Originally posted by leiptrstormr
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Richard Stallman Resigns From The Free Software Foundation
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by ossuser View PostAnd 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/
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by ElectricPrism View PostThere 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.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by alcalde View PostWe 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!
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.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by alcalde View Post
Um.... nobody. You do realize that Stallman is completely inconsequential to the world at large, right?
- Likes 2
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.- 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!
- 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.
- 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.
- Likes 1
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.
- Likes 2
Comment
Comment