Post ATyFkhQtojSGo82mno by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
(DIR) More posts by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
(DIR) Post #ATn4IrzcrQxK6Onnxw by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2023-03-20T00:42:57.224Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@clacke@libranet.de @gnusuario@qoto.org @notclacke@misskey.de I personally believe that in an alternate timeline if Linux never existed all the mainstream we would all be using GNU/kFreeBSD or something, or Hurd might've gotten finished.Without GNU I don't think Linux would've ever gotten any mainstream adoption however.
(DIR) Post #ATyFkf8OMZSjg9Myg4 by notclacke@misskey.de
2023-03-25T03:23:18.946Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo @clacke@libranet.de @gnusuario@qoto.org Linux would have taken the FreeBSD userspace like OSX did.
(DIR) Post #ATyFkhQtojSGo82mno by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2023-03-25T10:13:08.921Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@notclacke@misskey.de @clacke@libranet.de @gnusuario@qoto.org I don't think FreeBSD would exist without GNU either. Richard Stallman played a critical advisory role in making BSD a free operating system. Without GNU I think BSD would still contain most of the proprietary AT&T parts as their would have been no incentive to get rid of it.
(DIR) Post #ATyGe2g6WtG2cqXsLQ by newt@stereophonic.space
2023-03-25T10:22:28.167680Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @clacke @gnusuario @notclacke no. There was a clear incentive because everyone was suing everyone else over Unix rights back in the early 90s. By the time 386BSD (later renamed into FreeBSD) came along, there was no old AT&T code left in the system.
(DIR) Post #ATyGlsavu3tTfXrbl2 by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2023-03-25T10:24:37.831Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@newt@stereophonic.space @clacke@libranet.de @gnusuario@qoto.org @notclacke@misskey.de By the time 386BSD (later renamed into FreeBSD) came along, there was no old AT&T code left in the system.This happened only because of Richard Stallman's involvement in 386BSD.
(DIR) Post #ATyGwZkQJeQcOyP368 by emilis@puff.place
2023-03-25T10:23:57.736Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo @notclacke@misskey.de @clacke@libranet.de @gnusuario@qoto.org you're right, Stallman gave us the hellscape we live in now with huge tech companies and the entire tech industry which can only exist via the exploitation of open source and free projects, including GPL'd onestons of open source ppl are working for big tech companies for free, that's the end outcome of Stallman's efforts.well, also the personality cult, but whatever.
(DIR) Post #ATyHBl2ibTBjmDCRl2 by newt@stereophonic.space
2023-03-25T10:28:16.336417Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @clacke @notclacke @gnusuario Wikipedia says he “partly influenced” one dude, whatever that means.Anyhow, I agree with what emilis wrote above. Stallman’s achievements are overrated, and he was outright harmful to many endeavours.
(DIR) Post #ATyI1XtsiD2W4elEHY by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2023-03-25T10:38:38.516Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@emilis@puff.place @notclacke@misskey.de @clacke@libranet.de @gnusuario@qoto.org Stallman gave us the hellscape we live in now with huge tech companies and the entire tech industry which can only exist via the exploitation of open source and free projectsI think that's the fault of the open source movement which heavily shifted the focus of free software to be advantageous for companies and not for people.including GPL'd onesThe fact hat companies can do this and get away with it I see as a failure of the legal system. I don't know how the free software movement could've prevented this with the tools (broken and skewed copyright laws) that are available.
(DIR) Post #ATyI9MAcCy0e0iJQYq by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2023-03-25T10:40:04.689Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@newt@stereophonic.space @clacke@libranet.de @notclacke@misskey.de @gnusuario@qoto.org Where did he cause harm?
(DIR) Post #ATyJZgXfBmBmfxD9kG by newt@stereophonic.space
2023-03-25T10:55:15.686783Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @clacke @notclacke @gnusuario my favourite example is how he strictly opposed developing the explicit intermediate language in GCC, that would be similar to LLVM IR, because of his fears that it would be possible to use gcc with proprietary development tools. Lo and behold, we have LLVM now, and gcc is becoming less relevant with time. This also makes gcc impossible to use as a backend for other compilers (even free and open source ones), since there is no intermediate well-defined language to target and targeting C is just hell and nobody likes that.
(DIR) Post #ATyJdEoyCEkjrL05GS by emilis@puff.place
2023-03-25T10:51:02.636Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo @notclacke@misskey.de @clacke@libranet.de @gnusuario@qoto.org you kinda just assumed I was talking about companies not complying with the GPL. I'm saying even complying with it or using GPL stuff for internal tools without changes, they exploit them.Remember how nobody forked their own openssl until heartbleed, yet at the time heartbleed happened the openssl project was just two people working on it (and given the circumstances entirely being exploited to the bone by the entire tech industry) with $2000 a year in donations.if Stallman never did anything, if free software never caught on, these companies could not get as rich and profitable. even under capitalism, they can't (currently) exploit their workers that hard, but Stallman made it all possible.
(DIR) Post #ATyJpGchK2CEvIzohs by Moon@shitposter.club
2023-03-25T10:58:22.099487Z
4 likes, 0 repeats
@newt @clacke @SuperDicq @notclacke @gnusuario he's pretty clear he'd rather have freedom than the best possible quality software.
(DIR) Post #ATyJv2jprIchb75ZXE by Zerglingman@freespeechextremist.com
2023-03-25T10:59:35.598593Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Moon @newt @SuperDicq @clacke @gnusuario @notclacke :rms:
(DIR) Post #ATyK8mP3OCF8zNv0Qi by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2023-03-25T11:02:23.207Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@emilis@puff.place @notclacke@misskey.de @clacke@libranet.de @gnusuario@qoto.org Working on free software projects that happen to be used by companies is not exploitation, nobody is forced to work on these projects without getting paid, they do so voluntarily.If you put the license on the software, and people are using the software in accordance with that license, how is this exploitation?If the OpenSSL developers thought they weren't getting paid enough they should've quit.if free software never caught on, these companies could not get as rich and profitable.Sure, in that world all software would be proprietary and everyone would have to reinvent the wheel, essentially slowing down innovation to the point where we would now be living with 90s tier software.
(DIR) Post #ATyKAx0wuMB0TigA6K by newt@stereophonic.space
2023-03-25T11:01:39.213291Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Moon @clacke @SuperDicq @notclacke @gnusuario that as well. Nobody wants shit software even if it's free (as in speech).
(DIR) Post #ATyKJ7tMLiM8X01lA0 by Moon@shitposter.club
2023-03-25T11:03:50.269944Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@newt @clacke @SuperDicq @notclacke @gnusuario its not even strictly applicable in the gcc case, like you have the linker exception because he understood nobody would use it if it only compiled gpl code.
(DIR) Post #ATyKiKLNBssSOD9BgW by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2023-03-25T11:08:48.633Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@newt@stereophonic.space @clacke@libranet.de @notclacke@misskey.de @gnusuario@qoto.org I must agree that this decision probably was a mistake indeed.But it's a software design mistake on a technical level. In reality we have LLVM now which is free software just like GCC. It doesn't matter which one you use, you're still using free software.
(DIR) Post #ATyLNltZevgpiDuHA0 by emilis@puff.place
2023-03-25T11:08:06.982Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo @notclacke@misskey.de @clacke@libranet.de @gnusuario@qoto.org If you trick people, it's voluntary by that view :^)What a shallow view of social relationships and exploitation you have jfcNext up: defending economic rents by virtue of "well why do you agree to it", with no analysis of what kind of world ur in nor any other forces at play.Ur final point is "innovation at all costs" when without Stallman there'd have been more people working to "reinvent the wheel", which is a stupid saying anyway since reinventing the wheel is all the capitalist mode of production focuses on (you try telling me that new phones arent reinventing the phone), and ignores the more important fact that they'd have to spend the fucking money to pay people to develop this shit because there'd be no other way.But yeah, I guess proprietary software is worse than increasing wealth inequality. You got me.
(DIR) Post #ATyLNmV9PDkPalUHjM by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2023-03-25T11:16:17.175Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@emilis@puff.place @notclacke@misskey.de @clacke@libranet.de @gnusuario@qoto.org If you want to make this discussion about wealth inequality instead you also shouldn't forget the countless times where copyleft licenses have actually successfully prevented exploitation.Next up: defending economic rents by virtue of "well why do you agree to it"I don't agree with this strawman, I think housing is a human right and also a physical commodity with limited supply, it can't be compared to software in any way.
(DIR) Post #ATyLyeEt5V2WgJSZl2 by newt@stereophonic.space
2023-03-25T11:22:16.565547Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @clacke @notclacke @gnusuario no, it was a political decision not to include certain features in the software that he had control over. This also prevented integrating gcc with editors and IDEs, because there was no way to dump the information from the compiler frontend. Things that Visual Studio could do 25 years ago only became possible by the late 2000s in loonix development. This alone probably halved the number of people willing to write code for Linux as their hobbies, thus costing us a lot of good software we could possibly have.
(DIR) Post #ATyMIUGVsbBVXXgF3g by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2023-03-25T11:26:31.542Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@emilis@puff.place @notclacke@misskey.de @clacke@libranet.de @gnusuario@qoto.org You know what.You think developers of free software are not getting fair compensation and are getting exploited, right?And you think the solution is to make everything proprietary instead so they can get compensated fairly because capitalism won't do so otherwise?Then why is your logical conclusion not that capitalism is the problem, but that free software is the problem?I personally believe that maybe software shouldn't be this large commercial industry at all. Software development should probably work more like research and academia. Maybe programmers would be compensated more fairly if the important free software projects that everyone depended on was being developed using public funding.I like how the EU for example is dumping a lot of money into free software right now, specifically projects designed to take away power of US tech monopolies.
(DIR) Post #ATyOVNYiKDZQPgT7Dc by emilis@puff.place
2023-03-25T11:32:45.961Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo @notclacke@misskey.de @clacke@libranet.de @gnusuario@qoto.org Yes, I'm sure those cases are good, but that's kinda a drop in the bucket compared to now having trillion dollar corporations which only grew this big through the exploitation of free and open source developers, whereas they would've had to fucking hire and pay people, people who were forced into either less lucrative work by the system or out of work entirely could've at least had that while forcing these corporations to pay for it. Maybe tech also wouldn't be so awash with just white men. I do recall looking at someold TV show from the 80s about computing, and how much more diverse they had to have their workforce be just by virtue of needing more of them. Something the free software movement made sure wasn't a problem for MS and others by getting people to work for them, indirectly, for free. I'm not here to defend capitalism, the lives of everyone are just commodities to capital and the industrial system of production, we have far more production than we need to ensure the needs of everyone are met, but lowering the dependency of capital on labor means that the power of capital grows, and many more can be excluded from the ever-increasing output of the productive capacity of society as it gets concentrated by capital. And hey, turns out people, who believe they are contributing to society, end up working for capital still while reducing the power of labor by letting the capitalists use less of a workforce since some of it is free :)And even any kind of failure of this, even accidental, is met with furious attacks from... everyone. The OpenSSL developers had so much scrutiny put on them for something that was, really, the fault of everyone using it, making corporations worry about "digital supply chain" attacks (lol!). So, I implore free software developers a very sabotage your own software, create malware, destroy their "digital supply chains".Oh and a note: I said economics rents to include a wider group of leeching, its derived from renting land, but that's not where the definition ends.And you're doing a slight of hand, the commodity in that argument isn't software, it's the labor of the people working on it.
(DIR) Post #ATyOVO8s9mUgDpNzZw by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2023-03-25T11:51:17.139Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@emilis@puff.place @notclacke@misskey.de @clacke@libranet.de @gnusuario@qoto.org lowering the dependency of capital on labor means that the power of capital growsWhile I agree with this point, I do not agree that in order to counteract this we must decrease the power of capital by increasing the dependency of labor. We can definitely decrease the power of capital in other ways, such as providing universal basic income, actually taxing billionaires, and many other things like that. The OpenSSL developers had so much scrutiny put on them for something that was, really, the fault of everyone using it I agree.I implore free software developers a very sabotage your own software, create malware, destroy their "digital supply chains".Yeah that's fair. I totally agree you shouldn't feel forced to work on something if you feel like you're not being fairly compensated for it. You're completely in your right saying "I will not commit a single new line of code unless you start to pay me more".I can't verify if the argument of free software being the cause of gender inequality in tech is correct. It seems really far fetched to me because you seem to assume that "more programmers = more equality", while there's no evidence that total amount correlates with distribution in any way in a vacuum. I think gender inequality is a culture issue that stands outside of the domain of free software alone.
(DIR) Post #ATyPMnUedEFuCC2diC by emilis@puff.place
2023-03-25T11:43:20.164Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo @notclacke@misskey.de @clacke@libranet.de @gnusuario@qoto.org >And you think the solution is to make everything proprietaryNot really, I said Stallman caused all of this exploitation, not that he could've known this would happen, and continuing to support the status quo is only making it worse.Like, here's an idea, I can be anticapitalist while recognizing that a situation where labor has very little power and more people go poor is somewhat worse than where labor would have more power and less people would be poor, homeless, or die due to this.Then why is your logical conclusion not that capitalism is the problemI never went there? I was talking about the free software movement resulting in things getting even worse. Consider that capitalism + free software is worse. Like, think about everything I said, does the critique work without the capitalist system? No, of course not. Then why do you think I'm critiquing it in opposition to capitalism?And tbf, the EU being better than the US is a low bar. However, I do wanna note that the EU top brass still has a very colonial mindset (https://www.reuters.com/world/eus-top-diplomat-denies-jungle-comments-were-racist-2022-10-18/).
(DIR) Post #ATyPMnzqlFD1kwdYKu by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2023-03-25T12:00:55.975Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@emilis@puff.place @notclacke@misskey.de @clacke@libranet.de @gnusuario@qoto.org The value of labor has always been going down and will continue to go down with automation and there's nothing we go do about it except ban technology and go back to the stone age.We must decrease the power of capital, not increase the power of labor.the EU being better than the US is a low barOh yeah I'm well aware. I'm not trying to argue the EU is amazing or anything, but only that on this one specific issue they are doing some good things right now. I mentioned is an example as I think more governments and institutions should have similar and bigger programs.
(DIR) Post #ATyRm9qSrhpcfNSoJk by emilis@puff.place
2023-03-25T12:12:16.192Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo @notclacke@misskey.de @clacke@libranet.de @gnusuario@qoto.org >We can definitely decrease the power of capital in other ways, such as providing universal basic income, actually taxing billionaires, and many other things like that. We could also just destroy capitalist institutions and laws enforcing capitalism and economic rent seeking. Like, if all you do is outlaw rent-seeking, and confiscate wealth above a certain point so that wealth cannot be used to subvert the system into enabling capitalism again, you'd technically be there. Now, having cooperatives selling Super Male Vitality and the other giant parts of the economy which predicate themselves on worsening the lives of others so they can make a living isn't that great, but it's better than having that and having capital extract rents from the people working to do so.Really, the current mode of production should have to go as well, if you're cleaning out the attic you shouldn't just move one box.But why limit yourself on the ways to fight it? It's not like capital shies away from even the most inhumane methods. Whereas here, you can cause significant disruption if you are that one dude from Nebraska in that xkcd. Just sabotage the software. Put malware in it, disrupt their operations, make this more apparent. shouldn't feel forced to work on something if you feel like you're not being fairly compensated for itThat's easy to say but there's so much social pressure for people with existing users to continue working on it, it's an abuse of how social instincts are abused in industrial society for the sake of production. Getting rid of capitalism wouldn't get rid of that per se, but it would at least get rid of the leeches profiting from it by virtue of owning things.I also want you to realize there's a lot of cases similar to that, partially due to liberal socialization, partially due to this abuse, where they feel like it's the right thing to do. Like, is it really someone's choice to be exploited if their entire society tells them its good, if they have been brought up and socialized with the belief that this exploitation is the sign of a good, honest hardworking person? Because then all you need for slavery to be okay is for the slaves to be socialized from birth to be happy slaves and bring meaning to their toil socially.I can't verify if the argument of free software being the cause of gender inequality in tech is correct.It's speculation on my part, but it's more derived from the ability of people who may be racist or sexist (and given the history of tech and how much at the very least women have had their contributions omitted from credits or forced to be under a male name) would use their power to choose who to hire to be discriminatory, whether they do it consciously or not.
(DIR) Post #ATyRmAaY6Mh8yJ1c9I by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2023-03-25T12:27:55.418Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@emilis@puff.place @notclacke@misskey.de @clacke@libranet.de @gnusuario@qoto.org We could also just destroy capitalist institutions and laws enforcing capitalism and economic rent seeking.I mean yes that's true as well, but I don't agree with the "just" part of that sentence.Now, having cooperatives selling Super Male Vitality and the other giant parts of the economy which predicate themselves on worsening the lives of others so they can make a living isn't that great, but it's better than having that and having capital extract rents from the people working to do so.I agree and I think this is much more realistic thing to strive for in our current system of incremental change unfortunately. Completely getting rid of all the bad parts of capitalism overnight would indeed be ideal it's also very utopic. That's easy to say but there's so much social pressure for people with existing users to continue working on it, it's an abuse of how social instincts are abused in industrial society for the sake of production.Yeah I guess it's a fair point that there's probably who continue to work on things against their will because of social pressure. So I agree it's not a bad thing to go around and say to these people that they shouldn't feel pressured to do so anymore.I don't know if I would go as far as approving sabotage, as that will likely make you look like the bad guy. Refusing to work while being underpaid instead is much more understandable to the general public.
(DIR) Post #ATySIKqRVKCy31nSl6 by emilis@puff.place
2023-03-25T12:12:32.725Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo @notclacke@misskey.de @clacke@libranet.de @gnusuario@qoto.org oh andyou seem to assume that "more programmers = more equality"More jobs that need to be filled = less ability to discriminate. If you want someone to do the job, and it's one job, you could be pickier and let your biases guide you. If you have a bunch to fill, you have less power to do that.stands outside of the domain of free software alone.on that specific front, Stallman really doesn't help the issue, either, tbf. Like, I get it that he's just like a guy who doesn't get it a lot of the time, and that would be fine if not for the cult of personality created for him in the FSF and free software movement in general.
(DIR) Post #ATySILRfGvyxuTDBmC by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2023-03-25T12:33:44.615Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@emilis@puff.place @notclacke@misskey.de @clacke@libranet.de @gnusuario@qoto.org More jobs that need to be filled = less ability to discriminate.While that might be true I don't think this is the way to fix it. Just because you create a situation where you're unable to use your biases, you do not get rid of the biases in people's head. This is a culture problem and you need sociology to fix it.