[keyle]

This is sad. I was just thinking days ago, as I revisited Processing, how consistent it has been at being Processing. Sure, development has been rather slow but at least it's not overwhelming to come back to.

I had no idea that they had a 'foundation' let alone this big. The list of people in the about section has me pondering 'why'.

I never knew that a foundation based on donations could stray off the path so far as to make the original founders uncomfortable enough to quit.

I wish them well and I hope that they start a new foundation where money can go instead. Money walks.

[jdougan]

It is actually fairly normal for foundations to go off the rails unless there is tight control.

Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy always applies:

    ----

Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people":

First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.

    -----

https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html

[DonHopkins]

How Jerry Pournelle got kicked off the ARPANET:

http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/text/pourne-smut.html

[h2odragon]

Thank you for preserving and sharing that little bit of history.

"The Internet is for those that agree with us" has a long tradition.

[15457345234]

It wouldn't actually be so bad if they just came out and said it like that, but it's always accompanied by some weirdly non-sequitur equivocation word salad 'justifying' the ban or whatever and it always resolves (painfully) to the same thing: 'it's not censorship/fascism/bad when we do it.'

The jannie urge to mop has surely got to be genetic

[DonHopkins]

Jerry Pournelle had absolutely no right or entitlement to use the ARPANET or MIT-AI lab's computers, and he was a drunken parasite making belligerent threats, breaking the MIT-AI Lab's rules, and violating DOD policies.

The resources he was abusing were not publically available at any price, commercial use of the ARPANET was officially banned, and he had no right to use it, while he was personally and commercially benefiting from the MIT-AI Lab's generosity, which he scorned in public.

He blatantly violated both the word and spirit of the MIT-AI Lab Tourist Policy, as well as ARPANET and DOD policies against commercial use:

https://donhopkins.medium.com/mit-ai-lab-tourist-policy-f73b...

>Unfortunately, we must reserve the right to terminate tourist accounts for any reason, although we hope this will not be necessary. The most likely reason would be if a tourist or tourists were to interfere with the laboratories’ research objectives, i.e. do not interfere with other people who are using the system.

>The ITS computers are not an infinite resource and we must establish priorities for their use. Their primary purpose is to support faculty, staff and students in their endeavor to carry out MIT’s Sponsored Research. While tourists are expected to contribute to MIT’s research objectives, they are unlikely to be in the mainstream of the on-going work and should therefore consider their role and use of the MIT ITS machine a privilege. A tourist should at all times conduct himself or herself with this in mind. The most important principle is that tourists should not interfere in any way with a laboratory member’s use of the machine. This means that a tourist should not do anything which annoys other users, and also that he should not use the computer resources when a laboratory member needs them.

>[...] Any use of the MIT ITS machines for personal gain, profit making enterprise, or political purposes is not a legitimate use of the Laboratories’ computer resources.

>These specific statements of policy give a minimum of how a tourist ought to behave to be a responsible user on the MIT ITS system. They are not a complete list of all the ways tourists should or should not behave. Just because some particular anti-social behavior is not listed does not mean that it is acceptable. What a tourist should do is cultivate a good attitude: make a positive effort to anticipate and avoid actions that would interfere with other users. If you cannot tell whether a certain course of action can interfere with any one, find out from someone else before trying it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET

>A 1982 handbook on computing at MIT's AI Lab stated regarding network etiquette:[92]

https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/41180/AI_WP_2...

>It is considered illegal to use the ARPANet for anything which is not in direct support of Government business ... personal messages to other ARPANet subscribers (for example, to arrange a get-together or check and say a friendly hello) are generally not considered harmful ... Sending electronic mail over the ARPANet for commercial profit or political purposes is both anti-social and illegal. By sending such messages, you can offend many people, and it is possible to get MIT in serious trouble with the Government agencies which manage the ARPANet.

Why are you so butt-hurt on his behalf? What ever happened to personal responsibility, and what's wrong with kicking him off after he broke the rules and violated the law? He not only richly deserved to be ordered off the net, but he also literally demanded it:

"I find this thoroughly distasteful. If you have some authority to order me off the net, do so. If not, leave me alone." -Jerry Pournelle

They certainly DID have some authority to order him off the net, so he got exactly what he demanded and deserved. It was poetic justice, and his sputtering apoplectic reaction threatening to inform the House Armed Services Committee was as priceless as the ARPANET access he lost due to his own asinine words and illegal misbehavior:

"One thing that is known about ARPA: you can be heaved off it for supporting the policies of the Department of Defense. Of course that was intended to anger me. If you have an ARPA account, please tell CSTACY that he was successful; now let us see if my Pentagon friends can upset him. Or perhaps some reporter friends. Or both., Or even the House Armed Services Committee." -Jerry Pournelle

Jerry Pournelle was heaved off the ARPANET for being a flaming alcoholic asshole who shouldn't have had ARPANET access in the first place, because he was abusing it for personal gain and commercial purposes: promoting his SF books and his Byte Magazine column, not for supporting the policies of the Department of Defense!

"Think of it as evolution in action." -Jerry Pournelle

The whole affair was a triumph of Social Darwinism, and couldn't have been more deserved! ;)

[15457345234]

That's a good post, reflects well on you, please never delete it.

[colechristensen]

I read something about the Linux Foundation that indicated it is also straying quite far from the expected path as well.

[goku12]

The news is that TLF spent just 3.2% of its funds on the Linux kernel. It dwindled from a paltry 3.4% in the previous year. Meanwhile, Linux developers are giving up on their LTS kernel due to lack of resources.

That news had many defending the foundation, saying that their other projects get equally low funding. However, it makes me wonder how these foundations would fare in terms of income if they didn't use the name of a popular open source project. It's likely that a lot of donors have the misconception that their money goes to the namesake project - this is especially true for Mozilla.

[mst]

The LTS kernel change appears to be lack of senior maintainer bandwidth.

This is not, in my experience, the sort of problem that could be solved by throwing money at it.

(and by "in my experience" I mean situations where I was involved with that shape of problem, and could have arranged to have money thrown at it, and the eventual decision was that that wasn't the limiting factor)

Note that this is entirely separate to the question of whether what TLF is doing with its money is suboptimal - it probably is - but I don't believe from what I've seen that the LTS kernel situation is downstream of funding decisions.

[the_biot]

They've been a money train for a very long time now, and at some point started going ultra-woke as well. Last I checked they were demanding what can only be described as "woke loyalty oaths" from people that wanted to speak at one of their conferences.