1. 1

    This is, essentially, my primary use case for thefuck. I don’t think I’d like it to fire automatically, though.

    1. 1

      If the correction is ambiguous it aborts. Using it for years and never completed anything wrong.

    1. 3

      Why can’t people leave a version control system alone to do its version control thing only?

      1. 1

        because it is easier to create well integrated and use friendly software like this :)

      1. 2

        When do all their mirrors support https? Downloading something over http or even ftp does not feel like 2021.

        1. 12

          If they do this right (signed packages and so on), then https will only help with privacy. Which is important for sure, but leaking which packages you download is less horrible than leaking the contents of your conversations, or even just who you’ve been in contact with lately.

          1. -1

            HTTPS is more than just privacy. It also prevents JavaScript injection via ISPs, or any other MITM.

            1. 21

              It does that for web pages, not for packages. Packages are signed by the distro’s keys, so if anyone were to mess with your packages as you download them, your package manager would notice and prevent you from installing the package. The only real advantage to HTTPS for package distribution is that it helps conceal which packages you download (though even then, I get an attacker could get a pretty good idea just by seeing which server you’re downloading from and how many bytes you’re downloading).

              1. 1

                It does that for web pages, not for packages

                Indeed, however ISOs, USB installers, etc. can still downloaded from the web site.

                Packages are signed by the distro’s keys, so if anyone were to mess with your packages as you download them, your package manager would notice and prevent you from installing the package.

                Yes, I’m familiar with cryptographic signatures.

                1. 9

                  Indeed, however ISOs, USB installers, etc. can still downloaded from the web site.

                  Yes. The Debian website uses HTTPS, and it looks like the images are distributed using HTTPS too. I thought we were talking bout distributing packages using HTTP vs HTTPS. If your only point is that the ISOs should be distributed over HTTPS then of course I agree, and the Debian project seems to as well.

                  1. 0

                    No, the point is that there is no need for HTTP when HTTPS is available. Regardless of traffic, all HTTP should redirect to HTTPS IMNSHO.

                    1. 16

                      But… why? Your argument for why HTTPS is better is that it prevents JavaScript injection and other forms of MITM. But MITM clearly isn’t a problem for package distribution. Is your argument that “HTTPS protects websites against MITM so packages should use HTTPS (even thought HTTPS doesn’t do anything to protect packages from MITM)”?

                      I truly don’t understand what your reasoning is. Would you be happier if apt used a custom TCP-based transport protocol instead of HTTP?

                      1. 6

                        I suspect that a big reason is cost.

                        Debian mirrors will be serving an absurd amount of traffic, and will probably want to serve data as close to wire speed as possible (likely 10G). Adding a layer of TLS on top means you need to spend money on a powerful CPU or accelerator kit, instead of (mostly) shipping bytes from the disk to the network card.

                        Debian won’t be made of money, and sponsors won’t want to spend more than they absolutely have to.

                        1. 4

                          But MITM clearly isn’t a problem for package distribution.

                          It is though! Package managers still accept untrusted input data and usually do some parsing on it. apt has had vulnerabilities and pacman as well.

                          https://justi.cz/security/2019/01/22/apt-rce.html

                          https://xn--1xa.duncano.de/pacman-CVE-2019-18182-CVE-2019-18183.html

                          TLS would not prevent malicious mirrors in either of these cases, but it would prevent MITM attacks exploiting these issues.

                          1. 7

                            Adding TLS implementations also bring bugs, including RCE. And Debian is using GnuTLS for apt.

                            1. 1

                              Idd. It was one of the reasons for OpenBSD to create signify so I’m delighted to see Debians new approach might be based on it.

                              From https://www.openbsd.org/papers/bsdcan-signify.html:

                              … And if not CAs, then why use TLS? It takes more code for a TLS client just to negotiate hello than in all of signify.

                              The first most likely option we might consider is PGP or GPG. I hear other operating systems do so. The concerns I had using an existing tool were complexity, quality, and complexity.

                    2. 7

                      @sandro originally said: “When do all their mirrors support https?” Emphasis on “mirrors”. To the best of my knowledge, “mirror” in this context does not refer to a web site, or a copy thereof, but to a packages repository.

                      I responded specifically in this context. I was not talking about web sites, which rely on the transport mechanism for all security. In the context I was responding to, each package is signed. Your talk of JavaScript injection and other MITM attacks is simply off topic.

              2. 9

                ftp.XX.debian.org are CNAMEs to servers accepting to host a mirror. These servers are handled by unrelated organisations, so it is not possible to provide a proper cert for them. This match the level of trust: mirrors are not trusted with the content nor the privacy. This is not the case of deb.debian.org which is available over HTTPS if you want (ftp.debian.org is an alias for it).

                1. 2

                  Off line mirrors, people without direct internet access, decades later offline archives, people in the future, local DVD sets.

                  Why “trust” silent media?

                1. 4

                  Will they update there paper with an appendix about what happens when you get caught?

                  1. 2

                    It would have sold me if it could make my mouse pane aware and limit the selection to them.

                    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. 15

                                                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. 6

                                                  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. 6

                                                      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.

                                                      1. 18

                                                        Is this his first public apology since resigning? If so, it’s kind of shocking that this comes a year and a half later, and after he has re-joined the FSF. My sense is the message here is supposed to “I’ve learned from this”, but the timing belies that for me. And that’s without even touching the substance of the letter…

                                                        1. 23

                                                          based on the timing it’s clear that the idea behind this apology is transactional.

                                                          in exchange for him writing out the correct key words he expects to be entited to his position again.

                                                          1. 20

                                                            It saddens me that you need to deride what seems an honest attempt at introspection. Sometimes we don’t learn our lessons fast, especially when our brains keep getting in the way.

                                                            1. 8

                                                              Sometimes we don’t learn our lessons fast

                                                              Not like he had years to do so.

                                                              1. 3

                                                                He had the years but he didn’t have the motivation. From this latest development, I would say that the only good thing that came out of this bullying attempt by the internet, is that rms stopped to introspect the way his behaviour affected others.

                                                                1. 5

                                                                  A few things:

                                                                  • Empathy, not shame or transaction, is the natural “motivation” for reflection. Once a person is made aware of their action’s adverse effect on others, the reflection has to come from within.
                                                                  • Even if it were motivated by “bullying” — and I don’t agree with your characterization — but even if public pressure were the root cause of this statement, again, that all happened 1.5yrs ago, and so if that were the true motivation, as you claim, this statement would have been released a long time ago
                                                                  • RMS’s post was made on the FSF website around the same time he was placed back on the board, again 1.5yrs after the drama unfolded

                                                                  Believe me, I’m not interested in the culture war or cancelling or being unkind on the internet. It’s just really hard to see this post as anything other than a condition for RMSs return. And I think it’s important to make these distinctions and hold public figures to account when considering the virtue of their actions, especially in the case of RMS, when his whole public persona is about virtue and principle.

                                                                  1. 1

                                                                    I disagree strongly with all of your points. However everything I’m saying has no real basis, it’s all conjecture, so please feel free to call me a naive idiot. Still even if RMS is full of shit, dismissing his words as untruthful or politically motivated, in my opinion, goes against everything that his existing persona has lead us (at least me) to believe.

                                                                    If we take RMS’ “I was always different” statement to mean that he has some sort of Asperger’s, I believe that one of the main characteristics is a de-prioritization of “empathy” vs “being right”. So it’s not empathy towards the people he wronged that makes him to want to change, but an intellectual decision that sometimes being nice is more important than being right.

                                                                    Bullying is exactly what it is when media and people on the internet call for your resignation because they are taking things out of context, exacerbate disagreements based on lack of empathy towards his condition, and falsehoods plain and simple. Even if he would be all the things that have been said against him, the amount of vitriol that has been directed his way makes me despair at the lack of understanding for one another. Honestly I hate to be a part of the same internet where these things happen on a regular basis.

                                                                    The “drama”, as you say, unfolded 1.5 years ago, but also in the past weeks when the FSF decision to reinstate him was made public. I suspect that it was the mass of people and companies took position against him again what triggered this. Having indeed one and a half years to percolate the idea that even if he would be technically right about the things that people raised against him, maybe they were right too.

                                                                    I don’t know. I give the benefit of the doubt. I try to empathize with the people whose actions I don’t fully understand. I would like that more people did that.

                                                                    PS Sorry for the rambling, and I believe I’ll stop here. I don’t think I have more to say on this.

                                                                  2. 3

                                                                    If he truly changed he should have the motivation by himself and not after a controversy.

                                                                2. 3

                                                                  As I mentioned I’m not poking primarily at the content of the letter, but the context in which it was made. In fact, to the degree that RMS is learning, and to the degree that his comments repair relations with anyone who was alienated by his previous actions, I’m genuinely glad. My point was: while late is better than never, “late” in this instance does materially impact the weight of the statement, especially since he got his position back right before its released, which isn’t great for appearances to put it lightly.

                                                                  1. 4

                                                                    To me, that’s better for appearances. If he’d gotten his position back after it’s released, it would seem like a term of surrender rather than actual introspection. I don’t see how anyone could take it seriously in that case.

                                                                    1. 2

                                                                      I don’t really distinguish between a few weeks before or a few weeks after. The letter was posted directly to the FSF website at roughly the same time he was reinstated. To me, it gives the same appearance either way.

                                                              1. 39

                                                                My take on this is that RMS recognizes that his behaviour is troubling, but doesn’t see fit to apologize for it, unless he’s doing so in private (which I assume we’d have heard about if that were the case). An acknowledgement without an apology or amends isn’t even worth the time it took to read it. I’m no less disappointed in him than I was when I first learned of his harassing behaviour towards women in his orbit, and I’m no less disappointed in the FSF today than I was when they reinstated him (and yes, I have read the FSF statement as well as Stallman’s).

                                                                As an industry, we need to learn that nobody is so great at their job that they can be given a pass for harassing.

                                                                1. 12

                                                                  isn’t even worth the time it took to read it.

                                                                  Which you clearly didn’t take….

                                                                  And I quote verbatim…

                                                                  I apologize to each of them.

                                                                  1. 6

                                                                    That sentence applies to the people to whom he’s been intemperate, not to the many others he’s offended or hurt or creeped out over the years. Try harder.

                                                                    1. 5

                                                                      Ah.

                                                                      You are taking the apology as only applying to offenses mentioned in that paragraph, I’m taking as applying to that paragraph and the preceding paragraph, indeed, the whole statement.

                                                                      I suppose by the letter of english grammar you are correct.

                                                                      My interpretation from context is still the broader apology.

                                                                      This is why written communication is hard… it goes out and feedback as to what actually was communicated is delayed or lost.

                                                                      I have read a fair bit of RMS “in his own words” and even had one or two email exchanges over the years. I’m incline to interpret his apology in the broader sense.

                                                                      1. 1

                                                                        It can be read from different viewpoints. What he wrote sounds sincere to me, but I don’t think it’ll come across as an apology when read by people he offended. In the eyes of someone who’s been offended, the piece may sound as if he started with “I’m sorry that I have offended you through no fault of mine, and even though the fault was all yours, I’ll try harder not to repeat that in the future” and then bickered with reviewers to find compromise wording.

                                                                  2. 21

                                                                    I for one am not super interested in the spread of struggle sessions.

                                                                    If you’re troubled by RMS…go fork FSF! Go fight the good fight! Give a meaningful and useful alternative to an organization that frankly has been kinda off in the weeds for a while!

                                                                    If people spent half the ink on, you know, user freedom as they did on libeling Stallman we as a community could be a lot farther ahead.

                                                                    1. 31

                                                                      I for one am not super interested in the spread of struggle sessions.

                                                                      Right. Computer programmers voicing the opinion on the internet that maybe we can do better than RMS is literally the same thing as Maoist revolutionaries physically torturing political rivals.

                                                                      If you’re troubled by RMS…go fork FSF!

                                                                      You don’t simply “fork” a social structure and get a carbon copy of it for free like you do with version control. Forming a competitive alternative to the FSF would not only be a massive undertaking, but it’s also more plainly not the only way of engaging in activism. A much more straightforward approach is to campaign for a change in leadership.

                                                                      If people spent half the ink on, you know, user freedom as they did on libeling Stallman we as a community could be a lot farther ahead.

                                                                      And what makes you think that “they” don’t spend even more resources on digital rights efforts than “they” spend posting against RMS? The landscape of digital rights activism may not be as broad as we’d like but it’s certainly bigger than just the FSF and GNU.

                                                                      1. 17

                                                                        literally the same thing as Maoist revolutionaries physically torturing political rivals.

                                                                        Verbal and physical abuse–and as many seem found of asserting these days, speech is violence so I don’t really think the difference is relevant. If you don’t think there are people being harassed because they aren’t apologizing hard enough, you must have a much better version of social media than I do.

                                                                        A much more straightforward approach is to campaign for a change in leadership.

                                                                        Stealing and imperialism is a lot more straightforward than building a new, distinct thing. My approach would yield at least two different groups moving in hopefully good directions, whereas the “let’s punt RMS because reasons” approach would not. It’s also entirely possible that the success of the FSF (such as it is) is actually linked to either RMS’ quirks or the sorts of people who deal with those quirks; we don’t know this for sure, but a fork seems like a safer hedge.

                                                                        And what makes you think that “they” don’t spend even more resources on digital rights efforts than “they” spend posting against RMS?

                                                                        Which do you think gets more brownie points right now–defending free software, or signalling that “hey i’m totally in the same tribe as you all (please don’t get me fired)”? Depending who you believe online, there are people who want to step away from struggles over copyleft and licensing entirely to focus on more social aspects that may or may not actually have any strong basis in legally protecting user freedom–and that crowd requires RMS’ head before they could go into digital rights stuff (which again, they don’t care about).

                                                                        That’s my reasoning, anyways.

                                                                      2. 15

                                                                        That is totally unrelated. No one is forcing RMS into admitting something he didn’t do!

                                                                        There are already so many alternatives to FSF with many being more transparent and welcoming to all kinds of people.

                                                                        1. 17

                                                                          And just imagine how much further we could be ahead if we cultivated all of the developers, lawyers, writers, and thinkers who were driven away by RMS. And before you say “we can’t know that they exist” you might want to consider that, yes, in fact, we can; there is ample evidence of people who’ve left the FSF or the Free Software movement over him. And those are just the ones who’ve talked about it, leaving aside all the ones who looked at the landscaped and, apparently wisely, noped the fuck out.

                                                                          1. 9

                                                                            If they are sufficiently troubled by RMS for whatever reason–over behavior or slights real or imagined–I’m glad they’ve found a better place to spend their efforts. It’ll be good to have other people trying to advance free software in other ways.

                                                                            1. 11

                                                                              You assume that people put off by rms keep working on free software (or nearby). I personally know someone who didn’t. A talented person and a great gain for the organisation he switched to (which does good work for the world but has nothing to do with free software).

                                                                              Of course he could be an exception. Or not; I see that the use of the GPL continues to decline so maybe rms puts off more people than he persuades.

                                                                              1. 6

                                                                                Why assume? rms-open-letter signers include ten Debian Project Leaders. Say whatever about Debian, but Debian is a dedicated free software organization as any, perhaps more than FSF.

                                                                          2. 5

                                                                            That’s not how it works. If a situation calls for anodyne statements in public and perhaps something else behind the scenes, and one spokesperson acts wisely while rms speaks in 72pt boldface, then rms’ choice of how to react is the effective average of the two.

                                                                            1. 5

                                                                              You can’t fork FSF. That’s the exact problem.

                                                                              In my opinion, Software Freedom Conservancy is a much better software freedom organization than FSF. To me, FSF has no value at all as a software freedom organization except for one: it holds copyright of GCC. Forked FSF won’t hold copyright of GCC, and other aspects of FSF I don’t care about at all. So FSF can’t be forked.

                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                So … fork GCC too? I don’t see the problem here, unless you want to relicense.

                                                                          1. 38

                                                                            They tried to sneak him back into the board and so far have not done any lasting changes and only gave empty promises. FSF needs some real transparency in their decision making.

                                                                            1. 14

                                                                              or watch on media.ccc.de if you prefer to not watch on youtube

                                                                              1. 1

                                                                                I would also recommend getting a invidio.us redirect script going so you can avoid youtube all together.

                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                  Wasn’t invidious discontinued in September?

                                                                                  1. 1

                                                                                    The invidio.us instance was shutdown, not the project itself. I think the reason was that it was too much effort to run such a big instance.

                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                      If you go to invidio.us, you can get a list of active instances.

                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                  I think that site is having some issues right now.

                                                                                  1. 14

                                                                                    netdata might be a bit overkill but it is easy to setup and has a cloud offering.

                                                                                    OT but for cron I use healthchecks

                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                      I totally expect that the new tokens are not accepted by many tools because they did simple regex matches to pre-validate the tokens.

                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                        Yep, but it has to be said that GitHub has been sending out emails to everyone who requests tokens in the old format for roundabout a year. Around every month or so, you get a “please update your software”.

                                                                                        1. 3

                                                                                          For manual created tokens I only get them since they releases the blog post yesterday.

                                                                                      1. 2

                                                                                        My first contribution was a mod I wrote for Factorio and my first commit was a translation update for a Minecraft mod.

                                                                                        1. 7

                                                                                          I manage my dotfiles with git and home-manager so I have no real use case for this but for someone new to dotfiles this looks promising.

                                                                                          1. 1

                                                                                            Could it still be useful for config files that can’t be read-only?

                                                                                            1. 2

                                                                                              Yes, you can use link https://github.com/knl/dotskel/blob/main/home.nix#L17.

                                                                                              That essentially creates a matroshka of symbolic links, where the last one points to the checked out file. This is because for nix, all files have to be in the nix store. However, home-manager uses a clever trick to store as the content the pointer to the file outside of the nix store.

                                                                                              I’ve used chezmoi in the past, but switched to home-manager as it’s model is easier for me to understand.

                                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                                Those are just in my git repository in my home directory.

                                                                                            1. 3

                                                                                              Cool! Multiplexing / control sockets is how we do autocomplete through SSH with Fig (https://withfig.com).

                                                                                              I saw you specify the control path to be: ~/.ssh/sockets/%C

                                                                                              If the sockets subdirectory doesn’t exist, I believe this doesn’t work (we implemented it a while ago so I could be wrong). I would make clear to users they need to create that sockets subdirectory, you should create it for them, or you should save the sockets in the .ssh folder.

                                                                                              (This is my first ever post here too 😊)

                                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                                You are right. The directory is not created automatically but they are in my dotfiles so I totally forgot.

                                                                                              1. 1

                                                                                                All three are open source and probably can be self hosted. Not sure if the common email pitfalls apply and how much work it would be to set them up. Maybe someone is doing that and can/cannot recommend it?

                                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                                  It requires very roughly zero setup using most stock email software. Enable subaddresses, done.

                                                                                                1. 3

                                                                                                  This is my first post I hope I did everything right.

                                                                                                  When I wrote this two weeks ago I was surprised that there wasn’t a bash-completion for vim and at the time I wanted to use vim scp:// with remote path/file completion like rsync/scp have. It was a bit more tricky to do than I initial thought but it worked out really great in the end.

                                                                                                  A bit more on the vim scp:// part, the main part of the completion script. You can type vim scp:// to get a list of all hosts which are configured in your ssh_config. Then the script adds two slashes and suggests you paths on the host. Vim is not using the default host:/path format separated by colon which makes it a bit harder to do as bash-completion thinks the host is a path.

                                                                                                  Make sure to use ControlMaster/ControlSocket to make the completions appear in this century.