craigsmansion
Joined 10 years ago
Joined 10 years ago
In that case their highest religious authority has issued a fatwa against weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, and since they're religious zealots they would honour that fatwa.
So they're either very religious, and should pose no danger because of that, or they're not very religious, in which case they would pose no danger.
> I think it's weird for you to expect everyone to blog about their daily negative experiences
And I think it's weird that most with personal grievances against rms can't be bothered to write anything but the shortest of anecdotal tweets and most with pleasant or neutral experiences take the time write long form articles including names, dates, locations, etc.
If one sets out to ruin someone's life one could at least put in some effort to convince those that are not automatically on your side.
I'd love to, if only these people who are so aggrieved would properly write down their experiences instead of "I didn't like him anyway" after-the-fact tweets.
> Correction: _Last_ it was the Epstein connection, a straw on a pile of many straws.
Yes, quite enough to build a strawperson as an effigy, and now you're doing it, because there was no Epstein connection. In all of MIT, the only person you can trust not to have any sort of connection to Epstein would be rms, but yeah, let's blame him and the dead guy, and take it from there.
Is this about Thomas Bushnell? Because I feel this is about Thomas Bushnell[1].
Bushnell is currently a friar in a religious order and works for google, and there is nothing wrong with that[2].
I can easily work with devout religious people and respect and accept them for their superior knowledge of the matter at hand (say, Don Knuth), but there's nothing wrong with politely declining their opinions when it comes to "issues" or how to become a "better" person.
Again, no disrespect to Bushnell, who I'm sure did a fine job, but I'm not willing to take his assessment of the personality of an avouched atheist at face value.
[1]https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...
[2] well, working for Google can be debatable depending on what you do there.
How can you look at the "modern web" and claim that? It looks like he understands it perfectly well, even back in the day, but what can he do other than say it's not good for user freedom when faced with user-hostile corporations with literal billions at their disposal?
> refusing to use normal web browsers and insisting on having web pages e-mailed to him
That's silly. His workflow is obviously email based, which, given that he travels a lot and stays in places with possibly less than stellar connection, is perfectly practical. Get all your work on your device when you have a connection and work through them in batches until the next good connection.
"He was kind, attentive, and has a loving core. In simple language, he patiently explained to my son, then around 12, about the virtues of the GNU/Linux operating system"
https://whoisylvia.medium.com/richard-stallman-has-been-vili...
He doesn't deem "having children" as some sort of special accomplishment though, which might rub some parents the wrong way.
First it was the Epstein connection, which proved false.
Then it was predatory behaviour at MIT with three quotes from over 3 decades, a sign on his door, and a mattress doused in implications.
Then it was simply "making some people uncomfortable", which is sort of a given if you talk about free software to groups of people who are in the proprietary software industry, and says nothing at all.
If you want the "real issues" addressed, stop drowning them in fabrications.
That would be for computing in general. When it comes to proving software, France's academia seems to be one of the few that takes "making working software" as a serious development for the future (maybe because of airplanes and nuclear power plants). They're actually in the forefront here, if not leading.
The correct response to "Coq sounds funny in English" should be:
"Maybe just learn French?".
Still, a lot of Spanish farmers drive one impervious to its slang meaning. This is probably because it actually does the thing they need it for, does it well, and they have better things to do.
> Who, then, has the right to criticize RMS
I doubt there is a collective answer, but I encourage everyone to look into the various affiliations of both proponents and detractors of rms' reinstatement and make their own decisions on whom they should trust.
Bushnell hasn't been working on HURD for a long time. He joined a religious order and works for google.
> Here's someone who spent about two decades of his life at the FSF
Kuhn is now the president of a competing organisation to the FSF that doesn't mind promoting Facebook or Google for their outreach.
> Here's a whole bunch of GNU project maintainers
Guix has been in disagreement with rms since he didn't want to adopt a CoC for GNU because it was "too punitive" in intent, and suggested using GNU's Kind Communications Guidelines instead.
> Here's a couple of high-profile GCC contributors
Nathan Sidwell is a Facebook engineer who instigated the removal of rms from the gcc steering committee. After the committee did so for technical reasons, he accused them of not being punitive enough towards rms and proceeded to tally various personal suspicions against rms.
"p.s.: In the closet-sized "office" Bushnell, McGrath, and I shared for a time we did have some spider plants as part of a running silly joke. They did not actually scare RMS away OF COURSE"
-- Thomas Lord.
Please note the capitalised "OF COURSE" and reflect on the veracity of your "common knowledge".
Yes. Judging by the reactions here I think most commenters are unfamiliar with Harald Welte, prolific Free Software hacker and one-man GPL defender.
For all the noise out of kernel hackers about doing their own enforcement if needed, so any copyright assignment is not necessary, Harald is one of the very few who actually went through the trouble of doing something to keep the kernel GPL instead of "GPL as lipservice, BSD in practice."
You'd think the Linux Foundation would be all over this, but it looks like they prefer to keep the gravy train rolling (https://www.linuxfoundation.org/join/members/).
Hmm. Maher earned about 375K in 2018 for presiding over a foundation with 145M in assets. I don't feel that's exorbitant in any way.
Looking through https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/31/Wikim..., wikimedia has enough income from investments to keep the wikipedia site running indefinitely should donations collapse.
I don't like these big budgets for foundations and groups for the public interest either, but in my opinion Wikimedia definitely shouldn't be compared to Mozilla here.
By design.
GNU maintainers already have full control over their projects. The only thing left to delegate to maintainers is the definition and application of the four software freedoms.
> The GNU Assembly is about treating the "GNU project" like an actual project.
With input from people who don't agree or would like clarifications? Because that didn't happen during the last time you tried this[1]. It was just the proposers talking in circles and ignoring input and questions, asserting that things would be for the better but unwilling to engage what "better" would entail.
> The GNU Assembly
is not GNU. And you were asked repeatedly to change the name to avoid confusion the last time you tried this with "gnu.tools", but it was ignored, just like all the input and questions that didn't straight up fit your world view.
> It is about collaborative governance and better communication
That's what got people to listen to you on the gnu-misc mailing list, but it turned out it was about ousting rms (without any solid plan other than "trust us") and shutting down dissenting opinions.
There's a reason you failed the first time, and it doesn't look like the gnu-tools initiative has managed to improve their governance or communication in the meantime.
[1]https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-11/...