EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

01.20.20

Starting a GNU Replacement for GitHub, Possibly Based on GitLab

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF, Microsoft at 12:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Gitlab and Gnu

Summary: “It might be easier if we start from the GitLab software,” Stallman said

RECENTLY, a letter was sent to Richard Stallman to discuss threats associated with GitHub (among other things). Here is one proposal he entertained last week:

[Stallman:] Developing such software would be a big job, but possible if people are dedicated. It would probably take soe [sic] years.

It might be easier if we start form [sic] the GitLab software. That is free, right?

However, I doubt we could even possibly hope to pull most free software hosting away with GitHub.

Let’s suppose we do a great job of developing that software and we set up a server running it, and we want to compete with GitHub for projects to choose us. How many free projects are there on GitHub? Hundreds of thousands, I suppose.

To provide good service for that many projects, I think we would need a server farm, and hundreds of staff. We could not afford that.

We would need those staff, and rental for the server farm.

not for a one-time development expense, but as operating costs, year after year.

The only way we could do that is by charging for the service. Most projects would choose some other service which is gratis.

However, those projects that chose our service would get good service, since we could afford to give it to them, for pay.

We could make this work, but would it make a big difference?

The response (from Thomas Grzybowski):

Hi Richard,

I feel encouraged that most of your concern about a GitHub replacement is technical and economic. Those problems can be solved. The key is to use a distributed architecture.

I see five important reasons to go with a distributed git repository:

1. Distributed I/O and CPU load.
2. No single point of failure (such as a ddos attack).
3. No single site entity would have to finance and maintain a gargantuan datacenter.
4. No one country could censor the content of the repository.
5. No single entity could completely control the entire repository.

I have done some basic research and come up with a proposed technology: For the back-end the project can utilize a PostgreSQL database server utilizing Postgresql ltrees. Ltrees is a very powerful and performant database feature for tree-like data structures such as git, and it would be perfect for this application.

Putting the git data schema entirely in a database provides a secure and robust system, with transactional integrity.

Perhaps most importantly, PostgreSQL 10 has introduced a feature called “Logical Replication”, through which one can perform intra-database object-level replication across hosts. This can provide an efficient and solid transactional mechanism for distributed replication.

So, the core idea is to have several sites, located and independently financed in a number of countries.

Now, would such a thing make a BIG difference? Well, like most software projects it would start out small, and then get bigger. Code from Savannah can begin to be migrated-in, making it immediately important, and then the project will certainly receive a lot of attention. I think volunteers will be eager to get on board. As other hubs are established and various and diverse Free Software projects worldwide join-in there will be a compounding function in effect. I think ultimately such a system will provide the preferred repository for Free Software, since that domain will be the focus, and will have the benefits of the distributed implementation outlined above.

It will be an easy sell, assuming the interactive user experience is competitive; people will understand the importance immediately, since Free Software folks do not want to be overseen by Microsoft.

I can come up with a more detailed functional description and system specification if you would like.

Thanks,

Tom G.

Removing GNU/Linux projects from GitHub should be seen as a high-priority initiative. The FSF has not spoken about this yet (not in recent years).

01.14.20

The FSF and GNU Need a Better Savannah to Attract GitHub Refugees

Posted in FSF, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 12:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Thomas Grzybowski quote
Credit: http://haku.co.uk/

Summary: Thomas Grzybowski’s explanation of why GitHub poses a risk to software freedom and what can be done about it

Yesterday we published a letter to Richard Stallman from Thomas Grzybowski. Stallman responded to it and has just received the follow-up below, which Thomas Grzybowski permitted us to republish here:

Richard,

Technology companies in general are in the business of imposing artificial controls on the creative marketplace, analogous to DeBeers with their diamonds. Thus we have copyright, and patents, and ever more sophisticated forms of control and coercion. GPL licensing is a legal and partial solution to the issues we face, yet entities which strive to profit in the realm of “intellectual property” do not restrict themselves to the domain of Law. Therefore I suggest that the Free Software movement focus additionally, more strongly, upon its roots – the users/developers, and their actual practice on the ground. The on-the-ground nexus of community, programming, and system development is where the enemies of software freedom are now staking their claims: in particular, GitHub.

GitHub is the prime location of one type of corporate control which must be addressed. You probably understand that “GitHub” properly, ideally, should be something provided by the Free Software Foundation. Savannah is a resource moving in the right direction, but now GitHub provides much more real-time interactivity along with certain elements from social media. Looking at GitHub as a type of social media, with its centralized platform, it is easy to see how Microsoft benefits from the users very much like Facebook does from its users: the loss of users’ privacy, with the concomitant collection of usage information gives Microsoft a powerful and insightful position over the development and marketing of Free Software projects. Such an environment is an ongoing injustice to the freedom of development of Free Software.

Another very serious concern about GitHub is that it enables Microsoft a direct avenue for censorship of software development. If you think that this might be far-fetched, you need only see that GitHub has already been forced to reject software from people working from countries that are being sanctioned by the US government. It is not a leap to imagine that this behavior might be only a beginning.

So what to do, specifically? It seems clear to me that the Free Software Foundation, or maybe Gnu Org. should embark on developing and implementing a successful competitor to GitHub, targeted specifically toward growing software freedom. Perhaps it can be based upon Savannah, or built from scratch. This project would be the one most important concrete action I can suggest right now, and I am willing to donate a substantial portion of my own time on such a project.

Thanks again,

Thomas Grzybowski

There might be more about this on the way.

01.13.20

Open Letter to Richard Stallman About the Free Software Movement

Posted in FSF, GNU/Linux at 1:34 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

By Thomas Grzybowski and figosdev

Offer help

Summary: New letter to the founder of GNU and the FSF; the authors “wish to have it published as an open letter as well.”

Dear Richard,

This is a open letter of concern about Free Software and the Free Software movement, which a number of people share. It’s about a loss of freedom in the Free Software domain which we see taking place. I would like to present our concern to you here:

“There is a developing view in some areas of the Free Software community that the tech industry – much as a whole – is looking at Free Software as a goldmine for their exploitation.”Now I think we can agree that the raison d’être for technology industries is profit. And the Free Software movement is not against profit, as such. A fair and logical progression from the premise that industry is essentially about making a profit would be that industry is motivated to make a profit from Free Software. Now that may be okay, and then again, it may not… There is a developing view in some areas of the Free Software community that the tech industry – much as a whole – is looking at Free Software as a goldmine for their exploitation.

First I would like to suggest a slight shift in meaning to the term “Free Software”. I think you will agree that Freedom is a practical matter, which is to say it is realized in practice. Another way to put this: it is not the software which is intrinsically free (software does not care), it is the users/developers who become free upon their use of the “free” software. Now, if the users’ ability to (“freely”) benefit from the freeness licensed in a software project is in any way impacted, the users are losing some portion of their software freedom.

“The license remains as-is, but yet system elements or a non-free development environment can make the software far less free.”The major mechanism for the protection of Free Software, Users, and their Four Freedoms, has been the GPL. And the GPL has worked very well. This may have lead to an over-reliance on this single device. Entities which strive to take advantage of the vast resources encompassed by the FOSS ecosystem have been searching for ways to better benefit themselves beyond that which is given to them by the GPL and the Four Freedoms. They seem to have found some ways.

How is this being accomplished? In general, through the implementation of processes (and code even) which gives certain entities more and more control over the software. The license remains as-is, but yet system elements or a non-free development environment can make the software far less free. Keep in mind that “control” is closely akin to “ownership”, and so means of control can thus be monetized. There need be no malice nor overt malfeasance involved, yet the loss of freedom prevails. I hesitate to name examples here, as these projects and environments are even now areas of controversy. I hope you are open to explore this perspective in more detail.

Thank you,

Thomas Grzybowski and figosdev

01.07.20

An FSF Without Stallman

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF at 11:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

An FSF Without Stallman: I'm FSF. Hear me squawk. I'm RMS. Hear me roar.

Summary: An FSF without its founder is a bit like a body without a soul; they ought to correct this (they think they’ll be fine without him, but evidence suggests otherwise so far and they’re too proud to admit it)

Free Software Means Not Monopolies With Publicly-Available Code

Posted in Debian, Free/Libre Software, FSF, GNU/Linux, IBM, Microsoft, OSI, Red Hat at 6:34 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

If “openwashing” is painting a proprietary whole as “open” (because of a mere portion), perhaps we need a new word for systemd (where all the code is “open” but access to it for contribution and for proper assessment is close to impossible)

OSI at Microsoft
The OSI’s Board, literally brought to Microsoft. This photograph may be suppressed as it’s very difficult to find it (or anything about this SF meeting; much like Richard Stallman’s speech at Microsoft’s HQ, which even the FSF kept uncharacteristically secret until it was over and seminally reported on by Microsoft itself)

Summary: Packages such as systemd (“packages” would be an understatement — that’s like calling Linux a “package”) present a new kind of threat, which some in the community have dubbed “Open Source Proprietary Software” (or “OSPS” for short); we need prominent groups and projects to highlight the nature of this threat, which serves to promote monopolies (open gateway into complexity, aided by silence and complicity)

THE OPENWASHING agenda at the OSI is now facilitated by the very same people who run it and profit from it ‘on the side’. Look no further than the culprit and legal hire (conflict of interest/s likely), who last week caused the resignation of the OSI's co-founder. We don’t want to name any names here.

“Look no further than the culprit and legal hire (conflict of interest/s likely), who last week caused the resignation of the OSI’s co-founder.”A growing number of people nowadays speak of IBM and systemd, taking note that it’s still being developed on Microsoft servers and long ago became far too large for people to properly study the source code (reading it is one thing; comprehending it is another). That’s just one example of ‘code dumps’ (akin to ‘document dumps’) as a substitute for freedom-respecting source code (or “code available” rather than “please modify and improve”). If one company — and one company only — develops some piece of software (which becomes incredibly bloated and impossible to avoid), how “open” is it really? This, some of our associates believe, is an issue the FSF ought to speak about. Maybe it wasn’t foreseen. There’s no need to ban anything; an advisory note of caution may suffice. But remember that Red Hat pays the FSF and gives instructions to it (in the open).

“If one company — and one company only — develops some piece of software (which becomes incredibly bloated and impossible to avoid), how “open” is it really?”Yesterday we spent some time studying the past two years’ meeting minutes of the OSI, leading up to the resignation of the OSI’s co-founder, who is no proponent of systemd. He participated in many of these meetings of the OSI, debating licensing aspects in particular. And no, he’s not present in the Microsoft photo op shown above. We previously thought he would be a decent successor for Stallman at the FSF, but seeing his public response (in Twitter) to the almost-forced resignation serves to suggest otherwise. One thing is for sure though: the FSF and the OSI both need strong leadership, which currently both lack. The person or persons in charge have earned some levels of notoriety in Debian and there are more lingering concerns over them succumbing to corporate interests and sometimes taking money from those same corporations. And please note, still no names. Our readers might know who we’re alluding to, but we describe these issues in general terms, at low risk of making it seem like a personal attack on anyone in particular.

Nothing would please IBM more than a derailed Debian, a subverted OSI, and infiltrated FSF. It would leave many people overly dependent if not reliant on grossly overpriced support contracts with people who can handle and tackle the extreme complicity they themselves created at Red Hat. Remember that IBM is a longtime monopolist — as its ongoing patent policy serves to remind us — with little evidence to suggest any of that has changed inherently (except on some superficial level). And IBM works closely with Microsoft even after buying Red Hat, which also considered selling itself to that other monopolist (Microsoft).

For those failing to see the Debian-OSI-FSF connection/overlap, look closely at OSI archives; they stated upfront there were no conflicts of interest/s, but there were relational ones. Moreover, the overlap in boards — not to mention awards — can be revealing at times. Names? Sorry, no names. We’d be accused of personal attacks and violation of privacy for daring to ‘name-drop’ anybody at all. The Linux Foundation uses a similar strategy (it’s considered “toxic” to bring up legitimate concerns, which can be spun as envy, opportunism, racism, sexism and so on).

“Yesterday we spent some time studying the past two years’ meeting minutes of the OSI, leading up to the resignation of the OSI’s co-founder, who is no proponent of systemd.”Going back to the FSF, hours ago it published a statement [1] (more text below). Having failed to meet goals/targets, “extra incentive for people to join the movement [have been extended] until January 17th. To assist us further, our friends at Technoethical are offering a 5% discount for @FSF members until this date as well.”

What does the FSF plan to do about IBM now that it’s taking IBM money? We wrote about this angle last month and back in October [1, 2].

Related/contextual items from the news:

  1. Extending our offer for exclusive membership gifts through January

    In the final weeks of 2019, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) welcomed nearly 300 new associate members. That is a strong achievement, but we to boost our numbers further in order to continue our work to educate others about free software and defend copyleft.

    Every day, millions of new people globally are gaining access to software, and are integrating it into their lives. We need to continue to spread the message of software freedom far and wide to reach these newcomers, and the millions of longtime software users who are unaware of how proprietary software is being used to exploit and abuse them. It’s a big challenge.

    At the beginning of this new decade, we’re inspired to dream up a freer future. To help turn this dream into reality, we’re extending our membership drive and our offer for exclusive associate membership gifts as an extra incentive for people to join the movement until January 17th. To assist us further, our friends at Technoethical are offering a 5% discount for FSF members until this date as well.

    Will you start out the new decade with an FSF associate membership?

01.06.20

Apologies in Advance

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF at 11:40 pm by Guest Editorial Team

By figosdev

Apology letter and rose

Summary: “In late 2018 and early 2019, I thought it was dangerous that the FSF had no plans for Stallman retiring or otherwise leaving, dangerous that he had no protégé to take his stead.”

Though Roy works as an official part of Techrights, and I work separately from that, we have in common a Mulder-like desire to find the truth about what’s going on. Some might assume that we are simply being critical of the FSF, though Roy is far more diplomatic (he is simply better at it and leans farther in that direction) and I am happy that I’ve been thanked, even recently, for holding people accountable and keeping pressure on those who would betray the FSF’s mission.

My primary interest is in the mission of Free software, and I make no secret of the fact that I consider free culture and Free hardware intrinsic to software freedom in this century. Acting President Alex Oliva and I have debated this at times politely and many times, heatedly though recently he said:

“I’ve often said that our first step has to be installing Free software not in people’s computers, but in their minds.”

That probably means something different to him than what it means to me; my reply was:

“As with Oliva, I take the connection between software and “mindware” very seriously and I think the FSF should not be so dismissive about this connection as it was in the past.”“Though I’m the one who has said for years that such software should be under a Free software license.”

In other words, I never bought into Stallman’s “works of opinion” shtick and have long thought the Defective by Design website would further its mission if it opened their work up to remix and the same free culture standards as Open Educational Resources. The father of free culture, Lawrence Lessig, used to be on the FSF board and won the Free Software Award. Unfortunately, just as Mike Linksvayer (someone I do not respect, but who did a decent job nonetheless as Vice President of Creative Commons) was unable to get CC to deprecate non-free licenses with clauses like -NC- and -ND-, Lessig was unable to get the FSF to champion free culture as a philosophical relative of Free software.

They have slowly (at a glacial pace) improved in this regard, and I’m happy that Shoetool is under a free culture license. In the past, they probably would have licensed it with No-derivs.

I don’t consider this kind of freedom unrelated to software freedom. As with Oliva, I take the connection between software and “mindware” very seriously and I think the FSF should not be so dismissive about this connection as it was in the past.

“In late 2018 and early 2019, I thought it was dangerous that the FSF had no plans for Stallman retiring or otherwise leaving, dangerous that he had no protégé to take his stead.”So when I felt the FSF was stagnating in 2019, I didn’t think it necessarily had anything to do with a corporate-backed coup. I published several articles on how to improve the FSF, which were written under the assumption that the FSF was simply low on inspiration and painted into a boring philosophical corner. In late 2018 and early 2019, I thought it was dangerous that the FSF had no plans for Stallman retiring or otherwise leaving, dangerous that he had no protégé to take his stead. Even earlier than late 2018 I had considered who would be ideal for the position — Ben Mako Hill and Oliva were at the top of the list.

Since then we have found quotes from the “inside” to the effect of Stallman having no replacement, so it wasn’t just us, but also evidence that Oliva was indeed a possible replacement. As in the person Stallman might choose if it were up to him. This is context and important background, but the point of this article isn’t about Oliva. It’s about the present state of the FSF in general.

I figured if the FSF was stagnating, that Stallman ought to step down and let a protégé (preferably someone Stallman trusted) take over some of the job of running the FSF. I did not consider Sullivan good for the position, and I don’t know. I don’t think he has any passion or charisma, and despite the occasional protest I think it’s clear that Stallman has much more than he’s sometimes given credit for.

“…the official narrative aside, what remains of the FSF is still the aftermath of a coup, even if Stallman did step down.”Once again, I feel it’s necessary to point out that my “let someone else be your protégé and have a clean transition” plan would have likely shielded him during the coup. He would still be on the board, he would have an ally in his position — it would be the closest the FSF could get to two Stallmans for the price of one, but Stallman would be less of a target (and harder to get rid of if he was only on the board, not the president.)

The official narrative — of which there is practically none, since the FSF has never commented on anything, even to say they were sad for him to go — Stallman himself has said he left to protect the FSF, but what’s left at the moment is hard to justify protecting, except “for the future” when it becomes hopefully a useful organisation again)… the official narrative aside, what remains of the FSF is still the aftermath of a coup, even if Stallman did step down.

And the one opportunity for members to weigh in — please note, that Stallman himself asked people to help by joining and ensuring Free software remained an important part of what the FSF stands for — the one opportunity members had to weigh in was blown when they extended the fundraiser. That’s the thing that still has me reeling a week later. So when the FSF said today:

“I’m very angry at the spin and the injustice coming out of the FSF.”“The day-in, day-out work of defending software freedom and maintaining the GNU Project depends on the generosity of donors like Dominic Walden, Donald Craig, and Etienne Grossmann. #ThankGNU so much!”

I fired back:

“They probably gave up trying to be heard and gave you people the money anyway.

The one opportunity members had to force you swindlers to listen, and you just extended the fundraiser instead. Seriously, f- — you guys. you’re not the FSF- you’re the people occupying the FSF office.”

Anybody who thinks this is some kind of turn towards nastiness hasn’t followed the other things I’ve said for the past several weeks. I’m very angry at the spin and the injustice coming out of the FSF.

The real point of this article, however, is to say that yes — I realise there are still good people at the FSF. And no, my comments are definitely not directed at them. I think enough people probably know that by now, and I still hear from Stallman now and then and from others who will remain nameless, even when I don’t expect to hear from them.

“…until Stallman is back the FSF is more of an office under corporate occupation than a Free software organisation.”I feel very strongly that any “ugliness” from me is nothing compared to the lies and injustice coming from the people who were party to this very real and increasingly understood coup, and that until Stallman is back the FSF is more of an office under corporate occupation than a Free software organisation.

It is now known, thanks to the IRC logs, that Stallman does not consider it useful (not yet) to try to get back on the board with things the way they are. I won’t elaborate on “things the way they are” at this time, but the bottom line is there is more to this story than we have still managed to get all the details of.

A side effect of the fact that we are still getting to the whole story, the rest of the truth, is that occasionally, some innocent and well-meaning person is going to get branded with the wrong team logo when they’re actually one of the good guys. Like I said, Roy is more diplomatic, though it is necessary to keep the pressure on those who are responsible beyond the shadow of a doubt.

In other words, it is necessary (in my opinion) to be somewhat ruthless with the people “occupying” the FSF until they themselves are ousted. A more ideal situation, where the “good guys” really did have everything under control, would be to treat each individual with the utmost care and presumed innocence. Unfortunately, that isn’t how you stop a coup.

“What I can’t (or anyway, won’t) do is let the people destroying the FSF simply continue unabated.”So yes, I may end up being unfair to someone, or a couple people. I really am sorry for that. What I can’t (or anyway, won’t) do is let the people destroying the FSF simply continue unabated. Many of us are trying extremely hard to piece together the big picture. We aren’t merely double checking the things we report, we backtrack and double-check and correct anything we know to be a mistake.

It’s absolutely horrific how often we turn out to be on the right track, most of the things we are discovering simply should never be as they are now. We don’t want to be right. Unfortunately, many of the things we worried about a year ago are not only confirmed — they’re worse.

So no, I firmly believe playing “nice” with the current regime is not the answer. The apology to anyone under suspicions without deserving it is sincere. I feel and I hope in the long run, that as with Stallman, those wrongly accused will be vetted by time and the continuing quest for truth and justice. So many people are trying to throw us off, but we have lots of information to work with. I still invite people who know more to let Techrights know, as Techrights is clearly the name people trust with their information about what’s really happening behind the scenes.

“As to what’s worth keeping the pressure on the FSF about — everything has shown that the right thing to about Stallman is apologise and reinstate him.”I’m also grateful to Daniel Pocock, to the debian.community team, and to everyone doing the right thing when others are simply playing along.

As to what’s worth keeping the pressure on the FSF about — everything has shown that the right thing to about Stallman is apologise and reinstate him. He should still have a protégé available to take over for him, and we now know who that would be.

Members still have no real say in what the FSF does, except hypothetically. I have always thought the mission of the FSF should outweigh the members, though the truth is that the members have no weight — they are as massless as a photon. The one opportunity members had to change the course of the FSF was during this fundraiser, and instead of responding to the failure with accountability and a learned lesson, the FSF simply decided “screw you guys, we will just keep running the fundraiser until we get our money!”

“Today, the future of Linux is also in doubt.”Well, it’s not really “your” money, FSF — that money is in the hopes that you will represent our freedom. And you aren’t doing that. You’re still caving to whatever outside interests would willingly destroy Free software.

Hurd is not ready, and that was never a problem when Linux was a suitable kernel. Hurd is simply too complicated to (maybe ever) serve the everyday purposes of a widely-distributed free operating system kernel. If there were enough coders to make it happen, perhaps it would work. The entire worldwide history of kernel development, Hurd’s own development included, would suggest otherwise. That doesn’t mean it is worthless, but it is subject to the politics and practicality that moved most kernel developers to Linux.

Today, the future of Linux is also in doubt. Despite my insisting (perhaps too optimistically) that people involved with linux-libre could probably extend the project to remove problems like DRM in the kernel and other dubious acts of possible sabotage like removing support for floppy drives (couldn’t you just make it a module, and make it so that support isn’t enabled by default?) the future of Linux looks problematic not only from the point of the software, but the point of the license. When Microsoft takes over GPL compliance for the Linux foundation, the result will ultimately be that Linux is “permissively-licensed under the GPL.”

Microsoft will have their own kernel, and Linux development will suffer further.

Hyperbola (an FSF-approved distro) has already decided to drop Linux in the future and switch to the BSD kernel. If they maintain their ties with the FSF, they will have the first FSF-approved operating system that is based on a BSD kernel. (I made Stallman aware of LibertyBSD a year ago, but at the time it looked like it could be a dead project. There are scripts on notabug that hint to the contrary, and I wish LibertyBSD the very best in the present and future.)

“Of course they should damn well apologise to Stallman, first.”It sickens me at times how blasé the FSF can be about devastating events in the Free software like this — and if it doesn’t sicken you, then you should consider that they were never more blasé about anything than the day that Stallman resigned.

It’s not that I have any problem with Hyperbola’s decision — it is bold and pioneering, in my opinion. But even though I have no respect for Torvalds as a person (it’s his numerous acts of dishonesty and betrayal, not his colourful language or personality that cost him my respect) I know he was screwed over by Jim Zemlin and, as a result, so were we. This has cost Free software significantly, and is has cost everyone who ever used GNU/Linux, and the least the FSF can do is have a moment of silence for the Kernel that made a fully-free OS possible and practical for many years.

“My primary concern for the future of the FSF, apart from ruining the work of everyone who made it what it is at its peak so far — is that it will become just another semi-retired 501c3 more concerned with fundraising than real goals, more concerned with “awareness” than what it was — a force for actually defending Free software and making development increasingly possible for everyone.”Of course they should damn well apologise to Stallman, first.

I’ve also defended certain people at the FSF, most notably the campaigns team. I could be wrong, but I don’t believe it’s possible for them to be among the traitors. Based on what I’m told, which could also be untrue (but I believe it) I don’t even believe the dumbest comments they’ve made were their own.

Someone is putting words in their mouths, and I believe these are practically kids who came in to volunteer, and have no way of knowing what they’re getting into. Being caught in the middle like that, I can’t blame the campaigns team without the hardest evidence of guilt, and I won’t let the occupying party make patsies of them. That includes Zoe, though I will critique some of the phrasing — I don’t blame her personally. This defense of the team doesn’t mean I will ignore evidence to the contrary.

“Much unlike how I feel about Stallman, I don’t admire Linus in the least. But he is undoubtedly better for the job than anybody likely to replace him, as the Linux Foundation has seen to.”My primary concern for the future of the FSF, apart from ruining the work of everyone who made it what it is at its peak so far — is that it will become just another semi-retired 501c3 more concerned with fundraising than real goals, more concerned with “awareness” than what it was — a force for actually defending Free software and making development increasingly possible for everyone.

When I say “for everyone”, I mean it literally; this isn’t the now commonly coded-language for fighting implicit exclusion with explicit exclusion — I consider that a scourge and as we suspected as far back as a year ago, I consider that sort of Orwellian gymnastics to be connected with the ousting of Stallman and Torvalds.

No, I do not like Torvalds as a person. Much unlike how I feel about Stallman, I don’t admire Linus in the least. But he is undoubtedly better for the job than anybody likely to replace him, as the Linux Foundation has seen to. The good candidates are out of the picture, and the bastards are poised to carry it forward, which is precisely the opposite of what we want for the Linux kernel or for the future of the FSF.

“The good candidates are out of the picture, and the bastards are poised to carry it forward, which is precisely the opposite of what we want for the Linux kernel or for the future of the FSF.”The FSF says they want to defend your freedom. Stallman says that he wants you to be part of the FSF so you can keep them on course. But we have shown repeatedly that members have no power, no say, and no influence — in practice. In theory, yes — members matter. In practice, they have never changed a thing. Even when they held the purse strings in December, they had no ability to change anything happening. Not Yet at least.

When members can’t sabotage the mission of the FSF, that’s a good thing. The mission should always come before donors. Sadly, I think the larger sponsors will have greater say than the community (individual) members who supposedly hold the real purse strings. (Which I don’t believe, by the way — the members-hold-the-real-purse-strings theory has a large hole in it. It’s like saying that everyday taxpayers have the real power in the United States, not corporate lobbyists, because put together they pay more taxes than companies like Amazon who pay none)

When members are powerless to right any wrongs, and Stallman asks them to join and remain so that they can somehow “represent” software freedom, the very least the FSF can offer in exchange is honest answers.

“When members are powerless to right any wrongs, and Stallman asks them to join and remain so that they can somehow “represent” software freedom, the very least the FSF can offer in exchange is honest answers.”During a coup powered by corporations, not citizens — during astroturfing that has nothing at all to do with grassroots volunteers or the people the FSF CLAIMS to “defend” the freedom of, the most the FSF can do is lie and steamroll people with glib messaging about the usual talking points.

That sort of messaging doesn’t prove that anybody is still working for you, any more than getting a voicemail greeting proves that someone is home or has their phone with them. And unfortunately, that sort of “You’ve reached the offices of the Free Software Foundation” messaging is the sort your dollars are most likely to earn you. You can also get a thermos, a backpack, and a bootable membership card that boots an operating system with a kernel co-opted by Microsoft and Jim Zemlin, a userspace controlled by IBM (developed on Microsoft’s servers) and since it’s a USB storage device, that membership card might even earn Microsoft a small royalty in the process. That money would be used to further co-opt GNU, Linux and hurt more people like Stallman.

Back when I had one, it came with a fully-free operating system and a DVD containing all the source code. Do you think you can get that with Devuan? Nope. I’ve waited five years for Devuan to get on that (I donated to them as well. Unfortunately Devuan has a perfect weapon for ensuring that support for Devuan remains minimal.) Do you think Debian is a free operating system? Not even when the FSF removes the links to the non-free repos. Debian is also occupied. As is FSFE. Trisquel is nothing but IBM/GNU/Linux. You will never be fully free with that mess.

“The only question is, who is really in charge at the FSF?”The FSF is NOT defending your freedom. The people in charge at the FSF continue their attacks.

The only question is, who is really in charge at the FSF?

It certainly isn’t the members. What a shame. And it isn’t Stallman, either — that’s a crime.

“Don’t be fooled though, they have corporate sponsorship on tap — they can effectively keep lying for free.”The FSF really can’t say it defends your freedom until it ousts this coup, ends the corruption and overthrows the occupation.

Until then, maybe YOU should tell the FSF to donate, so you can defend software freedom for them!

The FSF won’t stand for you or your freedom, as long as they’re like this. They can barely even stand up. With help from your donation, they can lie to you a little more. Don’t be fooled though, they have corporate sponsorship on tap — they can effectively keep lying for free.

Licence: Creative Commons CC0 1.0 (public domain)

01.04.20

In an Age of Newspeak Buzzwords, Listening Devices (Bugs) Are Called ‘Smart’ ‘Assistants’ and Microphones Are Called ‘Speakers’

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF at 5:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

So “smart” that you must be gullible to pay for it and so “assistive” that you must be dumb or irresponsible to give it as a gift (it assists only spying corporations and governments)

Listening Devices (Bugs)

Summary: It might be time to discuss and berate the new ‘fashion’ which is recording everything around oneself and then uploading all the audio or video (footage of non-consenting people sent to other countries and to cops)

THE FSF has begun mentioning this as a high-priority risk/threat a lot more often, as did Richard Stallman, the founder of the FSF. This is a good sign. They need to speak a lot more about people speaking to so-called ‘smart’ ‘speakers’ that are actually microphones. More and more devices nowadays come with such ‘features’ built in. They cannot be disabled or are increasingly made close to impossible to operate without feeding audio.

“We’ve long wanted to spend more time talking about listening devices rather than to them.”We’ve spoken about this problem routinely for a number of years. A lot more is nowadays known about and also proven regarding those things. We know that they record a lot more than people care to realise, they identify and record non-consenting people (nearby people, visitors, family members), searchable text becomes available and not just military but also police (armed cops who can murder with impunity, domestically) gets access to it — often without as much as a warrant. Had proper regulation been put in place, not only would such devices be banned; those who spread them would be severely prosecuted.

We’ve long wanted to spend more time talking about listening devices rather than to them. They’re no “gifts”; they actually do great harm to the recipients — more so than buyers.

Hopefully this year — as we’re planning to do more articles/posts per day — we’ll discuss the atrocities enabled by these consumerist ‘fashions’; Daily Links already contain plenty of news reports to that effect.

01.03.20

Attacks on Free Software and GNU/Linux Reinforce the Perception That It is a Strong Force

Posted in FSF, GNU/Linux at 2:38 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“The first wave will attack the perception that Linux is free.”

Brian Valentine, Microsoft

   

Free Software FUD

Summary: All the recent attacks on Free software are in some sense serving to reaffirm that Free software has gotten to the point where nothing can undermine it other than infiltration and/or attempts to oust/marginalise leaders, which in turn elevates these leaders to “martyr” status

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts