This is the first time I hear that programming languages can have charisma. Sounds slightly ridiculous. But I would like to see a study on the subject. What programming languages feel like and how does that affect the end results.
Different languages definitely have their prominent styles, but languages also have places where they are commonly used. Something like shell scripts are usually used for quick hacks, acting as a glue between different systems. However, all shell scripts don't have to look 'hacky'.
So a language's 'charisma' is determined by how people use it, and if most people use it for a certain purpose, most won't consider it for other purposes.
Stallman's entire approach is "free === good, proprietary === bad". His comments on Steve and "fools" is basically saying that freedom means we should all be using what he claims to be good.
Stallman is no less a "dictator" than Steve ever was, he's just not successful at it.
I think you misunderstand. You're right that to him "free === good, proprietary === bad" and since his software (GNU) is one of the few platforms that really qualifies as "free" he encourages people to use it, however he's made it perfectly clear what it takes to qualify something as "free" and many many other independent developers have released software that meets this qualification.
To consider Stallman a "dictator" is simply ludicrous, the entire point of his philosophy is that once software is released to the end user, that end user has almost all the rights to do anything they please with it, The only thing they can't do is take those rights away from others.
Could you specify the metrics by which Stallman is not successful (esp. compared to Jobs)?
If you imply some kind of comparison involving Apple's revenues/market cap/corporate success - that's not quite right as an approach.
Unless you compare such values with the overall economic effect of the GNU/FreeSoftware/OSS tools, compilers, whole Unix-like OS-es that have been freely available (also evolving during that time) for more than two decades. All this is something which empowered millions (companies, startups, individuals) and Stallman simply chose not to cash on commercial success because of his firm beliefs.
I doubt Apple and Jobs would win at such a comparison. (I say this with all the respect for the great marketer and technology visionary that Jobs was.)
Stallman doesn't just want to use Free software himself. He wants everyone everywhere to use free softwhere and nothing else, and even calls those who dare to use something proprietary "fools".
So as I said - he is a dictator and wants everyone to do as HE sees fit, whereas Jobs was perfectly happy for people to use other platforms if they prefer - he just wanted the one he was offering to be the best it could be, and in many people's opinion, he succeeded.
Jobs was called a dictator because he had very stringent control over Apple and the devices/software they create (both in terms of the design process, and to a lesser extent the users), but they never once said "hey if you don't use our software you're a fool".
Stallman is a (failed) dictator because he thinks he has the right to tell other people what they should be doing, and should not be doing. Why he tells them or what he tells them is irrelevant. If he truly believed in freedom, he would be happy that Apple and all the other computer/phone manufacturers are all driving each other forward in terms of innovation, and that ultimately, that means MORE FREEDOM for the user - freedom to CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO BUY.
In Stallman's ideal world there is no Apple or Microsoft or any other company that sells products, and everyone uses Linux or BSD etc, and anyone who dares to think they can make something better and make money from it, is laughed at. That isn't freedom, that's an out of touch toe-jam eating nerds fantasy.
Jobs helped create and industry, Stallman helped create a licence
Jobs drove a company to be a commercially significant platform (twice) and more recently redesigned the way such an entity could produce desirable goods people want to buy. Stallman will be remembered as the man who failed to produce HURD, quibbled about licences and fell on his sword when arguing an extreme position rather than, y'know, shipping an alternative.
You just don't get to categorically decry a market leader's strategic, commercial, and production accomplishments as 'jail made cool' unless you're willing and able to show a functional option. People will buy what they like and, to some degree, like what they buy. Whether they purchased goods with time, money, labour or some form of opportunity loss it doesn't matter: every sale is a _sale_ and Stallman has never sold. He's had a hand in building some niche 'ware (some of which makes my little world go 'round, to be sure) and championed some ideas which others have utilized to great good but the man himself doesn't ship or cause to ship in anything like the league that Jobs did.
13 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 51.1 ms ] threadSo a language's 'charisma' is determined by how people use it, and if most people use it for a certain purpose, most won't consider it for other purposes.
Stallman is no less a "dictator" than Steve ever was, he's just not successful at it.
To consider Stallman a "dictator" is simply ludicrous, the entire point of his philosophy is that once software is released to the end user, that end user has almost all the rights to do anything they please with it, The only thing they can't do is take those rights away from others.
Could you specify the metrics by which Stallman is not successful (esp. compared to Jobs)?
If you imply some kind of comparison involving Apple's revenues/market cap/corporate success - that's not quite right as an approach.
Unless you compare such values with the overall economic effect of the GNU/FreeSoftware/OSS tools, compilers, whole Unix-like OS-es that have been freely available (also evolving during that time) for more than two decades. All this is something which empowered millions (companies, startups, individuals) and Stallman simply chose not to cash on commercial success because of his firm beliefs.
I doubt Apple and Jobs would win at such a comparison. (I say this with all the respect for the great marketer and technology visionary that Jobs was.)
So as I said - he is a dictator and wants everyone to do as HE sees fit, whereas Jobs was perfectly happy for people to use other platforms if they prefer - he just wanted the one he was offering to be the best it could be, and in many people's opinion, he succeeded.
Jobs was called a dictator because he had very stringent control over Apple and the devices/software they create (both in terms of the design process, and to a lesser extent the users), but they never once said "hey if you don't use our software you're a fool".
Stallman is a (failed) dictator because he thinks he has the right to tell other people what they should be doing, and should not be doing. Why he tells them or what he tells them is irrelevant. If he truly believed in freedom, he would be happy that Apple and all the other computer/phone manufacturers are all driving each other forward in terms of innovation, and that ultimately, that means MORE FREEDOM for the user - freedom to CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO BUY.
In Stallman's ideal world there is no Apple or Microsoft or any other company that sells products, and everyone uses Linux or BSD etc, and anyone who dares to think they can make something better and make money from it, is laughed at. That isn't freedom, that's an out of touch toe-jam eating nerds fantasy.
Now, what exactly GNU offers that appeals to non-geeks?
It took Google to make Linux something the big masses will use (in Android).
You just don't get to categorically decry a market leader's strategic, commercial, and production accomplishments as 'jail made cool' unless you're willing and able to show a functional option. People will buy what they like and, to some degree, like what they buy. Whether they purchased goods with time, money, labour or some form of opportunity loss it doesn't matter: every sale is a _sale_ and Stallman has never sold. He's had a hand in building some niche 'ware (some of which makes my little world go 'round, to be sure) and championed some ideas which others have utilized to great good but the man himself doesn't ship or cause to ship in anything like the league that Jobs did.