Re: removing toxic emailers

[Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com>]

> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:47 PM
> From: "Frosku" <frosku@frosku.com>
> To: "Thomas Rodgers" <rodgert@appliantology.com>, "Jonathan Wakely" <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
> Cc: "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 4:06 PM BST, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> > Google doesn't pay anybody to work on GCC all day. You know nothing
> > about
> > GCC or the "problems" you're complaining about. Your input to this
> > conversation is not constructive.
>
> This feels like that moment in 8Mile, "pay attention, you're saying the
> same shit that he said." The personal insults and technical semantic
> arguments are testament to the fact that you're not willing or not able
> to argue the points. It's quite incredible that two people have replied
> to the same multiple-hundred word e-mail about a broad issue of trying
> to gatekeep discussion and both have focused on semantics ("it's not
> *all* day"). I will remember not to use hyperbole in future for fear of
> it being taken literally and used as an excuse to dodge the point.
>
> > > Once upon a time, free software developers understood that users'
> > > opinions
> > > were as valid as contributor's opinions.
> >
> > That depends on the user.
> >
> > Once upon a time, free software's developers *were* it's primary users,
> > i.e. they built the technology for themselves and made it freely
> > available in the hope that it would be useful to others. It's also the
> > case that the vast majority of GCC *current* users are not here making
> > proclamations about what GCC's project governance should be. Rather it's
> > a vocal and vanishingly small minority, who have contributed nothing of
> > value, code or insights, and continue to vocally do so. Many of GCC's
> > users are, however, watching in horror at the absolutely amateurish way
> > in which this is playing out and wondering if their long term commitment
> > should be to using this piece of software to build their
> > products/businesses.
>
> It's obvious that the majority of current users aren't here, the majority of
> current users don't use the mailing lists. What have you done to try to
> consult their opinions on the matter? It's amazing how much effort is being
> expended to silence opposition, whilst not even one argument has been made
> as to how breaking from FSF/GNU will result in a better technical outcome.

Is that right!!!  Users want to build their products and businesses?
Sounds very corporate to me, with wording that suggests the provision
of resources working on other projects for personal profit.  The users
watching in horror are most likely developers who see Richard Stallman
as an obstacle.

GCC can never break from Gnu.  They can only break from gnu, clone gcc and call
it something else such as gcc-fuckup, gcc-screw and the like.  Then, if they
manage to fuckup the licensing or the compatibility with Gcc, we shall wait for
a new generation of forward thinking hackers to join us.  The success of Gcc was
achieved to large extent due to the personal efforts of Rms.

These people never learned from the Cygnus EGCS Saga, because they cannot get
beyond the short-sighted viewpoint of "always disobey every authority".
The U.S.S. Cygnus was a "Death Ship".  Reinhardt had planned to fly her
through the black hole but suffered sever damage and was torn apart.

> >>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
>