muckrights-sans-merde
bonum fabula frat
### the-bullet-points-that-killed-free-software
other pages:
=> why-would-muckrights-stop-advocating-real-freedom-after-so-many-years.html why-would-muckrights-stop-advocating-real-freedom-after-so-many-years
*originally posted:* may 2021
ive been complaining about and researching this problem for years, but i appreciate that people will think the title is sensationalist. i have also spent years complaining that free software has shifted from being about "the user having control over their computing" to putting too much emphasis on the license. the license is vital, of course-- but it only creates the initial emancipation, while actual freedom requires vigilance.
between october 17th and november 04 2011, richard stallman changed the numbered list on http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html to bullet points.
=> https://web.archive.org/web/20111017052534/http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html
oct 17
=> https://web.archive.org/web/20111104041105/http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html
nov 04
if we run a diff on the text starting at "How I do my computing" through "Return to Richard Stallman's home page" we can summarise it with the following outline, but we will address the first change at 3,4c3,10 afterwards:
6,8d11 and 9a13,28
about emacs, email, website volunteers, not doing much programming since 1992, browsers (which at this timeframe he doesnt generally use); added that he never used unix until he decided to develop a free replacement and why he coined the name posix
12c31
about borrowing and using someone elses machine for trivial tasks
14c33
about public kiosks, pay phones and atm machines
16c35
about ethical responsibility regarding installed software
20c39 and 28c47
about social networking
at 3,4c3,10 in both the previous and the following version, he says he formerly used an olpc and he now uses a lemote.
the biggest change in the page is the addition of the following text, which in just a few years would dramatically change the course of free software:
> I do not have a preferred GNU/Linux distro. I recommend all the ethical distros — namely, those that are 100% free software.
> I've chosen not to have any preferences among those ethical distros. But I am not in a position to judge them on other criteria: even to try them all would be a lot work that I have no need to do.
the significance of this blunder (and i know stallman has an incredible track record for being right about things-- it is impressively above average but certainly not 100%) would be small if he had ever reversed his position.
in fact he did post an article in 2014, which depending on your interpretation, might have protected the movement from the user-subjugating onslaught of debibm. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/loyal-computers.html
however this appears (at least originally) to be more about hardware and firmware design than whether or not your operating system is supplanted by a monopolistic interest. i really would love, let alone prefer, to interpret it as a necessary defence of freedom that is more relevant to this discussion, and perhaps someone else will be able to. but at this time i consider it (contrary to what i initially supposed) to be unsupportive of the point i wish to make here.
more to the point, nothing has-- since the close of 2011-- changed stallmans mind about systemd as a "component" of gnu/linux. on the contrary, he is "not in a position to judge [distros] on other criteria" than their licensing!
note that in the nine years that have followed, stallman has remained the leader of the gnu project-- which i still believe is his right, but while he has remained leader of the gnu project he has not (for nine years) seen fit to judge distros on other criteria than their license.
of course, he HAS since that time made other complaints about individual projects, including protesting any move whatsoever to github. systemd however, was never part of the gnu project-- users only come into contact with it when someone creates a gnu/linux distro. systemd thus unfortunately exists outside of stallmans (self-imposed) jurisdiction.
this level of negligence and apathy and has enabled microsoft and ibm to ultimately cuckold the entire gnu project-- but really, whats a chief gnuisance to do?
do i blame stallman for this? in part, i do. he is partly (and significantly) to blame for allowing this takeover to remain unchecked and unchallenged. one of VERY MANY points i do not agree with other stallman critics on (note, he IS still a personal hero, and the father / founder / architect of the movement itself) is whether he has the RIGHT to neglect the gnu project in this fashion-- and still remain the head of it.
stallman created the gnu project, and i do not think people have a right to take the reins away from him. i do OF COURSE think people have a right to fork gnu-- they dont have the right to do what the gnu.fools are doing, and i would not trust them more than i trust stallman anyway. they are not trying to fork, nor salvage, but usurp. and stallman has every right to lead the gnu project-- even if he makes a terrible decision in late 2011 which threatens the future of gnu.
those concerned have (imo) a duty to fork if they are capable of doing so. but (again, imo) they should also continue to follow stallmans advice where it makes sense to do so. and most of the people who think there is no point in doing so, really do not support free software, but "open source". i do not sympathise with that at all-- "open source" is a lie, and a scam.
but if stallman decides that he is not in a position to judge the so-called "init system" that seeks to replace gnu itself with something under the control of a large corporation, then the fsf still had a job to do.
the fsf, its board and its membership, UTTERLY FUCKING FAILED ALL USERS in the years to come. they ALLOWED and even CHEERED the takeover of gnu and free software in general by corporate interests. that was betrayal-- and all they had to do to avoid it was take threats to freedom seriously, think critically, and guard the ability of the user (operator) to control their own computing.
systemd does not allow this. it actively tries to stop this: rhetorically, politically and by design.
stallman should have known better. but so should have EVERYBODY ELSE.
today, people who care about the users ability to control their computing are leaving gnu/linux, just as they once left windows. and gnu/linux is becoming "microsoft linux gnu", designed and pushed by ibm and controlled by ibm and microsoft.
this takeover is a failure of the entire free software movement-- however, the free software movement will now split into those who welcome a corporate takeover, and those who fight for freedom.
the fsf no longer fights for your freedom. in small ways, to be fair, stallman still tries. he is the original philosopher of the movement and he has remained more consistent (typically for the better) than most of his followers, or detractors.
of course i do not think consistency is always best-- i still think it is more of a strength of stallmans than a weakness. when he is right about something, it does little good for him to change to being wrong.
when he is wrong about something, on the other hand, it does little good for him to continue to be wrong. those are the times when the movement needs to consider the fact that free software needs to stand for itself and its own freedom, too.
i do not consider the entire movement lacking-- it is broadly lacking, and the mainstream of this movement has grown cynical, corporate and shallow. there is insufficient examanation of the direction in which free software is heading, and more and more people allow free software to instead be steered by monopolies. that constitutes walking away from the fight-- it is not in any way standing up for us or our freedom.
this started, very possibly and maybe even most likely, with stallmans formal decision not to judge the components of distributions based on their ability (or inability) to represent user freedom. he decided (and has not waivered) to judge non-gnu distribution components based on their compliance with the fdsg alone.
that was a mistake for gnu, and it was a mistake for free software.
but it was the responsibility of everyone involved with free software to stand up against this threat. and most people failed us-- and made excuses.
i believe that, more than all the politics that attack stallman personally (i havent supported those, in fact i warned people of them) constitutes the greatest political threat to free software. there simply are not enough people in this movement who really care about our freedom, or even their own.
of course im passionately against the personal attacks on stallman, and they are significantly damaging as well. stallman is a symbol, but not only a symbol-- he is the founder, but not only the founder-- the personal attacks on stallman are truly a way to attack us all. that was always the goal, and it is the outcome as well. i dont support the attacks on our movement, via personal attacks on stallman.
but regarding our software, i do not support the takeover of our software (and thus ultimately our computing) by corporate interests. just because the license is free, does not stop (has not stopped) large corporations from taking away things we have gained through the development of free software.
it is a sort of attack that stallman (and most-- though not all of his followers) has exempted himself from fighting against.
that is no excuse for everyone else to exempt themselves and make similar excuses, although as followers who have not applied sufficient critical thinking, they have done precisely that.
stallman and the fsf have made it abundantly clear-- they will not ever fight against the monopolistic takeover of gnu and free software. there are some monopolies they may reject for other reasons-- but they will never defend freedom, against monopoly itself.
if you want to be free, therefore, you will have to find people to fight for you elsewhere. many of us are of the impression that we will have to fight for ourselves. but it is a disservice for the fsf to say they fight for our freedom. they gave up on that fight, nearly a decade ago-- and allowed a takeover that still threatens the free software movement today.
=> https://muckrights-sans-merde.neocities.org