Re: [Freedos-user] FSF?!
Hi, On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 2:06 PM Joao Silva wrote: > > I do dare to ask a dumb question, after reading several post about FSF. > > Can anyone explain what is FSF, i'm just a simple tech guy! Free Software Foundation, aka the ones who fund the GNU organization (GPL, GCC, BinUtils [as, ld], Hurd, etc). Actually, Red Hat might do most of the work on BinUtils nowadays, but it's still copyright-owned by GNU. * https://www.fsf.org/ * https://gcc.gnu.org/ To be "Free" (libre), you must have the essential "four freedoms": * https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html " * The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2). * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. " (Corrections or clarifications welcome.) ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] FSF?!
Hello to all! I do dare to ask a dumb question, after reading several post about FSF. Can anyone explain what is FSF, i'm just a simple tech guy! Thank you. ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FSF
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 2:41 AM Eric Auer wrote:
>
> > Richard Stallman has not been convicted by a court. He is not in
> > prison. Let's not burn his house down over pathetic words.
>
> That is not the point.
To treat his behavior as a crime that mandatorily deserves punishment
implies that he is indeed guilty.
This is not the same as just saying, "He's dumb, and we don't like
him." This is far more aggressive.
> > He's not perfect. He doesn't have to be.
>
> To be in a leading position in an organisation which tries
> to be a good example in the world, one should contribute to
> a good atmosphere. Having a mattress with shirtless people
> in your office for example does not contribute to that:
Was that not during his college years? And even that could be misconstrued.
> https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix-a-a7e41e784f88
Not the worst article, but it's still flimsy. A lot of it is about her
own emotional baggage.
Just to be clear, it seems she's not blaming RMS for literally
everything over 30 years. (At least, I don't see how that's possible.)
But she is indeed implying there have been long-standing problems.
Most of the outrage is just his moral opinions (highly irrelevant).
Some of the rest sounds like vague suspicions, not actual proof.
RMS is a very technical and eccentric person. His words and intentions
may be easily misunderstood. He's not talking in normal human terms.
He's being very precise in what he thinks. I would not treat him as
thinking "normal". But I don't mean that negatively either. He's just
different. People may think him cold or indifferent, but I think he's
just wired differently, very specific and technical. I don't see any
bad intentions. There's no reason to assume the worst with him at all.
> Just because MIT failed to have sexual harassment policies
> which explicitly outlawed bullying people into dating you
> does not mean that FSF can welcome a leader who tried that.
We still don't know his intentions or full circumstances from that
incident. But yeah, poor choice of words, that behavior should always
be ignored.
> > His public or private opinion is irrelevant.
> > Nobody is following his example.
>
> He is not just anybody. Having his fame, there is a risk
> that people do follow his example.
Then whose example did he follow to get here? And now that there are
so many virtuous people around, why isn't he following them?
> Having him work at a high-ranking position sends a signal that he has a fine
> character and his example should be followed.
He has technical expertise, so he's useful. But he's not actually
Saint I-GNU-tius.
(Do you think that persona of his bullied anyone into religion? Did
anyone follow that "witness"?)
> As said, FSF could simply hire him as expert consultant instead.
Yes, probably, but what's the practical difference? You know some
people will still complain until he's gone completely. They don't need
facts, just emotions. But that's not a good way to live, giving in to
empty and angry emotions. (Ask our little friend who got banned a few
years ago. Lots of emotions, zero practical reasons. Anger is
irrational, temporary insanity.)
"I am ready, now, to join others in calling for burning everything to
the ground."
"Remove everyone, if we must, and let something much better be built
from the ashes."
(She basically says nobody is so deserving of praise that they should
have their comments be "allowed to slide", aka be ignored, especially
"excusing [permitting] rape, assault, and child sex trafficking". I'm
not sure that's quite what RMS had in mind, but she is indeed implying
that his "comments" are a crime that shouldn't go unanswered, i.e. he
must be rebuked or punished.)
(Her addendum later worries about her own reputation and "insulting
someone well respected who I had never met". "This was not, actually,
all that much about Richard Stallman. Stallman was just the last
straw." So this is more of a war, and he is alleged to be only a
fraction of the overall problem.)
N.B Marvin Minsky was apparently co-founder of the A.I. Lab at M.I.T.
So if RMS is defending him (everyone deserves a just defense),
wouldn't that imply that RMS knew him or at least met him or contacted
him before? In other words, RMS was probably a friend or colleague of
his and felt the need to defend someone who cannot defend himself
anymore. ("Minsky received a $100,000 research grant from Jeffrey
Epstein in 2002." Most of the controversy seems to stem from that.
Minsky also won the Turing Award in 1969.)
> For comparison, think about the years when there was a
> man at a very high-ranking position who got away with
> "grabbing women by the pussy", firing everybody who did
> not agree with him and intimidating yet others to never
> hold him accountable. He actually acquired a lot of fans
> who hoped to become successful by being more like him,
> even in the years before as rich boss guy in a TV show.
You mean the 2005 video that
Re: [Freedos-user] Richard Stallman concerns...
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 11:40:25 -0400 Michael Powell wrote: > But... I digress, sir. There must be better places to discuss RMS, isn't this a FREEDOS list? d ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Richard Stallman concerns...
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 2:54 AM Michael Christopher Robinson < michae...@charter.net> wrote: > First off, I think too much has been said and a lot of it is troubling. > Partially and undeniably because Richard Stallman is a hard person for many > folks to relate to. I've never met him, but I've known for a long time > that he has a really bad reputation as an anti social individual. I've > known about his bad reputation since before January 1, 2000. I am > concerned that nobody posting on this list should purposely insult anyone > else posting on this list or even someone off list as if that is an > acceptable thing to do. I must definitely ask, what if Richard Stallman > has been posting on this list and has been in these discussions? Should > anything you post on this list about Richard Stallman be anything you > wouldn't say to his face, especially if you have been unknowingly > indirectly communicating with him through this list? If everyone wants > Richard Stallman to be less anti social, then we all need to avoid directly > telling Richard Stallman in an unhelpful way that he is anti social. If he > is using an alias and posting to this list, he is in these discussions and > he is potentially reading them. Shouldn't everyone who is concerned about > Richard Stallman want him to become less anti social and shouldn't we all > be open to encouraging Richard Stallman to be less anti social? Instead of > supporting this idea that Stallman is a huge jerk etcetera by echoing it > myself, I don't want the group conversation anywhere on any mailing list or > beyond mailing lists even to be against any person let alone in a tone that > wouldn't help that person do better if they need to. The problem with > calling anyone a bully on an email list is that the "bully" might see that > and become more of a bully because of it. The goal of a group of concerned > people about another specific person should always be to encourage that > person to personally improve in the area of legitimate concern. The group > cannot force this person to change, especially if the group is wrong that > the person even should change this personal aspect of him/herself. Tyranny > of the majority is never a good thing, neither is Richard Stallman's > reputation as an anti social individual. This tyranny of the majority > problem by the way is why the President of the United States is supposed to > be elected by the electoral college and NOT democratically. The states > indeed only elect electors to the electoral college. Still matters how > legitimate the votes in that state are, but the POTUS is not elected by the > people directly and never has been. > Re: TYRANNY versus LIBERTY. For the republic, if we can keep it. Yes, in theory. That's only as good as the folks who are actually appointed to uphold said BoR, etc. As they say, " people is policy." Do we still have that republic? And I do not mean the 'R' after a politician's name. If we can keep it; which I'm afraid we've been poor stewards indeed at keeping anything resembling the republic. It's the reason why Trump, for instance, could claim "take the guns first then due process", or "involuntary confinement", or "gotta get their shots", and a whole litany of 170 betrayals of his campaign promises. Just another cog in the wheel that's turning over the republic today. But... I digress, sir. __ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user > ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FSF
Thanks for the explanation, Jim: Here's the thing: I've had years of direct experience with Stallman. I've even met him several times in person. And in that time, I've watched him say and do very mean and hurtful things. Both to me, and to others. What can we learn from this negative exemplar? He calls DOS a "DOG operating system." The FSF and GNU websites actually referred to MS-DOS as "the M$-DOG operating system" for years. When I talked to Stallman about it, he doubled down on that statement and said I was a "DOG man" because I worked on FreeDOS. And he said anyone who uses FreeDOS is a "DOG user." How do you cope with abuse? But it's a really mean thing to say. It doesn't make you want to work with him. And that's not a "one off" thing. That kind of thing happened again and again. I have dozens of examples from direct experience. And in my experience, Stallman likes to offend people. This seems like a disagreeable personality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreeableness When Stallman exited the Free Software Foundation, I hoped the FSF would take that opportunity to reflect and become a more welcoming organization. How can we become a nicer outfit in contrast? -- members.iinet.net.au/~kilgallin/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FSF
Thanks, Jim: And it's because FreeDOS predates the term "open source" and the Open Source Initiative that so much of our early history was so strongly aligned with the Free Software Foundation (founded 1985). That's actually why it's "FreeDOS" and not "OpenDOS" .. because for 4 or 5 years after we started FreeDOS, there was no "Open Source" model to look to - only "Free Software" as defined by the Free Software Foundation. But as I've said elsewhere: over time, I stopped associating with RMS and the Free Software Foundation. Despite the "Free" in our name, I think FreeDOS is more closely aligned to "open source" these days. How do such outfits get along? I mean, tech politics! -- members.iinet.net.au/~kilgallin/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FSF
Hi Liam: The key issue that got him kicked out of the FSF two years ago (as well as forced out of MIT!) was to suggest that those underage victims of Eppstein "Epstein" not Eppstein. that his chum Minsky had been playing with did so "willingly" That is not correct. It is not fair to attack the man based on an incorrect depiction of what he said. I am not defending him here; I am merely saying, if you want to talk about whether his views are unacceptable or not, then get them right. It not fair to damn someone for something they did not say. Stallman said that “the most plausible scenario” was that Epstein’s victim “presented herself to [Marvin Minsky] as entirely willing.” That is fair but it contradicts your previous sentence. Stallman cast doubt over the use of the term “sexual assault” Person A is approached by Person B. Person B says that they want to have sex with person A. Stallman said that if Person B _appears to person A_ to consent – that is, if Person B *lies* and *says* that they consent -- then it is not assault. As far as Person A knows, it is consensual. Whether Person B did so based on coercion by a third party, and that coercion is unknown to Person A, or for some other reasons, if Person A doesn't know that the consent is a lie, then Person A has not committed an assault. Sexual legal cases are controversial. I met law academic. When he taught that--his students protested! I fully understand a lot of people find it unacceptable, but a lot of people find RMS in general unacceptable and the things he says and does unacceptable. I recall an academic study of students' ethics. It found that the computer-science students were the least compliant! Stallman also described the distinction between a 17 or 18 year old victim as a “minor” detail, and suggested that it was an “injustice” to refer to it as a “sexual assault.” AIUI, it depends on jurisdiction. Laws are codified social constraints. They vary geographically, and have historically changed! The UK is made of several different countries, with different ages of consent. Here teenage boys were reportedly ignorant of the concept of consent. So they needed to learn it! In England, a couple over 16 but under 18 need their parents' consent to marry. In Scotland, they don't. In Islamic countries, changing your religion is a capital offence! You can marry, you can have sex, but you can't take a photo of your husband or wife naked, or take a photo of you having sex. A lawyer colleague moaned at me. He disliked the penalty for having a radar-detector in your car. Saying it was worse than if your negligent driving killed someone! Summary: the law is an ass, and you cannot safely make blanket statements such as "she was underage" on the assumption this is true everywhere for any given age. People love to spout-off about technical details of which they are ignorant! And if someone doesn't understand this issue at hand is part of the problem... It appears that someone here does not fully and properly understand this issue, and it is you, Ralf.> I worked for a lawyers' union. It had a promotional slogan "See a solicitor first". -- members.iinet.net.au/~kilgallin/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FSF
Hi Rugxulo, > Richard Stallman has not been convicted by a court. He is not in > prison. Let's not burn his house down over pathetic words. That is not the point. > He's not perfect. He doesn't have to be. To be in a leading position in an organisation which tries to be a good example in the world, one should contribute to a good atmosphere. Having a mattress with shirtless people in your office for example does not contribute to that: https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix-a-a7e41e784f88 Just because MIT failed to have sexual harassment policies which explicitly outlawed bullying people into dating you does not mean that FSF can welcome a leader who tried that. > His public or private opinion is irrelevant. > Nobody is following his example. He is not just anybody. Having his fame, there is a risk that people do follow his example. Having him work at a high-ranking position sends a signal that he has a fine character and his example should be followed. As said, FSF could simply hire him as expert consultant instead. For comparison, think about the years when there was a man at a very high-ranking position who got away with "grabbing women by the pussy", firing everybody who did not agree with him and intimidating yet others to never hold him accountable. He actually acquired a lot of fans who hoped to become successful by being more like him, even in the years before as rich boss guy in a TV show. So yes, personal opinion does matter for certain jobs. Regards, Eric ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] Richard Stallman concerns...
First off, I think too much has been said and a lot of it is troubling. Partially and undeniably because Richard Stallman is a hard person for many folks to relate to. I've never met him, but I've known for a long time that he has a really bad reputation as an anti social individual. I've known about his bad reputation since before January 1, 2000. I am concerned that nobody posting on this list should purposely insult anyone else posting on this list or even someone off list as if that is an acceptable thing to do. I must definitely ask, what if Richard Stallman has been posting on this list and has been in these discussions? Should anything you post on this list about Richard Stallman be anything you wouldn't say to his face, especially if you have been unknowingly indirectly communicating with him through this list? If everyone wants Richard Stallman to be less anti social, then we all need to avoid directly telling Richard Stallman in an unhelpful way that he is anti social. If he is using an alias and posting to this list, he is in these discussions and he is potentially reading them. Shouldn't everyone who is concerned about Richard Stallman want him to become less anti social and shouldn't we all be open to encouraging Richard Stallman to be less anti social? Instead of supporting this idea that Stallman is a huge jerk etcetera by echoing it myself, I don't want the group conversation anywhere on any mailing list or beyond mailing lists even to be against any person let alone in a tone that wouldn't help that person do better if they need to. The problem with calling anyone a bully on an email list is that the "bully" might see that and become more of a bully because of it. The goal of a group of concerned people about another specific person should always be to encourage that person to personally improve in the area of legitimate concern. The group cannot force this person to change, especially if the group is wrong that the person even should change this personal aspect of him/herself. Tyranny of the majority is never a good thing, neither is Richard Stallman's reputation as an anti social individual. This tyranny of the majority problem by the way is why the President of the United States is supposed to be elected by the electoral college and NOT democratically. The states indeed only elect electors to the electoral college. Still matters how legitimate the votes in that state are, but the POTUS is not elected by the people directly and never has been. ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FSF
Hi, TK Chia: In practical terms, I am especially worried that I might have to pore over the Codes of Conduct of conferences to look for hidden gotchas. Play the ball, not the man. Or consider whether what you utter gives more light than heat. When things get to "Oo, you, you you, you shouldn't, you!", then we've gone too far. -- members.iinet.net.au/~kilgallin/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FSF
Exactly! :D Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 7:13 PM, Bryan Kilgallin wrote: > Thanks, Rugxulo: > > > Just > > because someone doesn't agree with him, even if he speaks > > egregious words, doesn't mean he should be destroyed. > > "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right > to Say It" > Evelyn Beatrice Hall > > --- > > members.iinet.net.au/~kilgallin/ > > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FSF
+1 Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 7:08 PM, Rugxulo wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 12:04 AM dmccunney dennis.mccun...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Meanwhile, I'm beyond caring about Stallman or the state of the FSF. > > Both deserve whatever happens to them. > > It might be more honest (only guessing here) to admit that "He > stresses me out, I can't deal with him, I don't understand him, and I > have no need to interact with him." But the way you describe it here > (although I admit you have some indirect?? experience) sounds not only > indifferent but rather like a grudge or vendetta. > > I don't believe in the death penalty. And we certainly don't burn down > prisons with everyone inside them just because we don't like the > crimes that were committed by them. That would be inhumane and unjust. > > Richard Stallman has not been convicted by a court. He is not in > prison. Let's not burn his house down over pathetic words. It's very > easy to take things the wrong way unintentionally. We shouldn't all > have to walk on eggshells and be "literally" perfect just because > angry people always want to punish somebody, anybody, who gets in > their way. > > He's not perfect. He doesn't have to be. If we can't deal with him > rationally and justly, that's our problem, not his. (But judging > people we've never met without any direct evidence other than > fragments of sentences online over several decades isn't actually > enough to convict anyone. It's not true justice.) > > I don't mean you specifically (obviously?). You're allowed to vent and > have emotions. You can make your own decisions. You don't need my > help. But overall it's not fair to hate someone based upon so little > information. > > Let's not overreact. Let's forget it entirely. It's truly not our > domain to judge him. > > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FSF
Hello Rugxulo, but that doesn't mean he should be heavily punished. Just because someone doesn't agree with him, even if he speaks egregious words, doesn't mean he should be destroyed. I reject that kind of irrational anger (especially You cannot have it both ways. Either opinions are harmless --- then Mr. Stallman has no reason to fear what others say about him --- or we acknowledge that expressed opinions sometimes can, and do, have power. I would also disagree with the suggestion that this is just some "drama" in some faraway place that will never affect us, so we can just "ignore" it. In practical terms, I am especially worried that I might have to pore over the Codes of Conduct of conferences to look for hidden gotchas. Because there is the claim that "speakers or audience members may be subject to verbal or even other types of harassment" (https://wwahammy.com/on-safety-at-libreplanet/) just by attending one of FSF's conferences. The "drama" does not affect us, until it does. Thank you! -- https://gitlab.com/tkchia :: https://github.com/tkchia ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] New FreeDOSers Monthly Reminder
-- We have only a few rules for posting to the FreeDOS mailing lists: 1. NO HATE SPEECH OR BULLYING Make sure everyone feels safe. Bullying of any kind isn't allowed, and degrading comments about things like race, religion, culture, sexual orientation, gender or identity will not be tolerated. Don't swear. We don't want this mailing list to become what Usenet turned into. 2. NO PROMOTIONS OR SPAM Remember, this group is about FreeDOS. General DOS topics are okay, but try to keep it related to FreeDOS. Self-promotion, spam and irrelevant links aren't allowed. Spammers will be banned. Keep posts on-topic. We set up this mailing list to discuss FreeDOS issues. 3. BE KIND AND COURTEOUS We're all in this together to create a welcoming environment. Let's treat everyone with respect. Healthy debates are natural, but kindness is required. No flame wars. If you feel really strongly against what someone has said, send a reply off-list. -- /* This is an automated message sent out to the mailing list at the first of each month. It is automagically downloaded from http://freedos.sourceforge.net/freedos/lists/remind.txt Feel free to contact John Price if necessary by replying to this message. */ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
