Comment Re:Horrible License Terms (Score 1) 60
Of cognate interest, spotted in the wilds, some mad bastards - The VMS Liberation Front (VLF):
https://webscene.ir/distro/VLF/2012/10.October
Of cognate interest, spotted in the wilds, some mad bastards - The VMS Liberation Front (VLF):
https://webscene.ir/distro/VLF/2012/10.October
Both BG & RMS have a profile of (action, ideation), BG inclined to the JP Morganesque robber-baron ethos of "just do, never explain, never justify", his values can be reversed engineered from his actions. Whereas RMS, due to resource constraints, is more ideation than action, relative to BG, that is, not in general.
Treating BG & RMS as an orthogonal basis of a memetic vector space, most peoples operative position will be a vector (pBG,qRMS). The ecology of operating systems (closed,illiterate,etc) V. (open,literate,etc) over the population of computer users, has been slowly improving in it's equilibrium position. Back, two decades ago, the Unix concept could have been the "root" of the PC revolution, but the lines were fluffed & what resulted has resulted, which although cognitively dissonant with regards to the assumed propagation efficiency of superior ideas, has reflected the nature of the world, in terms of operating system ecology.
The existence of RMS, in the mode that he is in, is a blessing, the ideational flame he radiates is brilliant & lucid, the fanaticism might appear scary, but that is only because of misinterpretation by the observer of what he represents. He is a catalyst, pushing back the equilbrium position from the absolute domination of commercial, monolithic, conceptually illiterate, operating system culture.
In summary, IMHO, I assert, celebrate RMS's pure memetic extremity, it's not dysfunctional at all. He is the living embodiment of a particular principle, in dependent arising to his complement, BG. RMS & BG engage in contrapuntal syzygy, those that pay attention to both, can engage in syncretic synergy, according to their lights. RMS is on ideational fire, a pure flame of cognition, you approach the textuality & energetic that he radiates, the same way one approaches a normal fire, gaining what heat & light & insight that you wish to, from his intensionality (intensity + intention). You might not wish to embrace the fire, nor should it be doused or attenuated, celebrate it for what it is & let it burn brightly. [EOR]
The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.