Switching to GNU/Linux: Mentally
Stallman was right in the wake of Microsoft’s announcement of its much-maligned Recall feature and widespread public backlash to the terms and conditions for Adobe Creative Cloud products, it’s clear that trust in big tech and the software it produces is rapidly eroding. Under the circumstances, it’s no surprise that Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) is seeing an uptick in interest from the public at large. So as ever more average users consider “switching to Linux,” it strikes me that while there exist tomes on the technical aspects, there seems to be much less written on the shift in thinking that is part and parcel of every experienced and well-adjusted FLOSS user. So if you’re making the switch or know someone who is, here’s some advice to make the most of the transition.
Welcome
First of all: welcome to GNU/Linux! You’ve chosen the operating system that powers bullet trains, the world’s fastest supercomputers, U.S.A. air traffic control, CERN’s Large Hadron Collider, and Google, Amazon, and Microsoft’s cloud services, used by NASA, the People’s Liberation Army, the Turkish government, whitehouse.gov, the U.S.A. Department of Defense, France’s national police force, ministry of agriculture, and parliament, Iceland’s public schools, the Dutch Police Internet Research and Investigation Network, Burlington Coat Factory, Peugeot, DreamWorks Animation, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the London Stock Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange, and Stephen Fry.
As you’ve no doubt inferred by now, GNU/Linux users span from your everyday cat-video viewer to large institutions and organizations where operating system reliability and performance means the difference between life and death. No matter where you are on this spectrum, with a little humility, open-mindedness, and perseverance, I promise that you can find your self every bit as happily at-home with GNU/Linux as you were with whatever OS you’ve been using up to this point. This may mean giving up a long-trusted piece of software for something new and different, but for many new users the most hard-won battle is a change in mentality.
You’re not a power-user anymore
I’ve heard it said that the most “computer literate” people often find it especially arduous to adjust to GNU/Linux. I’ve been there; it’s a frightening thing to go from the person family, friends, and neighbors call to help with problems with any device that has so much as an LED on it to feeling like that clueless relative with a dozen toolbars installed on their outdated version of Internet Explorer. The reality is that while you’ve gotten very good at navigating the operating system that you’ve been using for the past twenty years, very little of that knowledge is useful in GNU/Linux. This is something you’re going to have to accept early on: no matter what distro you choose, it’s going to be different to Windows or MacOS in very fundamental ways.
This means that, no matter your mastery of Windows keyboard shortcuts, or how convoluted your AutoHotkey config may be, it’s going to take you some time to grasp the basics. Beyond that, the bar to become a GNU/Linux power-user is much, much higher than it is on proprietary operating systems. In case you’re feeling intimidated, know that this comes with some serious advantages. GNU/Linux systems come with a practically limitless potential for mastery, efficiency, and customization. In time, you’ll be able to customize your GUI to your exact specifications, automate system maintenance, and knock out common tasks with a speed you wouldn’t have thought possible on your old OS.
Embrace the new
Switching to GNU/Linux is, in some ways, much more convenient than switching from, say, MacOS to Windows. Chiefly, most distros can be configured to run a wide range of software built for MacOS, Windows, or Android with minimal fuss. That said, I strongly encourage new users to explore FLOSS alternatives built on and for GNU/Linux. FLOSS projects often get a bad rap among users of proprietary operating systems because while a piece of software may run on these systems, the experience is rarely as good as it is on the system is was designed for: usually, GNU/Linux. FLOSS mainstays such as LibreOffice, Krita, Inkscape, Scribus, Kdenlive, and Ardour are at their best on GNU/Linux in terms of appearance, performance, and features. There are professionals of every stripe who do their work with an exclusively FLOSS toolset, from graphic design to video editing, audio production, data analytics, and more. If they can do it, so can you! Don’t let the one piece of proprietary software that just won’t work put you off of your new operating system when there’s a whole new ecosystem of incredible software to explore.
New users of FLOSS projects often complain that the user interface or workflow of the tool they’re trying is “unintuitive.” Occasionally, these complaints hit on an area that genuinely could use some improvement, but more often, new users are simply expressing frustration that the workflow of a FLOSS project is different from what they are used to. These applications are not mere clones of their proprietary counterparts; they are projects in their own right, with unique goals, ideals, features, and workflows. Getting through a work project a little more slowly at first is not necessarily a flaw in the tool, it likely just means that you need a bit more practice. In time, you’ll come to learn and appreciate killer features that go above and beyond the capabilities of software produced by even the largest tech companies.
As a GNU/Linux user, you’re part of a community
When you switch to GNU/Linux, you’re not a customer any more. FLOSS projects are largely build by communities of volunteers who work on what they find interesting or important for their own reasons. There’s no support line to call, no one to complain to if something breaks, and no one is losing anything by you choosing not to use their software. If you need help, or if you want to help make a FLOSS project better, you’re going to have to engage with the wider community. Every project has a forum, a Matrix or IRC channel, or some other means of connecting users and developers. If you have a problem you can’t solve on your own, these are the places to go to get help. Sign up and make a good faith effort to learn the rules and etiquette of the community, and chances are someone will be more than willing to help you find a solution out of sheer civic-mindedness.
There is likewise a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction to be gained by returning that kindness: by being an active participator in the communities you join, you’ll help others overcome the stumbling blocks you once faced and foster connections with others who share your interests. Beyond the community alone, there is something wonderful about using software that you’ve helped shape; contributing well written bug reports, monetary donations, writing documentation, or testing new releases makes a direct positive impact on the tools you rely on each day. It’s one thing to use FLOSS projects for reasons of ethics, privacy, or mere utility, but seeing a page of documentation you’ve written go live for anyone in the world to learn from, seeing a bug you reported vanish after an update, a theme you created get added to a game, or experiencing your feature request given form in a release really draws you in. You’re no longer at the mercy of some large tech company who only cares about profit; you’re part of a community that cares about people, ideas, and making its software better, more efficient, more usable, and more useful for everyone.
The FLOSS mindset
To distill what I’ve said above: Things are going to be different, and you may feel disempowered and frustrated for a while until you catch up again. The solution to this, beyond simple patience, is to embrace the fact that by using FLOSS projects, you become a part of the process of making them. Join the community with respect and humility, allow yourself to receive help and kindness from others, and you’ll begin to once again remember how it feels to earn your skills. In time, you’ll be the one offering help, you’ll dance circles around any Windows power-user, and you’ll be using tools that you’ve helped make better. Again I say: welcome. With these small shifts in your thinking, you’re going to be in for a good time.
Thank you for posting this, it motivated me to go find the original emails and read the evidence for myself. I see nothing wrong with what he wrote, other than speculating on something he probably shouldn't have speculated on. I think his request for precision in language in that scenario, regarding accusations, is well founded.
He certainly was not advocating pedophilia or absolving Epstein and crew of anything.
Yeah I probably wouldn't have said anything if it was just the emails..
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."
Admittedly calling him a pedophile was a mistake. There's no proof, and no ones ever come out against him.
That being said he's made comments in the past sympathising with pedophiles, and only rescinded it after it publicly became an issue.
I don't think he's sympathizing with pedophiles, he's attacking the definition of pedophilia. That's a separate thing entirely.
That logic only works out if you think "consensual" sex between minors and adults (eww) is a thing.
If you fuck kids, or want to, congrats. You're a pedophile.
If you defend the position of such pedophiles, by "attacking the definition" you are, by definition, sympathising with pedophiles.
That's not true.
His argument is that the definition of "child" (and thus pedophilia) can vary by jurisdiction, so what's legal in one area is pedophilia in another. People also have different levels of maturity at different ages, with some being old enough to consent before 18, and others not being able to consent even at 25. So saying someone is a pedophile because of law X in jurisdiction Y isn't necessarily true.
I say this as a parent who would violently defend my kids against real pedos. I just do not agree with labeling someone as a pedo based on an apparent violation of my local laws, I would need a lot more context (e.g. did the individual know or should have known the victim was underage or being coerced?).
I'm not defending RMS here in the same way he wasn't defending pedophiles, I'm merely explaining where the statements likely could have come from. I think it's highly likely RMS is autistic and doesn't and didn't fully comprehend the social norms people expected, he was likely just being pedantic.
Please show me where in this quote he says that:
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."
There is no mention or reference to age. Better yet, look at the context of the qoute. It was in response to a political party that wished to lower the age of consent first to 12, only to then get rid of it entirely.
Stallman was referencing Epstein, not some random Dutch political stunt.
Here's an article about the quote complete with links and whatnot. Here's a quote from that article:
It sounds very clear that he was talking from the assumption that children can meaningfully consent. Once he was convinced that wasn't the case, he changed his view. That's it, that's the context. He was operating on faulty assumptions and changed his mind when those assumptions were corrected. He's not and wasn't on some weird pedo-sympathy binge, he was talking philosophically about consent.
Don't read more into it than is there. He's pretty clearly autistic or at least on the spectrum, especially if you read/watch other stuff he's done.
Did you not read the comment you originally replied to? Here's the statement I posted, with the link, again:
I am fully aware he's likely on the spectrum , I've read plenty about Richard Stallman. I've read both his biography "Free as in Freedom", as well as his book "Free Software, Free Society".
His work has had a profound effect on how I view free software, copyright, and even art/creation itself.
That being said, he's said some inexcusably disgusting shit. To deny that is a disservice to the FLOSS community at large. Not only for the members who've suffered through childhood abuse, but also because the FLOSS community shouldn't be associated with defending pedophiles or their sympathisers.
It's not to say he's not made steps towards correcting himself, but I don't think that's something you just get to brush off either. This article is intended to bring new people into the FLOSS community, maybe Richard Stallman isn't the best starting point in hindsight.
Not that he should be forgotten, just that maybe peoples introduction to FLOSS shouldn't be "RMS was right."
I read the comment, not the link because the quoted text looked very similar to the Epstein situation, and the Epstein situation is what led him to resign from his position in the FSF. I don't see destination links on my mobile app, otherwise I probably would've read it (or additional context like saying it was in reaction to a Dutch political party move).
Regardless, that doesn't change my opinion on this. He links all sorts of stuff and makes related comments about them, often with shallow understanding of the original content.
On that same page you linked, here's one just before that one you highlighted:
That's the tired "both sides" argument. The original link is dead, but I think it's related to this incident where protesters were arrested for claiming the election was rigged, following a judge's statements.
Stallman is absolutely misleading here equating political rhetoric with actual authoritarianism. The US has its issues, but the comparison here makes no sense.
You can see similar issues with Stallman not reading too deeply into things before commenting on them. The issue with the Epstein thing is that he sent an email instead of just posting on his website.
When people say, "Stallman was right," they're referring to software freedom, not all the nonsense he posts on his website. The OP even links that specific statement to a software freedom article, so that's obviously where they're coming from.
Richard Stallman is a fantastic starting point when talking about software freedom. Just tell them to ignore what he says outside of that. Linus Torvalds is perhaps better since he rarely talks publicly about unrelated things, but then you get into his legendary rants and whatnot.
My point is, look at the message, not the messenger. You'll never find the perfect fit of message and nessenger. I disagree with Stallman on a lot of things, including software freedom (I'm more aligned with Torvalds), but I still think he's absolutely the right first point of contact for software freedom because his views about software freedom are so clear and simple that the message is really hard to misunderstand.