everything wrong with free software

 "obedience breeds foolishness"

### an-entire-year-of-ewwfs *originally posted:* jan 2022 ### january 2021 in january i started the ewwfs website, in response to a "sustained campaign of smears, co-opting and dishonesty". ewwfs covers broader topics than this smear campaign, but it thoroughly tracked the efforts to lie, rewrite history and similar behaviour from techrights. i didnt write (and do other things) with them for two years just to have roy lie (over and over again) like that after i left. incidentally, the reason i left was that i realised i was being used. roy insists (for the entire year, up until recently in november when he said it again) that everything comes from a december irc exchange (via email, with roy acting as a relay) about "nutrition". roy is leaving out an article i wrote, which he published in august, where i said i was leaving and not writing anymore. he lied in late august, so i would continue to write articles. but if id already written an article about leaving in august, how can he say it was all because of some irc exchange a few months later? as it often does, techrights fails to tell the whole story. ### since i didnt write for roy anymore, ewwfs became the place i would talk about the state of free software instead. roy dismisses it as "techrights-hostile" of course, but on this website i talk about every issue i talked about when i was writing for him. the smear campaign started in early/mid december 2020, and by january 5th id had enough and started ewwfs. within just a week (january 13) roy and someone else (i can probably guess) were discussing the fact that i was referring to him as "ron" instead on the website. i had my reasons for doing so, but as a bonus it is (very) reasonable to assume he was aware of ewwfs from that point onward. or maybe he was just discussing someone saying "ron" on a website hes never been to completely devoid of context or awareness of where it was from. i mean, anything is possible. ``` schestowitz > Maybe I'll ask figosdev who's this Ron, if I ever get a chance. Jan 14 23:29 ``` of course the ">" implies hes quoting someone. maybe he didnt read what he was quoting as well. for months he pretended to have never heard of the website, even after publishing a paper of someone elses in february which linked to it-- a link roy removed, lol. maybe there was a "fnord" nearby and he couldnt find the link that was RIGHT THERE in order to copy it over? but i certainly didnt add any fnords. happy to think that already in january, i was saying things that roy could only deal with by pretending they were never said. it took another 8 or 9 months before he published another article that linked to ewwfs. on neither occasion did i initiate this, other people made the decision to link to me. when someone linked to me in irc, that was not at my request either. part of the reason i have never initiated this was specifically so i could say that i didnt. weird al has people go through his mail discarding all parody and song ideas for a similar reason. (madonna however, actually suggested "like a surgeon" herself through an agent). but also, by not initiating any link to my website via techrights, it gave me an indicator of initial support and where it came from. meddling with that metric would be a shot in the foot, or at least a missed opportunity. december and january were broadly about roy trying to distort and pin things on me that he was similarly if not equally taking part in himself. he tried to say i went on some sort of rage about derek taylor, when the fact was (and the logs also support the fact) that i simply told roy i wasnt interested in watching his videos anymore. bfd. hes the one who asked me to explain why, so i stated that taylor was acting like a shill (in one video) and that he had also responded in favour of stallmans cancellation after it happened (which i didnt know when i started watching him). theres no way to turn what i said (roy logged my email reply, which is to say he republished it publicly and it can be viewed on his website) into a "rage" about dt-- but he spent weeks telling this fabricated story (plus others like it, as the story snowballed into some kind of legend about everybody) to anyone who would listen. the really incredible part was that (this is also publicly logged) he was having a discussion about the same issue regarding dt with someone else in irc, where it was very clear that he shared my concerns. why the double standard? because its part of an enormous pattern of similar bullshit. in january (amidst roy trying very hard to turn my departure into a scandal of some sort, which i continued to document so i could stand up to his lies and other bullshit) i took time to look more closely at tiny core and trisquel, and various dependencies they had on microsoft github. i had used tiny core previously, but found in january that their source code link redirected to github-- i warned anyone reading my website not to use it. this was important, because i had previously promoted it when i lacked this information and i wanted to make up for the mistake. i also wrote that techrights was helping the coup (whether inadvertently or otherwise) by waffling and downplaying events, against known facts and context. as of december it continues to do this. ive considered various ways of describing this misleading tendency, but my favourite metaphor for it was developed while writing this summary of the first year of ewwfs. because i started working on this a few days ago, i have already written an article about this, posted yesterday. ive spent most of the interim simply waiting to publish, but ive also fixed some typos and added a few notes here and there. ### february in the very beginning of february, i wrote an article about the "raspberry spy" which encouraged people to consider a boycott. at the time i owned such a device myself, though i got it used (it was given to me for free) and as it happens, i no longer have it. i do think sbcs in general have very important potential (potential i explored with a clever activist later this year) though i would prefer to focus on alternatives to anything from the makers of the spy. homer (ill mention him again) wrote about the corporate cult mentality surrounding the spy years ago, and it really doesnt seem like any of that has improved since then. as i noted in the article, i had read about the violations first in techrights. someone i know wrote a paper about it and submitted it to techrights, and it was published. roy managed to remove the link that went to my website, which i thought was hilarious at the time. the author was less amused. the paper cited my article, and several of roys articles. incredibly, the same month the link was omitted by techrights, i wrote something which im pretty sure roy plagiarised a month after the fact. the article has a great deal in common with mine and really doesnt seem like anything roy would write unless he had read mine first, and it ended abruptly on a side point that seemed to be his version of what i was saying (and was otherwise inexplicable). im a free culture advocate, and my articles are freely licensed so people can generally do what they want with them. i chose a stronger (but free) license than i normally use for writing SPECFICALLY so roy would be obligated to state where he took things from. roy could possibly rewrite my work, give zero credit and pretend he never saw my website (even when people bring it up on separate occasions, even when someone posted the url in chat, also logged). but hes got some chutzpah (it gets better than this, too) doing all this on top of the fabrications and smears in december and january. this is someone who will spend two years thanking you for things you contribute, lie about and smear you repeatedly after youve left, then borrow things from you and still tell lies about everything. regardless, the theme i was writing on was people needing to be more free-- because the baseline for software freedom keeps dropping. although february was busy, a lot of the results of that activity came the following month. one thing i did manage in february was to make changes to the deliberately simple wiki system that makes the website work. before i made these changes, ewwfs was already "optimised" for viewing with something like wget. what i mean is, the syntax is more minimal than html, much like markdown (which im not a huge fan of but i like the idea) and if you load a page with wget you get mostly text-- closer to what html was like in the early days, but easier to edit and ignore while reading. no "br" tags are needed, for example. and while it was always a balance between simplicity and features, (leaning on simplicity) when gemini started to gain momentum i fell in love with gemtext. the wiki has more features, but i immediately added gemtext support and started converting the pages to use that instead. on the website i made after ewwfs, it only supports gemtext. for ewwfs i made it so gemtext could be transitioned to on a page-by-page basis. this let me work on transitioning pages as it pleased me to do so, and nearly all of the existing pages (plus new ones) are ready to be dropped un-edited into a gemini capsule. the exception is the license information at the bottom and the header at the top (which can be discarded or replaced), though that information is quite uniform and trivial to move over (or strip the tiny bit of html from after copying it over) with a very simple script-- even a couple of basic grep commands (no complex regexes or perl needed for this). if copying only a page at a time, you could just select the gemtext with the mouse or use arrow/pgup/pgdn keys. the pages themselves are ready and you can see them in their minimalist glory either by using wget, or "view source" in a browser. it is much nicer to write articles in gemtext, and i consider it a step up from the easy syntax i tailor-made for my own purposes. ### march march was a lot of fun... red hat, which is to say ibm, which already controlled the infrastructure for gcc and gdb, decided to distance themselves further from the gnu project. while both the fsf and techrights downplayed this, eben moglen told it like it is. these are the crown jewels of the gnu project, and ibm (which already "owned" them in the infrastructure sense of the word) made moves to control SOME of the copyright separately as well. this means the only lever gnu itself has (other than forking away from ibm contributions, which is about as likely to happen as roys ridiculous prattling about linus forking the kernel) is the license itself. you might say they have the trademark, though unless they are willing to use it more like mozilla did-- their trademark is already being abused and they seem intent on doing nothing. note that osi failed to keep "open source" from becoming genericised, and the gnu trademark abuse seems historically familiar. i believe it will become genericised and powerless to distinguish itself from any fake (non-free, captured) derivative due to the fsfs continuing fuck-ups. this means it will be one more axis along which free software was co-opted and controlled. the fsf has always made a very big deal about controlling the copyright so it can defend the license. obviously ibms contributions are aggregate, but neither i nor (i believe) eben moglen, who surely understands it better than i do, seem to think ibm would make this move without a reason. in other words, downplaying it is only making it easier for ibm to get away with mischief. be sure to thank techrights for that. also the fsf says they will fight for your freedom, but by "fight" they must mean downplay the problem. theyve been doing that since 2011, when stallman semi-retired (ill explain that as well). ### when techrights insinuates that ibm cant control gnu/linux because they no longer hold fsf pursestrings, they might want to factor in that ibm have hosted gcc and gdb for years. in techrights revisionist deluspeak however, ibm has lost its leverage. it seems like they retain quite a bit of leverage even if they dont spend a dime on donations, but techrights analysis of such issues is frequently revisionist and one-dimensional; its sometimes useless against problems that have more than one moving part-- like the coup for example. some matters nonetheless, are overhyped. i consider hellwig v. vmware to be an example of this, and im not convinced that its more than fud looking for a sucker to believe. the difference of course, is that i really want to know if its a serious problem-- and if i find it to be, i wont sugarcoat the issue. but it looks and smells just like (very old) fud to me, and ive said as much. there is a very long history of strategically overhyping these legal revelations, which isnt the same thing as saying theyre never important. to put it in perspective, im still watching the api copyright issue (from afar) and im more concerned about that. other people are (it remains to be seen whether their fears are warranted or not) more concerned about whether organisational takeover could eventually lead to a neutered or malevolent future version of the gpl. im in the "this version or later" camp, but i get the concern. its an idle thought ive had for years myself-- the license plus "or later" is only as strong as the organisation itself. we never worried about the strength of the organisation until it failed. speaking of, the actions of the fsf from late 2019 to march of 2021 when stallman returned were reprehensible. i appreciate (if applicable) the notion of the fsf being under duress as an excuse, but i dont entirely buy it. officially stallman stepped down under false pretenses (the false pretenses being the people attacking him with lies, which is hardly stallmans fault) and to top it off, when he came back key people acted like he never really left-- that is, okay gotcha, he was only hiding. this is an organisation that takes hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations every year (granted, ive volunteered with ones that made a lot more than that) and theyre playing hide-and-seek with the founder and president, this isnt cool at all. what i think is that its a bullshit story, which glosses over facts with a vengeance. if i could prove this i would do so, but i doubt we ever get the facts-- or by the time we do, it will be an organisational post-mortem. the fsf has a tendency towards non-disclosure agreements that i find tragic at best, given that stallman started the movement due to non-disclosure agreements getting in the way of software freedom and now they keep the public in the dark about his own organisation. and i think thats probably being used against him as much as it is protecting anyone. at best they are a double-edged sword. i said in march: > the fsf has a long way to go. either way, it can continue to do it without my support. my interest in free software does not involve the fsf anymore... all the best to the father of free software, may he pull the fsf out of its decadance and show the world how to salvage a corrupt and co-opted 501(c)3 organisation. if anyone is up to the task, he is. it is january of the following year and i have yet to notice any significant evidence of stallmans return. what involvement he has appears at least, limited to gnu (which he never stepped down from in the first place, though some of the people we are supposed to kiss and make up with may have faked his resignation, which reminded me a bit of the 2000 american presidential election) and it doesnt really seem to be pulling gnu out of its tailspin at all. all the progress is minute and exaggerated while the threats are big and downplayed, and if stallman really was (as some insist) around while all the baddies were wreaking havoc and hes still here now (but theyve left the building), things should really be improving. i dont buy any of it, everything at the fsf is a complete fucking farce (as usual). they have dabbled too much with marketers, and their superficial progress seems tailored not to fighting for your freedom, but rebuilding an image suitable for fundraising in the absence of progress. this too is unforgivable. none of the stories about it add up in the least, but in march i said i dont think stallman will come back and kick arse and take names-- i said i thought he would come back and have tea and check his email. after the raspberry spy paper was chopped up and turned techrights-style into a "guest post" series, (it was no such thing) i promised to go on the offensive, and wrote up not only that story but also "a-muckrights-carol", because the past few months (or if you like, two years) had been such a farce that there was no way to do it all justice without parodying an entire classic novel. (thankfully, dickens was brief in those days). oliva thought the part with him in it was funny. so did i, but i wasnt expecting him to say so. then all hell broke loose in free software land, but really, things were already there so what else is new? ### april april was the coup that totally failed. right... it totally failed in that stallman is still not president, still relatively silent, gnu is still drifting towards microsoft, the entire lynching was sponsored (unofficially) by github users, the largest group found in the few thousand that petitioned were from debian and gnome, followed then by red hat (ibm) perhaps. but roy took OLD research of mine and said it was all ibm and the gnome foundation mostly. i called bullshit, because thats exactly what it is. roys penchant for putting spin on my work is the original reason i stated for leaving. he talked me out of it long enough to attribute it all to some random bullshit he swears explains everything (it explains nothing, and its a lie which i called him on both publicly and via email, not that it stopped him from telling it throughout the year). its one thing entirely to have the facts wrong, but another to put such spin on them that you can plainly see the join between the facts and whats being said about them. techrights isnt fit to line a birdcage, but just like a pile of guano you can find some truly interesting things in there if youre scientific enough about it. wear gloves, at least. in april yours truly scooped techrights in bringing the gnu.fools story to the public, which roy responded to by downplaying it for ages before trying to own the narrative for himself. its funny how he talks about microsoft trying to do this (successfully) to the linux kernel, but he does the same thing to someone he personally screwed over, lied about and campaigned against out of sheer spite because they left. i told roy IN DECEMBER of 2020 that i just wanted to be left alone, stop telling lies about me. so he spent this very time of year (starting december, lasting months) continuing to lie, fabricate, distort and troll. even when i got tired enough of it to start this website, i still hadnt dreamed he would carry on like that as long as he did. later on he published an article about ritual defamation, but either he (or his readers) didnt get the joke. if you contribute to his website you do so as a used, not as a contributor. roy says he supports stallman, though he also says "you have to get behind someone to stab them in the back" (a line from a famous old british comedy) and hes done practically everything to shield and downplay the actions of the largest groups in the coup-- as if they were doing it solely for attention-- he might be projecting. in fact, techrights on the one hand insists the coup had corporate sponsors, but on the other treats it like a band of lonely misfits that have gained little traction. the latter is revisionism, and not merely sugarcoating the facts. in his professional certification (assuming that isnt also fabricated, because im confident he was at least a student for reals) roy is a glorified statistician. despite this, he seems to have not noticed when tallying up the for and against lists (it was never a vote and theres no point in treating it like one, which he does) that several notable organisations should not be counted as a single person each-- but now (again, professional-- even doctoral-level statistical training, his) he treats the small handful of patsies theyve jettisoned as "they failed" and we can now relax like everything is back to normal, when red hat controls gnu more than ever. all of these events are completely random i guess, and its just a coincidence that they have in common weakening the fsfs ability to do anything about its own mission. because if theyre not completely random they would actually point to the coup making important strides towards corruption and control. but that doesnt fit the chestbeating "we sure showed them!" narrative of techrights that makes the latter look powerful, instead of the former. even if techrights is (as it claims) on the right side, its narcissistic and revisionist self-portrayal smacks of the same bullshit tactics as the people it pretends to fight. you can almost picture a man in boxing gloves throwing punches at his television and claiming victory when the "opponent" falls. and if the opponent doesnt stay down, we can simply clip the video to end where he was down for a moment. "THE WINNER, AND UNDEFEATED CHAMPION! TECHRIGHTS!" the coup never stopped, it went on from 2018 and just had its THREE-YEAR anniversary in december. for as long as ive waited to say otherwise, nothing has actually gone back the way it was before the coup-- stallman isnt president, he isnt vocal (although he had stopped being so around 2011) and the current president (who says he will step down the minute they find someone new-- which im sure they will eventually, just for show) is a big fan of microsoft github. great. what i predicted in 2018 was that stallman would get the torvalds treatment-- and torvalds was indeed brought back, but without any real power. techrights reports that torvalds (the fading demigod of open source) was treated like a crazy person to silence him, meanwhile stallman is embarassed to make anything but old cookie-cutter statements regarding his own movement and techrights is silent (but not unaware, ill get to that too) about this. why focus on what happened to torvalds so long ago but fail to mention that similar psychological abuse, manipulation and silencing is still clearly happening to rms, even since his return (and/or non-departure?) techrights reports on the epo exploiting people with autism, but when the fsf does the same thing its obviously "okay". (this is a perfect example of what i mean when i say that since late 2021, techrights went from being a fsf critic to fsf mouthpiece, straight up to the present when the fsf unveiled its pathetic anti-whistleblower policy-- all while doing NOTHING in response to the coup itself other than promoting its members). stallman is back as a mascot at least, although the official narrative is he never really left. i cant say im swayed by it, the facts didnt generally support the narrative at the fsf before the coup, and they dont now either. but as techrights enjoys its various chestbeating moments as though techrights made all this happen, echoing the fsfs industrial bullshit that all is well and gee, that was rough folks but its all good from here on out-- roy and i both used to call bullshit, but at one point he decided to throw me under the bus for having concerns hes ON RECORD as having himself since i left, but its BAD, BAD if i have the same concerns. its pure rhetoric without any facts or truth to mess with the narrative. only the more full of shit the fsf is, the more full of shit roy is too, but now hes been caught fabricating things to whitewash the entire story. so be it, ive caught him lying with a flourish like some compulsively dishonest olympic figure skater. one of the lies i made fun of in april was actually based on something he said in march: ``` Techrights-sec his priority should be on finding and establishing a strong spiritual successor Mar 26 10:16 Techrights-sec figosdev brings that up in the long post, too. Mar 26 10:16 schestowitz fig is sort of back, albeit too shy to admit that he wants to be back after insulting a whole bunch of us (RMS and Oliva too) in a totally unwarranted fashion Mar 26 10:17 Techrights-sec well I'm glad he's back Mar 26 10:37 schestowitz too proud though to apologise to us Mar 26 10:37 ``` i compared this "apology" roy has entitled delusions about to expecting someone to say "GOSH sir, im terribly sorry i ran into your FIST with my FACE like that. i promise ill be more careful next time!" roy spent months being a bully and expects an apology for someone telling him to leave them the fuck alone. this is pure, textbook narcissism, even without the compulsive (even artistic, flowery, showy) lying he adds on top of it. roy lied TO stallman ABOUT me in december, he lied ABOUT stallman TO his readers and associates after i left, then in march he pretended i had come back. when my activity consisted entirely of emails and submitting articles for publication, and the closest we came to that recently is roy pinching something from my website without attribution AROUND THE TIME HE SAID I WAS BACK, you get a real glimpse into what makes this fucker tick. bite off something i said? thats just like me coming back to write for his spiteful, lying arse. i did nothing to justify his absurd claim whatsoever. he simply made it up. on april 1st i did a very silly, absurd april fools post where i lampooned this ridiculous claim roy made in late march. even funnier than fabricating my return is that when i actually left in december, he acted like i was never really part of techrights in the first place. funny, as he had spent two years thanking me for my contributions and on one occasion even used the word "family". when i left, he talked like i was nobody and had never really been there-- so how the fuck could i be "back" again? roys story is bullshit either way he leans on it. dont ride the fence all day, people, itll fucking chafe. april was broadly a month for lampooning the purest bullshit from techrights, which i probably got better at highlighting during that time. i was also working on other projects-- the research i did in 2020 was still going on in march and april, plus i was gaining further skills (or if you prefer, basic competency) with bsd. at this point it had still been less than a year since migrating from the bloberating system known to some as "gnu/linux". the more pieces they require to be stuck together for it to work like it used to, the more of a blob it becomes. sure, the pieces themselves may have source available and a free license-- but the aggregate is at a minimum proprietary in spirit and nature, if not in both intent and practice. the fsf either cant figure out the obvious or has simply decided that users having control of their computing isnt important anymore. without people defending him (and this i feel is NOT a lost cause), stallmans legacy will likely be that he was pressured to "let go" of a number of important issues over the years, starting at least a decade ago under the PRETENSE of being "more agreeable", and after everything gnu really stood for was co-opted and robbed out from under him (as open source was always wont to do) the SAME PEOPLE now BLAME stallman for allowing them to destroy it. i will never stand for that-- but techrights DOES, even today. linux (the kernel) will never be free. in april i compared it to a forced marriage (not forced by the family, forced by the state or local tribal leaders). i was talking about having to work alongside the tech worlds answer to the moral police, people who tried to kill our leader with lies so they could rule us in his stead. here they declared war, but we cant even ask for a divorce? fuck that, linux is a backwards nation. open source is a harem of corporate slaves. we are told to just be content that linus was kicked out of his own palace-- but it was never his kingdom, it was never about progress, and the new caliph is worse than the previous. also in april i compared the state of free software to the emancipation proclamation at the end of the american civil war in comparison to the state of black america after the civil rights movement. technically, free software IS a civil rights movement for all computer users. or at least it was. my point was that in terms of world events, free software is more like an official declaration of freedom than an already-fought-and-won sort of freedom you can really touch. and i dont believe the fsf is fighting for us-- i believe the fsf is begging corporations for freedom, which isnt how real freedom works at all-- begging corporations who care as little about you or i as banks do about the mortgage holders they foreclose on. the fsf knows nothing about freedom anymore-- its ridiculous to call it "freedom" if youre always on your knees. free software has a long way to go, and the fsf seems far more interested in vapid advertising than moving forward. this is nothing like the fsf from when they were actually making any real difference. it wasnt just a coup-- they sold out. in fact, i think the coup (while a very real thing) has been turned into a convenient story for them to hide behind. if stallman isnt fooled by all this, then hes pretending to be for strategic reasons-- but either way, the fsf is a farce. let me point out that when people lie to your face all day long, you dont have to be an idiot to be fooled by them. (after two years of being fooled by roy, i suppose that could sound like a self-serving defence. it is nonetheless very true, and important to note for anyone standing up to liars and manipulators). narcissists routinely exploit geniuses for fun and profit-- its a story that goes back to before (and including) the invention of fm radio. look that story up sometime, you may find it somehow familiar. edison did it to tesla, jobs did it to woz, the epo does it to inventors and developers and open source did it to stallman-- id say this is the natural order of things-- but thats like saying an alcoholic being married to the bottle is the natural order of things-- it doesnt have to be. free software has ended its "emancipation" phase and needs to move forward to human rights. i certainly dont mean it needs to be hijacked by peripheral and tangential concerns; some of those tangential concerns are important, but thats no reason for said concerns to speak (exclusively, mind you) on free softwares behalf. that would simply hand the movement over to whatever group successfully co-opted those other concerns. how could that be something we need to happen, when that takeover has happened already? i talked to oliva recently. he didnt know he was telling me this (and i didnt plan for him to) but from what i gathered, this april story (not surprisingly really) still applies: => https://wrongwithfreesw.neocities.org/free-software-has-a-weasel-problem.html the coup is still going. the fsf coup is hiding behind ITSELF. heres how its (theoretically) done: 1. infiltrate organisation 2. strengthen numbers of infiltrating group 3. kick out half the group 4. congratulations, youre still there! only now youre HEROES! ive seen this done (confirmed) in real life, with as few as two people. but doing it as a group is fucking clever. all you have to do is find some patsies, either push them out (or get them to agree to leave) and then: NOPE, thats it, youre done. VOILA! its a nice touch that theyre also against whistleblowers now. its pointless to tell me the coup isnt still in control, when the fsf isnt doing anything remotely fsf-like. again, the fsf isnt a real organisation anymore. it bears virtually no resemblance to either its history or mission (this is why history is so important-- without it, explaining the present is much closer to impossible). its just an image, a thin veneer, a facade. with cardboard cutout stallman as its mascot. in april, roy made a video about one of the stories on my website. he told his readers that he didnt know the address. which is funny because he was reading right from the first line of it. but i know what must have happened-- someone sent him the entire article with no link, and roy just read it from his email. sure, i can believe that. but its the second or third time that he managed to feign unfamiliarity while basically quoting it, even referring directly to it-- all without an address! kind of amazing, isnt it? roy lies to his readers and to people in his irc-- A LOT! sometimes comically so. in april i started working on "gnu watch" (the page) again (not to be confused with "gnu watch" the software) this time on my own website. this recurring theme would lead to "gnu meter" (basically gnu watch plus recommendations on what to salvage as a priority) in august and eventually to the mlsd in october. each of these projects is larger and broader than the previous, while serving as a continuation of at least some of the goals of the former. ### may in may, and regarding what i said before about the torvalds-reeducation-like abuse and manipulation of stallman, i spotted (and commented in an article about) this: ``` schestowitz__ > Perhaps. He definitely should be contacted somehow. You know the May 01 07:54 schestowitz__ > British style of doing these things. Too bad it's not feasible to do it May 01 07:54 schestowitz__ > in person. May 01 07:54 schestowitz__ > So someone is politically filtering RMS? May 01 07:54 schestowitz__ some gnu.org admins, I think May 01 07:54 ``` i mean, theres very little context for this-- except all the other things that have happened over the years. someone once tried to force stallman out of gnu by tampering with his website. thanks to the fsfs apple-like culture of secrecy, we never did find out what happened. even im not convinced the fsf should be entirely open about everything that happens, though talking about freedom behind this sort of curtain leads to results that are almost too absurd to parody-- i even warned that it would have exactly that effect before stallman was pushed to step down. theres no need for critics to straw man the fsf like they used to anymore; it would be redundant. since techrights usually downplays these things (at least since late 2020-- before that, it treated such problems quite differently) we may never know what that was about. ive noted that roy cycles between downplaying / dismissing and chestbeating, and treating crises like crises. theres a dual purpose to this: one, it allows him to say anything about anything on any side of an issue at any time, ("if-by-muckrights") so he can pander to as many different people as possible and pretend to give a shit, when zero shits are given. the other purpose is worse and relevant to how he responded to the coup in april, but ill get to that. my approach to many things is to try to get as large a picture as possible, in as much detail as possible. to this end, and to combat (and outline) the cycle of spin techrights puts on stories for self-serving purposes, i was so determined to REVIEW, and summarise every year of stories from techrights. so (for the second time ever) i downloaded techrights. then i reviewed it. the whole thing. i DID ignore most of the epo stuff, as i find it boring and irrelevant to my purposes. obviously the patent issue matters, i dont think its entirely uninteresting-- most of what techrights covers about it is (at least, at most) more interesting to the patent people than it is to me. you seem to be on the full tour of the sausage factory with that topic, and i would settle for an accurate list of ingredients. i typically skip the epo stuff. this is despite the fact that sometimes i think techrights is mostly fluff to draw people to the epo stuff. the possibility has been considered. i didnt finish that in may, though i did catch up to what was (at the time) the present day. i havent abandoned that project just yet (nor was it pointless if i abandoned it now) though if im working on two things and one is twice as interesting, i will sometimes put something ive done a lot of work towards on hold while switching to the more interesting one. the project led to my "pocket muckrights" which is a text file containing all the most important stuff (for my purposes) from techrights ever-- i prefer it to trying to get a lot of information from the deluge of bullshit as it is organised. im a relative expert on searching techrights-- its gone far beyond what local facilities can easily assist. pocket muckrights is useful, and ive streamlined a lot of what it takes to catch up a year at a time-- very effectively, as i used it to catch up more or less on 14 years during a period of fewer weeks. as much as ive said about the website, i like to be able to not only quote it in context, but show MY readers what im talking about. its worth noting perhaps that in this yearly review (that is, the one youre reading now) i avoided linking to the relevant articles. this is a review, a summary, and not an index. but there are sufficient arguments for and against linking to my own articles in this particular review. ill make a few exceptions. > theyve been doing that since 2011, when stallman semi-retired (ill explain that as well). also in may, i noted that in 2011 (between october 17th and november 4th) stallman changed the "stallman-computing" page on his website to add the following text: > I do not have a preferred GNU/Linux distro. I recommend all the ethical distros — namely, those that are 100% free software. > I've chosen not to have any preferences among those ethical distros. But I am not in a position to judge them on other criteria: even to try them all would be a lot work that I have no need to do. i refer to this edit as "the bullet points that killed free software". for people who wonder what led the fsf to stop caring about "osps" or "free in license only" software and just throw out all pretenses of the user needing to have control their computing, i found you the smoking gun. make no mistake: to subjugate the user, a corporation need only create a distribution that has no respect for the user, make it hopelessly complicated for anything but an incredibly large group of people to fix (even duix has not managed to free itself of stub systemd components, regardless of gnu shitherd) and then put it under a free license. and with that, stallman has pre-approved it. this would not be a problem, if anybody ever picked up the slack where stallman abandoned such posts as these. i refer to it as his semi-retirement as chief gnuisance. no one else is watching for threats. gnu is doomed. (actually, gnu is dead). if you can have gnu without a distro of course... i mean, thats basically what you have if you start with openbsd and... whatever! but this is how the biggest problem started, with stallmans 2011 semi-retirement as chief gnuisance (with no true successor). its easy to say this is stallmans fault, but the real failure rests on every developer who (and every organisation that) is sufficiently close to gnu. is this fixable? i like to think so. but with a decade since this event, a decade of people growing increasingly used to free software not caring if the user controls their computing or not, and even a decade of roy dismissing mincers warnings (i checked) both the fsf and techrights can only boast of sheer organisational failure. the trojan army has decimated everything within the gates. you had ONE JOB! but that job was abandoned ten years ago, and ever since the fsf has turned into a fucking farce. ### june june was the month of anticapitalism, and not the only one. in june, a friend of mine and i (i think he should get the brunt of the credit, but im happy for him to share it if he likes) introduced the idea of socialised computing-- i dont know if we were the first, but we were at least the latest. ive stated as clearly as it can be stated that i dont think free software needs to be "redefined" for this to happen. im aware that free software does not explicitly state or intentionally imply, let alone demand a need for solely non-commercial participation. free software was never "against" corporate development, open source merely conflated free softwares hostility towards user control and monopoly with being unfriendly to businesses. i dont wish to muddy those waters further, in fact it was free software that convinced me libertarianism could be a legitimate path to progress in the first place! after all, it allowed corporate involvement and it had worked well... so... far... without touching the free software definition (on a separate note, im still in favour of adding a "fifth freedom" which is not DIRECTLY related to this, but thats more about preventing strategically unmanageable bundling that is hostile to user freedom) or pretending that free software was ever anticapitalist (it isnt), i still wish to explore and promote free software from an anticapitalist standpoint. lets be clear that anticapitalist free software is not a redefinition of free software, but a subset of it. and HOW is anticapitalism relevant to free software? in that the anticapitalist subset does not forbid commercial USE of the software (that would make it non-free, you know?) but it rejects (as much as possible within reason, at the very least) corporate INVOLVEMENT in the development of free software. (note please, the important distinction between rejecting and forbidding it-- one simply eschews and neglects such involvement, the other prevents some users from having all four freedoms-- i am NOT promoting or recommending the latter, but that is the very straw man that corporate opponents would lean on; it is not unlike when they pretended that free software is by nature unfriendly to business per se). for many years of course, i was content that free software was forkable enough that corporate meddling was more of a theoretical problem than a real one. but at this point its very clear that the license is (for this particular problem, not necessarily free software in general) more of a theoretical solution to this problem than a real one. which is NOT to say that i think a license can solve this problem in the first place-- im against that for "ethical source" (which is a foolish proposal based on a straw man of free software, and a completely impractical task for a license in the first place) and im against trying to use the license to "solve" this issue as well. so first and foremost, anticapitalist free software does not require an "anticapitalist license". i actually hate cc by-nc for starters, and furthermore im unlikely to like any license remotely like by-nc. free software ought to (as it does already, and still needs to) use licenses that fit the free software definition. the gpl, agpl, lgpl, bsd and cc0 "licenses" (cc0 is a waiver by default with a FALLBACK license) are acceptable for this task. in many instances software that uses these licenses is also acceptable. the license neednt forbid corporate involvement, all that is necessary is for projects to stand AGAINST corporate interference. i realise this probably sounds daft to someone who is aware that im an openbsd fan. however, they are most likely unfamiliar with the reasons i think openbsd is a good STARTING PLACE for such a project. even communist revolutions have such "starting places" which bear relatively little similarity with the overall goals-- and a top stair may look practically identical to the bottom one, but the point is to get from one level to another entirely, yet (by the very nature and definition of steps) not all at once. a similar ascent without stairs would be a "leap" instead, or it would sometimes be awkward or impractical (or not really require stairs at all). but i am a fan of openbsd not only because i think it is a good place to start-- i think it is very possibly the BEST place to start. gnu/linux being a place that avoids any further progress, because any further progress would pose a threat to linux (and as a true dependent, perhaps even an addict, gnu has grown sadly and utterly helpless without it). ### linux has subjugated gnu-- and through gnu, linux subjugates free software, its advocates and users. if you prefer to take a thousand steps only to end up on a level identical to the one you just "left", then i recommend either debian or m.c. escher. both will take you on a similar journey, while the escher path at least looks interesting and demonstrates mastery at something other than sabotage. today it seems no coincidence that osis take on open source began with debians free software guidelines-- debian is an open source saboteur of free software, and like osi (and increasingly the fsf, but its not a coup!) it has destroyed free software and handed the reins over to microsoft and ibm. nicely done guys, these are the very monopolists i joined free software to escape. youre a fucking joke, tax-free software foundation. corporate fuckery has worn free software to the very bone, and sabotaged the things we rely on most. if we want to avoid this in the future, we must avoid the source of this corporate fuckery-- namely, the same corporations that gleefully commit these atrocities. (i refer primarily to their direct sabotage of our software, turning it into "products" with simulated lock-in). as to the phrase "simulated lock-in", i have my reasons for it (as software under a free license is ALLEGEDLY impervious to such things, but not so it seems, in practice) but in practical terms, simulated lock-in is like software simulating a computer-- it has very similar (if not identical) input and output, often in a very practical and meaningful terms. put simply, simulated lock-in is practically like lock-in. socialised computing would (by its very nature) put user freedom before corporate "contributions", in the precise inverse of the way the fsf (including the gnu project) has failed to (at the expense of freedom). i was for quite some time, a libertarian who was openly a "socialist at heart". if i am indeed an anticapitalist, i am an anticapitalist who is very openly libertarian at heart. these were always facets in my opinion, never a contradiction before and not (in my opinion) a contradiction now. if a person can be anarcho-communist, they can certainly be a socialist who is libertarian at heart. the focus is quite different, the methods are not identical, but the objective is no less honest than before. as a libertarian at heart, i can tell you that not only myself, but even leon trotsky was quite aware of the pitfalls of socialism! nonetheless, this incessant corporate fuckery (and its shills in all of our most important software-related and other human rights organisations, not the least of which is the fsf) is enough for me to change my focus. the coup is still at large. the objectives of the coup are still very much a part of our daily lives, which doesnt stop most people from simply ignoring (or remaining unaware of) this fact. and those who downplay this do more to help the coup than they do to fight for us. but there is nothing wrong with the licenses that i know of-- the problem is organisational and strategic, it is neither contractual nor the mere matter of how our agreements are worded. no license will fix this, it requires (at the very least) a change in how we gauge and prioritise actual threats to free software. the fsf will never do this-- but it used to, when it was a real organisation and not a co-opted shell of its former self (as non-profits tend to become when they cease to sincerely care about anything other than donations and gaining "support"). trusting the corporations who (once again) betrayed us will only lead to further and more complete failure, so im done with that path entirely. (most) everyone else seems to be confusing a scorpion for a boat, but i think we would do better to take our chances swimming. a meme from june goes just like this: "developing based (solely) on profit is like dating based (solely) on looks". but what is there to love? floss is fake as hell. free software was stronger (but not as profitable) when it relied on startups and students. bsd was (originally) based on, yet (with work done outside of at&t) better than unix. our non-profits have been compromised by donors, regardless of the fact that non-profits typically need donors to survive. they have proven unable to restore themselves to their rightful and intended purpose, but they are still quite capable (even increasingly capable) of hype and bullshit. the only possible answer is less corporate involvement. most people seek more instead, or they (unwittingly) seek a vacation "with pay", only to resume the same course of action (which is to say excessive and self-destructive compromise) upon their return. that will never do, but more to the point-- it will never work. every organisation will turn into mozilla eventually. heres a lifejacket-- bon voyage. ### july in july i outlined what i call "super-free software", which is (once again) an explicit subset of free software instead of a redefinition. there is no coincidence here, it is a continuation from june. the values of super-free software are nothing new: they expose "open source" as the scam that it (most typically, practically always) is, they stress free speech as being of great importance (even vital to free software) and explain that things like lieplanet are a miserable if not fraudulent alternative to this. super-free software treats "gratuitous interdependency" as a bug, stresses the vital nature of both education and distrusting corporations, the importance of modularity and the necessity of developers exercising LESS control over users. (by extension, users must demand greater freedom). basically it picks up where the fsf utterly abandoned its mission. but unlike with the fsf, you can actually help-- without paying for the privilege of simply going through the motions. this is perhaps the closest ive come to my own free software manifesto, at least with results i can look on fondly. the thrive guidelines are still relevant, but they are aimed at guiding federated (and grassroots) organisations, rather than outlining the ideals of the software itself. you can read about that here: => https://wrongwithfreesw.neocities.org/towards-super-free-software.html yes, this is another exception to the general avoidance of self-linking in this review of the year. also in july, i finally removed firefox and stopped using it. i stopped using it (preferring a well-known fork) years ago, only to abandon that fork much later after it got even more ridiculous than than the original. i dont think its possible for that to happen twice, but good riddance since mozilla was (please note: still is) part of the fucking coup. fuck mozilla, mozilla hates humanity, mozilla is hate encoded in binary, mozilla is hypocrisy in one of its purest known forms. having also ditched nano permanently (and i really was a fan for years) i set out to work on a suitable replacement where each feature was coded in a file you could simply delete-- and it would not require additional coding to remove it. i think an argument could be made that this was very far from being a new idea, but the implementation is fun (it was for me). it is a pretty demanding project, and i chose also to try to avoid a curses-like interface for one that needs only basic ansi escapes. getting such a thing to "scroll" and act suitably as a viewer (the editing part is less tricky-- being a suitable viewer, thats the fun part) is a challenge all its own. i already have a suitable gui-based editor (im using it to type this) but for a working viewer and text editor from the term or vt, i now recommend jed. (like my gui-based editor, you can pipe text to it and even run shell commands that output to the buffer). jed is also a suitable replacement for microsoft gnu less, but the author of jed specifically offers "most" as a less replacement. either of these are recommended if like me, you dont want to use gnu tools that are github-based. by july (or by other measures, nearly a year past the switch) i had a pretty good idea of what software i needed to use openbsd and applications i generally rely on. so i thought id determine, then list what libraries (the list has gotten shorter since then, which was the point of creating it) were installed that are github-based. part of the reason i switched to bsd was less dependence on github (per se) and of course, to get away from the linux kernel. of the various bsds, openbsd is the most free (and the closest to super-free). the list is not intended to be comprehensive, but i think it is representative. here is the most relevant part of it: ``` png (gh) | (needed for practically everything graphical) libffi (gh) | (needed for practically everything graphical, plus python, harfbuzz) graphite (gh) | (needed for gtk, harfbuzz) jpeg (gh) | (used by ffmpeg and similar to png as a depedency) harfbuzz (gh) | (needed for gtk mostly) jasper (gh) | (needed for gtk mostly, maybe anything with jpeg-2000 support) fribidi (gh) | (gtk at least) lz4 (gh) | lcms, gdk-pixbuf, gtk zstd (gh) | gdk-pixbuf, gtk python-3 (gh) | netsurf, gdk-pixbuf, harfbuzz icu4c (gh) | libsndfile (gh) | sdl2, ffmpeg libevent (gh) | tor, torsocks ``` switching to openbsd wont save you from these, IF you install applications that require them (obviously). and yet, in how many distributions are these separate packages not already required for the base (including the gui, that is) installation? even python is optional here. (also in some other distributions, like tiny core-- but then tiny core itself is github-based). in july i quoted one of the earliest contributors to techrights-- even the one who (more than anybody else in the tech world) inspired my own writing: [h]omer. specifically i quoted this: > I have no respect for pragmatism, or the "Open Source" ideology, [...] I have no respect for those who support it, and I have no desire to ever change that view. [...] My Freedom is more important than diplomacy. its worth noting that homer was active with techrights in 2008, if not even earlier, and the context of quoting this was as a powerful response to some nonsense roy was saying about audacity. how these seemingly unrelated facts line up is left as an exercise for the reader, but i will say more about roy and "open source" when its time. here is another quote from that article, this one is my own: > when reform turns into an endless string of pointless concessions, it is time to turn away from reform and TOWARDS the thing it once stood for. but it was never not the time to turn against fake bullshit like open source. i also quoted mincer from may 11, who said "if enough knowledgeable people wanted to save Linux from destruction, they would have acted by now". a point we strongly agree on: linux will never be free. ### august august was a year into a couple of things: it was a year since i started migrating to bsd, it was a year since i said i was leaving techrights over roy misrepresenting what i said in an article. it was still months PRIOR to what roy still claims is the sole reason i left techrights. before i quote this, note the context: roy still insists hes not familiar with my website (or at least doesnt know the address, despite having published it on his own website) and yet in august, 8 months after i left techrights for good, roy says: ``` Thu 04:08:52 │ 〖schestowitz〗 │ http://techrights.org/2020/12/05/gnu-linux-and-gamers/ Thu 04:09:02 │ 〖schestowitz〗 │ figosdev gave me flak over this ``` its always interesting when roy talks about me (3 times in the same 48 hours that month) as when i left, he pretended i was never really much of anything to do with techrights anyway. the reason i gave roy "flak" over that, is he was proposing that drm was a way to bring more people to free software. if im mistaken, great-- say so. but drm is VERY anti-freedom, it is a path to bad compromises, not to free software. note again what homer said all those years ago: > I have no respect for pragmatism, or the "Open Source" ideology, [...] I have no respect for those who support it, and I have no desire to ever change that view. roy trashes mozilla and/or w3c and/or whatwg for bringing drm into the web standard. why doesnt his handwavey argument apply there, but it applies to games? i dont know, roy is a fence-rider and professional open sourcer posing as a free software guy. he has been since 2010, i think. either way, yes, i rebutted his nonsense about drm and i would do it again, because drm is shit and roy should know that by now. the goal of free software is to give the user control of their computing-- the sole purpose of drm is to take control away from the user. the two are perfectly at odds, even FREEDOM 0 of the free software definition was added because of a relevant problem. oh, but what if we shit all over freedom 0 to promote "freedom" then? i mean, thats open source logic. later on he talks about valve and microsoft, he just wont talk about the role techrights plays in this bullshit. why WOULDNT i give him flak for it? i dont think he has an answer to that one. my response? "drm doesnt get enough flak". also in august, roy was talking some nonsense about my own work with automated remasters, so i wrote two articles to explain what he was being misleading about. for all the the things i wrote at techrights, roy still works to undo them. its the cost of involving him at all, that roy will exploit anything and everything he publishes. youre ceding a lot more than you realise, unless you want to spend years standing up to the lies and pushback. dont get me wrong, august was partway into what could probably be called the second war on techrights that year. i could probably piece together whatever prompted it, but without some further review i couldnt tell you. i expect roy to fight me, and i know hes not going to fight with truth but in his own bullshit way, and regardless of what ive come to expect from him personally-- i still generally expect that people be honest. i know, its silly. if i had known roy was an open sourcer i probably never would have trusted him. he does an amusing and formidable impression of a free software guy-- open source is image-based rather than fact-based, so open sourcers are very good at conjuring certain imagery and taking people for a ride. but at some point i decided to take the gloves off again, and i was laying into techrights pretty hard around august. i made a list of songs (with notes regarding each one) about narcissists that explains my experience with techrights (perhaps even your own experience with it) extremely well: reason to believe-- rod stewart building a mystery-- sarah mclachlan bob dylan-- positively 4th street waffle king-- weird al yankovic youre so vain-- carly simon big shot-- billy joel liar-- henry rollins i highly recommend the henry rollins one, if you only listen to one of these. "reason to believe" is a great theme for open source in general. one of the things i worked to explain in august was that techrights acts like a monopoly. the fact that it uses a free license is a great disguise, but open source uses free licenses and is still all about selling advocates back to microsoft (and giafam in general) so they can become useds again. here are some of the top points: * he has dismissed things people wrote after leaving, even when they were based directly on things he said himself * he puts words in peoples mouths, then tells other people what they "said" * he wont even let you agree with him on that point, you can get a lot of shit for roy simply for having the same position (as if its bad for you to have it, but totally different when he does). MOST of the stuff i was trolled for for months consisted of things he did not even disagree with (if you viewed him saying similar things in his own logs, at similar times). in other words, roy can have opinions: you cant (even if you agree) and indeed youll be punished repeatedly for it. this is a prime example of monopolising and ive caught him doing it on several occasions. but its only half of what hes doing, and the comparison to stephen elop is an important one i will get to. it was one of the more important revelations this year. "wait, no... i write about elop all the time and what a bastard he is" <- imaginary roy (who has indeed written about elop, but never said this) "right, so youre hiding behind yourself then-- perfect cover, innit? just like the coup at the fsf hides behind itself too" lies are the favourite weapon of bullies, and lying is the number one tactic of monopolists. ive written full articles on these topics, often with direct quotes and context and occasional citations. techrights is not about progress, it is (in terms of advocacy) just as much of a TREADMILL as debian or vista 8, 10, 11. if you take nothing else i say about techrights away from this, simply note that i said: ### techrights is a treadmill. one of the things roy writes in techrights is silly poetry. im not against silly poetry, but i hate when its dishonest. he wrote some "poem" about what ibm should do differently, so i wrote a parody about what ibm WONT do differently. it was a very moot point that i lampooned-- going on what ibm SHOULD do is even less useful than begging. nobody we know can make ibm do a single fucking thing it wasnt going to do anyway. lessons for debian as well, but lets keep this simple and say "ibm". if you want change, what are you going to do DESPITE ibm? the answer for techrights is SWEET FUCK ALL, which makes roys poem a masturbatory (and above all, insincere) farce. since hes more or less jerking his readers around, i thought id poke some fun at it and maybe make a point or two in the process. but the only poem im going to quote here is about the OTHER HALF of roy dismissing points people make that he actually agrees with. seems a bit daft to completely dismiss something you agree with, doesnt it? i mean, unless theres a separate reason for it... ah, there we go. because i found the reason he does this-- its called the scooby doo maneuver: theres a new dance in town, its called the scooby doo roy knows he can do it, but its not for you! first you change your position, from side to side when somebody agrees, you just let it ride but later on, when you dont like them no more you kick them down, and you leave them on the floor now thats not all, if you want to scooby doo theres another part, we can call it part two that thing you spent months, giving someone shit for? you take the same thing and really make it yours! i said earlier that he lies with a flourish. he gave me shit for literally months over just two words: "bye, dt" and then during the year treated his audience to incredibly similar dismissals: > schestowitz__ bye, cc Mar 27 22:43 > schestowitz bye, x86 Aug 20 23:32 obviously i dont own the word "bye!" but after trying to equate this with the absolute fiction of (his description) "a complete rage" and "a tantrum" and various other unflattering (and made up) bullshit clearly intended to somehow defame me, (note again, he even fabricated my "return" to writing for him and even demanded i apologise-- for what? he said he didnt know where my website was! also of relevance is that ive been honest in my descriptions of his actions) he decided to turn the very thing i was shamed for into some sort of trademark of his own (or guilty / nervous tick, or whatever leads to him doing this). pure hypocrisy-- he can, but i cant or "else". techrights is a monopoly. not the only example, of course. not even the worst. but truly one of the most utterly bizarre. maybe you think im a nutter for still going on about this in august (or january). my point here is that this still has not stopped. and i make no secret of the fact that im still using techrights for its ALLEGED intended purpose-- as a way of keeping track of certain free software related happenings. sure, theres a lot of bullshit. but since im the leading "expert" on techrights being bullshit, im also in a position to help people weed through it and find the bits of useful information (i refer to these as "anchors") that roy uses as the kernel of truth to all his... whatever youd like to call it. granted, anybody can do this. the question is why they would want to. for me at least, ive got reasons. maybe you do too, and thats cool... but sorry to hear it. ### september in september i made an actual appearance in the chatroom. i had not previously done so. roy was trying to discourage (i read the logs... at one point i actually had a copy of everything, searchable one year at a time or all at once, if you use find with grep or similar) someone from a minimalist path by once again trudging me up and misrepresenting everything id advocated and did while writing for techrights. people are trying to find actual solutions, while roy pretends to care about progress (its not about progress, it is solely about "techrights" itself-- just like bono and "awareness" of various causes i.e. awareness of bono, but solely bono, the absolute schmuck that he is-- brilliant lyricist nonetheless) and its hilarious that roy writes endlessly about various "causes" hijacking and sabotaging free software when techrights is ITSELF one of those causes. id had enough of my name being used to DISCOURAGE someone from trying to find a solution to this mess-- thats what techrights is all about (in practice, time and time again) but its the opposite of what i stand for. there was a certain sort of dishonesty that went along with (on top of) this, and the combination was enough for me to wander in to confront roy directly. as far as i know, he hasnt pulled any shit like that since then. but i know he will again, its a compulsion of his to lie and he does it most to people who (for good reasons or otherwise) ever stood up to him. i am well aware that roy has pissed off some unsavoury people. its how he "proves" hes on the right side. and if he only lied "for good causes" it would still be the wrong way to do it, but thats not how compulsive lying (or roy) works anyway, so its moot. though if you want to be on the receiving end just stand up to him, and see what happens. granted, i got a number of "free ones" in when i thought i was simply keeping him honest. when i actually believed he was honest. that techrights article i wrote about helping roy get away from debian? it was definitely a poke, but a poke coming from a very different angle than the things i write today. i dont consider the irc thing all that interesting, but if i didnt mention it it would probably come up at some point anyway. though now that i mention it, perhaps this is exactly why i laid even harder than usual into techrights in august. > schestowitz-TR There is a new (yet another) dedicated anti-techrights site and it mostly relies on reading everything in all IRC channels. I've lost track of the number of such sites. They alwasys perish at the end due to lack of interest. Sep 20 11:01 im pretty sure hes referring to me, i found one of those older websites though-- written by someone who was sympathetic to the corporations. i think at some point they decide theyve said enough to prove their point, and move on. ive felt closer to that point a couple times, but the thing is that unlike those people: 1. i still care about free software-- they didnt, they were only shilling for open source and/or microsoft or novell. 2. they didnt spend two entire years getting exploited by roy (at least not like volunteers will be) although they had their own reasons for disliking him. 3. some of them were doing this as part of their job, and their job probably required they move on from that-- but theres nothing stopping them from doing it for "fun" except perhaps for #1 and #2. despite this, i think one of those websites lasted for a year or so. roy is probably going to give me new things to mention, and its not unlikely i will mention them. more importantly, techrights spins a lot of stories and downplays too many key events, which gives me a reason to keep criticising it. another thing roy is probably in denial about (or at least doesnt want people to know) is that ive won some to my side. i wont name names, i leave that to whomever wishes to "come out". but i fight with truth, and roy uses misdirection. then i explain in meticulous (and factual) detail how and why what hes doing is dishonest. im well aware that most people dont take this as seriously. you almost have to get fucked over by techrights to truly appreciate what its doing (and it really needs to be said that im not very sympathetic to EVERY SINGLE PERSON thats been fucked over by techrights, although i am against the hypocrisy of it anyway) but there are at least other people who know just what techrights is doing. roy might as well understand that this website had "results" very early on, in terms of educating the public. as an advocate, activist and someone who likes to poke at a liar for exploiting people, that made me happy. there are of course, bigger fish to fry. and im very happy to say that not only was 2021 incredibly productive (i had to get back into writing after leaving techrights, without a venue i trusted to participate in) but i found many things to work on besides just skewering and lampooning roys absolute bullshit. im more excited about what i did in november and december though the rest possibly had to be done. when you spend 2 years in earnest trying to assist someone, and you are repaid with lies and a smear campaign, it really does sting a bit. that was the whole point of it-- to be a punishment for leaving. i was not pursuing anything at all, i gave him ample time to relent, i asked him NOT TO continue lying and smearing, i did everything i could to diplomatically resolve the situation. nothing stopped it. so roy wanted this fight. i hope he appreciates the "extra" effort, because as long as i have a way to stand up to techrights and its bullshit, im more likely to do so than not. does it get dull sometimes? absolutely. fortunately, i have never put all my effort into techrights for very long. im always working on other things as well. this month in particular, ive done very little except work on a directory with thousands of entries. and you may say "hey, its just urls". not at all, you cant imagine the amount of meticulous trouble thats gone into making that list. which isnt perfect, but its a start. in september i went at techrights quite broadly, saying that roys plan for the future was "five years behind, completely impractical and LESS free": > if your "new" solution has been tried, failed for years, shows NO sign of working-- maybe thats because you DONT actually give a shit about any of this. after all, youre not telling the truth, youre not paying attention, you insist on favouring things shown not to work over things that are far more promising for a variety of eloquently stated reasons (not just by me, of course)-- maybe you just dont care about real solutions. maybe. and if you dont care about real solutions, what do you care about? bullshit and pageviews, and telling people to do what you want! a growing shrine to tired and self-defeating compromise, dressed up as a plan for the future. havent we all had enough of this sort of "open source" "solution"? but again, techrights is a treadmill. there is NO real plan. there is no real or honest intention. its wank, but the most effective wank is the one that really dresses itself up as-- i dont know, anything other than wank. its surprisingly challenging to take on anyone willing to constantly lie to your face, even if what they say is DEMONSTRABLY and repeatedly, provably false. people who warn you not to bother with that are right to do so, of course. its a very good rule in fact; indeed. and yet rules are made to be broken... alas, in september i also declared gnu to be finally dead: > as for what gnu still stands for, gnu will never give the user control of their computing. in theory it will, because source code and free licenses. in practice, it will hand more and more control over to corporations that have a mission to reduce the control you have over your computing. and the people who fall for that ploy are frankly, a little bit stupid to do so. i mean the people who claim to "stand for your freedom" are either suckers, or utterly full of shit themselves. to say the least, they are ineffective and unrealistic. > i switched to bsd for a variety of reasons-- to protest the state of gnu/linux, to get away from the linux kernel as quickly as possible, and to reduce github dependencies. i think boycotting github is of the utmost importance, and any standards free software once had about avoiding non-free software while they rely on github are a joke. > its still very obviously key to avoid non-free software-- for example, i applaud and encourage efforts to remove non-free firmware from openbsd, as openbsd bows the least to non-free software of all the bsd flavours (which is another reason its ideal for making a fully-free bsd flavour) and although i recently got a motherboard that required a non-free driver for the network interface, i have also destroyed that board. (i could have simply run openbsd instead of netbsd on it and only the network interface would be unsupported, but as it happens i destroyed it anyway). i was not the one who declared war on gnu, that was the chief gnewsance-- but this is not an effort to sabotage or defraud, like the gnu.fools did. gnu is deader than nietzsches god (personal note: im agnostic and arguably lean theist at times, but i dont believe in a petty or spiteful or even easily-defined god so that makes me practically atheist, at least a heathen!) and roys warning about it being carved into parts and the parts being owned by corporations might as well be a warning about an attack on pearl harbor. (that is, THE attack on pearl harbor, because it happened so fucking long ago). but a war on bullshit will surely find gnu in the crosshairs, i am still in favour of salvage (which has nothing to do with gnu being dead and the option is still on the table, even though i dont think many will bother-- they still could!) its less unlikely than a linux fork-- that at least, will never happen. ive updated my book enough times that im sure its no longer separate editions of a single book, but at least one or two different books. it started as a "vatican 2.0" for the church of emacs, then it became lifeboats for the fsf titanic, and eventually "user libre" which was more about salvaging the wreck than mitigating it, and these came around due to various events (some of them were even predicted) in the world of free software. in september i took what was outdated or less relevant to a world where gnu/linux as free software is clearly a fiction, based on my migration to bsd, and revised (and added to) user libre into something i could actually endorse. the result is the gnew frontier: => https://wrongwithfreesw.neocities.org/partly-new-and-updated-book---the-gnew-frontier.html and you can find an overview of the book there which is far more concise than this overview of (mostly) 2021. ### october in october i attacked the ridiculous and incredibly defeatist notion that actually standing for free software only provokes its attackers. i would say this is a straw man of what was said, but thats not exactly what it is-- rather im describing some all-too-common fud that was being regurgitated by someone who ought to know better. but these things happen to the best of us sometimes. on a related note is the completely self-destructive idea that the coup only overthrew free software for attention, and that if we ignore it then it will simply "go away". thats not what the coup was for, its not at all how it works, the coup is a CORPORATE takeover and if we simply ignore it, it will simply have less opposition. ignoring the coup is pure self-defeat. downplaying it simply lends the fuckers better stealth. they arent going away, either-- the coup is not working for attention, it is working for monopoly. the less you fight this, the more they win. and theyve hit their major objectives, while people who claim to stand for free software have focused on their smaller (less important) goals. funnily enough, that point was made (at the time) as a side note. in october and november i spent more time on history and research, though by the middle of october (i thought this started in november, but it was a truly wild and unique november and i guess id already started on this) an urge to do something with the free software directory took over, and i downloaded and worked on processing the entire thing. i had to be working on other things as well, but i spent half of october coaxing it into something i could work with-- the initial github purge focused on reviewing what i knew to be on github, while collecting urls from each group went on through november and december, amidst other exciting things in november that wont be mentioned here. october was not, however a fine month for writing much. ### november november was a modest month for writing as well, but my comparison of free, non-free and open to a peanut butter and jam sandwich stand was fun to write. i also weighed in on the system76 nonsense. basically, i dislike system76 a great deal. but the tyranny of gnome is even worse, so... i honestly dont care about either. fuck both of them. and i guess, respect gnomes monopolistic ambitions. its what they will demand anyway. it was mostly a month of responses, research and working on the more libre software directory. it is also the month i discovered jed and most-- i was pretty excited, since id been looking for a less replacement for at least the better part of a year if not more than a year. naturally, i wrote about that too. ### december this month was about the mlsd too, but i addressed some new and ridiculous things with gnu, i made a complete mockery of the new fsf board guidelines (because theyre an absolute farce) and pointed out that while the coup gets a full pardon, people who fought on the right side got pushed aside and even new rules put in place against their (completely defensible) actions (but i suppose it depends ultimately on their intentions). i wrote again about the importance of distancing the free software movement from sponsors and corruption, commented more than a little on why the entire github expose at techrights PROBABLY wont do much (though great if it does, even if it means hearing roy gloat about it for years) and did some holiday reading thanks to a friend of mine. the url listing phase of the mlsd reached completion in late december and the pagination has begun, which is the next step towards a more useful and usable directory. just as importantly though, i resolved the tedious "osps" (i think it gives too much credit to open source, which is a bit of an undue reward for causing the very problem it describes) and the unadopted "filo" (free in license only) with the very useful and well-known acronym "floss", which stands for: ``` f.ormerly l.ibre o.penly s.leazy s.oftware ``` this shouldnt be confused with free software, which is about freedom. floss is the telemetry-laden, pointless dependency bloated, user-hostile bastard evil (and non-identical) twin of free software. unfortunately, it is the type of software that the fsf does the most to promote now, so perhaps it should be called the "floss software foundation" (once again, fuck you munroe-- you spineless, lying, outer space nazi coward). but i digress. free software has split into two factions: the one that stands for freedom, and other which will willfully choose assimilation and reeducation, first into "floss" and then back to proprietary software, if they ever left it in the first place. as with free software, "unity" between these two factions means keeping what the two have in common and abandoning the integrity of the honest faction. when i talked about this in april as being like a forced marriage, that was the centrepiece of what likely constitutes my final "fallout" with oliva (yes, we spoke since then-- for about 2 minutes) and roy has always used this friction in a very biased and one-sided narrative about my relationship to the free software movement. with LOADS of omissions of key details that shed light on his penchant for massaging the narrative. olivas m.o. (which i do not support, and criticise) clearly appears to be to make peace with the traitors. and while peace is not the worst thing in and of itself, making peace with liars or people who continue to plot against our freedom cannot be anything other than a prelude to more takeover-- like the fsf, oliva is promoting software that does more for the coup members than it does for users, and if he does this as an "oliva branch" he still takes people to task for attacking stallman as a person, but his approach demonstrates no awareness than the purpose of attacking stallman was to decapitate the movement and further hand our freedom over to monopolists. this is what hes working to make peace with, and that sort of one-sided peace is nothing more than a quest for further servitude. our heated exchange in april was about this matter, and i condemned it and he defended it and gave me shit about it. i would say he has every right to give me shit (although, he was at best a patsy for when roy was lying to stallman last year) but i still think he is making a mistake. this is exactly the sort of "unity" that i am against. open source was always about free software bowing to its very opponents in the name of unity, and all of eric raymonds masturbatory horseshit about independence really falls apart (like empty rhetoric typically does) when you look at how much open source bent over for monopolies in the name of "unity". we must remain independent (NOT unified with-- obviously!) of those who oppose the key things we stand for. maybe someday oliva will understand this, but he could have good intentions-- he ought to learn more from the past few years (note that for many of those, i championed oliva as a stand-in for stallman and during the coup, he became precisely that until the fsf got its second president ever). i do not (think back to homer again, or read the more-than-decade-old article where he says roughly this) equate surrendering to your oppressors with "peace", and conflating such surrender with "peace" or "unity" is a fools errand. sadly, this is the errand that the fsf is on. the only question regarding oliva is whether the fsf is being suckered into this errand by him, or if he is being suckered into this by the fsf. note also, that oliva co-founded fsfla. his duty is not all that different from stallmans, and it is not unreasonable to have similar expectations-- or say when those expectations remain unmet. i suppose in fairness we must also continue to ask ourselves if oliva was attacked along similar lines (and motivations) as the attacks on stallman. regardless, the fsf has responded with anti-whistleblower policies made just a year or two later than the anti-stallman, pro-coup fsfe enacted similar policies! and these were obviously created against oliva. was this done to shield him with a decoy? to make the fsf look busy? or was it done to silence him further? the fsfs culture of secrecy continues to play a role in its downfall. how can anyone support them when there is clearly no way whatsoever to take them at their word, or to even find out what the hell theyre trying to accomplish? their promotions are empty, superficial and vapid. when we do get a glimpse behind the scenes, it is ominous and self-defeating. i refuse to stand in "unity" with corruption, coups and marketing bullshit! only now, that somehow makes me the bad guy. my question for oliva was-- isnt that EXACTLY what stallman (on another scale entirely of course) was attacked and silenced for? put simply: does it really make you a bad person for trying to do exactly what stallman was attacked for during all these years, including at the peak of his activism and mission? AND IF NOT, WHY ARE WE NOT DOING THAT instead of kowtowing to this absolute bullshit? JUST MAYBE, weve grown too blase about what really amounts to stockholm syndrome. this is a unity that makes no fucking sense. it is just more begging for "please sirs, can we have just a little more freedom?". watching that sort of begging go on all the time cannot possibly inspire confidence, unless you arent looking. but the agreement seems to be: "if youll let us keep our leader in a reduced capacity, you can continue to sell us out and slander him, and we will continue to beg". who but hostages and hostage-takers would EVER support that arrangement? calling it "unity" is one of the oldest political tricks in the book, dating AT LEAST as far back as "pax romana". the floss faction of free software is the one that accepts and even welcomes the coup (as long as its not too coup-like on the surface, the rest we can overlook). floss will always work to undo what free software has accomplished, but swear that its okay because "the source is freely licensed" and that means you can fork it! but if you try to fork it they will also say "noooo, youre just haters and aspies" and then tell you that you dont need to fork anything BECAUSE, tada, it can ALREADY be forked. its all a bit like saying you dont need to use an umbrella when it rains, because you already have one at home. and the fsf (at least, people close to it) have promoted this sort of orwellian doublespeak for years at the very least. the fsf is a dead parrot, but everyone swears its just resting. and best of all, the floss faction is the only one that counts, according to the floss faction. if you actually stand for free software? thats not free software! what is free software? floss! funny how theyve been playing that game for years and finally got the fsf to play along. but thats what i said: the fsf is the new osi. and thats nothing to do with freedom. weve been sold out. stallman was sold out. and techrights wants to party like its 2014, where it gets its solutions and excuses from. techrights had ONE JOB: to boycott novell. roy took the reins of that, said the word "boycott" was too negative (lol) and then spent years playing stupid about the keyboard farts of a novell employee working for whats now ibm, so that stallman-backstabbing debian needs to rely on microsoft servers JUST TO BOOT UP. techrights doesnt know, wont admit, wont do anything about the very first thing free software needs to do to survive, let alone thrive-- techrights cant even do the ONE THING it was created to accomplish. it cant stay honest long enough to do it. i suppose in the big scheme of things, holding techrights to a higher standard than the fsf was a mistake from the get-go. but thats exactly how it branded itself. still, if the fsf cant stay honest, what can we expect of its opportunistic mouthpiece? free software on the other hand, has grown so lax that users can count on nothing at all-- except "join us today" and "its not a coup!" and "get a microsoft account so you can help us maintain this bloated, telemetry-happy bullshit" but to be perfectly honest, the fsf just doesnt give a shit. like mincer said: "if enough knowledgeable people wanted to save Linux from destruction, they would have acted by now". but if thats not important to them, then what does the free-as-in-friedman foundation care about, really? join them today, so they can fight for their funding! ### january 2022 meet the new year, same as the old year. actually, i saw things in 2021 that really made me think 2022 could lead to something meaningful. and around midnight, 2022 i was already doing work on the mlsd. the above is a disclaimer sort of, because im braced for plenty of the same old shit. but as i said in the gnew frontier: > no version of this book is "rainbows and unicorns". but this version in particular will strive to give due credit and blame to those who are destroying the movement, as well as those who are, in earnest and integrity-- trying to salvage it for future generations... we cant be certain this will be the year of the free as in freedom desktop, but we can hope that this is a year that more people will get off the bullshit treadmill and start fighting for freedom again, because the fsf wont anymore. and open source, never did. it was always a scam, and people need to stand up to it because open source will just keep fighting AGAINST your freedom. all they ever have to do is lie about it, and somehow that makes it okay. on a side note, but a very important one, i really wish the free culture movement had chosen to assert and defend itself honourably against stallmans completely biased mistreatment of it-- rather than resorting as it did to (successful) assassination and (attempted) murder. i continue to sympathise with the goals of free culture, but not the methods. if stallman was right about one thing about free culture, its that the advocates were a liability. the movement is shit, but free software is in no better state. the two were always weaker apart, and with nowhere else to go, free culture sided with open source treachery instead. i will not forgive walsh (who i met twice and seemed like a very nice person) nor linksvayer (who i honestly think had a plan to make cc more free as in freedom, but thats moot now), nor munroe nor revoy-- they will never matter to me again, and i worked to get munroes spineless, treacherous arse into the local library, but never again. i still hope that free culture one day finds its true self. if it cannot, i urge those who hold free software to its mission to consider free culture as an important idea, despite it being just as co-opted as free software now. as with free software, free culture has sold out to corporations, lies and abuse of the public. as with free software, the only viable free culture movement is a movement rebuilt with more integrity and focus on its mission-- cc NEVER got it right, and it was too late for its founder to fix anything (whether or not it was his honest mistakes at fault in the first place). i think if people had paid more attention to lessig and ignored cc, we would have done better. > schestowitz__ bye, cc Mar 27 22:43 to be perfectly clear, i still hold professor lessig in high and warm regard. one of the two (maybe three) exchanges we ever had was actually about a techrights article i wrote, regarding free software and the constitution (lessig teaches constitutional law, and was at one point on the board at the fsf). id love to know his opinion of the new anti-whistleblower policy, but im sure he wont comment on it-- i still welcome him to do so as it really says a lot about the NON-post-coup fsf and lessig is famous for outlining corporate corruption and abuses. he and stallman (together) had the right ideas more often than not. one of the greatest failures of free software was its failure to give free culture a fair shake, instead of speaking on its "behalf" not unlike the way that i was misrepresented (and will always be misrepresented) by techrights. i have criticised both stallman and the fsf for this treatment of free culture-- it was never fair. free culture was not better than free software in this regard-- but i dont believe it is less important, either. of course creative commons as an organisation is more dead than the fsf, has been for a longer time, and good riddance to it. long live lessig and stallman, but creative commons is no fucking better than microsoft and worse than the fsf. i still use their license because by-sa is better than the (non-free) gnu documentation license, and i still believe in cc0. the only reason im not sure 0-clause bsd is a suitable substitute for cc0 is that cc0 is immune to attribution stacking, and it may be unique in that regard. im not sure 0-clause bsd can do that (nor does it need to-- it is suitable for the purposes it exists for). but id have to review 0-clause bsd and talk to someone who really understands it to be sure. the organisation behind cc licenses is as good as defunct. the attack on stallman was a fraud that utterly destroyed the credibility (and demonstrated the sheer lack of integrity) of those involved, and this includes creative commons. im willing to consider the POSSIBILITY that some at least can repent of this, but this is more true of individuals (if anyone) than institutions. so far, no one has impressed me by doing so and its difficult to trust the sincerity of anyone who does. but it is still the right thing to do. i dont know anybody who is perfect, but if people cared about the right thing all the time, it would have never happened in the first place. => https://wrongwithfreesw.neocities.org