Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals • Hacker News Board

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#191

Post by geofft » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 1:47 PM UTC

craigsmansion wrote: post #184

geofft wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, many of them were. Here's the lead developer of the HURD: https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa... Here's someone who spent about two decades of his life at the FSF, including as executive director, and won the FSF's award for contributions to free software on the same day that RMS announced his return: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html Here's a whole bunch of GNU project m…

> Here's the lead developer of the HURD Bushnell hasn't been working on HURD for a long time. He joined a religious order and works for google. > Here's someone who spent about two decades of his life at the FSF Kuhn is now the president of a competing organisation to the FSF that doesn't mind promoting Facebook or Google for their outreach. > Here's a whole bunch of GNU project maintainers Guix has been in disagreem…

Right, the question was whether there are people who have meaningfully contributed to GNU who disagree with RMS, or the only complainers are internet randos. Obviously the answer to that question is a list of people who have previously been active FSF or GNU contributors and now are either inactive or have public disagreements with RMS.

(By the way, Kuhn was on the board of the FSF while he was leading this "competing organization." The fact that this was not seen as a conflict of interest, and that the FSF has awarded him for his work at this "competing organization," implies that they are not actually competitors.)

Who, then, has the right to criticize RMS, if they don't? It sort of seems like anyone who raises a criticism of RMS can have that criticism dismissed because they've become a critic of RMS.

Who is a legitimate part of the free software movement other than RMS himself?

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#192

Post by imposterreality » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 1:48 PM UTC

amluto wrote: post #190

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If history is any indication, then yes, he can. He had created the movement that has transformed the industry forever and motivated dosens of thousands developers to contribute their efforts towards Free Software. And he did it because of the very qualities he is vilified now: persistence, pedantry, having strong opinions.

Regardless of whether he created the movement, the FSF has IMO largely been on the wrong end of the movement for years. FSF has been a poor so-called leader of the open source movement for many years. This entire focus on his supposed personal failings is a distraction. Even if RMS had completely reformed his behavior, he should not be running the FSF —- someone with a vision for the FSF that is still relevant should…

Friendly reminder that he founded the FSF.

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#193

Post by geofft » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 1:48 PM UTC

enriquto wrote: post #185

craigsmansion wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here's the lead developer of the HURD Bushnell hasn't been working on HURD for a long time. He joined a religious order and works for google. > Here's someone who spent about two decades of his life at the FSF Kuhn is now the president of a competing organisation to the FSF that doesn't mind promoting Facebook or Google for their outreach. > Here's a whole bunch of GNU project maintainers Guix has been in disagreem…

> Nathan Sidwell is a Facebook engineer who instigated the removal of rms from the gcc steering committee. > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235267.html Today I learned the name of one of the first toxic people who seriously suggested to write gcc in C++. And they are admitting it themselves! What a tragedy. Of course, RMS was, rightfully again, the main opposing force. We live in sad, sad times. Quoting…

What is your reason for believing that the proposal to write gcc in C++ is idiotic?

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#194

Post by imposterreality » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 1:50 PM UTC

aortega wrote: post #93

I think we can all agree that RMS has been too abusive to corporations. Corporations that now push back in the form of twitter lobbyists.

Bingo.

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#195

Post by DanBC » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 1:56 PM UTC

aortega wrote: post #71

Arainach wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix... >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.” >Richard Stallman told me of his misery and that he’d kill himself if I didn’t go out with him. There are plenty of primary sources, and they're not "corporate lobbyists". RMS is toxic.

>>Richard Stallman told me of his misery and that he’d kill himself if I didn’t go out with him. I said exactly that many times to girls when I was a teenager. It was a joke. Taken out of context, those phrases can mean anything good or bad.

> It was a joke.

Can you explain the joke? What's the set up? What's the punchline? What expectations are being subverted? Is it somehow a pun?

You're claiming it's a joke, but I struggle to see how this works on any level as a joke.

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#196

Post by enriquto » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 2:10 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #193

enriquto wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nathan Sidwell is a Facebook engineer who instigated the removal of rms from the gcc steering committee. > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235267.html Today I learned the name of one of the first toxic people who seriously suggested to write gcc in C++. And they are admitting it themselves! What a tragedy. Of course, RMS was, rightfully again, the main opposing force. We live in sad, sad times. Quoting…

What is your reason for believing that the proposal to write gcc in C++ is idiotic?

Paraphrasing Torvalds, to keep people like Nathan out.

Being serious, the world needs an easily bootstrappable C compiler. It's a crucial pillar of our society, and we lost it a few years ago. That is a shame.

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#197

Post by Andrew_nenakhov » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 2:11 PM UTC

amluto wrote: post #190

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If history is any indication, then yes, he can. He had created the movement that has transformed the industry forever and motivated dosens of thousands developers to contribute their efforts towards Free Software. And he did it because of the very qualities he is vilified now: persistence, pedantry, having strong opinions.

Regardless of whether he created the movement, the FSF has IMO largely been on the wrong end of the movement for years. FSF has been a poor so-called leader of the open source movement for many years. This entire focus on his supposed personal failings is a distraction. Even if RMS had completely reformed his behavior, he should not be running the FSF —- someone with a vision for the FSF that is still relevant should…

Would you please kindly provide some more expanded argumentation about FSF being "on the wrong end of the movement for years"?

I would also like to hear your ideas what should a "vision for the FSF that is still relevant" include? It will be OK for me if you will please kindly tell what is wrong with current 'FSF vision'.

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#198

Post by craigsmansion » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 2:26 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #191

craigsmansion wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here's the lead developer of the HURD Bushnell hasn't been working on HURD for a long time. He joined a religious order and works for google. > Here's someone who spent about two decades of his life at the FSF Kuhn is now the president of a competing organisation to the FSF that doesn't mind promoting Facebook or Google for their outreach. > Here's a whole bunch of GNU project maintainers Guix has been in disagreem…

Right, the question was whether there are people who have meaningfully contributed to GNU who disagree with RMS, or the only complainers are internet randos. Obviously the answer to that question is a list of people who have previously been active FSF or GNU contributors and now are either inactive or have public disagreements with RMS. (By the way, Kuhn was on the board of the FSF while he was leading this "competin…

I only provided background information on the people you mentioned, not that their criticism should be dismissed because of it.

> Who, then, has the right to criticize RMS

I doubt there is a collective answer, but I encourage everyone to look into the various affiliations of both proponents and detractors of rms' reinstatement and make their own decisions on whom they should trust.

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#199

Post by kodah » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 2:33 PM UTC

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #170

luckylion wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly, but I don't see a lot of acceptance for actual diversity in diversity circles. There's a core they share (political stance, worldview) that's essential for being allowed. Diversity is allowed beyond that, but that's really no different than anywhere else. Trump fans of lots of different backgrounds get along great, because they share what they consider important. The diversity movement is primarily concerne…

> Trump fans of lots of different backgrounds get along great, because they share what they consider important. I haven't thought about this earlier, but there is some truth to it. When I'm with my rightish colleagues, I can basically say anything I like, the worst I risk is being called a stupid commie. Of course they know we have very different opinions, but there is no problem - basically I feel free to discuss an…

> With my leftish friends, I really need to be much more careful. Frankly, I'm not up to date about all the current developments especially in the trans sphere, and I'm not sure if the thing that appears in my mind is the right one to say. And when I say something wrong, they are really outraged. They take it personally. So I find myself a bit more quiet when I' with them, and I keep my opinions about important issues to myself.

This is not a friend, imo. There are plenty of leftists that aren't performative and don't practice consistent outrage. I've known some of these people too and they're exhausting. Do yourself a favor and get new leftist friends.

Re: Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

#200

Post by amluto » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 2:53 PM UTC

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #197

amluto wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of whether he created the movement, the FSF has IMO largely been on the wrong end of the movement for years. FSF has been a poor so-called leader of the open source movement for many years. This entire focus on his supposed personal failings is a distraction. Even if RMS had completely reformed his behavior, he should not be running the FSF —- someone with a vision for the FSF that is still relevant should…

Would you please kindly provide some more expanded argumentation about FSF being "on the wrong end of the movement for years"? I would also like to hear your ideas what should a "vision for the FSF that is still relevant" include? It will be OK for me if you will please kindly tell what is wrong with current 'FSF vision'.

For example, in 2008: https://lwn.net/Articles/301135/

And now: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hardening/CAHk-=whA6zru0BaNm4u...

Or as a more personal example, I will not contribute directly to any open source projects under the FSF umbrella because I won’t deal with their obnoxious contributor agreement process. As far as I can tell, the world and the FSF gain nothing except maybe prestige from this process, but they definitely keep contributors away.