Companies aren't the source of truth, but they do represent a floor of acceptable behavior for people working together in a group. Which is what matters for this discussion.
> they do represent a floor of acceptable behavior for people working together in a group
Huh? Working together in a group at a company does not imply any kind of standard for behavior, although companies pretend outwardly that there is some professional standard they abide by. The truth is that work places are filled with all kinds of horrible human behavior, always have and always will be.
People work together in bands, on art projects, on house renovations, on family housework, on adventures, on radical political movements, and it is OK for them to have complicated human relationships while they do so and capitalist companies do not deserve to have a say.
Yes, all of that is true. It is also true that they have organizations can and will get rid of people that are too toxic to work there. Sometimes the system even works! I've known of several people who, despite being brilliant engineers, repeatedly said the kinds of things you just can't say in polite company and so were eventually let go.
Yes, it took too long.
The system (at two separate companies) eventually worked.
That's not the only reason companies will get rid of people of course, because they are ultimately capital-dedicated authoritarian organizations. But it is a reason, which is my point.
And across the industry there is something akin to a floor of acceptable behavior. I cannot go into the office nude. I'm generally not allowed to abuse the other employees (however the higher up you are/the more important you are, the harder it gets to remove you, and it always relies on reporting).
There is a floor, and it's in practice lower than I'd like, but it exists.
Welcome to the finish sauna located inside the office.
It always context dependent. Organizations and companies in particular have cultural filters. I know people who find it toxic when people mix alcohol and work, while other find it useful to grease the professional relationship. Personally I find having a work get together at the sauna more suitable then the bar, but I am pretty sure 99% of HN belong to cultures that disagree.
Not agreeing or disagreeing, however I believe their point is that companies care about profit over principles and as long as an employee Disable the produce or foster work that is used to produce profit, thats is really all that matters to them.
There isn't really an ideological bent there that can throw a wrench in the works unless you are doing harm as a company.
Companies keep who they perceive to bring profits. Sometimes this is actually what brings profits, sometimes it isn't. Why do you think companies tend to grow huge parasitic managment systems, as they grow bigger? Not because the judgment of a company is sacrosanct, but because a company is a system that breeds and favors a certain kind of individual if the company doesn't work against that tendency constantly.
>
Companies aren't the source of truth, but they do represent a floor of acceptable behavior for people working together in a group.
To give a counter-example: in my observation, in academia (in particular math and physics departments), there is a lot more tolerance towards excentric traits than in companies - and collaborating in a group nevertheless works.
Thus, companies are an insanely bad example to define a reasonable floor. Rather, the traits that are considered acceptable in companies are whether they are useful for making the company money. For example dark triad traits can be useful for that, so such traits are somewhat accepted in companies.
Yes, the behavior of people working under a rigidly hierarchical, authoritarian structure in which they sign over all their ideas and work and have no control over them. The complete opposite of what Stallman advocates. You don't find any irony in suggesting to regulate Stallman by this norm?
No. The confusion on your part is you think Stallman acting like this makes him part of some authoritarian structure, but it does not. He is not telling anybody how to do their work, because they can just fork his code. He is simply ignoring what they want for his project because they are not his manager or PM. Under these circumstances, what obligation has he to make nice with what some consider "acceptable behavior" for a company man?
Because people are literally telling you what to do everyday, and getting another job doesn't change that, only who tells you?
The whole point of FSF is that everyone can have control over their software and do whatever the heck they want with it, even if it makes no sense. Here you have an excellent example, and you're suggesting there's the same freedom in finding somebody else to control your work.
False equivalency - I agree Stallman might have had some outdated visions for his projects (word processing? Realy? Nobody cares about that anymore).
I also accept the FSF/GNU don't operate like a typical authoritarian company - although I do think there are probably more similarities due to the fact power structures and human psychology dictate certain behaviors than FSF or Stalmman care to admit. But we absolutely shouldn't expect him or the FSF to operate in a similar manner, corps are what produce the toxic behaviors in the first place (not human toxic, toxic to society).
Being nice and polite, and being forced to murder kids and pillage third world countries, that has always had the smack of pure evil to it to me.
Maybe being polite is overrated after all. Fuck off, hitler (or whomever the evil dictator is).
> they do represent a floor of acceptable behavior for people working together in a group
Companies represent a floor of acceptable behavior for people working together in a group in a company (and that's not even true between different companies).
There are an infinite number of people working together in a group that do behave acceptably but not in the same way a company would.
for example: politics, unions, military, volunteers, churches, research etc
When the parent is attempting to say that for-profit corporations provide a "floor" of acceptable behavior, and by implication that RMS wouldn't meet this floor, I believe it's a perfectly valid comparison.
