Stallman vs Torvalds

Is Linus Torvalds just bae or what?

Who should be stickied? Torvalds or Stallman?

Vote: strawpoll.me/12675715

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=umQL37AC_YM
stallman.org/stallman-computing.html
youtube.com/watch?v=qHGTs1NSB1s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Tonrcucks
>actively adds backdoors into kernel for money
>approves of poettering and systemd
>let's women to ruin foss ecosystem
>is from sweden which is basically muslim country at this point

Stall the man
>actively compacts against closed hardware and surveillance
>fires somebody for being trans
>is generally cool guy

how about this compare and contrast?

Torvalds God Emperor
>has had sex in life

Retarded Stallman
>has never had sex and never will

>giving a shit who fucks who
you really are small man

Stallman is quite alpha but at the same time very autistic. Kinda weird combination.

>is from sweden
He is from Finland

Torvalds bc (((Stallman)))

Third option. Terry. Your niggers cant even write a normal OS by themselves.

Fuck Terry, that autistic cunt.

CIA nigger

>stallman
>anti-trans

He's a vocal progressive and a member of the Green Party. He would never fire a person for being transgender.

FUCK STALLMAN.

FUCK TERRY.

FUCK NVIDIA.

FUCK INTEL.

THAT IS ALL.

What kind of fucktard doesn't like portable programs?

The kind that wrote the most popular operating system in the world, and is the leader of the biggest open source movement ever. (Not Stallman - that guy is a fraud - didn't write a single line of code.)

What about al lthe GNU stuff Stallman did? Not defending, just curious

Stallman
> Just blablabla talking
> Never installed an OS himself

Torwalds
>Actually does things

>Who should be stickied?
Nobody.

Stallman. Torvalds is just bully over his baby.

Actually Stallman is not virgin.

stallman is a pedo who can't even install a distro.

he should be substituted with TERRY. or Linus.

This

>Stall the man
>>actively compacts against closed hardware and surveillance
>>fires somebody for being trans

stallman is a libcuck commie, im sure he prefers women with dicks.

Pretty much this

>bae
Your post is very strange. It looks like have trouble expressing yourself in English, so you made up new words. Now, try again, this time only using words that exist in a printed dictionary.

>It looks like have trouble

kys

But Linux was ported to like every major architecture and a number of unimportant ones.

>that moment when you accidentally a word and end up looking like a complete and utter retard thus invalidating your post

Daily reminder

>youtube.com/watch?v=umQL37AC_YM

Shit, I never expect such a voice for great Stallman.

I'm thinking he's probably referring to installing GNU/Linux from scratch. He could probably install a modern distro that automates everything he just doesn't bother with it because his staff take care of it.

The Open Source community has a notable man called Stallman. When he was young, he wanted to write his own software, but everything he wrote ended up becoming a notepad. Once upon a time, struggling with implementing the “onKey” event, he found a letter from a Finnish student who wanted to write his own OS. He wrote, in particular, “hello, I’m 17 and I wrote a bootloader, pls help me write the rest, my OS is almost ready. Linus from Finland”. Stallman responded: “Hello, my name is Richard Stallman, I’ve already written a notepad for Unix and I think I can help you write your own OS, young man” The first thing Richard did was to try write a kernel for Linus’ bootloader, which he called The hURD. Unfortunately, once again it ended up being a text editor. Linus was angry and then another person, called Cox, came and wrote the whole kernel. He was a very good British man who could not stand others feel bad. Stallman, seeing how his fame is being stolen by Cox, said: “I have already written many notepads for the Linux system, you cannot just delete it all”. Linux had to agree, due to their friendship, and left all the notepads inside the Linux. It was renamed to “the GNU’. To this day, even in 2015, we can enjoy the beauty of Stallman’s genius. For example, there’s a program which takes one file and renames it to another file. Also, there’s a program which deletes a file. Windows doesn’t have such things. Just imagine Linux without such software.

Stallman’s magnum opus is emacs. It’s one of his notepads where he put a scripting language into. Only a visioner is capable of writing a text editor and putting a scripting language there. Some may say it’s 1 grade students’ project, but they will be wrong, as Stallman didn’t put there Basic or Pascal — he’s put there Lisp. It’s a very powerful language, because it’s functional (Basic and Pascal are called dysfunctional). From what I understood reading Wikipedia, functional languages are very awesome because they’re very math. Only smartest people can code in them because it’s too math for common people. Basic is not enough math, C is not enough math, Lisp is a lot of math because it’s functional. So emacs has Lisp in it, so it’s a very good editor made by a innovator and a genius, who understands math and functions.

When he turned 62, Stallman got a bit tired of writing notepads, so he founded Free Software Foundation to promote his ideas. The foundation’s main idea is that you cannot use a program unless it’s written by Stallman himself. He believes that anything not written by Stallman is potentially a patent troll and a vendor lock-in, because there’re no guarantees to Stallman, and only Stallman gives guarantees to himself. And we again return to the topic of notepads, unfortunately. In a perfect world, there are not other programs, but notepads written by Richard Stallman. Preferably with LISPs inside (no less than 85% functional). Maybe Stallman is right, maybe he is wrong, I can’t tell for sure. What I know for sure is that he’s a visioner, an innovator, and we definitely should at least consider his opinion.

Linux is not the most popular operating system. And Stallman made GNU which is most of Linux.

He had sex with your father

why cant we just combine them?

Thayt guy is crazy
>I generally do not connect to web sites from my own machine, aside from a few sites I have some special relationship with. I usually fetch web pages from other sites by sending mail to a program (see git://git.gnu.org/womb/hacks.git) that fetches them, much like wget, and then mails them back to me. Then I look at them using a web browser, unless it is easy to see the text in the HTML page directly. I usually try lynx first, then a graphical browser if the page needs it (using konqueror, which won't fetch from other sites in such a situation).

stallman.org/stallman-computing.html

People who don't use shell (or GNOME) hardly use any GNU stuff at all..

GNU is literally just a collection of small utilities that all have better alternatives out there.

>fuck terry
no fuk u

What did he mean by this?

Linus has very little meme power compared to Stallman on this board.

Terry however... Maybe it's time for a change?

Is there anyone who denies Terry's meme power?

Stallman is in a different league than that clown, he wrote a fucking compiler and Torvalds is cucked every day because of it.

Stallman is fine.

He's a retard magnet. Please.

>Not being able to spot Linus Torvalds humor
He's joking you fucking retards. Not everything he says he actually means.
Linus likes portability. It was one of his main points against C++.

Obviously Stallman.

Stallman wrote GCC and emacs

>stallman is a pedo
Literally who cares? If you have evidence that he abused a child, then we can talk. Otherwise I couldn't give any less shits.

>who can't even install a distro
Let's keep in mind that Linus Torvalds has gone on record stating that doesn't use Debian because it's too hard to install. He has also on many occasions stated that he is not good at managing his own computers outside of kernel development.

Why don't you delete all the GNU applications off your Linux machines and then try to use the desktop. Tell me how far you get.

That is simple, Android.
BTW you are retarded.

Torvalds is based.
Stallman is a newfag meme

Make your decision based on how successfull GNUfags can be filtered out.

To create Android starting with nothing but the Linux kernel is a monumental task you fucking retard. It took a significant amount of time for multiple teams of paid developers and architects to do that.

"The most powerful programming language is Lisp. If you don't know Lisp (or its variant, Scheme), you don't know what it means for a programming language to be powerful and elegant. Once you learn Lisp, you will see what is lacking in most other languages." -Richard Stallman

>Linus 62 vs Stallman 60
Linus because he is chill and doesn't eat his dickcheese and doesn't scare normies away from linux with paranoia monologues. Also, fuck GPL, LGPL and dynamic linking cancer

It works without GNU. Your point?

Stallman cucked 2 people back in the 80's

Stallman is more alpha than most of the internet tough guys on this website put together.

Read my original post again. You didn't address my point at all. Using Android is not the same thing as removing all the GNU software from your desktop computer. You are a fucking retard.

>inb4 hurr.. Android x86

A perfect 50 50 split.

Torvalds is a no-nonsense guy who gets things done. Stallman is a whiny political ideologue.

>"bae"
kill yourself

...

>Torvalds has gone on record stating that doesn't use Debian because it's too hard to install

Terry is /our guy/.
Theo De Raadt is second.

youtube.com/watch?v=qHGTs1NSB1s
faggot

for the retards who are too lazy to watch

>Guy with Ubuntu shirt: It's well known around these parts that in 2007 you said that although you had used many Linux distributions, you had never used Debian because you found it difficult to install?
>Linus: Yes
>Ubuntu shirt guy: Have you tried it since?
>Linus: Um... no.

Stallman was surprisingly promiscuous in his youth, admittedly the girls he fucked weren't exactly supermodels but he's definitely not a virgin

I can relate. I don't like Arch because it's too hard to install.

Whenever I want to test some software before a release, I'll boot a VM with a couple of the latest distros, install, update and try to compile and run it to ensure that there's no immediate issues.

On Ubuntu or CentOS, the whole process takes 15 minutes. On Arch, it's at least twice that and having to look through the installation guide.

I don't care about the distro itself. I don't care whether it's good, fast, flexible or anything else. I just want it installed so I get can on with my shit.

>I don't like Arch because it's too hard to install.
Everyone knows

I've had problems I could not resolve while installing major distros like Ubuntu. I could not resolve them because the install process is abstracted away from me too heavily. On Arch Linux I have never failed to install it. You make it sound like some lengthy process but it's pretty straight forward
>partition drive
>format partitions
>mount partitions
>genfstab
>pacstrap
>set locale
>set timezone
>set hostname
>set root password
>install boot loader

All of these steps are pretty easy to perform without a guide for anyone with intermediate Linux knowledge. the most complicated part of the entire process is partitioning the drive.

>I don't like Arch because it's too hard to install.
nice false flag, fag
>what are 5 thousand retard-friendly arch installers

This.

So are we. He's perfect.

>So are we. He's perfect.
He unironically believes in God, despite having no verifiable evidence. Fuck Terry. He's a retard and a one trick pony.

>having no verifiable evidence

You are a fool. You probably never read his blog.

Of course I haven't read his blog. He's a fucking retard. Even if I wanted to learn to write my own OS I wouldn't read any of his shit.

Also, you likely have an incorrect idea of what verifiable evidence is. Unless other people can verify the evidnece, it is worthless. Anecdotal reports are not evidence. Niether are Terry's schizophrenic hallucinations.

You do what you want. Terry offers a guide to how to talk with god with TempleOS, if you ever want to go to the right side of history.

I prefer Stallman even tho I'm Finnish myself so Torvalds' success should stroke my dick.

I'd just really rather have more "freedom fighters" than more "engineer types", or however we'd like to put the difference between them.

The world won't fall apart with worse code, but it will become rather shitty if people don't fight for their rights and freedoms.

>trust me user. the only verifiable evidence of God's existence in all of human history, is available exclusively in the blog of a schizo

>muh empirism
Pick a book of philosophy, moron.

>believing something without evidence is a good idea
>trust me I know, because philosophy

Nope. It's inside TempleOS.

>the poll requires non-free javascript
>the botnet wants Torvalds to win

Tell me what evidence you have to know that empirism is true, specially in the form you present it.
Hard mode: It should be a scientific experiment.

>2017
>being in the side of the Jew
Sup Forums full of cucks since forever

verifiable evidence is the foudation of the scientific method. All scientific experiments rely on verifiable evidence. You can't even have a theory without verifiable evidence. The sum of all scientific experiments performed to date should be sufficient evidence.

Congratulations, you fell into a circular argument.
Standford dictionary of philosophy is bretty good. Then you can try reading some Hume, Comte and Bunge. Oh, and Popper too.

It's not circular logic. The fact that we have obtained positive results using the scientific method shows that it works. You have yet to name an alternative method that works. Congratulations you are a retard.

That doesn't prove that empirism is true, moron. You don't even know the terminology of this theme. You literally are spouting a Ray Comfort tier argument.
Seriously. Try to read the shit I'm recommending. The problem is much more complex that say "hey, it works, it must be true" and knowing that not necesarily will lead you to be a fundie.

Fuck off retard. If you want to believe things that have no verifiable evidence supporting them then you have to also admit that you are a dumb fuck. It's that simple. Just because your politically correct philosophy class wants you to feel justified believing a load of bullshit, that doesn't make it true.

Take it easy, dude. Just admit that you only care about practical thinking.

I mean: practically there is very little reason to ponder things like that, and you obviously think so. But philosophy is about not taking common sense for an answer and it is not bad that some people bother to question absolutely everything.

Just read the things I recommended lad. You will thank me in the future.

The fact is that only the scientific method has been shown to produce correct results at a rate greater than pure chance. Until another method is devised which produces correct results at a greater rate, it is irrational to believe anything outside the sphere of what that the scientific method suggests is true. This isn't complicated and nobody thinks your smart for your dumbshit >muh philosophy class arguments

Classical logic and dialetics also produced correct arguments.
Also, if you center only in the scientific method and, as you said, we should not have beliefs outside of it, then we should not have political, philosophical, or even common sense beliefs, because they're mostly are outside of the scope of scientific method.

>Classical logic
Confirmed for not knowing what you are talking about. If you even knew what logic was, you would know that badly formed logic can and does regularly lead to incorrect results. For example: "if I can't explain it, then it must be God.". That is a logical statement, but that doesn't indicate anything about whether it is true or false. You literally do not know what logic is. Go back to school and retake your logic classes. Additionally, logic is used by the scientific method. The difference, is that the logic used in the scientific method is well formed.

Dialetics is specific for disputes between two competing hypthesis. The whole concept of a hypothesis is part of the scientific method. So the premise of dialetics includes the scientific method. They are not opposing systems.

>political
My political beliefs are all backed by verifiable evidence
>philosophical
Speculating about what might be true is not the same thing as holding a belief
>common sense
Every "common sense" belief I have is backed by verifiable evidence (ie. I shouldn't touch the burner because it's hot and I can verify that with experiments to demonstrate that it is true)

You are grasping at straws, looking for justification to believe in nonsense. Take your religious beliefs elsewhere you fucking retard.

I bet that the only logic you got was formal logic and not in relation with philosophy, because you're mixing shit so hard.
>Additionally, logic is used by the scientific method. The difference, is that the logic used in the scientific method is well formed.
>Dialetics is specific for disputes between two competing hypthesis. The whole concept of a hypothesis is part of the scientific method. So the premise of dialetics includes the scientific method. They are not opposing systems.
Scientific method doesn't produce synthesis as does dialetics, man. You literally are mixing shit up.
Go and take a book.

>stupid uneducated buzz-terms
You aren't referring to logic. You are referring to rationality. You dumb fucking retard. I'm not even going to continue talking to you as I have other shit I can be doing and you are clearly a troll or actually mentally damaged.

If you hold beliefs which are not backed by verifiable evidence, you are stupid. There is no way around it. Peace out retard.

>My political beliefs are all backed by verifiable evidence
Well What are you political ideas? What´s the verifiable evidence you have? did this evidence was a subjected a process of observation, hyposesis and experimentation?
>Speculating about what might be true is not the same thing as holding a belief
Philosophical systems needs to have beliefs, as conclusión, and as start to begin to think. You're talking bullshit.
>Every "common sense" belief I have is backed by verifiable evidence (ie. I shouldn't touch the burner because it's hot and I can verify that with experiments to demonstrate that it is true)
Do you did a experimentation to know that? I don't think you did.
>You are grasping at straws, looking for justification to believe in nonsense. Take your religious beliefs elsewhere you fucking retard.
Go to read a book nigger. You don't need to be a fundie to spouting bullshit about "muh scientifc method"

>Who should be stickied?
Linus