Vaccine passports: https://archive.is/9psCP
Linus's comments: https://archive.is/pXzn9
Comments (65)
sorted by:
Vaccine passports: https://archive.is/9psCP
Linus's comments: https://archive.is/pXzn9
Oh.
There is anyone still believing in the all "Linux is freedom" mantra?
They would already have banned right wing people long ago - if they could.
Fortunately for us, the four essential freedoms apply to all, without exception.
For that we have to thank Stallman, who has been coincidentally (or maybe not?) thrown under the bus by pound me too about a year ago.
Oh, and between the people and organizations cancelling him there's also Red Hat, which is starting to dominate the Linux ecosystem with the old tactic of forcing everyone to use their stuff (SystemD and Wayland most notably) as to choke any alternative.
Red Hat's owned by IBM. Some of the big companies, which have, or are backed by interests that are not in favor of the user are getting more and more involved, and controlling.
we're getting real close to fifth freedom territory
Stallman bit the MSM bug awhile ago and went Orange Man Bad, I haven't kept up with him since. He got thrown under the bus for being a creeper and a making creeper posts, so its pretty much a political charge. Remember, liberals get the bullet too.
I fully expect him to regret inventing GPL allow "bad people" to do "bad things" any day now. It is likely a move to discourage developers from using GPL over BSD license.
An important distinction in GPL is that there is no difference between developer and end users, both must be given the same freedoms. In practice it means if I as an end user legally obtained a copy of your software, binary or not, I have the right to demand the source code too. It has to be in machine readable form, so no boxes of print outs, says so in the license. In turn, any software derivative I made based on the source code I obtained must also be made available to whoever obtained a copy of my software legally.
The last what drives BSD license people mad, they can't lock it down and see it as an impediment on their developer freedom. Lolbertarians butthurt. The switch from GPLv2 to GPLv3 (through the GPLv2 or later clause) caused so much butthurt, Apple gradually started removing all GPL licensed software from the OS. The Linux kernel itself is GPLv2 and will always be.
Lastly the GPL is only effect when making transmissible copies. If I made modifications to a GPL software for myself but never made a copy for anyone else, I can do whatever I want with it, since there are no copies made to anyone else.
GPL doesn't care if you're linking static or share, that would be LGPL, designed for shared libraries. I don't see how BSD preserves freedom when you don't even have any guarantees to the source code if it can be relicensed any time by a fork, particularly 3 clause and 2 clause BSD versions. The 4 clause version just needs you to put in an ad for the BSD license but doesn't require anything else.
If anything, GPL would be the militant commune that aims to protect itself from subversion, while BSD would be the hippie commune that can't even understand the need to protect itself.
The whole point of a strong copyleft is code remains free, it will never turn proprietary.
You use GPL because you want a strong copyleft, that's the whole point. If you are making a library that is designed to be link to and you don't care about the applications using it, you use LGPL. LGPL states that the user MUST be able to replace the library portion, shared linking is easier in this case because of the architecture of the program loaders for most OSes. You can still static link to an LGPL library fine if you provide some kind of link editor to allow users to edit and relink your library to their version. If you made an application that is not designed to be linked to, what is the point of using LGPL?
There's that lolbertarian logic again. The only people praising it are idealists or someone looking to build their own proprietary fief.
Are you seriously suggesting there is a scarcity of bits? Am I confiscating and redistributing your code if I made a copy? Do you somehow lose yours if I did? Is git clone stealing and coveting your neighbor's wealth?
There is no central planning committee dictating five year plans for GPL programs. The only contract is that you give the same freedoms to your users the same freedom you received.
That would be BSD, pray you are given permission.
F-Droid, an open-source Android repository, did that already. So did some cucked fediverse devs.
https://archive.vn/0OVyA https://reclaimthenet.org/f-droid-bans-gab-app/
https://archive.vn/O9hfV https:// f-droid. org/en/2019/07/16/statement.html
It's freedom because the source code is open and you don't have to pay them. So it definitely is better than M$.
More importantly that you can legally create and sell products based on their code without paying them.
Yes, the GPL license says GPL code must remain GPL after forking and that the license itself does not cover any usage scenarios, only when making transmissible copies.
If I made a copy and gave it to someone else, whether by sale or contract, it has nothing to do with whoever I got it from, they have no say over how it is copied. Likewise to whoever obtained a copy from me, I have no say over what they do with it as long as remains compliant to the GPL.
It is also illegal to add additional terms to the GPL, you must give the same freedoms as you were given.
For now, yes.
I don't mind him criticizing vaccine skeptics, if that is what he did, but he criticized quite a specific part of skepticism that is reasonable - the mRNA aspect. Even though there is no reason to believe that Linus is expert on this subject, or that 'experts' are to be trusted.
The half-life of the original mRNA is irrelevant. Obviously its effect remains long after that, and that effect is due to the reprogramming the mRNA does. "New humanoid race" is hyperbolic but it is true that it has major deleterious effects on the entire immune system.
A paper being published has nothing to do with the valididty of said paper. It only depends on the politics of the paper and authors.
I don't think that's a valid criticism. But in any case, there are lots of other indications that this is happening. The Red Cross stopped accepting plasma from covid vaccinated people. The CDC says it causes heart inflammation. Many countries have stopped giving the Moderna to the young due to unexpected deaths from blood clots. The spike protein gets into the blood. The CDC's vaccination negative even database has flown off the scale, in spite of them doing a couple different things to hide these negative effects. There's more but you get the point.
Imagine being so dim you actually believe "fact checks", particularly the one you just cited which confirms what I said.
Linus has always been arrogant and rude, I wouldn't want to be on the Linux mailing list even if I was paid for it, and to think there are people on there voluntarily, unbelievable!
His only real contribution is his name, since he made a copy of a copy of UNIX and the rest is history.
The movement benefited much more from other factors, most notably the GPL and the countless contributors that he always insults and belittles.
He's like what would happen if you put an average discord moderator as CEO of a multinational with tons of employees.
Too many Linux users need to be told that we don't need to idolize Linus Torvalds the way Apple fanboys idolize Steve Jobs.
Problem is that the Linux kernel is in somewhat good shape because Linus is a controlling asshole, especially looking at the shit he rejects.
One of the most important rule is that to NEVER BREAK USERSPACE COMPATIBILITY. Imagine Mozilla kicking out all the extensions because they made an update to the Firefox backend, nobody will tolerate that level of bullshit every few weeks especially if you live on the bleeding edge kernel. It takes a firm hand to say no when faced with the powers that may be.
Big tech mega corporations ironically are the biggest code contributors to the kernel. Intel already wanted Linus removed for questioning their kernel commits especially around the hardware RNG driver and Spectre/Meltdown fixes, which coincidentally was when the big fuss about Linus being rude and unprofessional hit mainstream consciousness. Since all the technical information on the hardware implementation side is under NDA, nobody can know why the code is even done that way.
it was predictable once linus was forced to go through an indoctrination camp
The funny part is that he ended his whole tirade with:
So, shut up about vaccines on this linux mailing list, unless it's Lord Linus repeating propaganda.
Just another example of how people can be brilliant in their specialties; but foolish or loudmouths in other matters.
All I can say is thank God for the GPL, and open source. If they get too woke, it shouldn't be to hard to fork off Linux and go our own way.
Oh Oh! Can we call it "Redpilled Linux" ?
Or we could call it "Red Hat Linux"... you know, a nod to the MAGA hats... oh, someone is already using that name? Darn it. Nevermind.
MAGAnix?
devs who hate Linux for what they did could just pull their code from the project and use it elsewhere.
If the now cucked Linux foundation continued to use the code then they could be sued for piracy.
Think they tried that once a while back, didn't keep up with it, though, so no idea how it turned out = /
HAHAHAHAHAHA oh no, the commie lunex messiah is an authoritarian loon, say it ain't so.
I don't see how me using Linux can be conveyed as me selling my health, regardless of its creator's retarded political opinions.
Enjoy your spyware and forced reboots to apply unwanted updates.
And you think Microsoft of all evil corporations supports your medical freedom?
Fucking retard. Use SpywareOS if you're too stupid to use Linux, but don't pretend it's some blow in favor of freedom.
Letting your computer to glow brightly isn't healthy either.