arisuchan    [ tech / cult / art ]   [ λ / Δ ]   [ psy ]   [ ru ]   [ random ]   [ meta ]   [ all ]    info / stickers     temporarily disabledtemporarily disabled

/tech/ - technology


formatting options

Password (For file deletion.)

Help me fix this shit.

Kalyx ######

File: 1514087081514.png (20.2 KB, 962x141, stallman on pedophilia.png)


One of Richard Stallman's better quotes


File: 1514097742030.png (516.97 KB, 1280x1942, c3f00932e049a5778a719ab7d8….png)

Fuck what a soykafshow.

TempleOS was God's chosen OS all along tho


File: 1514128135954.jpg (694.2 KB, 1543x1200, 1514123006293.jpg)


"stretched by parents" gives me bad thoughts.

Should be edited to show Chad fapping and cumming on his stomach.


File: 1514144747168.jpg (548.28 KB, 2162x2162, Libre.jpg)



This is not the "chan" that endorses pedophilia OP, I can point you to one that does though… Present Day, Present Time! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Don't bully Richard, he has autism.


I saw him at a talk and he's one of the rudest people I've ever met.
He's unprofessional and generally not good to talk with. He shouted at some girl who prepared him tea because she didn't make it warm enough for him.
During the talk he just stood there, scratched his fat stomach, talked like a robot and made the same soykafty jokes about VI he made in like 89.
At the end he auctioned some GNU plush for over 100 bucks


Is that a pasta? It should be.


Hating on Stallman for being Stallman is basically like going to McDonald's and complaining that their coffee sucks and their meat tastes like anything but beef. I've seen Stallman in person two times, both were pretty much the same, and I don't regret it. It's like a show. Stallman himself is basically the Moses of the free software movement. Be better than him, if you're into that sort of thing, but please, for the love of GNU, stop expecting the guy to conform to non-autistic social standards.


>Stallman himself is basically the Moses of the free software movement.
That is my problem with Stallman right there. Let me point out the exact word that causes conflict here:
I am now reminded of the first SICP lecture where Abelson scratches the term "computer" from "computer science" and says something along the lines of
>Computer science is not about computers the same way geometry is not about the compass that is used for it.
Now I can make my point: rms is the "moses" of free software, and this is an error. The only thing he created was a license, thus his domain is within the legal and political, NOT the technological. His license could be embedded to any technological or even creative work, such as documentation, techniques, or whatever.
It may be pretty good license, but it has soykaf to do with the technological aspect that is at the core of software engineering/development. And that's exactly the problem. This confusion has worked to politize the world of software, and Stallman himself has stated that he doesn't care much about the quality of the software but the fact that it is GPL'd.

In the modern world of hardware backdoors, bloated software and OS/hardware technology stagnation, it means very little that the source-code license is LEEBRAY where the binaries themselves could (and most likely have) been compromised.
We don't run source code (which is what's GPL'd), we run binaries. There can be no freedom if the binaries (and even the source itself) are a bloatsoykaf where you have to go through all seven rings of hell to be able to trust those binaries themselves.

Indeed, Stallman has done very little for software technology itself, by adhering to dated/faulty technology and on top of that, making it more faulty, bloating it beyond the possibility of actually doing much of it because it's already so bloated.
I used to be irritated when people would come and proselytize about how their particular technology is so much better and their particular standards are the Right way and everybody else is Wrong, but hell, at least they have standards that address the technology in one way or another, while Stallman only cares about the licensing of the software.
Problem is, GPL is so centered in the political aspects of technology (granted, one not to be neglected), that the actual intention for technology can go fuck itself, right?
Having millions of LOC, a lot of GPL'd software is unwieldy, buggy, and all of it has probably been compromised and it'd be very hard to find the malicious injection in it, or the thousands of bugs that are lurking and thus render such software unfit for the purposes of many.
Here's a list of the most prominent GPL'd software in which I don't trust AT ALL: gcc, linux, firefox, systemd.
All of this software has been used to harm it's own users because source code distribution doesn't provide a solution and most of the time it has been used as a sort of trust tag for absolutely harmful programs.

Technology is a form of art, and it should be about developing better ways to accomplish a task, more efficient and very important in today's world: More trustworthy and reliable. Not about political bantering.
The point of GPL is that one should be able to audit the code, but who will audit needlessly complex and obfuscated software in the millions of LOC? Who does? At some point it's unmantainable. Stallman is a soykaf programmer, and sadly he has only paved the way for soykaf programmers to build on top of a trainwreck OS because there is not even a stable OS on which to work in the first place, it's a bunch of ad-hoc technologies where you don't really know what is going on and can't possibly care to try and make sense of all the precarious unredable contraption.
I may be repeating myself, but I am legit mad that we are just stacking features on top of features, instead of cleaning up things we are making them more and more complicated, and thus we truly are at a dark age of technology, to which the absolute disregard of the technology itself in favor of a legal battle.

Stallman has nothing to do with technology, if anything, he is the moses of free Licensing. And I'm not sure about the "free" part. The fact that he uses that word for his particular flavor of restrictiveness doesn't make it free. I'd very much replace "free" with share-alike and then we're getting closer to using the right words for things.


> The only thing he created was a license
He wrote a lot of the original GNU software and built the movement around it. He no longer develops software because he has no time to do so and has repetitive strain injury in his hands that makes writing code painful.

It's painfully clear from your rant that you are ignorant of the history and goals of the Free Software movement. It's not a technological movement, but a political one. If you wrote "Free Software" on Abelson's blackboard you would have to cross out the "Software" (but unlike Abelson, you would stop there), because it is not about the software-in-itself, but the relationship between the user and the developer/owner as mediated by the software. In proprietary software, the user is used by the software which is controlled by the developer/owner, while with Free Software the user is truly the controller of the software. Claiming that the GPL is restrictive because it prevents you from limiting the freedom of your users is like claiming that the First Amendment is restrictive because it does not allow the government to limit the speech of people. Absolute nonsense.

You can complain about the quality of readily available Free Software, or even better, you could actually contribute to efforts to increase the quality, but can't diminish the role of Stallman in the Free Software movement just because the movement's goals don't align with your esoteric beliefs about a politically neutral technology that exists in vacuum and only for itself.


I'll bite.

>I may be repeating myself, but I am legit mad that we are just stacking features on top of features, instead of cleaning up things we are making them more and more complicated, and thus we truly are at a dark age of technology, to which the absolute disregard of the technology itself in favor of a legal battle.

How, pray tell, does one go about this cleaning without the freedom to do so?


I ranted because as of late I've been very annoyed by the state of software these days. I'll try to be clearer and more concise this time around.
I don't care about the licensing, GPL is cool, BSD is also cool, I don't like people who would take a strong stance, particularly if both produce freely distributable/auditable source.

My point was, Stallman's movement has little to do with software per se, he is a soykaf programmer who made soykaf software (see: fucking bloat), and so he shouldn't be reveered as a programmer or former programmer.
And also, that his bloatware makes it a moot point for the source to be free because even at that point it's unlikely anyone's every going to take the time to audit or even hack it without making a further mess. Even less at the binary level where millions of LOC only help in hiding malicious injections.
If I inject a GPL'd kernel with malicious code, the source availability doesn't matter anymore, same goes for gcc, and that is precisely the whole point of this thread. Licensing is just a part of the solution, but there is no "Free Software" if you can't possibly trust the binary, am I wrong?

>you could actually contribute to efforts to increase the quality

Yes, I intend to, actually, but I'll have to dump away all the bloat written by rms and actually use a sane model and sane tools to do so Too bad intel processors are compromised so it'll all have to rely on the software
Again, my point is that if you want "Free Software", you have to address the software part. The license is but a notice somewhere in the source files, and the only freedom it provides is through lawyers


>My point was, Stallman's movement has little to do with software per se, he is a soykaf programmer who made soykaf software (see: fucking bloat)
Hey now, that's a little harsh. Emacs is a really good operating system. All it's really lacking is a decent text editor.


>One of Richard Stallman's better quotes


Software exists in the real world and has real world consequences
Giving it a legal framework connects it with, frames it and settles its relationship with the real world.

Like it or not, it's an important part, and he does a lot of stuff regarding it, and its developing process.

idgaf about him, the world would still spin were him to drop dead, but it's not like him not pressing a single key means he's not part of the programming world.


Isn't that the whole point of Reproducible or Deterministic Builds?


Now you definitely know that SystemD was written by Poetthering himself. What's next?


File: 1514971418467.png (530.75 KB, 467x599, Cyber_Punk.png)

One of his greatest mistakes is his branding. When normal people hear Free Software, they think Skype and Discord. GNU should rework this branding and start calling it Libre software.


They already tried to do that. I think it is mostly pointless. I would like to compare it to the case of John von Neumann.

He was a hungarian-born dude famous for his work in compsci and to some extent maths around the world war 2 era. His work had way more impact on today's IT than anything GNU or open source, simply because he put his effort in much earlier. Almost all relevant hardware uses the Neumann architecture today. Yet, people call him John von Neumann. The family name might be of germanic origin, but the dude is hungarian so his name is Neumann János, end of story. If someone would like to argue that the germanic name requires the 'von', I ask why Nicolas Sarkozy isn't called Sárközy Miklós, because that family name is of hungarian origin.

So, as you might already feel it, names don't really matter. The next argument against me could be that the free-free thing causes confusion. I believe this is irrelevant because the root cause of the confusion is a lack of interest. The vast majority of people, and even a huge portion of people working compsci don't give two fucks about it. The main exceptions being those who have to explain it over and over, and those who align themselves with free software in relation to their political ideology. Sure, I know, it's a part of everyone's everyday lives, the infrastructure runs on it… but so is carbon. I mean, where would we be without carbon molecules, or water? To most people, personally knowing the difference has little impact on their lives, and any serious impact is in the plane of "what if" scenarios.

There is little proof that a world where every layperson is clearly aware of the distinction between libre and free software is worth the effort of making it happen. Most people who believe there is a great world where this is the case know that this is just a minor detail about it, and put their efforts elsewhere.

If you ask me, I'm fine with free as in beer gnu software and John von Neumann (however much the latter annoys me).


I think the FSF should call it Free and Open Software because when most people hear open software they think Linux and if you ever heard open software you can look it up and get the the same also you are still telling people that it will respect your freedom.




File: 1515649334029.jpg (776.55 KB, 742x1060, b9Be6dEE1d00eE91cADfaeB3AE….jpg)

>I think the FSF should call it Free and Open Software

Not a good idea because the OSI likes to think they have authority over what "Open" means when it comes to software, and would likely be one of the first Google search hits when a layperson looks up the term "open software".

This detail is important because the OSI is the corporate-approved software foundation—as opposed to the FSF—and their licenses and political bent are biased toward the continued promulgation of non-free software—just in a "consumer-friendly" way, if you will; thus, there's naturally less of a focus on user-empowerment and freedom.

With that in mind, if you manage to direct someone unfamiliar with the terms "free software" or "open source" to an OSI webpage vs. an FSF one you have an extraordinarily opportune moment to, subtly, nudge a person toward a particular sanitized view of software freedom; after all, how likely is it that a person looks to another source after reading from what seems to be an authority on "open" software?

Here's some material that further elaborates these points:


just use a vim layer lmao

[Return] [Go to top] [ Catalog ] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]