On 4/13/21 8:20 PM, Jean Louis wrote:
* Martin [2021-04-13 20:41]:
Live-bootstrap (still under early development state at the moment) is a pure
bare metal project aiming to be used before involving any OS. Kernel blobs
are out of scope for them, because linux-kernel in general is not capable
On 4/12/21 4:53 PM, Jean Louis wrote:
Guix is nice but at the moment it requires Guile(approx 20mb of binaries) to
bootstrap itself. Better solution is
https://github.com/fosslinux/live-bootstrap - there are even plans to
integrate it with Guix directly, Debian and many other projects.
That is
* Martin [2021-04-13 20:41]:
> On 4/12/21 4:53 PM, Jean Louis wrote:
> > > Guix is nice but at the moment it requires Guile(approx 20mb of binaries)
> > > to
> > > bootstrap itself. Better solution is
> > > https://github.com/fosslinux/live-bootstrap - there are even plans to
> > > integrate it
* Martin [2021-04-06 15:25]:
> On 4/5/21 5:52 PM, Jean Louis wrote:
> > I do understand the strive to perfectionism and there are projects
> > like Guix which strive to reach the point you are talking. Maybe such
> > projects can become bootstrapping distributions for other
> > distributions
* Martin [2021-04-06 12:22]:
> > From practical viewpoint, among milions and millions of users, when it
> > comes to validating compiler, they would have to validate the
> > reproducible build with comparison to something. Benefits of
> > reproducible builds thus depend of number of people
On 4/5/21 5:52 PM, Jean Louis wrote:
I do understand the strive to perfectionism and there are projects
like Guix which strive to reach the point you are talking. Maybe such
projects can become bootstrapping distributions for other
distributions which cannot or did not reach that far yet.
Guix
On 4/6/21 7:40 AM, Jean Louis wrote:
* Jacob Bachmeyer [2021-04-06 05:39]:
Exploits are easier to develop when hardcoded offsets, virtual addresses,
etc. can be used. In a "binary monoculture" environment, that is possible.
This contributes to and worsens security problems in proprietary
Martin wrote:
On 4/4/21 11:38 PM, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
Martin wrote:
In a perfect world if everything is reproducible than all the
compilations are deterministic. It means that for a given
environment your source code will always produce the same binaries.
Briefly DDC method is using mix
* Jacob Bachmeyer [2021-04-06 05:39]:
> Exploits are easier to develop when hardcoded offsets, virtual addresses,
> etc. can be used. In a "binary monoculture" environment, that is possible.
> This contributes to and worsens security problems in proprietary software,
> which is almost always
On 4/4/21 11:38 PM, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
Martin wrote:
In a perfect world if everything is reproducible than all the
compilations are deterministic. It means that for a given environment
your source code will always produce the same binaries. Briefly DDC
method is using mix of different
* Martin [2021-04-05 20:19]:
> In general it doesn't make sens to make any "free software"
> development if you cannot trust your compiler. You cannot trust your
> source code if it produce different binaries in the same dev
> environment. This is the basic and once it's established than you
>
Martin wrote:
In a perfect world if everything is reproducible than all the
compilations are deterministic. It means that for a given environment
your source code will always produce the same binaries. Briefly DDC
method is using mix of different environments in order to analyze the
binary
* Jacob Bachmeyer [2021-04-03 22:16]:
> On a side note: talk.google.com still speaks Jabber/XMPP on port 5223. I
> use it to talk with friends that carry Android devices. The Android
> messenger app and Hangouts still use Jabber on the backend.
How does the username looks like? Is it
Martin wrote:
On 3/30/21 9:10 AM, Jean Louis wrote:
* Martin [2021-03-30 11:07]:
Back in past, it was possible, and I remember doing so. I have been
using Jabber network and I could freely contact Google Plus users
through Jabber network and I could freely contact Facebook users
through
* Martin [2021-03-31 17:00]:
> On 3/30/21 7:10 PM, Jean Louis wrote:
> > * Martin [2021-03-30 19:58]:
> > You may, but we don't, as it is vague term. On GNU website, we never
> > use "open source" to refer to free software, as we have to promote
> > freedom.
> what's your definition of freedom
On 3/30/21 7:10 PM, Jean Louis wrote:
* Martin [2021-03-30 19:58]:
You may, but we don't, as it is vague term. On GNU website, we never
use "open source" to refer to free software, as we have to promote
freedom.
what's your definition of freedom then?
For me both cases are not precise and
* Martin [2021-03-30 19:58]:
> > Instead of open source, we say, free software or free (libre)
> > software.
> This is absurd, I would never use only "free software" term for the exactly
> same reason I'm not using only the word "open-source".
You may, but we don't, as it is vague term. On GNU
On 3/30/21 1:38 PM, Jean Louis wrote:
* Martin [2021-03-30 15:51]:
This kind of stories also have some pros. That time Jabber/XMPP network was
getting big "free" promotion from Facebook, Google, etc. Nowadays I'm still
using Jabber/XMPP and I have zero interest of having fb, g+, etc.
I don't
On 3/30/21 12:58 PM, Martin wrote:
> Nowadays almost every end user is verifying PGP signatures, it's not a
> rocket science anymore.
no they aren't and it is not rocket science, it is just poorly designed
and worstly implimented.
On 3/29/21 12:26 PM, Jean Louis wrote:
* Martin [2021-03-29 13:57]:
From the paragraph above, I can see you did not get the difference
between the free software and open souce. And your analogy is not
right. You mentioned price not freedom.
I know that gnu definition and in general I'm on your
On 3/30/21 9:10 AM, Jean Louis wrote:
* Martin [2021-03-30 11:07]:
On 3/29/21 12:26 PM, Jean Louis wrote:
I do not think that Facebook is freeware software, it is cloud service
provider. There are Facebook applications and messengers, maybe you
mean those? See:
* Martin [2021-03-30 15:51]:
> This kind of stories also have some pros. That time Jabber/XMPP network was
> getting big "free" promotion from Facebook, Google, etc. Nowadays I'm still
> using Jabber/XMPP and I have zero interest of having fb, g+, etc.
I don't remember that neither Google nor
* Martin [2021-03-30 11:07]:
> On 3/29/21 12:26 PM, Jean Louis wrote:
> > * Martin [2021-03-29 13:57]:
> > From the paragraph above, I can see you did not get the difference
> > between the free software and open source. And your analogy is not
> > right. You mentioned price not freedom.
> I
* Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> [2021-03-26 19:02]:
> Those incidents could have been "innocent" in the sense that
> the person was really just working on their own and actually member
> of [FOOBAR group], just with a really oboxious personality and
> way of thinking.
>
* Martin [2021-03-29 13:57]:
> On 3/28/21 6:47 AM, Jean Louis wrote:
> > * shulie [2021-03-27 21:28]:
> > > On 3/24/21 10:55 PM, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
> > > > As I understand, RMS always thought that proprietary software
> > > > companies would make some kind of large legal attack on the GNU
On 3/28/21 6:47 AM, Jean Louis wrote:
* shulie [2021-03-27 21:28]:
On 3/24/21 10:55 PM, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
As I understand, RMS always thought that proprietary software
companies would make some kind of large legal attack on the GNU project,
no - this is just how the extreme left works
* shulie [2021-03-27 21:28]:
> On 3/24/21 10:55 PM, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
> >
> > As I understand, RMS always thought that proprietary software
> > companies would make some kind of large legal attack on the GNU project,
> no - this is just how the extreme left works now. They scream until
* shulie [2021-03-27 21:28]:
> On 3/24/21 10:13 PM, Akira Urushibata wrote:
> > In response to the storm of criticism, the FSF Board has decided to
> > vote to determine whether RMS should return to the board. I observe
> > that both sides have initiated petition drives
>
> The FSF just makes
On 3/24/21 10:55 PM, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
>
> As I understand, RMS always thought that proprietary software
> companies would make some kind of large legal attack on the GNU project,
no - this is just how the extreme left works now. They scream until you
agree with them.
On 3/24/21 10:27 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> The problem with Truth is that there's your Truth, and someone else's
> Truth.
No, there is ACTUAL truth.
On 3/24/21 10:13 PM, Akira Urushibata wrote:
> In response to the storm of criticism, the FSF Board has decided to
> vote to determine whether RMS should return to the board. I observe
> that both sides have initiated petition drives
The FSF just makes itself impotent and irrelevant like this.
On 3/24/21 10:55 PM, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
> That is not to say that I believe a word of them, but can we actually
> prove that each one is false?
we have already gone through this and it is absolutely false. But you
know what... if you can't win, make things up and upend ue process.
Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote:
On 2021-03-25 18:57, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote:
On 2021-03-24 19:55, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
[...] I now wonder if
we may be seeing a different angle of an attack on the GNU project
that RMS did not anticipate.
I also
On 2021-03-25 18:57, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote:
On 2021-03-24 19:55, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
Does there appear to be some form of hidden coordination behind these
articles?
As I understand, RMS always thought that proprietary software
companies would make
Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote:
RMS didn't like "they" used as a singular, due to issues such
as a ambiguities of reference (is the antecedent the two people
mentioned, or just the latter?) He invented gender-neutral pronouns
and uses them. Those pronouns carry no indication of someone's
Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote:
On 2021-03-24 19:55, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
Does there appear to be some form of hidden coordination behind these
articles?
As I understand, RMS always thought that proprietary software
companies would make some kind of large legal attack on the GNU
The public boycotting with purpose to defame RMS is posted on Github:
https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io
PLEASE COMPLAIN and express your resentment to Github by reporting
hate speech, discrimination, bullying and harassment on Github at this
page:
GitHub Support
* Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> [2021-03-25 15:35]:
> On 2021-03-24 19:13, Akira Urushibata wrote:
> > Richard Stallman recently announced at LibrePlanet that he would
> > return to the FSF board. Soon after this announcement, many articles
> > appeared online stating
On 2021-03-24 19:55, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
Does there appear to be some form of hidden coordination behind these
articles?
As I understand, RMS always thought that proprietary software
companies would make some kind of large legal attack on the GNU
project, so he was very particular about
RMS is innocent and did not do anything illegal.
* Akira Urushibata [2021-03-25 14:45]:
> If the FSF Board votes soon on whether RMS should be reinstalled,
> gives into outside pressure and decides to keep him out, the world
> would interpret this as endorsement of the widespread view that
>
On 2021-03-24 19:13, Akira Urushibata wrote:
Richard Stallman recently announced at LibrePlanet that he would
return to the FSF board. Soon after this announcement, many articles
appeared online stating strong objection to his return.
I have read several of them and I do not like what I see.
If the FSF Board votes soon on whether RMS should be reinstalled,
gives into outside pressure and decides to keep him out, the world
would interpret this as endorsement of the widespread view that
RMS "defended" Jeffrey Epstein. Now the individuals on the Board
may make their decisions on other
* Jacob Bachmeyer [2021-03-25 05:58]:
> Akira Urushibata wrote:
> > Richard Stallman recently announced at LibrePlanet that he would
> > return to the FSF board. Soon after this announcement, many articles
> > appeared online stating strong objection to his return.
>
> Does there appear to be
* Akira Urushibata [2021-03-25 05:14]:
> Richard Stallman recently announced at LibrePlanet that he would
> return to the FSF board. Soon after this announcement, many articles
> appeared online stating strong objection to his return.
>
> I have read several of them and I do not like what I
Akira Urushibata wrote:
Richard Stallman recently announced at LibrePlanet that he would
return to the FSF board. Soon after this announcement, many articles
appeared online stating strong objection to his return.
Does there appear to be some form of hidden coordination behind these
Akira Urushibata writes:
> In my opinion the FSF leaders are not doing things in the right order.
People are quite able to do more than one thing at a time.
> until those who are spreading misinformation are brought to justice.
Beware - a lot of what you think is "misinformation", others
Richard Stallman recently announced at LibrePlanet that he would
return to the FSF board. Soon after this announcement, many articles
appeared online stating strong objection to his return.
I have read several of them and I do not like what I see. Repeatedly
I encounter the false claim that RMS
47 matches
Mail list logo
