Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Joint Statement on the GNU Project

guix.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 310 posts

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#91

Post by falcolas »

Back when we collectively ousted Brandon Eich from Mozilla, I thought we were doing the right thing. However, that slope is awfully slippery, and we are now ousting people from their own projects for sins that have no real bearing on the project. This isn't making our community better, for there is nobody that exists that doesn't have skeletons in their closets.

People are claiming here that they can have just as much an impact on open source as Stallman, but if this is the case, why haven't they already pushed Stallman out on their merits alone? Why has it taken airing Richard Stallman's dirty laundry for them to step up in the community's eyes?

Perhaps their sins are less objectionable than Stallman's - more acceptable when combined with their lesser impact than Stallman - but what about tomorrow? Who will replace them when their actions from 20 years ago come back to haunt them?

What level me mediocrity will we have to endure in 10 years just to have the least objectionable person possible in a position of power?

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#92

Post by oaiey »

dtornabene wrote: post #72

For anyone coming to this, I can't speak for all of the people on that list, but the ones that I've met personally, over a decade now in the free software world, are decent caring people actually following the creed of freedom to its rightful conclusion . The idea that this is a "witchhunt" is absurd.

I think GNU deserves a leader who is not only strong in freedom advocacy.

I hope GNU finds a similar passioned but also humble and emotional capable leader.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#93

Post by canarypilot »

The only joy I get from these threads is in watching a whole bunch of newbies to GNU get upset that politics, social policy, and GNU are intertwined.

They have always been! You could at least have the dignity to read Stallman’s writings (a fine start is available at: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/essays-and-articles.html , a more advanced diet is available at Stallman.org ) to understand just how politically charged GNU, the FSF, and Stallman have always been.

So now some members of a social movement disagree with the leader of that social movement you feel upset to see social issues discussed? That seems dishonest.

Why should any social and political movement remain beholden to one original star of the old guard as the world moves forward.

How ought the community respond to a trend to controversy and irrelevance other than by asking Stallman to step aside from the figurehead role? Is the argument here really that once you are a figurehead for a social movement you earn that position for life? I can’t think of any successful movement or organisation for which that has been the case.

GNU has always been political, the politics needed to bring software freedom to all users is different now than it was in the 90’s. Some battles have been won, others have been lost hard, new battles have arisen. An honest discussion of whether Stallman is best placed to lead those new battles is overdue.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#94

Post by kennywinker »

rowanG077 wrote: post #35
nrclark wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't show respect to people that throw their leader under the bus at the first sign of trouble. They have achieved some cool technical stuff but that is no excuse for being a sad sack of a human.

You're literally doing what you describe. Throwing away a bunch of people at the first sign of an action you disagree with.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#95

Post by falcolas »

kennywinker wrote: post #78
falcolas wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We, as a society, have established due process in the government and courts because we believe it's the right thing - the moral thing - to do. If it's the right thing to do for the most powerful entity in our land, what makes it not the right thing to do in all venues?

If I come to your house for dinner, and am an asshole to you and your family, do we need to get the law involved or should you just not invite me over for dinner again?

Perhaps I pull you aside, call you out for your actions, and give you the chance to change your ways.

One strike and your out isn't even how we play baseball.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#96

Post by dtornabene »

bitwize wrote: post #86
dtornabene wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can tell you for a fact that Chris Webber, one of the signers on that list, does indeed give a fuck about personal freedom as much as stallman does. Indeed it is precisely because these people believe in such freedom that they are standing up for the women who no one has chosen to listen to and its beyond gross the reaction of every fool who's never so much as filed a bug report or attended a meeting spewing out ha…

I really don't hate these people, especially not Andy Wingo. But if the likes of him or Chris Webber were to assume leadership of the GNU project, they would be one minor slip-up away from being purged themselves.

[flagged]

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#97

Post by duxup »

simion314 wrote: post #83
duxup wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen enough written about it, even by Stallman's supporters who say they've had conversations with him about these things before, to indicate his behavior has been more than just a poorly worded conversation. The existence of some folks who skew those things IMO isn't relevant when it comes to the things that I've seen that seem like believable accounts.

Some of those people that wrote against RMS are not in good relations with him so you need to consider those memories as biased.

I'm not sure that means something is necessarily biased.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#98

Post by nwgt224 »

bjourne wrote: post #79
bitwize wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just Stallman. This is an attempted systematic ouster of old-school hackers (and new-school hackers with old-school values) from positions of leadership. Stallman is just the latest target and also one of the softest. They have also called for the removal of: * Linus Torvalds ( after he apologized and approved the adoption of their code of conduct) * Ted Ts'o * the entire FSF board The problem is that while…

You're definitely painting with a broad brush. You can read Stallman's site and see for yourself that he is as left as they come (which is waaaay more left than "liberal"). Insinuating that there is some grand left-wing cabal conspiring to oust the "true hackers" is wrong. Some people apparently think Stallman is unfit to lead GNU, other people think he is. There is no need to throw accusations of malice around.

[dead]

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#99

Post by blub »

shadowgovt wrote: post #58
simion314 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only seen some accusation that appeared now after 20 years , where RMS said something and some people were made uncomfortable. I agree RMS is not a sociable person but I would have preferred to see some significant "crime" , now I have the feeling that you can be kicked out from your own project if you made a stupid comment or thing in the past and the social media gets enraged by mostly FUD and exagerations of you…

If that's your concern, I recommend reading up further on people's issues with rms. It's not "some accusations that appeared after 20 years," it's 30 years of pattern. https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-appendi...

Utterly destroying a person's reputation should come with a damn high burden of proof. That article would be laughed out of any courtroom.

Reading that has been a complete waste of time. To save everyone else some effort:

1. The man has problematic opinions. Welcome to democracy, where people with uncomfortable opinions are free to hold and discuss them. This is healthy.

2. He used a bad pick-up line, saying he'll kill himself if X doesn't go out with him.

3. The MIT report doesn't mention Stallman by name.

3. Had a mattress in his office.

The discourse level in the US has hit rock bottom lately, all I see are online mobs running amok.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#100

Post by Smithalicious »

shadowgovt wrote: post #58
simion314 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only seen some accusation that appeared now after 20 years , where RMS said something and some people were made uncomfortable. I agree RMS is not a sociable person but I would have preferred to see some significant "crime" , now I have the feeling that you can be kicked out from your own project if you made a stupid comment or thing in the past and the social media gets enraged by mostly FUD and exagerations of you…

If that's your concern, I recommend reading up further on people's issues with rms. It's not "some accusations that appeared after 20 years," it's 30 years of pattern. https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-appendi...

> I recall being told early in my freshman year “If RMS hits on you, just say ‘I’m a vi user’ even if it’s not true.”

I do not believe this. Stallman has no kind of irrational hate against vi beyond "church of emacs" memery. Stallman doesn't even take the editor war thing seriously.

>He literally used to have a mattress on the floor of his office. He kept the door to his office open, to proudly showcase that mattress and all the implications that went with it.

Stallman lived in his office. This is well-known and well-documented.

It's not mentioned in this article, but there's also the claim that women kept plants around to scare Stallman off. This is also patently false; besides being obviously ridiculous, one can also find plenty of pictures of Stallman surrounded by plants.

All of these claims are so utterly ridiculous, so absurd, that I not only feel confident to dismiss them without evidence; I'm also inclined to believe that most of them were made in jest.

It becomes hard to believe any of the accusations when so many of those that are repeated in earnest are so laughable.

Post reply on HN