Go to top tier school

>go to top tier school
>graduate
>do some fine work
>decide activism is more important
>literally do nothing but talk shit and slowly forget the things you were decent at over the next 2.5 decades

How do you do that? How come he hasn't killed himself out of boredom or worthlessness yet? He has chosen not to have a wife or kids, he has chosen to disengage from the field he studied in (ffs he doesn't even use a web browser in 2017), and he spends his life essentially traveling to universities in Sudacaland to talk about the same 3 talking points to a bunch of BR fucks.

Honestly, I'd probably hang myself or OD on pain medication by this time. Why is he so unmotivated to improve his life? You know he can't live a very good life on FSF bucks alone.

Other urls found in this thread:

linuxfoundation.org/about/board-members
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

He's doing God's work

He's not very materialistic. He doesn't care about possessions or looks (or hygiene)
He cares about what he believes is the most important, and that is the triumph of freedom

Is it though? He's not saving kids in Africa, he's making sure some upper class kids have source access to their software packages.

I get how being an ideologue is fun, but it's not like he's championing freedom of the people. Software freedom, no matter how important, will never be comparable to economic or political freedom. He's not Robin Hood or fucking Ghandi. He's some dude picking at his feet while saying, "Free as in freedom, not as in free beer."

The important thing was actually creating a license that people could use that would thwart proprietary software, and that's the GPL. He's pretty much done his job here on earth and is just going around warning people that if they're not careful, we're gonna have crypto locked down devices with 24/7 AI spying built in that we can never modify that will control us instead of us controlling the devices.

>warning people
he's... not very good at it, is he?

So basically he should have died 20 years ago?

He's fighting for your freedom

I don't think you understand what Stallman is doing. Creating a strawman of Stallman does not help your understanding of what he does.

He's not fighting. He just gets on his soapbox and cries. If he was really fighting, he'd be bombing Microsoft headquarters or getting rich individuals to bankroll politicians into giving freedom away.

Like think of communism. When the Bolsheviks wanted power, they just took that shit and killed literally millions of people. I don't see Stallman killing anyone.

He's good at it. People simply don't care. Stallman isn't going to ram freedom down their throats. That's their own choice if they're not interested in freedom.

This is non-sequitur. Do you really believe such unconnected bits of information?

Stallman's life:

>Go to Harvard, not work towards any degree whatsoever and just take random history courses, mainly in Chinese and other Asian history with top GPA. Get the best grade in Math 55 in the entire school, then decide to drop the class right before the final exam because you decide it's more important to learn obscure history.
>Be bored by the Computer Science classes at Harvard and decide to wander down to MIT on the weekends to see what they're up to.
>Immediately be such an advanced self taught developer that Stallman is teaching PhDs how to do shit like build compilers and do advanced algorithm optimization, so they hire him F/T.
>Stay at Harvard taking random Chinese history courses until they threaten to throw him out for not pursuing a degree but he's at such an advanced level in every course they just graduate him anyway.
>Accomplish more work at MIT labs in research in countless fields than anybody else ever at MIT, his name was on Sussman's and dozens of other PhD's papers back when you didn't just hand out extra credit unless the person actually worked with you on research.
>Refuse to ever use passwords and encourage everybody to use the same login so they can't spy on anybody if all the logins are the same. Thwart any and all security attempts to keep logs on users.
>Get pissed because some shitty corporation hires away all your friends.
>Seek revenge by spending an entire year, every single day, for 16hrs per day, reverse engineering their software by yourself and giving it to their competitors.
>Get so good at reverse engineering you can easily keep up to a team of 12 developers adding daily features by yourself.
>Decide you're so good now at reversing, why not just build a free compiler and prevent these shitty companies from locking away all the source.
>Write an entire compiler by yourself, and reverse engineer all the userland tools of AT&T Unix.
>Retire to live for free on MIT campus forever.

No, you're taking a metaphor and extending its meaning far beyond anything useful. When you say he "fights for your freedom", you think of Ghandi, Rosa Parks, the Founding Fathers, and other feel goody revolutionary people that actually did shit that resulted in practical social and political changes. Getting paid pennies to preach to the choir is not fighting.

>muh kids in afrika
fuck em
and fuck you too

I don't think you understand what kind of freedom that Stallman is fighting for. His activism actually did shit that resulted in practical social and political changes. Preaching to people who will listen is only one was to fight for freedom. Fighting for freedom is more than just carrying a gun and gunning down the people who you believe is your opposition.

...

>in practical social and political changes
Not really. He and the FSF had even failed in bringing the Linux kernel into GPLv3. Let's be real, outside of a small internet community, nobody cares about free software.

>Fighting for freedom is more than just carrying a gun and gunning down the people who you believe is your opposition.
Yes, but it means opposition. When you fight someone, you're in a conflict with a party that does not agree with you. Going to BR universities to ramble to CS students passing out from the xanax they took that morning isn't fighting. Call me when he's sperging out at a Congressional meeting or trying to sue Google.

Natural selection is happening in Africa. Not like the contributed anything to the developing world.

The Linux kernel is not Stallman's responsibility. There is no meaning for Stallman if Linux became GPLv3.

The reason why people don't care about software freedom is because they've never been taught about it! Why should I care about changing the oil in my car's engine if I was completely ignorant about it? If I was ignorant, I would never change the oil in the engine. Likewise, people don't who are ignorant about freedom in software are only going to judge software based on what they do know about judging software.

>Call me when he's sperging out at a Congressional meeting
Why would Stallman speak at a congressional meeting without being invited to speak there? Stallman speaks at most places that invite him to speak.

> trying to sue Google.
There is no connection to suing Google and fighting for software freedom.

Everybody cares about user freedom, you see articles all the time about people being pissed their devices lock them out of something or geo-ip limit their options or spy on them. They just don't care enough yet to stop using these devices because they're cheap and easy to use, the spying and lockouts hasn't reached a critical mass yet to result in mass rejection.

>The Linux kernel is not Stallman's responsibility.
Nothing is his responsibility. Fighting for freedom is a virtue precisely because it's not your duty to do it. It's a choice you make. He and FSF failed and you can't deny that. They certainly tried to convince Linus to change with their shitty lies about anti-tivo.

>Why would Stallman speak at a congressional meeting without being invited to speak there? Stallman speaks at most places that invite him to speak.
Because apparently he's super important, but I guess not really. :>)

>There is no connection to suing Google and fighting for software freedom.
You serious, m8?

>Everybody cares about user freedom, you see articles all the time about people being pissed their devices lock them out of something or geo-ip limit their options or spy on them
They care about privacy, not freedom. Stallman even says that you can have malicious spyware in free software.

Linux doesn't have a future anyway. The entire foundation is solely made up of Samsung execs and other corporate shills. Once Android is abandonware when Google drops their new OS this year or next we'll start to see others follow, like Amazon rolling out their own OS and dropping Linux for AWS. Then it's just a set of dominos everybody will start switching over to those or microkernels and Linux will be killed off by it's corporate executives on the board retiring Linus and shelving the project into obscurity where just hackers will maintain it.

No, they care about freedom and privacy, and so does Stallman considering he refuses to even use a modern browser because of spying, refuses to use anything but cash, refuses to use an MIT access badge so he's the only professor on campus that carries around a cloned card to get access.

I can deny that the FSF failed. I can't deny that Linux didn't accept the FSF's arguments about Tivoization.

>No, they care about freedom and privacy
Those articles care about privacy and not software freedom. Stop conflating the two. None of those articles bitch about their BIOS running non-free software. They're bitching that Microsoft has backdoors in Winblows.

>Stallman cares about privacy
I don't disagree, but he admits privacy isn't the purpose of software freedom. It's freedom for its own sake.

The FSF failed in convincing Linux about Tivoization. Can you accept that?

They bitch that netflix locks them via geo location, they bitch that their Iphone's or Playstations are locked down and Geohot got arrested removing these restrictions. They bitch that their vehicles can no longer be serviced by anybody except the dealership because of IP rights of the onboard software. These articles constantly are popping up and are all user freedom related, not privacy.

As I said convenience trumps user freedom right now because critical mass hasn't been reached but soon it will, when these monopolies just go all out and make a move to lock down everything

I can agree that Stallman failed in convincing Torvalds about Tivoization.

The Linux board of directors:
linuxfoundation.org/about/board-members

Which one of these do you think would ever allow GPLv3? Zero. Linus doesn't make decisions he's just a regular employee these days, managing a part of the kernel.

If it was his will, Linux would become GPLv3. For any piece of code that won't become GPLv3 would be excised from Linux and rewritten as GPLv3 code. The fact of the matter is, Torvalds is not interested in changing the licensing for Linux.