Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Richard Stallman Resigns From The Free Software Foundation

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by leiptrstormr View Post
    Virginia Giuffre is 35 in 2019. The incident happened in 2002. She would have become 18 that year. Legal ages of consent are 17 in New York where Epstein lived and 16 in Massachusetts. Even if Minsky did have sex with the girl, which Stallman said he didn't, it would have been 100% legal. Before someone chimes in with Romeo and Juliet laws, that's below legal age of consent. They literally shamed the guy into resigning OVER NOTHING.
    Do you really believe a 17yo wanted to have sex with a 73yo married man? Or that Minsky believed she did?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ossuser View Post
      And again I ask myself (with the same tinfoil hat senses tingling as starshipeleven) WHO BENEFITS ? (from having RMS out of the way) https://itsfoss.com/richard-stallman-controversy/
      Um.... nobody. You do realize that Stallman is completely inconsequential to the world at large, right?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ElectricPrism View Post
        There is no situation a pre-18 year old in the US can consent to sex, they cannot legally contract. the law does allow for a relaxing to such rules as I recall if both parties are within 2 years of age, and that's it.
        An otherwise great post, but this portion is incorrect. In many (over half?) the states in the US, the age of consent is 16, not 18.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by moilami View Post
          He could retire anytime and be happy of that he did more than 99% of people have done for the universal good of humankind.
          I must have missed the times Stallman cured polio, ended apartheid and brought down the Iron Curtain.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by alcalde View Post
            We need a friendly, eloquent voice without significant personality disorders to be the public face of Linux. I've evolved on this one a bit and decided that Stephen Fry would be an excellent choice. In fact, he essentially made a demo reel of sorts for doing so several years ago....

            Stephen Fry - Free Software

            He doesn't eat anything off his feet or give the camera the middle finger and then cry about whether he might be made to wear a tie. He behaves like a well-adjusted adult. We could use some of that in Linux!
            There is no "we" to represent. This entire project exists as a bunch of non-conformity hackers trying to get shit done, and that's how it should stay.

            Linux is used because it works well and because contributions to the source are required to remain open source. Not because of some sort of bullshit corporate-friendliness.

            If you want to "appeal" to people, you should drop the GPL, sell the kernel to some corporate entity, and run everything through a "brand safety" firm.

            Jeeze that sounds fucking terrible.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by alcalde View Post

              Um.... nobody. You do realize that Stallman is completely inconsequential to the world at large, right?
              You really underestimate the role he played in free software and getting the GPL used. Hopefully the FSF doesn't change because of this, but I wont be surprised if the GPLv4 or whatever they decide to call it removes many of the requirements currently outlined.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by alcalde View Post

                I must have missed the times Stallman cured polio, ended apartheid and brought down the Iron Curtain.
                Did I say 99.9%? Though Stallman probably was more influential to the humanity than 99.9% of the people.

                Comment


                • Another major social crisis averted by use of torches, pitchforks and the inevitable witch-burning. Where is the next witch ?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by fuzz View Post

                    There is no "we" to represent. This entire project exists as a bunch of non-conformity hackers trying to get shit done, and that's how it should stay.

                    Linux is used because it works well and because contributions to the source are required to remain open source. Not because of some sort of bullshit corporate-friendliness.

                    If you want to "appeal" to people, you should drop the GPL, sell the kernel to some corporate entity, and run everything through a "brand safety" firm.

                    Jeeze that sounds fucking terrible.
                    1. There is a "we" to represent - the Linux community. Linux today is produced by corporations all over the world, not a bunch of non-conforming hackers. Heck, Microsoft is a major contributor to the kernel today!
                    2. Linux would be used a lot more if ordinary people knew it even existed. As someone once told me whom I showed Linux to, "I didn't know you could run anything on a computer other than Windows!" To sell Linux and open source, as any idea, you need sensible, intelligent, non-threatening, patient people able to explain the product and its nature succinctly and appealingly. It helps mightily if they're neither creepy nor nasty.
                    3. Linux isn't supposed to be some secret that only you and a select few know about. More people using it is not terrible. Not putting our most cringeworthy ambassadors forward is not a terrible idea. Between Stallman (remember the time he was upset someone was going to take time off from contributing to emacs because his first child had just been born and Stallman couldn't understand how that was more important?), Torvalds (telling people they should go kill themselves after a spate of high-profile bullying-related suicides) and Eric S. Raymond (assorted racist rants, including explaining that there are less black people in tech because they have lower IQ), we put forth the most unappealing emissaries we possibly can. It needs to be recognized that coding Linux and advocating for Linux are two separate skill sets best left to different people. Think The Woz vs. Jobs - one was a tech guy, the other was a master salesman.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by moilami View Post

                      Did I say 99.9%? Though Stallman probably was more influential to the humanity than 99.9% of the people.
                      He created a dang software license. 99.9% of people have no idea who he is. No one will ever build monuments or erect statues in his honor.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X