everything wrong with free software

 "obedience breeds foolishness"

### how-the-techrights-treadmill-works other pages: => i-hope-techrights-can-take-down-github---really.html i-hope-techrights-can-take-down-github---really *originally posted:* jan 2022 while reviewing an entire year of this website (thats tomorrow, january 5th) it occurred to me that techrights is really a treadmill. presently, it is running a series written by dr. andy fignell-- sorry! dr. andy farnell. and what i love about farnells work is how it says so many of the things i think are so important. he even says them better. as a computer scientist with a legitimate ethical axe to grind, he probably should-- but he does. but as much as i have enjoyed reading his work (if you can get your hands on his book "digital vegan", i think its going to be a must read) i know how techrights works with issues like this-- it starts with truth, with facts, with perspective. it doesnt stick with any of those: => donttreadonme.png (cc by-sa 4.0) none of this is dr. farnells fault and it isnt a critique of him or his work. the blame for this is on techrights. a prime example (i have others, please excuse me repeating my favourite again) is that when i started contributing years ago, i voiced a concern over systemd. roy lied and fudged his stance on the issue. had he been straightforward i would have never bothered contributing for two years. i would have noticed roys debian apologist bullshit a lot sooner. (farnell also mentions debian in his writing, but i dont think he is or will be dishonest about the matter as roy has-- i think at worst he will be mistaken that debian is a good example. as to why it likely gets a mention, debian is clearly one of the largest and most familiar distributions ever). in 2019 (after i started contributing, indeed in direct response to something i said) roy stated in an article that he was "neutral or apathetic" about systemd. what he told me earlier was different, and his 2019 public stance was not so much a change with a stated reason as a complete inconsistency. but this is a side note. these days, roys seems to have finally adopted a stance that is anti-systemd. its a decade (at least 5 years) too late, gnu/linux is destroyed and techrights did nothing but mislead its readers. roy has pooh-poohed warnings for much longer than five years, warnings from people he knew and trusted. and yet even now, with this purported stance on issues like it, when it comes time for anyone to do something about the problem, roy discourages (and bullshits) about it, as if theres something more important to tend to. and there is: the treadmill demands another sacrifice! we arent here to FIGHT, we are here to WRITE. please leave all action to the tax-free (corporate) slavery foundation, which roy has lied about regarding this very matter. of course i talk about systemd a lot for someone who has switched (more than a year ago) to bsd, but systemd is a large part of why i switched. regarding the github matter, techrights is the same. they talk a good game when its time for another post to be proofread, but ive been criticised dishonestly for actually caring about the issue myself. roy seems surprised that i would give him flak about the idea of using drm to get people interested in free software-- this is a freedom 0 issue, of course i gave him flak. the treadmill is a favourite tool of open source, but it is also a perfect metaphor for what techrights does. when roy says "dont worry, techrights isnt going anywhere" he really means it. i know that dr. farnell was NOT thinking of techrights when he wrote this, but it is still relevant: > My optimism is that if we can face up to facts, we can start to change and progress. techrights may run up to facts and ring the doorbell, but it hastily runs away giggling at how clever it is for pulling a fast one. personally, i think you need to do more than just face the facts-- you have to stand up to problems and support honest efforts to change them, not simply package these things together for pageviews and pretend you changed things you actively tried to stop people from fixing. but i dont blame dr. farnell for his choice of words-- he was addressing a (hopefully) reasonable and rational audience. techrights addresses people that roy thinks are suckers, and when he says the same thing as someone else it means something entirely different. as to whether i find fault for someone trusting techrights with republication-- ive made the same mistake, i can certainly understand why someone would, and i dont blame him. => https://wrongwithfreesw.neocities.org