Back

@eloquence "I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as misogyny, racism and other bigotry is in fact GNU/misogyny, racism and other bigotry - or, as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus misogyny, racism and other bigotry." https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1376745698692001801

@be

@JordiGH @eloquence He leads? What has he really done since he made the GPL a few decades ago?

@savanni @eloquence He always tries to tell people what to do, and he has a fanatic club that follows him. I used to be in that club, I am much ashamed to admit.

@oz

technically use of emacs is a _vi_ctimless crime, but it is _vi_tal to be more _vi_rtuous

(I kid, I am not very fond of vi)

@eloquence @oz

@otyugh

I certainly agree that not being an ass about things is always a good start. ;-) That's primarily what I mean with "pedantry" -- the tendency to immediately "correct", rather than seek (or build) common ground.

@LuigiDev @eloquence Functionally speaking I agree. Like, as a dev, open source isn't much different to libre, so why the big fuss ?

But they do not always encompass the same communities.

I think I wouldn't do much free work for "open source" - that I do today and tomorrow - because "libre software" is about more than juste publicly available code.

@otyugh @eloquence as a philosophy/marketing term. I sincerely prefer Linux rather than GNU/Linux given the reputation problems GNU and more specifically Stallman have gone through

@LuigiDev @eloquence I can understand that. I still love some of historical/philosophical point RMS made, but I totally get the hostility/disgust a lot of people feels towards him - and I avoid using his name if I can avoid it. I talk about "the libre software movement" and its goal without need of any "hero" leading the way ; even if he was important to the definition of it, he wasn't the movement.

I also avoid talking about "Torvalds" and other, I feel personalities are often irrelevant.

@matthieu @otyugh @eloquence the kernel doesn't really give any interesting info that's why I said go for the real distros name

@LuigiDev @otyugh @eloquence I tend to agree, but if you want ot be more generic than "Ubuntu", you could say "Debian", but if you want to be more generic than that, what else is there than "GNU"?

@matthieu @otyugh @eloquence why do you want to be more generic? What are you describing? A package installable with apt? An app that needs GNU libraries? One that needs Linux kernel?

@LuigiDev @otyugh @eloquence Mostly because I like abstractions, but also when the specific distribution is no relevant e.g. in a broad categorization like "What system do you use: Windows / MacOS / GNU / other". In that context, "GNU" is more generic than a long list of distributions of GNU software with a Linux kernel.

I believe that correctly naming things is important to avoid ambiguities in discussions, even if most people are happy calling it "Linux" (which is OK, I do it too).

@matthieu @otyugh @eloquence the thing is non-gnu Linuxes should usually be counted for "Linux" in this kind of stats, even if they don't feature GNU components

@LuigiDev @otyugh @eloquence What distributions use Linux with no GNU stuff? No GLibC, no coreutils, no fileutils, no bash? I have never heard of it (but it does not mean it does not exist).
Of course, a lot of the software I use is not GNU (Firefox, KDE, VLC, python, perl, ruby) but I still consider that the bases system is GNU.

Now *BSD are not GNU and not Linux, so they deserve to be considered separately, just like the other Unices (Solaris, AIX, HP-UX).

@matthieu @otyugh @eloquence Alpine Linux ad I've said in another thread!

@berkes Yep, good point. RMS is notorious for bad communication and passive-agressivness even to his allies after all...

@seachaint

I'm familiar with the term's origins, but one of the beautiful things about language is that it evolves in the context of its use by humans every day. I have seen countless humans use this term with an emancipatory intent, and I do so myself frequently. That intent is (and should be!) communicated through more than two words, which (in my view) is far more important than whether you say "open source" or "free software".

@eloquence Also agreed, yes. I'm only saying that the _distinction_ remains important - if you say "Open Source" I might rely on context to know whether you're talking about something corporate or emancipatory, but if you say "Libre" or "Free Software" I know without context. The terms aren't interchangeable, and would be the lesser for it, if they were.

@seachaint

That's very persuasive, but allow me to push back a bit. What do we really know without context when someone says "libre" or "free software"?

For all I know, the next thing they'll say is "But I hate what the SJWs are doing to it with their codes of conduct and cancel culture", and I know that their idea of liberation is very different from mine.

With the implosion of the FSF linked to misogyny and harassment, more people may gravitate towards "open source" for that reason alone.

@eloquence I'll accept that: one term confuses purpose, the other confuses culture. Both are kinda tainted.. I like the appeal of newer terms like "communal", "emancipatory", etcetera.

I suppose the fact that you and I, while generally agreeing on the better and worse aspects of the scene, can argue on the relative bad-ness of the two older terms is proof enough that it's time to move on from them both. But we had better move quickly to get out the new mission and branding because, as you say, people are going to fall off the better parts of Libre software and land in merely "open", or worse "shared source", or some other neolib rebranding.

@seachaint

I'm open to new terms, for sure -- especially if it's linked to an effort to build an organization that could be what the FSF never was.

But I also don't mind consciously using the phrases we already have -- reclaiming and repurposing them with context, denying their originators the power to define their legacy.

@eloquence @seachaint I'm going to push back on the idea that we need some Official New Organization to proclaim The Definition(TM) of a new term. I think the term "cooperative technology" will be more resilient and flexible if we make it catch on relying on the obvious meaning of those two ordinary words put together. Neither "free software" nor "open source" ever communicated the ideas behind them without further explanation. (Arguably "open source" kinda does to programmers.)

@be @eloquence @seachaint I've personally always really felt that semantics in this context matter on the basis that I see corporations continually using the word "open" to refer to just about anything they like.

Forcing a definition for one or two terms is something I feel is useful for creating a rallying cry for people to more quickly organize. I know what people mean immediately when they say "FOSS", but when people say "open" I need them to re-explain

@MadestMadness @eloquence @seachaint "Open" is open to the interpretation of whatever capitalists want it to mean.

@seachaint @eloquence @furkachi I think we need a new vocabulary that isn't a sell out to capitalists and also isn't associated with Stallman's pedantry, misogyny, and other problematic behavior.

@be @seachaint @eloquence An interesting proposition! I know from experience within queer spaces that new terminology can be complicated to spread outside of in-groups, but seeing the state of vocabulary and the FOSS movement as viewed from the outside, rallying around simpler terms that are more explicit are less specialized would definitely be an improvement :3

@furkachi @seachaint @eloquence I think the time is ripe as many are seriously questioning the limits of Stallman's philosophy and tactics. I don't think retreating to "open source" would be a good solution for all the reasons Stallman has criticized it for since the beginning.

@be @furkachi @seachaint @eloquence
Here are the Hindi translation candidates:

Sanjha Software,
Sahkari Software (सहकारी sw)

I like the first one tho it is a weaker translation because it has a nice ring to it.

@furkachi

I hope you'll continue to be involved in spite of these frustrating experiences! <3

@eloquence Haha, I wish I had more energy to give to it, especially on the coding side; but thankfully I have friends way more into it than me so I can find ways to use FOSS stuff without overspending spoons trying to fiddle with things too much (which, I'm not gonna lie, can be part of the fun too) :3

@feoh

Yeah, I think there is a lot of value in this question of "how open can the whole stack be" -- and how can we make that happen -- but to lash out against individual users because they use some proprietary driver somewhere is just absurd.