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

The Stallman Report

stallman-report.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 208 posts

Re: The Stallman Report

#141

Post by Mountain_Skies »

seanw444 wrote: post #134
bringen wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drew popped up on this thread yesterday saying that he'd "read most of the report". We can now ascertain that this was a lie and an attempt to mislead, because it's clear from the accumulation of evidence that he authored it. While writing and editing this document he would have read every word, not just "most of" it. He is also keen to congratulate himself by not-so-humbly announcing that "the depth of this report i…

Alright, that's hilarious. "Wow guys this is such a well-written piece. I wonder who could've put this together..." I used to enjoy reading Drew's writings, but he's become such a complete goober lately (or I've just noticed it more). I don't know what RMS's opinions have to do with running a free software organization, nor why they necessitate his cancelling, but apparently some people are incapable of compartmental…

Or perhaps they aren't truly upset about anything RMS said or did but see it as a tool to wrestle control away from him for their own purposes.

Re: The Stallman Report

#142

Post by shadowgovt »

fsflover wrote: post #139
shadowgovt wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course. But he's using that right to say very public things that are very objectionable, in a space he understands poorly, and everyone else can use their same rights to call him on his nonsense. And when one is an academic, one's word carries weight outside one's area of expertise. For all the good he did for science education, a common criticism of Carl Sagan is he was an astrophysicist (damn good one) who dabbl…

> and we choose to hold him accountable Is this your euphemism for "cancelling"? Go to the court if there's a crime.

Canceling is not about criminal behavior. It's about the gap between the regulation of behavior the law puts on us all and individual's decisions about what they will tolerate.

Freedom of association lives right next to freedom of speech in the Constitution. His right to say what he wants does not impinge on my right to think that every time he opens his mouth these days he sets the movement back.

... Besides, nobody in this story (including, I surmise, you) is actually against cancelling. Avoiding closed-source software because it doesn't align with the Four Freedoms is just cancelling. Cancelling is front-and-center in Free Software's toolbox.

Re: The Stallman Report

#143

Post by asrt »

shadowgovt wrote: post #68
asrt wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bullying an old man with cancer over off-colored jokes made half a century ago and opinions that he publicly retracted is "the right thing"? That's absurd.

Does the old man still carry authority and a leadership position in a globally influential movement? Leaders are held accountable.

Which globally influential movement?

Stallman's credit for the creation of the GNU operating system was stolen by Linus Torvalds, and most of the community even claims that GNU isn't an operating system, essentially deleting his biggest achievement and denying him any and all recognition.

He created and championed Free Software, but that movement was replaced by the Open Source ideology, which is diametrically opposed to what he believed in. The FSF struggles to get new members and funding, while the Linux Foundation and open source projects flourish with billions of dollars from volunteers and corporations alike.

GCC and Emacs are largely irrelevant today. Stallman himself gets no respect; he's mocked and harassed by open source advocates and corporations alike.

He has expressed the isolation he is in during an interview: "I am the last survivor of a dead culture. And I don’t really belong in the world anymore. And in some ways, I feel like I ought to be dead."

What Drew DeVault did with this hit piece is despicable. He wanted to shame and bully the FSF board into removing Stallman and resigning so his people can take over and push for his deranged idea of 'free software.'

Re: The Stallman Report

#144

Post by asrt »

jdiez17 wrote: post #45
bringen wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But he isn't enabling any of that. You're spinning a narrative that is fundamentally untrue.

Please read this[1] while keeping in mind that a 14 year old does not fit into Stallman's definition of "child": > I don't think it is wrong to distribute "child porn" images, even when they [depict] children rather than adolescents. However, making them is wrong if it involves real sex with a child. For the sake of opposing sexual abuse of real children, I suggest that you boycott the images that involve real childr…

That's not what it says at all. In that quote Stallman makes a distinction between pornography that depicts real children and drawings, which he claims hurt no one.

This distinction is also made by the law in the USA, so this quote merely reflects USA law.

You can disagree with this quote and even find it gross, but to claim this quote aims to normalize CSAM is a blatant lie.

Re: The Stallman Report

#145

Post by asrt »

shadowgovt wrote: post #136
bringen wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drew popped up on this thread yesterday saying that he'd "read most of the report". We can now ascertain that this was a lie and an attempt to mislead, because it's clear from the accumulation of evidence that he authored it. While writing and editing this document he would have read every word, not just "most of" it. He is also keen to congratulate himself by not-so-humbly announcing that "the depth of this report i…

> Knowing that the author has engaged in such deceptive sockpuppetry casts significant doubt on the document itself Does it though? If we're expected to separate the message from the messenger for Stallman but not for Drew, isn't that a double standard? Who cares where the information came from if the information is accurate?

The focus here isn't on DeVault's software, but on his hit piece aimed at ousting Stallman and the FSF board to install his own people. He attempted to distance himself from the article to mislead the public and maybe even shield himself from a libel lawsuit.

>Who cares where the information came from if the information is accurate?

It isn't. The article opens up by claiming that Stallman has a political agenda regarding the normalization of child sexual abuse which is a blatant lie. He never had an agenda regarding this, just a blog where he posted his terrible and tone-deaf opinions.

He deliberately framed his quotes in such a way to lead readers into a conclusion that fits his own political agenda.

Re: The Stallman Report

#146

Post by shadowgovt »

asrt wrote: post #143
shadowgovt wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the old man still carry authority and a leadership position in a globally influential movement? Leaders are held accountable.

Which globally influential movement? Stallman's credit for the creation of the GNU operating system was stolen by Linus Torvalds, and most of the community even claims that GNU isn't an operating system, essentially deleting his biggest achievement and denying him any and all recognition. He created and championed Free Software, but that movement was replaced by the Open Source ideology, which is diametrically oppose…

"Influential" doesn't mean "in control." See: the media deciding the definition of "hacker" over years of protests from people in the tech community.

Stallman, his writing, and his org moved the needle on the way software was done; that doesn't imply they get to dictate how software is done. But nowadays, I question their capacity to move the needle.

Re: The Stallman Report

#147

Post by immibis »

fsflover wrote: post #123
shadowgovt wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most users use those large corporations. I'm afraid I don't follow your thinking on this topic.

Nothing actually prevents those corporations from using AGPLv3. The are only afraid that they can't create a walled garden with it. So users are protected from that, as designed.

Users are protected from interacting with the big corporations they exclusively interact with?

Re: The Stallman Report

#148

Post by immibis »

shadowgovt wrote: post #82
carapace wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am being charitable. The uncharitable take is that the people who wrote this incredibly uncharitable and obsessive character assassination of an old dying guy are working for Microsoft et. al.

Since Stallman (and basically the whole FSF) doesn't have anything to say about cloud computing other than "don't use it" and his movement hasn't come up with a better alternative, Microsoft doesn't even think about Stallman anymore.

The alternative is to dare to connect a server to the internet: https://world.hey.com/dhh/dare-to-connect-a-server-to-the-in...

Even if you have to rent one from a hosting company. There are a whole lot more "server rental" companies than "native cloud" companies - there's good competition in that space without lock-in. You still have 80% of the benefits even if the server isn't in your physical building.

I think it was DHH who said it's completely incredible that these cloud companies managed to make PROGRAMMERS scared of COMPUTERS.

Re: The Stallman Report

#149

Post by immibis »

shadowgovt wrote: post #118
fsflover wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or to stand for people's rights to have sexual relations with fourteen-year-olds? Who are you talking about? This is completely misleading and not what Stallman was saying.

""" The law [UK sexual offences bill] would also prohibit encouraging a (so-called) child to take part in sexual activity. I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.) It is unnatural for humans to abstain from sex past puberty, and while I wouldn't try to pressure anyone to participate, I certainly encourage everyone to do so. """ Ther…

Without knowing more context, I interpret the quote to mean that 14-year-olds should be open to having sex with their peers (other 14-year-olds, give or take one year). Which seems like a position that is not bad enough to punish. It's a very weird thing for him to say, given that everyone knows him for being the president of the Free Software Foundation and not the Sexual Openness Foundation. He should stop commenting on this topic and focus on Free Software instead.

Re: The Stallman Report

#150

Post by shadowgovt »

immibis wrote: post #148
shadowgovt wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since Stallman (and basically the whole FSF) doesn't have anything to say about cloud computing other than "don't use it" and his movement hasn't come up with a better alternative, Microsoft doesn't even think about Stallman anymore.

The alternative is to dare to connect a server to the internet: https://world.hey.com/dhh/dare-to-connect-a-server-to-the-in... Even if you have to rent one from a hosting company. There are a whole lot more "server rental" companies than "native cloud" companies - there's good competition in that space without lock-in. You still have 80% of the benefits even if the server isn't in your physical building. I think it…

I don't think that was cloud companies; it was attackers and statistics like "The average time from connecting an unsecured computer to a public IP address to that machine being compromised is 20 minutes."

People who just want to write apps or services look at a list like this (https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/you-connect-new-comput...) and would gladly hand some or all of that off to a third-party.

Post reply on HN