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

Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

libreboot.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 253 posts

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#101

Post by yxhuvud »

dmos62 wrote: post #68
max1truc wrote: post #10

> The list that attacks Richard has Microsoft, Google, OSI, Linux Foundation, Gnome Foundation and Ethical Source people on it! These people oppose Free Software ideologically What ? The Linux Foundation ? It opposes Free Software ? Did I misunderstand this sentence ?

The letter is a bit hot headed and other commentors here are too. He expands on his reasoning in the letter. The problem with many of these organizations is the huge influence that big tech have on them. Remember, not too long ago a Microsoft exec literally said that Linux is a cancer. Now they're changing their tune, but everyone still has vivid memories of their Embrace and Extinguish campaigns. Many people, especi…

Not long ago? That was in 2001, which is 20 years ago!

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#102

Post by cbm-vic-20 »

icha wrote: post #42
EdwardDiego wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you maintaining this score, out of curiosity?

There is a support letter hosted on github: https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

Hosted on GitHub, a business (now a division of Microsoft) whose core is centered around the "Tivoization" of a GPL-licensed program. Ironic.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#103

Post by geofft »

caslon wrote: post #63
rzwitserloot wrote: post #2

From the linked article: > Our opponents wish to destroy Free Software > Our opponent’s true target is not Richard Stallman; their real aim is to destroy the FSF by thoroughly infiltrating it (like they already have with organisations like the OSI and Linux Foundation). These people even started an online petition calling for RMS’s forceful removal and for the entire board of directors at the FSF to resign from their…

I mean, the OSI is filled with people who work for proprietary companies, and open source was made to make free software enterprise. And the Linux Foundation has a bunch of people from companies that also promote largely proprietary technologies... So...yeah. The FSF is the last beacon of morality here, in its own strange, beady-eyed way. I'm not a huge fan of Stallman, myself (I have had many arguments with him), bu…

> I mean, the OSI is filled with people who work for proprietary companies

So is GNU, though. For instance, https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html identifies the affiliations of most of the GCC steering committee, and they're generally proprietary companies. (Several work for Red Hat, a subsidiary of IBM.)

Also, if we're going to claim that working for a proprietary-software company means you're not a member of the free software movement, the movement is very small indeed.

> and open source was made to make free software enterprise.

That may be the case, but the FSF has a long history of saying that you can work on free software for profit, too. Frankly, that's why the FSF exists separate from the GNU project - to be a place that you can order physical media with GNU software from and expense it.

> but the people opposing him are pretty awful people largely pushing proprietary software, actually

This is untrue of the authors of the open letter - you should look at their stated positions on free and proprietary software. (It might be true of some of the signatories, of course.)

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#104

Post by spamizbad »

Give me a break.

Look, if you don't want his personal conduct to factor in, let's look at the percipidous decline in free software (and the rise of copyright BSD/MIT/Apache open source software).

Years ago, LLVM was offered to Stallman and the FSF. Due to the idiosyncratic way he chooses to handle his email, he never even got their message. As such: LLVM fell under a BSD-style license. Clang was built on top of it, also under a copyright license. This all culminated in giving Apple a much needed escape-hatch from GPL'd software.

This is critically important, as prior to Clang/LLVM, the only open source compiler with any real mind/market share among developers was GCC. The fact that this was poorly timed, right before a sort of cambrian explosion of PLT language interests as corporate culture shifted away from only tolerating code written in C++/Java. Modern languages started getting built outside of free software and mainstreamed into industry.

This is a critical setback for the movement. Stallman has stated, and I agree with this, that having a state-of-the-art compiler suite is central to the free software movement. GCC should have been that compiler, instead it's now Clang/LLVM.

Between the rise of a non-free developer ecosystem (of which clang and LLVM helped state), and the mismanagement of the GPL v2/v3 switch, you now have an entire generation of software developers (and a start of a new one IMO), who basically don't give a crap about free software or the GPL - it's just that annoying restrictive open source license made by that guy.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#105

Post by prepend »

sgt wrote: post #77
mseepgood wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How else do you refer to non-binary people?

He or she, depending what the person looks like. I'm not going to use they/them, the same way I'm not going to force someone else to refer to me as "my lord".

Comically I was registering for an event and they required a prefix with choices “Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr, My lord” and like a hundred other prefixes for fancy people. I was surprised that there wasn’t a non-gendered prefix to call someone by unless they have some prefix due to training or station. “Honorable” and “Dr” have requirements before use.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#106

Post by efficax »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #67

So one thing I'm noting here is that this letter has a heavy translation/international bent. Additionally, an extremely large portion of signers have Russian-language names, for example. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I have ever talked to or worked with in FOSS software has signed the "opposes RMS" letter, and I can't find anyone I recall or have even heard of on this one. But of course, I mostly have worked with peop…

The author, Leah Rowe, is English as far as I know

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#107

Post by rbanffy »

tamasnet wrote: post #79
sgt wrote: post #14

"Clearly, they/them is commonly understood and will cause the least amount of misunderstanding." While I support this campaign and I support RMS right to free speech, I find it ridiculous that everyone is now expected to use they/them pronouns for non-binaries etc. Am I the only one or has the world gone absolutely batshit insane, driven by purple haired Twitter trans-extremists?

If you're introduced to one William Gates and he says "call me Bill", would you respect that? I get that using "they/them" requires a bit more mental gymnastics, at least in languages with gendered pronouns. However it is still a grammatically correct use of the language, just one we're not used to. I approach this from a perspective of compassion. If someone has made the (potentially difficult) decision to live with…

> I get that using "they/them" requires a bit more mental gymnastics

For us. We are the first doing it. Our children and grandchildren will accept that naturally. As we should.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#109

Post by sgt »

tamasnet wrote: post #79
sgt wrote: post #14

"Clearly, they/them is commonly understood and will cause the least amount of misunderstanding." While I support this campaign and I support RMS right to free speech, I find it ridiculous that everyone is now expected to use they/them pronouns for non-binaries etc. Am I the only one or has the world gone absolutely batshit insane, driven by purple haired Twitter trans-extremists?

If you're introduced to one William Gates and he says "call me Bill", would you respect that? I get that using "they/them" requires a bit more mental gymnastics, at least in languages with gendered pronouns. However it is still a grammatically correct use of the language, just one we're not used to. I approach this from a perspective of compassion. If someone has made the (potentially difficult) decision to live with…

That's kind of you. I still feel that this is something that is being forced on the rest of us, whether we like it or not. If we don't comply (and we really don't have to), then the army of twitter extremists come down on you hard. It's a privilege to be treated with extra compassion and care, not a right.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#110

Post by bombcar »

tomcooks wrote: post #74
Y_Y wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It couldn't be easier. His email is rms@gnu.org and afaik he is very good for replying.

Can confirm. He even replied to me when, as a noob kid, asked him whether I should choose vi or emacs as my editor.

Which did he say?
Post reply on HN