6 ms·
Oh no, of course is not the first time you tried to take down the free software movement. First time was fifteen years ago with the (now a hollow shell) Open So
by sildur 6y ago
Oh no, of course is not the first time you tried to take down the free software movement. First time was fifteen years ago with the (now a hollow shell) Open Source Initiative. For the record, there is also a list in support of Richard Stallman [1], which right now is signed by more people, but less organizations.
Which comes to show the glaring disconnect between organizations and the user base. As the organizations are too busy showing each other how good and inclusive they are, while at the same time they give fat raises to their CEOs and fire their workers.
[1] https://rms-support-letter.github.io/ https://rms-support-letter.github.io/
- morelisp 6y agoMore helpful would be if both lists highlighted people who actually worked closely with RMS / occupied official positions within FSF / GNU / etc. For example, I will absolutely defer to Matthew Garrett and Benjamin Mako Hill and Bradley Kuhn over... uh, "agentOfChaos."
- sildur 6y agoWell. I would absolutely defer to Eric S. Raymond over... uh, "Z" (signature number 2771 right now).
- bigbillheck 6y agoI have no idea who "Z" is, but I would do the exact opposite.
- morelisp 6y agoAt this point I would not even defer to ESR over an issue concerning gun polyamory.
- disposekinetics 6y agoPerhaps most people realize that attaching their real name to supporting RMS puts them at risk, while there is little to no risk behind the opposite?
- jordigh 6y agoNah, the support letter was drafted in 4chan (I saw early drafts of it in /g/) and promoted in 4chan. It's gotten a bit more support elsewhere now, but it's a 4chan-led initiative, hence why it's signed by a bunch of nobodies (anons, as they prefer to be called).
- Daho0n 6y agoYou keep saying this but provide no proof. Could you please do so so it adds more to the discussion than just hearsay?
- jordigh 6y agoIt's 4chan, sources don't stay up very long nor do they get archived by archive.org But if you go to /g/ now, you'll see plenty of activity around this letter.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tptacek 6y agoThis letter appears to be signed by random twitter people, unlike the opposing letter, which is signed by Free Software contributors.
- sildur 6y ago> random twitter people I think the term "free software users" defines them better. > which is signed by Free Software contributors. Really? Could you please tell me how "Z" (signature number 2771 right now) contributed to the Free Software movement? I'm intrigued.
- tptacek 6y agoThe comment next to yours gives up the game, pointing out that the letter you're citing was canvassed on 4chan.
- Daho0n 6y agoBut doesn't provide any proof whatsoever.
- sildur 6y agoThe letter I'm citing is also the one against Stallman. Which contains such relevant figures in the Free Software movement as "Z" (signature number 2771), or "stick" (signature number 2528).
- tptacek 6y agoIt's true. The pro-Stallman letter is also signed by "TempleOS Developer CrunkLord420". So, there's that.
- vmtype 6y agoNo matter where your preferences lie, it should be obvious that signing a pro-Stallman letter under your real name in the current climate is career ending at RedHat, Microsoft, Facebook and Google. If you examine which Free Software contributors signed the anti-Stallman letter and you are familiar with the respective projects, it is easy to see that a lot of them are vocal activists. One project I know has 100 developers, about 8 signed, the rest are silent for good reason (or signed the pro-letter under a pseudonym).
- cuillevel3 6y agoI'm afraid to sign that, my boss (=the company) signed the petition against him.