I think both of you are wrong. There is room for both idealism and pragmatism in this world. We don't have to choose a single path. In fact the tension between the two paths helps keep both of them dynamic and alive.

I think your comment should be more strict: There isn't just room for both, it is a given that both ideals and pragmatism must exist and go hand in hand.

Ideals are the compass, shows you the final destination, where you are going.

Pragmatism is the next step towards ideals. It prevents you from being paralized when the ideals are very far away.

Without ideals it would be as if you don't have a GPS on your car and roam around randomly. Without pragmatism it would be as if your car didn't have an engine.

Yes, RMS is living a completely impractical and undoable life for the rest of the people, no matter what he says.

Yes, RMS is right and he must exist to show us in which way we should work towards

This is a great comment, and (politics warning) also feels very similar to my opinion on the current leftist/liberal infighting in the Democratic Party.

I think in almost all cases the leftists are right, but too often they have have no way to realise their ideals.

The liberal platform is the only left-wing platform that can currently feasibly win an election in America. Maybe that will one day change, but I’ve seen too many on the left throw the baby out with the bathwater because they want their ideal society right now, and nothing else will suffice.

At the same time, I’m grateful they continue to show us which way we should work towards.

I personally didn't use Guix or interacted with its community in any way.

But if GP is right about their attitude, it saddens me.

Can't there be a middle ground? Like, promoting free software and still helping people getting things done in the world we live right now?

I am in the Guix channels, and they have fairly good discipline for not being rude or dismissive. It's not perfect, but the project's core contributors are sincere about setting a good example, and trying to make the culture welcoming.

Rules about gently directing folks to nonguix ( https://www.google.com/search?q=nonguix ) resources are there, and people do try to be non-confrontational about it. It's a pretty businesslike vibe though.

i think ideally user groups like System Crafters might be a better introduction for those not steeped in GNU culture: https://systemcrafters.cc/

No, they are not right about the attitude. We just don't do proprietary software and so discussing it on our channels is off topic and distracting. "Go fuck yourself" is much stronger, much ruder attitude.

On the #guix IRC channel you'll often get a private message to direct you to other channels where it's fine to discuss proprietary software and how to make it work on Guix.

I'm not attempting to construe that the attitude is GFY. From the perspective of someone who is enjoying this tool and ecosystem and wants to do something, but the community is trying very hard to enforce beliefs that are incompatible, it sure tastes like I'm being told to go fuck myself.

Does it feel good to you when you ask a question and the reply you get is "this isn't for you"?

Requiring a private reply on an IRC server to unblock a comically common use case is exactly the problem I am trying to highlight.

"enforce beliefs"? No. Proprietary software simply isn't part of the project and discussing stuff that are besides the project goals on project channels is not welcome.

You don't have to belief anything to use Guix or participate in the community. It's an odd sense of entitlement to demand that others accept, accommodate, and welcome your ideology in dealings with you.

I also find it strange that you ascribe "this isn't for you" (a comment made here by strangers) to the project. No wonder then that you interpret entirely harmless community guidelines as if someone told you "to go fuck [your]self".

> Proprietary software simply isn't part of the project and discussing stuff that are besides the project goals on project channels is not welcome.

Yes, and I believe that this attitude harms community building, education and adoption efforts. You specifically use the words "not welcome". Other, more welcoming projects typically don't use such language outside of a Code of Conduct policy document. I'm pointing out that I've been made to feel unwelcome and you're saying that is entirely harmless.

Do you see the problem?

I don't think we're coming to an understanding.

You're (inadvertently?) twisting the phrase "not welcome", which I apply to behavior, to make it apply to people. If we can't agree on how to apply words we cannot use them to approach understanding.

Richard Stallman was right in the same sense Karl Marx was right. The people would, in fact, be better off if each have according to his abilities, and received according to his needs.

The problem here is the problem of incentives: you can state your desired end goal (prosperous communism, or free software utopia), but there is no mechanism to get there from here, and even if you somehow do get there, no mechanism to preserve that state without all encompassing coercion.

Moreover, the lack of incentives results in lack of prosperity: if there is little incentive to produce a lot (like in capitalism, where your profit grows with volume), people produce just enough to get by, plus some for individual entertainment. I’m sure Guix is good enough for the author’s needs! The problem is to get people to do things that nobody really wants to do. Who will build free software Salesforce? In capitalism, we do that by paying people money to do things they wouldn’t want to do for free. In fact, same is true in free and open source software: I can really only name a handful of projects that are widely used and of high quality that have not been largely funded by commercial world: OpenSSH, some other BSD stuff, what else?

Since commercial businesses want to use these things alongside their proprietary stuff, they necessarily cannot constitute part of pure (in free software sense) distributions. Thus, if you aim for purity, you either end up with shoddy quality, or depend on the largesse of the non-pure activities. This is analogous to modern welfare state, which can only function by skimming the value created by advanced commercial economies, and only to an extent that doesn’t actually choke them altogether.

In short, incentives matter.

> I can really only name a handful of projects that are widely used and of high quality that have not been largely funded by commercial world: OpenSSH, some other BSD stuff, what else?

Is this perhaps though a result of most projects allowing donations, and some companies (e.g. Google) having a lot of capital to throw around and funding them more-or-less just because? Would Linux not still exist in a similar form to today?

Also, I would add things like the GNU project, and notably VLC media player, alongside OpenSSH and the BSD stuff.

I agree with your final point, though. I can't actually think of a company whose product only in-house FOSS software. Red Hat, Suse, Purism, etc are building off community code, not something primarily developed internally. And companies like MongoDB make all of their money off of non-free cloud products.

One that I can think of that was once like this, the Subsonic media player, actually went closed source due to too many people re-hosting the code and not paying the maintainer.

> Would Linux not still exist in a similar form to today?

Majority of work on Linux is done by people who are paid by their employers to do exactly that. Just look at this:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.itsfoss.com/huawei-kernel-...

Google involved in Linux is mainly not through their donations to Linux Foundation, but through code written by Google employees on the clock.

I know it's a silly thing to point out, but I really enjoyed your typo in the second line in the context of that world view being incongruent with reality. We can't even type it as a society.

Put another way:

There is idealism guided by reality. This is the basis of Naturalism generally.

And there is idealism centered on what people can created that reality as less important then the social implications of that idealism. This is the basis of the Dialectics including Marxism.

I like FreeBSD and the general pragmatic Linux generally for the idealism founded on reality.

I dislike GNU often for the idealism void of thinking about reality.