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

151–155 of 155 posts

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#151

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

hdfbdtbcdg wrote: post #84
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused; I'm pretty sure resigning is an act done by the individual, at least supposedly voluntarily, and a quick dictionary check seems to bear that out. Are we just using this as a euphemism, or is there another definition that I needed to learn?

Please stop being obtuse. You know very well that people are 'asked to resign' instead of 'fired'.

I'm familiar with "asked to resign"; I was asking about the form "they resigned him", which I have not encountered before and which moves it from generally understood euphemism to utterly transparent word replacement.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#152

Post by favorited »

leereeves wrote: post #138
favorited wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree that Saddam deserved to die. He was a monster who used chemical weapons against his own people. But the premise of the war wasn't "Saddam is bad so we should stop him," it was "Iraq is developing WMDs and is an imminent threat." That, of course, was a lie.

Bosnia was different. Clinton was 100% correct (and too slow) to act, because it was genocide. He already Rwandan blood on his hands by his inaction.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#153

Post by eitland »

ghaff wrote: post #110
eitland wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also you can ask 20 honest developers what they think AGPL means and get 3 or more wildly different explanations, at least if you include "I've no idea except it also works lver the network".

The meaning seems pretty clear. It's like the GPL but distribution now also encompasses offering the software over the network in the form of a service. What's less clear is what defines the boundaries between AGPL-licensed software and the rest of your stuff making up whatever you're offering. This isn't always 100% clear with the GPL either but the GPL meaning of distribution is pretty tightly tied to traditional U…

> The meaning seems pretty clear. It's like the GPL but distribution now also encompasses offering the software over the network in the form of a service.

Agree.

> What's less clear is what defines the boundaries between AGPL-licensed software and the rest of your stuff making up whatever you're offering. This isn't always 100% clear with the GPL either but the GPL meaning of distribution is pretty tightly tied to traditional Unix methods of combining code which are mostly unambiguous.

Agree again.

See my point? I don't say AGPL is bad only that it has a tendency to confuse developers in all directions.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#154

Post by katabatic »

teddyh wrote: post #150
microtherion wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ringing character endorsement? It wasn’t meant to be. It was meant to correct the seemlingly common misconception that RMS changed his mind only recently after the fact, when in reality he seems to have changed his mind many years ago. Also, should people be condemned for opinions they used to hold, even if they changed them relatively recently? If so, what is the point of anybody changing their mind on any topic, if…

2016 IS very recently. Three years ago does not count as "many years ago". Richard Stallman is 66 years old. To have only realized that pedophilia is bad at age 63, only when other people had to convince him..welp.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#155

Post by teddyh »

katabatic wrote: post #154
teddyh wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ringing character endorsement? It wasn’t meant to be. It was meant to correct the seemlingly common misconception that RMS changed his mind only recently after the fact, when in reality he seems to have changed his mind many years ago. Also, should people be condemned for opinions they used to hold, even if they changed them relatively recently? If so, what is the point of anybody changing their mind on any topic, if…

2016 IS very recently. Three years ago does not count as "many years ago". Richard Stallman is 66 years old. To have only realized that pedophilia is bad at age 63, only when other people had to convince him..welp.

You seem to be arguing with some other point than the one I was making. Also, you are not responding to what I wrote, and seem to be determined to argue your other point. You are welcome to do so, but please find someone else, who actually holds an opposite viewpoint, to argue with.
Post reply on HN