Help RMS defeat the tranny faggot sjws destroying Free Software. Learn the truth of what is happening and spread these links everywhere.
https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/ https://medium.com/@whoisylvia/richard-stallman-has-been-vilified-by-those-who-dont-know-him-a3907b25b4c7 https://jorgemorais.gitlab.io/justice-for-rms/ https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2019-09/msg00259.html https://blog.frantovo.cz/c/377/ https://fsforce.noblogs.org/ https://trisquel.info/en/forum/free-software-force-calling-support https://www.muylinux.com/2019/09/27/richard-stallman-gnu-free-software-force/ https://gnu.support/richard-stallman/Ludovic-Court%C3%A8s-Guix-is-accusing-Stallman-of-Thoughtcrime-on-his-own-domain-GNU-org.html https://geoff.greer.fm/2019/09/30/in-defense-of-richard-stallman/ https://neritam.wordpress.com/2019/10/11/no-justification-for-stallmans-resignation/ My Thoughts on the Richard Stallman "Scandal" MIT scientist Richard Stallman taken down by vicious media smears https://watchkin.com/y/7UbQ1kc1vQU ##rms on irc.freenode.org https://medium.com/@gbatmarx/dear-selam-ddfb55f46fed?source=---------1------------------ https://email@example.com/remove-stallman-you-say-and-everyone-else-horrible-in-tech-fd4b1446b0a1 https://maslinux.es/batalla-en-la-fsf-cuaderno-de-bitacora-i/ http://techrights.org/2019/10/18/gnu-is-rms/
>implying RMS isn't a socialist "sjw" >implying the issue has anything to do with transgenderism or homosexuality >implying this isn't spam >implying this isn't old news anyway RMS did nothing wrong this time, but OP is a fucking faget
>>419195 I'm still pissed that the word SJW has lost its meaning. >I'd like to get paid for the code I write, thank you very much. I'd just like to interject for a moment to say that RMS cares about free (libre, not gratis) and open source software. He claims that monetization of code and services is not an issue at all so get paid all you want. That said, FOSS software is an essential part of digital infrastructure and a lot of it is hidden in plain sight.
>>419198 >And all that this results in big companies using other peoples works so they can push out their products - maximizing their own profit, since they can ignore the software stack almost entirely. It also can make them more secure. If you are employed in a technical role, there's a strong chance you are forced to use some of those products because fuck business. If I have no reasonable choice except to use that software, then the more secure they are, the better.
Free stuff also reduces the divide between commercial and DIY solutions. Look at stuff like VLC and mpv, Firefox, Linux and BSD distributions and basically most websites in existence. >inb4 just pirate everything
>>419202 It always depends on each program and the team. An open source project with a vulnerability will be patched ASAP cause everyone will see and know, while a closed source one may keep it for a while, partially because the programmers assume no one knows. Antivirus programs are close source, other things can be open just fine.
>>419206 >It always depends on each program and the team. That's exactly why open source is not inherently better.
>An open source project with a vulnerability will be patched ASAP cause everyone will see and know No, they get patched when the maintainer gets off his arse and decides to update it, and even then you have to distribute the patched version. If a 10 year old open source app has a vulnerability found, it won't magically get a fix overnight - someone has to code the fix, and even then only the source is fixed. If the maintainer doesn't make a new release, you have to rely on forks, maintained by others, who may or may not add other changes.
Meanwhile, exploits will be available on the darkweb either way, for a long time until a vulnerability becomes public.
There are advantages for open source, like when old, obsolete programs are opened in the hope that someone will improve on them. But security wise they make no difference, and financially it means you are giving away your software advantage for free.
>>419207 >That's exactly why open source is not inherently better. >But security wise they make no difference Open source does have a major inherent security (and privacy and ... ) benefit: the ability to be trusted. We, as stakeholders, can see if the code quality and practices are good or not. Closed source relies on faith that a company even cares about quality and security let alone implements it well, and in my experience, that faith is often misplaced. Protip: check out all the big companies with lots of money and employees who have been found to store plaintext passwords.
>>An open source project with a vulnerability will be patched ASAP cause everyone will see and know >No, they get patched when the maintainer gets off his arse and decides to update it. [...] Absolutely correct. There have been ancient exploits found in very popular FOSS projects: https://fossbytes.com/gimp-2-8-22-release-fixes-10-year-old-bug-now-available-download/ https://www.osnews.com/story/19731/the-25-year-old-bsd-bug/ and famously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbleed (https://xkcd.com/1354) - Not discovered for 2 years despite OpenSSL being universally used. Catastrophic consequences.
However, the OPPORTUNITY for users to discover and fix these bugs is there. If exploits will be available on the darkweb either way, wouldn't it be better if those vulnerabilities are easier for 'good guys' to find?