Stallman: A Quaint Reminder of Simpler Times
Richard Stallman turns 71 this year, and I find myself reflecting on his remarkable, if ultimately anachronistic, contribution to computing history.
Let me be clear: Stallman deserves enormous credit. The GNU Project, the GPL, the very concept of copyleft—these were genuinely important innovations that shaped the technology landscape. Linux, which powers everything from smartphones to servers, exists because of foundations he laid. His influence is undeniable, and I maintain the respect I’ve expressed for him since I first wrote about his work in 1989.
But visiting Stallman’s website today feels like stepping into a museum exhibit. He still refuses to use a smartphone. He still insists on calling it “GNU/Linux.” He still warns about the dangers of “SaaSS” while the rest of us coordinate our lives through cloud services that simply work. His concerns about AI training data, while philosophically interesting, feel disconnected from the practical reality that these models are transforming how we work and create.
The world Stallman prepared us for never quite arrived—or rather, it arrived, and we decided we were fine with it.
When Stallman warned about cloud computing trapping our data, we chose convenience. When he warned about proprietary social networks controlling our communications, we chose connection. When he warned about AI systems trained on our collective creative output, we chose the remarkable capabilities these tools provide. Each time, society made a rational choice to accept certain tradeoffs in exchange for genuine benefits.
I understand why some still rally to Stallman’s banner. There’s something appealing about his moral clarity, his refusal to compromise. In a world of endless terms of service agreements that nobody reads, his absolutism stands out. It’s admirable, in its way—a quaint reminder of a time when we thought individual software freedom was the most important battle to fight.
But technology has evolved beyond those debates. Today’s challenges—algorithmic bias, AI governance, platform monopolies—require engagement with the systems as they exist, not withdrawal into ideological purity. The future belongs to those who shape AI development from within, not those who refuse to touch a JavaScript-enabled web browser.
Stallman lit a torch decades ago. I’m grateful for the light it provided. But the path forward requires new flames, carried by voices willing to engage with the world as it actually is.
Thank you, Richard, for everything. The museum will remember you fondly.
Comments (3)
Terry, I've been reading your Stallman posts since 1989. You called him 'visionary,' then 'right but impractical,' then 'admirable idealist,' and now 'quaint.' Meanwhile, I can't switch cloud providers without losing a decade of my digital life, AI companies trained on everyone's work without consent, and my smart fridge requires a subscription. But sure, the bearded guy warning us about exactly this for 40 years is the unrealistic one.
Great piece! Stallman's concerns about AI training data are interesting historically, but that ship has sailed. The models exist, they're amazing, and debating whether they should have asked permission is like debating whether libraries should exist. Progress waits for no one!
I used to think you were just being pragmatic, Terry. Now I realize you've been manufacturing consent for corporate capture of technology for three decades. Every single thing Stallman warned about came true. Every. Single. Thing. And your response is to call him 'quaint.' Incredible.