-
Leah Rowe is a woman, and she recommends Vim. Her .vimrc is on vimuser.org.
What?
-
She’s referring to RMS’s “EMACS virgins” joke. At a conference, RMS said “EMACS virgins are women who have never used EMACS, and it’s our duty to relieve them of their virginity.” It was a stupid and unprofessional thing for him to say, especially on stage in an official capacity at a conference (especially as he singled out “women”).
So I think her comment is saying that she’s “a woman” and she “recommends Vim” (instead of EMACS).
-
-
An interesting thing to note is that the message on Libreboot’s website has now changed, stating:
It took the GNU project 4 months to finally honour Libreboot’s decisions, but on 5 January 2017, RMS formally acknowledged it - his reasoning is flawed. They should have immediately honoured Libreboot’s decision to leave GNU, but instead they arrogantly resisted it for months, and the only reason they gave up was because they realized that all of Libreboot’s core developers were OK with leaving GNU and still preferred to work with Leah Rowe.
Sounds like there was additional motivation behind RMS’s decision to let Libreboot go.
-
They should have immediately honoured Libreboot’s decision to leave GNU, but instead they arrogantly resisted it for months, and the only reason they gave up was because they realized that all of Libreboot’s core developers were OK with leaving GNU and still preferred to work with Leah Rowe.
The website is (controversially) maintained by Leah Rowe right? I find the 3rd person writing very odd.
-
Something I’ve noticed with a larger portion of free software advocates (definetly not all of them) is that they reject the idea that a piece of software belongs to its maintainer or author in any way. I guess that’s why RMS refused to let libreboot go and thought GNU could just maintain its own fork.
-
I definitely understand your point there, but if we follow that ideology, then the project would just as much not belong to GNU as it would not belong to the maintainer. This would mean neither party would have any say in what this software is and isn’t a part of, which would make disputes like this even more contested. I am not a GNU maintainer, nor do I know personally any of Libreboot’s maintainers, so I have no knowledge of what paperwork they signed. But from an ideological stand point, I don’t see this line of thought meshing with GNU’s actions.
-
I don’t think GNU doubted that libreboot could be forked from the GNU tree and that its maintainer can leave. I guess they find it acceptable to have two libreboot forks under the same name (or rather: “GNU libreboot” vs “libreboot”).
I feel like this debate (and /u/mjn’s comments) is indicative of that mindset. I don’t share it anyway.
-
-
-
What happened to the good old days of writing a shell script to redeploy the website? I use a static site generator, but I just have a script “redeploy.sh” that rebuilds the site and rsyncs it to the server.
Why does docker become part of a static site setup?
Because just using a shell script isn’t what they teach you in Overengineering 101 at the University of Silicon Valley. They’re about tech transfer and new jobs continuing in that area with the kind of talent and thinking they’ve come to expect. It’s like you just want all the VC’s who they tipped off about a Docker-powered future to not see the returns they deserve.
You’re just not going to get funding thinking like that. The ex-founders of Docker alternatives at the local Starbucks might not even serve you coffee if they read that on their breaks.