"Thompson, David" <dthomps...@worcester.edu> writes: > On Sun, Oct 27, 2024 at 3:13 PM Ekaitz Zarraga <eka...@elenq.tech> wrote: >> >> Many people on this project have tried to change GNU from the inside and >> are very critical with the FSF (see the https://gnu.tools/). I think >> that's also a good way to do things, changing them from the inside. >> Fixing them for all our friends. Honestly, the argument of getting >> distance with GNU and the FSF is too simplistic to be taken seriously. > > Changing GNU/FSF from the inside has been a losing strategy for at > least a decade, as a conservative estimate. Nothing has meaningfully > changed for the better and the situation continues to deteriorate both > socially and infrastructurally. Many have tried to reform GNU, all > have failed. Some burn out and never return. Those that remain choose > to inhabit the fringes; projects that are historically GNU but in > practice are no longer concerned with the project as a whole (Guile > and Guix, for example.) We unsubscribe from gnu-prog-discuss and move > on. Thinking that GNU can be changed at this point is what is truly > too simplistic to be taken seriously.
I want to note that this is not a singular experience. I see myself in the above text. There are many such stories. There are many reasons for this, but the fact that GNU is what contributors make of it cuts both ways. The extremely uneven distribution of authority and public perception also means that even a sizable group of reformers (like https://gnu.tools) is virtually powerless to reform GNU in any *meaningful* sense. Ironically, I *don't* think the association with GNU will remain a negative in the long run, but that's only because I think GNU's overall relevance is only going to continue to shrink. Perhaps one day only the projects associated with the GNU Assembly will remain as visible representatives of GNU. -- Ricardo
