ToxicExMachina wrote:

Let's see where is the real problem:

In fact community made libre software environment based on the GNU project. Community killed proprietary UNIX systems with GNU/Linux and improved software. Now anti-human corporations use weakness of some community participants to steal everything. Corporations bribed them, created corporate-style places for them, and now corporations are trying to destroy any community initiative.

just to give you an idea of how much we are on the same page about that, i recently said:

i have a problem with free software being increasingly taken over by large companies that dont care about us and even try to stop us from having our own solutions. first they lend a hand, then they take whats ours with both hands. then they say theyre the ones who really made it anyway.

why does that matter? they think they have a right to control it.

They don't think about rights or ethics - they are just trying to steal everything. Corporations know they can't do anything to harm freedom when community is strong.

Let's see where is the real problem:

In fact community made libre software environment based on the GNU project. Community killed proprietary UNIX systems with GNU/Linux and improved software. Now anti-human corporations use weakness of some community participants to steal everything. Corporations bribed them, created corporate-style places for them, and now corporations are trying to destroy any community initiative.

just to give you an idea of how much we are on the same page about that, i recently said:

i have a problem with free software being increasingly taken over by large companies that dont care about us and even try to stop us from having our own solutions. first they lend a hand, then they take whats ours with both hands. then they say theyre the ones who really made it anyway.

why does that matter? they think they have a right to control it.

ToxicExMachina wrote:

I think Ian Jackson just don't care about libre software - he care about his own ambitions even if it harms community and freedom. Either he don't understand the fact that SystemD, waylanD, GNOME, Pshshshsaudio, anti-human corporations and their organizations, sjw, proprietary software, etc. are parts of a whole disaster or he want to make everything worse.

he might not care about whats libre-- i dont know, what i do know is that among the people who stayed with debian, he has spent a great deal of effort throwing his veteran status into supporting init freedom.

Init is just another battlefield. It's important to fight for init freedom but it's not enough. Without understanding the situation and corresponding actions it's pointless. I have emailed a questions to Ian Jackson about his involvement in anti-RMS statement in GNU and his answer very disappointed me not because he confirmed he agree with the statement (I respect freedom of choice) but because of his argumentation.

Let's see where is the real problem:

In fact community made libre software environment based on the GNU project. Community killed proprietary UNIX systems with GNU/Linux and improved software. Now anti-human corporations use weakness of some community participants to steal everything. Corporations bribed them, created corporate-style places for them, and now corporations are trying to destroy any community initiative. Corporations created illusion that they help is the only way of development, and now they're turning this illusion into reality. The marker of corporate place for community (concentration camp for community members) is CoC and a vital share of corporate money. This is how "open source" became a title for "This is software for you, our slaves. You will develop it for us and you will hope we will hire you. You will do anything we say. You will say everyone this slavery is our mercy and it's the only good possible in life. You will serve us and you will give us everything you have for a slim chance of better life.".

Of course, it's simplified description and it consider only one side of the problem.

I think Ian Jackson just don't care about libre software - he care about his own ambitions even if it harms community and freedom. Either he don't understand the fact that SystemD, waylanD, GNOME, Pshshshsaudio, anti-human corporations and their organizations, sjw, proprietary software, etc. are parts of a whole disaster or he want to make everything worse.

he might not care about whats libre-- i dont know, what i do know is that among the people who stayed with debian, he has spent a great deal of effort throwing his veteran status into supporting init freedom.

if im wrong about that, it resolves the two issues at least. init freedom isnt the only freedom, but its one of the more underrated and underrepresented freedoms. steve litt calls the problem "gratuitous interdependency", i call it redix (anti-posix) and alexandre oliva of the fsf is even entertaining the concept of "punix" (a watered down, corporate monopoly posix to undermine the standard.) the catchiest one so far is "osps" (open source proprietary software) which does a very good job of illustrating the direction they are headed in, though i hate to use a term that lends undue credence to "open source" in the first place.

the petition he signed to remove stallman from the gnu project

I think Ian Jackson just don't care about libre software - he care about his own ambitions even if it harms community and freedom. Either he don't understand the fact that SystemD, waylanD, GNOME, Pshshshsaudio, anti-human corporations and their organizations, sjw, proprietary software, etc. are parts of a whole disaster or he want to make everything worse.

ive also found a 4 to 5% rate of false positives on the delete github wikipage so far. if we double that rate, thats still about 1,400 f-droid apps out of 2,028 that are on github. not great.

HevyDevy wrote:

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

Oh my, interesting read. I wonder what Charles Max Wood did to so offend the Foundation.

Apparently he used the word "whitehouse" when describing trump towers with a maga hat on. Damn racist nazi white supremacist if you ask me!

His real crime was to offer to mediate a civil discussion between two parties who were in an online battle. When you defend the target of an SJW attack, you become a target.

Dirk Gently might see everything in this discussion as interconnected and part of a bigger event.

Just in case i came across as an sjw i was being sarcastic with my last sentence.

All this happened on twitface didnt it, that is the source of the issue, people posting there lives for all to see in a vain attempt to stroke their own ego and they wonder why they get sjw's freaking out at them.

Not heard of Dirk Gently but reading up on it sounds interesting, cheers.

Dirk Gently might see everything in this discussion as interconnected and part of a bigger event.

s/Dirk Gently/roy\ schestowitz/ but thats why i like him. also a great series, i love stephen mangan.

there is so much political shifting around in the free software ecosystem, trying to keep track of the pieces really tells a story or two.

for example, this cancel-culture event comes on the heels of the cancellation of the founder of free software himself, based on a number of complete non-facts loosely (fallaciously) supported by less significant actual facts. is it november? yes. is stallman a pisces? yes. but many of the worst claims presented by forbes were indeed fabricated and not true.

on the series, everything is connected to everything else, but here many of the connections are very loose. many of the strongest connections are to some of the same companies trying to stop the rest of us from maintaining control of our software (thus our computers, thus indeed our personal lives) and one of the people attacking stallman recently was, sadly, one of the few people defending debian from a complete takeover by systemd. (on that matter i largely support what mr. jackson has had to say about systemd, though not the petition he signed to remove stallman from the gnu project.) at any rate there are too many meaningful connections to ignore all of them-- and they certainly arent going to be discussed in detail here.

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

fsmithred wrote:

https://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2 … ation.html

Oh my, interesting read. I wonder what Charles Max Wood did to so offend the Foundation.

Apparently he used the word "whitehouse" when describing trump towers with a maga hat on. Damn racist nazi white supremacist if you ask me!

His real crime was to offer to mediate a civil discussion between two parties who were in an online battle. When you defend the target of an SJW attack, you become a target.

Dirk Gently might see everything in this discussion as interconnected and part of a bigger event.

fsmithred wrote:

https://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2 … ation.html

Oh my, interesting read. I wonder what Charles Max Wood did to so offend the Foundation.

Apparently he used the word "whitehouse" when describing trump towers with a maga hat on. Damn racist nazi white supremacist if you ask me!

Moving to another provider is pretty simple

it can be, but im not sure it always is. the puppy linux guys dont seem like they can do it without losing a lot.

at least a few were interested, but they all seem resolved that theyre going to be with microsoft whether they like it or not. still, if theyre wrong thats great. i hope they figure it out.

https://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2 … ation.html

Oh my, interesting read. I wonder what Charles Max Wood did to so offend the Foundation.

fsmithred wrote:

I'd be more worried about which projects MS contributes to.

Do you mean the Linux kernel?

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/

Well, I wasn't thinking of that, but I'm worried about the linux foundation anyway...
https://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2 … ation.html

letting microsoft dictate who can contribute (and on what terms things are accessed) seems like a losing proposition.

Moving to another provider is pretty simple and there's plenty of choice so they don't really "control" anything.

I host a few things on GitHub and I'm happy to let M$ pay the bill for serving it up.

Do you mean the Linux kernel?

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/

MS can control who has access to github or not, but if they want to dictate who can contribute to a project, they'll need to fork that project and maintain it themselves. I'd be more worried about which projects MS contributes to.