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

No Radical Changes in GNU Project

lists.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 155 posts

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#61

Post by favorited »

swsieber wrote: post #50
ng12 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users The notion that empowered means shielded from opinions you might disagree with seems odd.

Contrast that with Ellen Degeneres responding to people dismayed that she sat next to George W. Bush during a game (warning, video in the tweet): https://twitter.com/TheEllenShow/status/1181395164499070976 Basically, it's okay to be friends with people we disagree with (and really, we ought to).

We all have friends we disagree with, but Ellen deserves catching shit for palling around with a guy who started a war that killed nearly 5 thousand American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians for absolutely nothing.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#62

Post by sounds »

shadowgovt wrote: post #41
jgon wrote: post #19

I don't want to get into the weeds discussing the ins and outs of the various things that have happened with RMS and the FSF. I have my own opinions on whether or not these moves were warranted. Separate from that I guess my largest worry is that this is another step on the road to a complete neutering of the Free Software movement, and the increasing corporate enclosure of the software commons. The one thing I feel…

It's a complicated question, but I think the real decline of true free software commons was probably around the time cloud services proved so valuable. Cloud provides huge leverage to some end-users for getting to the goal of doing the thing they want to do with the software, and it utterly side-steps the Four Freedoms via the simple expedient of "You don't own the hardware the software runs on." GNU hasn't had an an…

Cloud services are actually still very fragile and vulnerable to being replaced.

(Granted, it will be annoying and painful to find new ways to do things like search the web, manage files/emails, or stream videos, but I think those can all be solved from the technical side.)

About the time the proprietary OS was finally declared dead, new competitors arose with convenient, cheap solutions that made money exactly because "you don't own the hardware the software runs on."

So we have another proprietary "open" operating system and it can capitalize on free software but still be proprietary.

When it becomes inconvenient (or painful) to use the proprietary solutions, there's a flood of new users to the free software world. I plan to just keep polishing the free software offering. That deprives the proprietary versions of oxygen, because it raises the bar for what is Free.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#64

Post by skrebbel »

swsieber wrote: post #50
ng12 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users The notion that empowered means shielded from opinions you might disagree with seems odd.

Contrast that with Ellen Degeneres responding to people dismayed that she sat next to George W. Bush during a game (warning, video in the tweet): https://twitter.com/TheEllenShow/status/1181395164499070976 Basically, it's okay to be friends with people we disagree with (and really, we ought to).

Wow, that is such a refreshing monologue. Yay Ellen! Right now this is what the world needs more of, not public lynchings and outrage-driven firings. Really happy to see someone with such a high profile take this stance.

Love thy neighbour folks!

(EDIT: this doesn't mean i don't have a problem with GW Bush's needless war, as pointed out by a few sibling comments. It's more like, I think that if people mingled a bit more with people from other camps, then there would be more understanding and, ultimately, less hardship in the world. So much of the shit in the world comes from lack of communication!)

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#65

Post by eitland »

swsieber wrote: post #54
shadowgovt wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a complicated question, but I think the real decline of true free software commons was probably around the time cloud services proved so valuable. Cloud provides huge leverage to some end-users for getting to the goal of doing the thing they want to do with the software, and it utterly side-steps the Four Freedoms via the simple expedient of "You don't own the hardware the software runs on." GNU hasn't had an an…

Well, AGPL was the answer to that issue, but it hasn't really done much. I think part of the impact was things like GitHub recommending the MIT license.

Also you can ask 20 honest developers what they think AGPL means and get 3 or more wildly different explanations, at least if you include "I've no idea except it also works lver the network".

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#66

Post by computerex »

mattl wrote: post #57
computerex wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll quote the page since maybe you had trouble reading it: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr... > Yet, we must also acknowledge that Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users. GNU is not fulfilling its mission when the behavior of its leader alienates a large part of those we want to reach out to. > We believe t…

I signed it. I'm not against RMS, I just don't think he should lead GNU. I think the GNU Advisory Committee is better suited to lead things. I believe both the FSF board and the GAC need term limits and I hope they implement them.

> I just don't think he should lead GNU

That'd classify as being against RMS. You can argue semantics all you want, but with someone else as I am not interested.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#67

Post by hguant »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #20
p7IDD243 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's correct but it's also worth noting that he did not resign, he was resigned.

I'm confused; I'm pretty sure resigning is an act done by the individual, at least supposedly voluntarily, and a quick dictionary check seems to bear that out. Are we just using this as a euphemism, or is there another definition that I needed to learn?

At higher levels of governance (both corporate and governmental) it's customary to not fire people. The way corporate entities/governments get around this is by asking for some one's resignation, with the implication that if it isn't given, the next step will be to forcibly fire that person. There are a lot of social and legal reasons for this, but it mostly boils down to the negative connotations that come with firing someone; it's a way of avoiding shame/saving face for both parties. The person 'being asked to leave' is spared the indignity of being fired, and the institution doesn't have the albatross of 'one of our key leaders fucked up so badly we had to boot them to the curb' hanging around their necks.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#68

Post by javagram »

mattl wrote: post #57
computerex wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll quote the page since maybe you had trouble reading it: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr... > Yet, we must also acknowledge that Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users. GNU is not fulfilling its mission when the behavior of its leader alienates a large part of those we want to reach out to. > We believe t…

I signed it. I'm not against RMS, I just don't think he should lead GNU. I think the GNU Advisory Committee is better suited to lead things. I believe both the FSF board and the GAC need term limits and I hope they implement them.

Are you a different person from the mattl who recently tweeted

> Support free software.

> Don’t support Stallman.

https://twitter.com/mattl/status/1177355118829854720?s=20

In any case I think it’s clear the letter is against Stallman retaining the leadership role and therefore in a binary supporter/adversary framing, the signers should not be considered “supporters” of RMS.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#69

Post by the_af »

jgon wrote: post #19

I don't want to get into the weeds discussing the ins and outs of the various things that have happened with RMS and the FSF. I have my own opinions on whether or not these moves were warranted. Separate from that I guess my largest worry is that this is another step on the road to a complete neutering of the Free Software movement, and the increasing corporate enclosure of the software commons. The one thing I feel…

> I worry that both Gnu and the FSF will move more and more toward being co-opted by the corporate "open source" movement as people less obstinate that RMS take charge and let themselves and the "overton window" of Free Software be dragged further into the realm of captive corporatism.

It's already happening. I saw this posted recently, either here on HN or on Twitter, by someone allegedly from the FSF/GNU camp: https://freesw.org/. The language of that page is worrying.

I think the "overton window" you mentioned really captures the essence of the problem. Principled people like RMS are needed, even when their positions are sometimes impractical, because otherwise the "window" will shift too much to the side of nonfree software, well past the middle point of compromise. I've had people here on HN argue with me that Free Software is "not about users rights" (i.e. the Open Source position) and that it's exactly like Open Source, and that "Free" Software doesn't mean what I -- or the FSF/GNU -- claim it means. Without RMS, this narrative will gain momentum :(

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#70

Post by javagram »

zeko1195 wrote: post #48
jedberg wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mailing lists are still the best async method for discussing meta issues with regards to a project, when the people who work on it span the globe. Basically you post to the list if you have a meta issue and then everyone replies. It can get pretty tough to follow if you're using email, but most of these had (still have?) mail news gateways, so you could use a threaded Usenet reader to keep track of all the forks in t…

Thank you for your response. I have a better understanding now. How is spam dealt with? Do people get banned quickly? Also, who archives these emails. Do they automatically get archived for public viewing?

The mailing list software automatically archives them. There are also provisions for spam blocking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Mailman

Post reply on HN