|
Beef posted:It's also to be taken in the context of a hacker/research group, before the advent of decent network infrastucture. And yet, su does not support the ‘wheel’ group
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 14:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:28 |
|
|
I quite like that there's a discussion about something RMS said without assuming outright that he's a crazyman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 14:34
|
|
|
Multiple people logging into his account would explain why he's so crazy. It's all an elaborate troll by a dude who got his login info back in the 80s
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 14:46
|
|
|
Look Around You posted:Yeah. You don't really need to use the monadic properties of Maybe in this instance (and <$> is infix for fmap of a Functor typeclass). A really, really awesome introduction to functors, applicative functors, monoids and monads (including what they are and the differences between them) is chapters 11-13 of Learn You A Haskell. I think what happened here is that I assumed that since Maybe is a Monad that it was acting as a Monad here when only it's Functor typeclass mattered. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
The Gripper posted:I quite like that there's a discussion about something RMS said without assuming outright that he's a crazyman. Speaking of crazy poo poo RMS says. He recently did an interview with the Linux Action Show podcast. In it he told one of the interviewers that it was ethically imperative for them to quit their job making non-Free software and go work in factory than it was to continue to provide for his family. Also Americans shouldn't have children because they will be wasteful. Blog post about it from said interviewer here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 18:04
|
|
|
6174 posted:Speaking of crazy poo poo RMS says. He recently did an interview with the Linux Action Show podcast. In it he told one of the interviewers that it was ethically imperative for them to quit their job making non-Free software and go work in factory than it was to continue to provide for his family. Also Americans shouldn't have children because they will be wasteful. Blog post about it from said interviewer here. Surely you mean GNU/Linux Action Show podcast.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
6174 posted:Speaking of crazy poo poo RMS says. He recently did an interview with the Linux Action Show podcast. In it he told one of the interviewers that it was ethically imperative for them to quit their job making non-Free software and go work in factory than it was to continue to provide for his family. Also Americans shouldn't have children because they will be wasteful. Blog post about it from said interviewer here. His response to this was "it's OK to have encryption... as long as it doesn't stop people from doing anything they want". It's pretty much the same argument he has against passwords "passwords are ok but they shouldn't prevent anyone from accessing anything if they want". I believe he even tried to incorporate it into the GPL, so that "free software" using the parasitic license could use encryption as long as users could remove the encryption if they want.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
This debate over the transparent society is interesting and all, but look: Richard Stallman eats poo poo he finds between his toes. He's a disgusting embarrassment, although the disgust is mediated by pity for his unacknowledged mental illness(es). That he is a very real part of software history and not a Kaufman-esque satire absolutely horrifies me. A coding horror, if you will.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
http://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html: "[P]rostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia ... should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness." http://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05: "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing." 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:This debate over the transparent society is interesting and all, but look: Richard Stallman eats poo poo he finds between his toes. He's a disgusting embarrassment, although the disgust is mediated by pity for his unacknowledged mental illness(es). That he is a very real part of software history and not a Kaufman-esque satire absolutely horrifies me. Wait, help me out here. Why shouldn't he be a part of software history? Is it because he eats things you find disgusting? Or because you've diagnosed him with a mental illness? I mean, we all know that anyone with a mental illness can't meaningfully contribute to society. Even more so when that illness is diagnosed remotely from an armchair. And I don't like eating beets, so I'd like to throw out anyone who does eat beets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
I don't think you can draw a reasonable equivalence between a vegetable and bodily waste
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:Wait, help me out here. Why shouldn't he be a part of software history? Is it because he eats things you find disgusting? Or because you've diagnosed him with a mental illness? I mean, we all know that anyone with a mental illness can't meaningfully contribute to society. Even more so when that illness is diagnosed remotely from an armchair. And I don't like eating beets, so I'd like to throw out anyone who does eat beets. In my opinion, someone who eats their toe jam in front of people or believes those who write non-free software are unethical and should go "work in factories" and that their children should starve is not all there. He's the ultimate example of rigid idealism at the expense of compassion and practicality. It's understandable that his presence in computing history might be considered abhorrent to some who are embarrassed by him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
You certainly wouldn't be the first to diagnose someone acting against the herd as mentally ill. Not only is that diagnosis immediately suspect, it also doesn't make it a relevant factor when acknowledging the guy's numerous contributions to computing. And it's our history. Embarrassing or not, it's our history, and he's part of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
Toady posted:In my opinion, someone who eats their toe jam in front of people or believes those who write non-free software are unethical and should go "work in factories" and that their children should starve is not all there. He's the ultimate example of rigid idealism at the expense of compassion and practicality. And in the pursuit of what is very much a niche set of ideals, too. I could understand the puritan flavour of his ideas if those ideas were about pressing social issues of one sort or another. Human rights, real meaningful societal freedoms of any sort. But his rigid and extreme attitudes are all around the question of whether people can pore over the code for MS Office or write software to run on esoteric items of consumer electronics. He makes his cause look daft.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
stallman only has empathy towards software, not people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
Of all the questionable figures in open source software history, Stallman eating his own toejam seems like one of the harmless bits. It's not like he killed his wife or anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
Well, there are rotten apples in any group of sufficient size.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
kitten smoothie posted:Of all the questionable figures in open source software history, Stallman eating his own toejam seems like one of the harmless bits. It's not like he killed his wife or anything. I'm not sure one can fairly equate the importance and impact of Hans Reiser and RMS
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:You certainly wouldn't be the first to diagnose someone acting against the herd as mentally ill. Not only is that diagnosis immediately suspect, it also doesn't make it a relevant factor when acknowledging the guy's numerous contributions to computing. Simply acting against the herd isn't why he's considered mentally ill. It's his impractical views and gross public behavior. If you write non-free software for your job, he actually considers you unethical and thinks your children should starve, after he criticizes you for having children at all. While he is a part of computer history, he's a very minor figure compared to other far more influential people he despises, and he is much less important to the world than supporters often proclaim (sorry, GNU/world).
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
He's influential AND completely loving insane. They're not mutually exclusive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
The real level of his influence on the computer industry today is an argument for another debate, but the point is that there are legitimate reasons to be disgusted by the guy. GNU style indenting, gross!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
The Gripper posted:I believe he even tried to incorporate it into the GPL, so that "free software" using the parasitic license could use encryption as long as users could remove the encryption if they want. This is called tivoization, and the GPLv3 has a clause basically to the effect of 'you can't prevent users from running whatever source via digital signatures'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 01:18
|
|
|
quote:And it's our history. Embarrassing or not, it's our history, and he's part of it. That is indeed what I said. Something I did not say was that eating foot droppings and defending  voluntary pedophilia is "going against the herd." e: or comparable to eating beets, jesus
Doc Hawkins fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Mar 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 04:50
|
|
|
What the gently caress do you care what he eats? Why do you get to diagnose him with mental illness? And what bearing does his mental ability have on anything?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 05:19
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:What the gently caress do you care what he eats? Because he is the spokesman for the open source and free software movements (one of these reluctantly), and his various bizarre and antisocial beliefs/behaviors and myriad disgusting habits negatively affect these movements. pokeyman posted:And what bearing does his mental ability have on anything? Have you actually seen Mr. Stallman speak? He has this funny habit where he makes a couple of weird sexist jokes, then makes a series of progressively less jokey sounding jokes about the desireability of murdering various current and former political figures. The dude's bonkers and believe it or not it drives away people who would otherwise support free software every time he opens his mouth! ps if you offer him a coke he may assault you!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 05:37
|
|
|
Otto Skorzeny posted:Because he is the spokesman for the open source and free software movements (one of these reluctantly), and his various bizarre and antisocial beliefs/behaviors and myriad disgusting habits negatively affect these movements. This hit the nail on the head. Remember the global perception of the US when Bush (W, not HW) was in the White House? It was pretty drat negative. Most people weren't going out of their way or bending over backwards to support the US. The public perception of the "dumb American" skyrocketed. Part of this had to do with the policies. However, a not insignificant amount of it came from the perception that Bush was absolutely retarded. People thought that we were retarded because the person we chose to represent us sounded astoundingly stupid. What I'm saying is that a leader, especially a "spiritual leader" of a group/movement like RMS comes to represent the group/movement as a whole, and people are going to base their opinons of it on that person, including how he talks and behaves in public.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 06:24
|
|
|
Otto Skorzeny posted:Because he is the spokesman for the open source and free software movements (one of these reluctantly), and his various bizarre and antisocial beliefs/behaviors and myriad disgusting habits negatively affect these movements. Surely his creating the free software movement in the first place vastly outweighs the negative effects you feel from the man's beliefs, behaviours, and habits? quote:Have you actually seen Mr. Stallman speak? Yes. quote:He has this funny habit where he makes a couple of weird sexist jokes, then makes a series of progressively less jokey sounding jokes about the desireability of murdering various current and former political figures. The dude's bonkers and believe it or not it drives away people who would otherwise support free software every time he opens his mouth! I'm not arguing that the man makes for good company or offends no one. To say he's mentally ill, and use that as an excuse to wave away his historical contributions, is offensive to me. It uses "mentally ill" as an insult and it suggests that those who genuinely have mental disabilities cannot meaningfully contribute. Please don't do that. No amount of citations of what you consider bizarre or antisocial behaviour or beliefs will make this less offensive. If it's your opinion that there's a more effective leader of the free software movement somewhere, I don't have a problem with that. Armchair-diagnosed mental illness shouldn't be a disqualifier.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 06:27
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:Surely his creating the free software movement in the first place vastly outweighs the negative effects you feel from the man's beliefs, behaviours, and habits? I agree with what you're saying about mental illness, it shouldn't be a disqualifier at all. The problem isn't necessarily that he's (possibly) mentally ill though. The problem is that he publicly acts in a way that's pretty flat out unacceptable in society. Worse still, he acts like this while at events promoting his cause. You're not going to get people to consider your ideas seriously if you're eating your foot fungus while professing your ways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 06:33
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:Surely his creating the free software movement in the first place vastly outweighs the negative effects you feel from the man's beliefs, behaviours, and habits? I don't think either of those things should be taken to cancel each other out. People are complicated and shouldn't be reduced to their highest order term. Lots of people made worthy contributions to science and/or culture despite being awful and/or mentally unbalanced. They deserve better than only having half their life remembered. In other words: Ithaqua posted:He's influential AND completely loving insane. They're not mutually exclusive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 06:41
|
|
|
I don't think anyone did so much harm to the open software community at my university than when RMS came to give a talk about it... while rubbing his feet with lotion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 10:56
|
|
|
He's nuts and the world would still be worse without GPL. There would have been no point to making Linux better if it were under MIT. Vendors could just make their own versions that only worked on their hardware and they would have gladly spent the last 20 years re-implementing each others features poorly and incompatibly and suing each other. The BSD people are all crazy too, for what its worth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 16:48
|
|
|
evensevenone posted:There would have been no point to making Linux better if it were under MIT. Vendors could just make their own versions that only worked on their hardware and they would have gladly spent the last 20 years re-implementing each others features poorly and incompatibly and suing each other. Doesn't BSD refute this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 21:32
|
|
|
Toady posted:Doesn't BSD refute this? Doesn't this: quote:Vendors could just make their own versions that only worked on their hardware and they would have gladly spent the last 20 years re-implementing each others features poorly and incompatibly and suing each other. basically summarize the history of UNIX, with BSD the sole useful exception?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
Back on the subject of posting coding horror code... I needed to put objects in a plain array. Only, the API I am working on is very peculiar about certain things. First, all those objects need to live inside a single object. Second the ctor of the objects need to be passed the big single object they live in. Third, but probably not last, there is no default destructor for those objects. Apparently, you cannot initialize an array in an ctor's initializer list. The syntax simply does not allow it. After trying to find a non-horror solution for hours, I just settled using this horrible horrible placement new workaround. code:
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
Serious question, what was Stallman's last major contribution to Open Source, Computer Science or anything else? He obviously had an impact on the field, but he feels like a net negative these days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
Broken Knees Club posted:Serious question, what was Stallman's last major contribution to Open Source, Computer Science or anything else? He obviously had an impact on the field, but he feels like a net negative these days. The GPL.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
Beef posted:Apparently, you cannot initialize an array in an ctor's initializer list. The syntax simply does not allow it. You can initialize them fine in C++11. Are you using GCC? I believe it supports it already. code:
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 23:49
|
|
|
evensevenone posted:He's nuts and the world would still be worse without GPL. The whole TiVo thing (Tivoization as someone earlier informed me) is the best example of him and the "free software movement" putting themselves firmly in the "you're dumb, this is dumb" territory by forcing companies utilizing GPLv3-license software to make their hardware 100% open to software modification. I can see his argument but in all honesty the hardware shouldn't be of any concern in a software license, and given the source is available anyone can put their own hardware together and run TiVo's software if they want. That's how it should work, being able to run GPL licensed software however you want, on hardware that allows it, or make changes for it to work on your own hardware. Not the other way around. I honestly think that the original GPL is great purely out of dumb luck, given how far off-base his opinions on how software and "the freedom of the user" are, currently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
The Gripper posted:The whole TiVo thing (Tivoization as someone earlier informed me) is the best example of him and the "free software movement" putting themselves firmly in the "you're dumb, this is dumb" territory by forcing companies utilizing GPLv3-license software to make their hardware 100% open to software modification. I can see his argument but in all honesty the hardware shouldn't be of any concern in a software license, and given the source is available anyone can put their own hardware together and run TiVo's software if they want. That's how it should work, being able to run GPL licensed software however you want, on hardware that allows it, or make changes for it to work on your own hardware. Not the other way around. That works great until it's running on custom hardware that you can't just buy the parts for (or can't figure out what the parts are because the specs are not published). Or if you just, say, want to tweak your TiVo a bit without needing to buy and assemble a complete hardware clone of it from scratch. The point of the GPL isn't just that people should be able to make new software based on GPL software; it's that they should be able to modify existing software as well. That kind of goes out the window if you allow "you can modify the software as much as you like, but you can't actually run the modified version".
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:28 |
|
|
As pointed out above, the purpose of the GPL was to support the purchaser of the computer / software. You brought the computer, you brought the OS, you are free to make changes to it to suit your needs, that's what ownership means to them. Personally I think GPL v3 has pushed a lot of people into a more MIT/BSD/Apache style license. I used to release my code under GPL v2, but now I tend to use MIT instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 01:26
|
|
