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

Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

lunduke.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 447 posts

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#351

Post by shiado »

aliakhtar wrote: post #230
shiado wrote: post #97

The open source community might want to think long and hard about ceding control to groups of people that proudly list their mental illnesses in their twitter bios (like actually, they really fucking do this). I predict a serious split in open source culture once people realize they have been played by narcissists seeking power.

Uh, what's wrong with listing if you have a mental illness? To me, its no different than listing any physical illness you're a survivor of.

There should be no shame in having a mental illness, but there are many mental illnesses that I would highly highly advise not disclosing publicly. It isn't a simple matter of discrimination, if you disclose that you have BPD or ASPD or are bipolar people will avoid you and view you negatively with actual reason, these conditions are absolutely devastating.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#352

Post by jshevek »

aliakhtar wrote: post #230
shiado wrote: post #97

The open source community might want to think long and hard about ceding control to groups of people that proudly list their mental illnesses in their twitter bios (like actually, they really fucking do this). I predict a serious split in open source culture once people realize they have been played by narcissists seeking power.

Uh, what's wrong with listing if you have a mental illness? To me, its no different than listing any physical illness you're a survivor of.

I don't see a problem with an individual that discloses a mental illness. I do see a problem with a subculture that celebrates mental illness.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#353

Post by ofrzeta »

api wrote: post #240
ForHackernews wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a weird rejoinder to make in a thread about ESR, who was one of the loudest voices arguing for corporate-friendly language ("open-source" not "free software") and licenses (permissive, not copyleft).

This might be a good thing then. This has become a pet peeve of mine. At the last FOSDEM there was a talk on "open source under attack" claiming that anything other than permissive licensing represents an attack on open source: https://fosdem.org/2020/schedule/event/osi/ Two of the three presenters were lawyers for Google and Facebook, two giant surveillance companies with absolutely closed SaaS silo ecosystems. Evid…

".. parties who seek to limit the promise of free software" that's an interesting phrase as Free Software has always also been about limiting freedom. After all a license is something that puts certain restrictions on the usage of a piece of software. This is not much different to accusing the GPL of "limiting the promise of free software". Or the AGPL for that matter, which is probably what the OSI proponents are thinking anyway.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#354

Post by catalogia »

tedivm wrote: post #130
NyxWulf wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not aware of any organization that promotes "true freedom of speech" to that extreme. I don't want the government shutting ESR down, but I would never hire someone who has said what he says about race, gender, or sexuality. Promoting something isn't the same thing as supporting or allowing it. Many mailing lists have allowed a self governing style of free speech. If you don't want to hear from someone, you add…

His comments on women along are disqualifying- > "Try to avoid even being alone, ever, because there is a chance that a 'women in tech' advocacy group is going to try to collect your scalp." In my job I regularly have to talk to women. I wouldn't hire a developer who treated half the population differently. That's just one example too.

'Don't be alone with other people' is not exactly radical advice. I've had plenty of managers who said things very similar to that, or acted in ways that seemed informed by advice like that (for instance, making a point of holding one-on-one meetings in rooms with glass doors or walls.) The proliferation of glass-walls in workplaces is probably more than just a in-vogue aesthetic. I think a lot of people see value in having third party witnesses when in potentially confrontational scenarios.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#355

Post by luord »

It's pretty pathetic that Chestek wasn't able (or allowed) to even mention who was the "subscriber" that was banned in that email.

Mind you, I disagree with Raymond on quite a few things, but he's clearly far worthier of being read (at least on OSS matters) than these Chestek and Berkus persons.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#356

Post by a1369209993 »

iron0013 wrote: post #104
kazinator wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sort of language is normal in the parliament houses of the developed world, upon which our constitutional democracies are based. If there is some sort of evidence that the candidate in question is in fact a toxic loonytoon, by some sort of objective standard, then it's perfectly fine to use that language. At some point, you have to call a spade a spade, and a toxic loonytoon a toxic loonytoon.

Well okay, if you insist: Eric S. Raymond is a toxic loonytoon. And there’s plenty of evidence to support that assertion.

I disagree vehemently with this moronic opinion, but am strongly opposed to any attempts to ban you for holding or expressing it.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#357

Post by woofie11 »

kazinator wrote: post #65
woofie11 wrote: post #40

I wanted to address one error in this article: "Richard Stallman being compelled to resign from the Free Software Foundation." RMS was not compelled to resign from the FSF. RMS decided to resign since he felt it was for the good of the organization, and he could no longer be effective there. While there was a lot of external pressure, there was zero pressure from within. It was RMS trying to do the right thing. My ma…

> RMS decided to resign since he felt it was for the good of the organization, and he could no longer be effective there. That's just the cover story, and nobody in their right mind buys it. It was more likely a "you can appear to go spontaneously, or there will be a big fuss and you will be out anyway". It's the same old thing like when any public figure "steps down" in the midst of a scandal. That just means they p…

No. I know the personalities involved. It was not a cover story.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#358

Post by bthallplz »

temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #258
bcheung wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about others, but personally, I find the overly politically correct "safe spaces" much less welcoming and counter to the spirit of the internet. It feels like you constantly need to tip-toe around with every word to avoid the risk of offending someone. I'm much more bothered by people trying to police the world than someone who is rude or that disagrees with me. In a properly functioning society, people…

Needing to tip-toe around with every word to avoid the risk of offending someone isn't really new, it's just that many people in skewed power dynamics have been able to be avoid doing so for years. Nowadays, if you're the one being offended, you have a lot more tools to connect with others who may feel the same way, and bring attention to your point of view. The armor against true accusations is the same as it always…

> The armor against false accusations is very similar: don't be a jerk to people with whom you have a skewed power dynamic, as you may find your word against that of your accuser, and you may find yourself reliant on your accuser's peers to come to your defense.

This puts too much blame on the falsely accused.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#359

Post by api »

ofrzeta wrote: post #353
api wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might be a good thing then. This has become a pet peeve of mine. At the last FOSDEM there was a talk on "open source under attack" claiming that anything other than permissive licensing represents an attack on open source: https://fosdem.org/2020/schedule/event/osi/ Two of the three presenters were lawyers for Google and Facebook, two giant surveillance companies with absolutely closed SaaS silo ecosystems. Evid…

".. parties who seek to limit the promise of free software" that's an interesting phrase as Free Software has always also been about limiting freedom. After all a license is something that puts certain restrictions on the usage of a piece of software. This is not much different to accusing the GPL of "limiting the promise of free software". Or the AGPL for that matter, which is probably what the OSI proponents are th…

The MongoDB license they are picking on barely differs from the AGPL.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#360

Post by jshevek »

downerending wrote: post #284
joshuamorton wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're under no obligation to do anything. Individuals are simply exercising their own right not to engage based on their own experience. From other comments, you seem to be drawing a distinction between "social pressure" and "individual choices". Can you explain when one becomes the other?

I think we all know a mob when we see one.

If the mob is acting to achieve an ends I perceive as immoral, I am very quick to see a mob.

If the mob is acting to achieve an ends I perceive as righteous, I might never see the mob for what they really are.

I've found many people do even less well than I do, at this.

Post reply on HN