An Anonymous Coward writes:
Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond:
Last week, Eric S Raymond (often known as ESR, author of The Cathedral and the Bazaar, and co-founder of the Open Source Intiative) was banned from the Open Source Intiative[sic] (the "OSI").Specifically, Raymond was banned from the mailing lists used to organize and communicate with the OSI.For an organization to ban their founder from communicating with the group (such as via a mailing list) is a noteworthy move.At a time when we have seen other founders (of multiple Free and Open Source related initiatives) pushed out of the organizations they founded (such as with Richard Stallman being compelled to resign from the Free Software Foundation, or the attempts to remove Linus Torvalds from the Linux Kernel – both of which happened within the last year) it seems worth taking a deeper look at what, specifically, is happening with the Open Source Initiative.I don't wish to tell any of you what you should think about this significant move. As such I will simply provide as much of the relevant information as I can, show the timeline of events, and reach out to all involved parties for their points of view and comments.
Last week, Eric S Raymond (often known as ESR, author of The Cathedral and the Bazaar, and co-founder of the Open Source Intiative) was banned from the Open Source Intiative[sic] (the "OSI").
Specifically, Raymond was banned from the mailing lists used to organize and communicate with the OSI.
For an organization to ban their founder from communicating with the group (such as via a mailing list) is a noteworthy move.
At a time when we have seen other founders (of multiple Free and Open Source related initiatives) pushed out of the organizations they founded (such as with Richard Stallman being compelled to resign from the Free Software Foundation, or the attempts to remove Linus Torvalds from the Linux Kernel – both of which happened within the last year) it seems worth taking a deeper look at what, specifically, is happening with the Open Source Initiative.
I don't wish to tell any of you what you should think about this significant move. As such I will simply provide as much of the relevant information as I can, show the timeline of events, and reach out to all involved parties for their points of view and comments.
The author provides links to — and quotations from — entries on the mailing list supporting this. There is also a conversation the author had with ESR. The full responses he received to his queries are posted, as well.
Not my problem. I'm done doing other people's research
There you go again - making statements and claims that you are unwilling, or unable, to back up with facts.
You are making the claims - it is your responsibility to prove them.
reading this from the outside world and loosely skimming along, it seems that she shouldn't have to back up the claim to not do other people's research with research.
anyway you guys are ganging up on her for a technicality and she seems irritated and replied in such a manner.
were professionals right? so let it slide and put (not necessarily yours--i am addressing everyone) biases aside for the moment. even if she was incorrect it shouldn't devolve into windows 10 refunds and the reasons as to why, even if she started it as a defense.
eventually the horse can't be beat effectively anymore to get it to go faster if it dies from the beating.
I keep telling people to do their own research because why should anyone trust me over their own research? I might do like shallow khallow just did, post a link to something only peripherally related and claim that it settles the question, that he built up a lot of suppositions of how the woman's computer might have been "accidentally" upgraded, rather than the actual case, where the woman did nothing and her computer attempted to upgrade overnight - it's whjy she got $10,000 (plus $90 small claims costs) from Microsoft.
Instead, he posted a bullshit story from the Seattle Times about how people are tricked into upgrading - not something that applies to the case - and claimed I'm full of shit.
Shallow khallow is a troll account, same as "go pee in a cup" fusty. They both have long posting histories, but no backstories. And all they do is sow discontent and discord, because they masturbate just thinking about how they're trolling people.
I'm the one saying "don't take my word - or anyone else's word - for it. Do your own research." How that is a bad thing is beyond me. We;ve seen over and over how people post links that don't actually address the question, and then claim some sort of victory. In Shallow khallow's case, I even gave the search terms "woman wins $10,000 from Microsoft". Every one of the first 10 search results gives the same story, with details. It must have taken work to find a story that didn't actually respond to the content of my post, but when you're a troll, you don't give a shit about accuracy.
When I come to my computer and I can't read half the crap because it's referencing websites that are almost impossible for anyone who is visually handicapped, I'm not going to bother "doing the research" for someone else. I have enough problems. Let them do their homework, same as in school or at work.
We had a guy at one of my work places who just cut-n-pasted Windows code he found on the internet into svn for a server that was to run on FreeBSD. He would also check out someone else's code, add or remove an ENTER, and check it back in - and that was his work for the whole day.
After I audited everything, the boss still refused to believe it, until I pulled up the Microsoft.com site where he had grabbed the code. Another coder was so disgusted he quit to work elsewhere. Refused to work with the asshole, and didn't want to wait a month while I engineered his firing. Apparently his plagerist predecessor had been doing the same thing - it took me months to remove all the Windowisms (and no wonder it wasn't working, duh!).
Trust but verify. Because many coders are full of crap cut-n-paste monkeys who are just trying to serve their time while looking for their next job, never actually delivering anything.
anyway you guys are ganging up on her for a technicality and she seems irritated
First of all, I am not 'you guys' - I am a indivdual. So do you believe everything people say without checking the facts? Barbara Hudson is no better or worse than everyone else on this site. The onus is upon her to prove her claims.
were professionals right? so let it slide and put (not necessarily yours--i am addressing everyone) biases aside for the moment. even if she was incorrect it shouldn't devolve into windows 10 refunds and the reasons as to why
If she had provided the evidence with her first claim it would never have happened. But she invited everyone to search for their own references and khallow just took advantage of it.
it's not a "her".
I think you misunderstand the point of bigotry, but nice response anyway.
A he/she generally implies that person grew up as part of that group and thus often has views different from the other group. It was nice to know that soylent had an outspoken female who could provide us with a female viewpoint on many issues. Apparently that's not the case and now I feel a little duped and betrayed. My trust in all posters who claim to be female, through either directly stating it or by using female related words, has gone down.
Yes, it does matter how people present themselves because of all the expectations and assumptions underlying those words. Not being honest about your background hurts everyone.
My trust in all posters who claim to be female, through either directly stating it or by using female related words, has gone down.
That's the common sense talking. Sounds like you owe Barbara a thank you.
I know, but if she wants to be known as Barbara I'm happy to respect that as her choice. And her choice of sexuality or pronoun is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
The problem happens when the burden of research is thrust on other people. Circumstances can justify some leeway. For example, I'm presently posting from a cellphone - so even minor HTML code is a living nightmare and my usual habit of dropping links for support will just have to wait. I understand there are similar circumstances which prevent Barbara from posting well-linked articles without expending a great deal of effort.
But googling support for your argument is not the reader's research, it's your research. And claims that have no basis in fact will never be otherwise, no matter how much research is done.
Java was used for the language in which a version of the Uber Ride Hailing app was written (https://developer.uber.com/docs/riders/ride-requests/tutorials/api/java [uber.com] and https://github.com/uber/rides-java-sdk [github.com]) but I haven't found anything relating to the software for a car.
Most of us left the green site in 2016 - I'm not using my /. account ever again. As an editor it is also advised that I do not do so - I can honestly say that I do not view the site and therefore cannot be accused of copying their stories. Presumably, the discussion on /. was based on a media report. otherwise it has no valid source whatsoever. If that media source cannot now be found then you have failed to convince me that any of that actually happened. Your claim - your proof is required.
Not my problem. I told you where to look, and you refused. So tell me, why should I care? It is NOT MY PROBLEM. And it never was.
Just like Uber when Uber laid of the second tranche of 1/3 of their engineers. Not my problem. Personally, I hope that exploitative platforms like that DIAF.
But if it's that important to you, if you're so invested in it, why not write them and ask? Go to the source, janrinok. Go to the source.
Or get away from the keyboard and see how people would react to you in real life if you demanded citations for everything they said. They would tell you to fuck off.
Real-world person: "Bananas are on sale!"
janranok: "Really? Prove it!"
Real-world person: "Seriously? Not my problem if you don't believe me."
janranok: "Your claim - your proof is required."
Real-world person: "Fuck you!"
That's how the real world works. You're wayyy to invested in online unreality if you can't see/have forgotten it.
Because, like in the real world, I call bullshit. I told you where to look, you don't want to for your own stupid reasons, that is not my problem, it's yours. Or as Mick Jagger once said, "You Can't Always Get What You Want." Not even by bullying tactics such as you're using.
I claim that you are bullshitting me - and I have much of your comments in this thread to support my assertion.
I don't buy that as an excuse. And I can't help but notice that you make further unsupported assumptions about what you would find if you actually did look it up, without any proof on your part, as a lame attempt to justify not looking there.
Bit of hypocrisy on your part - you can make all sorts of arguments without proof against going where I found it, and I am supposed to accept them as valid? Why? Because you said so? Prove it, don't just assume it. Hold yourself to the same standard you're holding me to.
I at least told you where to look. Not my problem you can't find it via a search engine. They don't index everything, or were you assuming they did?
Because you're now using the failure to find something via a search engine as "proof " that I'm wrong.
Again, I don't care if you believe it or not, because it's not my problem. But looking at your arguments, I've got to say your logic is provably flawed.
Which brings me to the real question - why do you (and others) think you have any right whatsoever to demand that others do the grunt work for something you obviously think is important but that I don't? It's no skin off my nose what you believe, as I have pointed out several times. I have zero skin in the game. What is wrong with you to be so anal-retentive?
It's like all the people who ridiculed my statement that you could catch coronavirus from packaging, now again proven, with the evening news even warning people. I let it drop after a short discussion because it's not that important whether someone on the internet believes me or not, and now I get to say I told you so. I could have gone digging up studies of previous coronavirus infectious agent lifetimes, and the lifetimes of other pathogens, but it's not my job and frankly , I don't give that much of a damn. I'm willing to let time prove me right, whether it's a few weeks or a few decades. It's just the internet , not real life. In real life, we've been acting on the assumption that packaging and boxes can not be returned by clients because they can be contaminated by COVID19 because it has real-world consequences. Whereas whether you go to slashdot or not is irrelevant to pretty much the whole world.