That seems like a pretty biased article full of opinion, rhetorical framing and axe grinding.
What is your point? Not the point of the author, they clearly have a viewpoint. I mean why did you think it was relevant that we read what is essentially an opinion piece written like a tabloid article you’d see in a grocery store checkout line?
Ok, to save the rest of you the headache:
The author disliked how they were using ‘open source’ in the past. The author notes in the next paragraph that FUTO have addressed this complaint by linking their, multiple, responses and clarifying their position. The author does not mention or even address their current position, outside of name-calling and rhetorical framing in the link text.
Immediately after, we’re hit with the tl;dr summarizing everything afterward (thank god, because I was already tired of reading by this point). Unfortunately, there is more text.
The author then takes offense that FUTO claimed to give money to several organization. The scare quotes around “grant” are intended to sow doubt in your mind that the author couldn’t otherwise do with facts, words and explanations. Sarcasm and implied eye rolling are doing a lot of heavy lifting in this next section.
The first ““grant”” covered, is musl libc and, after after some research it was determined that FUTO, in fact, gave money to musl libc.
Devastating argument so far, let’s keep going.
Not deterred, the author quotes some text for people who want musl libc to list them as sponsors. This has nothing to do with FUTO claiming (correctly) that they they gave money to musl libc.
An example of the difference, in case it isn’t obvious to you, is that I can say I gave money to Doctors without Borders. If I actually gave money to Doctors Without borders then I’m telling the truth. If I want Doctors without Borders to list me as a sponsor on their site and advertising materials then I have to go through a different process. If I don’t go through this process, it doesn’t invalidate my donation.
In this case FUTO claimed that they gave money to an organization, and the records show that they did in fact give money to the organization. They did not go through the process of asking the organization to officially list FUTO as a sponsor. This is written as if it were an important distinction, but explaining why it is important is beyond the scope of this article, I guess. (I can use sarcasm too!)
Then the author lists a bunch of other projects many of which FUTO claims to have donated. I have also donated to many of these projects and, much like FUTO, they also don’t list me as a sponsor, hmm curious.
Undeterred by reality, the author moves on to character assassination.
Step 1 is to find a bad person, Curtis Yarvin will be the authors choice here. A few quotes to establish their fascist credentials and we’re on to the next step. Step 2 is to find a person from FUTO who has interacted with the bad person. Louis Rossmann once appeared on a show in 2022 and Yarvin was also on that show.
Through the logical power of guilt by association the author has now demonstrated why Rossmann is also bad. The next bit is to criticize Rossmann’s response. Sure, he may have disagreed with Yarvin during the debate and also afterwards wrote a comment further disagreeing with Yarvin but by simply yeeting the goalposts into the past, the author can attack Rossmann for not doing it sooner.
The last few paragraphs are trying to make a huge amount of hay out of this appearance. The author bravely takes a stand against fascism and implies that FUTO should reflect on the author’s opinions of fascism (the implication being that they are not and are therefore, possibly who would say?, fascists themselves).
So, my TL;DR from this article is:
FUTO is bad because they don’t claim to be open source despite being not open source. They also claimed to give money to organizations that they gave money to.
To make matters worse, one person who is neither a developer for FUTO or Immich, once went on a YouTube show 4 years ago with a fascist and didn’t disagree with them strongly enough for the authors taste. If FUTO didn’t want to be fascists, which the author never says only strongly implies, then maybe they should have sent Louis Rossmann back in time so that he could have denounced it more eloquently instead of in a follow-up comment.
As we all know, people who post follow-ups are insincere and should never be trusted.
In his follow-up, the author notes that FUTO has addressed most of the issues that he complained about. However since FUTO still has not explained why Curtis Yarvin still exists and what they are doing about it, combined with the fact that fascism is bad (Source), implies that they should reflect on the fact that fascism is bad.
Since this is not happening and FUTO has done nothing about Yarvin still existing I’ll leave the hanging implication that FUTO, fascism and Yarvin are related in some way.
That seems like a pretty biased article full of opinion, rhetorical framing and axe grinding.
What is your point? Not the point of the author, they clearly have a viewpoint. I mean why did you think it was relevant that we read what is essentially an opinion piece written like a tabloid article you’d see in a grocery store checkout line?
Ok, to save the rest of you the headache:
The author disliked how they were using ‘open source’ in the past. The author notes in the next paragraph that FUTO have addressed this complaint by linking their, multiple, responses and clarifying their position. The author does not mention or even address their current position, outside of name-calling and rhetorical framing in the link text.
Immediately after, we’re hit with the tl;dr summarizing everything afterward (thank god, because I was already tired of reading by this point). Unfortunately, there is more text.
The author then takes offense that FUTO claimed to give money to several organization. The scare quotes around “grant” are intended to sow doubt in your mind that the author couldn’t otherwise do with facts, words and explanations. Sarcasm and implied eye rolling are doing a lot of heavy lifting in this next section.
The first ““grant”” covered, is musl libc and, after after some research it was determined that FUTO, in fact, gave money to musl libc.
Devastating argument so far, let’s keep going.
Not deterred, the author quotes some text for people who want musl libc to list them as sponsors. This has nothing to do with FUTO claiming (correctly) that they they gave money to musl libc.
An example of the difference, in case it isn’t obvious to you, is that I can say I gave money to Doctors without Borders. If I actually gave money to Doctors Without borders then I’m telling the truth. If I want Doctors without Borders to list me as a sponsor on their site and advertising materials then I have to go through a different process. If I don’t go through this process, it doesn’t invalidate my donation.
In this case FUTO claimed that they gave money to an organization, and the records show that they did in fact give money to the organization. They did not go through the process of asking the organization to officially list FUTO as a sponsor. This is written as if it were an important distinction, but explaining why it is important is beyond the scope of this article, I guess. (I can use sarcasm too!)
Then the author lists a bunch of other projects many of which FUTO claims to have donated. I have also donated to many of these projects and, much like FUTO, they also don’t list me as a sponsor, hmm curious.
Undeterred by reality, the author moves on to character assassination.
Step 1 is to find a bad person, Curtis Yarvin will be the authors choice here. A few quotes to establish their fascist credentials and we’re on to the next step. Step 2 is to find a person from FUTO who has interacted with the bad person. Louis Rossmann once appeared on a show in 2022 and Yarvin was also on that show.
Through the logical power of guilt by association the author has now demonstrated why Rossmann is also bad. The next bit is to criticize Rossmann’s response. Sure, he may have disagreed with Yarvin during the debate and also afterwards wrote a comment further disagreeing with Yarvin but by simply yeeting the goalposts into the past, the author can attack Rossmann for not doing it sooner.
The last few paragraphs are trying to make a huge amount of hay out of this appearance. The author bravely takes a stand against fascism and implies that FUTO should reflect on the author’s opinions of fascism (the implication being that they are not and are therefore, possibly who would say?, fascists themselves).
So, my TL;DR from this article is:
FUTO is bad because they don’t claim to be open source despite being not open source. They also claimed to give money to organizations that they gave money to.
To make matters worse, one person who is neither a developer for FUTO or Immich, once went on a YouTube show 4 years ago with a fascist and didn’t disagree with them strongly enough for the authors taste. If FUTO didn’t want to be fascists, which the author never says only strongly implies, then maybe they should have sent Louis Rossmann back in time so that he could have denounced it more eloquently instead of in a follow-up comment.
As we all know, people who post follow-ups are insincere and should never be trusted.
In his follow-up, the author notes that FUTO has addressed most of the issues that he complained about. However since FUTO still has not explained why Curtis Yarvin still exists and what they are doing about it, combined with the fact that fascism is bad (Source), implies that they should reflect on the fact that fascism is bad.
Since this is not happening and FUTO has done nothing about Yarvin still existing I’ll leave the hanging implication that FUTO, fascism and Yarvin are related in some way.
Fascism.
THE END