this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2023

555 points (84.3% liked)

linuxmemes

21355 readers

1530 users here now

Hint: :q!

Sister communities:

Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html

2. Be civil

Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.

Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.

Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.

Bigotry will not be tolerated.

These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.

3. Post Linux-related content

Including Unix and BSD.

Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.

No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.

4. No recent reposts

Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't fork-bomb your computer.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

poopsmith@lemmy.world

zephyr@lemmy.world

rtxn@lemmy.world

555

which ones do you think I missed? (discuss.tchncs.de)

submitted 11 months ago by lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de to c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world

170 comments fedilink hide all child comments

image transcription:

big collage of people captioned, "the only people I wouldn't have minded being billionaires"
names(and a bit of info, which is not included in the collage) of people in collage(from top left, row-wise):

Alexandra Elbakyan, creator of Sci-Hub. perhaps the single-most important person in the scientific community regarding access to research papers.
Linus Torvalds, creator of linux kernel and git, courtesy of which we have GNU/Linux.
David Revoy, french artist famous for his pepper&carrot, a libre webcomic. inspiration for artists who are into free software movement
Richard Stallman, arch-hacker who started it all. founded the GNU project, free software movement, Emacs, GCC, GPL, concept of copyleft, among many other things. champions for free software to this day(is undergoing treatment for cancer at the moment).
Jean-Baptiste Kempf, president of VLC media player for 2 decades now
Ian Murdock, founder of Debian GNU/Linux and Debian manifesto. died too soon.
Alexis Kauffmann, creator of framasoft, a French nonprofit organisation that champions free software. known for providing alternatives to centralised services, notable one being framapad and peertube.
Aaron Swartz, a brilliant programmer who created RSS, markdown, creative commons, and is known for his involvement in creation of reddit. he also died too soon.
Bram Moolenaar, creator of vim, a charityware.

on the bottom right is the text reading, "plus the thousands of free software enthusiasts working tirelessly."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] kadu@lemmy.world 37 points 11 months ago (5 children)

[deleted]

[–] nixcamic@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

IMO RMS already has the attitude of a billionaire. He's a thoroughly weird man who says stuff he really shouldn't then stands by it. He's right about a lot of things when it comes to software, licensing, and open source in general but outside of that track he's more than a little loopy.

I think it might be because he's had to fight society so long for things he knew he was right about that now he doesn't know how to have people tell him "no Richard, that's ducked up".

Anyhow, I don't think him being a billionaire would be a good idea, him having enough funds to branch off into doing wherever strikes his fancy could be very bad.

And Linus, I love Linus but look at how he's grown as a person and listened and changed how he interacts with other kernel developers. Would he still have been as receptive if he was a billionaire? Something tells me no.

[–] lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I understand your point, but those weren't the words he said. though I don't think that's going to make a difference.

I like RMS for what he did(and is doing) for the free software community. I can also talk about some uncanny things about Gandhi, but that doesn't make his contribution to the independence movement and his views on nonviolence any less relevant.

to me, a person should be seen in his entirety. because only fictional characters are without flaws.

[–] natecox@programming.dev 28 points 11 months ago (2 children)

People should indeed be seen in their entirety, the failure of this is why so many people get upset about Stallman.

The guy is routinely portrayed as a bastion of righteous good will, championing the little guy against the evil corporations. The hero worship is real.

Some of us see Stallman as a misogynistic asshole who routinely belittles people on mailing lists when they don’t agree with him and publicly defends people who sexually abuse children.

For some of us, it feels like we need to go out of our way to point this out because we don’t want a guy like that as the public face of something we care about.

[–] rodolfo@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

what did ~~it~~ he say about women that makes him a misogynist?

Edit ok found this

https://www.arp242.net/rms.html

a pretty much reasonable, reasoned and merciless account on the figure of rms. I very largely agree with it - spoiler he isn't a misogynist, just a super massive weirdo

[–] ReCursing@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

just a super massive weirdo

I once heard him described as "The smartest man to ever throw a tantrum like a 4 year old"

[–] lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de -2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I agree with your point in spirit, but again, he didn't say any such thing. I haven't talked to him in person, so, I can only rely on internet to validate/refute those claims.

he is the public face of free software because others have their own terminologies(e.g.: open source championed by bruce perens and eric raymond), with which the GNU project disagrees.

[–] natecox@programming.dev 6 points 11 months ago

Here you go, someone has done me the service of clearly laying out the case against Stallman here so that I don’t need to l: https://drewdevault.com/2023/11/25/2023-11-26-RMS-on-sex.html

[+] kadu@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Which he did not do.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Richard Stallman on paedophilia:

"The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, 'prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia' also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."

RMS on June 28th, 2003

"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. "

RMS on June 5th, 2006

"There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue. "

RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

[–] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Honestly I cannot see any way one could interpret his words like that

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Richard Stallman on paedophilia:

"The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, 'prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia' also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."

RMS on June 28th, 2003

"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. "

RMS on June 5th, 2006

"There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue. "

RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Aaron Schwartz too

https://web.archive.org/web/20031229025933/http:/bits.are.notabug.com/

I fight laws that restrict what bits I can put on my website.

Unlike humans, computers see everything as bits (numbers). They can't tell the difference between the random movement of a lava lamp and a copyrighted song. I believe that our technology should similarly make no distinction and that I have the right to transmit arbitrary bits.

Here's a list of laws that restrict this right, in order from least controvertial (i.e. most people agree this freedom shouldn't be restricted) to most.

...

...

...

In the US, it is illegal to possess or distribute child pornography, apparently because doing so will encourage people to sexually abuse children.

This is absurd logic. Child pornography is not necessarily abuse. Even if it was, preventing the distribution or posession of the evidence won't make the abuse go away. We don't arrest everyone with videotapes of murders, or make it illegal for TV stations to show people being killed.

[–] rodolfo@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

wha?

[–] lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

you can read everything in great detail and with citations here if you have the bandwidth.

but I'm not sure if the commenter is mixing two unrelated accusations towards him.

stallman is known for his fixation on certain choice of words, which is the reason most people get him wrong. that's why I shared the link to read his exact words and make up your mind by yourself.

[–] rodolfo@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

the man sure doesn't know how the read the room... and when to shut up.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com -2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

He did not. Go find his exact words if you don't believe me.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Richard Stallman on paedophilia:

"The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, 'prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia' also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."

RMS on June 28th, 2003

"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. "

RMS on June 5th, 2006

"There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue. "

RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

[–] WldFyre@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why don't you link his exact words, then?

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Since the other person hasn't (surprise), here's Richard Stallman on paedophilia:

"The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, 'prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia' also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."

RMS on June 28th, 2003

"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. "

RMS on June 5th, 2006

"There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue. "

RMS on Jan 4th, 2013

[–] WldFyre@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I'm not surprised either haha

Thanks for the quotes, what an appalling man smh

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Yeah. He had/has some great ideas when it comes to free software, but it doesn't mean he isn't a POS in other parts of his life.

I'm tired of the Linux world literally worshipping him. It's weird. Hilariously it's no doubt the same people who would cringe at the cultish following of Steve Jobs. Another person with some good ideas but was an awful person.