1. 0
  1. 2


    EDIT: wait, you are posting this again? Why? Instead of repeatedly bumping the same post, maybe write an interesting followup? It has been three months.

    1. 1

      Sorry I’m new here, how do you bump a post?

      1. 1

        In this case, fwg meant “don’t post the same thing again”. It is possible that you forgot you had posted it already (three months ago)? No harm done, but please be aware and avoid that in future.

        As fwg suggests, if your goal was to foster discussion, it would have been appropriate to write something else offering a new perspective on the same general subject, and post that, because that would have been material that hadn’t already been on Lobsters.

    2. 1

      Richard Stallman envisioned open source as an environment where people shared their code and other people would improve on it and this would gradually drive progress in the software world in more ways than a closed source environment ever could.

      No, he didn’t. This is intended as a bit of historical context, but it’s incorrect and shitty to characterize rms' free software advocacy this way.

      1. 1

        Um, which part is incorrect, exactly? Just to get the record straight.

        1. 1

          Richard Stallman is for free software, not “open source” software. He recommends people avoid the term. There are other things wrong with the statement but all in all it is a vastly inaccurate oversimplification.