encouragement of the open source movement. But it stops there.

The problem I feel is that Mr Stallman is like many revoluntaries. They started off with great ideas, and made significant moves to make those ideas real. Then after substantial momentum had been gained and other, fresher figures come into the spotlight, the revolutionary founder trumpets louder and louder about himself and his contributions, while his real contributions make less and less difference. Richard Stallman was once a very significant figure, but after the FSF and the GNU project gained lives of their own, other leaders and important figures popped up, eclipsing Stallman. Now, he's trumpeting about himself, GNU, FSF, etc., and trying -- it seems -- to keep the spotlight on himself when his time is well past.

The GNU/Linux saga is just one of those things.

Australia was founded by Britain, and implemented much of the British laws and systems of government. But Australia isn't called Britain/Australia. Neither is Canada called Britain/Canada. Nor the United States. GNU/Linux is a redundant name, and we'd be better off just calling GNU/Linux for what it really is: just Linux.

[scottuss]

I appreciate that it's kinda different, but people didn't call Windows 95 "Windows95/DOS"

People don't call Mac OS X "MacOSX/Mach" or "OSX/BSD" or whatever you want to call it.

So really, does it actually matter that we don't call Linux GNU/Linux?

It's easier to say Linux and hell of a lot less confusing for newbies.

[koenn]

I appreciate that it's kinda different, but people didn't call Windows 95 "Windows95/DOS"

People don't call Mac OS X "MacOSX/Mach" or "OSX/BSD" or whatever you want to call it.


And by that logic, GNU/Linux might as well just be called "GNU".
but you can add "/linux" to give credit to the guy who wrote that kernel.

:)

[Tristam Green]

(I suppose I'll now be accused of being an RMS worshiper. Fallacy of the excluded middle is very popular here.)
On all sides.

[scottuss]

And by that logic, GNU/Linux might as well just be called "GNU".
but you can add "/linux" to give credit to the guy who wrote that kernel.

:)

Absolutely correct, if the part dropped is the kernel.

However, marketing Windows 95 as an addition to DOS would have been stupid. Just as marketing OS X as an add-on for the kernel.

In this sense, marketing Linux as an add-on for GNU would have made most sense, but seen as GNU was not a full O/S as-is, it makes sense to just call the whole lot Linux.

But, yes, you are right :D

[JillSwift]

On all sides.
There are sides?

[schauerlich]

There are sides?

Of any given debate, yes.

[Tristam Green]

There are sides?

Always. On a debate, you have at least two sides.

If it's single-sided, it's not a debate. It's an agreement.

[schauerlich]

Always. On a debate, you have at least two sides.

If it's single-sided, it's not a debate. It's an agreement.

This isn't an argument!


M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: Not at all!

[Sealbhach]

RMS is a visionary, his vision of ultimate freedom in software is probably not likely to come to pass (at least not anytime soon) but people with a vision have always attracted controversy. .

[koenn]

Always. On a debate, you have at least two sides.
... but the problem is some people seem to think there can not be more than 2 'sides', so anyone who posts anything remotely positive about gnu and/or rms, must be an rms worshiping gnu zealot.

[schauerlich]

RMS is a visionary, his vision of ultimate freedom in software is probably not likely to come to pass (at least not anytime soon) but people with a vision have always attracted controversy. .

Especially when they're crazy.

[koenn]

Especially when they're crazy.
you think rms is crazy ?

[schauerlich]

you think rms is crazy ?

He puts writing proprietary software up there with murder and robbery. See here (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/my_doom.html).

More examples here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=7895469&postcount=69).

Most of this article (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html) is pretty ridiculous too.


The list keeps going on.

[RiceMonster]

you think rms is crazy ?

You don't?

[Tristam Green]

you think rms is crazy ?

The toe-cheese video was enough for me.

[JillSwift]

Of any given debate, yes.


Always. On a debate, you have at least two sides.

If it's single-sided, it's not a debate. It's an agreement.

Debate? There's a debate?

Discussions are more fun. Discussions do not assume either a correct or incorrect stance exist, it's just an exchange of ideas. That's what this forum is for - discussions, and lighthearted ones at that.

Also, Stallman is a person, not a debate point.

Any discussion of a person is nothing more than an exchange of value judgments about that person, therefore purely subjective, therefore not a debate. It is also terribly rude to discuss a person where the person can not defend themselves.

So, I reiterate: It's the questioning of established ideas that gets people upset.
And I repeat what another has said: The question in the OP has been clearly answered.
Finally I suggest: This thread has meandered far away from the original post's intent, fails to meet the forum's intent as a result, and generally reflects poorly on the community.

[koenn]

The toe-cheese video was enough for me.
spend some time in a traffic jam and watch people eat out of their nose.
They're all crazy ?

[koenn]

You don't?
no.

[MikeTheC]

Also, Stallman is a person, not a debate point.
He could be.

Someone might not believe in the existence of Richard. :eek:

Imagine a whole class of Linux users who are armsists.

[Tristam Green]

Stallman is a person, not a debate point.

Sure, that's a given, and doesn't need to be stated. He isn't, but his behavior is.

OP asked a question. That question is "does this guy really feel like he's been shafted on his achievements, or am I blind to something here?"

NUMEROUS responses outline why RMS is a target for ridicule - his erratic behavior - which is undeniable.

The very first poignant response from HymnToLife


Because some people don't like him, period. Welcome to reality: RMS is not a god.

summed it up nicely, and started the debate.

Sorry, that's how it works. Digression from a topic of discussion into debate; it's the same with dinner conversation, it's the same with married couples "talking about things", and it's the same with any other subject on the planet.

[Bachstelze]

He puts writing proprietary software up there with murder and robbery. See here (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/my_doom.html).

And you put robbery up there with murder.

[Tristam Green]

spend some time in a traffic jam and watch people eat out of their nose.
They're all crazy ?

Hell yes.

[koshatnik]

Debate? There's a debate?

Discussions are more fun. Discussions do not assume either a correct or incorrect stance exist, it's just an exchange of ideas. That's what this forum is for - discussions, and lighthearted ones at that.

Also, Stallman is a person, not a debate point.

Any discussion of a person is nothing more than an exchange of value judgments about that person, therefore purely subjective, therefore not a debate. It is also terribly rude to discuss a person where the person can not defend themselves.

So, I reiterate: It's the questioning of established ideas that gets people upset.
And I repeat what another has said: The question in the OP has been clearly answered.
Finally I suggest: This thread has meandered far away from the original post's intent, fails to meet the forum's intent as a result, and generally reflects poorly on the community.

This wins a coconut. Well put.

[koenn]

He puts writing proprietary software up there with murder and robbery. See here (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/my_doom.html).
Maybe you should read that again. He's using an analogy to explain the concept of 'guilt by association'.



He puts writing proprietary software up there with murder and robbery. See here (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/my_doom.html)

More examples here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=7895469&postcount=69).

Most of this article (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html) is pretty ridiculous too.

The list keeps going on.
There are a few constants in his writing : he has ideas and ideals and develops their consequences logically and rationally. Few people have the courage to do that.
Besides that, not only does he write about these idea(ls), he chooses to live by them.

If that's crazy, we need more crazy people.

[JillSwift]

He could be.

Someone might not believe in the existence of Richard. :eek:

Imagine a whole class of Linux users who are armsists.:P


Sure, that's a given, and doesn't need to be stated. He isn't, but his behavior is.

OP asked a question. That question is "does this guy really feel like he's been shafted on his achievements, or am I blind to something here?"

NUMEROUS responses outline why RMS is a target for ridicule - his erratic behavior - which is undeniable.

The very first poignant response from HymnToLife



summed it up nicely, and started the debate.

Sorry, that's how it works. Digression from a topic of discussion into debate; it's the same with dinner conversation, it's the same with married couples "talking about things", and it's the same with any other subject on the planet.
He may have eccentricities that make him the target of ridicule, but that hardly excuses ridiculing him. If you don't like his ideas, discuss his ideas. If you don't like him, talk to him about it if it's so important, or ignore him.

HTL's "poignant" statement was just that. An appeal to emotion that was all things that need not be brought up: Straw man, no one thinks him a god. Appeal to pride, rousing a defense of ideas. Excluded middle, there is either godhood or banality. I've no idea how a moderator can defend saying that knowing full well the effect it would have.

Finally, cite evidence that discussions must digress into debate. That bald assertion is absurd on its face, we've all discussed things before, without agreement and without debating points. If you have not, then I suggest trying it some time. It's quite fun.

[koenn]

This wins a coconut. Well put.
I second that.

[Bachstelze]

HTL's "poignant" statement was just that. An appeal to emotion that was all things that need not be brought up: Straw man, no one thinks him a god. Appeal to pride, rousing a defense of ideas. Excluded middle, there is either godhood or banality. I've no idea how a moderator can defend saying that knowing full well the effect it would have.

What? Is "putting words he's never said in HTL's mouth" a national sport on these forums?

[koenn]

Hell yes.
:)

[LowSky]

JillSwift, rms is a public figure in the open source community. Therefor his ideas, habits, and practices are up for debate, including his toe-jam eating and conceptual ideas that link proprietary software to murder.

As for as rms not getting the love he deserves, well it simply comes down to his own personal image. He looks like a homeless man missing his "will work for food sign", he chastises Linux users, by demanding the product be called GNU/Linux (I dont know about you but saying Gnu makes me feel queasy, rms is the basically a "Knight who says Gnu!"... bad Monty Python reference, perhaps), he throws himself into political agenda and frequently posts on his website that he supports the Green party, and many congressional bills. He's is very much that friend we all have we are embarrassed to have over our house or to be seen with in public, but for whatever reason we still hang out with him.

[JillSwift]

What? Is "putting words he's never said in HTL's mouth" a national sport on these forums?
Red herring. I've done no such thing.


Welcome to reality: RMS is not a god.

I am discussing exactly what you said and its implications.

[Tristam Green]

HTL's "poignant" statement was just that. An appeal to emotion that was all things that need not be brought up: Straw man, no one thinks him a god. Appeal to pride, rousing a defense of ideas. Excluded middle, there is either godhood or banality. I've no idea how a moderator can defend saying that knowing full well the effect it would have.

He doesn't have to defend it. For the simplest explanation, it's the truth. There are people out there (and in here) who act like rms is infallible. That's not the case. He may be a revolutionary (really, he's reactionary, because he's going against the established movement, but that's perfectly ok and beside the point), but *not* everything that comes from the man's mouth is truth.

There is no excluded middle. Stop dreaming that there is.

[Bachstelze]

He doesn't have to defend it. For the simplest explanation, it's the truth. There are people out there (and in here) who act like rms is infallible. That's not the case. He may be a revolutionary (really, he's reactionary, because he's going against the established movement, but that's perfectly ok and beside the point), but *not* everything that comes from the man's mouth is truth.

There is no excluded middle. Stop dreaming that there is.

Thanks, I won't have to post that myself. :p

[Tristam Green]

JillSwift, rms is a public figure in the open source community. Therefor his ideas, habits, and practices are up for debate, including his toe-jam eating and conceptual ideas that link proprietary software to murder.

OH MY GOD, someone actually gets it.



As for as rms not getting the love he deserves, well it simply comes down to his own personal image. He looks like a homeless man missing his "will work for food sign", he chastises Linux users, by demanding the product be called GNU/Linux (I dont know about you but saying Gnu makes me feel queasy, rms is the basically a "Knight who says Gnu!"... bad Monty Python reference, perhaps), he throws himself into political agenda and frequently posts on his website that he supports the Green party, and many congressional bills. He's is very much that friend we all have we are embarrassed to have over our house or to be seen with in public, but for whatever reason we still hang out with him.

Watch it, Low, you'll get accused of an ad hominem attack against rms even though you're saying the blatant truth about how he looks.

[JillSwift]

JillSwift, rms is a public figure in the open source community. Therefor his ideas, habits, and practices are up for debate, including his toe-jam eating and conceptual ideas that link proprietary software to murder.The idea that a public figure can be ridiculed for his or her odd habits or ideas is nothing more than an supported assertion. That this assertion is shared by many does in no way make it any less a mean thing to do.
Secondly, he has never linked proprietary software to murder. He has used murder in an analogy about proprietary software.


As for as rms not getting the love he deserves, well it simply comes down to his own personal image. He looks like a homeless man missing his "will work for food sign", he chastises Linux users, by demanding the product be called GNU/Linux (I dont know about you but saying Gnu makes me feel queasy, rms is the basically a "Knight who says Gnu!"... bad Monty Python reference, perhaps), he throws himself into political agenda and frequently posts on his website that he supports the Green party, and many congressional bills. He's is very much that friend we all have we are embarrassed to have over our house or to be seen with in public, but for whatever reason we still hang out with him.
That he is different from you and those you choose to be with is also not an excuse to ridicule him. That humans have an instinct to seperate people into "my in-group" and "everyone else" is no excuse to ignore our intellectual ability to accept that these differences do not amount to being "better" or "worse" then one's own in-group.

[JillSwift]

OH MY GOD, someone actually gets it.No, you just agree with him. That does not make it right.


Watch it, Low, you'll get accused of an ad hominem attack against rms even though you're saying the blatant truth about how he looks.
Those were value judgments, subjective things. There is no "truth" about it.

[Tristam Green]

The idea that a public figure can be ridiculed for his or her odd habits or ideas is nothing more than an supported assertion. That this assertion is shared by many does in no way make it any less a mean thing to do.


You keep saying this, and yet I haven't seen a single person actually disagree with you. Why is that?


That he is different from you and those you choose to be with is also not an excuse to ridicule him. That humans have an instinct to seperate people into "my in-group" and "everyone else" is no excuse to ignore our intellectual ability to accept that these differences do not amount to being "better" or "worse" then one's own in-group.

My friends are better than your friends. There, I said it.

Of course, I'm kidding, I'd never be that shallow or assume to think that. I like to think of what you just said as the good old "everyone's special, but if everyone's special, then nobody's special" rationale.

[JillSwift]

He doesn't have to defend it. For the simplest explanation, it's the truth. There are people out there (and in here) who act like rms is infallible. That's not the case. He may be a revolutionary (really, he's reactionary, because he's going against the established movement, but that's perfectly ok and beside the point), but *not* everything that comes from the man's mouth is truth.

There is no excluded middle. Stop dreaming that there is.

"Act like he's infallible"? So, you infer from action? That's a subjective value judgment. It's not "truth".

The middle so completely excluded: Folks who agree with his ideas without thinking he's found some form of "ultimate truth" or without finding themselves being dogmatic about it.


Thanks, I won't have to post that myself. :p

[Bachstelze]

JillSwift, rms is a public figure in the open source community. Therefor his ideas, habits, and practices are up for debate, including his toe-jam eating and conceptual ideas that link proprietary software to murder.


No, you just agree with him. That does not make it right.

So you're saying that what LowSky said is not right? Okay. Whad did LowSky say? That RMS's "ideas, habits, and practices are up for debate." And you think that is not right. So it is totally forbidden to debate about RMS's ideas. So he's a god to you. My point exactly. :) Should I remind you how it is called when people are forbidden to debate about ideas?

[JillSwift]

You keep saying this, and yet I haven't seen a single person actually disagree with you. Why is that?Why would I have any idea what your perceptions stem from?




My friends are better than your friends. There, I said it.

Of course, I'm kidding, I'd never be that shallow or assume to think that. I like to think of what you just said as the good old "everyone's special, but if everyone's special, then nobody's special" rationale.
If you "like to think that" then you "fail to understand" my point.

[JillSwift]

So you're saying that what LowSky said is not right? Okay. Whad did LowSky say? That RMS's "ideas, habits, and practices are up for debate." And you think that is not right. So it is totally forbidden to debate about RMS's ideas. So he's a god to you. My point exactly. :) Should I remind you how it is called when people are forbidden to debate about ideas?
That would be a lovely argument had I actually said anything of the sort.

There is one point that Low made that is wrong, that the person and their personal habits are up for ridicule, debate, or discussion simply because they have become a public figure.

ALL ideas are open for debate, as I have already said - in so many words.

[Bachstelze]

There is one point that Low made that is wrong, that the person and their personal habits are up for ridicule, debate, or discussion simply because they have become a public figure.

Well, yeah. Like it or not, that's called freedom of speech. And it's what RMS himself defends, by the way.

[KiwiNZ]

One can disagree with public figures. One cannot denigrate them on these forums. EG call them crazy.

[doas777]

OP: simple. RMS is a good guy and i'm glad he's out there.

that said, he is more than a bit egocentric, and that is exemplified in his refusal to do an interview with anyone, unless they refer to linux as GNU/Linux so that his ego gets a rub too.

Its kinda hard to like someone like that. I respect him, but I don't like him.
that make sense?

[koenn]

I suppose I'll now be accused of being an RMS worshiper. Fallacy of the excluded middle is very popular here.)


... So he's a god to you. ...

irony, anyone ?

[koenn]

Well, yeah. Like it or not, that's called freedom of speech. And it's what RMS himself defends, by the way.
I've been told on occasion that freedom of speech can be limited.

By the CoC of these forums, eg.

[JillSwift]

Well, yeah. Like it or not, that's called freedom of speech. And it's what RMS himself defends, by the way.
Freedom of speech involves the discussion of ideas.

Slander and libel, on the other hand, involve the discussion of people.

Of course, I'm discussing mores here, not law. Mores I know this form's rules support, since were I to stop discussing ideas and start describing people, I'd get an infraction or two.

[KiwiNZ]

I am closing this for a cool off period

[Bachstelze]

I've been told on occasion that freedom of speech can be limited.

By the CoC of these forums, eg.

I don't believe the argument is about these forums. If I posted something making fun of RMS on my blog (which, just to make things clear, I did not do, nor have the intent to do), I bet JillSwift could very well have said the same things she said here.

(And no, I'm not using my mod powers to continue the argument after the thread has been closed. Kiwi had not yet posted when I hit Reply.)