Are they "personalities" or "hinderances"?

[techieMoe]

I'm not going to excuse that, and I'm not going to stick it down anyone's throat. I just don't see the point in "all or nothing".

Agreed. Much as I'd like to categorize the world in absolutes of black and white, the truth (in my personal experience) seems to more often fall in the gray areas. Free OS? Great, but I still need some non-free codecs to listen to my music, or a non-free application stack to write my software (Java).

[carlosponti]

Stallman had at one time a great idea however an individuals choice to include on thier OS non open source software that was bundled with an open source OS should be respected as well. sometimes there is no way around it. it goes beyond mp3 and codecs. there is jpg and gif as well. if you took inventory of all the things you need that are not open source you might be shocked. i dont even really care about the open source aspect of linux. i use linux for two reasons. one being that i really like linux and two that linux gave me a way out of being trapped with windows. plus not including firefox because of a copyrighted icon is crap if you ask me. let me ask this why is it not ok for firefox but linux has its own copyrighted icon that we all know and love, Tux. stallman really just goes overboard. i think someday soon there will be a split in Open source. because i have seen a growing discontent from people like Linus with the state of the GPL licensing.

[Vergil83]

Everyone hates those guys. I'm a Christian and might agree with what they are shouting but I believe they don't improve people's opinions about Chritianity, in fact, they make us (Christians) look bad.
This is not totally comparable to the open source scenario but the main point remains: it makes us look more like militants than people who promote progress.

But the problem is that assumes that your view on how someone should be "converted" is correct. Correct me if I am wrong, but you might think their method would only attract one person to Christianity, while a more subtle method would attract ten. To them, how someone is converted may matter, and they would rather have one convert with militancy than ten converted with a less fevered way.

I know I have said this before but I think the issue of personalities is not very important. If you took a sample of FOSS users in 1998 vs today, I am sure a much larger % would know who RMS, ESR was then than now.

[techieMoe]

But the problem is that assumes that your view on how someone should be "converted" is correct. Correct me if I am wrong, but you might think their method would only attract one person to Christianity, while a more subtle method would attract ten. To them, how someone is converted may matter, and they would rather have one convert with militancy than ten converted with a less fevered way.

How wonderfully PC of you, Vergil. Personally, in light of the things going on int he world right now the idea of any "militant convert", regardless of faith, makes me very uneasy. But that's off topic.

I know I have said this before but I think the issue of personalities is not very important. If you took a sample of FOSS users in 1998 vs today, I am sure a much larger % would know who RMS, ESR was then than now.

If simply knowing of RMS or ESR (or PBS or MSG... insert your acronym) would help more people to want to learn more about Free Software or Linux, I would agree with you. However I don't believe this is the case. I think fringe opinions like RMS and Theo de Raadt only hurt the movements they're trying to champion. I agree with the original statement about the vociferous Christian; they're doing more harm than good.

[fingal]

I think fringe opinions like RMS and Theo de Raadt only hurt the movements they're trying to champion. I agree with the original statement about the vociferous Christian; they're doing more harm than good.

But surely without RMS and the Free Software Foundation - which he founded - there would be no GNU. Wouldn't we all be much worse off without that? In fact, without his work would this forum - through the laws of cause and effect - even exist?

Isn't this a bit like saying, 'Bananas are curved and yellow. I love bananas: they're good for me, but by God they're weird and a little embarassing. I want them to be a more sensible colour and - if possible - completely straight.'

Or maybe I'm not reading you right?

[techieMoe]

But surely without RMS and the Free Software Foundation - which he founded - there would be no GNU. Wouldn't we all be much worse off without that? In fact, without his work would this forum - through the laws of cause and effect - even exist?

Isn't this a bit like saying, 'Bananas are curved and yellow. I love bananas: they're good for me, but by God they're weird and a little embarassing. I want them to be a more sensible colour and - if possible - completely straight.'

Or maybe I'm not reading you right?

No, you've missed my point entirely. I'm not arguing that the world would be a better place without Richard Stallman. He's done some great things, as I've said before. I'm saying the world would be better off if he'd just keep his opinions to himself once in a while. The things that he *does* are generally very good. The things that he *says* are not.

[bigtomrodney]

I'd sum it up like this -

Emacs=Good
Hazmat Suit=Bad

[techieMoe]

I'd sum it up like this -

Emacs=Good
Hazmat Suit=Bad

Haha. Yes. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

[fingal]

I'd sum it up like this -

Emacs=Good
Hazmat Suit=Bad

He wears a Hazmat Suit??

[bigtomrodney]

Just referring to a recent DefectiveByDesign protest. I don't think he personally was there so I apologise for that, more to sum up an idea.