Yep, he filed for bankripcy, twice. Autocomplete suggests that he may have had something to do with a bankruptcy, because he did. Facts are stubborn things, Mr. Hingston.

I wrote a whole paragraph answering that. Ways non-programmers can contribute:
edit the wiki
answer newbie's questions on the forum
translate the documentation
submit careful, specific bug reports
buy the programmer a breakfast taco
seed the torrent (on purpose, after you're done downloading)
pitch in on the hosting bill
want me to support your specific hardware? Send me one so I can work on it.

In which case you a productive member of the OSS community. When I contribute to Firefox, I'll have reason to consider your wishes because we're working together - my code and your code need to play nicely together. I won't have any reason to worry about what Apple thinks of my Firefox code, because their Safari code doesn't affect my Firefox code.

The installer GUI is python code. You can patch it the same way you'd patch any other code. Except in this case, one complaint is inconsistent fonts, so you don't even have to be a programmer. Just search-replace font names.

Alternatively, the GUI is mainly developed using the Glade"IDE", http://glade.gnome.org/ so you can edit the GUI graphically, right in Glade. Glade generates Python source, from from there run "diff -Nrup" just like any other patch.

That is not valuable to me at all. It already works for me, on my hardware. You testing it for your use case, on your hardware, benefits YOU. It doesn't benefit me one bit, not if you stop there. There is another step or two you can easily take to make a contribution of it, though. If you stop at using the software, and pretednign that using=testing, it's a giant PITA to be expected to support hardware that I don't even have access to. If you really think that's beneficial, explain to me how I can eat your test on your hardware for lunch, or how your use case keeps me warm. It doesn't.

If you at least submit a careful, specific issue report that will probably be useful to YOU. What's useful to me, what fills my belly, is if you get me a breakfast taco. I write better software when I'm not hungry, so that also benefits you. As far as using/testing, if you take that "using" and go a step further and write documentation based on how you use it, that benefits the community, including me, because that saves me the time of typing out answers to questions. Also, if you take the results of actual careful testing (using != testing) and submit a careful bug report that _might_ be useful to me, if I happen to be affected by the same bug. Having people simply use software I write does no good for me or anyone else, though.

So when you use software that's poorly documented, either a) write up what you figured out about how to use it or b) get honest with yourself and admit you're useless in that context, not useful. It's okay, just be honest with yourself and others. I'm not useful in regards to Gimp - I just use it. I am useful in the context of the kernel, because I help with development, just a little bit.

Why would I give a hoot what Richard stallman wants? Do you spend your day trying to please Richard Stallman? I sure don't.

That's called "warranty of merchantability" - "merchant" as in "buy and sell". It's an implied promise that if you buy something from me, I'll deliver something worth buying. If you're not buying anything from me, the terms aren't implied, they are clearly stated. I put it out there because it's useful to ME, so it might be useful to you, too. I have no obligation to spend my days making something you'll like - you haven't given me anything. Every GPL package includes a clear statement of these terms:

Again, we write GPL software because it's useful for US, or for our customers. We decide how to spend our time, how to design a system we create. If you want to be part of the "us" that makes decisions, edit the damn wiki or something.

You missed an entire paragraph written just for you:
"But I'm not a programer!" Okay, so translate the documentation into your native language, or help out on the forums, or maybe even consider feeding the programmers lunch while they work with a $20 donation. Otherwise, you're bitching about a gift.

We do NOT want our software to be widely used by people who contribute nothing. What good does that do us? You are not a customer. (Unless of course you are a paying customer). You are the recipient of a gift. Freeloaders using our work, while refusing to donate $10, or edit the wiki, or translate something, or run a proper test suite are NOT beneficial to OSS programmers. Quite the opposite. You're just another oddball configuration I have to support, and another piece of idiot-proofing I have to add to the GUI, with no benefit to me. We don't want it to be widely used, we want a wide base of CONTRIBUTORS.

True, but when you can submit patches and don't submit even one, it's kind of like complaining that you're own house is dirty. You could do something about it, but you choose to do nothing and expect other people to take care of your problems for you. That's okay, you can do that. It kind of weakens the complaint, though.

Compare to if you pay someone to make a product to fit your needs, and they prevent you from making changes or submitting patches. In that case, the complainant is on more solid ground - they paid for development, they aren't trying to freeload; and there is nothing they are allowed to do to help fix it.

When I author Linux software, I write it mainly to do what I need it to do, while also trying to make it useful to you. I then give it to you free. You have no standing to demand that I spend my time fulfilling your preferences. If you hire me, donate, or contribute code THEN you're part of the community where we all work together. If you neither donate, nor contribute code or documentation, nor hire me to do what you need done, you are NOT part of the team. You are the recipient of a gift we give you.

"But I'm not a programer!" Okay, so translate the documentation into your native language, or help out on the forums, or maybe even consider feeding the programmers lunch while they work with a $20 donation. Otherwise, you're bitching about a gift.

Or, instead of forking, contribute a patch or two to improve things.
I thought I could improve RAID in the Linux kernel, so I did. Patch accepted, so now when I download a new version of Linux, it includes my fix and thousand of improvements others have made. I thought I could improve Apache, so I did. Patch accepted. I thought I could improve Moodle in a half a dozen ways. Half a dozen patches accepted. I thought I could improve Linux:LVM. I'm now the maintainer.

Forking is the last resort, when no reasonable patches are accepted. If you don't like the way something works in OSS, contribute a fix.

post publicly, I fully expect the public can see it. If I don't want it seen, I don't post it.

As proposed, Slashdot (a US company) could be forced to delete posts made by US citizens, if those posts mention someone in the EU. That's a legitimate concern. Had this law been in place before, Mussoluni's "right to be forgotten" would mean he could order Facebook to delete any posts critical of him.

If I could trust the government to be smart about the rules they make, and to really understand web technology, the new restrictions might seem mildly attractive. Given the general incompetence of government, I think it best that slashdot decides how slashdot handles login, cookies, etc.

Indeed. With CC merchant accounts they don't automatically freeze an account full of funds based on automated heuristics. It's possible they do it rarely, but working closely with thousands of businesses, and having my own merchant accounts, I've never heard of it happening. I've had my Paypal account frozen before and I know at least a dozen other people who have.

The chargeback process is still slanted toward the buyer, but the buyer has to fill out and mail or fax paperwork, not just click a button on a web page. That reduces BS chargebacks. More importantly, that chargeback affects only the one transaction; they don't freeze thousands of dollars of unrelated funds. CC processors only freeze the account after MANY complaints from buyers. Partly, that's because they do the anti-fraud work upfront, when you apply to open the account. That takes a couple of weeks.

Perhaps that means there is still hope that the IE Accept bug, documented sixteen years ago, will eventually get fixed. Microsoft did release a partial workaround after fourteen years.