Adam Hill’s Blog

Stallman

I went yesterday to see a lecture through UW’s Computer Science Club. They’d managed to get Richard M. Stallman (aka “RMS” or just “Stallman”) to come to UW to speak. He is, for the not-so-nerdy, the guy who started the free software movement. That would include things like Mozilla Firefox and the GNU/Linux operating system. He’s got this reputation of being outspoken, but he’s generally revered by nerds, so I figured it’d be an interesting show.

It started off by the lecture being moved — time and place — without any notice other than a woman standing outside the room when it was supposed to start. Then, a few hours later in a new room, the CS club vice-president gives a little spiel about how the weather was bad so his flight got delayed and he was still en route. (Cue the horrible “Stall-man” puns…) Which turned into some rather interesting conversation with some random first-years in front of me. (I didn’t intend to jump into their conversation, but when the one girl smacked the guy beside her, I couldn’t help but laugh…)

Anyway, Stallman did eventually show up and basically threw down his bags, took of his shoes (or so it appeared), and then proceeded to complain about the lights. Seriously dude, if you’re on stage, there will be bright lights, that’s kinda how it works. He also had some difficulty with the microphone, which he insisted on using, eventually pulling the podium mic (not cordless) off the podium. After getting himself settled, he started his speech. He talked about his past, basically how he was working at MIT and how he’d come up with the four essential software freedoms. Then he moved on to the history of the GNU project and Linux and the subsequent explosion of free software. All along the way, he kept making a point of discussing the particulars of vocabulary – “open source” versus “free” software, for example, and “proprietary” versus “closed-source”, and so on. Initially it was interesting, but I found it dragged on a bit.

The most interesting part, though, was when he was done talking. Not because he was done, but because that’s when he opened up the floor to questions. There were a few of the typical sucking-up kind of questions, which he dealt with what I can only imagine are form-letter responses. One guy asked him for a comment on the most important thing to get out of university, which Stallman basically shrugged off, saying he didn’t know. Then he proceeded to get into a giant argument with some social sciences major in the back, who was asking him what I thought were reasonable questions about the logic of Stallman’s position, the practicality of insisting that all software be free, and the economics of such. Stallman started off polite, but quickly turned into a jerk, saying that you can’t speak in abstract concepts (apparently “freedom” is tangible?), that the questioner was ignoring the facts (without specifying which facts, or giving any evidence), and basically just screaming “you’re mistaken” a lot. The worst part of it was, as a non-CS/engineering/math nerd, I think I was one of the few who actually realized that there was something wrong with Stallman’s reaction. The regular people of the world, the ones who would actually need converting to the concept of free software, those are the kinds of questions that they might ask. (And do ask… find me the guy who’s in charge of software purchases for any large company, and ask me if he’s more concerned with the economics, functionality, or ‘ethics’ of his purchases. Sorry Stallman, ethics doesn’t come out on top in a capitalist world!) You can rant and rave all you want to the techno-geeks who sit there running free software on their netbooks, but if you want to make a difference you’ve got to shut up, stop being a jerk, and make some arguments that are clear, concise, and based on something that’s actually going to sell to the public. Ethics is all fine and good, but most of us base our software decisions on “superficial” (his exact word) factors like ease of use and functionality.

In a nutshell, he seems like a very thoughtful, ethical, philosophical person who has had some very interesting, very influential ideas that have made an enormous difference in the computing sector; at the same time, he’s a bit of a hippie, incredibly naive and unrealistic. As much as he’s got things to say, I think it’s gone to his head too much, and he comes off as a very smug, self-righteous proselytizer who can’t accept anything as reality except what he wants. I think it’s about time that the free software folks find themselves a new hero.