[Open-graphics] Having fruitful and respectful discussions on Slashdot? And where did Stallman say that?

[J.B. Nicholson-Owens]

Terry Hancock wrote:
> 1) My prior experience with Slashdot suggests it's all negative, so I
> wasn't surprised. Maybe I'm biased, but my experience is that people
> would far rather bitch about proprietary vendors than construct a viable
> alternative ("It may be better to light a candle, but cursing the
> darkness is more fun"?)

I tend to concur; I wouldn't put much into any responses on Slashdot. 
Also, how do you know you're not talking to people who work for 
organizations whose interests are better served by the controlled 
economy of proprietary firmware and secret hardware design?  Also, my 
impression of a lot of websites I see is that they attract a younger 
audience who are not as well-versed in even recent history as I'd 
prefer.  But I'm sure this is nothing that hasn't been said of every 
generation when they were young and inexperienced.

> 2) A surprising number of FLOSS advocates are very negative about open
> hardware -- either dismissive of its importance (Stallman, for example,
> was very dismissive about it for a long time, though I think he's coming
> around a bit nowadays) or convinced it's impossible and those of us who
> think otherwise are just hopelessly naive or don't understand how open
> source works. <sigh>

I'd like to read or see some sources on the Stallman claim here.  I'm 
aware of him discussing the illogic of a hardware copier -- physical 
objects are made anew rather than copied like data -- a prerequisite to 
directly map free software freedoms to hardware.  But I'm unaware of 
Stallman dismissing the importance of hardware we can fully understand 
and control.