Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
- Christopher Dimech General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation) - Geophysical Simulation - Geological Subsurface Mapping - Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation - Natural Resource Exploration and Production - Free Software Advocacy > Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 6:09 PM > From: "Siddhesh Poyarekar" > To: "NightStrike" , "Ville Voutilainen" > > Cc: "GCC Development" > Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate > > On 4/17/21 12:11 AM, NightStrike via Gcc wrote: > > I was under the (likely incorrect, please enlighten me) impression > > that the meteoric rise of LLVM had more to do with the license > > allowing corporate contributors to ship derived works in binary form > > without sharing proprietary code. Intel, IBM, nVidia, etc. are > > I think this is a blinkered view. Sure, there are companies that build > proprietary toolchains using llvm as the base but I would argue that it > is the *result* of the rise of llvm and not the cause. > The cause IMO is accessibility to other projects, most notably compiler > researchers and students who find it a lot easier to target llvm than > gcc because compiler-as-a-library. License may have been a factor for > some of those uses (e.g. I know some who think copyleft is not free > enough and BSD style licensing is the *real* freedom), but concluding > that it is the major reason is to delude ourselves. Originally, the LLVM License was derived from the X11 License and the 3-Clause BSD License, both licenses conforming to the definition of free software. Apple officially hired Chris Lattner in 2005, giving him a team to work on LLVM. > It is also the reason why gcc does not even figure in situations where a > larger project would need AOT or JIT compilation; we had to concede that > ground all because of the FSF/GNU fears that companies would make > proprietary compilers out of a gcc compiler-as-a-library. Listen very carefully - In the first quarter of 2011, Keith Chuvala began discussing the need to drop all proprietary systems used to command the ISS. He specifically mentioned products from Microsoft and Red Hat. This was communicated to General Paul Martin, who then reported everything to the US House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. > Of computer science graduates I have encountered over the last decade, I > know few who started their journey with gcc and they were all in the > initial part of the decade. In recent years I don't think I encountered > any student who works on gcc; many even start with the assumption that > gcc is in maintenance mode. > > So to summarize, the reasons why llvm is gaining traction *today* (I'm > sure there are more): > > - Compiler-as-a-library - llvm is the first choice in FOSS projects and > use cases are exploding with gcc nowhere in sight > > - Mindshare - most students and researchers are focused on it > > - Funding - llvm has a much stronger funding ecosystem than gcc. This > includes direct funding from the foundation and development workforce > from various organizations and universities. > > - License - Companies are building proprietary solutions on top of llvm. > > Siddhesh >
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
On 4/18/21 8:44 AM, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote: Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 6:09 PM From: "Siddhesh Poyarekar" To: "NightStrike" , "Ville Voutilainen" Cc: "GCC Development" Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate On 4/17/21 12:11 AM, NightStrike via Gcc wrote: I was under the (likely incorrect, please enlighten me) impression that the meteoric rise of LLVM had more to do with the license allowing corporate contributors to ship derived works in binary form without sharing proprietary code. Intel, IBM, nVidia, etc. are I think this is a blinkered view. Sure, there are companies that build proprietary toolchains using llvm as the base but I would argue that it is the *result* of the rise of llvm and not the cause. The cause IMO is accessibility to other projects, most notably compiler researchers and students who find it a lot easier to target llvm than gcc because compiler-as-a-library. License may have been a factor for some of those uses (e.g. I know some who think copyleft is not free enough and BSD style licensing is the *real* freedom), but concluding that it is the major reason is to delude ourselves. It is also the reason why gcc does not even figure in situations where a larger project would need AOT or JIT compilation; we had to concede that ground all because of the FSF/GNU fears that companies would make proprietary compilers out of a gcc compiler-as-a-library. Of computer science graduates I have encountered over the last decade, I know few who started their journey with gcc and they were all in the initial part of the decade. In recent years I don't think I encountered any student who works on gcc; many even start with the assumption that gcc is in maintenance mode. For military focused PhDs, gcc is used. So to summarize, the reasons why llvm is gaining traction *today* (I'm sure there are more): - Compiler-as-a-library - llvm is the first choice in FOSS projects and use cases are exploding with gcc nowhere in sight - Mindshare - most students and researchers are focused on it - Funding - llvm has a much stronger funding ecosystem than gcc. This includes direct funding from the foundation and development workforce from various organizations and universities. You will not get funding grants in the US if you mention free software, because the US Department of Commerce does not allow it. I'd like to see a source for that. It certainly seems like complete bullshit to me, unless you're trying to tell me that they simultaneously do not fund anything related to free software while also having policy that mandates at least 20 percent of custom-developed code (i.e. code they fund the production of) has to be released as OSS (see https://www.commerce.gov/about/policies/source-code) - License - Companies are building proprietary solutions on top of llvm. Siddhesh
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
On 4/18/21 1:15 PM, Gabriel Ravier via Gcc wrote: I'd like to see a source for that. It certainly seems like complete bullshit to me, unless you're trying to tell me that they simultaneously do not fund anything related to free software while also having policy that mandates at least 20 percent of custom-developed code (i.e. code they fund the production of) has to be released as OSS (see https://www.commerce.gov/about/policies/source-code) You see Free != OSS...
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
> Correct. The Apache License included certain patent termination and > counterclaim provisions, made void and null by the LLVM Exceptions. > Originally, the LLVM License > was based on the two free software licenses - the X11 license and the > 3-clause BSD license. By 2005, Apple managed to hamstring the project by > hiring Chris Lattner > and giving him a team to work on LLVM. Can you tell me about some of the lawsuits that resulted? – Aaron
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
If the purpose was to facilitate lawsuits, and these lawsuits haven’t occurred after all these years, it seems like it didn’t work. Maybe you are wrong about the intent? Aaron > On Apr 18, 2021, at 12:50 AM, Christopher Dimech wrote: > > > I know that Apple can make some strong ownership claims. Also Red Hat, > but I consider it minimal. Apple has a very long history of aggressive > legal actions. > >> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 7:24 PM >> From: "Aaron Gyes" >> To: "Christopher Dimech" >> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate >> >> Can you tell me about some of the lawsuits that resulted? >> >> – >> Aaron >> >>> On Apr 18, 2021, at 12:08 AM, Christopher Dimech wrote: >>> >>> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 5:46 PM From: "Aaron Gyes" To: "Christopher Dimech" Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate > Furthermore, it continues to nullify the Apache License by allowing patent > treachery. The LLVM License is thus a perfidious license intended to > allow the licensor to sue you at their choosing.= “Patent treachery”? And the intent of the license is to... accommodate lawsuits? >>> >>> Correct. The Apache License included certain patent termination and >>> counterclaim provisions, made void and null by the LLVM Exceptions. >>> Originally, the LLVM License >>> was based on the two free software licenses - the X11 license and the >>> 3-clause BSD license. By 2005, Apple managed to hamstring the project by >>> hiring Chris Lattner >>> and giving him a team to work on LLVM. >>> That’s some very motivated reasoning you’re doing right there. Aaron >>
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
On 4/18/21 1:08 PM, Christopher Dimech wrote: The cause IMO is accessibility to other projects, most notably compiler researchers and students who find it a lot easier to target llvm than gcc because compiler-as-a-library. License may have been a factor for some of those uses (e.g. I know some who think copyleft is not free enough and BSD style licensing is the *real* freedom), but concluding that it is the major reason is to delude ourselves. Originally, the LLVM License was derived from the X11 License and the 3-Clause BSD License, both licenses conforming to the definition of free software. Apple officially hired Chris Lattner in 2005, giving him a team to work on LLVM. It is irrelevant to the point I'm making. If you're trying to assert that Lattner's hiring by Apple was the driving force behind the current llvm adoption then like I said before, it's blinkered. Read my response again for a deeper context. It is also the reason why gcc does not even figure in situations where a larger project would need AOT or JIT compilation; we had to concede that ground all because of the FSF/GNU fears that companies would make proprietary compilers out of a gcc compiler-as-a-library. Listen very carefully - In the first quarter of 2011, Keith Chuvala began discussing the need to drop all proprietary systems used to command the ISS. He specifically mentioned products from Microsoft and Red Hat. This was communicated to General Paul Martin, who then reported everything to the US House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. I can't parse what you're saying in response to my point about llvm being the default choice for all modern use cases of compiler technologies. Siddhesh
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
Please refer to the *Exemptions* section listed in the link below https://www.commerce.gov/about/policies/source-code - Christopher Dimech General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation) - Geophysical Simulation - Geological Subsurface Mapping - Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation - Natural Resource Exploration and Production - Free Software Advocacy > Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 7:46 PM > From: "Siddhesh Poyarekar" > To: "Gabriel Ravier" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate > > On 4/18/21 1:15 PM, Gabriel Ravier via Gcc wrote: > > I'd like to see a source for that. It certainly seems like complete > > bullshit to me, unless you're trying to tell me that they simultaneously > > do not fund anything related to free software while also having policy > > that mandates at least 20 percent of custom-developed code (i.e. code > > they fund the production of) has to be released as OSS (see > > https://www.commerce.gov/about/policies/source-code) > > You see Free != OSS... > >
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 7:53 PM > From: "Siddhesh Poyarekar" > To: "Christopher Dimech" > Cc: "NightStrike" , "Ville Voutilainen" > , "GCC Development" > Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate > > On 4/18/21 1:08 PM, Christopher Dimech wrote: > >> The cause IMO is accessibility to other projects, most notably compiler > >> researchers and students who find it a lot easier to target llvm than > >> gcc because compiler-as-a-library. License may have been a factor for > >> some of those uses (e.g. I know some who think copyleft is not free > >> enough and BSD style licensing is the *real* freedom), but concluding > >> that it is the major reason is to delude ourselves. > > > > Originally, the LLVM License was derived from the X11 License and the > > 3-Clause BSD License, both licenses conforming to the definition of > > free software. Apple officially hired Chris Lattner in 2005, giving > > him a team to work on LLVM. > > It is irrelevant to the point I'm making. If you're trying to assert > that Lattner's hiring by Apple was the driving force behind the current > llvm adoption then like I said before, it's blinkered. Read my response > again for a deeper context. Of course not, but those who adopt it are for the most part ignorant of the actual details. Use it. I won't. > >> It is also the reason why gcc does not even figure in situations where a > >> larger project would need AOT or JIT compilation; we had to concede that > >> ground all because of the FSF/GNU fears that companies would make > >> proprietary compilers out of a gcc compiler-as-a-library. > > > > Listen very carefully - In the first quarter of 2011, Keith Chuvala > > began discussing the need to drop all proprietary systems used to command > > the ISS. He specifically mentioned products from Microsoft and Red Hat. > > This was communicated to General Paul Martin, who then reported everything > > to the US House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. > > I can't parse what you're saying in response to my point about llvm > being the default choice for all modern use cases of compiler technologies. Well. You're wrong and I'm right. LLVM is for suckers. When one is ignorant, one keeps to the default. Then, when things don't work out as you think, don't blame me. > Siddhesh >
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
You don't have to believe me of course. Go ask any lawyer worth her salt and she'll tell you the same thing! > Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 7:53 PM > From: "Aaron Gyes" > To: "Christopher Dimech" > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate > > If the purpose was to facilitate lawsuits, and these lawsuits haven’t > occurred after all these years, it seems like it didn’t work. Maybe you are > wrong about the intent? > > Aaron > > > On Apr 18, 2021, at 12:50 AM, Christopher Dimech wrote: > > > > > > I know that Apple can make some strong ownership claims. Also Red Hat, > > but I consider it minimal. Apple has a very long history of aggressive > > legal actions. > > > >> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 7:24 PM > >> From: "Aaron Gyes" > >> To: "Christopher Dimech" > >> Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate > >> > >> Can you tell me about some of the lawsuits that resulted? > >> > >> – > >> Aaron > >> > >>> On Apr 18, 2021, at 12:08 AM, Christopher Dimech wrote: > >>> > >>> > > Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 5:46 PM > From: "Aaron Gyes" > To: "Christopher Dimech" > Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate > > > Furthermore, it continues to nullify the Apache License by allowing > > patent > > treachery. The LLVM License is thus a perfidious license intended to > > allow the licensor to sue you at their choosing.= > > “Patent treachery”? And the intent of the license is to... accommodate > lawsuits? > >>> > >>> Correct. The Apache License included certain patent termination and > >>> counterclaim provisions, made void and null by the LLVM Exceptions. > >>> Originally, the LLVM License > >>> was based on the two free software licenses - the X11 license and the > >>> 3-clause BSD license. By 2005, Apple managed to hamstring the project by > >>> hiring Chris Lattner > >>> and giving him a team to work on LLVM. > >>> > That’s some very motivated reasoning you’re doing right there. > > Aaron > >> > >
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021, 10:01 Christopher Dimech via Gcc, wrote: > You don't have to believe me of course. Go ask any lawyer worth her > salt and she'll tell you the same thing! > And if they don't tell you the same thing, they're obviously not a true Scotsman.
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 9:06 PM > From: "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" > To: "Aaron Gyes" > Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" > Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate > > On Sun, 18 Apr 2021, 10:01 Christopher Dimech via Gcc, > wrote: > > > You don't have to believe me of course. Go ask any lawyer worth her > > salt and she'll tell you the same thing! > > > > > And if they don't tell you the same thing, they're obviously not a true > Scotsman. A lawyer can trick anybody to do anything. That's why you should have your own. ;)
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 7:53 PM > From: "Siddhesh Poyarekar" > To: "Christopher Dimech" > Cc: "NightStrike" , "Ville Voutilainen" > , "GCC Development" > Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate > > On 4/18/21 1:08 PM, Christopher Dimech wrote: > >> The cause IMO is accessibility to other projects, most notably compiler > >> researchers and students who find it a lot easier to target llvm than > >> gcc because compiler-as-a-library. License may have been a factor for > >> some of those uses (e.g. I know some who think copyleft is not free > >> enough and BSD style licensing is the *real* freedom), but concluding > >> that it is the major reason is to delude ourselves. > > > > Originally, the LLVM License was derived from the X11 License and the > > 3-Clause BSD License, both licenses conforming to the definition of > > free software. Apple officially hired Chris Lattner in 2005, giving > > him a team to work on LLVM. > > It is irrelevant to the point I'm making. If you're trying to assert > that Lattner's hiring by Apple was the driving force behind the current > llvm adoption then like I said before, it's blinkered. Read my response > again for a deeper context. > > >> It is also the reason why gcc does not even figure in situations where a > >> larger project would need AOT or JIT compilation; we had to concede that > >> ground all because of the FSF/GNU fears that companies would make > >> proprietary compilers out of a gcc compiler-as-a-library. > > > > Listen very carefully - In the first quarter of 2011, Keith Chuvala > > began discussing the need to drop all proprietary systems used to command > > the ISS. He specifically mentioned products from Microsoft and Red Hat. > > This was communicated to General Paul Martin, who then reported everything > > to the US House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. > > I can't parse what you're saying in response to my point about llvm > being the default choice for all modern use cases of compiler technologies. Depends on the use cases. Not in military surveillance. And certainly not at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. At Boeing could be the same, but I'm not sure. Before 2011, rather than building things from scratch, washington bureaucrats simply picked from among existing technology. But things had really been going berserk around 2008. From 2017 onwards, I'm somewhat in the dark. They could have started allowing some ownership rights, but ownership rights under government contracts are very different than ownership rights under commercial contracts. > Siddhesh >
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
> You will not get funding grants in the US if you mention free software, > because the US Department of Commerce does not allow it. This is not correct and I suspect is a misunderstanding of what "government data rights" means.
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
> Depends on the use cases. Not in military surveillance. And certainly not > at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. At Boeing could be the same, but > I'm not sure. Before 2011, rather than building things from scratch, > washington bureaucrats simply picked from among existing technology. But > things had really been going berserk around 2008. From 2017 onwards, > I'm somewhat in the dark. They could have started allowing some ownership > rights, but ownership rights under government contracts are very different > than ownership rights under commercial contracts. I can't understand your point with this version either. Sorry.
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 at 13:49, Richard Kenner wrote: > > > Depends on the use cases. Not in military surveillance. And certainly not > > at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. At Boeing could be the same, but > > I'm not sure. Before 2011, rather than building things from scratch, > > washington bureaucrats simply picked from among existing technology. But > > things had really been going berserk around 2008. From 2017 onwards, > > I'm somewhat in the dark. They could have started allowing some ownership > > rights, but ownership rights under government contracts are very different > > than ownership rights under commercial contracts. > > I can't understand your point with this version either. Sorry. I don't understand these ramblings either. LLNL sure seems to have flirted with LLVM: https://www.llnl.gov/news/nnsa-national-labs-team-nvidia-develop-open-source-fortran-compiler-technology https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1608523 https://github.com/rose-compiler/rose/wiki/Install-ROSE-with-Clang-as-frontend
identifying toxic emailers (was: removing toxic emailers)
Hi David, Ian, Nathan and GCC all. Let's start from what we agree upon: On April 17, 2021 6:11:57 PM UTC, David Brown wrote: > The way you go on about "controversial American companies" and "undue > influence" suggests you think these companies are forcing their > employees on the gcc steering committee to add backdoors to gcc to > tell Facebook what projects you are compiling, or make gcc only work > well on Red Hat. That would be utter nonsense. That's utterly nonsense, I totally agree. And I'm afraid there is a language barrier here because this is NOT the kind of undue corporate influence I'm scared about. > Do you have any justification for thinking that the number of such > "concerned people" is significant? For sure: in Europe, awareness about the risks of relying on US bigtech corporations is mounting fast. The recognition of the Privacy Shield as invalid did not come in a vacuum, and despite all of the lobbying, DMA and DSA are coming. The global blackout of Google, fixed globally at once some months ago, demonstrated that all the data of Europeans are effectively accessible from Google LLC, and many many people here are realizing what incredible and unbalanced power they are collecting. Moreover, such data are accessible to the US security agency too, thanks to the various laws that do not recognize any protection to the data of non-US citizens. And while concerned, they do not even consider how spread are Google Analytics, Google Fonts or how many European's companies and agency rely on its cloud services, giving them access to even more data. And this is just Google. IBM has been problematic since its creation. And seeing how much GAFAM penetrated Free Software is concerning for really many people, all over the world. > do you think they have any reason or justification for this concern? I think so. We know Google is used to spy on their employees: https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/2/22047383/google-spied-workers-before-firing-labor-complaint And when Timnit Gebru was fired everybody learnt that Google tells his researcher what to write and what NOT to write on their papers. We know they partecipated in ICE. We know that the members of the Steering Committee use their corporate mailbox while working on GCC. So I think it's quite reasonable to expect that their employers could read the SC's secret exchanges (since they technically CAN read them). And thus they could get priviledged access to dangerous zero-days far before the end of embargo, even without the SC's members realizing it. And they could share them. And obviously, knowing that your employer CAN read the secret mails you exchange in a project you lead, will be a constant burden on what you are going to say. And writing code is not different from writing papers. > So what is it that you think these companies are doing wrong for gcc? > How do you think they are influencing it? Well on a technical level, they are rising it's complexity so much that the 4 freedoms became 4 priviledge years ago. This was NOT inevitable. But it creates a solid entry-barrier to all freedoms except the first. And it happened on ALL projects that such US corporations "support". But there are many another ways such companies could badly influence the project. For example they could weaponize it politically against people hurting their interests. When the rms-open-letter was still new, the first organizations that signed it, were all heavily sponsored by the same corporation. FSFE did not signed the attacking letter, but joined the mob with its own. I was surprised to see FSFE trying to condition the governance of another indipendent organization (something that is really rare among European no-profits, almost an unicum). But soon I realized that since 2013, the exact same US company that back the early organizations that signed the rms-open-letter, was behind 10-20% of FSFE whole incomes. Even this whole debate on the Steering Committe was started by a Facebook employee that asked for RMS removal that, promptly accorded, uncoved the US corporate influence of the GCC. > Who are all these "concerned people" ? Outside the US (and sometime even inside the US), anyone who knows a bit of history, have read Wikileaks and Snowden's documents and understand a little bit about software production and supply chain. On April 18, 2021 1:39:02 AM UTC, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Some of the posts here do not follow the GNU Kind Communication > Guidelines > (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.en.html). > > I suggest that people who want to continue this thread take it off the > GCC mailing list. Sorry Ian, I carefully considered wherther to reply to David or not. Ultimately I thought it was important to answer his public questions publicily since lack of response could be misinterpreted, as he wrote: > If you have justification, evidence, or even a rational argument for > your concerns, please share them. If no
Re: identifying toxic emailers (was: removing toxic emailers)
> So I think it's quite reasonable to expect that their employers could > read the SC's secret exchanges (since they technically CAN read them). I'm a bit lost here. What do you think is the content of "the SC's secret exchanges"?
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 10:49 PM > From: "Richard Kenner" > To: dim...@gmx.com > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, siddh...@gotplt.org, ville.voutilai...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate > > > Depends on the use cases. Not in military surveillance. And certainly not > > at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. At Boeing could be the same, but > > I'm not sure. Before 2011, rather than building things from scratch, > > washington bureaucrats simply picked from among existing technology. But > > things had really been going berserk around 2008. From 2017 onwards, > > I'm somewhat in the dark. They could have started allowing some ownership > > rights, but ownership rights under government contracts are very different > > than ownership rights under commercial contracts. > > I can't understand your point with this version either. Sorry. It is an argument against the idea that LLVM is the default way that people choose. In those places, gcc is used. No Microsoft (i.e. no Fortran Developer Studio, or LLVM). Before, I was using Microsoft Developer studio as a student. In those places, they don't trust Microsoft or anybody that provides software products that are difficult or impossible to review. Free software is not prohibited, since the government has access to the source code. Any tool that comes compiled is not acceptable there.
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
> It is an argument against the idea that LLVM is the default way that > people choose. I don't think that anybody made the argument that LLVM is the "default" in any sense. What's being given here are reasons why some people prefer LLVM over GCC. > In those places, they don't trust Microsoft or anybody that provides > software products that are difficult or impossible to review. Free > software is not prohibited, since the government has access to the > source code. Any tool that comes compiled is not acceptable there. For a compiler, of course, you need a compiled version of it to start with. If you use that same compiler to build itself, having the source code does *not* protect you from malware, as Ken Thompson showed back in 1984. Even if you take the stance that you'll compile GCC with LLVM and vice versa, you still have the risk that both of the binaries have been compromised in this way.
Re: removing toxic emailers
Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc : > This conversation has moved well off-topic for the GCC mailing lists. > > Some of the posts here do not follow the GNU Kind Communication > Guidelines (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.en.html). > > I suggest that people who want to continue this thread take it off the > GCC mailing list. > > Thanks. > > Ian Welcome to the consequences of abandoning "You shall judge by the code alone." This is what it will be like, *forever*, until you reassert that norm. -- http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond
Re: identifying toxic emailers (was: removing toxic emailers)
Hi Kenner On April 18, 2021 12:42:25 PM UTC, ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu wrote: > > So I think it's quite reasonable to expect that their employers > could > > read the SC's secret exchanges (since they technically CAN read them). > > I'm a bit lost here. What do you think is the content of "the SC's > secret exchanges"? GCC governance issues, maintainers, SC appointments, relations with FSF, and general project management issues. The kind of exchanges that SC members described in these weeks, while arguing that the FSF oversight was pointless. The "project's politics, so that programmers can focus on code". (I'm citing by memory, but I can look for the exact quotation if you desire) In fact, programming is a powerful political activity. One of the most powerful, actually, despite many still haven't realized the huge responsibility that comes with it. Giacomo
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
But that was around 2017. Perhaps people want to cut costs again - that's not a new thing. After all, they changed their mind in 2011 only because they got in excess of 5000 attacks that year. At any time in the past, I would have decided that science was good for the Sapiens. But now, with hindsight... > Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 11:06 PM > From: "Ville Voutilainen" > To: "Richard Kenner" > Cc: "Christopher Dimech" , "GCC Development" > , siddh...@gotplt.org > Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate > > On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 at 13:49, Richard Kenner > wrote: > > > > > Depends on the use cases. Not in military surveillance. And certainly > > > not > > > at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. At Boeing could be the same, > > > but > > > I'm not sure. Before 2011, rather than building things from scratch, > > > washington bureaucrats simply picked from among existing technology. But > > > things had really been going berserk around 2008. From 2017 onwards, > > > I'm somewhat in the dark. They could have started allowing some ownership > > > rights, but ownership rights under government contracts are very different > > > than ownership rights under commercial contracts. > > > > I can't understand your point with this version either. Sorry. > > I don't understand these ramblings either. LLNL sure seems to have > flirted with LLVM: > https://www.llnl.gov/news/nnsa-national-labs-team-nvidia-develop-open-source-fortran-compiler-technology > https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1608523 > https://github.com/rose-compiler/rose/wiki/Install-ROSE-with-Clang-as-frontend >
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
Some had contacted me about it. Could have sent response off the list. > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 at 1:05 AM > From: "Richard Kenner" > To: dim...@gmx.com > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, siddh...@gotplt.org, ville.voutilai...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate > > > It is an argument against the idea that LLVM is the default way that > > people choose. > > I don't think that anybody made the argument that LLVM is the "default" > in any sense. What's being given here are reasons why some people > prefer LLVM over GCC. > > > In those places, they don't trust Microsoft or anybody that provides > > software products that are difficult or impossible to review. Free > > software is not prohibited, since the government has access to the > > source code. Any tool that comes compiled is not acceptable there. > > For a compiler, of course, you need a compiled version of it to start > with. If you use that same compiler to build itself, having the > source code does *not* protect you from malware, as Ken Thompson > showed back in 1984. Even if you take the stance that you'll compile > GCC with LLVM and vice versa, you still have the risk that both of the > binaries have been compromised in this way. There are tools that look for code that is not supposed to be there. But people get sloppy and it's a lot of bother. That's been my experience.
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sun, 2021-04-18 at 09:10 -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: Sorry for prolonging this thread-of-doom; I'm loathe to reply to Eric because I worry that it will encourage him. I wrote a long rebuttal to his last email to me about his great insights into the minds of women but didn't send it in the hope of reducing the temperature of the conversation. That said... > Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc : > > This conversation has moved well off-topic for the GCC mailing lists. > > > > Some of the posts here do not follow the GNU Kind Communication > > Guidelines > > (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.en.html). > > > > I suggest that people who want to continue this thread take it off > > the > > GCC mailing list. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Ian > > Welcome to the consequences of abandoning "You shall judge by the code > alone." > > This is what it will be like, *forever*, until you reassert that norm. Or we could ignore the false dilemma that Eric is asserting, and instead moderate the list, or even just moderate those who have never contributed to GCC but persist in emailing the list. Personally, I've been moving all posts by Christopher Dimech to this list direct from my inbox to my archive without reading them for the last several days, and it's helped my mood considerably. He's been prolifically posting to the list recently, but in the 8 years I've been involved in gcc development I've never heard of him before this thing kicked off, and the stuff I've had the misfortune to see by him appears to me to be full of conspiracy theories and deranged raving. The clue might have been when he referred to us as "bitches". "Don't feed the trolls" might have worked once, but sometimes they start talking to each other, and it becomes difficult for a bystander to tell that everyone else is ignoring them, and it keeps threads like this one alive. I reject the idea that those of us who work on GCC have to put up with arbitrary emails from random crazies on the internet without even the simple recourse of being able to put individuals on moderation. That might have worked 20 years ago when I thought ESR was relevant, but seems absurdly out-of-date to me today. As usual, these are my opinions only, not necessarily those of my employer Dave
Re: removing toxic emailers
- Christopher Dimech General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation) - Geophysical Simulation - Geological Subsurface Mapping - Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation - Natural Resource Exploration and Production - Free Software Advocacy > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 at 2:51 AM > From: "David Malcolm via Gcc" > To: "Ian Lance Taylor" > Cc: "GCC Development" > Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers > > On Sun, 2021-04-18 at 09:10 -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > Sorry for prolonging this thread-of-doom; I'm loathe to reply to Eric > because I worry that it will encourage him. I wrote a long rebuttal to > his last email to me about his great insights into the minds of women > but didn't send it in the hope of reducing the temperature of the > conversation. > > That said... > > > Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc : > > > This conversation has moved well off-topic for the GCC mailing lists. > > > > > > Some of the posts here do not follow the GNU Kind Communication > > > Guidelines > > > (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.en.html). > > > > > > I suggest that people who want to continue this thread take it off > > > the > > > GCC mailing list. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Ian > > > > Welcome to the consequences of abandoning "You shall judge by the code > > alone." > > > > This is what it will be like, *forever*, until you reassert that norm. > > Or we could ignore the false dilemma that Eric is asserting, and > instead moderate the list, or even just moderate those who have never > contributed to GCC but persist in emailing the list. > > Personally, I've been moving all posts by Christopher Dimech to this > list direct from my inbox to my archive without reading them for the > last several days, and it's helped my mood considerably. He's been > prolifically posting to the list recently, but in the 8 years I've been > involved in gcc development I've never heard of him before this thing > kicked off, and the stuff I've had the misfortune to see by him appears > to me to be full of conspiracy theories and deranged raving. The clue > might have been when he referred to us as "bitches". > "Don't feed the trolls" might have worked once, but sometimes they > start talking to each other, and it becomes difficult for a bystander > to tell that everyone else is ignoring them, and it keeps threads like > this one alive. > > I reject the idea that those of us who work on GCC have to put up with > arbitrary emails from random crazies on the internet without even the > simple recourse of being able to put individuals on moderation. That > might have worked 20 years ago when I thought ESR was relevant, but > seems absurdly out-of-date to me today. > > As usual, these are my opinions only, not necessarily those of my > employer The deranged raving is the disclaimer every time an employee posts something. > Dave > > >
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
On 2021-04-17 20:10, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote: You have specified that the community does not require my approval or that of Eric Raymond. That is true of course. But many have gone through so much new age training that they ended up with a very sophisticated way of bullshitting themselves. Regards Christopher I'll see my work in GCC11 through (there's one remaining patch review to address this week); I don't like leaving things in a half assed state if I can avoid it. The work to finish out C++20 library support features which passed through the Concurrency and Parallelism study group (SG-1) in WG21 on their way to being standardized will be, for now, done in a public repo with GPL license sans-FSF assignment. Other work which I have initiated to replace the dependency on Thread Building Blocks within the Parallel STL algorithms (PSTL); something required for this part of libstdc++ to no longer be marked 'experimental' will not be done with a GPL license and will not, as a result, be assigned to the FSF. Using a GPL and assigning copyright are two different things though. Uhm, well, Duh? I guess...not sure what your point is, but mine is - I'm only going to do one of those things for the time being for libstdc++ work, and do precisely neither of those things on the runtime component I expect to eventually replace TBB with in the PSTL. It is my hope, and expectation, that that work will become part of GCC12 and GCC13 respectively, and I will know in the fullness of time if that expectation is to be met.
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
On 2021-04-18 00:38, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote: Listen very carefully - In the first quarter of 2011, Keith Chuvala began discussing the need to drop all proprietary systems used to command the ISS. He specifically mentioned products from Microsoft and Red Hat. This was communicated to General Paul Martin, who then reported everything to the US House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. And yet, here we are 10 years later, the ISS is still running RHEL...
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 at 4:58 AM > From: "Thomas Rodgers" > To: "Christopher Dimech" > Cc: "Siddhesh Poyarekar" , "GCC Development" > , "Ville Voutilainen" > Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate > > On 2021-04-18 00:38, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote: > > > Listen very carefully - In the first quarter of 2011, Keith Chuvala > > began discussing the need to drop all proprietary systems used to > > command > > the ISS. He specifically mentioned products from Microsoft and Red > > Hat. > > This was communicated to General Paul Martin, who then reported > > everything > > to the US House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. > > And yet, here we are 10 years later, the ISS is still running RHEL... Like the One Laptop per Child established with the goal of transforming education for children around the world; which shut down. When you and your friends wake up in the morning you should never roll to the left because you could cause damage to the system. The right side is more stable. Good Night.
Re: removing toxic emailers
David, On Apr 18, 2021, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote: > I reject the idea that those of us who work on GCC have to put up with > arbitrary emails from random crazies on the internet without even the > simple recourse of being able to put individuals on moderation. All sides in this multi-threaded debate, since the very first message, have put forth crazy, unfounded, unsupported, and false theories. That you're willing to tolerate some, because you find them believable, but are not willing to tolerate others, because you disagree with them, is not conducive of the tolerant and welcoming atmosphere I'd like us to pursue. That you claim some are entitled to share their opinions, because they've contributed code (and you agree with them), and that others are not because they haven't (and you disagree with them), but you do not disqualify those who have not contributed code (but you agree with them) and dismiss those who have (that you disagree with), you not only confirm that the issue really is about agreement/disagreement, but attempt to frame the intolerance to dissenting ideas as a chaste system. Again, not conducive of the tolerant and welcoming atmosphere I'd like us to pursue. I recall a scene from the original Cosmos TV series, by Carl Sagan, in which he's set within an out-of-scale model of the solar system, walking about the planets and talking about some batshit crazy theory by some scientist about how a planet-sized body had some day been ejected from Jupiter and floated about the solar system causing, among other effects, the Earth to stop spinning and then start spinning again, as described in some religious book. Then he proceeds to describe the most serious scientific problem involving that theory: that some self-proclaimed scientists attempted to prevent those ideas from being published. Preventing ideas you don't already agree with from being shared is not the way to do science, quite the opposite. Being intolerant to ideas that aren't prevalent in your filter bubble, and demanding others to take action to protect you from as much as being exposed to them, does not seem conducive of scientific progress, of collaboration, of tolerance, of inclusivity, or of diversity. I certainly don't find that welcoming, but rather toxic. I find it requiring alignment and obedience rather than diversity and freedom. Please reflect some more thoroughly about this apparent misalignment between your actions and your words. Thanks for reading, -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 at 16:32, David Malcolm wrote: > > "Don't feed the trolls" might have worked once, but sometimes they > start talking to each other, and it becomes difficult for a bystander > to tell that everyone else is ignoring them, and it keeps threads like > this one alive. > > I reject the idea that those of us who work on GCC have to put up with > arbitrary emails from random crazies on the internet without even the > simple recourse of being able to put individuals on moderation. That > might have worked 20 years ago when I thought ESR was relevant, but > seems absurdly out-of-date to me today. Hear hear. "Just ignore them" allows the trolls to dominate the discussion, and makes it appear that the entire GCC project is full of such people (when in fact the ones dominating the discussions have nothing to do with the project). Moderation is not censorship.
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 at 19:54, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote: > That you claim some are entitled to share their opinions, because > they've contributed code (and you agree with them), and that others are > not because they haven't (and you disagree with them), but you do not > disqualify those who have not contributed code (but you agree with them) > and dismiss those who have (that you disagree with), you not only > confirm that the issue really is about agreement/disagreement, but > attempt to frame the intolerance to dissenting ideas as a chaste system. Utter nonsense, Alex. I think it's clear I don't agree with most of your posts on this list in the past month, but it would be silly to suggest that you should not be allowed to post here, given your track record. Dave didn't say who he thinks should or shouldn't be moderated, so why do you think he said that those he agrees with are welcome to share their opinion? He said "those who have never contributed to GCC but persist in emailing the list" so why do you infer he only means those he disagrees with? Are you projecting maybe? To me a simple rule makes sense (and is what is used on another list that I am the moderator for, with not a single complain about my moderation in many years): every new subscriber has their "moderated" flag set by default. When a moderator approves their post, they have the option of clearing the "moderated" flag, if it's clear they are going to contribute usefully. That flag can be set again if somebody is disruptive or refuses to follow the list policies and stay on topic. > Again, not conducive of the tolerant and welcoming atmosphere I'd like > us to pursue. Neither is making false claims about Dave's claims or his motives for moderation. Stop it. > > I recall a scene from the original Cosmos TV series, by Carl Sagan, in > which he's set within an out-of-scale model of the solar system, walking > about the planets and talking about some batshit crazy theory by some > scientist about how a planet-sized body had some day been ejected from > Jupiter and floated about the solar system causing, among other effects, > the Earth to stop spinning and then start spinning again, as described > in some religious book. Sounds like Velikovsky. Less ridiculous than some of the ideas posted to this list recently.
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Apr 18, 2021, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > Dave didn't say who he thinks should or shouldn't be moderated, Shall we ask him to confirm what I read between the lines? Shall we ask Nathan? Shall we ask you? > it would be silly to suggest that you should not be allowed to post > here, given your track record I happen to disagree with the underlying premise, that my opinion should be any more legitimate or welcome because of my modest contributions to the project. Besides the implied chaste system that I've already objected to in the previous message, the approach you suggested amounts to regarding people as guilty until proven innocent. I support the opposite alternative, the one prescribed in the declaration of human rights and adopted in most civilized societies, that recommends people to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty. I find systems in which people are not welcome by default, but rather need to first earn a baseline of respect that every human being ought to be entitled to, are the opposite of welcoming, and the unchecked powers needed to implement them are too prone to abuse. I've seen such powers being abused, and I've found that absolutely intolerable. Plus, there's a cautionary principle that I subscribe to, that it's preferrable to find 10 guilty parties not-guilty and let them go free, than to treat one single innocent party as guilty. > so why do you think he said that those he agrees with are > welcome to share their opinion? Mainly because of timing, threading and general disposition. Even if he didn't state it expressly, it has not been hard to tell. I'd welcome certainty instead, either way. Whose messages would you prefer to have had the power to filter out, or that whoever did had filtered out from your view? Nathan, how about you? David, how about you? > Are you projecting maybe? I doubt it. I don't find myself wanting or calling for people to be prevented from expressing their opinions, no matter how much I disagree with them, or how much I find they may be undermining what I stand for with their stance. I do notice, however, when people call for suppression of dissenting voices, on arguments that apply equally or even more strongly to aligned voices, but that did not motivate calls for suppression on the same grounds. It's not even like I have to actively search for such patterns, asymmetries jump out at me and catch my attention. -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Apr 18, 2021, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > "Just ignore them" allows the trolls to dominate the discussion *nod* That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly conclude their opinions are consensual, or majoritary, just because they've driven dissenters into silence. Violent emotional responses is what trolls of all alignments aim for. Let's not give them that. Let's not give them reasons to denounce censorship either. Let's dissent politely and kindly, without calling them names, whether trolls or jerks or crazy. Ad troll[i]um is a very popular fallacious argument these days, but it's just as logically unsound as other fallacies. The best answer to unwanted speech is not censorship, but rather more good speech. It's true that negotiating and settling with wildly different opinions requires more effort than having despotic powers to dictate the right answer. The community has made it clear what political model it prefers, so let's put that in practice, shall we? -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar
gcc-11-20210418 is now available
Snapshot gcc-11-20210418 is now available on https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11-20210418/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 11 git branch with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch master revision b412ce8e961052e6becea3bc783a53e1d5feaa0f You'll find: gcc-11-20210418.tar.xz Complete GCC SHA256=4eaa79dc9ee25380452cd2f0a0c7a1de227782ab86bf052e71b8c442760ce9b2 SHA1=fc7075e1ad6b7c5d2a4c5a03d3786c8054f8b0b4 Diffs from 11-20210411 are available in the diffs/ subdirectory. When a particular snapshot is ready for public consumption the LATEST-11 link is updated and a message is sent to the gcc list. Please do not use a snapshot before it has been announced that way.
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 8:13 PM BST, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> Utter nonsense, Alex. I think it's clear I don't agree with most of
> your posts on this list in the past month, but it would be silly to
> suggest that you should not be allowed to post here, given your track
> record. Dave didn't say who he thinks should or shouldn't be
> moderated, so why do you think he said that those he agrees with are
> welcome to share their opinion? He said "those who have never
> contributed to GCC but persist in emailing the list" so why do you
> infer he only means those he disagrees with? Are you projecting maybe?
I'm genuinely trying to wrap my head around this. Front and centre of the
anti-RMS argument is that this is about becoming more welcoming. Is this
some kind of Orwellian doublespeak? That the project should become more
welcoming by casting off the neurodivergent leader who founded it and
putting up more barriers to participation?
Whoever heard of a free software community which bans its users from
participating? Let alone one which erects this metaphorical Trumpian wall
with its wrought iron, well-manned gates under the guise of being *more*
welcoming?
> To me a simple rule makes sense (and is what is used on another list
> that I am the moderator for, with not a single complain about my
> moderation in many years): every new subscriber has their "moderated"
> flag set by default. When a moderator approves their post, they have
> the option of clearing the "moderated" flag, if it's clear they are
> going to contribute usefully. That flag can be set again if somebody
> is disruptive or refuses to follow the list policies and stay on
> topic.
Why is it that those with the most radical ideas always seem to have the
least tolerance for dissent and feel the most threatened by discussion?
It's quite clear that your criteria for 'disruption' has more to do with
whether or not people agree with you than whether or not they're making
actual arguments or contributing in good faith. You're proposing for GCC
to act even less accountable to its (non-corporate) users than corporate
America does. How is this in the spirit of free software again?
How many values is it worth casting down the drain to achieve this promised
utopia where people never have to hear a voice they disagree with again?
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
> > > Of computer science graduates I have encountered over the last decade, I > > know few who started their journey with gcc and they were all in the > > initial part of the decade. In recent years I don't think I encountered > > any student who works on gcc; many even start with the assumption that > > gcc is in maintenance mode. > > For military focused PhDs, gcc is used. > Is this a real thing? I spent 15 year in academia (I left a few years ago), and I've never heard of a "military-focused PhD", especially in the context of computer science. I know of security-focused PhDs with intelligence applications, and I can imagine there are people out there working on AI/CV applications with military applications, but I think it's unlikely that those would require modifying a compiler. Applications in HPC might require deep compiler work and have potential military applications supporting AI/CV apps, but I wouldn't consider those "military-focused". I see things pretty much the same way as Siddhesh describes. > - Funding - llvm has a much stronger funding ecosystem than gcc. This > > includes direct funding from the foundation and development workforce > > from various organizations and universities. > > You will not get funding grants in the US if you mention free software, > because the US Department of Commerce does not allow it. > This is wildly inaccurate. Commerce has nothing to do with funding offered by other agencies. The NSF, which provides a significant portion of funding for CS research in the US, has embraced the release of research artifacts (read code) as open-source software. What's even better, the licensing on released work almost doesn't matter to the funding agency, unless they specifically enumerate limits and restrictions in their solicitations. For example, GCC's implementation of C++20 concepts was funded by NSF. I know because I was the postdoc funded to do that work. In fact, you can find NSF acknowledgments in the proposals I worked on. As a professor, I had NSF-funded work related to software-defined networking. All that code was also released open-source, albeit under an Apache or MIT license---I forget which. DoD and DoE almost certainly have restrictions. Corporate funding too, but I have less experience with those. Andrew
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 9:22 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly conclude
> their opinions are consensual, or majoritary, just because they've
> driven dissenters into silence.
The problem is, Alex, that the trolls mostly haven't been on the dissenting
side. All of the childish namecalling -- "jerks", "trolls", "crazies" --
and the insinuations that our voices aren't worth listening to because we
don't get paid $250,000 a year by Google to contribute to GCC all day are
coming from the pro-forking side.
Once upon a time, free software developers understood that users' opinions
were as valid as contributor's opinions. For a project like a compiler which
exists solely to enable other projects to exist, it seems like the only users
who are deemed worthy of representation in the 'room where it happens' now
are the major Corporations with the ability to sponsor a contributor on their
behalf. It's becoming very difficult to engage in good faith against this
kind of overt hostility to the grassroots users.
> Violent emotional responses is what trolls of all alignments aim for.
> Let's not give them that. Let's not give them reasons to denounce
> censorship either. Let's dissent politely and kindly, without calling
> them names, whether trolls or jerks or crazy. Ad troll[i]um is a very
> popular fallacious argument these days, but it's just as logically
> unsound as other fallacies.
I've only seen one or two genuine 'trolls' in the discussion, as in, people
who are just here to fish for a reaction who don't have an actual vested
interest in the outcome. All of them have sent a couple of messages and then
left. Completely agree with you that 'ad trollum' is being deployed here to
conflate the legitimate voices of concerned free software advocates with
childish trolling, much to the detriment of the level of conversation.
> It's true that negotiating and settling with wildly different opinions
> requires more effort than having despotic powers to dictate the right
> answer. The community has made it clear what political model it
> prefers, so let's put that in practice, shall we?
I think there's a fundamental disagreement here where we're defining 'the
community' broadly -- to include contributors, users, and pretty much the
whole free software and GNU community -- and certain people on the pro-
fork side are taking a more corporate view that only 'the firm' should get
any input into 'internal business'. This is not the free software community
that I recognize.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 at 1:10 PM
> From: "Frosku"
> To: "Alexandre Oliva" , "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc"
>
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 9:22 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> > That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly conclude
> > their opinions are consensual, or majoritary, just because they've
> > driven dissenters into silence.
>
> The problem is, Alex, that the trolls mostly haven't been on the dissenting
> side. All of the childish namecalling -- "jerks", "trolls", "crazies" --
> and the insinuations that our voices aren't worth listening to because we
> don't get paid $250,000 a year by Google to contribute to GCC all day are
> coming from the pro-forking side.
>
> Once upon a time, free software developers understood that users' opinions
> were as valid as contributor's opinions. For a project like a compiler which
> exists solely to enable other projects to exist, it seems like the only users
> who are deemed worthy of representation in the 'room where it happens' now
> are the major Corporations with the ability to sponsor a contributor on their
> behalf. It's becoming very difficult to engage in good faith against this
> kind of overt hostility to the grassroots users.
>
> > Violent emotional responses is what trolls of all alignments aim for.
> > Let's not give them that. Let's not give them reasons to denounce
> > censorship either. Let's dissent politely and kindly, without calling
> > them names, whether trolls or jerks or crazy. Ad troll[i]um is a very
> > popular fallacious argument these days, but it's just as logically
> > unsound as other fallacies.
>
> I've only seen one or two genuine 'trolls' in the discussion, as in, people
> who are just here to fish for a reaction who don't have an actual vested
> interest in the outcome. All of them have sent a couple of messages and then
> left. Completely agree with you that 'ad trollum' is being deployed here to
> conflate the legitimate voices of concerned free software advocates with
> childish trolling, much to the detriment of the level of conversation.
>
> > It's true that negotiating and settling with wildly different opinions
> > requires more effort than having despotic powers to dictate the right
> > answer. The community has made it clear what political model it
> > prefers, so let's put that in practice, shall we?
>
> I think there's a fundamental disagreement here where we're defining 'the
> community' broadly -- to include contributors, users, and pretty much the
> whole free software and GNU community -- and certain people on the pro-
> fork side are taking a more corporate view that only 'the firm' should get
> any input into 'internal business'. This is not the free software community
> that I recognize.
That's quite accurate. I can see again the emergence of the phreakers
types of the 1980's, the minority that were up to no good. Want to join
the club Frosku?
> >>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
>
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021, 02:41 Frosku, wrote: > On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 9:22 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote: > > That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly conclude > > their opinions are consensual, or majoritary, just because they've > > driven dissenters into silence. > > The problem is, Alex, that the trolls mostly haven't been on the dissenting > side. All of the childish namecalling -- "jerks", "trolls", "crazies" -- > and the insinuations that our voices aren't worth listening to because we > don't get paid $250,000 a year by Google to contribute to GCC all day are > coming from the pro-forking side. > Google doesn't pay anybody to work on GCC all day. You know nothing about GCC or the "problems" you're complaining about. Your input to this conversation is not constructive. > Once upon a time, free software developers understood that users' opinions > were as valid as contributor's opinions. That depends on the user.
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 7:29 AM BST, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2021, 02:41 Frosku, wrote:
>
> > On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 9:22 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> > > That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly conclude
> > > their opinions are consensual, or majoritary, just because they've
> > > driven dissenters into silence.
> >
> > The problem is, Alex, that the trolls mostly haven't been on the dissenting
> > side. All of the childish namecalling -- "jerks", "trolls", "crazies" --
> > and the insinuations that our voices aren't worth listening to because we
> > don't get paid $250,000 a year by Google to contribute to GCC all day are
> > coming from the pro-forking side.
> >
>
> Google doesn't pay anybody to work on GCC all day. You know nothing
> about
> GCC or the "problems" you're complaining about. Your input to this
> conversation is not constructive.
>
>
>
> > Once upon a time, free software developers understood that users' opinions
> > were as valid as contributor's opinions.
>
>
>
> That depends on the user.
Thanks for perfectly illustrating my point. I don't agree with you so my opinion
isn't valid and I'm stupid/clueless/etc.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
