Re: 2 fork or ~2 fork (off)
A lot of fact-free noise, fury and nonsense.
On 26/09/14 16:14, Gregory Smith wrote:
> First: I hope you are correct. Indeed, it doesn't have solely to do
> with init, but this init change to systemd is
> the straw that brings everything to the fore.
English please.
>
> There is the disregard of the users of debian (who are not just
> users but programmers in various free software projects), a betrayal
> of the founding documents. (Same sort of disregard Lennart and the
> Gnome team afford "their" users)
That's a claim that begs evidence.
>
> There is the edging out of "unpopular" "social misfits" "mean men",
> which occured from 2006 onwards.
Another unsubstantiated claim. It's generally polite to accompany such
an assertion with evidence. If true.
>
> And there is the corporate capture of debian (redhat and canonical
> employees on this "technical board").
Rubbish! No doubt you'd shamelessly protest vociferously should I accuse
you of being part of a Microsoft disruption program or a NSA stooge
sowing discontent and creating division.
Debian, and Linux in general has always worked with industry. It's not
something new, nor has it suddenly resulted in the the user (corporate
of otherwise) wagging the tail of development.
>
> Not to mention the illegal abuse of process that went on using the
> technical board to "bugfix" the fact that systemd was not default and
> only.
That's four false assertions in a single sentence. You miss your true
calling - and it "ain't" community building or conflict resolution.
>
> Remeber you "can" use something other than systemd or it's shims in
> new-debian. You just will have to forego the use of gimp, brasero
> and various other gtk toolkit based programs.
The GIMP claim is demonstrably false. Likewise the Brasero claim. It's
possible you don't know that and your only crime (in that paragraph) is
to repeat a lie as if it were a fact.
Who can check handwaving "various other"?
>
> See "CHOICE!"
>
> Free Software is about Freedom for the USER, It is not about
> Developer Freedom. The standard copyright regime is about developer
> freedom.
I don't speak gibberish. Do you mean the Debian Social Contract?
The *Debian Social Contract* says nothing about obligatory developer
servitude.
>
> Second: We shouldn't be forced to fork because a few people decided
> to take over. We should FORCE those people who took over out.
Who is this "We" that you are the spokesperson for?
>
> Also, club or not, common law criminal fraud still applies.
Both untrue and nonsensical.
"Common law" (precedent based on court ruling in an area *not* covered
by statute) "criminal" (illegal) "fraud" (the practise of deception to
gain a financial advantage - statute).
Please demonstrate both the deception and the financial gain. Without
evidence of both you have supplied only evidence of libel. Nice moral
platform.
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net
> <mailto:rowlett@cloud85.net>> wrote:
>
> I suspect that historians will say fork has already occurred.
I suspect historians will use a dictionary to define (code) fork (or did
I miss the midnight meeting down the docks where the new project was
launched?). Though it'd be nice to see the systemd/udev FUD brigade fork
off somewhere - like github.
>
> I suspect it will have little to do with init this versus init that.
;)
>
> Owl *DUCKS* 4 cover ;/
>
>
>
Regards
Reply to: