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

No Radical Changes in GNU Project

lists.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 155 posts

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#131

Post by passwordreset »

swsieber wrote: post #73
fjp wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George Bush killed a million Iraqis in a war based on fabricated evidence of an Iraqi WMD program

Americans killed a million Iraqis in a war based on fabricated evidence of an Iraqi WMD program. We're all pretty much complicit. If there's any smaller group to be mad at, I'd say it's anybody who didn't oppose that course, but more likely, the U.S. military complex. Ironically, she didn't catch flack for George being president of the Iraqi war, she caught flack for George's stance on LGBT issues when he was preside…

No, Americans are certainly not "all pretty much complicit". There is no basis for such an extreme statement, even for moderate values of "pretty much".

Also, isn't this post a copy/paste of one that you just posted? Simply repeating it doesn't make it true, guy.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#132

Post by passwordreset »

scblock wrote: post #43
ng12 wrote: post #7

Well, good. An FSF without Stallman doesn't seem very relevant anymore, but GNU is still very important.

Any movement that depends on one person to thrive is already dead.

Are you saying that about the FSF? Certainly, Stallman was very important for the FSF, but there was an array of others who worked at various facets at times. Eben Moglen, for example, did a stand-up job and had great success helping the FSF, as did others. So, no, the FSF has not been about "one person".

That said, however, with the circumstances surrounding the removal of RMS, the FSF can longer be trusted. This very different than "depending" on a single person.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#133

Post by microtherion »

teddyh wrote: post #119
29083011397778 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cue somebody pointing out how recent this is; then followed by a rebuttal pointing out the phrase recent years, and that while the post may be new, the change of heart may not be

In fact, he seems to have changed his mind about that as early as 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biograp... (Credit for finding this goes to dependenttypes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092184 )

"Not endorsing pedophilia since 2016" is not exactly the ringing character endorsement you might consider it to be.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#134

Post by hdfbdtbcdg »

joshuamorton wrote: post #99
hdfbdtbcdg wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please just stop with the libel. Either present evidence or stop defaming people.

First hand accounts are evidence. That you dislike or disbelieve them doesn't make them libelous, it just means you don't want to believe firsthand accounts of bad actions by a person you admire.

Please provide some first hand accounts. No one has done so yet. I've seen plenty of second hand rumors etc but no one has put their name to any of them as the originator.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#135

Post by hdfbdtbcdg »

joshuamorton wrote: post #117
sterkekoffie wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure she was saying that hand-wavey statements like "he's done bad things in the past" are libelous, not people talking about their experiences. Regardless: there's another option here, where you don't dislike or disbelieve anyone, including rms. Just keep that in mind.

It's very difficult for me to square "these are libelous hit pieces" with not disbelieving people when said libelous hit pieces reference firsthand accounts. Said handwavey statements are also not libelous, at all. Libel is a high bar.

What is being said about RMS is easily hitting the UK standard for libel including actual harm being inflicted.

Please provide any first hand accounts of actual behaviour that justify what you said. I've yet to see any.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#136

Post by hdfbdtbcdg »

Fnoord wrote: post #123

This whole issue, it hurts. Why do we need lynch mobs to bring justice? That is precisely what we need courts of law for. Yet those are overburdened because lawyers and judges are expensive because law is complex. It just makes me so sad. I'd like to learn the truth about this whole issue, and see justice served, but without an official and thorough situation it all remains hearsay and such.

It is amazing to see a plea for basic standards of justice being downvoted.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#137

Post by joshuamorton »

hdfbdtbcdg wrote: post #135
joshuamorton wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very difficult for me to square "these are libelous hit pieces" with not disbelieving people when said libelous hit pieces reference firsthand accounts. Said handwavey statements are also not libelous, at all. Libel is a high bar.

What is being said about RMS is easily hitting the UK standard for libel including actual harm being inflicted. Please provide any first hand accounts of actual behaviour that justify what you said. I've yet to see any.

Luckily, no one involved is in the UK.

> 2. Richard Stallman has been contributing to a negative environment for women at MIT for over thirty years.

From the original article, contains a number of quotes from witnesses and people who felt uncomfortable or harassed due to Stallman's behavior over a span of ~20 years while he was at MIT.

Then there's this[1], this one where he argued about the re-inclusion of an abortion joke in code because his code is inherently political[2][3], Stallman apparently violating the policies at a conference he attended and going unpunished (which is a common occurrence)[4]. People have been complaining about his casual sexism publicly for decades[5].

And I'll remind you that the "charge" here, insofar that there is one, is that "Stallman behaves in a way unbecoming of a leader of the free software movement and other organizations". There's ample evidence here that he repeatedly and continually refuses to communicate with others in common ways, instead he invents his own language (no really, he has a personal dictionary on his website) and when his counterproductive communication methods cause confusion or pain on the part of others, he is generally unapologetic and unwilling to correct them.

[1]: https://twitter.com/bella_velo/status/1172524864193945603

[2]: https://twitter.com/alicegoldfuss/status/993677847280562178 (I remember people complaining about this one at the time), https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00001.html for the entire thread

[3]: Remember this one the next time you say code isn't political!

[4]: https://wwahammy.com/on-safety-at-libreplanet/

[5]: https://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com/2009/07/emailing-richard...

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#138

Post by leereeves »

favorited wrote: post #61
swsieber wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contrast that with Ellen Degeneres responding to people dismayed that she sat next to George W. Bush during a game (warning, video in the tweet): https://twitter.com/TheEllenShow/status/1181395164499070976 Basically, it's okay to be friends with people we disagree with (and really, we ought to).

We all have friends we disagree with, but Ellen deserves catching shit for palling around with a guy who started a war that killed nearly 5 thousand American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians for absolutely nothing.

It didn't end well, but if any dictator or warlord is ever worth a war to overthrow, Saddam Hussein was.

Is that something the US should be doing? I think not, and it frequently ends badly, but Presidents keep trying. Like Obama in Libya or the elder Bush and Clinton in Somalia and Bosnia.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#139

Post by rambojazz »

wahern wrote: post #130
zeko1195 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your response. I have a better understanding now. How is spam dealt with? Do people get banned quickly? Also, who archives these emails. Do they automatically get archived for public viewing?

Most lists require you to subscribe before being able to post. Subscription involves the mailing-list software sending a cookie/none to your e-mail address for authentication. You can either reply directly to the message or, if the mailing-list software supports a web interface, follow an embedded link. That simple step prevents most bulk spam. For technical lists you can also do things like limit messages to text/pl…

Manual moderation of the first 2-3 posts of a new user can go a long way to prevent spam.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#140

Post by hdfbdtbcdg »

joshuamorton wrote: post #137
hdfbdtbcdg wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is being said about RMS is easily hitting the UK standard for libel including actual harm being inflicted. Please provide any first hand accounts of actual behaviour that justify what you said. I've yet to see any.

Luckily, no one involved is in the UK. > 2. Richard Stallman has been contributing to a negative environment for women at MIT for over thirty years. From the original article, contains a number of quotes from witnesses and people who felt uncomfortable or harassed due to Stallman's behavior over a span of ~20 years while he was at MIT. Then there's this[1], this one where he argued about the re-inclusion of an aborti…

Nothing here justifies what you said.
Post reply on HN