3 ms·
What is interesting about this and the Apple post[1] is that no one is actually taking responsibility or signing their name. It's just a generic blog post with
by joeblau 7y ago
What is interesting about this and the Apple post[1] is that no one is actually taking responsibility or signing their name. It's just a generic blog post with a list of issues. Where is the GNU's "open" log of who is publishing this info? Without a source, I can't really verify if the author has some ulterior motive.
[1] https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html
- nolok 7y ago> Without a source, I can't really verify if the author has some ulterior motive Is it actually something you need to appreciate the points the post is making ? I actually very much like raw things like this, that you can appreciate without letting yourself be influenced by who said it. I often wish for a timeline where we could see the community's reactions to some things Jobs or Musk said if they didn't know it was their words, for exemple.
- joeblau 7y agoI think the points in the post are valid, but there are also things about GNU that are terrible as well. It's just that nobody is wiring GNU faults. If someone did a write up, I would expect that person to own their work as well.
- GuiA 7y agoThe author has an ulterior motive, which is that to advance the agenda of the FSF*.
- klez 7y agoI think it's pretty clear that this is by the GNU project, under their agenda and that they take responsibility for it. This is not a newspaper or someone publishing a guest article on someone else's blog.