Dr. Richard Stallman VS No fun allowed snowflakes

tl;dr: faggot tries to sneakily remove a joke made by rms in the abort documentation of glibc, rms tells him to fuck off. Problem is rms is the project leader and a bunch of cucks want to remove all fun from from Zig Forums lest someone feel a bit of enjoyment on finding an unexpected joke.
The toxic triggering text: "Future Change Warning: Proposed Federal censorship regulations may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of calling this function. We would be required to say that this is not an acceptable way of terminating a program."
lwn.net/SubscriberLink/753646/f8dc1b00d53e76d8/

Attached: stallman.jpg (1020x1024, 443.29K)

Other urls found in this thread:

lwn.net/SubscriberLink/753646/f8dc1b00d53e76d8/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

...

there is thread about it already
also this joke isn't funny
rms just went full retard here

SEPARATE YOUR GODDAMN PARAGRAPHS YOU IMBECILE.

I don't care if you're too scared of other anons telling you "le Reddit", your post is nearly unreadable because of your faggotry.

NO, ONLY REDDIT DOES THIS!!!

They are already separated by newlines.

Jokes of any kind do not belong into a reference manual, period. It's not even a good joke, you would have to follow US legislation to get it, and that's assuming you even understand that it's a joke in the first place. RMS is just butthurt because the "joke" lines up with his non-software politics.

We need a new name like "reddit spacing" for these idiots who never put spaces anywhere. Gay-spacing maybe?

Reminder to report faggots who post "reddit spacing" and derivatives of it.

meh it's annoying to read unimportant information in man pages because they're already long anyway (and even then they're still often lacking important details)

We already had this threat, you shitposting spunk guzzler.

sage for duplicate thread

Attached: shut-up-richard.mp4 (1280x720, 611.29K)

Are there any good software political jokes?

Attached: strzok.png (822x639, 65.08K)

Besides "fortune" ? :^)

WTF happened to his arm?

BASED STALLMAN

>(((Weinberg))) defended his application of the patch
jews

Abortion does not you make "unpregnant"

It makes you the mother of a dead baby.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 151.89K)

lmao

lmao

lmao

First one didn't turn out how you liked so you created another. Classic.

tl;dr: faggot tries to sneakily remove a joke made by rms in the abort documentation of glibc, rms tells him to fuck off.

Problem is rms is the project leader and a bunch of cucks want to remove all fun from from Zig Forums lest someone feel a bit of enjoyment on finding an unexpected joke.

The toxic triggering text: "Future Change Warning: Proposed Federal censorship regulations may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of calling this function.

We would be required to say that this is not an acceptable way of terminating a program."

lwn.net/SubscriberLink/753646/f8dc1b00d53e76d8/

The removal of an old joke from the GNU C Library manual might not seem like the sort of topic that would inspire a heated debate.

At times, though, a small action can serve as an inadvertent proxy for a more significant question, one which is relevant to both the developers and the users of the project.

In this case, that question would be: how is the project governed and who makes decisions about which patches are applied?

Toward the end of April, Raymond Nicholson posted a patch to the glibc manual removing a joke that he didn't think was useful to readers.

The joke played on the documentation for abort() to make a statement about US government policy on providing information about abortions.

As Nicholson noted: "The joke does not provide any useful information about the abort() function so removing it will not hinder use of glibc".

On April 30, Zack Weinberg applied the patch to the glibc repository.

Richard Stallman, who added the joke sometime in the 1990s, asked that it not be removed.

The resulting discussion touched on a number of issues.

Carlos O'Donell, who has been trying hard to resolve the issue with some degree of consensus, suggested that the joke could hurt people who have had bad experiences associated with abortion.

He proposed a couple of possible alternatives, including avoiding jokes entirely or discussing such issues in a different forum.

Stallman, however, replied that "a GNU manual, like a course in history, is not meant to be a 'safe space'".

He suggested the possibility of adding a trigger warning about functions that create child processes, since childbirth is "far more traumatic than having an abortion".

Whether the joke belongs in the glibc manual is an issue for the glibc developers to decide and wouldn't normally be of much interest beyond the project itself.

But in this case, it raises the question of how the developers make this decision.

The project's wiki states that the project "uses a consensus-based community-driven development model".

In this case, there seems to be a fairly clear consensus among the actual glibc developers that this joke is not appropriate in the project's manual.

Weinberg's application of the patch was based on this consensus.

Stallman, however, has made it clear that there are limits to the extent to which glibc is consensus-based; his response was: "My decision is to keep the joke".

Weinberg stated his refusal to revert the change; Stallman answered: "I stand by my decision to keep the joke".

O'Donell apologized for not contacting Stallman directly about the removal, but also stood by the decision to remove it.

He asked:

A large group of developers, serious senior developers, at least 3 project stewards (GNU Developers for the project), are indicating that they do not share your same view on the joke.

Please consider their input and work with me to reach a consensus position.

Weinberg defended his application of the patch:

I don't think I did anything wrong procedurally.

RMS may be the project leader, but he is not a glibc maintainer.

His wishes regarding glibc are perhaps to be given _some_ more weight than those of any other individual, particularly when he is also the author of text under dispute, but we have never, to my knowledge, treated them as mandates.

Stallman was unimpressed, though, and fell back to a pure authority play, saying: "As the head of the GNU Project, I am in charge of what we publish in GNU manuals.

I decide the criteria to decide by, too".

He later added:

I exercise my authority over Glibc very rarely -- and when I have done so, I have talked with the official maintainers.

So rarely that some of you thought that you are entirely autonomous.

But that is not the case.

On this particular question, I made a decision long ago and stated it where all of you could see it.

O'Donell repeated that a discussion was underway and that the maintainers did not intend to revert the patch.

He also asked whether the change violated any GNU policies — a question that went unanswered as of this writing.

He also stated clearly that the joke would not return in any form until some sort of consensus was reached.

One could argue that the consensus is already there if one looks at the developers who actually work on glibc; it is difficult to find any of them arguing for the joke's return.

The number of people arguing for the joke in general is quite small.

That did not stop Alexandre Oliva, who evidently has a high opinion of Stallman's sense of humor, from reverting the change early on May 7 — his first glibc change in 2018.

He did not post his change to the mailing list (and only explained it after being asked); his attempt to justify it as a return to consensus did not fly with O'Donell.

This discussion, one suspects, is not done.

Each project has its own governance model.

The "authoritarian leader" model is quite common in this space, with many projects subject to the will of a (hopefully benevolent) dictator who can decide to accept or reject any change.

Sometimes that model works better than others; glibc itself improved its processes and inclusiveness considerably when its single leader was replaced by a more consensus-oriented model.

Usually, though, such leaders are at least active developers in the projects they manage; that is not the case for the GNU projects.

It can be discouraging for a developer to discover that their changes are subject to a veto from on high by somebody who is not otherwise involved with the project's development.

The echoes of this action may thus persist in the glibc community for some time.

Baste.

You don't own nothing, goyim!

Undermine a man's right to exercise authority by cutting him off once he's extended himself at all, and you undermine society as a whole. You teach that you don't own what you don't have in your hands at all times. Property rights? Nice try goy. Bank accounts? Better keep your cash under the bed... but wait, cash is just cotton paper.... now we go back to a barter system. Your wife not literally wrapped around your cock? What wife? She belongs to the community now.

If a man starts something, created it, he has the right to make a fucking joke. This is communist proletariat trash. They wish to cut off the extension of material authority and power... extension... power... material... authority.... extension... cut off.... THEY WANT TO CUT OFF ALL COCKS LIKE THE BASTARD SCUM THEY ARE.

If they come to cut your cock n' balls off, it's time to cut off their heads. Conversation ends there. It now becomes life or death. As it should be.

**extension of power and authority of the material

**OVER THE MATERIAL

...

Full retard or not I support his right to say stupid shit in his own damn program. Fuck the assholes trying to engineer the social dynamics of the open source community in the name of socjus.

Zig Forums-spacing? I'm not anti-pol, but that's where the d&c took off.

...

>(((Weinberg)))
>(((Stallman)))
Linux sure is based!

I'm glad Stallman is fighting back, its a shame he made such a cuck license though.

I wish people would just stop nagging about GPL and BSD licenses. They are both good but have different emphasis.

Bet rms ate all of the arm cheese

I agree. One respects your freedom, and one enslaves you for your own good.

reported

Abortion is technology too

But that's wrong! The GPL will guarantee the user's freedom. The permissive license merely permits it in some circumstances, there is no guarantee the user will have their freedom with a permissively licensed software.

cuckchan spacing

Nice try. You commies always do this.

Attached: DcoyWbWX0AAPdt6.jpg (500x275, 19.28K)

I don't see the Intel Management Engine or the AMD PSP under a GPL license.

...

Better a commie than a cuck

If you cared about cucking you would be writing proprietary software.

Using proprietary software at all makes (You) the cuck

That's you. That's how dumb you sound.

...

Yes it is.
You see, allowing the software to be used in proprietary stuff is directly helping the botnet.
Why do you like the botnet, mister?

Attached: uwu.jpg (480x502, 32.48K)

I only use BSD software that grants me the most rights of any common license. Use the software written by the cucks.

Listen bud it's not the license that limits what you can do or not it's the laws of your gorverment behind it.
The license is a contract, if the contract said that you agreed to be buttfucked then you agreed to be buttfucked.
If the license says that devs cannot let people get buttfucked but the users can if they want to then it's their choice.

This subject has been discussed to death, the old Redox thread explained this clearly.
Not it isn't. Your freedom stays in your personal space of possible things that you want to do, not the space of other people.

You mean that computer that you voluntarily use?

LOL

That's all fine and well but it doesn't change the fact that proprietary software means users are not allowed to live in freedom.

You really read that incorrectly. Its meme arrowed for a reason.

Yeah the license is totally unrelated to how hard the government fucks you.

What proprietary software. I am using OpenBSD. Nothing proprietary in it.

My computer is my machine but whenever I choose to install proprietary software, I have chosen to forfeit my right to control my machine. The only time I will get my freedom back is the time when I choose to remove that proprietary software.

So you voluntarily choose to forfeit control of your machine? LOL. What a retard. I only use OpenBSD so that I have control.

but sometimes that proprietary software is something that is not voluntary when using a computer. For example, the ME, which is what we were just talking about

So you are saying, that when you are voluntarily using something, that other parts of it are some how not voluntary?

Then don't use it. Right to eat, not right to food.

kek

That's the whole point about proprietary software and freedom - choosing proprietary software inherently means you choose to forfeit this control! I will assume that your OpenBSD system is actually free software - there is no guarantee that your version of a liberally licensed software is actually free because you are supposed to check on a case by case basis of where you get that software from.

durrrrrrrrr

Yes, that's completely possible. You can choose to use the computer, but in order to use the computer, there is this certain part that must be used.

Who are you quoting?

Right, Intel x86 is the only CPU that exists.

u

That's impossible!

...

...

but the ME isn't a product, mister! Intel could just sell CPUs without it and no normie would ever notice, and the world would be a better place without it.
I would gladly buy new intel CPUs if they were 100% free as in libre.

Attached: 0a067c6dc787ddf1a670ec758f8df217.jpg (403x403, 59.71K)

Nobody is saying anything like that. We're moaning that the state of affairs in computing is not to our optimal state. Some of us are willing to pay a premium to buy computers that meet our strict demands of "user control" and its notable lack of "user misfeatures".

Thats nice. You don't get to force intel to remove it though.

Tough shit. Go make your own car.

The only force we have is by paying with our wallet! The

That's exactly what we're doing! There are projects right now where we sponsor the production of the hardware that meets our standards. In the meantime, there are already computers for sale (today) that meet our standards.

Good. We need less force.

Good, i'm glad you are building things. If its GPL though I won't use it and am against it. GPL restricts the users freedom. I won't user proprietary software, and I won't use GPL, for the same reasons.

The GPL ensures the users' freedom in every case!

except the freedom of restricting freedom (which isn't a bad thing)

If I publish a binary on my website of have not restricted anyones freedom.

don't publish the binary. nobody's forcing you to use other's code as if it was yours

Right, so you are restricting my freedom then.

I believe in free software. If people want to publish a binary they can.

...

...

The GPL doesn't restrict the user's freedom at all.

Lets see, here are a bunch of the restrictions it places on you:

- Must include copyright information
- Must include copy of license
- Must license code linked with GPL3 under GPL3
- Agree to not sue a developer if their software kills someone
Just to name a few

left it there by accident :P sorry

I am a huge faggot and I suck cocks.

Attached: DZf2TV6VQAAyBfF.jpg (1080x1067, 111.63K)

Protip: the GPL is not a usage license, it places zero restrictions in how a user will use the software.

IT RESPECTS UR FREEDUMB GUYS. IT DOES NOT BAN USING THE SOFTWARE WHILE RIDING A HORSE.