everything wrong with free software

 "obedience breeds foolishness"

### i-am-exactly-the-same-person-i-was-when-i-wrote-for-techrights *originally posted:* jan 2022 it goes without saying, but since the opposite is fabricated i suppose it bears some mention-- i have changed very little (not in any way that roy ever implied) since i spent 2 years contributing to techrights and being thanked for it regularly. if roy was not grateful, he certainly wanted me to the have the impression that he was. i would say thats just typical british politeness, but i personally consider exploiting people extremely rude. also british people range very broadly in terms of politeness. (as do about 2% of canadians). i am not angrier than i was before i left, in fact i am actually more optimistic about the future of free software (assuming civilisation doesnt hit a wall, of course-- but take that up with mit, who are hopefully projecting but im not counting on it. at this point mit really deserves to collapse). and im not more sarcastic than i was, more intolerant of bullshit than before (i was always pretty openly intolerant of that) nor have i given up on the idea of all software being free. while roy toys with open source rhetoric like using drm to make more people care about free software, ive never taken even a baby step away from full freedom unless it was for an aspect with higher or more urgent stakes that is integral to users controlling their computing. basically, roys narrative that i somehow "changed" when or before i left is without evidence. so of course, he simply made some up. he told richard stallman a half truth that he knew wasnt honest (and he even half-admitted this later WITHOUT reference to the other half and without telling stallman of course-- in other words, he backpedalled like the spineless coward he is) and all the while he continued telling his bullshit (fabricated) version of the story to people, from december 2021 all the way through november 2022-- which surely means hes not done yet. in roys delusional little world, anything he says is unassailably true and anyone who challenges it has an alterior motive. this is doubly true if he says it about a person, triply so if he just made it up and quadruply if he has done precisely the thing hes trying to pin on something else. if everyone is a hypocrite (only a mediocre man is always at his best) then roy is a hypocrite who tries to punish other people for his own actions-- by lying. but then theres a word for that, too. now, there are two exceptions i can think of, and one is that ive become more anticapitalistic since i left techrights-- but only since, not so much before that. roy never admitted when we were clashing because hes actually open source-- nor did he ever disclose that he literally works (professionally, for money) for open source even though he pretends to be a free software guy (hes lying as much as someone who says hes fighting for the union when actually he serves the confederacy). regardless of what side hes on, he doesnt ever properly disclose which side is paying him. does he make obscure references to his employer? yes, but not the ties that would explain why he continues to shill for debian. does he sometimes trash people he has professional ties to? yes, but some of those ties may be old or less relevant. does this absolve him of the need to disclose them? absolutely not. i dont think roy needs to name his actual employer, which is the main reason i havent made it more obvious who they are. you dont need me for that really, which is all the more reason its ridiculous for roy to shirk his ethical responsibilities here. but then as often as he lies, he has no ethical reason (or standard) not to obscure what matters either. i do think roy needs to disclose his ties to red hat, canonical and "open source" specifically. had i ever been made aware of those, i would have left techrights (and accused roy of being a shill and a liar) a lot sooner. but this too is not a change. also, i think roy has attacked red hat (but obviously not their software) sufficiently. does that absolve his responsibility? no, but it helps. my concern once again, is that he defends some of the things (even from red hat) that are indefensible, and people ought to know why he is still so two-faced about these things. this is clearly part of the reason why techrights is a treadmill. open source is bait-and-switch, and techrights is a cycle of bait-and-backpedal and repeat. the very point of a treadmill is that it goes nowhere; otherwise, you might as well go for a walk. even now, he criticises me for "pulling my hair out" (i havent at all, my comb does now and again but the teeth are as far apart as they can be and still do what theyre there for) over my efforts to get away from github, meanwhile he tells his readers (correctly for all i know) what a den of misogyny and abuse they are, which is all well and good until you try to BOYCOTT them (the laugh is that techrights used to be "boycott novell", which roy didnt name but he said it was "too negative" despite the fact that its the reason the site was created in the first place! whats a less negative way of saying "boycott" and how the fuck does it matter?) indeed, this week he ran BACK TO BACK a story on the pentagon connections and/or human rights abuses of microsoft, along with a story that explained why his default GEMINI client is now a microsoft application. "why my default bicycle is now a car with a bicycle rack, and why this doesnt miss the point of cycling more" it should be titled. im sure the bicycle on it is very nice, but its still a microsoft-controlled bicycle, isnt it? state problem, ignore all solutions, and repeat! or how to stand for "progress" without ever doing a damned thing. techrights is a farce. the only thing roy ever posts thats honest is stuff written by other people. then he writes bullshit that backpedals on their behalf. then he misquotes them and LEVERAGES their participation as support of his own arguments, even when contributors said the opposite. AND THAT, that precisely, is the actual reason i left. i said this more than a year ago in august, its still there for the public to read, and DESPITE THIS roy continues (even two novembers later) to spin this as some disagreement about "nutrition" that december. there was never a version of me that would have stood idly by and tolerated this kind of bullshit. its not a change at all. the other thing that has changed, is that i no longer put any faith in roy whatsoever. this too goes without saying, but there were times i held my tongue, assumed good faith and was CONVINCED (both on my own part and on roys) that i misunderstood somehow. thats the sort of misunderstanding you can only have so many times in a couple of years before you start to wonder, really. but i did honestly believe him at the time-- and i dont, and that much has certainly changed. i really do think THAT is the change that roy cant tolerate. he cant tolerate that i no longer buy his absolute bullshit, despite the fact that he used it throughout all of december and january (and practically all of 2021) to attack me for things i simply did not say and simply did not do. there were other things of course, that you and i both know i said and did (i do not generally deny these-- indeed they remain on public display for those who are interested and unlike roy i dont paint a bullshit picture around them) though i dont attack roy for telling the truth either, only for his spin and his fabrications. roy is on this github thing pretty hard. if github is so terrible as he says, whats the actual problem with trying to get people to actually stop using it? because roy always says "we need to do something". its only when you collapse that generalisation into something actionable that he says nonsense like "i dont think that needs to be a priority". if hes going to shoot down every plan (without stating any sort of good reason to do so-- but i know its because hes literally a shill in an activist costume) to "do something", while saying himself we should "do something", perhaps that is a good time to offer alternatives. theres really no point in telling people to do something, if all youre going to accept is their telling other people to do something. its like converting to christianity, solely to tell people to convert. i have stated that techrights is NOT a cult, and its not-- it lacks the uniformity and acceptance that a cult would require. what techrights is, is a PYRAMID SCHEME-- except for pageviews instead of money (there is no evidence i know of that the pageviews are in any way directly monetised-- i really think the whole thing has turned into a personal shrine for roy pretending to care about the topics he covers). there is no evidence i can find that he actually cares about any of this-- or that he is even capable of caring about it-- he does care about people visiting though, and he likes when people believe his crap. so far, his alternative to doing something seems to invariably be some sort of "dont worry, these guys will be out of business soon, we dont have to do anything at all." with a nod and a wink of course, because roy finally admits 10 years later that systemd is a problem after all, but he seems to be against any efforts to move away from using it EVEN IF the user WANTS to-- he seems dead against github but mocks people for trying to get away from it as well... so we really should do something, but actually we can just wait and it will happen all on its own. im not making this up, this is exactly the sort of mixed signal that techrights reproduces and transmits with all the power it can BORROW from people and refer to magically as "self-hosting". none of this is contradictory if everything he says is with the unmitigated intention of bullshitting people and co-opting progress, but if its ACTUALLY to improve things he has some questions he should answer-- he never will, roy is as much of a mink (a stinkier, more maneuverable, indisputably sneaky relative of the weasel-- though im still usually against their hunting and use in the fashion industry) as his other open source fellows. so the other thing thats changed is i bitch about techrights a lot more, though techrights deserves it. other than these two exceptions, im doing what ive always done. roy was clearly and obviously a fan, he even defended what i do back when i was doing it for him. now that im going after him and his bullshit as well, suddenly im a different person (only since december 2021) in his opinion-- literally, he said one argument about "nutrition" made me "snap". it wasnt the years of lying, it wasnt realising id been serving a liar and shill, it couldnt have been that. i mean, the "old me" would have NEVER reacted exactly as i did to such a realisation (naturally, i beg to differ with this assessment). however, ive said it before and i will repeat it, techrights leans on innuendo in lieu of facts. sure there are facts too, but the facts are never connected to action of any sort, they are only used as bait. the purpose of techrights is to draw in the reader, make them hate something for two minutes, then to get back to business as usual, with no change whatsoever. even the purpose of hating github or microsoft IS NOT TO ENCOURAGE CHANGE in any way. it is there solely to make techrights look good by comparison. its the only true purpose techrights has served since roy took it over from shane: industry bad, techrights good, we dont need to do anything, these problems will fix themselves. BUT WE SHOULD DEFINITELY DO SOMETHING. unless of course, you actually try to do something. then it isnt really necessary. try it and see, thats how you will eventually discover (as i did, YEARS in) what techrights REALLY stands for-- absolutely nothing. if roy wanted anything to improve, he would admit the obvious fact that (just for an example) the only reason that things change is because people get tired of the bullshit and walk away. thats true for being the reason microsoft will finally be done one day, not just because people did nothing and waited-- and its true for being the reason i left techrights. => https://wrongwithfreesw.neocities.org