Persons

Who does Holla Forums think is a honorable person regarding tech/internet and stuff? Besides Stallman?

I come to suprisingly few ones like Snowden or Swartz. Personally I struggle with Assange as he seems to use Wikileaks a bit too strategic instead of releasing stuff when he is able to do so.

Other urls found in this thread:

marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=148762033002663&w=2
youtube.com/watch?v=LcGKO0U7qa8
eevblog.com/forum/chat/hacking-nvidia-cards-into-their-professional-counterparts/
qubes-os.org/
blog.invisiblethings.org/papers/2015/x86_harmful.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

No human is ultimately honorable.

not ultimately, but worth mentioning?

Theo de Raadt
Terry Davis

Stallman, Terry Davis, and maybe Linus.

What a bizarre complaint. Wikileaks has a clear political goal (transparency), so it makes sense they'd release material in a way that makes the biggest impact and hurts those who tried to kept the secrets the most. If something was ready to be leaked during a big distraction (say a sports event), would you actually prefer that stuff to be published immediately and be ignored?

To answer your question, there aren't many honorable people in tech. The majority of tech-celebs are fuckups at life for lack of a better expression (e.g. esr) and others sold out (e.g. Rob Pike). Engelbart and Nelson come to mind as examples of honorable folks. Dijkstra was also a man who was right about many things and stood by his principles, but I'm not sure if you should count him as a technology person. Theo De Raadt used to make this list for me, but he's getting eaten by his foundation, so who knows how long this will last. Uriel might fit the bill even though he is a meme around here.

steve jobs, mark zuckerberg

What about Bruce Schneier?

He has a good work method and is absolutely a dick if the code isn't up to his standard.
his a good advocate for free documentation and drivers.
But he still does not understand or doesn't want to understand licensing because of old retarded feud between retarded people and himself.

Killed a CIA nigger
Absolutely based


The last true hacker
IA researcher and pioneer in AI and operating systems.
Participated in the creation of of computer language like scheme.
Creator of Copyleft and the free software movement.
Punished the whole symbolic team by himself by making code faster with the same amount or more features.
Knows how to dance.
Knows how to play flute.
Creator of the GNU operating system and emacs.
Stands for free/libre software
Has severe autism.
Let SJWs enter the FSF and tainted it.

Creator of the linux Kernel
He has a good work method and is absolutely a dick if the code isn't up to his standard.
Knows how to stand against SJWs and bitch them out.
Stand for open source.
Stayed with Gplv2 witch permitted tivoization.
Introduced binary blobs.
The linux foundation is financed by Microsoft, intel and other botnet companies.
Torvald let companies like google tivoize the kernel for android.

Creator of the book "bazar and the cathedral".
Propagated open source into companies.
Stands against SJWs and protector of hacker culture.


Gay faggot
Died because his religion didn't want his to be healed.
Make millions of customers dependent of apple software by DRM technologies.

Owns the biggest botnet (besides google)
Sells the data of his users
His password is/was "dadada"

Vint Cerf

He did nothing wrong

Fagioli's pretty based.

The goal of Wikileaks should not be to have an impact at elections but to spread information. With these information citizen should be supported in forming their opinions which MAY results in a well-conceived vote. But if they release leaks that close to elections like they did on Hillary it is less likely to support the voter's reasoning but more to adress his emotions. I know the world works this way, but I see ethical issues to not even trying to counter this but instead make use of this. Maybe I am too much against utilitarism to support this.


Didnt Linus played down the role of security in Linux? He is a valuable person but I find this aspect quite dangerous.

...

In contrast, Theo will outright crash your program (with no survivors), just to be sure.
marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=148762033002663&w=2

Meant to add

Assange is on thin ice and has a fuckton of guns pointed at his head. He has to play his cards very carefully, the moment he slips into irrelevancy is the moment the trigger gets pulled.

True and I hope he will be fine.
It is just a small step to use Wikileaks as his personal insurance.
Which would be no problem if it doesn't impact the work of Wikileaks negatively.

nothing wrong with it

In fairness to Linus, switching the kernel from GPLv2 to v3 (which didn't exist when Linux was started) would involve getting every single code contributor who didn't hand over copyright to relicense their code. That's doable in a small project, but in the kernel? No way.

Donald Knuth

Phil Zimmermann

Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie.


the ones mentioned already RMS and Linus

Probably others.

...

"He's a CUCK! He's a CUCK! He's a CUCK!"

"Yes, Mr. Sherman, everyone's a cuck..."

No, Linux used to be licensed GPLv2+, and it was relicensed to GPLv2-only (which can be done without getting a permission, since GPLv2+ means you get to choose) when Linus didn't like how GPLv3 was turning out.

According to some expert (I think Bradley Kuhn) switching to GPLv3 wouldn't be too hard even now since almost all contributions don't limit their license to GPLv2.

What in the holy mother of fuck is GPLv2+? Are you referring to the optional allowing of a later license? Because if so, that's just goddamn dumb. Licensing that way means that one is agreeing to the terms of GPLv4, v5, v6, etc. What's in v4, v5, v6? I don't know. Neither do you, unless you own a time machine. Why would I agree to a license that hasn't been written yet?

No thank you. I'll stick to strict v2 for legacy v2 projects, and strict v3 for anything new, with no "or later" bullshit.

I would agree to be fair with Torvalds if he manifested at least some disappointment with androids tivoization, but he didn't.

Torvald has said that he isn't satisfied with GPLv3, he likes what is done against DRM but he still wont migrate it without tryly saying why he does not want to migrate it.

The thing that he said was "GPL v3 violates everything that GPLv2 stood for"

He misinterpreted the license like most people.
He consider in gplv2 that
"I give source code, where even, that's all"
"But with gplv3, I give you source code but you have to follow my rules"

This is a misinterpretation of the GPLv3.
Yes the GPLv3 says that you have to follow the rules established to protect the four freedoms.
So does the GPLv2.

So what's the difference then ?
It's just jurisdictional and international jargon that is a lot more precise so that shit like tivoization cannot be forced onto users.

So yes the GPLv3 is more restrictive to companies because they can't legally impose users from using software in a certain way.

But Torvalds stance about hardware tivoization is simply "well if hardware maker wants to block their hardware they can do it I don't see any problem with that"
Witch isn't ok, if there's hardware there is software in the hardware.
Aka= Torvalds care about freedom of choice.

But where is the freedom of choice when none of it exist ?
Where is my freedom of choice when manufacturers signed the hardware ?

There is also some unknown background that Torvalds explained in 2014 if I recall that someone from the FSF tried to trick/force him into changing license by saying "gplv3 is totally compatible with tivoization and gplv2" and that since then he doesn't trust the FSF.
Imo I am pretty sure that some shithead went full zealot instead of discussing.
Or some company planted someone knowing what would happen.

Assange is probably one of the more noble. He's been doing this for a long time, so has realized that in order to have impact, he has to release strategically, lest it gets drowned out by celeb-news-goss. Not to mention he's been holed up in an embassy and is still shitting on those that have fucked us over continuously.

He is basically the FOSS of the political world.

not an argument

...

I didn't intend it to be an argument. I intended it to be an outright dismissal of your "I'll call everyone who's not 100% in lockstep with my beliefs a cuck, that'll show those liberals that I'm a rhetorical force to be reckoned with! And if that doesn't work, I'll hit'em with triple parentheses!" brand of idiocy.

Oh, sorry. Too many polysyllabic words in there? I'll simplify it so even the likes of you can (maybe) understand:

You are a dumb.

go back to reddit

No, I think I'll stick around here. I'm not one for echo chambers.

Talk about a sick burn, how will he ever recover from this? Kill yourself

Why so triggered? I thought only SJWs got triggered. You sound insufficiently alt-right. You ((((((((((cuck))))))))). (And I in the cool alt-right club now? Is that enough dogwhistles?)

You both seem very triggered, and now I'm triggered because you're shitting up the board with your useless posts. Get off my lawn kids.

I'm not even the guy he insulted, his redditesque garbage just pissed me off.

I've known him personally. He's a head-case who doesn't have an honorable cell in his body. The cunt only cares for himself.

Didja know he was a police informant back in 1997?

citeYourSources.rusko

I can only show you the door. You have to walk through it.

The annoying thing about Assange is that he's not doing anything. He just setup a random web server and URL, and the real heros keep sacraficing themselves to give him data just so he can release it on his own agenda and take all the credit. Why can't people just release the data on their own?

Assange is a middle aged con man who made the world think he's good at technology when really he's just a drama loser of the world class level who knows how to stoke the media to make himself out to be a hero.

What's more, assange took advantage of assaulting a girl to hold himself up in the Ecuadorian embassy for how many years.. making a huge media outcry about how he's being targeted. He's trying to make it look like it's because he's this awesome techy guy, but really it's just because he's a slob.

Snowden, on the other hand, is actually a tech expert, and he exposed to the world the fact that USA spies on it's own citizens using the internet. He made us aware that the United States is most certain orwelian.

I was very happy to hear Eli Manning was released, he's a true hero. Sad he decided to give his data to that loser hack Assange.

He was heavily involved with the cypherpunk movement before wikileaks.
Anyway I wonder why people are so polarized, when it's so easy to remain emotionless and not care. It doesn't buy me anything to be so thoroughly pro- or con- someone, when all that is just equivalent to being a spectator sports fan.

He did enough for the CIA to assassinate him and take over his website. Julian Assange has been dead for months now.

You don't know what you're talking about. Release themselves? You mean like Snowden who released to MSM who then heavily edited what he gave them? You need to release to someone, you can't publish it yourself because you're not running a fucking publishing platform. Wikileaks is an infrastructure for whistleblowers so that they don't have to go to MSM, so that everyone can research the leaks for themselves. Remember Podesta leaks? Remember how deliberately poorly MSM covered it? There was some interesting shit in there about Silicon Valley that nobody reported, so I was glad I could read it instead of not knowing about it and then bitching about Assange like a retard.

Snowden
Torvalds
Ritchie
Whoever made I2P and Tomb
Swartz
Assange even if he has an abhorrent personality, he's still fighting the good fight. I'm a huge asshole but I still contribute code and feed homeless people.

He ran an internet-connected BBS called Suburbia where he recruited wannabe [email protected]/* */ Cyberkiddies to do wire-fraud, carding, infiltrations for the lulz, etc. The "political activism" shit was made-up while the Underground book was being written to make himself sound good.

When a Cyberkiddie realized he was fucking them and making them fallguys for his crim schemes, Assange planted CP and incriminating filez/codez/cardz details on their computers and tipped-off the police.

..but they were already onto him. This was before SSH, and Australia Federal Police were tapping APANA's internet link at its the RMIT feed.

Too bad your dumb little narrative has nothing to do with what actually happened. He gave technical and forensic advice and support to the police for child pornography investigations, it had nothing to do with informing.

I know I'm responding to some retarded bait, but "State and Terrorist Conspiracies", written by Assange, spells it out black and white what he's doing.

Again, too bad your dumb little narrative has nothing to do with what actually happened.
Who knows why you're so desperate for attention, but it probably boils down to the fact that you're a lonely faggot.

Right. "Hey Proff. While we're arresting you for >$200,000 damages to Commonwealth computer systems, will you give us some of your [email protected]/* */ Hacker Skillz to bust Online Internet Pedos who we're not going to action on for another 5 years?"

He got a reduced sentence and a deal that would stop him being disqualified from applying for custody of his kid Daniel by being an informant on others involved with Suburbia who were into carding and theft of telecom property.

Schizophrenia is not a superpower, m8y.

Why do you know this? Where did this knowledge come from? What I'm saying is [Citation Needed]

You had me until here.

Protip: Snowden is one of us.

This is why GPLv3 will not succeed in the same way that GPLv2 did. Stallman and the FSF do not understand that most people don't buy into their little religion. If Stallman actually wanted to improve the world he would focus on making free software the standard on practical merit rather than making sure every grandma using a computer subscribes 100% to his ideological bullshit. It's like you autistic fucks have absolutely no idea how a population accepts new ideas.

I like this website.

Stallman doesn't care if you buy into his ideology. Stallman cares that GNU software (originating from the FSF) isn't used to restrict users of that software. The fact that other people use GPLv3 or not doesn't bother him at all. Stallman's intent and purpose of his public license is actually being achieved as intended.

PS, there's a real practical merit in having the guaranteed freedom to tinker with software running on your computer

Sam Hyde is a tech giant legend

youtube.com/watch?v=LcGKO0U7qa8

It's not ideological bullshit, he actually has valid concerns.
Right now, I don't even have a computer I can use that's not obfuscated (or worse, outright botnet) at the hardware level.

Cute.

Buy a Thinkpad X60 and install Libreboot.

webm related

Her legs are pretty honorable

Wew, I love that guy now

TempleOS dude. Stallman is a greedy marxists kike. Snowden and Assange "Please Buy My DVD and Book"? Who cares.

That isn't the point user.
How much ""free hardware"" is there ?

Because there isn't just the bios that needs to be liberated on motherboards.
How much free hardware exist compared to closed hardware ?
It is a concern since it comes with embedded software.

How many time did you have to change GPU because the manufacturer or developers didn't made any drivers for X software/hardware ?

See for example this discussion:
eevblog.com/forum/chat/hacking-nvidia-cards-into-their-professional-counterparts/

Or we have control of what we OWN or not.
And for not we don't control shit with new hardware and it will get worse if developers allow their code to be used a an instrument of oppression against anyone.

So you are telling me that developers and users in general are to retarded to:
-share source when asked.
-let people be free.

Sad to see you don't understand the technical implication of free software and you are blocked to just understand tribalism shit.

It's not like Red hat used GPL software to be what it is now.
Practical merit of free software has already been established a long time ago.

The actual settings of the world in free software are these:
-Free/libre software: Concerned about the freedom of users (developers are users too).

-Opensource: care about spreading opensource so that companies adopt it.

-Companies:want to use permissive licensing so that they can enforce their product and services to their customers without losing their monopoly of services and product.

To be honest I wouldn't care about open source if they didn't spread permissive licenses like MIT or BSD.

And you are the one saying that, how quaint

It's like you don't understand the most simple denominator like freedom.

Joanna Rutkowska

qubes-os.org/
blog.invisiblethings.org/papers/2015/x86_harmful.pdf

she is pretty based

He's just a salty hillary voter

First, you're going to have to define free hardware. Stallman himself doesn't define free hardware. For Stallman (and myself), there is no issue of free hardware, there is only the issue of documented hardware and whether I (the owner of the hardware) have access to any keys that control the hardware.

Assuming that your definition is what I imagine what it would be, there aren't many examples of "free hardware computers". They do exist but they aren't mass produced.

Charles Babbage, John McCarthy and Tim Berners Lee spring to mind.

...

so what?

Bunny
About anyone that does a talk in the Chaos Communication Congress