Nice sellout, sad to see that someone doesn’t care about free/libre software enough, just another opensourcer™

If I ever publish a desktop programme, it will probably be like that tbh.

Also IIRC Bottles only supports bug reports if they are reproducible in the Flatpak, which I think is a very reasonable way of handling it and would probably copy it.
Chances are if the same version only has a bug when installed traditionally, you should be writing in Launchpad or something instead of the repo issue tracker.

Well, sudo installing random .deb/.rpm packages is really bad practice. But I assume you the maintainers of the distro you are using.

It would fit in c/Programmerhumor too, I think.

Here is an Appimage and Flatpak, go bug your distro maintainers if you want it packaged

Literally same 💀

👍👌

I thought you were confused about the left/right wing communism thing, also Luxemburg was Polish herself… -_-

Yekaterinburg was about to be captured by the whites, that’s my whole point. The situation in the ground is complementary to the overarching political one

Yes exactly, because no other such peculiar situation as I have described has happened to progressive revolutionaries AFAIK. Is that so hard to understand?

“National self-determination except when the people disagree with me” is not much of national self-determination.

What are you referring to?

Lenin was a right wing communist of sorts, believing in national self determination (which is the reason why Ukraine exists today at all)

I beg your fucking pardon

Inside of communist currents, there are often left/right destinations. E.g. Lenin wrote “Left Wing Communism: an infantile disorder”. And AFAIK communists to the left of him, prominently Rosa Luxemburg criticised Lenin, including on “the national question” that Ukraine should not exist as a separate state or republic and that the fight for socialism must take precedence over the nationalist dreams of random intellectuals (like in the case of Ukraine, which unlike Poland or Finland, hadn’t been a separate nation of it’s own before being part of the empire.)

The modern state of Ukraine exists because of it’s status as an SSR.

Or take the Ukraine. At the beginning of the century, before the tomfoolery of “Ukrainian nationalism” with its silver rubles and its “Universals”[2] and Lenin’s hobby of an “independent Ukraine” had been invented […]

The best proof is the Ukraine, which was to play so frightful a role in the fate of the Russian Revolution. Ukrainian nationalism in Russia was something quite different from, let us say, Czechish, Polish or Finnish nationalism in that the former was a mere whim, a folly of a few dozen petty-bourgeois intellectuals without the slightest roots in the economic, political or psychological relationships of the country; it was without any historical tradition, since the Ukraine never formed a nation or government, was without any national culture, except for the reactionary-romantic poems of Shevschenko. It is exactly as if, one fine day, the people living in the Wasserkante[3] should want to found a new Low-German (Plattdeutsche) nation and government! And this ridiculous pose of a few university professors and students was inflated into a political force by Lenin and his comrades through their doctrinaire agitation concerning the “right of self-determination including etc.” To what was at first a mere farce they lent such importance that the farce became a matter of the most deadly seriousness – not as a serious national movement for which, afterward as before, there are no roots at all, but as a shingle and rallying flag of counter-revolution! At Brest, out of this addled egg crept the German bayonets.

From: Rosa Luxemburg, The Russian Revolution, Chapter 3: The Nationalities Question

Disclaimer: this does not reflect my opinion

If you can’t think of any situation where you would apply a similar or the same principle, then perhaps you should re-examine on what basis you’re justifying the Romanov family’s situation. On a pre-existing principle of pragmatism? Or operating from the preconception that the murder was correct, and then working backwards to find a justification?

On the basis that I cannot recall a situation in which – in my opinion – progressive revolutionaries should have strayed from the principle of rehabilitation and avoiding harming innocents

Edit. when taken out of the context of the conversation, this might look like I’m contradicting myself. What it means: no such situation except as the one I described in the conversation prior

Where did I say anything about my assessment being universal all of a sudden? It was regarding a very specific context of that very singular time. You are not responding in good faith here IMO, building your own strawman and then arguing against it…

I can’t even think of any other situation about which I would say something even remotely similar.

(BTW, just to give a bit more historical context: it wasn’t even a decision by the central government, but of a local Soviet which had to act quickly as they were encroached by the whites.)

I don’t think you know what any of those words mean in the context of political economy. None of them apply to the early USSR…

Lenin was a right wing communist of sorts, believing in national self determination (which is the reason why Ukraine exists today at all) + the USSR was created as an equal union of peoples (reflected in it’s bicameral legislature) with respect and promotion of local culture and languages. (Look up Korenizatsiia, which was later unfortunately replaced with Russian chauvinism when Stalin was fully at the helm)

Many local communist parties asked for a centralised government similar to France, but the more Russian central government worried a lot about how that would be misinterpreted in terms of their image.

Exactly, requiring perfection at every step forward only has the effect of you standing still.

(“Bending the stick without breaking it” sums it up quite nicely IMO, not forgetting your principles, but without clinging to a dogma and allowing yourself to be pragmatic when the situation requires it, especially when it’s a matter of survival)

In principle I totally agree, however when you are in a civil war against reactionaries that have expeditionary forces from virtually all imperialist of that time at their side, eliminating potential morale boosts and centres of legitimization (“We have recovered the tsarevich from the hands of the filthy judeo-bolshevics and will fight to the death for him to reclaim his rightful throne” e.g.) is (unfortunately) a purely pragmatical matter…

Executing the royal family that has oppressed your country for 3 centuries, so that the reactionary proto fascists (whites) don’t have another rallying point during the civil war is an understandable decision