Join us now at the IRC channel.
| schestowitz | > title modified to avoid unknown filters. | Aug 19 01:04 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > this is primarily intended for you, not your readers, but it is in the | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > public domain. | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > a lot of this is hypothetical, it may give you some ideas though. | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > you have a server solution, which isnt a bad one, but it isnt a desktop | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > solution. it doesnt even support bash. i use du with --exclude, that | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > isnt in the busybox version (busybox, im told, is what alpine uses. i | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > use it sometimes as well-- but not for du). | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > alpine is not a desktop solution. so you use debian, but you also | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > recognise that systemd is a major problem. hey now, ive spent no more | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > than a few days turning the thing im describing into a way to make a | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > debian live did WITHOUT systemd as the init. hooray. | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > but theres devuan, right? of course i dont support devuan. ive remixed | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > it as well, but mostly refracta, which is by far the best devuan distro. | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > if not for refracta, devuan probably still wouldnt have a live dvd. | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > thats pretty amazing when you think about it. | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > so ive used this on devuan. ive used this to remove systemd as init from | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > debian-- without devuan repos. ive done the same with trisquel. thats | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > pretty amazing. | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > i will justify (for information purposes, not to try to convince you to | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > make exactly the same choices) each of the decisions ive made around | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > this, even including the reason im not working on it right now-- but you | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > might. | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > at some point, you may get tired of recommending shitting | Aug 19 01:04 |
| schestowitz | > fuck-the-user-type distros to people. you might want a nice desktop | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > distro you can believe in. | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > i think assholex is doomed, the question is when, im still using | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > gnu/assholex now, with a focus on removing shithub. you CANT (for | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > reasons ive written long essays on) remove shithub entirely. its in | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > everything. hopefully that will change. but for example-- no github, no | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > desktop. no microsoft libffi, no microsoft python or pypy. no microsoft | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > zlib1g? no gui! no microsoft harfbuzz? no gtk! no microsoft perl? -> no | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > C COMPILER! fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck. | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > but saying no as much as we sanely can (opinions vary) is better than | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > just bending over and taking it. since there are no organisations | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > fighting this, maybe in the future you will want to-- or youll meet | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > someone that wants to. | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > and youll want to minimise the work involved. | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > i know how the best devuan distro is made. fsr has a remaster tool suite | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > called refracta tools. he installs devuan. then he goes through a | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > checklist of many different things. he changes all of them-- MANUALLY. | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > then he snapshots the system. refracta creates a live iso. | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > if you use xorriso to make the iso it can hybridise it. otherwise if you | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > use something else, you can hybridise it with isotools from syslinux-- | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > thats what i do. once its a hybrid iso you can make a bootable usb just | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > by using dd to write the iso to usb. my tools do that step | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > automatically-- they even download the | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > "source" iso (the BEFORE iso) for you. | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > refracta hosts full isos. then they delete the old ones. thats terrible. | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > no archives, no history. | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > so i fixed that by making the whole thing automated. you can just | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > distribute the script instead of the iso. it takes 20 minutes to run, | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > not including download time. if the iso is downloaded it doesnt download | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > it again. you have to delete it if you want it to try to. | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > so you can make 5 or 10 versins of this script, and its like 5 tiny | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > downloads-- all of which work on the same source iso (one big download) | Aug 19 01:05 |
| schestowitz | > -- huge timesaver. much more efficient than downloading isos. | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > a guy from the uk used to run the script (he didnt understand it, he | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > just used it) to make the isos, which he would archive online. that was | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > a bonus-- its not needed, it was for convenience. the script makes a | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > copy of itself onto the iso. he ran it from the wrong folder, so that | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > feature didnt always work. i never got around to fixing that. | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > but he didnt even know how it worked, and still got it to create | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > bootable remastered isos-- automatically. im very proud of that. hes not | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > a coder. hes an archivist. | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > then i had a tool i made (which the remaster tool sort of grew out of) | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > that was like diff but for bootable isos. i wouldnt tell him that i ran | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > it on his iso and mine, and it would md5sum (it could sha256sum too) | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > every file in the big sfs and the other files, looking for differences, | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > and list any. this kept him honest. i trusted him, though it was a | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > matter of "trust but verify" im proud of the iso compare tool. it was | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > written in fig. it wasnt perfect, but it worked well. | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > if i made a few changes, i didnt want to do like fsr and do a big | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > install, then snapshot then test. | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > i wanted to just rm rf the subdirectory, run the script, wait 20 minutes | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > and run the new iso in qemu. thats it. WAY more streamlined than | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > refracta development! of course this has costs. for example, if you | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > wanted to change the config of the included browser. doable-- but fully | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > automated. doing things like that fsrs way was easier. MOST changes | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > however, were nice because once theyre automated, theyre automated. you | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > can worry about something else now. | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > i didnt make this for one family of distros. i wanted to be able to use | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > it for almost any distro-- i wanted that much flexibility. some bootable | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > isos use a single sfs (squashfs) on an iso. you have to mount the iso, | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > mount the sfs, copy the files to a WRITABLE directory (mounted sfs isnt | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > writable, mounted iso isnt either) and then change files and put it all | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > back together with mksquashfs and some iso creation tool. ive used | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > mkisofs, xorriso and one other. the standard 3. cdrecord? no, i think | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > thats mkisofs. whatever. its been a year since ive used it. i could grep | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > it for "iso" right now, but again whatever. you only need one, ive used | Aug 19 01:06 |
| schestowitz | > options. | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > the gist of all this, is that "making a gnu/assholex distro" becomes a | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > matter of giving you a filesystem where any file you can change with a | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > script (bash or python or fig) becomes your domain. sometimes a distro | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > uses one sfs, like most debian-based ones. puppy uses 3, and you can | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > make it work with all of those, but mostly i want the main puppy sfs. | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > also puppy is github mostly, so i wouldnt bother. github was purchased | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > AFTER i created this. bummer. it still works! but interest in puppy is | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > smaller. i also used it on void-- THAT WAS FUN! void uses a file | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > formatted as ext3 (shit you not) in an sfs. so i just made it do both | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > those steps. | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > the point you always get to is one where the automated system as the | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > filesystem laid out, you can change anything you want to (alter configs, | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > delete, add files-- CHROOT IF YOU WANT OR NEED TO but it was DESIGNED to | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > not need chroot! because puppy doesnt always like chroot...) | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > if you want to replace systemd you have no choice. by the time the | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > project was called distro-libre, it would use chroot to make it so | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > debian could remove systemd from the chroot and replace it with sysvinit | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > (for debian) or upstart (for trisquel) -- trisquel is fully free (stupid | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > assholes foisting systemd and calling it freedom-- then quoting lennarts | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > bullshit blog to justify it! why not quote nat friedman to justify using | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > github too? seriously?) so it was nice when upstart made this possible, | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > but its trisquels fault for sticking with ubuntu through all this. | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > (another reason theyre a joke. they dont even have a systemd alternative | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > in the fucking repos!!!!! see why i make fun of them? even debian has a | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > systemd alternative in the repos! fully free as in in bullshit...) | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > so a lot of the options i set out to take advantage of, arent options-- | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > puppy falls to github. void falls to github. trisquel falls fully to | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > systemd. debian falls to nazis. devuan falls to their own cult-- of | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > these, debian is the most salvageable (i do not believe devuan would | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > survive without it anyway). | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > but just the fact that i could make 7 automated remasters from 7 distros | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > with several different base configurations (as a single person) is why i | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > designed it like i did. i wanted a tool for ALL DISTROs-- or the closest | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > thing to it. | Aug 19 01:07 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > what if id used chroot? i did, optionally. for remixing devuan you dont | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > need it-- for remxing debian you might as well, it lets you remove | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > systemd. not as well as devuan does, but devuan does 10x as much work | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > for 1/5 more success. its not a very efficient solution. it IS better, | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > but it has MUCH higher costs. and they delete their old versions too-- | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > which is bullshit. youre not a debian fork if you destroy your history. | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > what if id used bash? i did , where it made sense to. a lot of where i | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > used bash you could easily enough swap other things out-- sometimes the | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > busybox version of sed would crap out, so id just whip up a routine in | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > fig instead of sed. it was easy. the whole thing is done in fig-- ill | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > justify that in a moment. | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > what if id used python? i did-- fig compiles to python 2, it works in | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > pypy so fuck the python foundation and their user blackmail, fuck them | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > right in the ear. fig also has inline python, so if you WANT to add | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > python code JUST ADD SOME. then you can even wrap that so easily in a | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > fig function if you want to, and call it like a native fig routine. | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > but if id used pure python, youd need 5 years of PROFICIENCY in python | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > to hack it. and people would be refractoring it all the time-- just like | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > puppy, instead of worrying about features or usability, theyd be | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > obsessed with making perfect code, not a distro. people have already | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > bitched about puppy devs doing that for years and years now. what a mess. | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > if id used pure bash, same problem-- only it would be unfixable. 2000 | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > lines of bash code? FUCK OFF, already its a project only a few devs will | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > ever be able to hack. (most that can wont want to) | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > fig makes the whole thing more modular, more easily, easier to swap in | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > python where you want (where its the easy way) and still call it like | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > fig code. | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > function calling_fig_function a b callthiswhatever z | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > now "hello" print | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > next | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > now calling_fig_function "parameter" 5 5 "hi" | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > # you can have zero parameters but one is better | Aug 19 01:08 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > mastering fig is ridiculous easy compared to gaining the needed | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > proficiency in python. | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > but even if you havent mastered python you can extend fig in various ways. | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > so once you have enough instructions (1000 - 2000 lines) to do this: | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > download source iso | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > open iso | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > open sfs (plural?) | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > copy sfs contents | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > download other files you want | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > change contents | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > mksquashfs | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > line up files into new iso directory (mostly done from earlier steps) | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > create bootable iso | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > hybridise | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > ^ all automatically, thats going to be one killer bitch of a bash script. | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > I NEVER WOULD HAVE WRITTEN IT! i certainly never would have adopted it. | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > if you use bash, youll constantly be doing annoying things to get around | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > arrays and integers and converting strings and other bullshit-- thats | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > how puppy is created. messy, and the bar for proficiency is higher | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > if you do python, it will constantly be "perfected" in meaningless ways | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > instead of being developed-- and the bar for proficiency is higher | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > if you do it in python 3, youll always be second-guessing every string | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > (read: filename) it has to process. have fun. plus theyll keep breaking | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > python, because theyre assholes. | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > if you do it the way i did, youll get the most done. | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > BUT, im more interested in switching to bsd and removing github stuff. | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > i already have the perfect tool for REMOVING github stuff-- but theres | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > SO MUCH GITHUB STUFF im focused on that. | Aug 19 01:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > oh yes, ive used it to remix tinycore AS WELL. theres even a little | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > routine that creates tinycore packages. but id want to change it so it | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > doesnt need mksquashfs (you guessed it-- github). | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > im familiar with MANY other remaster solutions. ALL of them involve more | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > manual work, are less automated, or 10x more complex and harder to learn | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > how to use. or have more dependencies. | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > but that doesnt mean that someone who was making their own distro would | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > have to do everything the way i did. | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > on the contrary-- if they really wanted to do it THEIR OWN WAY, my way | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > does less to get in their way than anything else that exists. | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > the environment i made it for, youd never know if you were using the | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > bash version (gnu) of a util or busybox. you wouldnt know much-- as i | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > designed it to work on every system i remixed with it. | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > you kind of have to keep it simple and ridiculously flexible to make | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > that possible. | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > so i think the design is an AWESOME place to start, but if you want to | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > make it more difficult, you have all the options in the world. it wont | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > stop you. | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > again, if people want to do this and make it easy on themselves, they | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > dont even have to use my code if they dont want to. the whole thing | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > WORKS, but its also a CONCEPT and design that should help make MANY | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > different things easier. | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > but only if some crazy person WANTS their own distro-- with the least | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > amount of work possible. | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > i would have never had the patience for creating m own distro with the | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > other tools. refractas not bad, but its not automated. its better than | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > most. but you still have to distribute the iso then. | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > thats why i did it like i did. and i wont lie-- if you ever find that-- | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > you know, to have a non-bullshit distro to offer people as a best | Aug 19 01:10 |
| schestowitz | > example of gnu/assholex over something like fuckbuntu or nazian or | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > githuppy or devuanus, something truly techrights worthy that isnt | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > server-only... | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > i realise youre way too busy. but then i also had better things to do, | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > and i wasnt even trying to make a gnu/assholex distro. | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > i was really just working on a demo program for fig. ha ha! | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > assholex will be bsd sooner or later. but this is easier than just | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > waiting for hyperbola. | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > those guys are doing WAY better as far as a long-term solution. | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > i wrote this all in one sitting in a little email dialog, i havent | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > checked it for ANYTHING. forgive typos. cheers. | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > technically speaking: | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > fig is one file-- it needs python 2 or pypy to run. | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > distro-libre is one file-- you edit it and compile it with fig to run it. | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > it does require a few really obvious tools to run, like python and some | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > iso writer (like xorriso) and mksquashfs, unless you do like id like to | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > and remaster tinycore to be based on little compressed ext3 images | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > instead. you also need syslinux installed, or at least the isohybrid | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > binary from syslinux in your path. | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 01:11 |
| schestowitz | > and thats it! | Aug 19 01:11 |
| *rianne__ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Aug 19 03:58 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@host81-154-173-175.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Aug 19 03:58 | |
| *rianne has quit (Client Quit) | Aug 19 03:59 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@host81-154-173-175.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Aug 19 03:59 | |
| *rianne has quit (Client Quit) | Aug 19 04:02 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@host81-154-173-175.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Aug 19 04:02 | |
| *rianne has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Aug 19 04:13 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@host81-154-173-175.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Aug 19 04:14 | |
| *rianne has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | Aug 19 04:15 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@host81-154-173-175.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Aug 19 04:16 | |
| *rianne has quit (Client Quit) | Aug 19 04:18 | |
| *rianne (~rianne@host81-154-173-175.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Aug 19 04:18 | |
| *rianne has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Aug 19 04:25 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-173-175.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Aug 19 04:25 | |
| *acer-box__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection) | Aug 19 06:45 | |
| *acer-box (~acer-box@host81-154-173-175.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Aug 19 06:46 | |
| *acer-box has quit (Changing host) | Aug 19 06:46 | |
| *acer-box (~acer-box@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes | Aug 19 06:46 | |
| *oiaohm has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | Aug 19 09:31 | |
| *oiaohm (~oiaohm@unaffiliated/oiaohm) has joined #techbytes | Aug 19 09:31 | |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > some research. not ready to do article. feel free to use any of this. an | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > article is not currently planned. | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > good stuff here. ONLY copied stuff that is both relevant and | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > interesting, so this is full of gems. enjoy. | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > includes some comments-- it should be pretty clear which ones are | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > comments. there is one parenthetical statement that might not have | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > enough context, but the style should be different enough that you can | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > spot it without trying too hard. | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > https://nanoe.org/nonprofits-fail/ | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > Nonprofits Fail – Here’s Seven Reasons Why | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > Tracy Ebarb Published by Tracy S. Ebarb, CFRE, CNE, CDE, CNC at | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > September 7, 2019 | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > "A few years ago, during his presidential campaign, Dr. Ben Carson made | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > the statement that 90% of nonprofits fail within a few years. While Dr. | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > Carson’s statement was largely hyperbole, it did call to attention the | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > alarming rate of both nonprofit failure and ineffectiveness. The real | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > data from National Center on Charitable Statistics reveals that | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > approximately 30% of nonprofits fail to exist after 10 years" | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > "It is far too common for autocratic and self-focused founders to | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > establish one core value: “do as I say.” These nonprofit heads find it | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > very difficult to transfer authority or to share the limelight and | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > leadership with an empowered team. There is little internal trust, and | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > insufficient values to guard against abuses of power, privilege, and | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > people. It is also an environment in which many unethical and even | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > illegal practices can flourish, and often do. These organizations | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > frequently fail in the first generation, and almost never thrive when | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > the leader with all of the chips finally cashes them in." | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > "There is no ability to adjust programs to match changing situations, | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > culture, or competition and to compete for donations, volunteers, media | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > coverage, or program space." | Aug 19 18:03 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > Common mistakes of failing nonprofits fit into the categories below. | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > Marketing Only to Large Donors and Not Thinking Smaller Donors are Just | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > As Important | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > Small donors are just as important as large donors. Don’t expect donors | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > to maintain or increase the size of their contribution each time they | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > give. Thank every donor in every circumstance they donate no matter how | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > much they give | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > Michael R. Lestico says: | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > May 19, 2020 at 11:37 pm | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > I’m retired now, but I considered doing a non-prof. Glad I didn’t. I | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > would have gone down like the Titanic. Nice job. | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > https://nonprofithub.org/starting-a-nonprofit/a-brief-history-of-nonprofit-organizations/ | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > A Brief History of Nonprofit Organizations (And What We Can Learn) | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > Posted by Hana Muslic | Oct 27, 2017 | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > "A cause many found to be worthwhile was the YMCA. Though the | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > organization had been around for years, in the early 1900s we saw the | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > U.S.’s first significant fundraising campaign come from the minds of | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > Charles Sumner Ward and Frank L. Pierce, two of the YMCA’s most | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > prominent leaders. The two developed a system of fundraising that had | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > never been seen before: | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > setting a time limit on their campaign for constructing a new building | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > in Washington D.C., hiring a publicist to oversee the campaign and | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > seeking paid advertisements from corporate sponsors and celebrities. | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > Their effort became known as the “YMCA School” of fundraising." | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > ^ FSF does this, so does wikipedia | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > 1940s | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > "The takeaway from this time period is looking at how your nonprofit | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > organization can work with other entities to better a cause. Whatever | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > that looks like for you—working with a corporate sponsor, another | Aug 19 18:04 |
| schestowitz | > nonprofit in your community or a for-profit business with a social | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > responsibility angle—your organization could make a lot of progress. By | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > collaborating, you can save costs on things like shared infrastructure | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > and administrative expenses, promote each other’s mission on different | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > platforms and maximize efficiency on getting tasks done. Don’t count out | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > other players when you’re thinking about your next fundraising effort." | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > 1970s | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > "Following the massive paradigm shift brought on by the Civil Rights | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > Movement in the U.S. and the cultural resistance to entering Vietnam in | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > 1965, we saw how Americans began to organize and work together to tackle | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > specific issues with a narrow focus." | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > "In 1976, Congress passed a bill, supported by the Coalition of | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > Concerned Charities, that allowed nonprofits to legally spend up to $1 | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > million per year on lobbying efforts. This gave them greater voice in | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > the government. By 1980, the nonprofit sector was being referred to as | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > the “third sector,” and it was influencing the business world." | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2015/lessons-failed-nonprofit/32491 | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > Lessons from a Failed Nonprofit | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > "The truth is the American nonprofit sector is easy. There isn’t much | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > funding, but there are a lot of nonprofits that don’t need much money to | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > operate. There are a ton of nonprofits that operate on less than $10,000 | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > a year. And, if that is your annual operating budget, you really don’t | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > have to risk much to keep your nonprofit running. The nonprofit sector | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > in America is almost failure-proof. You might not be very effective, but | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > it is very easy for nonprofits to exist in America. Being an | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > entrepreneur in the nonprofit sector is not risky." | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > "Volunteers are great for one-day events. But they become less reliable | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > for week-to-week engagement. Life happens. Relying on volunteers makes | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > your programs and organizational work less consistent and tougher to | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > plan. Accept the love, time and creativity from volunteers, but don’t | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > build a program around it. " | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/off-the-shelf/why-nonprofits-fail-overcoming-founder-s-syndrome-fundphobia-and-other-obstacles-to-success | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > Why Nonprofits Fail: Overcoming Founder's Syndrome, Fundphobia, and | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > Other Obstacles to Success | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > August 10, 2004 | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > Stephen R. Block (San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass, 2004) | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > "The fundamental message of Stephen Block's new book is that executive | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > directors and other nonprofit managers have a responsibility to ensure | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > that their nonprofits operate effectively. He believes that nonprofit | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > organizations have a duty not to fail — which translates into a duty to | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > take calculated risks and try new approaches to problem-solving if more | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > conventional methods have failed." | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > ^ i dont agree that they have a duty not to fail-- mission success could | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > tank the org, org success could tank the mission-- though if they dont | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > want to fail at the mission this sounds like good advice. | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > "Block states that since change is inevitable, the goal of managers is | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > to 'ensure that organizational change occurs for the better.'" | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > "The author stresses in his examples the importance of using | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > "second-order" approaches rather than "first-order" ones. First-order | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > approaches to change do not require a shift in the usual way of thinking | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > about a problem or its solution. They focus on the "why" and may often | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > equate to applying commonsense logic. Second-order approaches, on the | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > other hand, do require a shift in how one interprets a problem and often | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > result in noticeable organizational transformations. They focus on this | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > question: "What is happening here and now that is perpetuating the | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > problem?" Problem solvers using second-order approaches realize that | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > they do not always need to understand the "why" to solve the problem, | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > but may need to initiate change by looking at the current effects of the | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > problem." | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > unfortunately there are not more gems because the "article" ends | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > quickly. i think if it were longer we would have more good stuff. | Aug 19 18:06 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > https://www.philanthropy.com/article/What-Happens-to-Charities-When/183709 | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > February 20, 2003 | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > What Happens to Charities When Foundations Support Trendy Issues -- and | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > Abandon Yesterday's Hot Topics | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > By Jennifer C. Berkshire | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > But while the project's mission is arguably more timely than ever -- the | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > Welfare Reform Advocacy Project estimates that some 30,000 Los Angeles | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > County residents will lose their benefits in the next eight months -- | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > the group has hit an unexpected roadblock: The foundation grants that | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > financed its work since 1996 have suddenly dried up. | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > "We're hearing that this work isn't a priority," says Nancy Berlin, | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > executive director of the Welfare Reform Advocacy Project. "Foundations | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > are telling us that they've shifted to other issues: employment, | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > economic development, and job creation. All of these are very important, | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > but the cutoff of welfare aid here is going to have a huge impact." | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > "open source has won" nat friedman | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > "free software movement is dying but it doesnt matter because it already | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > won" luke smith | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > "The process by which issues and organizations rise in prominence is | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > complex. In the case of welfare and other public-policy issues, | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > legislative changes spurred nonprofit interest, community-based | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > organizing, and charitable giving. In other cases, it's the sheer drama | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > of an issue that causes it to rise to the forefront. The AIDS epidemic | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > that struck in the 1980s became a cause célèbre as Hollywood stars | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > donned red ribbons -- and foundations, along with millions of ordinary | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > citizens, flooded AIDS organizations with donations." | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > "Other trends originate from the current concerns of intellectuals. Take | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > civil society, for example, a concept that rocked the foundation world | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > in the late 1990s, but has since seen its support by grant makers drop. | Aug 19 18:07 |
| schestowitz | > When Harvard professor Robert D. Putnam published an article in the | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > Journal of Democracy in 1995 alleging that Americans were "bowling | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > alone," meaning that they had become increasingly disconnected from | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > family, friends, neighbors and democratic structures, his writing found | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > a large -- and sympathetic -- audience." | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > Meanwhile, she says, few grant makers followed the scholarly debate | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > triggered by Mr. Putnam's research, namely that he had overemphasized | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > national trends and failed to take into account the importance of civic | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > organization at the community level. "That dialogue and debate never got | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > factored into the foundation decision-making process," says Ms. | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > Ostrander. "The foundations were off and running." | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > Fast forward into the current grant-making cycle, and civil society has | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > lost much of its trendy luster. For organizations that benefited from | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > the trend, says Ms. Fellner, that's a tough break. "Money for affecting | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > social change is very scarce, so groups often tended to frame their work | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > in ways that dovetail with the current trend, in this case civil | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > society," she says. "Then the next year, the foundation decides that | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > they'd rather fund campaign-finance reform or sustainable growth. And | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > the organization they previously funded finds itself off its real | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > priorities, and with staff for which there is no money." | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > -> Ms. Ostrander draws another lesson from the experience: that | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > trendiness and charitable giving are at some level incompatible. "It's | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > deeply problematic that trends emerge and disappear," she says. | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > "Particularly when foundations want to address the root causes of the | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > most pressing issues of our time, | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > "even organizations that are able to adapt to the latest lingo often | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > find themselves shifting course, or departing from their stated missions | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > altogether to stay afloat financially." | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > (and when they have problems, just like with big gambling debts they | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > then turn to shady deals to try to fix the trouble-- or bad corporate | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > donors, eh?) | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:08 |
| schestowitz | > "Foundations have egos and that's a problem," says Peter Dreier, | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > director of the Urban and Environmental Policy Program at Occidental | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > College, in Los Angeles. "The instinct is often to do something | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > different, something no one else is doing. There are plenty of groups | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > out there doing a good job that need more money, but the instinct is to | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > start from scratch." | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > "The difficulty is that foundations are an imperfect source of | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > financing," says Ms. Dyer. "Groups have to spend an inordinate amount of | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > time chasing money with all sorts of strings attached, and they don't | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > have a legitimate source of funding for their core operating expenses." | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > Where foundations really contribute, she says, is at the level of | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > research and development. "Some of the best foundations help us to see | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > the world differently," she says. "They cast the lens in such a way that | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > we can step back and say, 'What are the issues we really care about?' | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > ^ theyre not doing that anymore. | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > https://nonprofitquarterly.org/10-ways-to-kill-your-nonprofit/ | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > 10 Ways to Kill Your Nonprofit | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > Mark Hager and Elizabeth Searing | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > January 6, 2015 | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > "there’s no shortage of ways to run your organization into the ground. | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > Below is just our top ten." | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > 3. Poison the revenue mix. | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > "Starvation is one thing but an unbalanced mix of resources is another. | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > The right balance of appropriate revenue streams will nourish a | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > nonprofit, but both concentration on one revenue source and overreliance | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > on too many can be damaging, if not fatal." | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > "Greenlee have argued that diversification can help ward off financial | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > calamity by spreading out the risk to any one income source.3 This helps | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > to avoid what others have called the “panda problem,” where the | Aug 19 18:09 |
| schestowitz | > environment for a particular type of specialized nourishment becomes | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > hostile (such as sequestration and government grants), endangering the | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > survival of the individual and the species." | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > "You might not be able to get your nonprofit to overconcentrate on one | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > revenue source, but you may be able to get it to spread itself too thin | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > by overdiversifying. First, the infrastructure needed to maintain | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > pipelines for a bundle of income types—such as fundraising for private | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > donations, locating and applying for grants, and handling the | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > documentation requirements of government grants and contracts—can be | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > overwhelming. Second, not all income types will be a good match for your | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > mission: thrift shops may be all the rage, but they might not be in line | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > with the mission of your Riverkeeper chapter. The genius here is that | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > you look good by cultivating new ways of raising money for your | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > nonprofit, whether or not it is ready to take on the burden of managing | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > that income stream. People won’t realize any damage this has done until | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > it is too late." | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > "4. Dehumanize your donors. | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > Imagine for a moment that you have only one donor contributing to your | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > operations. Maybe in the early days of your nonprofit this was more or | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > less the case. That person cared about and bought into what you were | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > trying to do, and you did all you could to keep that donor informed and | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > engaged. You knew that the donor liked coffee but not donuts. You knew | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > that his daughter was in law school, and that he had recently become a | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > grandfather. But you don’t have just one donor—and if you once did, | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > those days are long gone. Now you have many donors to keep track of. | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > That provides opportunity to capsize the whole operation." | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > "To be sure, a boatload of donors can be important in keeping your | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > nonprofit afloat. However, understanding and meeting the needs of a | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > thousand donors is dauntingly different from coffee and cash-flow | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > conversation with just one. Your nonprofit will drift toward | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > understanding less and less about each donor and treating each one like | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > just another mark on the big development tote board." | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > the fsf doesnt listen. | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > "Treat your donors like cogs, and they will abandon ship in no time." | Aug 19 18:10 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > "Adrian Sargeant and Jen Shang’s textbook on fundraising notes that one | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > big reason donors stop giving is because they perceive other nonprofits | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > as equally or more deserving.4 Fundraising practices and strategy have a | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > lot to do with this. When donors move slowly and subtly from deeply | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > interested and engaged to distant and detached, your nonprofit will | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > spend more and more time trying to replace those contributors as they | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > lapse and move on. Fundraising costs will gradually displace spending on | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > programs, and your nonprofit will slowly grind to a halt. Mission | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > accomplished." | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > "Joseph Galaskiewicz and Wolfgang Bielefeld came at this in an | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > interesting way in their study of Minnesota nonprofits.7 They wanted to | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > measure how embedded a nonprofit was in the local community, but they | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > didn’t think it would be useful to ask the nonprofits directly. So they | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > asked other people about the nonprofit. First, they asked local elites | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > (well-known professionals about town) the extent to which a given | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > nonprofit provided essential or outstanding services. Second, they asked | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > other local nonprofits the extent to which they exchanged resources or | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > information with the nonprofit in question. As it turns out, the | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > nonprofits with the stronger reputations and network ties were the ones | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > that survived and grew over time." | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > 7. Stain your reputation. | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > One of the greatest assets a nonprofit has is its reputation. It can | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > take many years to build a sterling reputation and only a few minutes to | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > ruin it. So your reputation can play strongly in your favor if you want | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > to kill your nonprofit. | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > Nonprofits get some elements of legitimacy just by being | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > nonprofits—people trust most nonprofits more than they trust most | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > businesses. However, frequent scandals and sector fraudsters have eroded | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > much of the inherent trust that nonprofits have enjoyed for so long. | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > Thus, individual organizations have to build their name through | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > painstaking quality and careful communication with clients, donors, and | Aug 19 18:11 |
| schestowitz | > other constituents. Once built, reputation can take an organization a | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > long way. People will want to give you money, other organizations will | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > want to partner with you, volunteers will want to spend time helping | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > you, and qualified staff will want to work for you. | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > The quickest way to ruin your reputation is to induce a scandal, maybe | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > by implicating your executive director in some illicit ring. But we | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > understand that not everyone can spawn a scandal. Thomas Jeavons has | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > suggested another method for eroding the reputation of a nonprofit: | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > internal sabotage.8 | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > 8. Underinvest in infrastructure to support volunteers. | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > This one can be really crippling, and many nonprofits take their | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > operations down a notch or two this way—if not all the way to the grave. | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > It could be that volunteers really just aren’t that important to the | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > work that you do. Or—and here’s the real trick—they are important, but | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > you act like they aren’t. The truth is, volunteers are vital to the | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > operations of many nonprofits. | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > With poor screening and task matching come volunteers who get frustrated | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > working in jobs that don’t really interest them. Without trained | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > supervision by engaged staff, volunteers are disconnected from vital | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > programs. When recognition is not tailored to the expectations of | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > volunteers with diverse motivations and life histories, they can feel | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > unwanted. | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > There’s a nonprofit maxim that says, “Volunteers are not free.” To take | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > your nonprofit down, all you have to do is foster the idea among your | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > colleagues that volunteers actually are free. It’s easy! Volunteers | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > don’t have to be paid, so what do they need, really? | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > "The smart nonprofit will have one ear to the ground and focus on | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > community needs. The nonprofit with the death wish will look only to | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > requests for proposals and chase dollars into a competitive resource niche." | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > the fsf doesnt listen. | Aug 19 18:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:13 |
| schestowitz | > 10. Think that “good” is good enough. | Aug 19 18:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:13 |
| schestowitz | > or mediocre is good enough. | Aug 19 18:13 |
| schestowitz | The term nonprofit is itself bullishit for a lot of reasons we can write about. It's a loaded statement or label like "commercial software". | Aug 19 18:13 |
| schestowitz | > Hi Roy, | Aug 19 18:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:13 |
| schestowitz | > Many participants are calling for the UPC to continue, at the European | Aug 19 18:13 |
| schestowitz | > Commission public consultation on "IP action plan". | Aug 19 18:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:13 |
| schestowitz | > https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12510-Intellectual-property-action-plan | Aug 19 18:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:13 |
| schestowitz | > Ericsson even went that far to say that the German Presidency should | Aug 19 18:13 |
| schestowitz | > issue a "patch" in order to quickly fix the UPC by the end of the | Aug 19 18:13 |
| schestowitz | > year. | Aug 19 18:13 |
| schestowitz | > | Aug 19 18:13 |
| schestowitz | > I have tweeted about all those contributions. | Aug 19 18:13 |
| schestowitz | If they are only tweets, it's impossible for me to see or cite. I will use your press release. | Aug 19 18:13 |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) | Aug 19 21:11 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) | Aug 19 21:11 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-173-175.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Aug 19 21:16 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-173-175.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes | Aug 19 21:18 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!