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

Bruce Perens: On Non-Judicical Punishment of Individuals

perens.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 227 posts

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

#201

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

amluto wrote: post #200
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Can you explain how technical disagreements about implementation of technology make FSF "on the wrong end of the movement for years"? FSF has valid reasons to be wary of potential threats to software freedoms, and they are extremely dedicated to their mission of providing and protecting said freedoms.

Also, you probably do not understand the mindset of this movement. It is not a priority to have the best and shiniest toys and instruments. It is about freedoms, and freedoms only, even despite this way will cause significant inconveniences. It is unacceptable to compromise even the slightest part of freedoms to provide better convenience. This path is not for everybody, but I'm glad someone walks on it, if only to be a safeguard against abuse done by major software vendors. And FSF is very successful in acting as such.

> because I won’t deal with their obnoxious contributor agreement process

This process is in place for a very valid reason, perfectly explained here [1].

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html

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

#202

Post by amluto »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #201
amluto wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Can you explain how technical disagreements about implementation of technology make FSF "on the wrong end of the movement for years"? FSF has valid reasons to be wary of potential threats to software freedoms, and they are extremely dedicated to their mission of providing and protecting said freedoms. Also, you probably do not understand the mindset of this movement. It is not a priority to have the best and shiniest…

> Can you explain how technical disagreements about implementation of technology make FSF "on the wrong end of the movement for years"? FSF has valid reasons to be wary of potential threats to software freedoms, and they are extremely dedicated to their mission of providing and protecting said freedoms.

I’m pretty sure that almost everyone involved thought that the IR approach was technically superior. This included the people writing the code and the people who wanted to use the code. The FSF’s dedication to the cause caused a bunch of users to move to LLVM, which is not GPL.

As for the copyright assignment, the amount of paperwork and annoyance when I tried to sign up was absurd, so I gave up.

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

#203

Post by mindslight »

sjy wrote: post #157
throwaway8581 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real question is why every single major company in America is vigorously enforcing social norms that significant portions of the population, often a majority, don’t even agree with. This is very different than other eras.

Some of RMS’s behaviour seems excusable, but I think a majority of the population would support the social norm by which anybody who publicly states that possession of child pornography should not be illegal [1] is disqualified from leadership positions. As far as I know, RMS has not resiled from this position, although he has conceded that the actual sexual abuse of children should be per se illegal. [1] https://rms…

A person who has a very strong opinion on computational freedom has an unpopular political opinion that directly follows from data privacy? gasp

If RMS were a leader at a church or youth club, yes we'd rightly worry about where that view was coming from. But your data being your business is squarely within the goals of the FSF, and RMS staking out unpopular opinions based on their implications for his philosophy is precisely why he has been so prescient.

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

#204

Post by Gibbon1 »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #155
Gibbon1 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to me that Stillman has gone through an obsessive amount of effort to avoid having to change his boorish behavior. You and I would get fired for a lot less. I'm like, it's his hill he can die on it.

And apparently I’m supposed to be an expert in my own neirodivergence if I don’t excuse his behavior. Fuck that.

Reminds me of anytime there is a infamous mass shooting the conversation turns to mentally ill people and what to do about them.

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

#205

Post by BiteCode_dev »

3grdlurker wrote: post #181
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if a vegan is offended when you eat a meat sandwich at the office, how do you know who is respecting who? Society is currently not vegan in majority, so you could say they should adapt. Also you could adapt the point of view they are trying to do the least of harm, and are suffering from the harm you do. Then, you should adapt. Diversity is bound to cause friction. That's just how it is. There is no simple good an…

A vegan can take all the offense they want to take so long as they don’t take it out on someone in the office, because there are so many reasons why doing so is wrong (sowing division is one, as mentioned in previous comment) even if veganism itself is scientifically and ethically justified. I’ll leave it at that unless you actually want to talk about veganism in length. But, going back to the variables that diversit…

So you draw the line at "no turmoil at the office". That's what important to you. That's what you value. That's what you consider respect.

One person can be offended, but its on the person to take on themself. You can go anywhere you want with this.

If I masturbate on my chair during my break, I don't harm anybody. Do you take offense ? Why ? I don't harm you. But the majority of society would feels it's weird, so you would not allow it. No more "the offended person should just keep the peace" here.

Besides, with your example, you can't hire an autistic person.

The person will cause turmoil.

Just like a person in a wheelchair will need an elevator.

So there is some sort of diversity that you decide up front not to accept by design.

> But, going back to the variables that diversity actually pertains to, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion,

You are limited diversity to a class of parameters you valid. Diversity is, by definition, completely open. You don't decide to limit what's diverse. People are people, they are different. That's diversity.

> the output that you’re actually getting compensated for

People are more than robots outputting thing. They interact and create likes and dislikes. They talk about something else than work, or they don't feel they belong. The "only" work culture is an illusion, work doesn't happen in a vacuum.

But I can see you are starting to use words such as "asshole", which indicate to me this conversation stopped being about sharing idea.

I assure you I read all your arguments and took them in consideration carefully, and wish you a good day.

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

#206

Post by Dracophoenix »

throwaway8581 wrote: post #188
Dracophoenix wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the first sentence (Whence the e-giant custodians?)but not the second. Every major institution throughout history (kingdoms, churches, trade companies) has enforced top-down norms and expectations (i.e prescriptive norms). This was the case even mid- and late- 20th century America (i.e post-Sexual Revolution). There were respites from the prying eyes of society. Secret parties, meetups with friends, coun…

Yes that’s my whole point. The norms being enforced now aren’t those of “general society” but of a tiny elite. That’s what’s different.

I think you missed my point. The rules of general society have always been written by a tiny elite regardless of said society's size or purpose. Just one reinforced by the masses either out of ignorance, zealous belief, or uncritical support. It's the latter portion of society that one generally has to worry about when finding an escape valve.

These days the big difference isn't so much about who's writing the rules so much as its about the tools available to these people/companies/interest groups and their respective motives/criteria for using them.

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

#207

Post by jjav »

warkdarrior wrote: post #69
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #27

There is a conflict here: on one hand we want diversity, accept people with their differences, their handicap or education. On the other hand we want them to behave the same way we do, otherwise we reject them. So your company should have people with handicap, but that have no effect on others. And diverse genders, but you should consider them all the same, even if we know we have diverse bodies, needs and behaviors.…

> we want them to behave the same way we do That is a false statement. We want people to behave respectfully of others, not the same way we do.

But who defines respectfully?

You can find traits which are signs of respect in one culture and yet offensive in others. The only way to reconcile that is to not attempt to impose your definition of respect onto others. Not always super easy to do, of course.

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

#208

Post by jordigh »

eecc wrote: post #89
jordigh wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are his views not important when the entire mission of the FSF is to spread a very particular point of view? When RMS is advocating for zoophilia and necrophilia (he's finally relented on pedophilia, though, after many years of also defending "consensual" pedophilia), it hurts the advocacy for his other causes. You can't effectively simultaneously champion two such disparate causes without one cause seeping into…

Please refrain from libelous statements. I’ve never read anything from Stallman that defends any behavior a reasonable person would identify as Paedophilia, rather objections on the extremal formal definitions the US judiciary has for the status of “child”

So, now you've read what I quoted about Stallman defending pedophilia, right? He calls it pedophilia, he says he's skeptical it's harmful. That's a defense.

Now you have read something you had not read before. I am glad to have shown you something you didn't know.

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

#209

Post by jordigh »

kstenerud wrote: post #135
jordigh wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counterletter accepted signatures for longer than the original letter, and it was heavily promoted in the Eastern bloc, which is very sympathetic towards causes that exclude women and other minorities. The original letter is signed by many of us who actually write the free software and who are part of GNU. I recognise people in the original letter I've collaborated on GNU software with, people I've met at confere…

Yes, yes, and I'm sure the other camp would have similar complaints about the quality of your camp's signatures and membership. This is how it always goes when people square off on emotional topics: Victory through decibels.

One side of signatories is writing the free software we all use and has regularly and directly dealt with rms. The other side is shitposting in 4chan and probably has never had to meet rms.

Yeah, the quality of the signatories is obvious.

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

#210

Post by jordigh »

flapq wrote: post #147
jordigh wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counterletter accepted signatures for longer than the original letter, and it was heavily promoted in the Eastern bloc, which is very sympathetic towards causes that exclude women and other minorities. The original letter is signed by many of us who actually write the free software and who are part of GNU. I recognise people in the original letter I've collaborated on GNU software with, people I've met at confere…

It was not "promoted in the Eastern bloc". People from those regions could sign it under their real names without repercussions. The anti-Stallman letter is signed by the usual SJW developers who jump at any chance to cancel someone. Some of these went straight to positions of power in projects without having contributed anything of value. These developers represent less than 5% of projects, the other 95% either does…

> It was not "promoted in the Eastern bloc"

Yes it was, the counterletter was posted on Russian forums a number of times, and it was regularly promoted in 4chan's /g/ too, where it was also drafted. There's probably still /g/ threads promoting the counterletter right now, as this is a cause celebre for 4chan. It's a 4chan-written letter promoted in the Russian-speaking internet. Russia has a well-documented state-sponsored homophobia and that attitude trickles down to many of her citizens in various ways.

Post reply on HN