@MichaelHomer I'm sure it's not perfect. Do you have an alternative suggestion?

I've used it for a while, and mostly it works.

I find JSON output hard to read, which is one reason I didn't consider it.

TOML seems to have more language support (and in Debian) than I expected, but I don't know anything about it.

@ilkkachu That's a poorly written and ignorant article. This bit is particularly mind boggling.

> Caused a major and entirely avoidable fracture of the community with the Open Source movement;

But of course we all know that people writing on the Internet are guaranteed to be well-informed and accurate journalists.

There are much better articles available, but I'm sure if people care, they can find it for themselves. I read a couple of quite good ones yesterday.

There's a review question here:

oh, you're using it by choice? well, if you need the cyclic references you don't have much other generic option, but otherwise I guess TOML for mostly people (or a bespoke parser if there's no interop to care about), JSON for mostly computers. I would like a better option with perhaps a usable schema system, but I don't think one exists

I would like YAML if it worked all the time

@MichaelHomer I don't think I do use the cyclic references. And yes, I chose it. There aren't too many options. I don't understand what you mean by "TOML for mostly people", though.

Oh, perhaps you mean "TOML for most people"?

@FaheemMitha No, he meant "use TOML if mostly people will read/write it, use JSON if mostly computers will read/write it".

@FaheemMitha I'd appreciate links to better articles, if you have any. Not that articles couldn't be found, but that subject is such that I expect most of them won't be too good.

@AndrasDeak Oh yes, I see. Sorry, reading comprehension fail.

@ilkkachu sterling-archermedes.github.io/index.html is a reasonable overview of the basis of some of the attacks. This one is a bit more general and comprensive, but it less an article than a collection of clippings. Or an Encyclopedia entry.

See also wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web, including the intelligent and thoughts comments from Nadine Strossen. A bit further down in the article.

I've never heard of her, but she used to head the ACLU.

Sorry, I forgot to include the second link, which is jorgemorais.gitlab.io/justice-for-rms

That was the one I was referring to, when I wrote "This one is a bit more general and comprensive".

If you want to learn more about Stallman, there's a biography called "Free as in Freedom", which is available free online. And also on the FSF site, I think.

I've taken an interest in Stallman and the FSF till the mid/late 1990s, though not so much in recent years. So I know a little about the context and background here.

The book "Rebel Code" by Glyn Moody contains a reasonable overview of some of the history, among other things.

I hope this is helpful.

The book "Rebel Code" has this funny bit, which shows the futility of trying to predict the future.

> Stallman says despairingly. "I'm going to keep working on the free software movement because I don't see who's going to replace me." Nevertheless, a worthy successor who has the rare mix of qualities neccessary may already be emerging in the person of Miguel de Icaza.

Though it was a silly thing to write even at the time. Around 2002, I think.

Strossen's comments start as follows:

> I find it so odd that the strong zeal for revenge and punishment if someone says anything that is perceived to be sexist or racist or discriminatory comes from liberals and progressives.

In case you want to do a search.

@FaheemMitha Why is that mind boggling? It is self evident that RMS is causing a fracture in the community. Look at this conversation, the competing letters, all that crap. Stallman is an undeniably divisive figure and that, IMO, is reason enough to remove him from positions of leadership, no matter what else may be leveled against him. Someone who has such a polarizing effect on people is, by definition, not a good choice for a community leadership position.

@FaheemMitha That is a good article, yes, but there is no contradiction at all between it (wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web) and the one Ilkkachu posted (arp242.net/rms.html). In fact, they both make the point that one should have the right to be a jerk. The question isn't whether RMS is some sort of monster, but about whether someone as personally unpleasant as even his supporters admit he is should be the public face of a movement.

I have personally found RMS annoying (without knowing anything about his personal habits or opinions and caring about the latter even less) for years because of his dogmatic stance on free software. The whole "GNU/Linux" naming thing and absolutist stance on "Freedom" are things that I find counter productive and which I believe have been actively harming the open source community.

He gets hung up on minor details and displays an ideological orthodoxy and rigidity of mind that I find very unpleasant and dangerous. It is now hard to take him seriously and he comes across as an eccentric and a joke. That isn't a good person to represent a movement. Not if we don't want to be dismissed as a bunch of wackos.

None of this, in my case at least, is in any way affected by the recent campaign against him.

@terdon (ilkkachu posted that :)

@AndrasDeak whoops, indeed. Thanks.

you can delete my message now (it's beyond 2 minutes)

@terdon Because it's complete nonsense. I refer you to the book I mentioned earlier, namely "Rebel Code", for an actual history of what happened.

I'm talking about the OSI, Open Source thing, to be clear.

Because random people write stuff on the internet doesn't make it true.

@FaheemMitha That isn't a very informative statement. What is nonsense?

@FaheemMitha A very true point, but equally applicable to any reference we can bring, so in practice irrelevant.

That. ^^

@FaheemMitha Yes. Exactly, how is that nonsense?

@terdon It's nonsense because the Open Source movement was a competing ideology.

It doesn't make sense to talk about a fracture between competing ideologies.

@FaheemMitha Obviously, "Open Source" is used here as a blanket term to cover both the Free Software and Open Source communities.

It's like talking about a fracture between the economic system practised by the late Soviet Union, namely a command economy and stuff, as against standard issue Western capitalism.

@terdon I don't think that's so. But I could go back and look at that article. One sec.

Here's the complete context.

> Caused a major and entirely avoidable fracture of the community with the Open Source movement; it’s pretty clear that Stallman, him specifically as a person, was a major reason for the OSI people to start their own organisation. Stallman still seems to harbour sour grapes over this more than 20 years later.

@FaheemMitha Forget that. He's causing an entirely avoidable fracture now.

sounds like the "open source community" was fractured by people starting an organization of their own called OSI

This isn't particularly clear, but it seems to be that community means the Free Software community. As opposed to the separate wing of the Open Source movement.

The two terms are normally used as distinct things.

More to the point, he is at best a very socially awkward person so he has no business being placed in public positions which rely on the goodwill of other human beings.

Interesting though, because I find that article to be largely level-headed and reasonable. Focusing so adamantly on a single point you think is technically wrong is... surprising.

Anyway, the point is that OSI had a completely different ideology.

Talking about a fracture makes no sense.

Especially since there is a whole section of the thing devoted to defending RMS. The only point carpetsmoker is making is that he shouldn't be the public face of an organization.

@AndrasDeak It's just an example. I could go back and read it again if you want more examples.

not really, I've read way more about this whole thing than I ever wanted to

@terdon That's a separate issue from public vilification.

they also say that RMS should not be vilified, so...

I think one could make a reasonable case that Stallman should be in the process of "retiring", for lack of a better word. But not like this.

@terdon also I had no idea that's carpetsmoker

@AndrasDeak They?

@FaheemMitha Precisely. The article does not defend the public vilification. And I don't either. I still don't want RMS in any leadership position though because I feel his dogmatism, absolutism, and by all accounts obnoxious personality make him very ill suited to such a role.

@FaheemMitha carpetsmoker/arp242

I distrust and fear anyone with total ideological rigidity. Such folks are dangerous.

@terdon Well, what's going on here is very public attack with a lot of mud throwing. This isn't a retiring process.

@terdon always the risk of Machiavelli

@FaheemMitha And, again, if you had read the article you attacked you would know that it wasn't defending this in any way. And, as I said above, neither am I.

Vilification hysteria against Stallman: bad. Having Stallman in a leadership position: also bad.

@AndrasDeak Also, this particular point is quite significant. The OSI thing happened in the late 90s.

OK

@AndrasDeak Yeah, he's gone through a few usernames, but he links to his SE profile in the blog post and he mentions some of his old SE names there.

@terdon True, I didn't read the whole thing because I found the tone irritating.

I guess I could look at it again.

@FaheemMitha Which is precisely the point the article is making: it claims that Stallman is still sore over whatever happened then and more generally is stuck in a 90's (or older) mentality and has shown a total lack of ability to adapt his views and move with the times.

I was actually thinking about this a bit today, and I can sort of see why some of it is happening, but there is still a lot that puzzles me.

@terdon Sore over what exactly?

@FaheemMitha You should certainly do so before using such strong language as "poorly written and ignorant" else you are guilty of exactly the same superficial knee-jerk reaction that you accuse RMS detractors of.

@terdon That parts of it I read were poorly written and ignorant. If you want further examples, I think I could provide them.

lol

@FaheemMitha Yes, sorry, that last message of mine was needlessly confrontational. I just... get really riled up by the very common phenomenon these days of people having strong opinions about things they haven't actually seen/read etc. Just like people reacting to RMS's opinions without looking at the context in which they were expressed. So I found it galling to hear that you hadn't actually read the thing.

...

@StephenKitt I once executed a dd command that wiped a production machine's zpool

thus it was written, thus it shall be

@FaheemMitha yeah, ok, you didn't read the whole thing, but you still knew enough to say "That's a poorly written and ignorant article."?

(Not that "it looks like one", or "I glanced at it and got the impression", or...)

@FaheemMitha I read those from Strossen. ACLU activist or not, I think she's got excellent points there. But the problem with RMS isn't that he's not right. The problem is that he doesn't seem to know when to shut up. For an organization like FSF, the Free Software Foundation, questions about who should get to have sex with who doesn't exactly seem to be on topic.

And given that, like it or not, they're rather flammable subjects, it would help their agenda to not make statements on them. Or to have a leader who has controversial opinions on them, and doesn't seem at all willing to budge on them. And who, instead, seems more likely to engage vehemently on the points, if the situation arises.

And most of that is what that Martin Tournoij / arp242 guy also said, at least as far as I read. A lot of the stuff on the open letter calling for RMS's removal circles around some particular stuff RMS has mentioned, probably misunderstanding his point entirely.

But that doesn't make RMS a good leader. There's still the question of him apparently being constantly obnoxious, a point that that wetheweb article you linked to also makes: "I have had 3 lunches, 1 free software event, and 1 long car ride with Richard Stallman and can vouch for Lessig’s view. In that span of time he managed to confront and berate me countless times. He is by far the most disagreeable person I’ve ever met."

Plus then there's all the stuff about people saying he's a... bit of a bother towards ladies, let's say. Someone who's disagreeable and makes people remember him for how he approaches women isn't really someone who's a good figurehead. That's not even about him being wrong in the philosophical side, and it's not to say he hasn't been influential, or had a positive effect. But that's not all there is.

Somewhere else, a comment was made, that the usual solution to people like that in academia is to give them some emeritus position for the important work they've done before. Which would have the advantage that it would let them have some prestige, while still being formally off from the day-to-day work. (Of other, usually younger people. Apparently these things tend to go by the generations.)

I admire your patience trying to get the same point across

Well, I can't really blame anyone for being stubborn to a fault, or unable to navigate some social norms, since I can be like that myself.

@ilkkachu I did, yes.

But that's also why I would probably make a really bad front person for some political/ideological/some such project.

@ilkkachu I agree with you there, in that specific context. But people who are who they are. And who they are can be both a strength and a weakness, depending on the circumstances.

To be clear, I personally wouldn't engage in controversial discussions about sexuality on a public mailing list, and especially not in the United States. There is zero upside to it.

@FaheemMitha did read it, or did know enough without reading?

@ilkkachu Also agreed.

@ilkkachu I read some of it. I can read it more carefully and make more detailed comments, if anyone cares. Though I have better things to do with my time, as I expect you all do too.

@ilkkachu Yes, he's well known for being a difficult person.

@ilkkachu Yes, his social skills are not great.

I'm sorry, I lost track of the point.

@ilkkachu Yes, a sort of senior advisory position would be a natural place for him at this point of time. Though I kind of had the impression that he's kind of being doing that already, to a large extent.

@ilkkachu I would write an open letter for you

Part of the problem is that he seems to be under the delusion that he's qualified to be a technical lead, which of course he isn't. I don't think he can be one even for Emacs, the project with which he's been most strongly associated with over the years. And when he tries, it understandably annoys people.

Hackers don't particularly like to take orders/instructions. They definitely don't want to take them from someone who has no idea what is going on.

So, looking at that article again, for example:

> Actively turned many people off because he’s such a twat; on of the better examples I know of is from Keith Packard, explaining why X didn’t use the GPL in spite of Packard already having used it for some of his projects before:

Maybe that's true, but he forgets to mention that Stallman's personal intervention was responsble for the BSD code being freed back in the day. At least Keith Bostic (I think) gives his credit for that. Also Ghostscript was GPLd because of his personal involvement.

Also, calling someone a twat is fairly rude, especially without context.

> Sidetracking of pointless issues (“GNU/Linux”, “you should not be using hacker but cracker”, “Open Source misses the point”, etc.), as well as stubbornly insisting on the term “Free Software” which is confusing and stands in the way if communicating the ideals to the wider world. Everyone will think that an article with “Free Software” in the title will be about software free of charge. There is a general lack of priorities or pragmatism in almost anything Stallman does.

This does a truly spectacular job of missing the point.

Free Software is based entirely on ethical principles. That's the whole point.

ah

@FaheemMitha No, I think it just disagrees about what the point is

harming people in the name of a Greater Good is considered the worse choice by many

if the ethos of Free Software is Freedom At All Cost then most people need a Mostly Free Software movement saying Mostly Freedom With Reasonable Cost

at least that's my take on the problem, which admittedly matters little because I'm only reading other people's take on a vague and subjective subject

@AndrasDeak I don't understand what you mean.

What does "Mostly Freedom" mean?

The GNU manifesto says:

> I consider that the Golden Rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share with others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way. I cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software license agreement.

Actually, this isn't particularly eloquent. I think there's something better out there. One sec.

@FaheemMitha take for instance mp3. Last time I checked you needed non-free packages to handle mp3s. So they are a no-go for purist free software advocates. Yet if you ask people, 999 in 1000 will tell you they'd like to listen to mp3s.

Ah, yes. oreilly.com/openbook/opensources/book/stallman.html

> I could have made money this way, and perhaps amused myself writing code. But I knew that at the end of my career, I would look back on years of building walls to divide people, and feel I had spent my life making the world a worse place.

That's overall quite a good read.

I'd forgotten about it, though.

@AndrasDeak You can play mp3s with free software. I think some of the codecs might be unfree, depending on the mp3 file.

But I'm not up on the technicalities. Obviously, the solution is to avoid using the non-free codecs.

For example, mpv. I think mplayer still exists, but I don't use it now.

@FaheemMitha I don't think you can, actually. The format is proprietary, so you need proprietary libraries for it.

And that's precisely the point. In the view of many, RMS is just going too far. Many people, myself included, don't feel that strongly about "freedom" in software and are willing to cut a few corners. RMS isn't, and that is the core of the issue for me.

And in trying to make GNU and the FSF so ideologically pure, all he has achieved in my opinion, is to render those two less and less relevant and make them look like they're relics of a bygone age, obsessed with meaningless minutiae and holding back the cause of open source software.

@terdon Well, mpv is in Debian main, which means it's entirely free software, and can play mp3s.

And yes, I am well aware of the distinction between free and open source software, I just consider the second to be more important than the first.

@FaheemMitha No, it can only play mp3s if you have the non-free codecs.

As far as I know, anyway.

@terdon The entire meaning of free software is based in morality. See the quote I mentioned. If you have no use for that, it's up to you. But it does mean something to some people.

And there seem to be a lot of things conflated here.

@FaheemMitha But that's precisely the point. RMS's moral stance, which may be laudable, is absolutist and that makes him counter productive in my view. In fact, there are very large groups of people who consider the whole moral aspect overblown. Which is precisely why they don't want RMS to be so involved.

(a) free software ideology (b) Stallman's views (c) Stallman's behavior. (d) Stallman's competence for the job.

I'm unsure which of them is the subject.

They are very related.

Stallman's views on software are central to this. His views on anything else I don't care about.

@terdon The free software community exists because of his "moral stance". As probably best exemplified by the GPL and associated copyleft licenses.

If you get rid of that, corporations can just do whatever they want with free software, and give nothing back. Embrace and extend.

But a) makes him dogmatic and hard to work with, not a good thing for the head of an organization that is trying to change people's minds. b) is about his views on software which takes us back to a). c) is a problem since his behavior turns people off, again not a good thing for a spokesperson for any cause and d) I have no view on his competence. I assume he is a very good programmer, or was in his day, but have no opinion one way or the other.

@FaheemMitha I would argue the opposite. That the free software community was born largely thanks to him, and we should always be grateful, but his intransigent, absolutist ideological stance has been a bad thing for free software for many years.

And I am not arguing against the GPL. Only against RMS being involved with it so that if anyone needs to deal with GNU or the FSF they need to deal with Stallman. Since he is such an apparently unpleasant character, that means that fewer people will want to deal with either. So we lose.

@terdon I don't know what you mean here. Are you saying that one should get rid of copyleft? And if not, what "intransigent, absolutist ideological stance" do you mean?

@FaheemMitha No, copyleft is brilliant. RMS just takes it to extremes and spends ridiculous amounts of effort on minor points such as the correct nomenclature and whether it should be called GNU/Linux etc.

@terdon Um, nobody is concerned about GNU/Linux. That isn't the point at all here.

@FaheemMitha Well it is for RMS.

Yes, he goes on about it. But that isn't any part of the basis of the attacks on him.

He's still harping on about that after everyone else just calls it Linux.

And that's typical of his behavior.

I guess I should be clear (if that wasn't clear already) that I'm largely concerned with the vilification and namecalling and the demands he (and in some version the FSF board) should resign.

@terdon If you don't want to listen to it, don't.

It's hardly a justification for how people have been ganging up on him.

@FaheemMitha Then you really should read the things you are rebutting since that blog post that started all this is also defending him against the hysteria. But we can disagree with the hysteria and vilification and still want him removed from any position of influence.

I think that his suitability for a front line position in the free software community is largely separate from the kinds of things that people have been accusing him of.

I think one should separate the two.

As I have. Hours ago.

I don't think that he should be removed from positions of influence. But perhaps other people should do more of the work. And he should trying to pretend to be a technical lead.

None of this has anything to do with him "resigning in disgrace" or whatever people are coming up with.

I would expect that a technical lead position would make more sense, actually. It's when he tries to get involved in the other bits that it's an issue. Unless he's also not technically competent which would be news to me.

I actually think he's quite an effective advocate for Free Software, up to a point. But obviously the corporations don't like him, which is a big part of what is going on here.

@terdon He's way past being a technical lead. Or even participating.

If you read his posts on mailing lists, it's clear he has no idea what is going on.

Is it Big Corporate cancelling him now...?

To put it another way. As a supporter of free and open source software, I am embarrassed to have RMS representing me. And I was long before the vilification, this has nothing to do with any opinion he may have expressed outside the subject of software, and entirely down to just how extremist he has been on software and on his behaviors when appearing in public.

> which is a big part of what is going on here

?

@FaheemMitha That's even worse then. The guy is a dinosaur. One who has done incredible things in his life and one who will always have my thanks and respect for his past actions, but not one that needs to be involved any more. Especially not if his involvement leads to this kind of polarization.

@terdon Ok. Well, that's somewhat unrelated to what has been going on recently, and is certainly not in line with the open letters that have been published.

@FaheemMitha And yet, it is in line with the blog post you attacked without having read and in line with everything I have been saying.

@AndrasDeak The ganging up on him. Hysterical abuse. Mud flinging.

That is clearly an overreaction, no argument there.

@terdon I wouldn't call him a dinosaur. He's one of the most far sighted people there are in his particular area of interest. He just doesn't write software any more.

@FaheemMitha corporations hating him is a big part of that?

Apparently he thinks he can guide people without being involved in the technical issues, but he really can't. And it just causes friction.

@AndrasDeak Oh, definitely. Without a doubt.

Like, I said. Similar to the Assange case. I don't know if you are familiar with that.

@FaheemMitha He was one of the most far sighted, yes. I just don't think he is any more. Which is more than fair enough, the man is pushing 70!

I'll go fetch my tin foil hat

@terdon Um, that's hard to say. I haven't really kept up with his activities. Or read his stuff recently.

But he's not dead, just because he's nearly 70. He can still think. I don't think he's a fossil.

@AndrasDeak Not a helpful thing to say.

I really wish you'd read that blog post. Two thirds of it are about defending Stallman from the hysteria. It's entire point is that the hysteria is wrong, but in the author's opinion Stallman is ill-suited to the role.

@FaheemMitha I'll try to elaborate later

@FaheemMitha Well, he doesn't seem to have changed his views in any way over the last 40 years. Software used to be a niche field and he seems to still see it that way. I don't consider it unethical by definition to have closed source software if you need to make a living out of it.

Just like it is perfectly fine to keep any other trade secret, well, secret. Now, I will personally always chose an open alternative if equally good and available, but I just don't consider it some sort of unethical sin to make software closed source.

@terdon If you mean the whole - proprietary software is evil. Well, yes, he does think that. But I don't think he necessarily pushes it down people's throats all the time.

@FaheemMitha Seriously? That's all he does as far as I can tell.

I think he tries very hard to steer people away from it, and I think he's influential in doing so.

@terdon I think he tries to promote the virtues of free software. In some places he's been quite successful. Notably India and South America.

I don't think he engages in a campaign of negativity. That wouldn't be constructive or inspiring.

@FaheemMitha Everything he says about software is about how non-free is evil and encroaching freedom etc. That is negativity by definition.

And that's well and good, he has every right to. I just feel that this sort of person, one with such a complete lack of diplomacy or nuanced thought, is not a good choice as the public face of anything.

@terdon I really don't think that's the case. Yes, he talks about how closing things is bad. Like "The Right to Read". But I suppose it depends on your definition of negative. If you say prisons are bad, are you being negative?

@terdon He has principles. That's the point. He's the public face of Free Software. Or was.

@FaheemMitha Yes, and I wish he hadn't been. I fear that having him as the public face has converted Free Software from a valid, rational position that can be defended by facts and arguments into what looks like a fringe movement for weirdos.

@terdon I'm not sure what you basis for that is. I've listened to his talks. Frankly, they get a little repetitive, but they're some of the most rational and well-reasoned positions out there.

Never heard him in person, though. My father did, once.

@terdon *cult :P

@FaheemMitha Yes, that wasn't clear. His thinking is absolutely rational, you're right. I do believe he is very, very intelligent and a very capable thinker. It's the obsessive nature, the complete unwillingness to compromise, and the personal habits that make it weird.

I think people (like programmers) often object to the desire to get rid of proprietary software because it would interfere with their paychecks. Which is fair enough, I suppose.

But that's more an economic issue.

It's just too easy to dismiss him as "a dirty hippy". And don't get me wrong, I like dirty hippies, they're my people, but that isn't the image you go for when you're trying to change the minds of people who don't already agree with you.

The core of the issue is really whether proprietary software is a good idea. It isn't.

@FaheemMitha You say that as though it were a minor consideration instead of something that directly affects the livelihood of millions.

Yes, it makes it harder for some people to make money. And some would consider that a bad thing.

@terdon Oh, no, I didn't mean it that way.

I realise it's very significant for the people who make their livelihoods under that economic model. After all, we all need to eat.

I'm just saying it's really a structural issue. In a different economic structure, it would be less of an issue.

Though it's hard to imagine a world which is completely free of proprietary software. I don't think the free model can stretch that far. Take SAS, for example.

Sure. But that isn't where we are. And that's exactly my problem: RMS seems to ignore the reality on the ground to focus instead on what should have been. And I may even agree with him on what should have been, but we need to deal with what is.

I'm not exactly sure what Stallman's thinking on the topic is. Perhaps if I meet him one day, I'll ask him.

@FaheemMitha SAS is actually explicitly allowed by the GPL. You can use GPL stuff in your SaaS service and not need to make your tools open source since you are not distributing the tools but only the output of the tools.

You mean software as a service, right? Or is SAS something else?

@terdon It seems your concerns are somewhat separate from the mud throwing etc.

Which was more my main concern. All this other stuff you're talking about is nothing new.

@FaheemMitha Yes, entirely separate. As were the concerns in the blog post you didn't read.

@terdon No, SAS the statistical software suite.

Oh.

Apologies for the ambiguity.

The company in Cary, NC.

Isn't that just a closed source R?

More of less niche software, by definition.

@terdon No, not at all.

ok

Maybe you're thinking of S+.

Nah, I just don't know much about it. 'S OK.

@FaheemMitha OK, I'm finally back in front of a laptop. What I meant was that Assange was a whistleblower [edit: probably not a whistleblower, but close enough] whose opponents/enemies are US intelligence, among a lot of regular people. Whereas in case of RMS the opponents/enemies seem to be radical liberals who don't actually understand liberalism.

It's quite a stretch to imply that this shitstorm is artificially made by Big Corporate to finally defeat Free Software once and for all, when the much more reasonable explanation is a bunch of narrow-minded people picking up pitchforks when they shouldn't.

@AndrasDeak I... don't think anyone suggested that.

that this shitstorm is artificially made by Big Corporate to finally defeat Free Software, I mean

that's what I was trying to figure out after chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/57534393#57534393

Oh, I don't doubt that some corporate folks are very happy with this and may even be supporting it, but I also don't think it can be reduced to "corporate smear campaign".

@AndrasDeak That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that (some) corporations don't like Stallman. And they want him gone. It's likely that some free software programmers also don't like it and want him gone. But for somewhat different reasons.

I refer you to Red Hat's recent press release.

Where they said that they weren't going to give the FSF any more funding, as long as Stallman is on the board. Or something like that.

@FaheemMitha OK, that's not controversial

@AndrasDeak I can't tell if that's sarcastic or not.

It's not, for once

What you said earlier came across very differently

And I don't see the Assange parallel

@AndrasDeak The Assange parallel is fairly obvious. They are both independent minded people who have made powerful corporate/institutional enemies. And perhaps don't get the support that they should from the community because of their respective personalities.

But in particular I was talking about the respect vilification campaigns that they have both suffered.

Of course, in Assange's case it's much clearer.

Again, Assange stepped on some very powerful toes. Stallman is just a creep/weirdo who ticks most people off.

@AndrasDeak I wouldn't describe Stallman as either a creep or a weirdo. Creep is just offensive.

Anyway, some powerful people don't like Assange. Other powerful people (probably less powerful) don't like Stallman. But the point is that Assange was also the target of a slur campaign. Which made him more vulnerable.

OK

@FaheemMitha "The Corporations"? Ones like Red Hat, which is well known for being the root of all evil on earth? That open letter was also signed by the GNOME Foundation, X.org, etc., and EFF, OSI and FSF Europe also voiced against him coming back. (yes, really: fsfe.org/news/2021/news-20210324-01.html)

If there are any generally known anti-FOSS organizations there, they are well hidden.

and yes, I just said FOSS. Yes, I also think that for most people, the distinction makes little difference, or that they're happy with "open source". Anyway, reading e.g. OSI's web site, it doesn't really give the impression that they'd be against FSF or "free software", just that they have a different outlook on the practicalities. The opposite, btw isn't exactly true.

@ilkkachu Yes, I'm aware FSFE also voted against him. I really had more in mind corporations like Apple, who really don't like copyleft. But it's true they don't seem to be among those present. But I'm not sure what kind of pressures are being applied.

I point you to the Snowden case, where he was being pursued by the Swedish authorities. What does Sweden have against him? Precisely nothing. Were they following "orders" from elsewhere? Most likely. Who? It's not clear.

Actually, I found it quite disturbing that both the EFF and the FSFE lined up against him.

Particularly the EFF, which I've always considered fairly sane.

@FaheemMitha I find that compelling evidence that maybe they have a point. After all, they know him personally and know what having him in a position of power means.

@ilkkachu OSI is a corporate rebranding exercise of free software. That's well understood. People like Eric Raymond even have said so openly.

If so many people you consider sane are speaking out against someone, then maybe they have a point.

What OSI is promoting is free software by another name.

@terdon If so, they shouldn't be piling on to the vilification campaign. I would expect responsible people to distance themselves from it.

@FaheemMitha what?

@FaheemMitha So you are so convinced you know this man you've never met better than all of these dozens of people who have actually worked with him on a daily basis and are desperately asking for him not to come back?

"OSI is a corporate rebranding exercise of free software." and "What OSI is promoting is free software by another name."

@ilkkachu Yes, that's what I wrote. Go and look at the definition of open source.

@terdon Of course not. I'm saying they could separately talk about replacing him. Possibly privately. Not join the torrent of abuse. I think you're misunderstanding me. If they want him to go, fine. But there are better ways to do it.

Just to introduce a less soul-consuming topic: my firefox stopped downloading things, with an error saying

I figured it must be a server issue from where I was downloading from, because the error popup came before I was offered a place to download files. But I looked at /tmp anyway because I know firefox preemptively starts downloading things there. And lo! and behold, all my files in mozilla's /tmp directory are -r------- permissioned

Does this ring a bell to anyone? I definitely didn't touch it myself :)

Yes, OK. On the other hand, this seems like the most effective tool they have available and they also need to distance themselves from the harmful statements he has made. Yes, a lot off these were misunderstood and/or taken out of context, and yes some are complete misunderstandigs or even fabrications, but that doesn't change the fact that right now, his name is mud and being associated with him is a bad thing.

Having read the FSFE, it really is a piece of work. What a pile of corporate speak.

@terdon One gets the impression that they don't want him around, and seizing this opportunity to get rid of him. Which isn't very nice.

You can argue that it shouldn't be a bad thing, and you could be right, but be that as it may, as it stands, RMS is a bad association. Which is why I find it so galling that he insists on coming back and doesn't just take the hint and go sit on his laurels.

but then, "free software by another name"

> That is why, as a legally and financially independent organisation, in which Richard Stallman has not had any decision-making powers, we call for his resignation from all FSF bodies.

yeah, now I'm officially confused

@FaheemMitha Why is it not nice? By all accounts, including those of his supporters, he is a particularly unpleasant human being.

I guess askubuntu.com/questions/1029844/… might be relevant

@ilkkachu Idealogically different, functionally the same. That's what rebranding means. I'm not sure what is unclear about that.

I have some ext4-fs errors in dmesg, hmm. Perhaps I should reboot

So, Eric Raymond and some other people, notably Bruce Perens, then the Debian project leader, decided to lead a rebranding exercise to try to make free software more friendly to corporations. This was done by deemphasizing the ethical aspects, and emphasizing the pragmatic advantages. Have you read "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"?

@FaheemMitha Is that such a bad thing?

I don't know exactly how it came about. But it was very successful.

@terdon If you believe in the ethical/moral roots of free software, then yes. If you just want corporations to use your code, then no.

@FaheemMitha, yes, like I said before, a lot of people don't exactly care about the Free vs. Open distinction. For a lot of people, the practical side is the more important one, and getting some progress is better than getting none.

@terdon He's a colleague of these people in some sense, who didn't deserve this treament.

I admit I'm kind of torn about this. I come from Academia where open source is the norm. On the other hand, I now work in industry and I know that if we were to make our code open source, our competitors would immediately jump on it. Hell, they're already blatantly copying us and coming out with features just after we do. So I don't see how we could possibly open source our tools.

@ilkkachu It's an extremely important distinction.

@terdon Nobody is telling you to.

Now, we work as a SaaS system, we offer a web-based platform and our tools run on our own servers. So we're even allowed to use GPLed stuff.

The problem with RMS and a lot of other ideological purists (in other contexts), is that they seem to want everything, and often they want it "now". And when doing that, they succeed in alienating people, which I don't think really advances their goals in practice.

But if RMS had his way, given that he considers any and all closed source to be anathema, we wouldn't be able to exist.

Well, I need to go. Take care, everyone.

hmmm, my / seems to be mounted read-only

that's not great

I presume it's because of errors=remount-ro plus ext4-fs errors

@FaheemMitha Ugh. Sorry for the pile-on Faheem. For the record, I enjoy having this sort of discussion with you because you are intelligent, articulate and can build an argument instead of just screaming as so many people do these days. It's just that you seem to be holding a minority view on this subject and in this room, so my apologies if it felt like we're all coming down on you like a ton of bricks.

with a slice of lemon wrapped around them

@FaheemMitha ok, here's a practical thing to consider. IIRC, in FSF/RMS's view, a piece of hardware that needs some firmware (proprietary, non-free software) loaded on it for it to work, is less free (and therefore worse), than another piece of hardware that has the firmware statically embedded on the device, with no means to update it.

This, even though that the former at least gives a theoretical chance to replace the firmware with an open one, and in practice, at least makes it possible for someone to fix bugs in it. Without tossing the whole device in the bin and making a new one.

Is either of them ideal? No, of course not, of course we'd want open specifications and a chance to hack the firmware, as much as it's possible. But if that's not an option, then, well, what then?

here's hoping a reboot will fix my file system :D

I think I could go on with this subject. For a significant while... But yeah, let's take a break at least.

/dev/sda3: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY; RUN fsck MANUALLY. Nyeeeehhhh

oh, right, some comments I forgot to reply on

@FaheemMitha most of what I said and you seemed to agree on was basically on the lines of what arp242 wrote, or at least what I understood when I read it.

@FaheemMitha AFAIU he resigned from most of the leadership positions in 2019, during whatever controversy it was then. So he kinda was in some sort of an "advisory"/"emeritus" position, sort of? I guess. And I get the impression people were generally happy with that, and hoping to get a more diverse leadership for FSF. Happy until now that FSF raised him back, that is.

:57535536 I'll stop now!

I'm good :D

Although reboot doesn't work in my initramfs prompt

@AndrasDeak based on this, I hope your backups are also good...

Yeah, off-site off-machine and recent. But SMART showed no issues.

Some orphaned inodes hanging around from what I could tell from errors

Is it safe to hard reset from the initramfs prompt once fsck is done?

Ctrl-d worked

Everything seems to work still, phew

journaling filesystems seem like a good idea

could we maybe just not have extended defences of sexual predators in here?

it makes the room very unwelcoming

incoming extended discussion of whether he's a sexual predator :)

I am not interested in engaging with Faheem, because it's pointless, but let's imagine somebody entering the room for the first time for bits of all that ^^^ and what effect it's going to have

Coming together under the banner of relief that my filesystem did not break?

perhaps that was just me

It's back again: Xinuos—owners of what used to be SCO—file suit against Red Hat and IBM

@MichaelHomer suspicious date...

@AndrasDeak 57-page legal complaint

has IBM been trying to destroy FreeBSD? that seems to be a principal part of the complaint and it's not something I've ever heard of before

wow, they do take April fools seriously...