Dave Winer: Why I stand up for Stallman

http://scripting.com/stories/2011/10/31/whyIStandUpForStallman.html

by guan • 15 years ago

423 252 15 years ago

wyclif4• 15 years ago

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that any blog post by Dave Winer must reference how he "blazed a trail" or some variation thereof.

donohoe2• 15 years ago

Did you know he invented RSS, and its the most relevant thing on the web today?

You'd never guess.

I met Dave a few times back when I was with the tImes though I doubt he remembers me. He's nice enough in person but he has his own personal reality distortion field.

I had to stop following him in Google Reader and Twitter to stay sane.

wyclif4• 15 years ago

That "I invented RSS" line is utter bullshit of the highest order. Ramanathan V. Guha and Dan Libby of Netscape created it back in 1999. Do not pass go, do not drink the Kool-aid.

watmough• 15 years ago

This comment contributes nothing to the discussion.

Dave's gone ahead and written a stand-out post that reflects upon bullying in general, and in tech in particular.

Why not take the reasonable viewpoint that whilst we might not agree with everything RMS does or says, he deserves enormous respect for dedicating his life to a quest that has benefited most of us in one way or another.

wyclif4• 15 years ago

Actually, I'm kind of burned out on the "bullying" meme. But the point of my comment had nothing to do with RMS, it had to do with Dave's level of self-aggrandizement. That some people on HN buy the "I invented RSS" lie is visible upstream.

ajscherer• 15 years ago

I disagree. This comment supports Dave's argument about as well as any comment I could imagine reading.

lkrubner2• 15 years ago

I strongly agree with the point that wyclif is making. Dave has a bad habit of self-promotion, and he needs to be called out on it. The myth that Dave invented RSS is an especially extreme example.

Back on October 4th, 2006, I wrote up a fairly thorough overview of the controversy surrounding RSS: "RSS has been damage by in-fighting among those who have developed it". I documented in detail the extent to which David Winer interfered with other people's work, while claiming credit for that work. Please read this if you do not know much about the history of this conflict:

http://www.teamlalala.com/blog/2006/10/24/rss-has-been-damag...

pjscott2• 15 years ago

This comment contributes nothing to the discussion.

On the contrary, it neatly illustrates what the OP is talking about.

brlewis3• 15 years ago

Dave is a good example for HN, where there's too much aversion to self-promotion. See also patio11's recent post touching on the value (or lack thereof) of modesty: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3170766

FYI, when you invoke "truth universally acknowledged", people familiar with that phrase's origin will expect it to be followed by a bad assumption. See http://www.paulgraham.com/iflisp.html

sp332• 15 years ago

How does "my ideas should be considered on their merits" jibe with major self-promotion?

raganwald4• 15 years ago

This comment reminds me of bikeshedding. There was this whole post, full of emotion and anger and sadness and conflict, written about people and behaviour and social ostracism, and you climbed onto your soapbox to say THAT?

I can’t help but feel that this is not your best work. I have no idea whether it’s true or not, but Dave’s personality is irrelevant to the argument, which is about online communities and cyber-bullying.

Unless, perhaps, you are trying to demonstrate how it works? Have I failed to catch the subtle way you demonstrate that if someone is disliked for something, no matter what they say and how important it is, people will focus on why they dislike that person?

michaelchisari• 15 years ago

you climbed onto your soapbox to say THAT?

In Critical Theory discussions, it's called "derailing", and once you have a name for it, it becomes even more frustrating.

Notice how now, we're not discussing the original ideas of the post, but are completely pushed into a tangential discussion.

At least HN has threaded discussions. When it happens in flat discussions like Facebook, it's an order of magnitude more annoying.

scott_s3• 15 years ago

So, here's the problem I have: I agree with you. But I also had the same reaction the parent did. It's an irrational, unfair response, but I am so tired of reading Winer's writing that I find I'm not capable of considering his points. I even know this about myself, yet I still read the comments here, then I still read his post.

Short version: yes it's unfair, but yes, in this case, I'm unable to separate the message from the messenger.

sull• 15 years ago

the man routinely clarifies his involvements or lack thereof in the stuff that he is given credit for by others or by he himself. bottom line, he has been involved in important Internet endeavors and prior art. so you better believe that he will speak of it when applicable. i see faults in DW's personality and technical opinions and on occasion will point them out (as a nobody in his world). but i am completely willing to read his words and observe his works despite any of the shortcomings. i know my own faults and would hope that those faults would not deter other peoples willingness to read or listen to me when i have something to say.

davidhansen• 15 years ago

Could someone more knowledgeable about internet community infighting explain what the hell Winer is talking about when he makes vague reference to being ostracized, persecuted, etc?

Was there some epic battle that is so well-known that Winer doesn't feel the need to explain or even give footnotes for?

jleader2• 15 years ago

I wasn't involved at the time, but what I've gathered over the years is that the early history of blogging and rss involved competing standards and personal and technical rivalries. My understanding is that Winer is an ardent self-promoter, quite opinionated, and rubs some people strongly the wrong way. He's created a bunch of cool and interesting stuff, and proudly claims credit for stuff some people don't think he deserves credit for. I don't really know who's right and who's wrong, I suspect there's at least a little fault on all sides.

I think if Winer had explained or given footnotes, it would have distracted from the point of what I thought was a very powerful essay, but then I agree with him about Stallman.

lkrubner2• 15 years ago

Dave Winer can claim credit only for the 2.0 version of RSS. The earliest version of RSS was invented by Dan Libby at Netscape. In 2006 I wrote up a thorough overview of the history of RSS up to that point:

http://www.teamlalala.com/blog/2006/10/24/rss-has-been-damag...

fragsworth• 15 years ago

Everyone hates on his lack of tact. It has been made worse by his unfortunate recent comment on Steve Jobs. It's not infighting, it is the community almost as a whole.

jleader2• 15 years ago

There's also been a lot of people using his lack of tact to point out how weird he is, and how much they dislike him, which is kind of sad.

Sometimes, the worst oppressors are the formerly oppressed, and I think the same may apply to bullying. There's no scorn like the geek's scorn for someone geekier than they consider acceptable.

nobody31• 15 years ago

Mr Stallman recently said that although he regretted Mr Job's death, he wasn't sorry that the creator of the walled garden of locked down consumer computing devices was no more.

This caused some discussion along the lines of Mr Stallman :

1) should be hunted down and killed for mentioning the sainted Mr Jobs

2) is the only one with the courage to stand up and say what he believes.

(delete as appropriate)

andymoe2• 15 years ago

Dave is someone who has strong opinions and has been involved in things like RSS and web logging for many many years. He is often early to the party or the driving force behind a lot of things we take for granted today. RSS, podcasting, blogging, XML-RPC, SOAP, significant work on outliners.

Often when others join the party and he has something to say about their implementation or contribution he will say it in a pretty direct manner. This has led to some interesting spats. Some that come to mind:

RSS vs ATOM

Harsh/sarcastic words and criticism by Mark Pilgrim (dive into python guy)

Aaron Swartz wrote a service to watch for edits in Dave's blogs posts a long time ago to see if he was chaining "history."

Finally, just scroll down on this page you will see that the general reaction seems to be more negative than usual. A lot of time resorting to personal attacks.

For those of you who don't know his writing he has stuff online back to '95 or maybe earlier and it would serve the younger techies well to go back and take a look with an open mind.

rcade6• 15 years ago

That wasn't Swartz. The late[1] Mark Pilgrim wrote the Winer Watcher software.

1: Late as in dead from the Internet since 10/4/2011, not dead as in life.

rcade6• 15 years ago

Dave Winer's feeling butthurt about the bad press he got in 2004 over abruptly taking 3,000 blogs offline at his free hosting site Weblogs.Com without giving those users any notice:

http://lawmeme.research.yale.edu/modules.php?name=News&f...

A year later he sold Weblogs.Com without all those freeloaders to VeriSign for $2.3 million, so you'd think he'd feel pretty good regardless.

But nobody nurses a grudge like him. Except maybe me.

parfe3• 15 years ago

From another post of his: "About open source and whether I have the standing to discuss it, I've made a huge contribution to open source with the 2004 release of Frontier under the GPL. I was releasing code long before the terms free software or open source existed. Even so, as you'll see, I don't believe in the boundaries, I think ideas should freely cross the boundaries, and they do." http://scripting.com/stories/2008/08/10/howViralIsGpl.html#p...

I had no idea what substantial contribution this guy provided. Turns out his company, UserLand, eventually GPL'd a content management system called Frontier http://frontierkernel.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UserLand_Software#Frontier

While I personally have not heard of it, the author believes quite strongly in its importance.

drumdance2• 15 years ago

Dave Winer is widely regarded to have invented both RSS and blogging.

parfe3• 15 years ago

After seeing some other comments I went and looked into it. It seems Winer is the one who thinks he invented RSS.

Reality seems to say multiple competing XML formats for content syndication existed around the same time. Someone took some features of Winer's format and combined it with an existing one and called it RSS. Shrug

And on inventing blogging I read up thanks to wiki [1], as usual, and lo and behold! The claim his blog is one of the oldest is sourced! To an interview in which he claims it about his own blog, and then discounts it a sentence later.

I have no opinion on if this guy actually influenced as much of tech history as he seems to think, but history has either been very unkind to him, or he promotes himself beyond the facts.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blogging

[2] http://news.cnet.com/2008-1082-985714.html

rcade6• 15 years ago

That would be a neat trick, since RSS was created at Netscape a full year before Winer got involved.

http://www.rssboard.org/rss-history

Over time, the number of Internet technologies Dave Winer didn't invent approaches zero.

drumdance2• 15 years ago

To clarify, I don't have a dog in this hunt. I was just responding to the original comment about "who is this Dave Winer guy?"

revscat• 15 years ago

The first blogger I ever encountered was, of all people, Bruce Campbell. He was doing regular, personal updates to his website way back around 2000.

The term "blogging" came a good time after this.

dustinupdyke3• 15 years ago

If you agree with Schopenhauer on "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." and if you accept that the space Dave operates is populated by hackers, entrepreneurs and lots of other people looking for the next big thing, then his point is particularly poignant:

  > Okay, you say it's weird. And I say weird is good. People 
    who show originality openly, without fear, are people I 
    admire. And people I stand up for.

Well put Dave. I agree.

edit: Fixed grammatical error.

nasmorn• 15 years ago

I would say either we all demand parrots for our business trip in tge future or Schopenhauer lost a lot of credibility here.

estel• 15 years ago

The way that that quote gets used doesn't make sense to me. Even given that all truth does pass through those three stages, that doesn't mean that something passing through the first two stages is especially likely to be ever accepted as self-evident.

lyso• 15 years ago

Right. They laughed at Einstein... But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

dustinupdyke3• 15 years ago

That is perspective.

Used in the context of looking forward, its just positive reinforcement.

ugh2• 15 years ago

Ridicule and violent opposition may be a necessary conditions for something to be true (not sure whether I agree with that but that doesn’t really matter), but they are certainly not sufficient.

Causification2• 15 years ago

It is a very common flaw in reasoning that one party assumes that the opposition disagrees because they are scared or secretly agree. Atheists are all secretly christians, homophobes are all secretly gay, liberals are scared of "the truth."

People who mock Stallman for taking his shoe off and eating things he picked off his foot in the middle of a presentation are not terrified of him shattering their paradigm. They just think it's gross.

icebraining7• 15 years ago

But people who use it as if it somehow disproves his position on the ethics of software are stupid or dishonest. Simple as that.

Causification2• 15 years ago

Except that kottke didn't say anything at all about Stallman's ethics, position on software, or the FSF. He just said it was ridiculous for him to put two paragraphs about parrots in his rider. Simple as that.

Herring• 15 years ago

Stallman is a walking PR nightmare, and you're getting mad at human nature?? I don't believe this.

99.9% of humans won't take you seriously if you eat your toejam. That's normal. Stallman is nearly the worst thing to happen to the FSF. He should sit back & let Eben Moglen do the talking.

dasil003• 15 years ago

The way your comment was going, I seriously thought you were going to say that people had a closet desire to publicly eat toejam.

kevinalexbrown• 15 years ago

I'm not sure Stallman needs "standing up for." The Kottke post from Winer had a quote from Stallman's rider, and that's about it. http://kottke.org/11/10/richard-stallmans-rider .

Some people think Stallman's weird, but I'm certain he's decided his beliefs and attitudes are worth it. He made that decision on his own, as his own person, and I'm not sure he needs Winer to come save him from the big bad bullies.

blahedo• 15 years ago

That's the part that puzzled me. The comment was only that the parrot clause was "up there with" other extremely specific rider clauses. And the Van Halen clause is these days pretty widely known as an interesting system hack rather than mere eccentricity or weirdness. The Kottke post didn't come across to me as mocking at all, actually. (Unless you see "crazy" as exclusively of negative valence, I suppose.)

zem2• 15 years ago

could you explain to me why you think stallman's parrot clause is crazy, or even overly specific? all he's saying is it would be nice if there were a friendly parrot he could see. the specific parts are telling people why they should not go out of their way to buy a parrot simply to make him happy.

raganwald4• 15 years ago

I also stand up for Stallman:

http://raganwald.posterous.com/i-also-stand-up-for-stallman

alperakgun• 15 years ago

we -from the future of the universe- also stand up for stallman http://www.augmentedmadness.com/we-from-the-future-also-stan...

rcade6• 15 years ago

Regarding your blog entry, I don't think it's instructive to compare the way adults respond to an extremely blunt spoken person to your child being bullied. Stallman's an adult who doesn't pull punches -- he described Steve Jobs as "evil" right after his death. Is it bullying for him to get counterpunched, or just robust dialogue? I vote door number two.

As for your kid being bullied, you need to be all over that issue as a parent. No kid should have to endure it as the price for attending school.

lukeschlather3• 15 years ago

I have no problem with people counter-punching Stallman on the issues. If you think that the closed iOS/Apple ecosystem is good and not evil, please, I want to hear your argument. But I heard very few people making that argument. The arguments tended to just be character assassination. Stallman lacks social graces, he doesn't recognize that it's necessary to be polite when someone dies, therefore his views are automatically irrelevant.

So I do think it's bullying, unless you're going to address the substance of the argument rather than its tactfulness.

jrockway5• 15 years ago

I also stand up for Stallman. Yes, people think he is a weird guy. But we are all weird, and he's weird and has changed the world for the better. I don't see what there is to hate.

People worry that he might not be the best interface between Free Software and the rest of the world (because it's hard to relate to him), but who cares? If you can do a better job, do it. The only thing that's bad for the Free Software movement is worrying about who the leader is. It's you. Now get back to work and make us some awesome software.

armandososa• 15 years ago

Why do people from the U.S. use the word "hate" so lightly?

jrockway5• 15 years ago

What makes you think I'm from the US?

chollida1• 15 years ago

Well to begin with, different words have different connotations and meanings in different languages.

In Canada we might say arse when we don't want to swear. My english friends tell me that arse is actually a pretty bad swear word over in there.

From my experiences, hate doesn't have a very strong meaning. My wife might say she hates brussel sprouts and I wouldn't think anything of it. That's just a normal expression.

hugh38• 15 years ago

Compared to which variety of English? I'm pretty familiar with British, American and Australian English, and I don't think that "hate" is a particularly strong word in any of 'em.

Depending on context, of course. A far stronger degree of dislike is conveyed by "I hate you" than "I hate lima beans".

gbog3• 15 years ago

I'd say it's just the common amplification style. Some other prefer understatements.

autarch• 15 years ago

I don't think Stallman's a very effective activist in some ways. Stallman and the FSF could benefit from looking at the history of social justice movements to see what made them effective.

Of course that's no reason to treat him with disrespect.

lambda4• 15 years ago

Hmm. There are a few aspects of the FSF's strategies that I have never quite been a fan of, but I must say that Stallman has, in general, been much more effective at promoting free software than almost anyone else I can think of. Look at the GNU project, at Emacs, at GCC, look at how widespread the GPL is. Look at how many people know and care about what free software is, and what qualifies as free software (and despite the different name and different reasons given, the term "open source" is seen as meaning pretty much the same thing). That seems pretty effective to me.

What do you think he could do that would make him more effective? Compromise his position, say that maybe, sometimes, it might be OK to recommend non-free software? What value would he be providing then? While using a fully free software stack may not be for everyone today, the fact that he has pushed hard enough that it is possible is inspiring, and created benefits for people beyond just those who use entirely free software.

omouse3• 15 years ago

He's not an activist; that's what makes him effective. The history of "social justice" movements is full of examples where some people were in favour of revolution as opposed to mere reform. There are a lot of people that want to live in a world where free software can be used and sold alongside proprietary software; Stallman and other revolutionaries envision a world where proprietary software is seen as a horrible social evil that the only common sense choice is to write free software. However, he doesn't want to force you to that; he's simply talking about and discussing his alternative and hoping that you realize that it's better than the current situation.

Stallman doesn't need to waste his breath if there are many others who want to talk about reformist approaches.

doki_pen• 15 years ago

Anyone can step in and do what they want with the "movement". I don't think RMS has a monopoly on speaking about free software and would probably welcome anyone who wanted to be an activist. But even if he didn't, it matters little. If you can do a better job then step in and do it.

miked• 15 years ago

Googling:

"dave winer" jerk --> 75,700 "dave winer" ass --> 248,000 "dave winer" asshole --> 9,440

For some strange reason, I find myself not interested in reading Dave Winer denouncing others for "bullying", all the while reminding you, sotto voce, of how wonderful Dave Winer is.

neurobashing• 15 years ago

There used to be a "Winer number", which was the number of times Winer had gone apeshit on you, typically in response to an innocuous comment.

funkah5• 15 years ago

"miked" ass --> About 769,000 results.

What is the point of this, exactly?

funkah5• 15 years ago

Kottke called Stallman's rider (the whole thing) "crazy and amazing". Then he quoted the parrot thing, probably because it tickled his fancy. I don't agree that that constitutes "ridicule", in Winer's words.

yawn• 15 years ago

That's how I read it, too. This whole thing is overblown and Kottke is being used as an excuse for some drama.

gojomo2• 15 years ago

Indeed – Kottke didn't indicate shunning-disapproval or even necessarily 'ridicule' (as both Winer and others downthread summarize Kottke).

Kottke's chosen words aren't always meant negatively. ("Here's to the crazy ones...")

In Kottke's context, he's given a fair description: the rider is, objectively, quite peculiar and illuminating about Stallman's intense priorities. But whether a reader takes that as a reason to shun and ostracize Stallman, as with disrespectful 'ridicule', is up to the reader.

Do we think Kottke would counsel Stallman, if we were in some bizarro universe where Stallman sought others' advice, not to include those two paragraphs, because they're too ridiculous?

I think it's equally likely Kottke would chuckle and say, "the bit about the parrots is crazy and brilliant, better even than the Van Halen thing... move it up higher!"

Read Stallman charitably. Read Kottke charitably. Read everyone charitably.

nmcfarl2• 15 years ago

> Read Stallman charitably. Read Kottke charitably. Read everyone charitably

This!

Always, every day. You might make the world a little bit better in the process, but you will make your life a good bit less stressful, just by being a bit more charitable, a bit less suspicious.

ajross2• 15 years ago

How is selectively quoting something from a larger document in order to call it "crazy" not ridicule? That sounds like the very definition of "ridicule", no? If Kottke wanted to go into a discussion about whether or not this kind of rider is helpful or hurtful to RMS's cause, that would be productive. But this is a full-on put down, done in public.

If this isn't ridicule, then what is?

jaylevitt• 15 years ago

When I read "crazy and amazing", that "crazy" reads like "wild, man". Not "idiotic".

funkah5• 15 years ago

Any quoting is going to be selective. What is he going to do, quote the whole thing? Also, Kottke's whole deal is curating unusual, interesting stuff on the web, and I would say this rider is definitely both unusual and interesting. This is just what Kottke does, he points to stuff and says "hey, look at this." Maybe you have a problem with that entire enterprise, in which case fair enough, but he's not doing anything with respect to the rider that he doesn't do for whatever else is on the web that day.

I agree that "crazy" is not exactly high praise, but it's a very overloaded term these days. I don't think it's meant to be as mean as Winer and everyone else is taking it.

Fliko2• 15 years ago

I was disappointed in Kottke with the fact that he didn't know why Van Halen had requested brown free bowl of M&Ms in his contract. (It was so he would know if the stage crew read the contract which contained safety info on their equipment, to help ensure that no one was harmed during the show, as they had some of the most complicated and dangerous stage equipment at the time)

nmcfarl2• 15 years ago

That's actually covered in the Snopes article Kottke linked to.

ngkabra• 15 years ago

It is very likely that Kottke does know about the reasons behind Van Halen's free bowl of M&M's since the link in his article is to the Snopes page that exists for the sole purpose of explaining those reasons.

jakejake• 15 years ago

I feel like those guys are projecting their own issues onto the situation. I didn't sense any malice in Kottke's post and certainly nothing that I would compare to high-school bullying.

Tharkun• 15 years ago

RMS is not a "weird guy", he's an obnoxious dickhead. If you disagree, you haven't been in a room with him for longer than 5 minutes. Sure, he's made very important contributions to FOSS, but -- I invoke Godwin's Law! -- Hitler made many important contributions as well, but I don't see many people standing up for him.

muhfuhkuh• 15 years ago

Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, William Faulkner, Van Gogh, JD Salinger, Denzel Washington. I've heard these guys are all massive assholes. Fortunately, I can still derive massive entertainment value and/or some form of personal or professional amelioration from their creativity. Same with Stallman. I use emacs every day, and GCC and GLIBC is the heart of just about every serious developer's toolkit.

The man's life is his affair; look to his work. I didn't like Hitler's work or its underlying philosophy, let alone the man.

factorizer• 15 years ago

Wow. You know what they say: never go full retard. you just went.

Karunamon• 15 years ago

Why is this guy getting downvoted? People using the V arrow for disagree?

Premise: RMS is an odious $pejorative

.. I gotta agree with that. The man has done and continues to do good work, but he's still a complete unreasonable nutter. Being a nice likeable guy who accomplishes nothing or being a complete wad of dick who does all the things doesn't negate the other side of that balance.

hugh38• 15 years ago

Some folks miss the point. We only make fun of Stallman in an attempt to change his behaviour in a way that benefits both him and others. For instance, rms smells bad. If he could be persuaded to smell less bad, then everybody would benefit.

Ridicule is a valuable social mechanism for giving negative feedback to those who behave inappropriately. For those who say "but can't we give this feedback in a non-hurtful way?", the answer is no, for the same reason that your brain can't make pain non-painful -- some people are too damn stubborn to listen to non-painful feedback.

Here is a video of Richard Stallman, in the middle of a talk, eating something he's just picked off his foot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ

raganwald4• 15 years ago

Your argument reminds me—painfully—of arguments in favour of physical bullying. “Hey, a few clouts to the head and he’ll get the idea.”

I don’t hit my children, no matter how stubborn they are.

terrywilcox• 15 years ago

Straw man.

Edit: I'm not saying that the original argument is correct, as it really isn't, but your response was a straw man.

kenjackson• 15 years ago

I stand against Stallman. I'm no bully. I don't personally know or insult him. But I do disagree with his position on software (I agree with some of what he says, but I think we end up falling in opposing corners nevertheless).

But standing against someone and pointing out why you disagree I think is quite in the spirit of Stallman himself.

With that said, I don't know the extent of the abuse that Stallman has received from others, but its not obvious to an outsider what the abuse is. Some mocking over a rider? You should hear the abuse I've gotten over some of my haircuts.

I will say that while I disagree with RMS I do think his influence has been large and positive for most of his career. I don't think he's a particularly good spokesperson, but he makes up for it in other ways. I've even listed RMS as one I think is on the short list of potential Turing Award winners (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2305496).

I stand against Stallman, but I'm glad he's there to stand against.

shareme• 15 years ago

actually RMS is an excellent spokesperson which is why the movement is so successful.

lightyrs4• 15 years ago

In a world of Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Open Source, I wonder if FSM is actually successful. Sure it's had successes, but success-ful, I would hesitate to call it.

Also, I'm pretty sure the original commenter was implying that RMS is a bad spokesman because he is so polarizing/unattractive (idealogically).

rjbond3rd3• 15 years ago

Not to get bogged down in words, but you are saying, "I stand against Stallman," but isn't it better to just focus on the ideas? He is a man of ideas, after all.

If you disagree on the ideas, you could still be friends with the man (and he is an incredibly nice and friendly guy who treats people better than he gets treated, that's for sure.)

Just curious: by any chance, are you "standing against Stallman" while simultaneously using his work? I could not do my job without using Stallman's work in some form (in many forms in fact).

cperciva3• 15 years ago

If you disagree on the ideas, you could still be friends with the man

Can you? Is it possible to be friends with someone who says that anyone who disagrees with his ideas is evil?

I'm an atheist, yet I have no problem with being friends with people who are religious. I do, however, have a problem with being friends with someone who ends every conversation with "... and you're going to burn in hell for an eternity". RMS' refusal to accept the possibility that any position other than his own might have value puts him firmly into that camp of people I don't want to have anything to do with.

chc3• 15 years ago

Stallman didn't focus on Steve Jobs' ideas, so one can hardly be blamed for holding him to his own standards.

nikatwork• 15 years ago

So if I use a tool or product, I must automatically agree with the maker's ideology?

I've used John Galliano aftershave, and I'm no racist.

lambda4• 15 years ago

First of all, this article was about standing up against people bullying Stallman for personal quirks. Is that what you stand against? You think it's bad for him to be a bit weird? Or did you just read the headline, and not the article?

Also, standing against a person isn't terribly productive, unless you think that person can do no good or have no good ideas. Do you disagree with everything that Stallman says? Will Stallman saying something make you automatically disagree with a position, even if you agreed with it before?

No? Then you don't stand against Stallman. You might disagree with some of his tactics. You might stand against free software. But I'm not sure why you would state this as "standing against Stallman," as if he, personally, is an affront to you.

srdev5• 15 years ago

I can't speak for kenjackson, but Stallman states that writing proprietary software is unethical, and I find that idea unpalatable. I generally think that its better for software to be open, but I don't think a person who writes a piece of proprietary software has taken anything away from society, nor have they done any harm. That puts me at odds with Stallman's philosophy, which is predicated on the idea that writing such software is unethical and enslaves the user.

billpatrianakos2• 15 years ago

You said it perfectly, kenjackson. Everyone needs to chill and stop crapping their pants every time someone disagrees with Stallman. Public figures get insulted by morons like us all the time. They don't sweat it and if they do should get out of the public eye.

I'm a Steve Jobs fanboy but I certainly don't care if someone mocks him, even posthumously. I did get very offended by Stallman's comments the day after his death but that's a whole other animal there. Otherwise people need to stop taking our opinions so personally. If I disagree on just one point or everything he stands for it doesn't mean I don't like him unless I say so. It also doesn't mean I respect or don't respect his previous work. Enough with this cult of personality stuff already.

parfe3• 15 years ago

tl;dr summary

1) I was a popular guy in school. Ridiculously popular.

2) Although I was popular (even if I didn't hang out with the other kids), I am still a good guy because I hung around the weird kid in school. He still acted weird, but I was a good guy so I stuck it out.

3) Did I mention he never stopped being weird? Did I mention I was popular even though I didn't hang out with all the other people?

4) I was popular in high school so I fully expected to be popular on the Internet. I blazed a path and these people didn't even care, or like me! Editors note: Note the lack of introspection. Perhaps they don't like you despite the path you blazed (or claim to have blazed)?

5) I released my life's work under the GPL and the internet ganged up on me for it. Even strangers in real life picked on me. Why aren't I still popular?

6) Kottle highlighted a single odd entry in RMS's rider which made me ill. I'll defend RMS by saying "YEAH, so he's weird!"

errata: Winer went to a high school which had recess.

maigret• 15 years ago

Your summary has a very sarcastic tone, just saying.

ajross2• 15 years ago

This is so over the top that I can't decide if it's a deliberate troll or not. But if you really think this kind of ridicule and lashing out is an appropriate response to a blog post about needless ridicule then... well, I don't know. Shame on you I guess. This is just sad.

jrockway5• 15 years ago

Not every application of the written word needs to be documenting an event or opinion. This post isn't a good summary of what Winer wrote. It is, however, good reading.

Winer can be a little annoying from time to time. This post harps on that particular aspect of Winer without saying, "you know, Dave Winer annoys me." If you read through it, you laugh a bit, and think "yeah, this post sounds like it's about RMS but it's really about Winer", and that's interesting insight. parfe could have said exactly that, but why use one line to say what you literally mean when you can convey that message and entertain at the same time?

earl• 15 years ago

Winer could write a blog post criticizing the treatment of RMS without, say, whinging about Winer's hard lot in life. Since Winer made himself unnecessarily central to the blog post, it opens him up to criticism on those grounds distinct from any discussion of rms or people's behavior towards rms.

And though I pay virtually no attention to Winer, a cursory googling finds a trail of bad feelings and nasty behavior (lawsuits over $5k and handshake deals, nasty personal disputes, etc). So it's not unreasonable to suggest people in glass houses should keep their mouths shut.

rcade6• 15 years ago

I thought that recess part was weird too. Bronx Science had recess? There were seven future Nobel Prize-winning physicists pondering the universe on those teeter totters.

hugh38• 15 years ago

Do high schools in the United States not generally have recess? Classes all morning, then lunch, then classes all afternoon?

Aside from anything else, recess is a much-needed coffee break for the teachers.

thret• 15 years ago

Up until now I just assumed all schools had both recess and lunch. It is required in Australia.

scott_s3• 15 years ago

I was actually heartened by the fact that most of the posts I read on HN about Stallman's rider had the same reaction I did: hey, all that sounds pretty reasonable.

dhugiaskmak• 15 years ago

Anyway, much later in life, I was treated like Sam

I had a hard time taking his post seriously after this. As someone who was the "weird kid" growing up this sentence is so insulting, and so far past egotistical, that I'm not even sure there's a word capable of describing it. It's like someone trying to sympathize with a famine victim by complaining that they missed lunch yesterday.

frou_dh• 15 years ago

John Gruber is even more guilty of this.

Parrot / breakfast point and laugh:

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/10/26/rms

Linking to a site set up purely to mock Stallman:

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/10/27/stallman-dialogu...

The latest episode of his podcast, about Stallman, is called "They Had to Burn the Sheets" (I haven't listened to it, but going by the title I think it's a safe assumption that it continues the theme):

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/10/27/the-talk-show-64

funkah5• 15 years ago

Gruber is so openly contemptuous of Stallman that I find it hard to believe that Winer is focusing on Kottke instead. In the episode of the Talk Show you linked to, Gruber's co-host Dan Benjamin keeps trying to rein Gruber in from being unfair to Stallman. He shuts down Gruber from talking about the infamous foot-eating incident on multiple occasions. And yes, the title is indeed about Stallman; Gruber repeats some anecdotes he heard about Stallman's hygeine. He makes Kottke look downright generous.

If you read what Winer is saying with Gruber in mind, it makes sense. But Kottke's entry strikes me as much more innocuous than Winer is making it out to be.

there• 15 years ago

maybe, like many of us, winer doesn't pay attention to gruber.

joebadmo• 15 years ago

The point that Winer was making was that Kottke once stood up for him (Winer) in the face of bullies, and here, he seems to be joining in the bullying instead.

I suppose Gruber is just a small, mean-spirited bully of whom Winer has no special expectations.

morsch• 15 years ago

I think Stallman is fantastic; I couldn't care less about Gruber. I actually found the rider thing oddly fascinating and not at all crazy -- I actually read through the entire thing in a single sitting, but I still laughed involuntarily when I looked at The Stallman Dialogues (the "mock" site):

  Friendly conference organizer: I'm happy to have you stay at my house, Mr. Stallman. I hope you find the couch comfortable, I vacuumed all the cat hair off of it. And here, let me get you a fresh set of sheets.
  Stallman: Thank you. I like this much more than staying in a hotel.
  Friendly conference organizer: Great!
  Stallman: It's a bit warm in here, though.
  Friendly conference organizer: Is it? I guess I'm used to it.
  Stallman: Above 72 fahrenheit (22 centigrade) I find sleeping quite difficult.
  Friendly conference organizer: Well... I'll see if I have a fan?
  Stallman: If the air is dry, I can stand 23 degrees.
  Friendly conference organizer: I don't know if I have a dehumidifier. I'll go grab our fan...
  Stallman: Thank you. A strong electric fan blowing on me enables me to sleep.

jsz0• 15 years ago

And if you disagree, have the self-respect to express it with dignity.

Someone should tell that to Stallman who often proclaims people who disagree with him are evil.

Lagged2Death• 15 years ago

I think Winer misunderstands Kottke's feelings about Van Halen.

There's a sentence you didn't think you'd read today. But seriously.

monochromatic2• 15 years ago

Did Kottke even read the link about the Van Halen brown M&M thing? Because it wasn't some crazy whim; it had a perfectly reasonable justification. Saying that Stallman's parrot thing is "right up there" with the brown M&Ms doesn't make sense, if you're trying to laugh at Stallman.

gokhan• 15 years ago

Anil Dash, in comments section of Winer's post, makes the same mistake of having an idea withouth having enough knowledge:

> ... using that power to cow conference organizers and academics into submission to an arbitrary set of whims, the same as a rock star refusing to eat certain colors of M&Ms ...

http://scripting.com/stories/2011/10/31/whyIStandUpForStallm...

benatkin4• 15 years ago

There is so much wrong with Anil Dash's long-winded comment. The first thing he gets wrong is expecting Stallman to handle traveling around for his cause just as well as others have done. Wrong. The personality traits from which people find themselves leading a cause are not the same ones which make people great traveling guests. Another big thing he gets wrong is understating GNU's role in Free Software Operating Systems. After reading that I'm convinced that he doesn't understand how important development tools are when creating a new platform.

FWIW I don't always say "GNU/Linux". I usually say "Linux". I certainly am not opposed to saying "GNU/Linux", however. I wish more people, Anil included, understood the pivotal role the GNU toolchain provided, but I don't think saying "GNU/Linux" is the best way.

wmf2• 15 years ago

The mythical interpretation of the brown M&Ms as signifying capricious demands made by popular people has overtaken the original meaning, so Kottke et al. should be understood as referring to that myth.

monochromatic2• 15 years ago

Probably true. But the actual link that he put on his page refers not to the popular meaning, but to the original one.

nkurz• 15 years ago

It seems like there are two possiblities:

1) Jason, a bright guy who is very familiar with the internet and characterized by Dave as standing up for those being attacked by the masses, did not read his own link and by chance chose a spectacularly poor but well-known example to ridicule and bully Stallman.

2) "It's cramazing" and "right up there" were not intended to signify ridicule and bullying.

My money's on the the second.

Of course, one weakness of this dichotomy is that Dave is also bright and internet savvy, and choosing Two would imply that Dave grossly misinterpreted Jason. Also low odds, but I'd guess more likely than One. Maybe we'll have to wait until Jason chimes in to clarify. Or maybe Dave already asked Jason to clarify and is certain of his interpretation? But we can still agree with moral of Dave's post, right?

benatkin4• 15 years ago

I think crazy and amazing is used in an endearing sort of way, too.

> That's right up there with Van Halen's brown-free bowl of M&Ms and Lady Gaga's Cockney-speaking staff.

The second item links here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider_%28theater%29#Notable_rid...

Where there are more people who are pretty good company to be on a list with, like Johnny Cash. If I edited the article to put Richard Stallman on that list, I wonder how long it would last...

rcade6• 15 years ago

Richard Stallman is one of my heroes in tech. He's a deeply fascinating and amazingly obstinate thinker who should be Walter Isaacson's next book project.

But does he really need anyone's help fending off bullies? A guy who described Steve Jobs as being guilty of "evil" after his death would eat bullies for breakfast. If he ate breakfast. Which he doesn't. And don't ask him why.

dreww• 15 years ago

i guess the advanced high school was so advanced they still had recess...

ugh2• 15 years ago

So, uhm, what’s this meme all about? It has been mentioned here twice. What’s recess got to do with how good a school is? I’m from Germany and I have never heard anyone suggest that breaks are a bad thing. This seems completely bizarre to me.

nknight• 15 years ago

"Recess" has rather specific connotations in American English. It is not simply another word for "break". It connotes a supervised, semi-structured playtime for young children, generally outdoors, in the presence of teachers.

By the time one hits high school (9th grade) in the US, such things do not occur. You may have free time between classes, but it is not referred to or treated the same way as the period known as "recess".

absconditus4• 15 years ago

"Anyway, much later in life, I was treated like Sam, in the blogging community. From my point of view, I expected the newcomers to like me, because I had blazed a trail for them, and wasn't asking for anything in return."

Does Winer ever pass up a chance to promote and feel sorry for himself?

kevinpacheco• 15 years ago

I do respect everything I know about Dave Winer, except for one thing, his greatest perceivable flaw: He is too sensitive. Way too sensitive. He has blocked dozens of people on Twitter, including Kevin Marks(!). In his post he used phrases like "makes me feel ill," "here's what really pisses me off," and "I was so shaken to see." He strikes me as the kind of man around whom you'd have to walk on eggshells in person. That's not good.

Both he and Stallman have accomplished many great things. They've left (and continue to leave) their mark on the world. It's not a stretch to say that in the tech sphere, they are public figures. (Most of us here, I'd wager, don't even merit a Wikipedia biography). The more well-known you are, the more people talk about you and up goes the probability that some of it will be offensive. If you're Bill Gates, you might even take a pie to the face. It that sort of behavior acceptable? Of course not. But if you're going to put yourself out there, you need a thick skin. Stiff upper lip, Dave.

Uchikoma2• 15 years ago

OT: Is there a way to remove all my comments from HN? I would like to give up.

tokenadult• 15 years ago

Is there a way to remove all my comments from HN? I would like to give up.

Don't you see a delete link next to your recent posts? There is a time limit on how long you can delete or edit your posts, but you should still be within that limit for your most recent posts, all of which you can find if you look at the "threads" link at the top of the page when you are logged in.

Uchikoma2• 15 years ago

Thanks, I've removed all my recent posts. Is there any way of removing all posts and all profile data?

moeedm• 15 years ago

I also stand up for Stallman but not when the temperature is above 72 fahrenheit. I find standing quite difficult.

Udo• 15 years ago

The glaring mistake that Dave Winer makes here is a misjudgement of RMS' intentions:

> I looked at him, and asked him if he seriously was going to do this, in front of Stallman. Yeah, he kept at it. That's how pervasive this culture of disrespect is. To Stallman's credit, he not only stopped it, but dug in. He wanted to understand what was at the root of this. <

Dave, he didn't defend you because someone was being mean to you. He didn't jump in because the tone of the discussion was disrespectful. He defended the GPL, plain and simple. You as a person were entirely unsubstantial to him. RMS sees the entire world through a very narrow filter. You were just lucky that your idea was in alignment with that filter at the time. If the roles were reversed, Richard Stallman would not stand up for you as a person the way you just did for him. He only stands up for the GPL. I believe he wouldn't even stand up for himself. Yes, he's that single-minded.

omouse3• 15 years ago

He only stands up for the GPL as a means to an end...

skeptical• 15 years ago

I'm not sure if 'stading up for Stallman' is what I do as I am insignificant in that context. I certainly agree with him in almost every matter he talks about. I do not care to explain nor getting into discussions with those who either disagree with him or think their view is more sophisticated/moderated/reasonable/whatever.

Stallman has very clear views about the matters he talks about. Personally I think his contribution to the world is a great inspiration. But I fail to understand why we would need to stand up for him, those who do not understand him, or reject to try to view things from his point of view are the ones that are missing the most.

As for all the critics, eerr... you give credit to whomever you want. I don't care if every last celebrity 'bullies' him, I'll still give more importance to what he says BECAUSE OF WHAT HE SAYS.

teyc2• 15 years ago

For Dave Winer to stand up for Stallman, requires someone to pick on him and Stallman not being able to defend himself. I don't see either of it happening.

Stallman wasn't going to alter his behavior because of Kotte, and Kotte probabably isn't as affectionate with parrots - but that's OK with me.

There is no Pick-On-Stallman movement. He has his beliefs and it presents an alternate model for software cooperation. For some situation, it clearly works, while for others, not so much.

Of all the freedoms, the freedom to express an idea is one of the most important. As long as it is done in a manner that protects the weak. Stallman simply doesn't qualify. We recognize ad hominem for what it is, and Kotte's jibe is just that.

benatkin4• 15 years ago

Disagree; there have been notable people in the FOSS community calling for a new leader of a Free Software movement and referencing stuff like this. I think it was worthwhile for Dave Winer to write this post and state his opinion that this kind of stuff shouldn't get in the way of Richard Stallman pursuing his dreams.

teyc2• 15 years ago

Why shouldn't the FOSS community, to the extent it supports FSF - not allowed to have their say about who leads them and who speaks for them? If there are alternate leaders let them step up and be counted.

Dave Winer can only stand with Stallman. FSF or not, Stallman will continue to speak his mind, and amen to that.

ojosilva• 15 years ago

I just don't like when people resort to pity to get their point across. That's some cheap rhetoric stunt. And that's exactly what Dave Winer tries here: poor Sam in high school, poor Winer tortured by them trolls. Don't lower Stallman there. He's not some poor victim Sam from a broken home. He's a man with his beliefs who made his life choices. That's not something a lot of people out there can profess. He's not asking for nobody's mercy. He's no Sam. He's no winer. He needs no stunts.

billpatrianakos2• 15 years ago

So basically you stand up for Stallman because he reminds you of a kid in high school who used to get bullied? Not such a great reason. If I like Stallman I'd stand up for him because I believe in his ideals, respect his work, and want him to continue doing good. But then I'd remember he isn't doing much good.

Stallman needs no defending. He's a big boy that leaves himself open to attack. Public figures always have to deal with that sort of thing but I'm sure they don't lose any sleep about it.

But whatever, that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is people equating weird, eccentric, odd behavior and different views as automatically good. Novelty isn't always good. Different for the sake of different isn't always good. I'm going to wear my pants on my head and you shouldn't make fun of me because I'm different and eccentric which should translate into you thinking I'm a genius, right? No! Not at all. Stallman is certainly different and very possibly completely wrong. It's fun to make fun of his quirks even though we shouldn't (I'd like to add I never have made fun of him for quirks, only for actions and ideas) but why are we jumping in to defend this guy because he's different? There are a ton of people who think differently but we can't be applauding people for being different as it isn't that hard to do.

mixmastamyk• 15 years ago

I don't know anything about the author and found this piece lacking in a lot of important details. Such as what people are bullying him about? Without those details the piece read like it was authored by someone with a victim complex.

Edit: I see below some of the reasons.

1point2• 15 years ago

There is a lot to read in here - and it all looks like good stuff - but wouldn't be funny if his (RMS's) warning panned out - time will tell. To those who say one has choice - to use or not to use - well maybe - I believe that one of our basic rights in the USA - to vote - to elect who will represent me at the highest levels - is tabulated using closed source soft/hardware - such a shame - sometimes there is no choice.

sequoia• 15 years ago

Someone brings up RMS on a tech forum... http://i.imgur.com/xblF4.gif ;)

Dave Winer: Why I stand up for Stallman

Related Stories