Richard Stallman

Richard Stallman is the founder of the Free Software Foundation. He started it in 1984, many years before Torvalds started Linux. Stallman is also half of the reason Linux came into existence because he provided Torvalds with the software (for free) that Torvalds was missing. Neither person had created enough software by themselves to make a complete operating system, but together they had something. (Torvalds ended up developing Linux further, while Stallman pursued other activities.) I never met Richard Stallman, but I have read more than one article in which he was described as different from other people. For example, here is a quote from an article from The Register on 6 April 2001 which the author discusses Stallman's lecture at a conference at Queens' College, Cambridge:

Wearing socks but no shoes, brown canvas trousers and a red polo shirt, Stallman is not as other people.

There may have been a valid reason for him to be at the conference in socks rather than shoes. For example, he may have a medical problem and shoes are simply too painful. Or perhaps the airline lost his luggage, and he had no chance to buy another pair. Or maybe the British police took away his shoes because they were contaminated with hoof and mouth disease. However, it could be a symptom of a defective mind. Most of us realize that society has certain behavioral standards, such as wearing shoes to conferences, especially if we are one of the speakers. But a person who is withdrawn in a fantasy may not be aware of what other people are thinking or doing. I suggest you consider the possibility that Richard was imagining himself at home in his living room; that Richard was not completely aware of where he was or what was going on around him. I also suspect the description of Richard as not like other people is merely a nice way of saying there is something wrong with him. When somebody at the conference spoke about patent protection for software:

This provoked Stallman into an extended rant against the whole idea of patenting software, and ended in him leaving the room to shout in the corridor...

The shouting incident may seem to be insignificant, but it could be a sign that something is wrong with his mind. I think that a grown man should be capable of dealing with a difference of opinion without shouting. Bill Gates is also rumored to lose his temper at Microsoft and shout at people. (Of course, Bill Gates is also rumored to slobber on people, which is a bit worse.) If this was the only article that described Richard as being different, then we could say that this particular reporter is incorrect, or that this reporter just happened to see Richard during a bad moment. But other articles about Richard also make subtle remarks about his different personality.



Eric Raymond

Eric Raymond is interesting for several reasons. One is that he loves role playing games. See his document about role playing:

http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/larp.html I lost my interest in playing games when I was in junior high school. Do the adults who enjoy these role-playing games simply have different personalities than me? Or are they suffering from a mental disorder which causes them to withdraw from reality ? This issue also applies to sports, gambling, and beer. For example, some of the people who drink beer seem to be healthy people; others are merely using the beer to withdraw from reality into a state of intoxication. In regards to adults who play games, especially role playing games, how can we figure out if they are merely playing a game or if they are suffering from a mental problem ?



What do we learn from guns? Eric Raymond also loves guns. You should read his following documents for details. (The ipscc1.htm document is also interesting because it describes tactical pistol shooting, which many of us don't know about.) http://tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/personal.html

http://tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/rig.html

http://tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html

http://tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/ipscc1.htm



I found a few of Eric's remarks about guns to be particularly interesting. In his discussion of ethics he has a section titled: What Bearing Weapons Teaches About the Good Life There is nothing like having your finger on the trigger of a gun to reveal who you really are. Life or death in one twitch ...

He goes on to explain that because a gun allows us to kill a person very easily, a gun has a lot of significance to our lives. This made me think of my automobile . My automobile allows me to kill more people than I could kill with a gun. For example, I could crash my car through the fence of a school playground, running over dozens of children. As Eric might say: There is nothing like having your hands on the steering wheel of a car to reveal you really are. Life or death in one twitch...

Later that evening as I held a jar of honey in my hand, I realized that Eric's remarks apply to honey as well. Until I read Eric's remarks about guns, I thought of honey as merely a sweet liquid. Now I realize that I'm holding a dangerous weapon. I could easily kill several infants by pouring honey down their throat and nose while they lay in their cribs. As Eric might say: There is nothing like having your hands on a jar of honey to reveal who you really are. Life or death in one twitch...

When I hold a jar of honey, I am a powerful man who has control over the life of many infants. But please do not suggest that we ban honey. Honey does not kill; people kill. Eric Raymond is only one of millions of people who are fascinated by a gun's ability to kill. Not many of these people are fascinated by the ability of an automobile to kill, or the ability of toxic chemicals to create birth defects, or our ability to kill with our bare hands. Is this fascination of guns a sign of good mental health? If so, what about a person who is fascinated by the ability of honey to kill? What would you think of a person who was fascinated that a plastic bag could be used to suffocate people? At what point would you say there is something wrong with these people? Look around the room you are in and try to find an object that you could not kill somebody with. Almost everything can be used to kill. What makes a gun so special? Why does a gun reveal who we really are, but none of these other objects reveal who we are? What about the people who control missiles, nuclear submarines, and bombs? They have more control over people's lives than a person with a gun. If a gun reveals who we really are, what does having a nuclear bomb reveal? What would having a container of tuberculosis reveal?



I pity the oppressed Europeans While at the tactical pistol shooting range, Eric Raymond had the following revelation: I thought then of the historian J. A. Pocock's description of the beliefs of the Founding Fathers of the U.S: The bearing of arms is the essential medium through which the individual asserts both his social power and his participation in politics as a responsible moral being... and I felt a flash of pity for the all the frightened, self-disarmed people who have never understood the full truth of that. And more than a flash of loathing for the would-be gun-banners who would rape away their chance to ever learn. Indeed, as Robert Heinlein famously observed, an armed society is a polite society.

As I read those remarks, I felt the flash of pity for all Europeans who are suffering under oppressive governments that prevent them from purchasing guns. As Robert Heinlein would have observed, the unarmed European societies are not polite societies. Rather, European nations are crude, rude, and unattractive. The Europeans are not a free people who enjoy life; rather, they are denied basic freedoms, such as owning guns. Since I am American, I get to enjoy all the wonderful things of life. I have freedom, for example, whereas the people in other nations are oppressed. I have wealth, while other nations have poverty. I have a free press, while other nations have biased news and distorted history books. I certainly am glad that I am an American!



Let's reduce crime around the world The crime rates in Europe, Singapore, Japan, and other nations is appalling. As Eric Raymond and many gun enthusiasts proudly boast, guns lower crime. As Eric describes it: It is time for us to embrace bearing arms again  not merely as a deterrent against criminals and tyrants, but as a gift and sacrament and affirmation to ourselves.

Therefore, by providing guns to other nations, we will reduce crime in the world. Furthermore, the guns will provide a gift and sacrament and affirmation to the people (don't ask me what that means!).





Open Source Guns, and the Free Gun Foundation Eric Raymond has purchased and used many guns, but all of them have been closed source guns from corporations. I am certain that Eric will support me in my request for Open Source Guns . The Linux fanatics complain about the price of Microsoft software, but guns are expensive, and bullets are also. Why not describe the gun corporations as evil empires ? Why not complain about the money that we must spend on guns? Richard Stallman started the Free Software Foundation; I am certain that he would agree with me that it is more important that we start a Free Gun Foundation . What good is free software when people are oppressed? It is more important that we provide the world with free guns so that all nations can become polite societies and experience the freedom that we Americans experience. We should start an open source/free gun movement in which the blueprints for guns are distributed freely on the Internet. Why should corporations have control over guns? Why should they keep this valuable technology a secret? As Eric Raymond would explain: The basic idea behind open source is very simple. When gun engineers on the Internet can read, redistribute, and modify the source for a gun , it evolves. People improve it, people adapt it, people fix problems. And this can happen at a speed that, if one is used to the slow pace of conventional gun development, seems astonishing.

(Read my main document, Linux1.html, to understand what Eric Raymond's quote means). Actually, we should have open source nuclear weapons, also. Why should a few nations or corporations have control over nuclear weapons? As Eric Raymond would explain:

The basic idea behind open source is very simple. When nuclear bomb engineers on the Internet can read, redistribute, and modify the source for a nuclear bomb , it evolves. People improve it, people adapt it, people fix problems. And this can happen at a speed that, if one is used to the slow pace of conventional nuclear bomb development, seems astonishing.



I want to help my relatives in Europe Several generations ago my ancestors left Europe for America. Someone from this Scala family left Italy, someone from the Hufschmid family left Switzerland, someone from the Hendrickson family left Denmark, and there was one relative who was a mixture of Dutch and who knows what else. Those immigrants then found freedom, wealth, a free press, and liberty. I feel sorry for my European relatives who remained in that oppressive, gun-free part of the world. So I will offer to help my relatives. If any of you reading this are related to me, send me your name and address and I will send you a free gun . This offer is limited to one gun per family, and supplies are limited, so hurry!



I want to help the people of Finland, also Finland lost one of its greatest citizens to America (ie, Linus Torvalds). No doubt Linus left Finland because he could no longer tolerate the oppressive, gun-free nation. He certainly craved the freedom that we Americans have to purchase guns, and I am certain that he wanted to be able to read the truth in newspapers, and to be wealthy. As is typical of the immigrants from Europe, we get Europe's finest people. All that remains in Europe are the losers who do not care about freedom or enjoying life. So to thank the losers of Finland for giving us their best people, I will offer free guns to the first 100 Finnish people who contact me.



Bruce Perens

Bruce started the Open Source concept. His web site has details:

perens.com In an interview

upside.com/texis/mvm/open_season?id=37d5b4060

Bruce mentions a bit about his childhood: I was a phone hacker back when phone hacking was what people did. I used to be able to whistle 2600 Hz and could, for a time, nullify the long distance charges.

I do not remember any time when  phone hacking was what people did.  Rather, I remember a time when phone hacking was what mental defects did. I suggest that you consider the possibility that Bruce promotes free software simply because wants everybody to provide things to him for free, and if we do not provide things for free, he will find a way to steal them. Perhaps Bruce has stopped all illegal activities, but I would still suggest you consider that he is not the sort of person we should look to for guidance.



Jon "maddog" Hall Jon is Executive Director of Linux International. In an interview he is asked where his nickname comes from: I am called "maddog" .... because I used to have much less control over my temper than I do now.

Great! Another Linux fanatic who has lousy control of his temper! What would happen if we put a bunch of Linux fanatics in a room and asked them to discuss Linux? Would they accomplish anything, or just fight with each other? Looking over the past few years shows that there is little except fighting among Linux fanatics. If you want a sample, this link shows a discussion at slashdot.org. This discussion is from Feb 1999. It started when Bruce Perens announced his resignation from the Open Source Initiative, which is some type of organization that promotes open source. Bruce complained that Eric Raymond seems to be losing his free software focus. He also calls Tim O'Reilly a parasite , for the same sort of reasons that I complained about Tim in my main document. Take a look at the remarks the slashdot people posted, and then ask yourself: Are slashdot posters typical of Linux fanatics?

Do you want these people to dominate software and replace Microsoft?

I suggest you consider that the Linux and free software movement is attracting people who are suffering from mental disorders .

