Open Source Software Community - it's about ethics in Code of Conducts

[Lard Shart]

What "modern needs"? The tools we have work fine and to my knowledge the Rust rewrite is not supposed to change functionality, so what magic Rust does even bring here?

The leftist does not understand finished software.
The GNU coreutils are finished software and he hates that. When all problems have been solved he invents new fictional ones, even when they are obviously pointless (example: C is "outdated", so we must RIIR!).
He needs a safe space because he has no defense against facts and logic. And if you point all this out, you are evil and must die.

 

[Cuckoman]

The leftist does not understand finished software.
The GNU coreutils are finished software and he hates that. When all problems have been solved he invents new fictional ones, even when they are obviously pointless (example: C is "outdated", so we must RIIR!).
He needs a safe space because he has no defense against facts and logic. And if you point all this out, you are evil and must die.

The worst part is that he is doing this for activism/political reasons. Not for any real good reasons.
Thus his heart is not in it and he will soon tire of it, abandon it, and switch to the next shiny current thing.

You are basically setting yourself up for depending on unmaintained and abandoned software when you use tranny projects.

GNU coreutils, there are people there that have been maintaining this for several decades.
I would trust that for being maintained for decades more.

 

[Cherenkovblue]

The leftist does not understand finished software.
The GNU coreutils are finished software and he hates that. When all problems have been solved he invents new fictional ones, even when they are obviously pointless (example: C is "outdated", so we must RIIR!).
He needs a safe space because he has no defense against facts and logic. And if you point all this out, you are evil and must die.

Finished software has a formal specification so you know it's finished for it has met its target. GNUware doesn't have that. If it did, the Stalliban wouldn't be able to continue begging for money. However, even if it were finished, this would not stop the leftist from trying to clone it, for the leftist cannot create, only copy poorly and attempt (poorly) to dominate.

 

[AmpleApricots]

tbh GNU coreutils (and other gnu utilities like gawk etc.) are kind of a mess of edge cases and optimizations that just aren't all that relevant anymore. (just look at the source of a simple tool like e.g. yes and feed it into your favorite LLM to watch it commit suicide) GNU also has kind of a "everything and the kitchen sink" approach, and always did. In my somewhat longer Alpine stint (before migrating back to gentoo) I got familiar with busybox and walking away from GNU in general. The alternatives covered all my use cases almost and some I still use to this day.

But that's the thing. With the cruft everything has accumulated over the years you kinda need the edge cases and weird flags for a working system. It's a pain in the ass to e.g. build a current linux kernel without GNU tools. Many a people have set out to replace coreutils and other stuff of the GNU toolchain by simplifying them (and many such replacements are floating around). That's not really that hard of a job. The hard job is supporting decades of scripts being reliant on specific tools working in specific ways and replacing the lowest common denominator. If I had to vote for a "starting over" replacement, I'd probably go with the BSD toolchain. But honestly, nothing wrong with the GNU toolchain that wouldn't also be wrong with software that could 100% replace it.

 

[Creative Username]

What "modern needs"? The tools we have work fine and to my knowledge the Rust rewrite is not supposed to change functionality, so what magic Rust does even bring here?

it's le memory safe so infinitely better than the gnu coreutils which is written in c (a bad and dangerous language)
also the new rewrite is probably under a permissive license which will allow ubuntu to distribute shitty tivoized bullshit which the gnu gpl3 is designed to prevent
enjoy your "open source" "linux", jannies

The worst part is that he is doing this for activism/political reasons. Not for any real good reasons.
Thus his heart is not in it and he will soon tire of it, abandon it, and switch to the next shiny current thing.

well those gnu tools were started for activism/political reasons too
it's just that stallman's autistic crusade is way more based (and a real good reason) than any troon could comprehend
he didn't start it because he wanted to epically own <other side of the american political spectrum>, he just wanted a computer that wasn't shit

GNUware doesn't have that. If it did, the Stalliban wouldn't be able to continue begging for money.

while coreutils et. al aren't evolving that quickly, there are many gnu projects that are still actively being developed
some of them are achieving interesting feats of software engineering, such as how gnu guix has managed to bootstrap untold gigabytes of software from a very tiny binary

But honestly, nothing wrong with the GNU toolchain that wouldn't also be wrong with software that could 100% replace it.

modulo the heavily bitrotted support code for some gay commercial unix that went obsolete in 1997 (ironically thanks to gnu)

 

[prollyanotherlurker]

Imagine even bait posting pretending to like an operating system. That you need to keep disconnected from the internet during the install or else you are forced into making an account.

@AmpleApricots
But that's the thing. With the cruft everything has accumulated over the years you kinda need the edge cases and weird flags for a working system. It's a pain in the ass to e.g. build a current linux kernel without GNU tools. Many a people have set out to replace coreutils and other stuff of the GNU toolchain by simplifying them (and many such replacements are floating around). That's not really that hard of a job. The hard job is supporting decades of scripts being reliant on specific tools working in specific ways and replacing the lowest common denominator. If I had to vote for a "starting over" replacement, I'd probably go with the BSD toolchain. But honestly, nothing wrong with the GNU toolchain that wouldn't also be wrong with software that could 100% replace it.

I'm not someone that minds moving onto newer solutions. But for the Gnu coreutils. I feel like they just work. They are a bit bloated. But I would rather use bash for an interactive shell, than ash, or dash (I'm fine with either of those as /bin/sh though, and actually prefer them for that). Until there is a good replacement, and a good reason to get rid of them I would prefer to keep them around in Linux. The uutils especially don't seem like the answer. Since their goal is to entirely replace the gnu tools flags an all. Just in rust. (and if I remember correctly they want to use a cucked license too).

I also like having people around that are pretty unflinching about free software. I don't expect everyone to do things like them. But without those people, it allows corporations to creep in, and slowly change and take advantage of open source/free software. And also the "ethical software" types, wanting to force their gay nigga agenda on open source. When it completely goes against the spirit of what free and open software is supposed to be.

 

[Creative Username]

That you need to keep disconnected from the internet during the install or else you are forced into making an account.

"bro it's still better, i just run this massive cleaner script i found on github that has nasty side effects!"

 

[Jotch]

Really it all comes down to personal computing as a distributed and noncentralized public service as opposed to a commericial product.

I've been looking for similar offline and (F(L))OSS LLM/IGAN implementations for a while but never found a reliable one that can fall back on CPU.

 

[Creative Username]

I also like having people around that are pretty unflinching about free software. I don't expect everyone to do things like them. But without those people, it allows corporations to creep in, and slowly change and take advantage of open source/free software.

if you ever wonder what an open source world without free software would look like, just take a look at what's going on in the android world:
"you don't own your computer, you can't run what you want on it, you can't change how it works, you can't remove the spyware, but you sure can submit a pull request and work on it for free! we are OPEN SOURCE!" - google and friends

the uutils being mit licensed might eventually help canonical do some really cringe tivoized bullshit at some point in the future, who knows?
regardless, all forms of the gnu general public license will make the megacorp nervous. never use permissive "open source" licenses, copyleft is the right way to go

 

[analrapist]

never use permissive "open source" licenses, copyleft is the right way to go

What I've started doing is uploading all my code to github without license. So, you can use it just fine. You can grab it, build it, whatever. It's only when you start worrying about "legality" (a niggerlicious term for niggers) that you realize "huh, maybe I can't use this". Even safer than Copyleft! And if anyone starts using my code and needs/wants certain licensing, I can delay my choice until then.

 

[reactionary]

And if anyone starts using my code and needs/wants certain licensing, I can delay my choice until then.

Sublicense it to them specifically.

 

[Creative Username]

What I've started doing is uploading all my code to github without license. So, you can use it just fine. You can grab it, build it, whatever. It's only when you start worrying about "legality" (a niggerlicious term for niggers) that you realize "huh, maybe I can't use this". Even safer than Copyleft! And if anyone starts using my code and needs/wants certain licensing, I can delay my choice until then.

based as fuck but it's not free software since you have the potential to decide that it's ABSOLUTELY PROPRIETARY at any time
that's why you need to explicitly give users rights (GNU/Halal) but not too many rights (put your code into their proprietary shitware)
that's why the AGPLv3+NIGGER license is the way to go

 

[Betonhaus]

Is +NIGGER an actual license or is this just a long running gag?

 

[Cherenkovblue]

well those gnu tools were started for activism/political reasons too
it's just that stallman's autistic crusade is way more based (and a real good reason) than any troon could comprehend
he didn't start it because he wanted to epically own <other side of the american political spectrum>, he just wanted a computer that wasn't shit

That's what Stallman says, yeah, but that's not what actually drove him. He wanted to be The Guy, be given free shit, and essentially be famous. This is why he spent so much time trying to get Mach relicensed, and was thoroughly butthurt whenever people brought up BSD or Linux. It's also why none of his stuff has a formal specification for any of it: So he can keep bilking gullible morons for donations even though he doesn't write a single line of code anymore (which he blames on crippling carpal tunnel syndrome and for which he's hired typists in the past).

TL;DR Terry Davis is more of a programmer than Stallman will ever be. Also, he didn't like niggers, making him infinitely superior.

 

[Mikoyan]

Is +NIGGER an actual license or is this just a long running gag?

Technically speaking, it's both.

Taking it to court would be interesting, of course.

 

[Max Weber]

Is +NIGGER an actual license or is this just a long running gag?

Anything is a license if you write it like one. https://plusnigger.org


Speaking of licenses, the sole maintainer of libxml2 finally got tired of working on a critical piece of infrastructure by himself, considered relicensing it under GPLv3 (currently it's MIT), but ultimately decided to just step down as maintainer and instead start his own fork under AGPLv3.

Switch license to GPLv3? (no archive, fuck Anubis)
Stepping down as libxml2 maintainer (archive)

 

[Creative Username]

Is +NIGGER an actual license or is this just a long running gag?

+nigger is a real license modifier and you can add it to almost any other license without problems since it doesn't really have any legal significance

That's what Stallman says, yeah, but that's not what actually drove him. He wanted to be The Guy, be given free shit, and essentially be famous.

drew devault wtf are you doing on the kiwifarms are you about to start shilling hare again

butthurt whenever people brought up BSD or Linux.

not true, the gnu/partyline holds that linux is an integral part of most gnu systems. more evidence that a balding "c for the 21st century" shitlang developer wrote this post

ok maybe he is an "ex-hacker turned figurehead" type and perhaps he does enjoy his fame, but he is responsible for truly amazing things like the gpl and was not to be fucked with back in the day, unlike a certain eric

Terry Davis is more of a programmer than Stallman will ever be.

completely fucking wrong terry's emacs clone is complete dogshit next to stallman's emacs clone, it integrates poorly with inferior systems and isn't even written in lisp; its only real advantage is the support for animated 3d models included in source code

Speaking of licenses, the sole maintainer of libxml2 finally got tired of working on a critical piece of infrastructure by himself, considered relicensing it under GPLv3 (currently it's MIT), but ultimately decided to just step down as maintainer and instead start his own fork under AGPLv3.

based gigachad stops doing it for free
although we will probably end up seeing an llvm/gcc situation or something like that

 

[Betonhaus]

Speaking of licenses, the sole maintainer of libxml2 finally got tired of working on a critical piece of infrastructure by himself, considered relicensing it under GPLv3 (currently it's MIT), but ultimately decided to just step down as maintainer and instead start his own fork under AGPLv3.

There really needs to be a sponsorship program where if you are the sole or primary maintainer for a core utility that most or all Linux distros rely on, you can apply for funding of you don't have alternative sources. Even if it's some sort of centralized donation organization. It would've helped the xz dev, for example.

 

[Lard Shart]

What I've started doing is uploading all my code to github without license.

Extremely based.

When you're not anonymous, you might still want to have some clause that prevents people from suing you over them misusing your software.

Spoiler: From MIT license

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

 

[Cherenkovblue]

There really needs to be a sponsorship program where if you are the sole or primary maintainer for a core utility that most or all Linux distros rely on, you can apply for funding of you don't have alternative sources. Even if it's some sort of centralized donation organization. It would've helped the xz dev, for example.

Oh, but there is... it's called: "patent something about your program that literally can't be coded around without compromising performance, then sue anyone who doesn't pay you". It's the only revenue model that demonstrably works.