everything wrong with free software

 "obedience breeds foolishness"

### demoting-oliva-slightly other pages: => the-wonders-of-modularity.html the-wonders-of-modularity *originally posted:* may 2021 *updated:* aug 2021 years ago, i recommended oliva as one of a few people who might one day take over for stallman as the leader of the free software movement. this was in the context of stallman VOLUNTARILY stepping down and helping acclimate a successor-- and it was before he was ousted in 2019, which i do not consider voluntary even if it was the official narrative. the fsf has a lot of official narratives, and gnu is starting to collect them as well. other people mentioned (or at least considered) were denis roio, kat walsh, and ben mako hill. these were not just people i considered important to free software, they were people i thought might bring something to the leadership of the free software movement. roy liked my list so much (even though he smeared me dishonestly for making it, which is peculiar, but thats our roy) he even tried to take credit for it with the roy-al "we". no, i made that list, he was not at all involved, and he published it later. if you publish a story about the lincoln assassination it hardly makes you an accomplice, but if i write a list in 2018 and roy publishes it a year or two later without any sort of endorsement (on the contrary, really) he can still take credit for the recommendation retroactively, another 6 months later. thats muckrights. the criteria for the list were never published, they were entirely my own personal opinion with zero input (or endorsement) whatsoever from roy-- until kat walsh left the fsf. after that, wouldnt you know it? but thats muckrights. of course i entirely retract the recommendations for hill and walsh (one of whom i met in person, twice-- but we didnt say very much). i certainly dont deny making those recommendations years ago, but they were lousy in hindsight. its funny, i always thought hill was pro-stallman. im still pretty sure oliva is. note i have not retracted my recommendation for oliva. its unlikely i ever will. and ive never demoted him either-- he was always my top choice or close enough-- i think initially i was really impressed by hill, who seemed to fall off the map, while oliva seemed like the closest thing on earth to stallman himself. even with our ups and downs, i still thought he was the closest thing to stallman on earth. other than stallman, obviously. half the reason i considered other people is that i wanted to be fair, its good to have more than one option, and besides-- i wasnt sure that someone from brazil could even run the fsf without becoming a citizen of the same country. (i no longer think this is technically a requirement). oliva has helped me out a number of times, done a number of things to gain and regain my trust, and i havent always been fair to him (in my own opinion). this is an important disclaimer (again, in my opinion). most recently, he gave me some really useful information that im grateful for. ive already published it, so its not a secret im holding onto. i decided (and maintain) that the reason for our biggest misunderstandings came from the fact that oliva is pro-fsf. i mean, of course hes pro-fsf. but he was pro-fsf at a time when i couldnt begin to grasp how someone could be pro-fsf, not even if they were stallmans best friend. i wrote an article about that, and its mostly serious and all technically true, but the one part of it that could be considered tongue-in-cheek is the idea that i could distrust someone solely for supporting the fsf at the worst possible time. and there im actually making fun of myself a little, the same way that stallmans "st ignucious" persona is meant to make fun of religion, free software and stallman himself. i retired from the persecuting oliva business, and i dont ever want to go back to it. it was an ugly time for free software, and for him. however, despite the title, this is less about oliva and more about the list itself-- the one that roy retroactively contributed to years after the fact, the one i got smeared for writing (also by roy) even though it tried to name the best possible leaders based purely on character and merit (and failed somewhat spectacularly, i suppose-- but i keep looking for a better, similar list) and the one way in which i was vindicated was when my arguably top choice made it to vice president, then nearly president, then half (co-manager?) vice president of the fsf. we had a chuckle about the co-manager thing. not a lot of "office" fans in the fsf i guess (or possibly too many). even though i am demoting oliva, it is not a full notch down. he has occupied the same rank for so long, i dont think he can simply be displaced. its more accurate to say that someone is a little bit taller, maybe a little younger (i actually have no idea this persons age, and im not serious about the age being a factor) and definitely someone who should keep oliva on his toes. (and its about time, too). the person in question of course, is the chief gnewsance. note i did not say the chief gnuisance, because that is still richard stallman. i have never called for stallman to step down from gnu (or the fsf board). indeed, things are now (except for a lot of trolls and liars i do not approve of, and that is unfortunately a significant difference) exactly the way i recommended in 2019: stallman in a position to acclimate a successor (a lot more of the world is on board with that now) and stallman is on the board, and he is free to (except for a handful of gnu traitors) speak about free software, technically at least... i am not up to date with the details of why he is AGAIN being censored or whatever, but as always its no big deal, nothing to worry about, and a bunch of absolute official-narrative-bullshit along those lines... oliva will probably take over the gnu project for stallman eventually (someday) and he is no longer quite my first choice. but he is still the most likely person in my opinion. the funny thing is, people (somebody at least) will say i want to take over gnu (someone already raised this concern, its hilarious-- ive got similar chances of taking over canada) while denying that other people are actually making a very substantial effort to actually do so, and im openly (and aggressively) against them. ive even recommended suing them, and im completely serious about it. i would love to watch these pretenders get the equivalent of a restraining order (in trademark terms-- it should be obvious im no lawyer) and for ratly and caring slander to stake their careers on defending them. gnome meanwhile has tried since 2008 or 2009 (if not sooner) to overthrow the entire gnu project, and gnome 3 is complete garbage-- do you realise that mate could have become a gnu project instead, and we could have left these cringe-doctors to play with their tablets and macs while we use real software? what a fucking shame. but thats what happens when you have the option of salvaging the good part of a project, and youre too busy trying to cling to the arse-end of it. and muckrights used to point out the connections between these battles, but oliva denies them. and i think thats very foolish. but i wont call him a traitor; im retired from that line of work-- it paid nothing and accomplished less. everybody (alright, a lot of them) wants to save gnu, but they want to do it by holding onto the same traitors who have spent the past decade fucking us. thats just punch-yourself stupid. its completely asinine. i have no respect for that plan, because it just means we keep getting fucked with nothing to show for it. what a farce. ibm controls gcc, microsoft controls bison, and the chief gnuisance is still silenced by the same people we should have kicked out 2 fucking years ago, if not much sooner. again, its a fucking farce. but youre reading this wrong (thats really my fault for writing this, im just telling you so you know youre wrong) if you think this is ultimately about oliva. it isnt. if it were, i would talk about everything hes doing wrong. instead, im talking more about the gnu project. the title isnt really clickbait, im still demoting oliva, but theres an even bigger story here: the reason why. im demoting oliva because after literally years of searching for a way to fix gnu/linux, and giving up on the /linux part, and still considering gnu the most important free software project ever (so important even now, that non-free software simply cant move forward until they have subverted and destroyed gnu itself-- arseholes, traitors, corporate scum) ive only talked to one person who truly takes the real problems seriously. i wish it was oliva, but hes had plenty of chances. i think hes more interested in mobile, really. thats alright. go fix mobile, then. be our guest. no, i dont think the chief gnewsance will ever become the chief gnuisance. i dont think thats his goal, and its really not my goal for anybody. nobody is ever going to take saving gnu seriously. please be my very welcome guest and prove me wrong, i would be incredibly happy if someone chief-gnewsance-like steps up and saves gnu itself. the traitors wont do it, the keepers of the faith (are there any? besides stallman, i mean) wont do it, and stallman is kept very busy and (in my opinion) misdirected. i dont blame stallman for this-- i never asked stallman to step down from gnu. i blame the traitors. gnu is under corporate occupation, and it will remain that way until it dies. i sincerely hope that is not for another 50 years, but the future of gnu (itself) is like the present of hurd-- except that gnu is actually useful. (fuck you, sam). i dont say any of this to diss gnu, whether you believe that or not. i already said how important it is. i already said that its useful. im not exactly thrilled with the efforts to redo it in rust (which isnt even a programming language-- its a clown-based npi in a programming language suit, and thats the whole fucking point of it) and im just as unhappy with it being sold off piece-by-piece to ibm and microsoft. do you have a plan to stop this? because now (more like 2018) is the fucking time. what about you, oliva? "fsf isnt gnu!" well thats really fucking useful. youre on a real x isnt y kick for the past year or so, arent you? first its free software has nothing to do with [stuff that affects free software] and then its copyright vs. silicon, but also fsf isnt gnu, but you downplay the relationships between x and y which misses the point all over the place. i guess when this bullshit finally ends the fsf it wont automatically end gnu, just the things that gnu relied on the fsf for. oh, fuck it, i dont care. you know, i can find people who just dont get it, who dont cost as much or try so hard to prove that apples arent fruit, because oranges are. youre still missing the fucking point though, and im done with that. but for those still reading, there is (yet) a growing list of problems for the future of gnu (reasons it just becomes more corporate, more controlled by monopolies-- and well and truly LESS FREE or even about freedom) and nobody (sadly, i said nobody) in charge is going to fix those problems. which means that gnu is already history. hey! turing machines and discrete-component digital processors are also history, and people still manage to build them. so im not saying gnu is dead, per se. but it wont be around unless it is rebuilt. you may think i know who is going to rebuild it. i dont know that either. what i do know is that it can be done, and i know who knows how. i wish it was oliva, but its not-- and thats a shame. stallman gets full credit for inventing free software, for making it possible, for creating the gnu project, for devoting his life to promoting freedom; for creating a fully free compiler (even if he sold it off to red hat-- at least somebody did-- that was really stupid, by the way). stallman is the only father of gnu and the only father of free software, but it has a lot of uncles (and too many bastard uncles). if anybody (and i mean anybody) deserves to spend the rest of their life being listened to about free software, its the father of free software. i trust nobody who tries to cancel him. i support nobody who tries to cancel him. but since gnu is so corporate, so compromised, so beholden to bastards and overrun with traitors, that even fixing it would mean its "not gnu anymore" (fuck!) the best thing you could do is rebuild it-- perhaps as gnew. and the last time i wrote really seriously about that idea, i wasnt really that serious. it was more hypothetical. it is still (somewhat) hypothetical. only now we have people with details. perl is out! not for being old, for being compromised. c is not used for string processing. neither are rust, java or google go. mono/c#/.nuts has no place, gnome can sit on a fucking lawn, and gnu.tools can be fools (but theyre definitely tools). ed can stay. there are so many things that can be done to save gnu, but creating a nazi code of conduct and having hypocrites try to kick out stallman reminds me of "revolution" by the beatles. except ive already seen the plans. we already saw them in 2020 (and in 1968) and they still suck, because theyre more exclusive and posing (stupidly) as inclusion. i mean if rust can be a fucking programming language, then gnu.tools can be inclusive. ("and frankie sinatra is a cousin of mine...") doing nothing wont save gnu. the status quo is killing gnu, and watching gnu die is the status quo. the fsf is farcical, the gnu leadership is still missing, but the roadmap is the worst part of all-- and the easiest thing to fix. just. fucking. say it. you dont even have to fucking fix it! just fucking say what it needs! but they wont even do that, because theyre clinging for dear life to the arse-end of the status quo. and thats the same thing as corporate assimilation-- thats the fucking roadmap, and its been that way for years. and they do nothing about it. they just throw poo at each other on the gcc mailing lists. lost. fucking. cause. fork gnu, because unlike gnu a fork can be saved. im more sure of that than ever before, for one because ive spent the past good while focused on solutions, while talking more about problems. both are important, but the gnu project wouldnt even know what a solution looks like at this point. it hasnt seen one in that long. just to mention this again for clarity: i dont blame stallman for that. i blame the traitors. the best thing about a fork is that the traitors are busy with gnu "itself", even if gnu is not itself anymore. they wont care about a fork until its "too late". and it will be, if the fork is designed properly and the right people get on board. sure, its a long shot. but ill take that, over the fucking impossible. thats why im promoting the chief gnewsance. not because either one of us want control of gnu-- just because hes more qualified than oliva now, and thats how you move up the list. not that anybody can fill stallmans shoes-- no one has. only traitors have denied this. again, stallman fucking made all of this. its not his fault that some traitors (after years of the free software community doing fuck-all about them) finally managed to get a foothold and rip gnu in half. you might as well blame krishna for stealing butter. i dont deny that he had help, though it was help-- it wasnt "we invented this", no you fucking didnt! you helped, and now youre un-helping-- but theyre un-helping with more of gnu than they helped with in the first place. you might as well thank christopher columbus for "helping" central americans: "hey, guys! i brought code!" "oh, good! lets all just stop whatever we were doing and let you run things from now on!" "its not like that! i also bring democracy!" "oh, democracy! whats that like?" "its where we all pretend you have power, and all the big life-changing decisions are still pushed in a top-down manner from whoever has the most money!" kind of like gnu.tools... but hey, also the fsf these days. i think the natives already had pots and kettles, so we cant blame columbus for those. either way, if you want to provide slave-- i mean cheap labour for ibm and microsoft, red hat and github are you know, things you can hack on so they can continue taking over. and gnu.tools can help with that. come and party like its 1492! or fork gnu and fuck all this silly corporate bullshit. choice isnt freedom, but if you stay with gnu youll have no choice! "but gnu is freely licensed!" great! somebody tell richard stallman gnu is fucking free, so he can-- oh wait, he cant. because gnu.tools isnt fucking free. its fucking bullshit, just like red hat and github. as for the chief gnewsance, hes the first addition to my list in years. he wont succeed stallman as the leader of the gnu project, so you tie-wearers can stop fooling yourselves about that. rather, i am naming him as stallmans spiritual successor. or at least, hes now my first choice-- after stallman himself. the point of this article is not so much about oliva, though the title is not truly misleading. the point of this article is something free software could care a bit more about-- credit where credit is due. i have no problem with awarding full credit to corporations, for destroying all hope for the gnu project. they had a little bit of help, from too many people that pretended to give a shit. at the top of my list, is the one person i know who probably does give a shit-- at least about the parts that really matter. though alternatively, if you need to know (half the story) about whether the fsf is gnu or whether you can copyright a cpu, i know just the guy. i mean, hes surely good for more than that; and i welcome him to demonstrate it again. not to me, to the gnu project-- of course. => https://wrongwithfreesw.neocities.org