He's been saying for years that our phones are being used as spying devices. Most wrote it off as an extreme view, even those who are sympathetic to Stallman's causes.
Do you have any evidence for this? Because tracking data wasn't exactly a secret, but I think most people put up with government (and corporate) intrusion on privacy as the government being government, and what are you going to do, gotta live your life, convenience, etc. I didn't see anybody calling Stallman out on this.
A little refresher for you. AT&T spying on behalf of the government is nothing new, and had the whistle blown a long time before Snowden.
Obama used Bush's warrantless wiretapping as a club against Bush's policies when running for election in the primaries, then voted for telco immunity after the primaries and facing McCain -- because he didn't want to look weak on security and he no longer needed to appease his base. While he's given lip service to the Constitution and the privacy of citizens, once he got in power he used the same tools as Bush.
Twitter is a pure money sink that is trading on their fame. I'm not even sure how they would monetize it and I don't think they know either.
They reportedly get somewhere between $2 to $3 billion per year in advertising revenue. They are probably an extremely bloated company geared for growth. It looks like they are starting to trim the fat. Just how much money would it take to run Twitter on a budget? My guess is not much.
They covered it, which is why you're being obtuse and this entire "scandal" is an exercise in BS designed to muddy the waters and give cover to Trump by creating a false "both sides" narrative.
Yes, they did cover it, but not in the kind of wall-to-wall coverage that seeks to condemn Trump whenever they focus on an issue, and they make sure to put up a plausible defense at the same time. Trump doesn't get those.
There is precisely one side, one side, in this discussion where the CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT has SUPPORTED VIOLENCE ON HIS BEHALF.
Trump is boorish enough to say shit like that, while the Clinton campaign has an active organization that lets surrogates do it and then cuts ties and denies any involvement when they get found out.
Where is all the actual violence and thuggery coming from? Having to repeat myself: "Because if it's so significant and deserves all this attention, why is most of the violence and interruption of rallies coming from the other side with very little attention in comparison? Where are the mass demonstrations interrupting Clinton's rallies? Where's the violence against her rallies? Funny how that works out."
You're trying to normalize violence in an election.
No, I think it's terrible, but I don't pretend one side is clean and the other is not, unlike you.
Carry on down this path, and you, and America, are in serious danger.
That's what I think about Clinton. I don't like Trump, but the choice is between a turd sandwich and a bowl of diarrhea soup. They're both corrupt elitists trying to get their clammy hands on the seat of power. I'm only supporting Trump because of immigration and his willingness to be politically incorrect, because I'm sick of all the kowtowing to shit like Black Lives Matter, "Islamophobia", feminism, and an insane march down progressive lane.
But since you want to talk about violence and candidates, which one wants to continue policies to turn Syria into another Libya? Which one wants to "treat cyberattacks just like any other attack"? Which candidate is more likely to cause a war with Russia? Clinton is a war hawk.
What exactly constitutes incitement to violence is a matter of great (legal) debate.
I'm talking about ordinary usage of words, not what rises to a crime under legal code.
It would be silly for us to get into that debate and I will not entertain it any further
Good, because I'm not interested in it either, and you're the one who brought in the legal angle late in the game, not me.
even more so because you are ignoring and deflecting from my main points. Either respond to those or fuck off.
It's your fault for trying to use overly broad terminology as an excuse for what occurred.
That does not mean that Foval's group [actively incited violence | pick whatever term you like that describes what you know I mean]
I already did choose unambiguous and correct terms. Why do you feel the need to revert back to terms that are at best misleading, and at worst deceitful? The phrase I used is accurate, and I agree that they did not do this: "directly advocating others to commit violence".
Don't get me wrong: It's certainly a nasty tactic to deliberately try to influence the image of the Trump campaign by throwing a bunch of red meat in between his dogs and watch them tear it up
Yes, it is a nasty tactic to deliberately incite violence. I'm glad you can acknowledge that.
A sizable portion of Trump-supporters are still mean-spirited violent assholes.
I asked you what sizable was. Because if it's so significant and deserves all this attention, why is most of the violence and interruption of rallies coming from the other side with very little attention in comparison? Where are the mass demonstrations interrupting Clinton's rallies? Where's the violence against her rallies? Funny how that works out.
You don't get to pretend they are not and you don't get to claim that "we now know the violent rallies to be staged".
All I know about a handful of cases, and while the violent acts themselves weren't staged, the incitement to violence was.
By the way, I'm not the original poster who made the "staged" comment you responded to. Like you, I responded to one particular statement that was an overreach in your comment. If it's ok for you to do that, it's ok for me.
I'm not giving you a free pass to use words in contradiction with their actual meaning.
Driving around a bad black neighborhood in a car with KKK-markings and slogans printed on it.
And how do you think the media would have reacted if the Trump campaign did something like this to elicit a violent response?
only one of them is actively inciting violence
And this is where I insist you use correct terminology. What you are trying to say is only one of them is directly advocating others to commit violence, but you're using much looser language that actually describes what happened and then saying it didn't happen. Words have meaning, use them correctly.
you agree that a sizable portion of Trump-supporters are still mean-spirited violent assholes
What is "sizable"? My point, since you're trying to score political points against Trump, is that the anti-Trump violence is worse and gets much less coverage. You haven't disputed that.
That does not mean that Foval's group actively incited violence
Umm, yes it does. They took deliberation action to elicit a violent response. Do you have a problem with basic definitions?
A sizable portion of Trump-supporters are still mean-spirited violent assholes.
And yet the worst of the violence was directed at Trump supporters in places like San Jose, their have been countless death threats publicly posted on Twitter against Trump, people posting pictures of themselves stealing Trump signs, etc. But you don't get wall-to-wall coverage about that, do you?
Islam is a religion, although one I"m not fond of.
Repeating yourself doesn't address my argument. It's also a political ideology.
That it's not an inherently evil religion is shown by the historical record.
The historical record shows that it is inherently militant, expansionist, and authoritarian. But you'd actually have to look at the historical record instead of burying your head in the sand. I provided two links in my last post, and I'm certain you have not perused them, because they show the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
They don't necessarily share Western values, but I don't see that that's a problem.
That's because you are a useful idiot. You'll gladly bash Trump over perceived bigotry, while giving a free pass to a political ideology straight from medieval times.
This suggests that Muslims will adapt their religion to their environment, and come to share Western values.
You've got it wrong. Muslims are not integrating, especially when they arrive in numbers. But again, you'd rather just bury your head in the sand and ignore reality on the ground.
The West isn't fragile
It can be, when taken over by a political correctness gone mad and an unwillingness to say no to destructive immigration policies or be too afraid to have an honest discussion about Islam.
It's also a political ideology that seeks to impose its values on others.
but the Muslims I've known are quite reasonable and hardly ever go on jihaidic shooting sprees
Sure, there are plenty of moderate Muslims. But even then a large number of them do not share Western values.
Most Muslims, like most Christians and most Buddhists, want to live their own reasonably peaceful lives.
Islam at its core is an expansionist and violent religion, unlike Buddhism, and unlike the actual gospels of Christianity (even if there was a period of authoritarian theocracy). That's why Islam has bloody borders.
They may provide political support for things I find despicable, but that's not a serious problem, given the numbers that are fleeing to the West.
Given all the problems caused by just a tiny percentage, why do you think it's a good idea to increase it? Islam is a fundamental threat to the West.
Even calling him "a" father is too much. His flavors won out, but they were not groundbreaking. I'd actually rate what Jobs accomplished higher.
Von Neumann and Turing, yup I agree. But I think the king is Douglas Engelbart, whose Mother of All Demos defined modern day computing as we know it today, in 1968. He was 20 years ahead of his time.
Linux is a major server OS (arguably the largest), very big in embedded systems, and completely dominant on smartphones. Hackers are spending very significant time working to find exploits.
And they're finding them. By the way, calling the OS on smartphones "Linux" is a bit daft. It's a modified Linux kernel, yes, but the OS is Android.
You fucking asshole. What's under contention: "against racial or gender equality"
What you said: "He wants to ban all Muslims from entering the US. If that's not an "agenda that is against equality", then what is?"
Islam is not a race or a gender. It's a dangerous political ideology founded by a conquering warlord that does not share Western values. It's the most militant religion on the planet that's stated goals are to subjugate the rest of the world to Islam.
And the stupidest thing about you useful idiots? It's the most backwards ideology when it comes to gender equality in the world today.
Yes, I know it has locks. So does Java. The "threads and locks" model (goroutines are essentially threads, no need to argue with me, I've seen you do it elsewhere), where the programmer has to figure out what to properly lock, is prone to bugs.
This is the same kind of mess when it comes to pointers, memory management, and C -- exactly the kind of mess Go and languages like Java left behind because it was such a mess. Go missed an opportunity to do something truly useful here.
Also, it is one of the few languages out there where concurrency is not an afterthought.
They made it more convenient to do the wrong thing by allowing unchecked sharing of variables between goroutines. In other words, they completely left unsolved the major problem with concurrency.
Yep, taking Tiobe at face value is foolish. Their methodology is shit. Look at job openings, book sales, how busy the forums are, etc. Look at a bunch of stuff. But do not assume that Tiobe's single, brittle method of ranking languages is accurate, especially when it comes to languages that share a common word like "go".
Especially since Steve Jobs in relative terms contributed almost nothing to the world
Except bring the world's first recognizable PC (hardware) to the masses with the first Apple. He also brought the windows model of UI to the masses too. I'm no fan of Apple, and never liked the reality distortion field around Jobs, but Jobs had drive and vision, and you need guys like that to harness the engineers.
while Ritchie is an undisputed father of modern computing.
His flavors of OS and language won out, both of which were based on previous designs. Calling him the "undisputed father of modern computing" is ridiculous.
Are you saying that the GNU software did not execute on top of his kernel until he used the same license?
I've already commented on this, presumably to another Anonymous Coward: "But nobody ships just kernels to end users. They ship operating systems, including the kernel and the userland tools "as part of a whole", and that's where the GPL kicks in."
It's about distributing the GPL code "as part of a whole".
GPL did not attempt to prevent people from running their software inside a closed system until GPLv3 (IIRC, using GPL code like Tivo did was one of the main things GPLv3 was supposed to prevent).
The Tivo thing is a different issue. All the code was GPL, but the user had no access to it because the hardware was locked.
Beyond that, sure the result was aimed at cloning *nix-like functionality.
Right, I was talking about this, not Minix.
He flamed Tridgell because Linus liked Bitkeeper and didn't want others to rock the boat over some ideological view about freedom.
That was the real reason that anybody with half a brain knew. But what he said in public was:
"He didn't create something new and impressive. He just tore down something new (and impressive) because he could, and rather than helping others, he screwed people over. And you expect me to _respect_ that kind of behaviour?"
What a hypocritical dick. I wonder if he's ever apologized for that one, or acknowledged his mistake? Maybe to this day he still thinks that bullshit is right.
That's not how copyright works. The GNU code is userland and generally not derivative of the underlying kernel.
I didn't say the kernel was derivative. But nobody ships just kernels to end users. They ship operating systems, including the kernel and the userland tools "as part of a whole", and that's where the GPL kicks in.
No, he chose the GPL because he didn't want others taking his code and just using it without contributing back.
No, he really did choose the GPL because he wanted to plug his kernel into GNU. There's a post from the early days somewhere in Usenet archives where he states this. Choosing GPL was the path of least resistance.
Why is it that La Clinton is automatically and personally responsible for every opinion spouted by some random blogger who happens to think she's less terrible than the other option?
Why is it you have poor reading comprehension? The person you replied to wrote:
"After all, Pepe wasn't a hate symbol until Donald Trump used it. Well that, and the Clinton Campaign wrote an article on it, based off an article where the author was trolled so hard that despite the troll standing on the bridge and saying "I'm a troll, suckers" they still ran with it."
I linked in the Clinton campaign article, which wasn't linked in the original comment.
He only wrote the kernel for an i386 machine. And he cloned an existing system's functionality instead of writing a new system. You know, the same thing he flamed Tridgell for.
using a radical new software licensing scheme
He chose GPL so he could use the already written GNU code to plug his kernel into. You know, the bulk of the code that made up the OS. I always thought Stallman was petty about trying to call Linux, "GNU/Linux", but it's posts like yours that show he had a point. A typical Linux system has vast amount of work put into it that has nothing to do with the kernel or Linus, other than they need some kernel to run on.
attract multiple developers and users
Yes, he did that. Mostly as a matter of right place and right time, but he deserves credit for taking the ball, running with it, and achieving success.
The "crook" is accused of storing a few documents that shouldn't have been stored in email.
If by few, do you mean thousands? Because she shouldn't have been routing her government email through her own server in the first place. But more importantly, Crooked Hillary has also been accused of running a pay-for-play scheme. It's part of a long history of Clinton scandals. They're like the mafia family that never goes to prison.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that the old Sun keyboard layout?
Yep, and that's what I learned Emacs on. I've set caps lock to be an extra control key on every PC I've owned ever since.
He's been saying for years that our phones are being used as spying devices. Most wrote it off as an extreme view, even those who are sympathetic to Stallman's causes.
Do you have any evidence for this? Because tracking data wasn't exactly a secret, but I think most people put up with government (and corporate) intrusion on privacy as the government being government, and what are you going to do, gotta live your life, convenience, etc. I didn't see anybody calling Stallman out on this.
A little refresher for you. AT&T spying on behalf of the government is nothing new, and had the whistle blown a long time before Snowden.
Obama used Bush's warrantless wiretapping as a club against Bush's policies when running for election in the primaries, then voted for telco immunity after the primaries and facing McCain -- because he didn't want to look weak on security and he no longer needed to appease his base. While he's given lip service to the Constitution and the privacy of citizens, once he got in power he used the same tools as Bush.
Ctrl+Anything is not ergonomic.
It's quite ergonomic -- as long as you make caps lock act like control. Just google how to do so for your platform and give caps lock the boot.
Twitter is a pure money sink that is trading on their fame. I'm not even sure how they would monetize it and I don't think they know either.
They reportedly get somewhere between $2 to $3 billion per year in advertising revenue. They are probably an extremely bloated company geared for growth. It looks like they are starting to trim the fat. Just how much money would it take to run Twitter on a budget? My guess is not much.
They covered it, which is why you're being obtuse and this entire "scandal" is an exercise in BS designed to muddy the waters and give cover to Trump by creating a false "both sides" narrative.
Yes, they did cover it, but not in the kind of wall-to-wall coverage that seeks to condemn Trump whenever they focus on an issue, and they make sure to put up a plausible defense at the same time. Trump doesn't get those.
There is precisely one side, one side, in this discussion where the CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT has SUPPORTED VIOLENCE ON HIS BEHALF.
Trump is boorish enough to say shit like that, while the Clinton campaign has an active organization that lets surrogates do it and then cuts ties and denies any involvement when they get found out.
Where is all the actual violence and thuggery coming from? Having to repeat myself: "Because if it's so significant and deserves all this attention, why is most of the violence and interruption of rallies coming from the other side with very little attention in comparison? Where are the mass demonstrations interrupting Clinton's rallies? Where's the violence against her rallies? Funny how that works out."
You're trying to normalize violence in an election.
No, I think it's terrible, but I don't pretend one side is clean and the other is not, unlike you.
Carry on down this path, and you, and America, are in serious danger.
That's what I think about Clinton. I don't like Trump, but the choice is between a turd sandwich and a bowl of diarrhea soup. They're both corrupt elitists trying to get their clammy hands on the seat of power. I'm only supporting Trump because of immigration and his willingness to be politically incorrect, because I'm sick of all the kowtowing to shit like Black Lives Matter, "Islamophobia", feminism, and an insane march down progressive lane.
But since you want to talk about violence and candidates, which one wants to continue policies to turn Syria into another Libya? Which one wants to "treat cyberattacks just like any other attack"? Which candidate is more likely to cause a war with Russia? Clinton is a war hawk.
What exactly constitutes incitement to violence is a matter of great (legal) debate.
I'm talking about ordinary usage of words, not what rises to a crime under legal code.
It would be silly for us to get into that debate and I will not entertain it any further
Good, because I'm not interested in it either, and you're the one who brought in the legal angle late in the game, not me.
even more so because you are ignoring and deflecting from my main points. Either respond to those or fuck off.
It's your fault for trying to use overly broad terminology as an excuse for what occurred.
That does not mean that Foval's group [actively incited violence | pick whatever term you like that describes what you know I mean]
I already did choose unambiguous and correct terms. Why do you feel the need to revert back to terms that are at best misleading, and at worst deceitful? The phrase I used is accurate, and I agree that they did not do this: "directly advocating others to commit violence".
Don't get me wrong: It's certainly a nasty tactic to deliberately try to influence the image of the Trump campaign by throwing a bunch of red meat in between his dogs and watch them tear it up
Yes, it is a nasty tactic to deliberately incite violence. I'm glad you can acknowledge that.
A sizable portion of Trump-supporters are still mean-spirited violent assholes.
I asked you what sizable was. Because if it's so significant and deserves all this attention, why is most of the violence and interruption of rallies coming from the other side with very little attention in comparison? Where are the mass demonstrations interrupting Clinton's rallies? Where's the violence against her rallies? Funny how that works out.
You don't get to pretend they are not and you don't get to claim that "we now know the violent rallies to be staged".
All I know about a handful of cases, and while the violent acts themselves weren't staged, the incitement to violence was.
By the way, I'm not the original poster who made the "staged" comment you responded to. Like you, I responded to one particular statement that was an overreach in your comment. If it's ok for you to do that, it's ok for me.
lets not get into a fruitless semantic discussion
I'm not giving you a free pass to use words in contradiction with their actual meaning.
Driving around a bad black neighborhood in a car with KKK-markings and slogans printed on it.
And how do you think the media would have reacted if the Trump campaign did something like this to elicit a violent response?
only one of them is actively inciting violence
And this is where I insist you use correct terminology. What you are trying to say is only one of them is directly advocating others to commit violence, but you're using much looser language that actually describes what happened and then saying it didn't happen. Words have meaning, use them correctly.
you agree that a sizable portion of Trump-supporters are still mean-spirited violent assholes
What is "sizable"? My point, since you're trying to score political points against Trump, is that the anti-Trump violence is worse and gets much less coverage. You haven't disputed that.
That does not mean that Foval's group actively incited violence
Umm, yes it does. They took deliberation action to elicit a violent response. Do you have a problem with basic definitions?
A sizable portion of Trump-supporters are still mean-spirited violent assholes.
And yet the worst of the violence was directed at Trump supporters in places like San Jose, their have been countless death threats publicly posted on Twitter against Trump, people posting pictures of themselves stealing Trump signs, etc. But you don't get wall-to-wall coverage about that, do you?
Islam is a religion, although one I"m not fond of.
Repeating yourself doesn't address my argument. It's also a political ideology.
That it's not an inherently evil religion is shown by the historical record.
The historical record shows that it is inherently militant, expansionist, and authoritarian. But you'd actually have to look at the historical record instead of burying your head in the sand. I provided two links in my last post, and I'm certain you have not perused them, because they show the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
They don't necessarily share Western values, but I don't see that that's a problem.
That's because you are a useful idiot. You'll gladly bash Trump over perceived bigotry, while giving a free pass to a political ideology straight from medieval times.
This suggests that Muslims will adapt their religion to their environment, and come to share Western values.
You've got it wrong. Muslims are not integrating, especially when they arrive in numbers. But again, you'd rather just bury your head in the sand and ignore reality on the ground.
The West isn't fragile
It can be, when taken over by a political correctness gone mad and an unwillingness to say no to destructive immigration policies or be too afraid to have an honest discussion about Islam.
Islam is a religion.
It's also a political ideology that seeks to impose its values on others.
but the Muslims I've known are quite reasonable and hardly ever go on jihaidic shooting sprees
Sure, there are plenty of moderate Muslims. But even then a large number of them do not share Western values.
Most Muslims, like most Christians and most Buddhists, want to live their own reasonably peaceful lives.
Islam at its core is an expansionist and violent religion, unlike Buddhism, and unlike the actual gospels of Christianity (even if there was a period of authoritarian theocracy). That's why Islam has bloody borders.
They may provide political support for things I find despicable, but that's not a serious problem, given the numbers that are fleeing to the West.
Given all the problems caused by just a tiny percentage, why do you think it's a good idea to increase it? Islam is a fundamental threat to the West.
Even calling him "a" father is too much. His flavors won out, but they were not groundbreaking. I'd actually rate what Jobs accomplished higher.
Von Neumann and Turing, yup I agree. But I think the king is Douglas Engelbart, whose Mother of All Demos defined modern day computing as we know it today, in 1968. He was 20 years ahead of his time.
Linux is a major server OS (arguably the largest), very big in embedded systems, and completely dominant on smartphones. Hackers are spending very significant time working to find exploits.
And they're finding them. By the way, calling the OS on smartphones "Linux" is a bit daft. It's a modified Linux kernel, yes, but the OS is Android.
When you say SJW you undermine whatever good ideas you may have had.
Nope, the label fits, and the actions he describes are accurate.
You fucking asshole. What's under contention: "against racial or gender equality"
What you said: "He wants to ban all Muslims from entering the US. If that's not an "agenda that is against equality", then what is?"
Islam is not a race or a gender. It's a dangerous political ideology founded by a conquering warlord that does not share Western values. It's the most militant religion on the planet that's stated goals are to subjugate the rest of the world to Islam.
And the stupidest thing about you useful idiots? It's the most backwards ideology when it comes to gender equality in the world today.
Yes, I know it has locks. So does Java. The "threads and locks" model (goroutines are essentially threads, no need to argue with me, I've seen you do it elsewhere), where the programmer has to figure out what to properly lock, is prone to bugs.
This is the same kind of mess when it comes to pointers, memory management, and C -- exactly the kind of mess Go and languages like Java left behind because it was such a mess. Go missed an opportunity to do something truly useful here.
Also, it is one of the few languages out there where concurrency is not an afterthought.
They made it more convenient to do the wrong thing by allowing unchecked sharing of variables between goroutines. In other words, they completely left unsolved the major problem with concurrency.
What a load of baloney.
Yep, taking Tiobe at face value is foolish. Their methodology is shit. Look at job openings, book sales, how busy the forums are, etc. Look at a bunch of stuff. But do not assume that Tiobe's single, brittle method of ranking languages is accurate, especially when it comes to languages that share a common word like "go".
Especially since Steve Jobs in relative terms contributed almost nothing to the world
Except bring the world's first recognizable PC (hardware) to the masses with the first Apple. He also brought the windows model of UI to the masses too. I'm no fan of Apple, and never liked the reality distortion field around Jobs, but Jobs had drive and vision, and you need guys like that to harness the engineers.
while Ritchie is an undisputed father of modern computing.
His flavors of OS and language won out, both of which were based on previous designs. Calling him the "undisputed father of modern computing" is ridiculous.
Are you saying that the GNU software did not execute on top of his kernel until he used the same license?
I've already commented on this, presumably to another Anonymous Coward: "But nobody ships just kernels to end users. They ship operating systems, including the kernel and the userland tools "as part of a whole", and that's where the GPL kicks in."
It's about distributing the GPL code "as part of a whole".
GPL did not attempt to prevent people from running their software inside a closed system until GPLv3 (IIRC, using GPL code like Tivo did was one of the main things GPLv3 was supposed to prevent).
The Tivo thing is a different issue. All the code was GPL, but the user had no access to it because the hardware was locked.
No doubt this is precisely because of the constant push for pragmatic action now and a willing to do drastic rewrites later.
Worse is better in action.
Beyond that, sure the result was aimed at cloning *nix-like functionality.
Right, I was talking about this, not Minix.
He flamed Tridgell because Linus liked Bitkeeper and didn't want others to rock the boat over some ideological view about freedom.
That was the real reason that anybody with half a brain knew. But what he said in public was:
"He didn't create something new and impressive. He just tore down something new (and impressive) because he could, and rather than helping others, he screwed people over. And you expect me to _respect_ that kind of behaviour?"
What a hypocritical dick. I wonder if he's ever apologized for that one, or acknowledged his mistake? Maybe to this day he still thinks that bullshit is right.
That's not how copyright works. The GNU code is userland and generally not derivative of the underlying kernel.
I didn't say the kernel was derivative. But nobody ships just kernels to end users. They ship operating systems, including the kernel and the userland tools "as part of a whole", and that's where the GPL kicks in.
No, he chose the GPL because he didn't want others taking his code and just using it without contributing back.
No, he really did choose the GPL because he wanted to plug his kernel into GNU. There's a post from the early days somewhere in Usenet archives where he states this. Choosing GPL was the path of least resistance.
Why is it that La Clinton is automatically and personally responsible for every opinion spouted by some random blogger who happens to think she's less terrible than the other option?
Why is it you have poor reading comprehension? The person you replied to wrote:
"After all, Pepe wasn't a hate symbol until Donald Trump used it. Well that, and the Clinton Campaign wrote an article on it, based off an article where the author was trolled so hard that despite the troll standing on the bridge and saying "I'm a troll, suckers" they still ran with it."
I linked in the Clinton campaign article, which wasn't linked in the original comment.
writes a completely new UNIX-compatible OS
He only wrote the kernel for an i386 machine. And he cloned an existing system's functionality instead of writing a new system. You know, the same thing he flamed Tridgell for.
using a radical new software licensing scheme
He chose GPL so he could use the already written GNU code to plug his kernel into. You know, the bulk of the code that made up the OS. I always thought Stallman was petty about trying to call Linux, "GNU/Linux", but it's posts like yours that show he had a point. A typical Linux system has vast amount of work put into it that has nothing to do with the kernel or Linus, other than they need some kernel to run on.
attract multiple developers and users
Yes, he did that. Mostly as a matter of right place and right time, but he deserves credit for taking the ball, running with it, and achieving success.
Well, he makes alot of mistakes and often even admits to them
But there's nobody who's going to call him a fucking moron and revoke his privs from committing code.
The "crook" is accused of storing a few documents that shouldn't have been stored in email.
If by few, do you mean thousands? Because she shouldn't have been routing her government email through her own server in the first place. But more importantly, Crooked Hillary has also been accused of running a pay-for-play scheme. It's part of a long history of Clinton scandals. They're like the mafia family that never goes to prison.