31–40 of 310 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that is what they mean by "all computer users". You can not be a part of a lynch mob, and still take issue with Stallman's statements / behavior.
But the lynch mob is still there and defends its cancel culture. You can see them all over Twitter. They are ruthless .
If I believed for a second that any successor candidate to lead the GNU project gave as much of a fuck about software and personal freedom as Stallman did/does, I might support them. My confidence that this will transpire, however, is not high.
There are lots of us who care. We can preserve software freedom with the same stubborn, uncompromising attitude without having to also alienate the very people we wish to help.
Oh my god. " all computer users" with the implication that Stallman is not representing the ones who demand to go straight to lynch mob behavior without a shadow if due process as soon as the word "sexual" is mentioned? And therefore Stallman should be thrown out of the project that is his creation and life's work? That's got to be one of the most forced political readings ever of that point in the manifesto. Well, i…
If you ousted yourself as an asshole in public, people not wanting to associate with you isn't legal, it's civilized society.
fuck the GNU project. I no longer can take it seriously after the events that have occurred. Disgusting bunch of people.
That "disgusting bunch of people" wrote a ton of the underlying software that powers the internet. You might not like them, but show a little respect.
> We, the undersigned GNU maintainers and developers, … [18 signatures] Does anyone happen to of know what fraction of GNU maintainers those 18 names represent? Does this represent a majority of GNU maintainers or a small fraction?
Here's [1] the list of contributors to GNU. Note that it also includes past contributors. [1] https://www.gnu.org/people/
For the curious, this list contains roughly[0] 242 names.
The number of maintainers is surely much smaller than the number of contributors, however.
[0]: More specifically, the `#content` `div` on that page contains exactly 242 `h4` elements, all of which appear to be names of past/current contributors
How mechanically centralized is leadership in the GNU project? Does rms sign off on every change? I'm wondering how expensive it would be (assuming he does not want to step down) for the community to fork away from him or route around him.
In practice, GNU is almost nothing. Years ago there was more cohesion, and there are some guidelines that GNU maintainers nominally follow, but in practice each GNU package mostly does its own thing. A lot of decisions are made in a don't-tell-mom kind of way, i.e. we just try to make sure that rms doesn't notice when we do something he doesn't like, such as calling it win32/win64 instead of w32/w64 like he prefers.…
If I believed for a second that any successor candidate to lead the GNU project gave as much of a fuck about software and personal freedom as Stallman did/does, I might support them. My confidence that this will transpire, however, is not high.
I would suggest GNU people to not rush into decisions, the things are too heated at this moment, I am afraid we get a fracture of the project. I am also having a bad feeling that Linus Torwalds is next, that a list of 20 years old emails is already prepared and some people are ready to tweat something that maybe happened long in the past that made them uncomfortable. Maybe that public apology Linus did this year was…