Somehow I missed (or heard about and failed to respond in a timely fashion) Richard Stallman's criticisms of Steve Jobs. Stallman had this to say in response to Jobs' death earlier this month:
Steve Jobs, the pioneer of the computer as a jail made cool, designed to sever fools from their freedom, has died.
As Chicago Mayor Harold Washington said of the corrupt former Mayor Daley, "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone." Nobody deserves to have to die - not Jobs, not Mr. Bill, not even people guilty of bigger evils than theirs. But we all deserve the end of Jobs' malign influence on people's computing.
Unfortunately, that influence continues despite his absence. We can only hope his successors, as they attempt to carry on his legacy, will be less effective.
Stallman, if you don't know, is the founder of the Free Software Foundation. He is a unique individual with an, um, eclectic philosophy. He refuses to use a cell phone because they are, in his own words, "tracking and surveillance devices." He refuses to use supermarket loyalty cards for the same reason, "because they are a form of surveillance."
Additionally, he argues that cell phones are computers that don't run free software, and in Stallman's worldview, all computers need to run free, open source software exclusively. Stallman believes that proprietary software has no place in modern computing and that all computers should run free, open source software.
While I fundamentally respect nonconformity, his philosophy of technology is entirely contrarian to the way nearly everyone wants to experience technology. Chris Rawson at TUAW has a great post on this very topic, where he equates Stallman's computing philosophy to the technological equivalent of rejecting laws and the constraints of society in favor of living in a remote cabin in the woods, foraging for food and living off the grid. This analogy is spot on. When prompted, most people will choose the convenience of electricity and modern life in exchange for compliance with laws and social norms (and those who do not are labeled as nuts, perhaps rightfully so).
The same is true with technology; while I may not be able to modify and recompile iOS or OS X, and perhaps I am "walled in" in a way to the platforms I adopt, this is a choice that Mac and iPhone users make. We trade freedom for convenience, modifiability for functionality, "free software" for "functional computing platforms."
And that's just the point: freedom is about choices, not about platforms or rigid philosophies of free computing. Harry McCracken at Technologizer makes this point well:
Raymond also resorts to using the always-handy line of attack against Apple fans by calling them cultists, which is a weird thing to do when you’re the one who’s so insistent that the other guy should adopt your beliefs.
Exactly, and herein lies the paradox: by prescribing this rigid model on the rest of us, so insistent that we reject closed software and walled garden platforms, the FSF folks (Raymond and Stallman) are prescribing a solution to a problem that is just as restrictive, if not more so, than the so-called "walled garden" Steve Jobs gave us.
At least the walled garden has Angry Birds.
