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

111–120 of 253 posts

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#111

Post by cambalache »

mseepgood wrote: post #24
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?

How else do you refer to non-binary people?

There is a thing called "name".One of the strangest things I've seen, is one "famous" people claiming online (I lost the tweet link, so you have to take my word for it) claiming that using a person's name is weaseling out, and must be considered as offensive as using the wrong pronoun.

I am sorry, I will use she/he or the person's name according to the individual preference but I will never say xher/xhum/them/they/xuei, and I will opt for using ONLY that person's name. If that makes me a bigot, so be it.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#112

Post by ttt0 »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #22
throwaways885 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup! You cannot have the FSF without free speech. Creating petitions to excommunicate RMS & other supporters just does not jive with the organisation's founding principles. I'm not going to defend Stallman's comments - they are extremely dubious at best - but I do not agree with trying to bully him out of the movement he helped build. If he really is problematic, you can just 'fork' off and create your own FSF equiva…

Free speech never implied freedom from consequences though - this isn't the government suppressing RMS, it's people reacting to his free speech and deciding that they don't like it. That's how it works.

The people have spoken and decided that they support him.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#113

Post by dmos62 »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #16
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 ?

Don't forget Red Hat, a company that makes it living from FOSS, apparently now also hates FOSS...

Author points out that Red Hat killed CentOS, which had a significant community.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#114

Post by DetroitThrow »

lelanthran wrote: post #69
DetroitThrow wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Our opponents wish to destroy Free Software" in massive text without highlighting any of the legitimate, less presumptive grievances with Stallman's behavior seems to be a 1:1 drop in. Or are you concerned about their usage of open source in place of free software? They quite plainly state principles which are also shared with the open source movement are what they're defending, even not accounting for their colloqu…

> "Our opponents wish to destroy Free Software" Does not in any way imply that people not defending RMS wish to destroy Free Software. > So, you're either forced to defend Richard Stallman and accept what's going on over there, or __YOU ARE THE ENEMY OF ALL OPEN SOURCE__. This quote does, and is mischaracterising the position of the linked article.

>Does not in any way imply that people not defending RMS wish to destroy Free Software.

From the statement it is understood that you are defending free software by defending Stallman, and those attacking Stallman are attacking free software.

At best this is hyperbolic, abrasive language that makes bystanders at least complacent as the destruction of free software happens by some "Orwellian" conspiracy. Their statement is perhaps even less hyperbolic than the original writer - which I question why'd you examine the commentator with such scrutiny given the hysteria in the article.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#115

Post by segfaultbuserr »

Five years ago, Leah Rowe published a hasty declaration on libreboot.org, announcing that, as a free software developer, she's boycotting the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation after a transgender employee she personally knew was allegedly fired due to discrimination. [0] Later Rowe apologized, said it was a mistake for several reasons, mainly for accidentally revealing the identity of that employee, eventually the declaration was retracted [1] and it seems she decided to restore cooperation (e.g. speak at LibrePlanet on Libreboot, etc), although Libreboot was no longer a GNU project.

And this time Leah Rowe is the first person to publicly support the reinstatement of Richard Stallman, and now has published a declaration on libreboot.org again, this time announcing the support of Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation.

I wonder what really has happened to her in the meantime. I'm genuinely curious about what made Rowe to change her stance.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20161207233755/https://libreboot...

[1] https://libreboot.org/gnu/

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#116

Post by Pelic4n »

sgt wrote: post #90
Pelic4n wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I find it ridiculous that everyone is now expected to use they/them pronouns for non-binaries etc. Why? Choosing not to use someone's prefered pronouns is just hurtful and disrespectful. You might choose to ignore the scientific evidence around transidentity being a thing, but willingly antagonizing people on this subject is another story.

No, forcing you to comply is actually mostly unnecessary and confusing. Let's say I start a religion (similar to Flying Spaghetti Monster) and I require everyone to use the "it" pronoun. I'm not a he, I'm an it! And if you ever forget, I'll come down with my army of Twitter followers and cancel you.

>I'm not a he, I'm an it!

If it causes serious distress to you (just like misgendering trans people do), complying is absolutely the correct and human thing to do, regardless of my beliefs and opinions. It is not a good faith argument to compare transidentity to delusion and I suspect you know it.

Nobody is "forcing" you to comply, an open source project for exemple might just choose not to engage with you and your harmful attitude. No rights of yours are trampled, you just fail at basic respect.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#117

Post by rbanffy »

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…

> 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 posts

By reinstating Stallman the board created this controversy and deliberately sabotaged the FSF's mission of defending Free Software. It's ludicrous to imagine they didn't know what the consequences would be.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#119

Post by robert_foss »

caslon wrote: post #71
EdwardDiego wrote: post #19

RMS is a grown-up, he talked his way into this mess, he can talk his way out. Might involve compromise though, so good luck with that. But seriously, it's on him to fix this. If he doesn't believe he needs to, then well, he can go sit with Brendan Eich in the "intelligent, but unwise" corner.

Comparing Stallman to Eich is a bit weird, isn't it? Stallman hasn't actually done anything harmful; he's just terrible socially.

I'm a bit unfamiliar with Eich, what has he done?

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#120

Post by [deleted] »

yxhuvud wrote: post #101
dmos62 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

[deleted]
Post reply on HN