or university. Put that
on a USB stick and take it home, then use your package manager to install it.
--
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
ould be to using this piece of software to build their
> products/businesses.
It's obvious that the majority of current users aren't here, the majority of
current users don't use the mailing lists. What have you done to try to
consult their opinions on the matter? It's ama
On Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 7:29 AM BST, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2021, 02:41 Frosku, wrote:
>
> > On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 9:22 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> > > That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly conclude
> >
disagreement here where we're defining 'the
community' broadly -- to include contributors, users, and pretty much the
whole free software and GNU community -- and certain people on the pro-
fork side are taking a more corporate view that only 'the firm' should get
any input into 'internal business'. This is not the free software community
that I recognize.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
king
actual arguments or contributing in good faith. You're proposing for GCC
to act even less accountable to its (non-corporate) users than corporate
America does. How is this in the spirit of free software again?
How many values is it worth casting down the drain to achieve this promised
utopia where people never have to hear a voice they disagree with again?
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
oblem.
Did you ever notice that income group (in a global sense) is never a
protected characteristic in these COCs which proclaim to defend the
disenfranchised and the disadvantaged? It would seem to me that low income
is the greatest predictor of disadvantage globally.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:29 AM BST, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Beware with what you desire, Frosku.
>
> On April 16, 2021 11:15:57 PM UTC, Frosku wrote:
> >
> > I can't speak for others, but for me at least, replacing ties with GNU
> > with ties to another well-res
ave already felt that way for quite
> some
> time, and became excluded? That it is not a hypothetical for them?
>
> Aaron
Absolutely, and we should find ways to re-include them without swapping
their exclusion for the exclusion of other vulnerable people.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:04 AM BST, Aaron Gyes via Gcc wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2021, at 1:36 AM, Frosku wrote:
> > I feel imposed upon when, as a volunteer, I'm expected to submit not just
> > my volunteered time but all of my time in every venue to your cultural
> > norms
oing forwards.
Language like "give me a break", btw, or expecting someone to explain how a
code of conduct which hasn't been written yet 'imposes' on them personally
is also not encouraging.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
some humility that it may not represent
the truly global nature of hackerdom. On a technical front this isn't
important, but if you're trying to impose *culture* on a global group,
it might be useful to remember that you have a steering group in which
over 50% of its members represent urban N
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 5:05 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:16 PM Frosku wrote:
> >
> > When I refer to a 'California cultural standard', that's not prescriptive.
> > It's
> > just a reference to the fact that a *
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 5:28 PM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:08 PM Frosku wrote:
> >
> > On the other hand, I also think that a project which goes too far in
> > policing speech, especially speech unrelated to the project, will drive away
> &
> a power grab by a small minority of developers, abusing their position
> and
> american corporate ideologies to enact change, ignoring any one who
> dares
> question or disagree unless they fit into a clique they have built (and
> want to maintain by ostracizing people they deem unworthy),
> brandishing them jerks, trolls, toxic and other childish names. Im glad
> there are a few devs that can see this, but it feels like they are
> stepping
> on egg shells (despite the rhetoric about how well the people in said
> clique can communicate on technical matters).
A lot of Americans see it too, just many are petrified of speaking out
against this new illiberal orthodoxy.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
by the
> majority of the developers. If anybody (like the FSF) takes
> exception to the change, it would be something to go up against.
>
> Comments?
This seems like a very sensible proposal.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 4:19 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:02 PM Frosku wrote:
> >
> > > We want free software to succeed. Free software is more likely to
> > > succeed if more people work on it. If you are a volunteer, as many
> > &g
n't think anyone needs to be a saint, but we do need to be able to
collaborate with people from different cultural, political, and personal
backgrounds to our own. Enforcing a social code which is exclusive to
the coasts of the United States on a global community seems to me to be
even more exclusionary than allowing people with poor social skills.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 1:16 AM BST, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote:
>
> > Right now, the ultimate oversight of GCC sits with GNU &
> > FSF -- both institutions with a mandate to represent the ecosystem based
> > on level of membership and
allenging for representatives of Google, Red Hat and other
corporations to convince anyone -- after wrestling the project away from
GCC -- that their interests are not at odds with GCC users'.
I would say *exactly* the same thing if you replaced Google/Red Hat with
nonprofits which have less tru
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 12:52 AM BST, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 2021, at 7:44 PM, Frosku wrote:
> >
> > On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 12:36 AM BST, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> >>
> >> The commercial use of free software is our hope, not our fear.
cts currently governed by entities
which are answerable to the grassroots (GNU) and then toppling that
governance structure in favor of one which is only answerable to
boardrooms in Silicon Valley and Seattle WA.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
find many FSF members celebrating the impact of paid
Corporate engineers on GCC if this sorry state of affairs comes to be.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
a tool of an entrenched majority culture against a minority culture.
I have yet to see a project where a strict speech code has improved the
dialectic, rather than degraded it.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
ties upon which they should be enforced.
If you're telling me that it's unlikely, that makes me feel better.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
On Thu Apr 15, 2021 at 12:19 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:41 PM Frosku wrote:
> >
> > I think, in general, it's fine to leave this decision to moderators. It's
> > just a little disconcerting when one of the people who would probably b
l them.
>
> paul
I think, in general, it's fine to leave this decision to moderators. It's
just a little disconcerting when one of the people who would probably be
moderating is saying that he could have shut down the discussion if he
could only ban jerks, as if to imply that everyone w
about who to eject, which
was ESR's premise: a project which decides its purpose is to separate
from wrongthinkers is naturally going to waste a lot of valuable time
and effort arguing about what counts as wrongthink. Time and effort
which could better be spent developing free software.
>
d probably have been the place to open your argument, not
with media hit pieces and a mostly-debunked letter which have nothing to
do with the project.
Turning high-level code into machine code isn't political, it's technical.
The only political aspect is free software, which unless something has
massively changed in the last few days, RMS & FSF both support.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
t you would have just removed
everyone who disagreed with you from the debate for being 'jerks'? There is
a way to avoid this kind of "rancorous dispute" -- not proposing and then
doubling down on widely unpopular and technically meritless ideas.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
project, it shouldn't
be done.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
on to be turned into
a space for virtue signalling and political gatekeeping isn't ideal.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
On Sun Apr 11, 2021 at 2:23 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2021, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> > When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC - technical
> > and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually involved
> > and contributing.
>
> GNU
On Sun Apr 11, 2021 at 11:08 AM BST, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 08/04/2021 à 17:00, David Brown a écrit :
> > At some point, someone in the public relations
> > department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of the
> > project will get the impression that the FSF and GNU are lead by
33 matches
Mail list logo
