Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNU Project Developers Debate A Restructuring As A "Bottom Up" Organization

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

  • #41
    Originally posted by squash View Post

    It's not about some sort of weird convenience for me (I'm sure that made sense in your head), it's about the trend that complainers and contributors tend to be different groups.

    If the guy who authored the email in question forked his primary project (classpath), nobody would notice because that project is long dead (last release in 2012).
    Refer to my other comment regarding forking.
    And besides, just because the article mentions that he is a classpath maintainer does not mean that's all he does...

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by royce View Post
      Since these people have contributed to the GNU project as a whole, GNU is their project. They have every right to question its structure and promoting change.
      Only because you contribute to a project, doesn't make it your own, in the meaning that you can sabotage its Leadership..

      If you feel that you have the need to have a "only yours project..",
      Then you can start one from ground up, and after that, you have a project that is all yours..

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by tuxd3v View Post
        Only because you contribute to a project, doesn't make it your own, in the meaning that you can sabotage its Leadership..

        If you feel that you have the need to have a "only yours project..",
        Then you can start one from ground up, and after that, you have a project that is all yours..
        Hey pal, you seem to be a bit confused by definitions. So here it is: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sabotage

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by royce View Post
          Probably comments like this contributed to this person feeling unwelcome. Congratulations for being part of the problem.

          As a man, you don't get to decide what counts and what doesn't.
          Obviously no one aside from the offended party can determine what offended them but anyone is free to decide if it was reasonable.

          Attempting to silence people even questioning is one reason I don't even care what whiny people get offended by anymore. Short of actual crimes I default to assuming they're snowflakes.

          That that sort of cancer is in FSF and GNU is sickening tbh.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by AsuMagic View Post

            Hey pal, you seem to be a bit confused by definitions. So here it is: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sabotage
            His definition is on point. Sabotage can be used to describe that. It does not necessarily need to be physical and with explosives

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by tului View Post
              Obviously no one aside from the offended party can determine what offended them but anyone is free to decide if it was reasonable.
              That's why courts use a "reasonable person" standard.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by tului View Post
                Obviously no one aside from the offended party can determine what offended them but anyone is free to decide if it was reasonable.

                Attempting to silence people even questioning is one reason I don't even care what whiny people get offended by anymore. Short of actual crimes I default to assuming they're snowflakes.
                This.

                The entire concept of "being offended" is bullshit used to manipulate others, it always was. There are common rules, etiquette and courtesy, which is the more or less "agreed upon" middle ground on what is an offence and what is not.

                You don't get the privilege to redefine anything to suit you on a whim, that's just plain arrogance.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                  His definition is on point. Sabotage can be used to describe that. It does not necessarily need to be physical and with explosives
                  No shit.

                  The guy he attacked posted a suggestion.
                  He didn't threaten of anything. He asked for comments and criticism.
                  How the hell does that constitute sabotage.

                  Please restrict manipulating what people say or intent to politics. Oh wait. You all turned this into politics, ironically.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by tului View Post
                    Attempting to silence people even questioning is one reason I don't even care what whiny people get offended by anymore. Short of actual crimes I default to assuming they're snowflakes.

                    That that sort of cancer is in FSF and GNU is sickening tbh.
                    Incredibly bold to say in a thread where about everyone gets offended, cries and spouts the usual bigotry and conspiracy theories for something absolutely unimportant (aka the debianxfce syndrome).

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by AsuMagic View Post
                      The guy he attacked posted a suggestion.
                      Bullshit, this was NOT a suggestion https://www.phoronix.com/forums/foru...05#post1134405

                      It was stated as a fact, when it was most definitely not. That marks him as fair game, no quarter.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X