[kamaal]

RMS is what he is because, what he is.

You can't change such people, you won't be able to. And they won't change, And they must not change. If people like him, don't live like he does- Its impossible to take on entities like Microsoft and Apple single handedly.

Although you can argue that ideas from Free software were there ahead and during RMS's times. You can never debate that he gave it a sense of cause, activism with passion and enthusiasm never seen before. This man, made Free Software a purpose in his life. He never gives up, never compromises, his passion and intensity never wanes. He just seems to find infinite energy to go on and on.

Don't get me wrong. We are not just dealing Steve Jobs grade material here. He is more than Steve Jobs. This guy wrote some of the most widely used programs on earth today. And of supreme quality. He designed them, wrote them and marketed them. He is also the author of the most widely used license in software history. He is a prolific organizer, and executor.

He also holds strong views on political issues. Although he is often aggressive. I have never heard him do cheap talk or bad mouth some one, criticize, hate and bash them pointlessly without facts, or because of their ethnic origin, faith, belief or way of life.

But I see ESR as a epitome of hyperbole, bad mouthing, hating people because of their belief, faith and their way of life. Advocating violence. Yet his contributions towards are hardly few. I don't know of the last time he made a big contribution. And I don't even know if he has ever contributed something signification. All I know is has a high Blog noise to work ratio. Has written books based on some one else's work. And now feels qualified in the world to take on anybody and comment on them. People like ESR generally don't get taken seriously.

[smsm42]

So many fallacies in one post.

1. You conflate RMS being supremely talented programmer with his political strategy. ESR criticized the latter and never doubted - but actually emphasized - the former.

2. Anybody who actually read ESR article knows that RMS was never criticized for his ethnic origin, faith, belief or way of life - only for his political strategy and manner of achieving this goal.

3. Advocating violence? Care to give any proof of that? This goes so far that I actually checked the profile to see maybe this is just an anon trolling going on here. Such accusation needs serious proof.

4. Ad hominem attacks on ESR don't add anything to your argument as they do not defend RMS in any way (even if ESR were nobody, his argument still could be valid on merits) - and they are also completely false.

5. One does not any special qualification to comment on anything. One needs only to make sense and be able to build a solid argument. At which you seem to be failing now, since your argument seems to sum up to "RMS is great, ESR is nobody" and a bunch of factually incorrect statements. Such argument in no way can be persuasive to defend RMS's political strategy and rhetoric which ESR is criticizing.

[kamaal]

I never said ESR criticized RMS because of the reasons, I mentioned.

ESR is long know to write blog posts advocating US military campaigns on Middle east(Remember so far no proof found about WMD's in Iraq). He also used to write extreme hate blogs against Muslims and Islam in General, I used to follow some of his posts then. But later gave up on reading it was full of too much hate for nothing. I find it difficult to offer such people audience. Hate is a dangerous thing to encourage, no matter whom its diverted towards.

He would advocate all out wars to 'defend his way of life', So you now want several millions of people bombed, killed and a generation of people with a broken national infrastructure and hope. All of this just because you like hearing to Micheal Jackson and they don't?

ESR to me is nothing more than a guy who use to write articles on controversial issues during pre blogging days. And seems to have made some name encouraging/bashing/thrashing/bad mouthing people. Such bloggers are worth dime a dozen today.

RMS on other hand has proven credentials as a hacker. Both in the MIT Lab and later writing software like Emacs and other GNU utils. His political views are more non violent and more left leaning, yet far better than that of ESR's.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond

[smsm42]

"I never said ESR criticized RMS because of the reasons, I mentioned."

Then why you mentioned those things in comment which discusses ESR's critique of RMS? Just because you had a random thought and had to express it before you forget it, no matter the topic? And why you immediately added "But I see ESR as a epitome of hyperbole, bad mouthing, hating people because of their belief, faith and their way of life. Advocating violence"?

Looks like is it you that is badmouthing people because of their beliefs, not ESR, and I also notice a lot of the same un-loving feeling in your responses that you attribute to ESR. I will ignore the attempt to derail the discussion and change topic to Iraq and Muslims, however, since it is completely offtopic (and again, contains multiple false statements). I just will notice that "advocating violence" in context of political discussion and political critique and meaning by it supporting actions (however they may seem wrong to you) of legitimate democratic government in totally unrelated case is extremely disingenuous.

You proceed to declare utter baloney and try to assign this baloney as if ESR ever said it, which also is obviously false and I wonder how you can expect such cheap rhetorical trick to convince anybody.

I think everybody here knows how ESR has made his name, and it has absolutely nothing to do with "bashing/thrashing/badmouthing people". Again, why you expect this obviously false statement to sound convincing to the informed audience is a mystery to me. However, (lack of) your personal respect to ESR is not important, as points he makes do not become less valid because you personally disrespect him.

The most sad part of your comment is however the last link. And the most sad part of this link is that incoherent drivel by some anonymous internet trolls which consists completely of "bashing, trashing and badmouthing", is presented as "Rational Wiki". Sad and deeply ironic.

[kamaal]

I don't know who is trolling whom here.

But you find goodness in a man known for his extreme hate writings against people of certain ethnic origins(Arabs), and people belonging to a particular race and color(blacks). Or certain preference on a way of life(like marrying people of the same gender). You consider this man good.

And now you call the people who point to this as trolls.

At this point my debate with you ends. Because I don't think we are on the plane of thinking.

[pjscott]

> People like ESR generally don't get taken seriously.

You realize that this is practically a textbook example of an ad hominem fallacy, right?

[marshray]

That sentence came immediately after several criticisms of specific behaviors and tactics that could plausibly cause one to not get taken seriously. So the term "people like ESR" in this paragraph could be inferred to mean "people who behave like ESR". In fact, he even starts out "I see ESR as a epitome of [certain attitudes and behaviors]".

For example, because of his past behavior I do have trouble taking him, personally, seriously. But I would not use that as a formal argument against any of his specific ideas "ESR believes X, ESR is a Y, therefore X is false".

[cheatercheater]

> But I see ESR as a epitome of hyperbole, bad mouthing, hating people because of their belief, faith and their way of life.

Then you haven't stumbled upon kuro5hin I take it?