[jshen]

" he's a cautionary tale demonstrating the state of the world if he had his way."

Almost all of the things you consider modern in the computer world are built on top of his creations. OS X, google, facebook, HN, etc ... all built on the foundation RMS laid. Without his creations we would be closer to your idea of a "pre-1995 digital stasis"

[ctrl_freak]

While I'd agree that much of the foundations of modern computing were built upon some form of free software, I disagree that it's primarily Stallman's work. For one thing, OS X is based upon FreeBSD and Mach, neither of which are affiliated with the FSF. And I'd argue that the foundations of Google and Facebook are PHP, Apache, Python, etc. which are also not FSF.

Of course it's a difficult exercise to try to imagine how things would be different had the FSF not been created, or what influence it had upon the creation of software that wasn't directly affiliated with it. Obviously gcc has been one of the most prominent GNU toolsets featured in modern operating systems, although that appears to be changing too (Xcode replacing gcc with LLVM).

[jshen]

"I disagree that it's primarily Stallman's work. For one thing, OS X is based upon FreeBSD and Mach, neither of which are affiliated with the FSF. And I'd argue that the foundations of Google and Facebook are PHP, Apache, Python, etc. which are also not FSF."

OS X used all the major GNU tools, and was built with GCC. Without his creation you wouldn't have been able to build OS X.

The foundations of Google and Facebook are ultimately the GNU toolset. Everything you mentioned, php, apache, python, are built on top of the GNU tools.

[Dobbs]

It actually doesn't use all of the major GNU tools it uses very few of them.

GCC and the build chain is about all I can think of off the top of my head. Most of the userland is from FreeBSD.

And GCC and the build chain are quickly being replaced.

[jshen]

GCC is the most significant piece. So your point is that nearly all modern software is built on top of GNU, but some only use a small portion of the GNU stuff. I think you agree with my original point ;)

[rat87]

Yes but NeXTSTEP could have bought created a fully closed source compiler.

[Czarnian]

And how many of those things would be around if they weren't generating revenue for someone?

He's a living, breathing demonstration of the limits of free software. A world where progress slows to a crawl because the only people who have the time to write code are hobbyists and people who can get paid to lecture about how everything should be free.

That's the main issue I have with his ideas, they are thoroughly disconnected from reality. Not in a "Everyone should be nice to each other all the time way," but a "I'm going to ride my dragon to work," way.

Free software is a nice sentiment, but impotent. Nothing that has happened in the past 10-15 years in computers happens without a profit motive. Without a profit motive you may get a spreadsheet program, but no one motivated enough to get it distributed.

Free may get you on the path, but it doesn't get you very far down the road.

[nikron]

I think you are confusing free as in beer, and free as in speech. No one says you can't sell GPL software.

[redthrowaway]

In fact, many people make quite a good living doing just that, or giving away the software and making money via imbedded means a la Firefox.

[Czarnian]

Not really. It's the cognitive dissonance of the Free Software Movement.

Software is either free or it's not free. It's either restricted or it's unrestricted. It's either proprietary or it's open.

Using hyper-capitalistic entities like Google and Facebook as a defense of the viability of free software is an interesting way to go. If anything, I'd argue they are almost perfect subversions of Free Software. Going a little deeper, a place like Y-Combinator is an even further subversion because, at it's core, it is a company that specifically exploits the profit motive of developers.

That aside, I think it's not particularly useful to argue that Stallman's contributions to the field are a vindication of his basic philosophy. Especially when those contributions are being used in a way that subverts it.

[rhizome]

You're not going to get very far defining your terms in binary.

[rbanffy]

> And how many of those things would be around if they weren't generating revenue for someone?

I've visited the building where Red Hat has their Brazilian office (or, at least one of them). Nice place for a non-profit.

The argument it's not possible to make money and, at the same time, respect the rights and freedoms of users is an old one. We shouldn't be hearing it anymore.