Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   「 Coolest Fristi 」 (fristi@56k.dile-up.nl)'s status on Monday, 17-Aug-2026 00:50:36 JST 「 Coolest Fristi 」
   Can I get a recap of what the linux foundation's been doing that got people riled up? I was out of the loop :baa:
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 17-Aug-2026 00:50:34 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @fristi They're pushing LLM and LIM slop, which has finally riled people up.
     
     But you would think that people would be riled up harder from the many long years of LF being dedicated to the development of proprietary derivative works of Linux, without source code ever being published?
     
     The only site that I'm aware of that has documented what the Linux Foundation's been up to is; https://techrights.org/wiki/Linux_Foundation/ (seems most articles on the slop the LF puts out aren't listed)?
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 17-Aug-2026 00:58:21 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Willow Brook 💜
     @Paradox @fristi That is unrelated to the LF.
     
     He finally directly admitted that he hates freedom.
     
     Even for the (previously) free software components, Linux contains pretty terrible code and most of it is GPLv2-only - so long term there's not much point forking it.
   • Embed this notice
     Willow Brook 💜 (paradox@raru.re)'s status on Monday, 17-Aug-2026 00:58:22 JST Willow Brook 💜

     in reply to

     • 翠星石

     @Suiseiseki @fristi
     They're not pushing it. Linus just said he was okay with using it, and encouraged those who disagree to fork the kernel.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 17-Aug-2026 01:09:36 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @fristi Using LLM's *at all* is completely retarded - as trying to use a chatbot for any practical use is insanity.
     
     While a LLM can be used to degenerately copy code badly, the end result is always unmaintainable slop.
     
     Ah yes, the ideological issue of not wanting software to break for the dumbest of reasons (a massive idiot turned it into proprietary slop with a LLM).
     
     Maybe LLMs can be used to find security vulnerabilities, but there seems to be more noise (fictional bugs) than signal (actual bugs).
     
     What happens when the noise to signal ratio gets worse, due pretty much all-LLM-findable bugs being found (just one more prompt bro) and the company hosting the proprietary software and SaaSS comes to collect the actual costs of providing the disservice?
   • Embed this notice
     「 Coolest Fristi 」 (fristi@56k.dile-up.nl)'s status on Monday, 17-Aug-2026 01:09:37 JST 「 Coolest Fristi 」

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki oh it's about llm shit again :akko_eeew:
     
     I can really get the idea of calling it a tool and therefore not wanting to shoot it down on the basis of that, but they ignore many side-effects of excessive llm-usage that have very real consequences for people who don't even use that shit. Issues with the power grid, people being left in the dark in favor of powering shitty datacenters, and the excessive resource usage (like using drinking water for cooling). But also let's not forget people becoming dependent on ai-usage (and as a result becoming dumb as a rock).
     
     The issues with LLMs and associated technologies go much further than mere ideological issues, they have very real, practical and ethical problems that are systematically ignored by the industry. Fuck anyone who does so.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 17-Aug-2026 01:29:35 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Willow Brook 💜
     @fristi @Paradox >he just liked the core part of the gplv2, that is, share your code and get something back for it.
     That is not a core part - that is just a side effect.
     
     Yes, generally if a vendor at least partially complies with the GPLv2-only, the terrible code can be shared from the end user of the software, to a developer, cleaned up and mainlined and everyone benefits.
     
     The core goal of the GPLv2, is that the user gets the 4 freedoms - which of course includes installation information for the software, not just source code that can be cleaned up and used on some other computer.
     
     Another side effect of the GPLv2-ambigious is that Linux changing from a proprietary license to a free license encouraged the GNU developers to port every last GNU package to work with Linux - meaning that people were given a reason to try his kernel.
     
     Thousands of people then installed some release of GNU/Linux and saw how broken things were and determined that the GNU software was fine - just that Linux needed a lot of improvements to not limit the GNU experience - which attracted thousands of developers to work on Linux.
     
     Linus of course betrayed this good will by approving for Linux to become proprietary software again in 1996, with the inclusion of the first (of mostly) proprietary software, without source code.
     
     Linus has stated that he does not care about the users freedom's being restricted - he's okay with fraudster companies to infringe his license via selling hardware that integrates GPLv2 software, including Linux and also refusing to provide installation information for the GPLv2 software.
     
     >But beyond that he never in particular cared for open source software development.
     The GPLv2 was published in 1991 - it is a *free software* license.
     
     The "open source" development model and definition came much later; 1998.
     
     Linus has now explicitly stated that he hates free software - but that was not hard to work out, considering his long history of hating freedom.
     
     >I think people should be made more aware of the fact that linus was never the face of the gpl, open source development or any particularly linked idea or view. He is simply the kernel guy.
     As it's named after Linus+x, "Linux" spreads Linus's worldview - it's ludicrous to state that it doesn't have any conceptional links.
     
     Linus worldview is that any ruinous compromise or perceived short term convenience is worth it, as long as sometimes, more popularity of his worldview results.
     
     Linus really doesn't like the GNU worldview that the users deserve freedom and also how you only get real convenience without *any* proprietary software.
   • Embed this notice
     「 Coolest Fristi 」 (fristi@56k.dile-up.nl)'s status on Monday, 17-Aug-2026 01:29:36 JST 「 Coolest Fristi 」

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Willow Brook 💜
     @Suiseiseki @Paradox tbh linus always freely admitted that he just liked the core part of the gplv2, that is, share your code and get something back for it. But beyond that he never in particular cared for open source software development. He uses it where it's helpful, where it's practical. He doesn't use it out of an ideological point of view.
     
     And that's fair, but I think people should be made more aware of the fact that linus was never the face of the gpl, open source development or any particularly linked idea or view. He is simply the kernel guy.