Richard Stallman was right since the very beginning. Every warning, every prophecy realised. And, worst of all, he had the solution since the start. The problem is not Richard Stallman or the Free Software Foundation. The problem is us. The problem is that we didn’t listen.

  • megane-kun@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 年前

    I’m aware that Richard Stallman had some questionable or inadequate behaviours. I’m not defending those nor the man himself. I’m not defending blindly following that particular human (nor any particular human). I’m defending a philosophy, not the philosopher. I claim that his historical vision and his original ideas are still adequate today. Maybe more than ever.

    This is really an important note. I’ve always maintained that while not every little one of Stallman’s ideas are gold, his ideas on things he’s got expertise on (especially open-source software) are pretty much on point—even if his ideas are a bit too idealistic and are seen as aspirational ideals rather than calls for action and the fact that a lot of them are painful for ordinary people to follow.

    • scrollbars
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 年前

      Yeah, I agree. Stallman’s philosophy has some obvious blind spots (e.g. usability) but a number of his values continue to be proven correct as technology keeps advancing.

      • megane-kun@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 年前

        Yes! For example, his “no javascript please” stance, which is unfortunately nearly impossible to follow if you’re to have any semblance of normalcy in browsing the internet, I take as an “ideal to aspire for”. If anything, his warnings against Javascript reminds me to be ever mindful of the code I invite to run in my machine.

        • Freesoftwareenjoyer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 年前

          He wants people to stop using proprietary software and that includes proprietary javascript. That principle is not impossible to follow, since some people do follow it. I run proprietary javascript myself, but that is not a valid criticism of Richard Stallman or the Free Software movement. Freedom requires sacrifices. If you don’t want to do something - that’s up to you. But that doesn’t change the fact that proprietary software is unethical and we should have higher standards as a society. His message doesn’t become incorrect just because we aren’t willing to give up some conveniences. If we all stopped using proprietary javascript, all web apps would have to become Free Software and the problem would be solved.

          • megane-kun@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 年前

            I am actually agreeing with you, it is not impossible.

            However, given that Javascript is ubiquitous in the internet nowadays, giving it up would mean practically having to forego the “normal internet experience.” Not many people are willing to go that far.

            I am not saying he is wrong. I am saying that there are people like me who, despite not being prepared to go as far as he did, still recognize that he’s right about such things.

            • Freesoftwareenjoyer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 年前

              For most people Free Software is probably a journey. You can improve your freedom gradually by slowly removing more and more proprietary software. The goal is to have as much freedom as possible. Javascript is at least sandboxed, so it won’t be able to do you as much harm as a regular program. I can’t stop using it either for now, but that’s the only proprietary software I use. Most people aren’t even willing to install a free operating system though.