[vacri]

My biggest gripe with Stallman is his "I know what's best for you" mentality.

My biggest gripe with Jobs was his "I know what's best for you" mentality.

Your criticisms of Stallman can equally be applied to Jobs. The user has to 'adjust their tastes' - to take on part of the Apple ecosystem means you have to take on all of it. Like gaming? Not on Apple. The user has to 'adjust their tastes' and play a limited subset of available games. Oppressive and disrespecting? Apple tried to make it illegal to jailbreak your own phone!

[For_Iconoclasm]

Duly noted! Although, I was not praising Jobs nor Apple in post. I was drawing a comparison (showing similarity) between the ideals of RMS and the ideals he was against. He is hypocritically fighting oppression in one field with oppression in another, and frankly I believe a person has more of a right to what goes on in their mind than what goes on in a computer.

Steve Jobs is not quite topical to what I said.

[vacri]

True enough, but it seemed to be in the context of the thread when I first read it.

I don't think of what RMS does as oppression, but more as 'toughlove'. Not for everyone, sure, but I think it's mischaracterised as oppression. He's more interested in having you be principled than using his products, and only his products.

[chousuke]

It's one thing I respect about RMS. He has a well-defined set of (entirely reasonable) freedoms that he wants to promote, and whatever follows logically from those freedoms is what he recommends to everyone. "His products" are free software in general. I'm sure he wouldn't mind you using a working, free piece of software that solves your problem, even if it were made by Microsoft.

If you can argue with logic that your viewpoint does not conflict with his axioms, I'm sure he would find it agreeable. It's not oppression, since there is no compulsion, but RMS tries his darndest to promote what he sees is right, and he seeks to have a logical reasoning behind everything.

[eropple]

Jobs did not campaign to remove all options he didn't like from existence. Your equivalence is false and sad.

[vacri]

Really? Stories abound about how single-minded he was about his creation, whether it be haranguing developers about design points to petitioning presidents to bust unions. Even tried to make 'jailbreaking' your own phone illegal. As in, the government will step in and punish you for doing so.

Jobs was very, very much about doing things 'my way or the highway'. He was very much against people using options he didn't sanction.

EDIT: To be clearer, Jobs' rhetoric is "we offer an alternative", but the actions of Apple under Jobs was very much about crushing ideological opponents, much like RMS would like to do.

[burgerbrain]

"Removed from the only source of software" might as well be "removed from existence" when your platform is iOS.

[eropple]

There are other platforms for you to choose. Stallman wishes for there to be no other choices.

This isn't rocket science.

[vedang]

"Stallman wishes for there to be no other choices" I sprayed out my tea all over the keyboard! Seriously?

[eropple]

Yes, seriously. Stallman holds that it's immoral and unacceptable (in the world he would create) to have non-Free software. There are no exceptions.

Stallman desires to take away my choice to create (and implicitly, to use) software that doesn't meet his ideological vision of "Free" software. I reject that desire in toto; I do not presume to tell other developers of software what restrictions they may place upon software they right, just as I reject their attempts to do the same to me.

(Stallman's inability to fulfill his desire does not exculpate him from the moral failure of that desire.)

[burgerbrain]

That is some pro-grade delusion you've got there.