The amount of anti-Stallman and anti-Free Software bullshit here in the last few days is disgusting.

The day you contribute something, anything useful maybe I'll take the MAGA-like ignorant and destructive remarks seriously.

(And before you jump to harass people who say you're worthless freeloaders, I don't mean that you have to contribute code. You could contribute spell checking, manual writing, a single paragraph will be useful, an icon, a desktop wallpaper. Anything. Laziness is no excuse)

@h I think your disgust is misplaced; many people airing their criticisms over RMS and FSF/GNU are themselves Free Software hackers who are unhappy over various aspects that the organization handles itself. Its core infrastructure is Byzantine at best, some very good projects have deteriorated over a lack of stewardship or any effort to lower the barrier to code contributions, and at this stage GNU's code output is itself quite low, with a SABDFL-like figure sitting front and center.

@h I think a lot of people want to see GNU grow and flourish with new projects and new contributors, but with the way things have gone for the past decade or so, many choose instead to start their own organizations with little to no attachment to the original project, and while this does get Free Software written at the end of the day, it results in GNU being greatly diminished in its ability to be a useful upstream contributor to the Free Software ecosystem.

@deadsuperhero Forking is fine. Nothing wrong about that. What's the problem with forks?

@h Speaking from experience, from working on a decentralized communication app? Pretty awful stuff, if the two projects drift apart during a critical stage of development, and the achievements made in a dead fork can't be contributed back upstream. (Eg, Pisto's fork of Diaspora)

In cases such as LibreOffice or NextCloud, good things can happen if there's enough momentum. But really awful shit can occur during a time where downstream and upstream render themselves incongruent.