/g/ - Technology

Computers, Software, Technology


[Hide]
Posting Mode: Reply Return
Säge
Subject
Message

Max message length: 5000

Files
E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

  • Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more
  • Max files: 5
  • Max file size: 50.00 MB
  • Read the global rules before you post, as well as the board rules found in the sticky.


02/27/20 IRC/Matrix/and Discord servers are now available, join here.
02/09/20 /ausneets/ has been added!
11/23/19 Donations can now be made via PayPal, thank you for all of your support!
11/21/19 We have successfully migrated to LynxChan 2.3.0, to see all of the changes to 16chan, click here.


[Index] [Catalog] [Archive] [Bottom] [Refresh]

(8.49 MB 854x480 Favorite Manga: C.webm)
Richard Stallman resigned Anonymous 09/19/2019 (Thu) 02:38:51 No. 52
Richard Stallman resigned from the FSF over a long weird comment he made about Epstein
What does this mean for free software?
I personally think that he overreacted. He's successfully passed off projects to others in the past, but I have little faith that the FSF will find a competent, or trustworthy, replacement.
>>52
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbm74x/computer-scientist-richard-stallman-resigns-from-mit-over-epstein-comments
Excuse the source.

I can't believe the mad man. What do you guys think about what he said? I do think that he is autistic as fuck, but I think the media is spinning what he said.
>>53
That's close to what I thought

I saw that he made weird comments about children and consent and that some woman associated with MIT wrote about it, but it looked about as weird as his normal blog posts. It seemed to be the same tone as talking about coca-cola or microsoft.

I think that MIT is getting pressure because Epstein donated to it and people are flipping out. Stallman voiced his opinion because he was still involved with them and has been forever, and that plus his autism caught him up in the scandal.
I think that MIT should have just donated the Epstein money to some charities selected by the people who reported / sued him and called it a day. However, MIT Media Lab director Joi Ito resigned, apparently because he tried to hide the origin of Epstein's donations, which is relatively dishonest: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/richard-stallman-resigns-from-mit-over-epstein-comments/ar-AAHqmyg?li=AAD1l1X
(5.98 KB 579x66 invasion-apologist.png)
I think stallman's comments were fundamentally correct, all of them in question. If his community was primarily built of people like me there would be no issue.
Unfortunately, he spent the last ~30 years spewing social inclusivity pos and surrounding himself with SJW faggets, so he gets to lay in that bed instead.
>>53
He said that the girl had probably consented. But they took it out of the context as they always do.
(1.00 MB 1920x1080 clownworld.png)
Surely they will find a suitable replacement lickety-split.
>>53
Well, the problem is the elite blackmail pedoring and the pedovore cult that rules the world. The kids are certainly victims, but Stallman is somewhat right: he is not a monster; those kids were being pimped out regardless, and it's very possible that they would have just killed his fat ass for finding out about their child-pimpimg if he refused to be blackmailed. They kill people ALL THE TIME for even HINTING at the possibility of blowing the whistle. He didn't force himself on anyone; in fact, they force those kids on hapless icons and men of renown.

Stepping down seems adequate. No need to press charges. At the very least, the public should demand that the operators and all the willing cult members be executed Gaddafi style, before they try to excuse themselves with some token scapegoats.

Hillary for prison? No. Death. And the Queen, Obama, the Bush family, Bill, everyone. Every last single one of them, down to the Rothschilds and whatever interdimensional archon grief-eaters they work for.

If Social Justice Warriors would do their fucking jobs, we wouldn't have to endanger ourselves like I am right now. Social justice my ass.
>>76
Sure Stallman is meme, but he was the FSF, someone that was that big of an idelog was necessary. He in a way kept it pure, and in many ways he was completely right about everything.

Luke Smith made a good video about him today, and I think he was completely right:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWV3eC3Dr1Y
>>55
Good point. While I say we should cut him a break by virtue of there being far bigger fish to fry, he made his bed and he should lie in it. He has done untold damage to the tech community with his faggotry. Free as in freedom was cool, but the rest? Despicably complicit in social demoralization. Such ideological perversions should have never set foot in our world.

Not to mention all these kiked journalists acting like they know our world better than we do. You bet your ass I'm mad. Considering the untold levels of damage they have done for generations to come, I'd say death is not at all uncalled for. And I hope they know it, too. I hope everyone knows it.
>>77
Well sure, I definitely agree with his early philosophy. Granted, I'm not a GNU/Linux guy or anything more than a hobbiest web/game programmer, and I don't mean to pose as anything more, but I can't agree more with the fundamental idea that you can't /own/ arrangements of binary, much less tell someone what they can or can't do with the binary arrangements on /their/ hardware.

If it were up to me, all hardware and all software would be completely open and moddable, save for personal/private and security-related exceptions. By private I mean like social security numbers, not intellectual copyright.

If the whole software/entertainment market and industry have to collapse/reform to adapt to that principle, meaning no more multi-million-dollar AAA killer apps, then that's a-ok with me. Not that my principles will ever be observed, kek.
Join us now and share the software,
you'll be free, hackers, you'll be free...
(102.00 KB 1024x768 Screenshot_2019-09-21_10-50-10.png)
Oh shit nigga, it's happening! Red Hat cianiggers moving in for the kill.
https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/open-letter-free-software-foundation-board-directors
>>95
im glad I nuked fedora and installed windows 10 pro last week.
>>80
What do you have against copyleft?
>>52
> What does this mean for free software?
Nothing. The FSF is a completely irrelevant organization and literally no one in any decision making capacity listens to anything they have to say.
Anyone who would be interested in their guidance would find their own way regardless.
I talked about this on 8chan, but I don't think anyone really got it. Software license doesn't give you freedom. It's only your skill and work that gives freedom. If the software (like for example systemd, or modern web browsers, or hell even a modern C compiler) is so complicated that you can't fix it yourself when it breaks or audit it for vulnerabilities, then it means you depend on other people. The bigger the software, the more people you depend on, and this opens the door for subversion of projects by cianiggers and SJW.
In the end, Terry Davis was right, and Charles Moore was right. They realized that it's only by simplifying the problem and taking direct control that you can have any good results. But most people today are brainwashed to believe that complicated solutions are better than simple ones.
>>229
>Software license doesn't give you freedom. It's only your skill and work that gives freedom.
What retard! Fuck off back to cuckchan. Leave all the modern inventions behind, since obviously you cannot invent or fix them by yourself.
(47.91 KB 397x500 052.jpg)
>>242
>Leave all the modern inventions behind, since obviously you cannot invent or fix them by yourself
this but unironically
>>242
Inventions aren't a license, dummy. You can't even argue properly. Your head is so full of bullshit propaganda brainwashing.
>>245
>Strawmanning this hard.
>>is so complicated that you can't fix it yourself when it breaks or audit it for vulnerabilities, then it means you depend on other people.
>>It's only your skill and work that gives freedom.
By that logic, everyone must be able to invent or repair alone everything needed by them in modern times. Which obviously is retarded. Copyleft licenses ensure that a source code is open and multiple people can ( heck I would say should) work on it without any baggage or fear.
(75.76 KB 800x533 stallman.jpg)
Don't use non-free software.
Don't use sites that block TOR.
>>229
Switch to TempleOS. It's what God wants
>>76
Fucking this.

>>229
Only problem is applying the same principle to the hardware. By your logic we probably shouldn't be using computers at all. Which there's an argument for tbh.
>>52
>>53
>Muh 18 is the age of consent not 17 here REEEEEE
Looks like technical nonsense, the pedo hunters are truly flipping out on everyone.
>>55
>were fundamentally correct,

Agree.
>he spent the last ~30 years spewing social inclusivity pos and surrounding himself with SJW faggets
This. Daily reminder that if you don't start with ideology and are right wing as fuck you will get subverted and die to the screams of
>Bigot
>Problematic!
>RAPE!

If he was right wing as fuck and took no apologies he could have build his house on solid rock instead he build it on sand, because you want more space and you can not say a sand grain its weak or unfit.

These people are getting utterly destroyed by feminism and SJW.

>>252
Copyleft is great see the explosion of linux OSs/Distros where you can chose from and contrast to what limited selection you have in copyright OSs its windows or you have nothing.

I mean fuck if I want to build a bird house I want to use nails other people made and not need to operate a iron mine, smelter, wood mil and forest to make these raw materials myself to get wood planks and nails.

Stalman was stupid with his GPL3 and the license backdoor (Linus talked about it) of "This license or any newer version of GPL" is a cluster fuck always stay with GPL2 linus edition. Never write or license your code under GPL3.
>>420
Agree with your post.

>Stalman was stupid with his GPL3 and the license backdoor (Linus talked about it) of "This license or any newer version of GPL" is a cluster fuck always stay with GPL2 linus edition. Never write or license your code under GPL3.
Can you explain it a bit more? Why GPL2 is better than GPL3? How cucked is GPL3.
>>420
Right wing are cucks and deserve and get the same treatment. Both wings are a Jewish construct.
(56.09 KB 630x630 3481476_0.jpg)
>>446
>Can you explain it a bit more?
I'm no legal expert however stalman tried to force something like a auto update for the license from the start only a legal auto update.

Meaning if you would license your code with GPL3 and GPL4 comes around it legally is under GPL4 now.

You can see how stupid and dangerous this is.
I can not find linus talking about this, however I remember it.

GPL3 is ....
Did you read a GPL2 license VS a GPL3 license?

GPL2 is normally written.
GPL3 reads like a raving lunatic that has schizophrenia.

I don't know if GPL3 is even enforceable in court.

I think the main split is over tivo, from what I understand its this:
tivo corporation uses GPL2 software (copy and past from some project)
tivo corporation needs to give back all the changes they make and all the code.
tivo also makes a hardware thing that they put this software on and sell the thing.
The hardware is some cheap bullshit even inferior to raspberry pi.
The hardware thing has some blocks in it that prevent anyone from installing and running code on it except the MD5 (or whatever) checked thing(bios?) that the tivo corporation makes.
Anyon can run the tivo software on your own hardware like the raspberry pi.

Now do you see anything wrong with this?
I see it like this tivo gives away the code and sells a hardware device to boomers and idiots. Tivo makes money on these hardware devices. And tivo gives money and donates to this project. Its basically a idiot boomer tax. Everyone can take the same code and run it on a raspberry pi only the tivo hardware thing is locked down.

Now stalman threw a shitfest that "you can not do this !". And invented GPL3.

Here is my take:
1) I'm ok with GPL2 because libre software gets donations from corporations who exploit stupid idiots and boomers
2) I don't get it. is GPL3 even something legally binding? Who is liable if someone makes a hardware that only runs some specific linux distro that is MD5 checked by the hardwares bios?

This is not a hardware license, no one is manufacturing hardware here and licensing it. If I write GPL3 code and someone decides to build a lock down hardware that only runs my code am I in trouble here? Even if I never made this hardware??? Is the guy who made the hardware? How he did not sign any license here, no software license...

Can this thing even go to court? Will it not be struck down?

So many questions.

From linus:
>Here we give your version 3 and then we try to sneak in these new rules and try to force everybody to upgrade. That was the part I disliked. And the FSF did some really sneaky stuff. Downright immoral in my opinion.
>I am thinking tivoization isn't necessarily something that you should strive for. But in my world view it's your decision if you make hardware that blocks down the software. That's your decision as a hardware maker. That has no impact on my decision as a software maker to give you the software.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1774/why-does-linux-still-use-the-gplv2
>>449
>Right wing
Republicans are not right wing, the right wing are these people the media wants to crucifie for wrong think.
>>95
disgusting

fuck redhat and their military masters
>>451
wrong, if you still think left wing right wing you are still bluepilled

Delete
Report


no cookies?