SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Free software advocates seek removal of Richard Stallman and entire FSF board:
Richard Stallman's return to the Free Software Foundation's board of directors has drawn condemnation from many people in the free software community. An open letter signed by hundreds of people today called for Stallman to be removed again and for the FSF's entire board to resign.
The open letter said:
Richard M. Stallman, frequently known as RMS, has been a dangerous force in the free software community for a long time. He has shown himself to be misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, among other serious accusations of impropriety. These sorts of beliefs have no place in the free software, digital rights, and tech communities. With his recent reinstatement to the Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation, we call for the entire Board of the FSF to step down and for RMS to be removed from all leadership positions.
Previously:
Richard Stallman Rejoins Free Software Foundation Board of Directors
Richard M. Stallman Resigns
Richard Stallman Deserved to be Fired, Says Fired GNU Hurd Maintainer
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 25 2021, @08:21PM (54 children)
Because this sounds like bunch of woke vaguery makes me sympathetic to RMS. I suspect there is a lot of intentional misinterpretation going on here.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 25 2021, @08:27PM (4 children)
We need to first investigate Neil McGovern, Deb Nicholson, Matthew Garrett, Elana Hashman, Molly de Blanc, and all of the other 2000 for their purity of wokeness.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 26 2021, @10:30PM
Neil McGovern bragged about the judges discriminating against white boys in their contest for school children in the Growing Gnome video from guadec last year. He's a Neo-Bolshevik operative like half of these rats.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 26 2021, @11:56PM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 27 2021, @05:17AM
I don't know about RedHat or OpenSUSE, but Mozilla was taken over by the 'woke' brigade years ago. Developer purges and Firefox Quantum were the result.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 27 2021, @11:39PM
Garrett worked for Red Hat back when the latter bent knee for Microsoft in order to get RHEL to work with UEFI "secure" boot.
Something that Torvalds produced one of his acerbic emails in response to.
Not surprising, later Garrett sided with Sharp when she went on a language crusade against Torvalds.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday March 26 2021, @12:16AM (48 children)
See, THIS is what I meant a week or so ago on your journal posts when I said your new religion absolves you of thinking.
Stop and ponder this: you have just made a snap judgment based on teh feelz. "This makes me feel bad and looks emotional, so I'm not going to think, I'll just react and pre-judge." Yet, you've dived headfirst into the "facts don't care about your feelings" milieu. So now you have to ask yourself: "do I really believe that, or do I just like shouting the slogan unthinkingly because I can use it as an excuse not to think about my own actions?"
Unlike you, I *have* given this some thought, and came up with roughly this, in no particular order:
- "Why now? Given Stallman's extensive, creeptastic history, why NOW?"
- "Expanding on the above, what precisely is Stallman's role in the FSF, and how well does he fulfill it?"
- "From that second thought, if he does not fulfill it well, how long has this been the case?"
- "If it's been the case for a long time, then, again, why NOW?"
- "Something smells bad here...and it's not just the toejam."
- "I suppose they'll say 'better late than never,' but that rings a bit hollow given the timeframe in question here..."
And ending on
- "When you think about it, does it really matter? What *has* Stallman done recently?"
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 26 2021, @12:50AM
> "Why now? Given Stallman's extensive, creeptastic history, why NOW?"
Who knows? [techrights.org]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 26 2021, @01:19AM (12 children)
Stallman is a philosophical and ideological anchor. There is a constant pressure from large, well-funded organisations towards "pragmatism" and "open source" and "developers developers developers" (rather than "users users users"). Without Stallman's influence I could see the FSF gradually softening their stance on contentious issues and compromising some freedom in the name of pragmatism.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 26 2021, @03:37AM (10 children)
Why is the FSF so closely aligned with the GPL instead of with ALL open source licenses? Because of Stallman. And giving undue consideration to the GPL shows they are biased, same as their campaign to open source Windows, knowing ahead of time that it’s legally impossible because of 3rd party code licensed to Microsoft, shows they really don’t give a shit about copyright law.
It’s a chummy club that, like Stallman, needs to go away. Anyone supporting them is a useful idiot.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Friday March 26 2021, @05:25AM (6 children)
Because the GPL was specifically written, at considerable expense, by some of the best lawyers available, directly in return for payment from the Foundation; specifically to make sure that it was the most pro-freedom license that our legal system would permit.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 27 2021, @12:01AM (5 children)
Anyway, it’s irrelevant. Stallman is now toast, and the FSF has ended up as collateral damage. Not too smart for a bunch of pseudo intellectual fools who just self-destructed without any outside pressure.
https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/26/redhat_fsf_funding_richard_stallman/ [theregister.com]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Saturday March 27 2021, @12:21AM (4 children)
That depends on *whose* freedom it is intended to preserve:
BSD license is to preserve the developer's freedom. ("Anybody can take this code base and start developing it without questions, and even relicense it if they want.")
GPL license is to preserve the user's freedom. ("You can take this and use it yourself, and nobody is allowed to change the license to something more restrictive and sue you for using it.")
There is some assumption in the GPL that the end user may also be a programmer, so they're allowed to modify it for their own purposes, but that's more of a side effect of the intended goal.
Unless by "BSD is pro-freedom; GPL isn't" you mean "BSD makes it easier for companies to steal your work and sell it", which is true.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by ThatIrritatingGuy on Saturday March 27 2021, @11:55AM (2 children)
(following is nitpicking on details while agreeing with your post as a whole)
I always thought that GPL is preserving the freedom of software, not any person. Note that GPL does not guarantee that a user will be able to take such a program. Developer is obligated to give the same rights along with source to anyone they distribute the software to, but they are not compelled to distribute the software to anyone to begin with.
If you were to take a GPL program and modify it, you have the right to use it as you see fit. If you were to give the compiled program (modified or not) to a third party, you are obligated to provide them with the same license and source code. While having the same rights as you, this third party is not obligated to provide you with any derivative work they did based on the program. Original program developer cannot demand the changed versions to be shared by either you, the third party or anyone else down the line.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Saturday March 27 2021, @03:40PM (1 child)
You can use your modified version in-house but you aren't required to give anybody the code if you don't distribute that version, yes.
I'm not quite sure how Party A finds out about Party B's modified version if Party B never distributes it, though...
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by ThatIrritatingGuy on Monday March 29 2021, @08:56PM
Party A could hear about it from Party C that got a copy from Party B. Of course in this case Party C can give it to Party A and Party B can do nothing to stop that from happening.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday March 29 2021, @11:47PM
That's the only part I disagree with. That wasn't a side-effect, but an integral part of the better future we imagined computers could be harnessed to produce. Of course every user would know how to program. What's the point in having a computer if you can't program it? Just to run some opaque blob from an unknown source?
Of course not everyone was expected to program with the same facility, but we naturally expected that when everyone used computers it would mean that everyone had a basic understanding of what they were and how to use them. That's not *all* that source rights were about but that was certainly one of the motivations. We could see even then that the greedy bean counters would absolutely reduce everyone to serfdom through ignorance if allowed to do so.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by Anti-aristarchus on Friday March 26 2021, @08:48PM
You say that like it is a bad thing! I haven't given a shit about copyright law for quite some time.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 26 2021, @10:35PM (1 child)
"Why is the FSF so closely aligned with the GPL instead of with ALL open source licenses? Because of Stallman."
yes, because he's not a basic bitch like you. he created copyleft for a fucking reason, you dumb windows/mac-using whore.
"And giving undue consideration to the GPL shows they are biased, same as their campaign to open source Windows"
of course they're biased, you fucking retard.
"knowing ahead of time that it’s legally impossible because of 3rd party code licensed to Microsoft"
oh cry me a river. anything that hurts MS is good for the world. they're lucky people don't attack the headquarters every day.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 27 2021, @12:06AM
(Score: 0) by Anti-aristarchus on Friday March 26 2021, @06:38AM
OMG, and becoming Bruce Perens? Open-source, instead of Freedom! Yes, many of us appreciate Stallman's hard stance, and principled position, and how he saved free software from the corporate zombies. No matter how he smells.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Friday March 26 2021, @02:11AM (4 children)
The thing is, a number of claims in the open letter seem to be taken for true with no substantiation. I have no doubts that rms is well described as eccentric, but I'm not so sure of the rest. Doubly so when the attempts I HAVE seen to justify the claims against him have fallen short. For example, the attacks on what he supposedly said about Minsky and Epstein that misquote him in ways that actually reverses some of what he actually said.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 26 2021, @10:43PM (3 children)
yes, the cultural marxists who lead the charge know they are full of shit, but they don't care. they have no integrity, and it's a tactic. it works well much of the time. they know that suited whores will avoid him just at the first appearance of impropriety, and that's all they are after; the ostracization.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 27 2021, @02:33AM (2 children)
That he’s a fat smelly guy is beyond dispute. That he has spent decades couch surfing rather than paying for a place to live is also well known, and acknowledged on his web site with the recurring requests for a free room and board for a few months at a time. Ditto his misogyny and transphobia. His sole purpose is PR, one which he is unsuited for.
They would have been better off with William Shatner. At least he doesn’t look and smell like a homeless Santa Claus.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 28 2021, @12:09AM (1 child)
What are his finances anyways?
His position at MIT was honorary, allowing him to claim a office there but nothing more.
The guy may well be effectively broke for all we know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 28 2021, @02:42AM
If he can hang around a university for 40 years, not pursuing a career and salary, he's probably well off personally.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday March 26 2021, @03:41AM (28 children)
I don't understand your problem with my post. I expressed my opinion without directing ire at anybody. I clicked the links several layers down starting at TFA and one of the most "horrible" things he said seemed logical to me, i.e., if the definition of rape is dependent on GPS location and varies by minor age differences between coordinates, that suggests there's a problem with the rape definition. Frankly, that criticism makes a lot of sense to me and so why that should be a basis to boot him leads me back to one of the problems with woke culture: its vague standards of righteousness which conveniently often align with certain economic interests.
Anyway, perhaps you object to my characterization of "woke vaguery", but you can just object and explain how it isn't vague and more to the point, you could provide a link to evidence that RMS fucks puppies or whatever, but to shift the burden of research to others after making vague accusations is actually one of the odious hallmarks of woke culture. A second is to attack those who point out the vaguery as you did here, but I am not the story. I am irrelevant here. The story appears to be one of powerful interests with various economic interests, dogpiling on one nutty dude who gave the world something of great value but who is easily maligned.
This is why RMS has my sympathies unless proven unworthy of them by having personally committed some heinous act.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by akai.tsubasa on Friday March 26 2021, @05:47AM (4 children)
Modded this insightful.
I want to see specifically the evidence for transphobia. I want to evaluate it myself. What horrific things did RMS say that would make me choose a license friendlier to corporate exploitation of my software, such an MIT or BSD style license, for my next project?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DECbot on Friday March 26 2021, @07:43PM (3 children)
I respect that you want to make your own judgement on RMS. I think your right on to ask why would you adopt a license that offers less protection to you, the developer, because of the actions of a eccentric old dude that thinks (1) source code should be accessible to developers and users freely and (2) open source software should not be used to make corporations rich at the developer's expense (3) rape might not be rape depending on what part of the world you might happen to be in at that moment. This is the specific problem I have with woke culture to disregard the advancement of society because of the faults of the individuals invoking the change. GPL is good for protecting open source and making sure the license is enforceable and keeping the open source code open. It is like raising a child--you can love your kid but hate that he is cheating on tests. Isolate the vision and the contribution from the faults of the induvial. Use the licenses that best protects the vision you have for your code. You are protecting your interests. Now, if there is a similar license that provides equal protection but is not FSF, use it to protest the council/RMS. Yes, this might be pragmatic way of looking at it--but as the old saying goes, don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Also, the GPL may have been a vision from RMS, but he did not create and enforce the GPL by himself. A lot of resources were put into the GPL to ensure it is enforceable and respected by the industry. RMS might be a liability to the FSF but that doesn't make other people's contributions to the GPL any less important.
The point being, hypothetically, even if all the slurs are true and RMS is a dirtbag in a degree we never considered and the FSF is propping him up for whatever reason they have, does that make the GPL a less effective license? Nope. However, it may result in less contributions to the FSF which reduces access to competent lawyers able to provide successful protection of the GPL in court. Allowing corporations to chip away at the GPL's protection is one reason why you might want to shop around for a different FOSS/FLOSS license.
My personal opinion RMS is a details oriented guy that makes him perfect to discuss the minutiae of a code implementation or legal technicalities but not suitable for the mouthpiece directed towards main stream media or even to be a target for MSM to eavesdrop on. Case in point, the Epstein discussions. The media is looking for 30-second sound bites to attract eyeballs and clicks, not a lecture on why it is wrong but in this case it might be right because it depends type of arguments. So why would the FSF ask RMS to come back? FSF may still need RMS to look critically at proposals from large corporations to ensure the goals and ideals of the FSF are protected and to articulate why and take the heat for when a proposal is rejected. Apparently when he left the FSF, they did not have a replacement ready and no volunteers to take it. He might have done creepy things, and it might have been more acceptable back in the day. I have no clue, but that has no specific bearing on my project's software license. However, there are several cases where the GPL was protected in a courtroom, which does have merit to why I might consider the GPL. I haven't read the history to determine if RMS was directly involved in license enforcement or if he just built the foundation that made it possible to defend the license. Though the actions of the FSF makes it appear the FSF still needs RMS to advocate the GPL. That makes me question what will happen to the FSF and the GPL when RMS is done with the FSF for one reason or another and does having RMS back in the FSF reduce the ability of the FSF to protect the GPL? Hopefully the FSF has a fall back plan like the Linux Foundation has with Linus, and it is all figured out--but who knows since I haven't seen an "RMS got hit by a bus" plan like what the Linux Foundation has with Linus. Though realistically, their plan might be more appropriately named "The media found RMS saying something indefensible" plan. That all said, if you are shopping for a FLOSS license for your code, is there a license and foundation that protects FLOSS projects as well as the GPL and FSF does with success track record of license enforcement? I'll be blunt, I'm ignorant in this matter, so I don't know of one. Thus I question the motives of people who are advocating a different license because of the out of context and weird inappropriate statements made by RMS.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 27 2021, @12:13AM
The FSF has been without RMS for more than a year. They did survive, and they eventually appointed a boss, though as a donor, I refrained from my usual levels of support, in anticipation that the Woke Mob were about to get their filthy hands on the precious.
So they were operating without RMS, but they got him back on the board of directors. Usually, one appoints board members that can bring in donations, either directly or through connections. With RMS' history as founder, there is a chance that 1) he personally, or through GNU Inc., controlled trademarks that required the FSF to stay on good terms with him or 2) has good friends on the BoD that wanted him back.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 27 2021, @10:18PM (1 child)
A license that you need lawyers to defend, like the GPL, or a license that you don’t need to deft, like BSD or MIT?
Code you have to consult a lawyer for before and after using, or code that you can just use?
Gee, that’s an easy one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 28 2021, @03:06AM
Waaa! Waaaaah! Legal told me I couldn't use this awesome code because it had a stinking GPL! Instead we have to negotiate a proper site license so the author gets paid what her code is worth! Waaaah!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Friday March 26 2021, @07:02AM (4 children)
I wonder how many signatiories signed because they believe Stallman must be cancelled and how many signed more as a way of saying "please don't hurt me!". That's the thing with the more extreme side of cancel culture. If you disagree with a cancellation, you must be cancelled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 26 2021, @01:50PM
I wonder how many signed because their cool, socially just friends did. Signers who would have suffered no loss if they had just abstained.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 26 2021, @05:41PM (1 child)
"If you disagree with a cancellation, you must be cancelled."
This is exactly what brought the mob down on Stallman. He disagreed with Minsky's cancellation. Worse, he was correct to disagree, which is an unforgivable sin.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday March 26 2021, @06:52PM
And in turn, the FSF board disagreed with canceling the guy who disagreed with a cancellation, so they too must be canceled.
Meanwhile, off to the side, MS Palpatine cackles gleefully "YES! Let the anger make you powerful!!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 26 2021, @10:47PM
i don't know about other countries, but the US is like 95% Suited Whore these days, so to answer your question: plenty.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday March 26 2021, @12:12PM (17 children)
Don't misunderstand me, this whole thing icks me out from both sides. The timing is bizarre, and there are waaaaaaay too many "interested parties" here that are dead-set against the kind of freedom the GPL provides. I personally think they're using the complainants as useful idiots, and that their end goal is to cripple the GPL specifically.
If the FSF is smart, they'll put this internal squabbling on hold and lawyer up right now, making sure the GPL is bulletproof and remains so, before figuring out what their corporate/nonprofit/whatever culture looks like.
See, there's a false dichotomy at work here. It's entirely possible for Stallman to be fatally encumbered with organization-killing baggage AND completely correct in his core principles about software and software freedom. People don't seem able to step back and assess the situation calmly and rationally.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Friday March 26 2021, @04:38PM (7 children)
I don't like the passive voice in phrases like this. Who made the baggage? "Baggage" is a derivative of popular culture -- it's the CDO of the social milieu -- rarely productive, often destructive, frequently wrong. Galileo's culture gave him baggage -- that baggage wasn't Galileo's creation or fault, rather, it was chained to him against his will, against reality, and demonstrated only the idiocy of his culture. In the same way, RMS is not responsible for the baggage our present culture is bestowing on him merely because he doesn't fit in with the going social narrative.
So, unless we are talking about RMS being convicted by direct evidence of a provable crime that caused actual real world harm to a real world person (*), I don't care about the culturally manufactured garbage. Such irrelevancies say nothing about the person being dogpiled but are instead, informative about the toxicity level of current culture.
(*) Cultural crimes are also irrelevancies. See Galileo.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 26 2021, @10:50PM
yes, i've seen twats on social media arguing that since people are upset it's his burden. That's ridiculous. Just like these mask/"vaccine" cowards freaking out like you killed their kids just because they feel scared. your feelings are not my problem. if you try to make it my problem i will crack your faced up like a old porcelain doll.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday March 27 2021, @01:45AM (5 children)
You...ignored literally 90-95% of that post to piss and moan about this. This, Hemo, is why you aren't relevant any longer; you've been reduced to "oldmanyellsatcloud.jpg."
This may surprise, anger, and upset you, but you're not saying anything either original or useful here. If you want to contribute, join me in pointing out that what's at stake here is *the GPL itself,* and with it, the Zeroth Law and possibly the very concept of copyleft licensing per se. Microsoft, Google, etc. can't beat Linux on its own merits, nor can they destroy open-source coding on a program for program basis as to which is better. So they're trying to make it illegal. Stallman presents himself as a gigantic, unfortunate ring target.
Whatever happens now, the FSF needs to lawyer the hell up like yesterday and make the GPL immortal and bulletproof. Ideally, Stallman (and any other single person, or even organization) should be *irrelevant* to copyleft.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 27 2021, @02:44AM (4 children)
(Score: 2) by Pav on Saturday March 27 2021, @06:57AM (2 children)
FSF has encouraged transfer of copyright to it on quite a bit of software pretty central to the stack. Just sayin'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 27 2021, @10:29PM (1 child)
Of course they have. It’s a make-work project for FSF lawyers. And “the stack” is being replaced. Major pieces like gcc, which is now replaced by clang/LLVM, to the point some distros don’t even ship gcc.
What happens when the only part of a Linux distro under the GPL is the kernel? No gnu programs. No more stupid “gnu/Linux” arguments? Because it’s coming to that. The gnu toolchain is long in the tooth, and it’s not getting any prettier with age. And Stallman is too burned out after living his life as a vagabond to button down and do anything about it (plus nobody who’s tried working with him before wants to go through that experience again).
Gnu was already dying. This just accelerated the process.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday March 28 2021, @01:48AM
So long as the kernel itself stays GPL, I am okay with this. This is Linux functioning as intended; the "hurr hurr ganoo-linnix derp-a-derr" mockery you're putting out is the entire *point.* Linux *is* nothing more than the kernel, and is basically userland-agnostic as it should be.
That said, unless and until we get as-good-or-better (and ideally backwards-compatible...) replacements for the entire GNU toolchain, we shouldn't be so sanguine about the idea of it all disappearing. We can of course steal the BSD toolchain (and hopefully not give Theo a fit of apoplexy) if it comes to that, but if it does, it will happen for political reasons rather than anything meritocratic or based on code quality.
LLVM and Clang are not there yet. I don't see GCC going away any time soon. Let's see what things look like in 5 years' time.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday March 28 2021, @01:57AM
And you expect a single coder working out of his or her basement on weekends and nights to have the wherewithal to challenge $BIGCORP over ownership of their code? That's the real problem here...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 26 2021, @06:06PM (7 children)
Maybe that's what this is about?
How much software is written declaring that "any later version" of the GPL can apply to it? If the entire FSF board is replaced, could a future board spearhead the production of a later watered-down or easily circumvented version?
Hard to not be too conspiracy-theory minded with the open letter hosted on Microsoft-owned Github; perhaps they feel they're done with the embrace and wish to move on to extend...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 27 2021, @02:47AM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by Pav on Saturday March 27 2021, @07:50AM (2 children)
Look up "Why the FSF gets copyright assignments from contributors" on their site. The FSF has copyrights on quite a bit of software quite central to the stack.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 27 2021, @10:41PM (1 child)
With major parts like gcc already being replaced by software that doesn’t use the GPL, it’s only a matter of time before the only essential GPL software is the kernel, and that already has its own lawyers. So the FSF and gnu will be irrelevant. And seriously, who gives a shit about busybox nowadays when even a cheapie router has more than enough ram to do without it? The FSF “major victory “ was rendered obsolete by advances in hardware.
Seriously, what have either Stallman or the FSF done in the last 20 years that matters any more? The FSF is now best known for lame attempts at generating self-serving publicity that just raises e awareness of their bad publicity campaigns. Stallman? Now that he’s old enough to collect Social Security, who knows - maybe he got himself a permanent address? That may be why he felt he could quit the FSF and not have to mooch for shelter any more.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday March 29 2021, @11:43PM
I really, really hope you're right about that. Because we can survive so long as the kernel is safe; as mentioned above it's more or less userland-agnostic. I just hate that it could come to this, uuuugh.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 27 2021, @02:49AM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 27 2021, @10:52AM
It's mirrored. The canonical source for linux kernel is kernel.org.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 28 2021, @03:34AM
You're a funny man, NCommander! Where do you get your material?
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Monday March 29 2021, @05:02PM
Damn it, that was already at +5 when I saw it so I could not mod it up.
I love reasoned insightful thoughts.