141–150 of 286 posts
People seem to forget that a lot if not most of IT has some form of military background/funding behind it. Be it the first computers, the Internet, RISC CPUs, BSD UNIX and much much more. You’re free not to like this fact of course, but then using the technologies anyway is a bit of a double standard.
People seem to forget that a lot if not most of IT has some form of military background/funding behind it. Be it the first computers, the Internet, RISC CPUs, BSD UNIX and much much more. You’re free not to like this fact of course, but then using the technologies anyway is a bit of a double standard.
I think it’s different to actively endorse something vs having it be used for something. If you’re working in a community producing axes and you’re later seeing the organization advertising them for murder instead of cutting down trees, you might understandably not wanna be part of it anymore or try to change the organization.
So a better analogy would be swords that can also be used to cut fruit instead of killing maybe.
I think it’s important to make clear that the letter is mostly bogus and almost libelous. Check into any one claim, and you’ll find it’s not the entire story. This however is true: > The Foundation board has unrepresentative composition relative to the community because, due to our count, all current members are cisgender, white-passing, men, one of whom has done military service, and one other (Eelco) likely relies…
Indeed. If you look at pull request 10513, you see Eelco propose a bug fix, another person point out the flaws in his approach, and Eelco subsequently closing his own pull request and filing a new PR with a different approach.
https://github.com/NixOS/nix/pull/10513
The save-nix-together signatories describe this as “ignoring other people and only considering his way”.
I suppose they were counting on no one bothering to read their citations?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quotes from the article linked: > the community is heavily leaning into what might be termed the myth of marginalization > this group, still upset about the failure of RFC 98, is using the myth of fascism How can one take this document seriously after reading these sentences?
It's a bit skewed as far as the author's perspective, but so is everything. It's like reading the news. You have to filter past the bias and look at the facts. The picture that it paints about the actions of the people involved is accurate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on how these things have historically tuned out, yes. This is very problematic. The root of the problem is that it is basically impossible to defend yourself against the accusation that you are secretly a fascist. If you say yes, you admit to being a fascist, if you say no, you're a lying fascist. If you question why the accusation is levied against someone else, you're defending a fascist, if you speak out aga…
I don't get how this follows; no-one needs to be a secret anything, and the aim isn't even personal. Targeting "ideas rooted in fascism and bigotry" means to oppose the discursive ideas and concepts as they are put forth in the community, and the resulting concrete actions, that come from fascism and bigotry – specifically not the people or private thoughts.
For the sake of argument, let's say I put forward the charge that the policy itself is rooted in bigotry. Can you prove that it is not?
This is a meta comment, but the (apparent) style of using a different color (red) to indicate direct quotes is interesting. At first I found it confusing and a little distracting, but on the second pass where my goal was to cleanly separate the author's opinion from the sources, it was extremely helpful.
I wonder if the inspiration for this comes from Bibles? It's a common practice to have direct quotes from Jesus in red.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the issue people have with Anduril? Is it just that they make defense equipment? My (possibly wrong) interpretation is that people feel we shouldn't make weapons. That we should just stop fighting entirely. This is clearly an extremist position, I don't think many people in the west think that we should (for example), completely blockade Ukraine from even buying weapons. Even if you believe we should stop manu…
Contributors to open source projects aren’t asking the question “should the thing be done,” they are asking the question “should I do the thing.” I think lots of people fall into the general bucket of “sure, the military is necessary for a country, but I don’t personally want to work on it.” It is a weird sort of diffused understanding of responsibility (we all pay taxes and our representatives vote on whether or not…
People seem to forget that a lot if not most of IT has some form of military background/funding behind it. Be it the first computers, the Internet, RISC CPUs, BSD UNIX and much much more. You’re free not to like this fact of course, but then using the technologies anyway is a bit of a double standard.
Are you really expecting people critical of the US military to not use computers, else be keeping a "double standard"?
> In short, Dolstra is acting as "the effective Benevolent Dictator for Life (BDFL)" of the project, even though the NixOS Foundation's charter doesn't grant anyone that authority. This is silly - authority in a software community doesn’t come from a nonprofit charter. Being founder is also no guarantee of authority, but it is more relevant because it’s rooted in actions and outcomes. The more I observe from the side…
The letter's entire criticism is that Dolstra is clinging to that position through an extended, conflict-of-interest-ridden campaign of toxic behavior and that this toxic behavior is preventing Nix from "delivering useful software and updates quickly to end users."