51–60 of 110 posts
In order to be tolerant we must remove everyone that does not agree
tolerance generally excludes the intolerant, yes
In order to be tolerant we must remove everyone that does not agree
Earlier quoted context omitted.
tolerance generally excludes the intolerant, yes
please explain to us where it stops. For instance lets say I find it toxic to use comma in sentences. how many people do I need to find that agree with me on this before I can ban you from hacker news for toxicity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
tolerance generally excludes the intolerant, yes
please explain to us where it stops. For instance lets say I find it toxic to use comma in sentences. how many people do I need to find that agree with me on this before I can ban you from hacker news for toxicity?
Another reminder that no-one is irreplaceable. I'm sure GCC will continue without him, one way or another.
But it is a bit worrying if the GCC team feels that a man who has dedicated his life to software freedom is at odds with their objectives to the point where he doesn't even deserve a thankyou as they boot him off their webpage.
Mailing lists are famous for their drama, but Stallman is one of the most reliable public figures there is on the subject of software freedom. It is worrying if the people who control these projects think they have priorities above freedom, because it'll probably turn out those priorities are corporate interests. Not such a problem in GCC, but if this is a trend it is of concern. The GPL is not a license written to be friendly and agreeable, disagreeable but competent people should be responsible for maintaining it.
He’ll never notice to cause trouble about it, he lives in a bubble.
Soon the problem will just solve itself, given his age and various obvious physical issues he’ll be dead in the next few years anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Per https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235091.html , Stallman's last code contribution to GCC was in 2003, and before that 1997.
I viewed it more as a managerial committee akin to a board of directors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
tolerance generally excludes the intolerant, yes
please explain to us where it stops. For instance lets say I find it toxic to use comma in sentences. how many people do I need to find that agree with me on this before I can ban you from hacker news for toxicity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is preposterous. Removing a serially abusive person from a position of power is in no way soviet style authoritarianism, and has absolutely nothing to do with communism or capitalism. This is a private organization removing someone for poor behavior according to their own bylaws. It is not somehow a symbol for the fall of liberal capitalism in the US. Please. People are removed from boards and committees for poo…
The accusations that Stallman is a 'serial abuser' are strictly innuendo at this point. The flow of his detractors is one of wilful misinterpretation and unreasonableness. Removing Stallman isn't an economic decision, true enough. But it is the same hubris of believing that someone's political trappings and status should determine their influence on technical matters. The Free Software community can survive without S…
Stallman and Free Software have been explicitly political from the start. Stallman hasn't made any technical contribution in decades, and honestly, hasn't been relevant coding wise since the late 90s. He was put on the GCC committee as a political symbol, not a technical leader. That symbol is now toxic to GCC's mission due to Stallman's volitional behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were always political but now they're engaging in politics orthogonal to their stated goal.
How so? Surely you just mean politics the you don't agree with.