Permanently Deleted
I use Steam Linux. That's a real Linux type. I know it's real because it's in my steam deck.
Yeah, Stallman resigned from MIT a few years ago because he kept making comments defending Jeffrey Epstein. Which he didn't even need to do, at all.
He's either a weird pervert or he's so detached from humanity he doesn't understand anything outside of code anymore
He's got a documented history of it along with a history of both public blog posts and private CSAIL mailing list emails expressing very problematic beliefs. He got canned from MIT for good reason and it's a disgrace the FSF brought him back.
That site is debate bro nonsense and this is a very weird hill to die on
sexual harassment, self harm
“When I was a teen freshman, I went to a buffet lunch at an Indian restaurant in Central Square with a graduate student friend and others from the AI lab. I don’t know if he and I were the last two left, but at a table with only the two of us, Richard Stallman told me of his misery and that he’d kill himself if I didn’t go out with him.
https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix-a-a7e41e784f88
9 out of 11
Admit it you made this whole post just to get that joke in there.
And if so
Even back in the day I think Stallman being a bit more normal would have helped a lot in making the free software movement more appealing. I do appreciate the militancy though.
It's quite a known fact that Richard is an eccentric person that only few wish to understand. Sometimes his actions and/or words were inappropriate in the moment but he's also shown to be a good person able to change, unfortunately most don't work in good faith and only care to remember Richard as this "weird" guy without further understanding.
Oh and he can be really stubborn on just about anything.
She's not that wrong, the FSF has been pretty successfully been painted as "the smelly radicals" by the "moderate and reasonable" liberals that are on the open source side and that honestly fucking sucks.
Despite all the great work they are doing they offer little pushback to these shit people. My best hope is that the FSF endures against all this and the winds of history mercilessly swipe all of the garbage put on it, they are correct in this struggle after all.
This is why I license anything I write that’s remotely useful as GPL3, it pisses exactly this type of person off. Open source is antithetical to the free software movement. You should always push back against people who try to minimise the FSF/GNU.
I maintain a few web app projects I wrote from scratch. All are AGPLv3. I treasure my small but intense collection of hate mail from people demanding I relicense it all under the MIT license.
The FSF give a comprehensive answer here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux!
Free Software is cool. I've personally contributed to Linux. But I don't personally think arguments like this help much.
Nothing wrong with correcting history, but the term 'Vanilla Linux', while honestly I don't know what they mean by it, is not such a problematic one that warranted accusation, nor the fallout from either side.
No it's really not. It really is pedantic and mostly giving credit to those that came before, if anything there are more important components to the whole "Linux" open ecosystem than just GNU.
systemd could be one such example, not mentioning the plethora of desktop environments and even the whole X and Wayland debacle. GNOME though historically part of GNU has very much built a community and ecosystem of it's own, and even then many don't use their software nor care for it. Like me.
Also without the Linux kernel, GNU on its own is pretty much useless as nothing that integrates well with exists. You can make a hodgepodge with a BSD kennel but then you would just make a whole new operating system. And the Linux kernel and ecosystem can very much exist without GNU and have the software running on top still integrate well.
So no. They don't deserve any more credit than the others to be included in the whole name of an ecosystem.
It's only useful to specify when it makes sense in the conversation and is necessary in it's context which would most likely be technical and not philosophical.
I know all of this history and I know what I am talking about. Also, it's not written SystemD but systemd ;)
"It is inadvisable to describe the free software community, or any human community, as an “ecosystem,” because that word implies the absence of ethical judgment."
An ecosystem works regardless of ethics, just because GNU does not like a word being it used doesn't change the world around them. Hell I could quote Engels about this!
People and groups have ethics they put into the software and an ecosystem builds around this software. I say this ecosystem needs more GPL.
The Linux kernel has already outgrown GNU in terms of scope and professionality. Also you've said Alpine don't even care about the naming. As the most important part of the operating system, the Kernel, is there and that's what matters.
Hell most distros don't care about the GNU/Linux naming.
You must be mistaken, GNU is not software, it is the name of the operating system
THEN WHY CAN A GNU LESS SYSTEM EXIST, AND STILL BE A VALID LINUX SYSTEM???
And what about glibc? Just because it's one of the more important components for much of software, which still can be replaced and you will have a valid system without it, they should get the credit? systemd is similar in this aspect and I don't see them crying about it, they are fundamental for many pieces of software.
They don't get the authority to call the system their own until they make one whole themselves or have authority over the most important/defining component! How's HURD going? And if that gets working I suggest you trying to use Linux software on HURD without utilizing BSD ports or replicating them.
You can call it GNU/Linux/SystemD/Wayland/Plasma/Non-free-firmware and you are within your bounds to do so as Free operating systems are not a monolith.
At least we agree on free OS's not being monoliths. At least in theory. But still if people ask me what OS I use, I will say Linux because whatever the fuck you promote is stupid. When they ask what distro, then I will simply reply Parabola. That's it.
They don't call POS' like Windows or MacOS by their technical components.
Because they aren't broken up into them, and don't utilize many parts for themselves from outside sources. Just like BSD operating systems, they've got a whole made by the same people. With the most important component of these systems being, guess which part, the kernel! I know because Debian GNU/kFreeBsd was a thing and I say this hodgepodge does deserve the name because the kernel was broken out of a while in which it normally operates, that being FreeBSD. Even then, sorry not a GNU OS but a FreeBSD one as it's more likely to work with software and ports for that system.
Linux has no such whole. Even if you try to claim it having one historically and through how many distributions do use GNU.
And last. Stop talking like it's 1993 and Linux just began. The world's changed Jack, and so did the wording with it.
Also you are the principal type of person that the FSF loves, and one which has made me no longer care for them that much. Resorting to meaningless debates and shit flinging that the rest of the community had already sorted out years ago, essentially being wreckers that add nothing new to the discussion and taking away everyone's time from now important matters. Those being, actually promoting and furthering the existence of Free Software and the idea of it.
But the most important part to realize, is that Free Software will perish under capitalism. Capitalism is my prime enemy, because I'm a Marxist first and Free Software extremist second. Be pragmatic, not dogmatic.
EDIT: Just take a look at my PFP and the communities I moderate on Lemmygrad. That should tell you enough about me. Because I know my shit, and I've read everything you linked to me before.
Wow, the casual ableism. RMS has a distorted worldview when he talks world politics, but his persistence in the community was/is an important drive to make the world of free software what it is today.
And acktually, lemme dunk, dingus got it all wrong anyway:
- Presumably by "vanilla Linux", they meant GNU/systemd/Linux. Their conclusion is obviously flawed because other UNIX systems like BSD and Haiku exist.
- On Android, presumably they mean OEM ROMs, afaik, upstream AOSP is clean, as GrapheneOS devs pull from that and harden it themselves.
Fuck off with this misogynist apologia. Comparing the way he to a christofascist's successful crusade to propagandize a fake genocide in a ramp up to cold war 2 is disgusting.
We can criticize Stallman and also point out that the recuperationist Open Source Initiative was founded by even worse misogynists than him.
Unless you think that this 'propaganda tactic' to discredit him went back in time to 1983 to fake the grad student women complaining about misogyny at MIT, I suggest you retract this.
given the long history of documented misogyny attributable to him ('not aware of any women contributors to GCC or Emacs', Emacs virgins joke, etc.) you'd have to be awful fucking naive to think he didn't contribute to that
again, do some fucking self crit we're begging you
In a 2007 interview, he said:
I don’t have any experience working with women in programming projects; I don’t think that any volunteered to work on Emacs or GCC.
A number of women have contributed to GCC, including:
- Janis Johnson maintains the test suite and has been a contributor since 2001
- Sandra Loosemore is the lead author of the GNU Library Reference Manual;[3] RMS is listed as her co-author.
- Dorit Nuzman made major contributions to loop scheduling and vectorization.
- Carolyn Tice is also mentioned as a contributor.
sorry I don't brook misogyny in free software. take this apology and liberal great manning somewhere else. free software doesn't need rms
e: you can review my comments in this thread and see that I do find some nuance. but that doesn't mean I'm sticking my head in the sand over his misogyny. there are plenty of neurospicy ppl who aren't sexist
"Free Software" has failed as a movement specifically because it does not threaten capital. The FSF's strategy for liberating computing from megacorps was a somewhat restrictive license that weakly defends a very narrow set of apolitical values, and neoliberal faith in the power of consumer choice. There is no serious, well-funded voice for liberated computing today. Neither Torvalds nor Stallman are radicals. Microsoft won, and it did it with the implicit assistance of the FOSS partisans.
I do not respect the FSF nor the OSI, yes, that is correct.
The fossil fuel industry is an excellent metaphor actually, It is winning. It continues to win. The propagation of "green" alternatives has done nothing to slow it down. Cap and trade has not slowed it down. Numerous international agreements that NGOs have pushed for and that have been signed and summarily ignored by partner nations have done nothing to slow it down. Lib green politics has only served to give cover to governments that need to pretend that they're doing something.
I don't know why anyone would die on the hill of defending a now completely irrelevant guy, who is very likely a pedo, just because they did some good software things like 40 years ago.
At the very least the Epstein stuff and the pedo defending make him extremely
. People here labelled Chomsky a pedo for less.The double standard regarding the "old blog posts" is weird to me as well. Imagine if Shabibo or Jordan Peterson had written something like that, they'd be rightfully raked over the coals for it even if it was "decades ago", but this fucker gets a pass.
Sorry I didn't make it clear enough; I'm not discrediting RMS for his FSF work. In fact, understanding free software vs. open source is an important distinction. I'm explicitly talking about his aimless political rants that are in fact pretty reactionary. I separate the art from the artist in this case so I am by no means discrediting the FSF and his role within it.
Edit: Let's be Marxists about this. I think we can look at history to acknowledge, respect and improve upon the groundwork of a free software visionary. What we shouldn't do is proceed to uncritically support the visionary outside of what he has done. The FSF has matured and it is no longer just RMS, there is no need to put him on a pedestal and be idealists about it.
CW: csam, SA.
Okay, I'll be honest and I went and dug into the controversial stuff he apparently said. Considering he's ND, I find it a bit uncomfortable that the whole world seemed to take a lot of it out of context, since he's retracted his views on children SA and has hurt no one. I don't want to further this act of ableism.
Originally, I wasn't commenting on those scandals. I admit I didn't even know all that much about them. I used to just read his political notes before I was radicalized and now looking back a lot of his notes, there's a lot of liberal takes on China, HK and the likes that I have no interest in reading about anymore, because he doesn't engage with those topics with as much nuance as he does with his main work and other US/EU topics. I'll edit to retract the sentiment in my OP where it indicated that he's "old and irrelevant".
He advocates for social justice alongside very militant software beliefs that honestly should be pinned, and not mixed in between with his liberal world news stuff. However, he can structure his blog anyway he wants to.
The point is, I have no ill beliefs regarding his profession work. I also don't really find it necessary to "dunk" on his takes, most of them are good, perhaps lacking a bit of reading at most (but that's not his field). He seems to have received enough hate from people that just heard and regurgitate the sentiment that "he's weird", which is indeed, like you said, character assassination to a certain extent.
I think most of his shit takes can be attributed to being overly pedantic or ND, it's the misogyny that he's never retracted or atoned for that I can't forgive. free software doesn't need him and the FSF was cowardly bringing him back.
RMS is not an old man with a distorted worldview
Yeah, this isn't distorted at all:
CW: Pedo apologia
CW: Pedo
That snippet is from less than a week before he was forced to resign from MIT for claiming that the underage trafficking victims on Epstein's island were "entirely willing."
Stop spreading nearly decades old blogposts and not bring the full context.
Stop doing pedo apologia.
RMS has had only one bad take on Free Software in his entire career and it's that selling Free Software is okay to do.
Capitalism destroys everything it touches. The Free Software movement should be an openly and completely anticapitalist one. Allowing capitalism in is ultimately what led to the Open Source wreckers.
Freedom and capitalism fundamentally cannot coexist, in software or anywhere.
I'm generally sympathetic to Melody Horn's (boringcactus's) assessment in hir 2020 article, "Post-Open Source." I deviate / branch out in a few ways, but it was a timely polemic which caught a lot of attention, spawning a struggle session on the Orange Site and becoming the basis of a very good episode of General Intellect Unit.
The Free Software movement has not liberated computing. The "Year of Linux on the Desktop" is never coming - and it has nothing to do with how prepared or mature or comprehensive the collection of Free Software has become. We are still not living in a tech utopia. Our computational infrastructure overwhelmingly is designed to spy on us, rat on us to the state, propagandize us, and empty our pockets. The labor of Free Software contributors is typically exploited by megacorporations and plunderbunds to collect rents on private computational and network infrastructure. Microsoft "loves" Linux, now that they are able to charge you a monthly fee for running it in Azure. Companies like Facebook are perfectly happy to "Open Source" core frameworks like React.JS as a method of outsourcing the costs of maintenance, development, and training.
The Free Software movement has produced a vast collection of useful software, but without control over the networks, the data centers, or the factories where personal electronics are produced, all this software is severely stunted in its capacity to transform daily life. As some posters here have pointed out, the original sin of the Free Software movement was the assumption that people would "vote with their feet," and embrace the technically and socially superior option. And yet, the end-user market share for libre operating systems like GNU/Linux, BSD, etc is still at 1%. It is still nearly impossible to buy a machine with Debian, Guix, Ututo, Gentoo - whatever - anywhere. A few boutique manufacturers sell Libre laptops and smartphones, but they are EXPENSIVE compared to mass-produced computers and phones subsidized by end-user exploitation and sprawling monopolies.
Personally, I have taken the "be the change you want to see" route. The result is that I have a very cool computer which runs games like Witcherino on Gentoo at 4K on an entirely free software graphics stack. It isn't making my internet bill any lower or dissolving the monopoly platforms. We need to take over the networks. We need to take over the factories. We need to take over the data centers.
If every minute of dev time put into GIMP had instead been put into comprehensively stealing and reverse engineering Photoshop that would have been a better use of time.
The thing I don't get about the whole GNU/Linux thing is: aren't there a lot of tools that have become pretty standard to what Linux is at this point? Like X or Wayland? Most people aren't exactly running servers.
Depends on the distro, most by de facto only come with GNU coreutils and the kernel, the rest can come with display servers and managers and DEs but they all share a common intersection that is GNU/Linux.
What about busybox/linux distros like alpine? That’s still FOSS without any GNU coreutils and the option to compile on clang and use musl
Yeah that's actually a big problem with the GNU/Linux argument. It's totally possible to run an open source, hackable, Unix system with the Linux kernel and absolutely no GNU software. You can compile the kernel with clang (might be experimental tho), you can use musl for stdlib, there are a few different reimplementations of the standard utils, and you can pick one of a dozen or more shells. Alpine does this easily.
People love to complain about them, but I think the Red Hat software projects like systemd, kvm, and pipewire are more important than the GNU ones. Maybe we should call it Red Hat/Linux
I just suppose that I don’t see the point in being so pedantic about including the name of one of many different components of the free software stack which can be used to make up a Linux-based operating system. I think most everybody thinks of the family of FOSS based operating systems when they hear Linux, and derivative projects like android are usually considered their own separate thing. The FSF is pretty well known by those who are familiar with Linux, and while they have made huge contributions to FLOSS there are some pretty nasty reactionary ideas that RMS specifically pushes that lead to plenty of us preferring not to directly associate, at least with him specifically.
SA TRIGGER WARNING
just look up what stallman has to say on age of consent laws and rape, specifically regarding Epstein and trafficked teenagers. He’s fucking gross.
I mean it took the man almost 15 years to renounce his statements on “consensual pedophilia” only to then make statements about how girls trafficked by Epstein “might not have been raped.” It’s quite a concerning pattern to just ignore
Really the whole GNU/Linux stallman copypasta is because Stallman felt like he wasn't getting enough credit for the Linux phenomena, back in the early aughts. It was Linux this, Linux that, and the userland (which is provided by GNU) didn't get enough credit, in his mind. Which, fair point. But, the problem is that Stallman fell flat on his face when it came to communicating how GNU provided a lot of value and how it would be nice to get more attribution. It comes off as pedantic and sour grapes.
As others have pointed out, there are other userlands out there (busybox, etc) and other C libraries that can be basis of an operating system. But, I still think Stallman should get a lot of credit for the work he did in the 80's and 90s, advocating for the idea of Free Software. It was revolutionary and changed the world.
But, we don't have to excuse bad behavior.
This is true, but remember that GNU pre-dates busybox by a lot. First releases of GNU userland and utilities was like 1985 and Busybox was what, 1999? GCC was the de-facto FOSS compiler until LLVM was developed in the mid aughts.
Oh hey I was arguing with this jackass too that's why I couldn't reply any more
For me Vanilla Linux is the default kernel, without modifications (like zen or hardened).
Using that term to mean full foss Linux based system doesn't make any sense.
I have to say, this whole discussion here and in the original thread is outside of my cursory understanding of GNU and Linux, but damn is there some delicious popcorn in here.
link to something else besides stallman support dot org you.misogynist apologist
