Talk:Richard Stallman/Archive 4

message: I'm editing the part that references Trustworthy Computing. Trusted Computing is not the same as Trustworthy Computing. The first is a "family of specifications from the TCPA, which extend the behavior of a personal computer or server to offer particular cryptographic security services", while the latter is a Microsoft marketing campaign that was a response to the security problems within windows. Microsoft is involved with Trusted Computing, but it seems as if they refer to it as NGSCB. Though Trustworth Computing is mostly marketing hype, from an inside perspective, it's more oriented towards eliminating buffer overflows, ensuring privacy of data, etc. --Timbatron 05:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trustworthy Computing 

message: I've reported this to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress for all the 71.141.* ip addresses under the 'moderate' section.  --Nathan J. Yoder 03:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Thank you. --Maru (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The article says, "As no agreement could be reached, most of the remaining lab hackers founded Symbolics."  Then the very next sentence reads, "Symbolics recruited most of the remaining hackers — most notably Bill Gosper — and they left the AI lab."  So, did most of the remaining hackers found Symbolics, or were they recruited by Symbolics?  HistoryBA 01:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Both.  Noftsker had an idea for Symbolics, and they left the Lab for it- incidentally becoming the founders/first employees. --Maru  (talk) Contribs 22:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbolics 

message: Not to be a killjoy but the guideline "Make sure, however, that it is still clear what the link refers to without having to follow the link" from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) clearly indicates the format of the Java joke is unencyclopedic. It's a good joke, but this is an encyclopedia. WAS 4.250 07:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killjoy 

message: Can someone unlock this page? --Jacoplane 21:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I think it's been long enough. --Maru  (talk) Contribs 22:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: This biography is generally very weak. For one, it does not introduce Stallman as a controversial figure who's actions were questionable. I would put a POV flag on it, but I fear that would set off some sort of violent, bloody conflict. I don't know enough about Stallman to revise it, but conflict in the AI Lab is much more interesting the Decline of MIT's Hacker Culture makes it. As an example, http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ has many interesting insights that could be responsibly incorporated. For the second result on Google for "stallman", this is a very poor introduction to the character. In fact, almost every article about Stallman on the Internet in a better introduction to him than this article. --149.169.20.229 05:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weak 

message: An anon changed the former to the latter in the lead.  I can't help but think that if rms is not a hacker, then who is? On the other hand, I can't disagree with the latter. Any comments/opinions? --Stevage 11:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say "programmer" is more appropriate than "hacker".  He most certainly is a hacker's hacker, and it should be in the article, but, while considering what should go in the intro, I think something to keep in mind is that his being a programmer is better known than his being a hacker.  I find the harder decision to be "renowned" vs. "notable".  After a while I decided the latter, but maybe even better would be "acclaimed"?  Just my 2c. --Gronky 15:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He wrote Emacs. I'd go with "acclaimed" if we can find a sufficiently gushy article to reference. --Stevage 23:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As well as Emacs, he wrote gcc, gdb, and others, and if you look at the Recognition section of the article you'll find at least 5 prestigious awards which are for his software development.  (entries 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8.  Maybe more than 5, I don't know what the honorary doctorates are for.)  So he's not just notable, he has been noted.  "Renowned" is not great since he is not renowned by the general public.  "Acclaimed" is a good fit because he has been acclaimed by the respected organizations listed in the Recognition section.  I wasn't too happy with "acclaimed" at first, and I was going to then suggest "noteworthy", but after thinking about it, "acclaimed" is quite apt, and "noteworthy" has the same flaw as "notable".  So, in light of new evidence: how about "acclaimed"? --Gronky 23:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support that. --Maru  (talk) Contribs 00:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "renowned hacker" vs "notable programmer" 

message: I don't claim to know RMS at all. I just met him today as he was giving a speech on the Free Software Movement at WPI, where I am currently going to school. He doesn't seem to be as abrasive as I gather from a lot of the criticisms against him, and is actually pretty funny. So, I ask of you: do any of you people know him in person? Tell me about your experiences. I'm curious. EDIT: forgot to sign. --130.215.171.13 18:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who has met him? 

message: Why is this link continuously deleted? Of all the external links to  there are none that are critical of him right now. The person is reputable, there are links to Nikolai Bezroukov's site in The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Eric S. Raymond, Open source, Alan Cox, GNU General Public License, Linux kernel, John Socha, and other articles. The site is informative and well researched and includes much information on open source and non open source software. Clearly the site is not a troll as I'm sure some of you will call it, it just presents an alternative view of the open source movement. Just because you don't agree with him or think he is too critical of RMS doesn't mean you can delete the link. A link critical of him deserves to be included just as much as a link singing his praises. GNUwatch 18:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you not read what I wrote? It is referenced in many places on wikipedia (as can be seen in my original post). It is reputalbe, just because you haven't heard of it doesn't make it not reputable. It is not shocking that Eric S. Raymond is going to disagree with a book that is critical of him. Did you expect him to write a response saying that Bezroukov got it all right? You can't just label everything you disagree with as a troll, people can have different opinions you know. GNUwatch 19:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in fact there is a "Criticisms" section on the page.  I have not changed my opinion because these sort of links appear on other Wikipedia articles.  --Ashawley 23:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Stallman/index.shtml Prince Kropotkin of Software] Chapter 3 of the open ebook ''Portraits of Open Source Pioneers'' 

message: The "trivia" section of this article is an eyesore of a laundry list.  Any volunteers to start trimming away the cruft? Nandesuka 19:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned up some of it, however the grounds for removing some items from the trivia section was that was that they were insufficiently trivial.  So maybe they need mention elsewhere.  Phr 04:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia: An eyesore 

message: I think the GNU Manifesto was first published in 1983 or 1984 (need a cite).  The 1985 publication mentioned was the printed version in Dr Dobbs.  See also Talk:GNU Manifesto. Phr 08:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GNU manifesto 

message: I'd like to apologise for some of my past comments on this page, which were at times provocative and juvenile. Such material was both unbecoming of me and at odds with the stated intention of this site.
Petrus4 23:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An apology 

message: Lots of these items are worthless, and many of them belong in the copy of the article... at the moment it reads like a lazy schoolboy essay written in bullet-point form. 
Examples:
*"Stallman did not participate in the counterculture of the 60s, but found its rejection of wealth as the main goal of life inspiring."  -- Hardly trivia since it describes his main motivations. It needs to be sourced and written into the article copy, or removed.
*"POSIX" -- again, hardly trivia. It needs to be sourced and included in the article copy or removed.
*"He cannot swim" -- big deal. This is relevant how?
*"He can't program in Java" -- relevant how? He has talked about "The Java Trap" in the past. If the article had part discussing his objections to Java, it might be relevant there. As it is, it's just a rather pointless factoid.
*"Right Management System" -- pointless bit of cruft, unless Microsoft chose the name specifically to irk him, and I don't think they did.
*"Linus Torvalds said: 'Think of Richard Stallman as the great philosopher and think of me as the engineer' -- interesting, but not for a trivia section. More appropriate if written into the article section discussing his relationship with Linux. -Motor (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. Most of these points -- Java, POSIX, Linus, philosophy -- need to be moved and/or expanded on, not deleted. Until they are expanded on, they should stay, as a form of "stub". --GRuban 20:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed a couple of the most obviously poor entries (I'm waving on the SF entry... it should probably go too, unless it is a major influence on him).. I added the fact template to others -- without sources for these, they should be removed. Additionally, as I said above, once these items are sourced many of them should be written into the article rather than left in a shoddy bullet-point form. -Motor (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of those, except the Java and influences ones, cna be sourced to at least Free as in Freedom. --maru  (talk) contribs 23:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "People shouldn't complain so much about the Trivia section." -- the Trivia section is an eye-sore on this article. "Suprisingly, the biographical section of the article had most of the inaccuracies fixed directly by RMS, and not so much the trivia section" -- What does this have to do with requesting cites for the facts in the trivia section, and removing obviously irrelevant nonsense to tighten up a poorly-structured article? Not to mention requesting that many of trivia section entries are not trivia at all, but substantive claims that should be written into the article rather than left as bullet-points. It's not a matter of accuracy, so much as tidying up a bad article and wanting the information in it verified to a higher standard. That's why I've re-reverted you... anon IP editor. BTW: by adding the fact template I'm requesting more than just "it came from this book"... preferably a page number so it can be easily verified by others... there are too many people adding crap to this article to trust just one person, especially if they happen to be an anon-IP editor. -Motor (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, the Java entry can be considered confirmed by Stallman- I think he may even have been the one who added it in. Of course, then there is concern about verifiability... --maru  (talk) contribs 18:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've deleted the Java entry (again), because this is an encyclopedia.  If RMS, or any other editor, wants to make clever puns, I suggest they start a weblog, not use Wikipedia for non-encyclopedic content. Nandesuka 00:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  The trivia section is definitely not an eyesore.  The article is probably one of the higher quality biographical articles on the site.  Although silly, the trivia section is fine and people have been distracted by it (or instead the criticism section) while the main biographical material has not been verified by the same standard (proof by RMS's fixes).  These pleas to make the article more "encyclopedic" fall flat when paper encyclopedias are not required to have footnotes and don't have trivia sections.  If having trivia sections doesn't prescribe to your sensibilities, then I'm sorry to hear that.  But don't use fact checking to enforce your motives. Further, attempting to find a compromise by merging trivia items into the main article will likely result in an article with poor style.  People familiar with Stallman (or Stallman himself) have and will continue to speak up when inaccuracies exist.  This current exercise is futile and wasteful.  You win the edit war; I'll just surrender.  --65.19.87.53 06:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: "explainging the proposed changes became a core speech." -- typo aside, 'core speech' sounds like a bit of opaque management-speak. If by "core", you mean that explaining the changes to the GPL is one of the most important parts of his agenda when speaking, then it needs to be stated clearly and in plain English. - Motor (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can smooth the wording, please do.  My meaning is that before 2006, he had 3 speeches (each with a seperate topic) that he gave over and over again.  Now, he has a 4th speech, and during 2006 he will give it over and over again. Gronky 01:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Core speech

message: Hi, 64.222.109.153 and 71.241.136.108 (are you one person or two?)
Thanks for helping out; I see you think the number of sources
on the Emacs/XEmacs split here should be limited and the others
moved to XEmacs.
I don't much mind where that material goes (except that XEmacs is a little messy at present.)
But I do ask you to be more careful in your reverts.
Each of you now (or you, twice, as the case may be) has, while cutting down the discussion of the Emacs conflict, reverted edits I made that clarified text, labeled links, and fixed typos.  As you might imagine, I find this a little frustrating.
After the first instance, I made a comment at User_talk:64.222.109.153, but in hindsight I suppose that wasn't the right place. =)  I am a little new around here.
Thanks,
Greg Price 08:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your initial rewrite was good, except for the formatting, and 71.241.136.108 should not have deleted it.  I've restored the Xemacs discussion that lists Ben Wing's, Zawinski's, etc. criticisms separately.  I think devoting a few sentences to the topic is not excessive. Nandesuka 12:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverts in Criticism