On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Rob Bayerl wrote: > I have been using Linux and GNU for 12 years now. The one thing that is > always constant is that even just mentioning the name Richard Stallman > ALWAYS starts a huge debate. I have argued from both sides on this > issue (what can I say, it gets boring saying the same thing), and the > result is never beneficial to the community or to the people involved. > To me, the fundamental motives of a Linux Users Group is to promote and > educate people about the GNU philosophy and show them a better way to > use their computers. It is my opinion that beating a dead horse issue > does not follow in this direction; in fact it distracts from it. These > arguments have all been made, but it still needs to be said that Richard > Stallman brings negativity and dissension that quite possibly outweigh > the significance of his contributions. I do not know him personally and > have not communicated with him, and have no judgment towards his > personality or morals. But it is my take that he cares more about his > ideals than any concept of community or common ground. I think people are arguing about the GNU philosophy and the GPL a lot more than they are arguing about Stallman. How does Stallman bring negativity and dissension? By pushing a philosophy that some people don't want to be bothered with? I think so. I would be interested to know if you can have a discussion about GNU philosophy and the GPL without evoking the negativity and dissension you are talking about. For me, the fact that some people go berserk when we discuss these issues does not imply that I should stop talking about them. Very often, people are flat wrong and they can learn something from a dialogue. Best, Mike