geofft

173 ms·

901.
by geofft 6y ago
... I'm referencing the actual historical event that is celebrated (by all the world's major corporations, now) as Pride. Is your claim that this event did not attract additional support and was ill-advised? Violence works, and I
902.
by geofft 6y ago
Historically, countries that have valued free speech (the US and much of Western Europe) have not had a great track record of actually extending those legal protections to truly unpopular speech, either. The way to make sure you have the ri
903.
by geofft 6y ago
That Atlantic article is pretty clear that they don't know the cause (" It’s difficult to know exactly why vindictive protectiveness has burst forth so powerfully in the past few years. ") They've got a bunch of specul
904.
by geofft 6y ago
This article glosses over the actual results of Skokie and Charlottesville , both of which are pretty important. The Nazis never ended up marching in Skokie, nor did they march in any of the other small towns where they'd requested
905.
by geofft 6y ago
I agree that the community should force the companies to do what we want. How do you propose we do that? Is the FSF doing that?
906.
by geofft 6y ago
Yeah sorry about the stealth-edit, I realize the first sentence by itself sounded kind of like a gotcha and I wanted to make a more substantial point :) I'm referencing the GCC steering committee - IBM (actual IBM, not just Red Hat, mo
907.
by geofft 6y ago
Pre-acquisition Red Hat was awfully excited about supporting proprietary software whose intended purpose is to kill people: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article213676919.... My point here is that y
908.
by geofft 6y ago
It is the FSF's opinion that "open source" misses the point, and it's pretty self-serving for them to have that opinion, because they don't control the term . The OSI has in recent years been an ardent defender of
909.
by geofft 6y ago
> I mean, the OSI is filled with people who work for proprietary companies So is GNU, though. For instance, https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html identifies the affiliations of most of the GCC steering committee, and they&
910.
by geofft 6y ago
Previous discussion, for the v248 release candidate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26450960 There's a bunch of discussion of systemd-oomd and a bit of discussion of systemd extension images. Much of it is even c
911.
by geofft 6y ago
It depends on the extent to which the git repo is s product for end users vs. for developers. Traditionally, the product for end users was the source tarball... but also, traditionally, we didn't have git. :) The whole point of autotoo
912.
by geofft 6y ago
What is its niche / advantage? The usual answer is "safety with speed," but Ada doesn't have safe memory deallocation in core. (There's a proposal from 2018 to add it, based on Rust's approach and Rust's e
913.
by geofft 6y ago
'steveklabnik - do you have the raw data still? I don't think I see it linked in the post, and it'd be interesting both for seeing what the major features are and for keeping the log up to date.
914.
by geofft 6y ago
Are there any languages that are good at this? I feel like I would not enjoy deeply working with old C++ (e.g. auto_ptr), old Java (e.g., no lambdas), old Python (e.g., string formatting with %), and so forth - if I were making more than ma
915.
by geofft 6y ago
It's happened: http://www.aerofiles.com/tiger-tail.html Bullets slowed down from drag, but the airplane was both powered and gained speed from diving, and caught up with the bullets as they fell. The plane crashed and
916.
by geofft 6y ago
Oops, thanks for the correction. I'm not claiming the goal is to produce the best compiler. In fact, I do believe it's a danger that LLVM is not copyleft, because there's no guarantee of people contributing back improvements.
917.
by geofft 6y ago
I don't understand how that link you provide refutes any of the claims in the email. It seems to address other claims, made by other people. The email does not discuss Minsky or Stallman's comments about him at all. I think preced
918.
by geofft 6y ago
He stepped down in 2019. The FSF added him to the Board this weekend. Moreover, they did so with no announcement - the only source was Stallman's own statement at LibrePlanet, and the FSF had to issue a clarification that nobody invo
919.
by geofft 6y ago
> Leadership failure? How is your compiler doing? I'm enjoying rustc very much, thank you! I hope that gcc-rs will catch up soon, but until then, I'm thrilled that the Linux kernel compiles just fine with Clang and there are
920.
by geofft 6y ago
I firmly agree with that. Unfortunately it's hard to question a cult of personality. If you look in the linked threads, RMS himself acknowledged in 2015 that not accepting LLVM was a mistake - https://lists.gnu.org/ar
921.
by geofft 6y ago
Not a direct answer to your question, but the very existence of LLVM as a serious competitor to GCC is evidence of RMS's leadership failure, and even if you ignore everything in this letter, the GCC Steering Committee should be looking
922.
by geofft 6y ago
Largely because RMS gave them that power? Like I'm not sure what your argument is. Are you saying one should not take board members of the FSF seriously, and one should ignore people whose contribution to the free software movement is
923.
by geofft 6y ago
I think good starting points are https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/52587.html and http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html (note, particularly, the several links in the sentence
924.
by geofft 6y ago
I'm not sure where point 1 comes into play - membership on the board of the FSF is not a compensated role. He wasn't hired for anything. Also, the FSF staff unionized in 2004 to protect themselves from RMS [1] [2], and the only co
925.
by geofft 6y ago
The video starts off with a factual error: > MIT fired him from his job as a professor at the university He had no such job - he in fact emphatically left MIT employment (as research staff, he was never a professor) before starting GNU
926.
by geofft 6y ago
All right, that's fair - I think that approach leads to something like like, country A should not do morally-questionable action M, nor should country B, and if country A chooses to do it anyway, this shouldn't justify country B s
927.
by geofft 6y ago
Your comment is in reply to a comment about China, which is why I referenced China. (But if you wish to say your point is abstract, then my comment also applies equally well in any direction - I don't think China should use the US&#x27
928.
by geofft 6y ago
To be clear, by "X" you mean "amoral" and "y" you mean "moral"? I think it not only acceptable but incumbent to hold yourself to a higher standard of behavior than the lowest common denominator. &qu
929.
by geofft 6y ago
"Counterterrorism" implies to me that the targets were not under the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore could not have been jailed for ordering a drink with too much sugar (not that anyone in the US could, either, bu
930.
by geofft 6y ago
I dunno, I feel like "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a buffer overflow is a good guy with a buffer overflow" makes even less sense than the original form of that. Secure systems that do what they say they'll do h

More ›