Free Software Foundation receives $1 million donation from Pineapple Fund

Both are tradable goods. So yes, Bitcoin does have a value

...

[citation required]

inb4 gnome outreach for women

...

...

I think this is being disguised as a charitable gift tbh.
I think it's just a backroom deal.

I heard a guy on talkback radio call it a ponzi scheme. That's how obvious the illusion is.

...

gng.z505.com/cult.htm

That's your argument, a series of strawman?

That website misinterprets many quotes such as thinking that if the source comes free with the program, it means the program cost $0.
It also makes the mistake of mixing RMS's political views into his free software ones.

It's a troll. GNG isn't reliable as an honest critique since it's filled with bad arguments.

ONE MILLION

wew

Stallman is a renown cocaine-addict. (reason why he spends so much time in south-america)
That million is going to be all spent on blow.

Stallman is a known assassin and murderer. He got caught killing Barack Obama and also Donald Trump.

What would that change? GNU can't code, only write licenses.

The GNU OS isn't magic. The GNU OS is here because the GNU team coded it.

apart from Emacs, what software does the FSF actively develop/fund today?

mostly Redhat and other distro makers that develop those

GNU values quantity over quality. "We must make a free alternative to , despite the quality of the code." Worked back then but not now.

If Redhat pledges their code to the GNU project, then Redhat is undoubtedly a part of the GNU project.

What do you mean by this? I don't understand how GNU doesn't work now given that I'm using GNU right now.

This mentality worked back in the 80s when it was necessary to create free-software alternatives to all the proprietary tools (e.g. Core Utils). Now, that this is no longer relevant, it's more important to write better code, and it's something GNU doesn't do.

yeah, but it doesn't mean the FSF is responsible for the development of that code. The "GNU team" seems to be restricted to Emacs, as I said.

The FSF is responsible for the development of that code because it is the FSF that directs the boundaries of what the GNU program must not do. The fact that Redhat is acting as agent of the FSF doesn't change the fact that it is the FSF that controls the direction. If the FSF doesn't like the direction of Redhat's GCC (Gnome, whatever), then that code doesn't become part of GNU.

Actually, once a piece of software becomes part of the GNU Project it never stops being a GNU Project. That was part of the scandal surrounding Libreboot.

I don't doubt that. I doubt that the GNU project must accept and integrate every code submission that is sent to GNU. The maintainers of each GNU project will pick and choose the code pieces they want.

For that case the GNU project doesn't care about your sense of quality. The GNU project is still continuing its intended purpose of existing for the sake of existing as free software. If you have different ideas about what you want your GNU software to do, the GNU project expects you to be responsible over the changes you want to see i.e. go fork GNU and start writing that better code.

while that might be true for more core projects like GCC (RMS did manage to keep full AST output out of GCC because of it being "an output" and thus not covered by the GPL), a lot of GNU programs are not controlled by the FSF. RMS and other FSF guys have had fall outs with the GNOME team over integrating systemd into the design (essentially making it Linux-exclusive), and as far I'm aware that seems to be a battle the FSF lost.

I stand by my assertion that if it an official GNU project, then the FSF inherently controls it. I would like citations of the issue regarding RMS, the Gnome team and Systemd. I haven't heard of that one.

This is a reasonable expectation, and one I use whenever I hear bitching in my repo, but I'm not going to give the FSF my time and I'm going to continue to bitch about how they're the China of software developers.

i doubt rms ever even had a drink with more alcohol content than an overripe banana

His stomach scream I'm an alcoholic.

no, it screams "more sweet things".

We will see when they'll try to cash it.

Extreme simplicity of what the Linux kernel as a very hard time to do.
Containers ? Virtualization ?
Just create a neighborhurd and you're good.
Want to debug the micro kernel ?
Create a subhurd
The hurd project has some really good ideas my only worry is the people on the social justice mindset who have infected a lot of projects (either the fsf, linux, bsd etc...no one has been spared from this)

Pretty sure he has a problem with his pancreas.

if it is ever finished, more than likely someone will rewrite it from scratch. Look at the commit logs going back over the years, just different people tearing up what their predecessors had done. It seems the "developers" have mostly been people trying to learn about microkernels, getting bored and moving on. Rinse and repeat.

bump

protip: the free software foundation has always been a social activist movement since day 1.

They could have gotten a trillion dollars and it'd still not be enough to save the GPL

What are you talking about

...

he got raped by sjws when he """"stole"""" from the amazon (((store)))

It actually points to problems with his pancreas.

I could never wrap my head around that. The whole point of that video was to illustrate how de facto Amazon's store model could ease the social stigma of buying hygiene products, and the fact is that any depiction of hygiene products in the mainstream is a step in the direction of normalizing such perfectly normal things as menstruation thereby. Yet the sjw's are angry. Why? Because maxi pads are apparently sanctified, not to be made fun of. Why? Because they're so stigmatized when they shouldn't be, so they need to be portrayed with more positive connotations in media. So why can't Linus address them? Because menstruation is taboo; he can't make light of that. It seems like the sjw's are the biggest proponents of the very thing they're antagonizing.

Same with that neural network app that "removed" make up. There's a subset of women who said that software was a feminist atrocity because removing make up is revealing and could affect a woman's stature and self-esteem. Why are women's self-esteem so deeply intertwined with a commodity like make up? Because the very same women screaming misogyny are flexing on social media about there good looks at the expense of their peers, putting on makeup and using filters to glorify themselves and make themselves look better than they typically are in daily life. If anything, that makeup remover would have been an excellent tool for young women to show them that their peers on social media aren't as attractive as they make themselves out to be, destroying the illusion that breaks said young girl's self-esteem and dispelling the practical necessity of makeup in daily life.

And I know this is a dumb r9k rant, but I just had to get that out of my system.