Threads for jkachmar

  1. 1

    Is it possible to cross-compile and package for windows on a linux machine?

    1. 8

      I belive that this article will interest more people: https://www.fsf.org/news/statement-of-fsf-board-on-election-of-richard-stallman

      The thing with a statement like this is that I’m afraid it won’t change anyone. I see it as a reafirmatiom of RMS honesty, others won’t. I wish the conversations around these topic would become more “civilised” (for lack of a better word), so that some concensus can be reached.

      That being said, I wonder what influence the open letter and the support letter had on all of this. It seems the letter of support has currently twice as many signatures as the one criticising RMS, which is supprising. Then again, I was also amused to be reminded of how small the actual community of people who actually care about these things (pro or contra) are.

      1. 37

        It seems the letter of support has currently twice as many signatures as the one criticising RMS, which is surprising.

        As a signer of the original letter, the signatures in the original letter matter a lot more than the counterletter.

        The counterletter was drafted in 4chan /g/ (I saw the thread where people were drafting it) and heavily promoted in the Eastern Bloc at first. It was posted in several Russian-speaking link aggregation sites as well as 4chan itself. Sure, it has more numbers… by a bunch of people who are not writing the free software we are using. In the original letter I see people who wrote the software I’m using, people I have collaborated in bugs with, people I have met at Debconf and Pycon. I see organisations that make free software. In the counterletter I see some personalities like esr and a lot of angry Russians who are upset that someone is telling them that women are having a bad time in free software.

        A few of the signers of the counterletter managed to get some troll signatures, in Russian and 4chan references, into the original letter. They were trying to prove that this meant that there were no safeguards in the original letter and were arguing that by forcing github usernames, their signatures were more valid. Whenever I discovered these troll signatures using my limited Russian, I pointed them out and they were removed. So there were some quality checks.

        Number of signatories doesn’t mean anything. The original letter even stopped accepting signatures while the counterletter kept accepting them. It’s quite easy to get a lot of people in favour of any cause if you frame that cause as being some version of “free speech”, regardless of the speech being said and regardless of all of the people RMS has alienated from free software, especially women.

        1. 16

          heavily promoted in the Eastern Bloc at first

          I am very troubled by this. Why are opinions of free software developers in the Eastern Bloc (or Asia, for that matter) any less valid? Blend2D (a random example) is a great free software, isn’t it? Speaking as an Asian. Thanks.

          1. 6

            I’ve explained this elsewhere, but judging from comments they have made in Habr and presumably 4chan, their motivations are linked to anti-women, anti-LGBT initiatives common in Russia and other Slavic countries. They tend to frame kindness initiatives that do not directly benefit men as some sort of Western degeneracy. This is why their opinions on why Stallman should be head of the FSF matter less.

            Also, Stallman just hasn’t toured Russia that much; most of them have probably never had to deal with him much or work with him. They don’t know him like we do.

          2. 9

            The way I see it, both the people around the open letter and the support letter can be divided into two respective groups. The open letter have those honestly concerned about the negative influence of Stallman on the perception of the FSF/Free Software in general, just like there are those who are honestly concerned about the integrity of the FSF/Free Software when it comes to preserving user freedoms. The second groups are respectively those who are interested in undermining Free Software and those invested in Culture-War issues issues regarding Free Speech, as you mention. The interesting thing is that both “sincere” sides will probably overestimate and focus on the latter groups. An issue structured like this will naturally lead to a cultural deadlock.

            What I wonder is why you think that the open letter is in itself more legitimate than the support letter, because you recognize more developers you know. To some degree it should be expected that people you agree with will more likely be on the same side of the issue. Ultimately it would seem to me that considering that Free Software and user freedom isn’t something that should just interest developers, but users too, even if they don’t have great reputations or have met friends at conferences.

            Either way, because of the deadlock and the arguing about “numbers vs. legitimateness”, I don’t think that these two sides will agree on anything. It is but another trench in this virtual conflict. All I can do is wonder if this influenced the FSF in any meaningful way.

            1. 26

              The original letter are people writing free software. I don’t know what the counterletter people are doing, but they’re not, for the most part, working on GNU, Debian, openSUSE, gcc, nor are they FSF members or employees or hardly anything of the sort.

              This matters.

              Btw: I don’t think anyone is interested in undermining free software. This is a conspiracy theory promoted by the counterletter authors and supporters, that somehow if we don’t want Stallman it must mean that we want to be serfs to FAMANG.

              I support free software. I don’t have to support Stallman to do so.

              1. 14

                Setting aside that there are Free Software contributors that sign the support letter,

                • Andrea Corallo (GCC developer, Emacs developer)
                • Eli Zaretskii (GNU Emacs maintainer)
                • Leah Rowe (Libreboot Project Leader)

                to name a few I recognize, next to members of the same projects you mention – I repeat my question: Why does it matter?

                1. 9

                  Yes, there are some. If we go by “voting members” of the free software world, so to speak, there are way more in the original letter than the counterletter.

                  No orgs have signed the counterletter either.

                  1. 7

                    Again, why does this matter?

                    1. 26

                      Demonstrably it didn’t. Neither letter mattered. The FSF did whatever it wanted.

                      But for me it mattered. It showed that there is a clear consensus of people I want to work with. We agree on who we no longer want to be in charge or be a philosophical beacon for us.

                      1. 11

                        I think the open letter mattered a lot by starting the discussion and making it clear that a lot of people have a problem that he rejoined the board.

                        The support letter shows that a lot of his followers have no problem about any of his opinions or thoughts as long as he did a lot of great work.

                        1. 5

                          Demonstrably it didn’t. Neither letter mattered. The FSF did whatever it wanted.

                          That is what I was wondering. Did the surprising outcome of the support letter help the FSF make their decision? The reason I use the word “surprising” is that in most cases, the “right” and “wrong” sides of these discussions are quickly established, the insinuation of a majority is made on various social media platforms and the change is pushed through (such as with Stallman in 2019 or with the Linux Kernel before). I actually expected the support letter to have far less traction, whether because the position is less popular of because it is more risky to voice support for that side. The previous chapter of the controversy had the “Joint Statement” to state opposition to Stallman. The other side didn’t have anything of that sort.

                          Ultimately this is all speculate and doesn’t amount to anything, but it is an interesting shift (or problematic tendency, depending on your interpretations).

                          1. 17

                            it is more risky to voice support for that side

                            There is no greater risk to signing the counterletter. This is another conspiracy theory pushed by the counterletter, that there is a great cabal of worldwide cancellists who will harm you if you publicly support Stallman. That you need to have great bravery to sign the counterletter.

                            I have no hard numbers, but I believe in actuality the signers of the original letter have received more abusive emails. I got a lot when I signed the GNU joint statement asking for RMS to be removed from leadership in 2019. I’m actually really afraid about having signed the original letter. I am afraid someone will get very angry and try to track me down to my home or something like that. Well, I am not sure how likely this could be, but there’s a lot more undirected anger in the counterletter than the original letter, aimed at a vague and nebulous “cancel culture”. The original letter’s anger is more focussed on a single individual who has been holding back free software for decades.

                            1. 14

                              Not a conspiracy theory at all. I may not be hired for choosing to sign the pro-RMS letter:

                              https://twitter.com/jhulten/status/1376360925809106951

                              A tool to “block” signers of the pro-RMS letter: https://github.com/travisbrown/octocrabby

                              There’s even a browser extension to highlight signers, anywhere we show up.

                              But sure, go on. “Cancel culture” doesn’t exist!

                              1. 13

                                You’re afraid of not being hired by… some dude. I’m afraid of someone showing up in my home and trying to harm me. How many angry and threatening emails have you gotten? I got about about five in 2019.

                                I’m also a little afraid of not being hired by some people for having signed the letter; similar compilations exist for those who signed the original letter.

                                1. 4

                                  Yes, cancel culture does exist.

                                  However most tech companies are not bigoted enough to respect these “cancel” lists, and I’ve never seen sufficient evidence to the contrary. As to the ones who are, you would not want to work with them anyway.

                                  Also, I predict that the future will be less woke.

                                  1. 9

                                    “Cancel culture” always existed, in the sense that there were entities with the power to arbitrarily take away your reputation, your livelihood, even your basic rights. Historically those entities have been major institutions such as governments and large corporations, and they have done so as a reaction against increasing liberalism.

                                    Unsurprisingly, most of the people who now loathe and decry and bemoan “cancel culture” come down on the conservative/reactionary side and are primarily reacting to the democratization (or threat thereof) of the ability to inflict consequences based on someone’s speech, actions, associations, etc. which has been brought about by technology. When I was young, you needed a major media organization (or two or three) behind you to really “cancel” someone effectively. Now you just need a Twitter account and for what you say to catch on with enough other people. To people who were used to being the only ones wielding this power, it likely feels terrifying and so they want to treat it as a new thing. But it is simply the thing they always did, now made available to many others via technology’s ability to amplify voices, improve coordination, etc.

                                    As to your last point, it’s worth noting that while the traditional predictor of someone’s politics (on a generic liberal <-> conservative spectrum) has been their age, it appears that is now changing and the most reliable predictors are becoming things like education level (higher education -> overwhelming more liberal tendency) and race/ethnicity (“white”/European-descended -> overwhelming more conservative tendency). So you might want to recalibrate the confidence of your prediction, especially based on a claim that measures within a young and still-developing generational cohort many of whom have not yet attended university.

                                    1. 4

                                      The preference of one or more organizations to avoid associating with people who publicly support someone with a behavioral track record like Stallman’s is not bigoted.

                                      To describe it as such feels dishonest, and ignores the fact that people have legitimate concerns over how likely it is for someone who explicitly supports Stallman’s viewpoints to work in the kinds of inclusive and diverse environments that modern companies and communities seek to cultivate.


                                      As for your prediction, I don’t think it’s very likely that the future will be less “woke”; the tweet you reference appears to be from a group that’s quite politically conservative if you go by the recent content on their timeline, so there’s quite a bit of potential for bias there.

                                      In my experience, the tech communities that seem to be growing the most rapidly seem to focus heavily on the mind of inclusivity that I associate with “woke culture” (e.g, JavaScript and Rust).

                                      By comparison, communities that try to stay “apolitical” (in their own words, not mine) seem to attract more abrasive and disruptive contributors who do nothing to help their relevance.

                                      1. 10

                                        Painting over 6000 people as being automatically opposed in some form to inclusivity, just because they stand against the witch hunt of RMS, and then seeking to “cancel” them is the very definition of bigotry (”intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself”). It is also disingenuous to suggest that any organizations doing the cancellation is doing it only as a “preference”, as if there is no political / mob pressure behind the scenes.

                                        As for your allusion to a group being (according to you) politically conservative, that only seems to be a discrediting tactic used so as to avoid having to address the central point (the statistics quoted in the tweet).

                                        1. 9

                                          It is not a witch hunt. He’s not a witch. He’s a guy who has demonstrably harmed free software in many ways. He was a terrible boss at the FSF (for example, refused to give raises because his logic is that wages would then increase without bound, bankrupting the FSF), he has creeped out many women, he has yelled and lost his temper at the very people who are trying to support his cause, he has defended zoophilia, pedophilia, and necrophilia, his main activism is ineffective language nitpicking and advocating technological abnegation.

                                          Not wanting him in charge is not the same as wanting him burned at the stake.

                                          And please don’t make me come up with links for all of these things. It’s really tiring to have to be an archivist for all of these things. Look them up yourself and if you can’t find them, then I’ll try to help.

                                  2. 2

                                    I thought about what happens if I would sign the open letter a bit and since a few days I get spam about GNU and Linux related topics which are oddly or very close related to RMS. One mail even had the fake sender address of Adolf H. (Yes, the one you think)

                                    1. 5

                                      Daniel Pocock has been spamming people on both lists lately. The guy is a figure.

                                      1. 3

                                        FWIW I have been receiving the same messages.

                                        1. 2

                                          Oh? Are people mass-emailing the counterletter signers with angry notes? What have you gotten?

                                          I seem to be flying under the radar this time, but I attracted a lot of anger in 2019.

                                          1. 1

                                            The RMS open letter, not the support one AFAIK.

                                  3. 4

                                    It took me a good night’s sleep to realize that you’re still evading my question. So I’ll rephrase it one more: Why should it matter? Why do the voices of software users who see Stallman as someone who defends their Freedoms matter less than those of (some) developers.

                                    1. 13

                                      Oh, that’s what you were asking:

                                      They matter less because they haven’t actually directly dealt with him. They haven’t worked on software he has tried to have a voice in, they haven’t seen him at conferences, they haven’t had him directly yell at them.

                                      They don’t know him. So their opinions of him are less well-founded.

                              2. 7

                                More names here:

                                https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_002

                                I count 20 people seconding one of “Support Stallman’s reinstatement, as in rms-support-letter.github.io” and “Denounce the witch-hunt against RMS and the FSF” proposals,

                                1. Adrian Bunk [bunk@debian.org] [mail]
                                2. Norbert Preining [preining@debian.org] [mail]
                                3. Jonas Smedegaard [js@debian.org] [mail]
                                4. Ying-Chun Liu [paulliu@debian.org] [mail]
                                5. Barak A. Pearlmutter [bap@debian.org] [mail]
                                6. Adam Borowski [kilobyte@debian.org] [mail]
                                7. Micha Lenk [micha@debian.org] [mail]
                                8. Michael Biebl [biebl@debian.org] [mail]
                                9. Bart Martens [bartm@debian.org] [mail] [confirm]
                                10. Jonas Smedegaard [js@debian.org] [mail] [confirm] [confirm] [confirm]
                                11. Pierre-Elliott Bécue [peb@debian.org] [mail]
                                12. Daniel Lenharo [lenharo@debian.org] [mail]
                                13. Milan Kupcevic [milan@debian.org] [mail] [confirm]
                                14. Michael Biebl [biebl@debian.org] [mail] [confirm]
                                15. Axel Beckert [abe@debian.org] [mail]
                                16. Gilles Filippini [pini@debian.org] [mail] [confirm]
                                17. Filippo Rusconi [lopippo@debian.org] [mail]
                                18. Shengjing Zhu [zhsj@debian.org] [mail]
                                19. Matteo F. Vescovi [mfv@debian.org] [mail] [confirm]
                                20. Mathias Behrle [mbehrle@debian.org] [mail]
                                1. 12

                                  These aren’t votes yet. These are seconds, for various of the proposals, both for and against and various shades in between. This is how Debian does resolutions. The votes will be finalised by Saturday.

                                  1. 8

                                    both for and against and various shades in between.

                                    The 20 Debian folks I included however were all for (not against) supporting Stallman. I only included it (and this is only from Debian) because you wrote “the counterletter people are [….] not, for the most part, working on GNU, Debian, openSUSE, gcc,”.

                                    1. 11

                                      That’s not entirely how that works; they’ve seconded the resolutions to appear on the ballot, not voted for them specifically. Seconding it just means they think it should appear as an option, not that they agree with it.

                        2. 8

                          It seems the letter of support has currently twice as many signatures as the one criticising RMS, which is supprising.

                          RMS has a very religious almost cult following. So no surprise there. Also the RMS open letter GitHub repo stopped accepting signatures on April 1st. The support one still accepts signatures to this date.

                          I did a very quick look at the signers of the RMS support letter, looked at a very small amount of accounts closer and there where a couple of things that stood out and seemed fishy:

                          • lots of Russian sounding names
                          • some of them where newly created (for example 31. March), had their first PR against the repository or had very little activity the last year

                          This could be coincidence or people created their account because of this letter but it could also mean that people created new account or used other means to inflate the numbers.

                          1. 21

                            lots of Russian sounding names

                            As someone of Slavic descent, I would be very interested in what you mean to imply by this point.

                            1. 16

                              Russia has a well-documented state-sponsored homophobia. The recent Russian bill to ban gay marriage, even foreign-made gay marriage, had over 70% support in the polls. These attitudes trickle down and they’re popular with the general Russophone population, not just with the governments. A widespread belief in Slavic countries is that gay acceptance is some Western-induced degeneracy that didn’t really exist in Soviet times, along with some kind of desire to go back to the good ol’ days when LGBT people didn’t “exist”.

                              Thus, a letter that is perceived to defend someone (RMS) who has been attacked by the LGBT community will be popular in Russia and surrounding countries. The discourse in 4chan framed the counterletter as being explicitly drafted to give trans people a kick in the head. They consistently used transphobic slurs to refer to me and other signatories of the original letter.

                              1. 16

                                This is such a wild take. Heck, you could’ve said something like “they’re Russian bots” and that would be somewhat acceptable. You didn’t stop to consider that they could’ve had other motivations (so many better ones!) for having signed it? This is a very bad generalization of the Russian populace, akin to calling all Americans gun-touting redneck hillbillies.

                                The real reason for most of the Russian signatures was the letter being shared on some Russian link-aggregator site(s).

                                1. 8

                                  No, they’re not bots, they’re real. And talking to them in the github issues of the counterletter, they are very angry about women and minorities being promoted. This seems to be a strong implicit reason for their alignment with the defense of Stallman. They want to defend their freedom of speech to be awful to women and minorities because being nice is censorship.

                                  Of course I generalised, because we have voting numbers. At least 70% of the Russian population is homophobic.

                                  1. 5

                                    At least 70% of the Russian population is homophobic.

                                    I’d really like to see what are your sources for this claim.

                                    1. 15

                                      I gave you the source: the voting numbers of the Russian bill passed yesterday to ban gay marriage. It had widespread support. These are not deeply-hidden facts that are difficult to find.

                                      But here, there’s plenty more sources:

                                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia#Public_opinion_2

                                      If anything, I was giving Russians the benefit of the doubt with 70% It seems closer to 80%.

                                2. 7

                                  Flagged as troll for being racist against Russians.

                                  1. 10

                                    Russian homophobia is well-documented and is a very harmful problem that is killing people in Russia. Recognising problems in Russian society is uncomfortable, but I don’t think it’s racist.

                                    1. 7

                                      Here’s how I understand your reasoning:

                                      • Russian government is homophobic and polls show that many russian citizens also are (that is true)
                                      • Many people who supported the counter-letter are from Russia (also true)
                                      • Therefore they support RMS because they are homophobic.

                                      You can tell me to go find it myself. But, it’s you making claims. When I’m making a claim, I’m ready to bear the burden of proof, or I say that it’s just my opinion that may be too far-fetched or entirely untrue. You present your statements as facts but are unwilling to present any proofs, and I don’t think it makes you look more trustworthy, even if your statements are true.

                                      1. 5

                                        The last claim comes as an inference and from statements I have seen in 4chan and Habr, in English and Russian. 4chan quite openly frames support for the counterletter as a homophobic and transphobic cause. It’s more subtle in the Habr comments, but it does happen there too.

                                        It’s more difficult to find it in Habr because my Russian is rudimentary but if you’d like, I can do that too, in case your own Russian isn’t good enough.

                                3. 2

                                  Just something I have noticed. I don’t know if FSF normally reaches those countries and if it is suspicious or not.

                                4. 4

                                  lots of Russian sounding names

                                  From what I heard, the support letter was shared around Russian HN-likes, which explains that aspect.

                                  1. 2

                                    Do you know if those sites tried to push people to sign the letter?

                                    1. 9

                                      Yes, it was posted to Habr:

                                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habr

                                      I can’t find the original post, but they coordinated attacks on the original letter from Habr, for example:

                                      https://habr.com/en/post/549276/

                                      1. 9

                                        Are you implying that anti-RMS people “sign open letters”, while pro-RMS people “coordinate attacks” when they do exactly the same thing? ;)

                                        1. 5

                                          These are the same sort of people who are trying to directly harm Molly de Blanc, getting her arrested or swatted. I won’t link to that attack, but there is a lot of anger and implied violence against the original letter. This thing posted to Habr is the same sort of angry violence, trying to get legal authorities involved.

                                          It’s not exactly the same thing, it’s not both sides. I am not calling for Stallman to be arrested or harmed. I just don’t want him leading the FSF or GNU.

                                          1. 7

                                            You are accusing people of coordinating an attack and giving a link to something that clearly isn’t that (not a thread where an attack coordination took place). Then you say you won’t give a real link. Why should I believe you?

                                            The post you linked to doesn’t call for violence towards anyone, either. Also, “calls for violence” and “calls for authorities to get involved” are kinda mutually exclusive things.

                                            1. 7

                                              It’s not hard to find the Molly de Blanc attack page. Look for it yourself.

                                              Also, “calls for violence” and “calls for authorities to get involved” are kinda mutually exclusive things.

                                              Not in the US. Swatting has gotten people killed. Swatters hope people will get killed. This is an unfortunate by-product of militarisation of the US police force: calling cops on someone can be a death sentence.

                                              1. 4

                                                All respect due, that post isn’t calling for swatting. It’s calling for the removal of the issue from GitHub!

                                                1. 3

                                                  I’m talking about the attack site on Molly de Blanc that I don’t want to link.

                                                  But incorrectly citing laws on Github is a similar sort of aggression, driven by similar rage. You’re right it won’t lead to a swatting but I have seen the same group endorse both kinds of actions.

                                          2. 3

                                            I mean, they are literally trying to coordinate to have the original letter removed. That’s different to signing an open letter, isn’t it?

                                            1. 6

                                              It’s a copy of the deleted issue that someone posted there after the fact, and it received a whole three comments (all general remarks about the situation, no specific action proposals). Since that post clearly is not about coordinating an attack, I assumed JordiGH is referring to something else—most likely the rms-support-letter itself.

                                          3. 1

                                            The issue reads like some spam I get daily 😀

                                      2. 4

                                        Who cares where they’re from? What matters is whether they’re just random names, or if they’re actively involved in the business of the FSF (and, therefore, are more likely to know what they’re talking about).

                                      3. 2

                                        It seems the letter of support has currently twice as many signatures as the one criticising RMS, which is supprising.

                                        I don’t know. It seems to me that pretty much nobody knows who RMS is, and a significant portion of those who do don’t care about him. So it makes sense that the ones who bother to do something about it are the ones who support him.