Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!ames!pacbell!lll-winken!vette!brooks
From: brooks@vette.llnl.gov (Eugene Brooks)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Re: The purpose of info-gcc.
Message-ID: <27052@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 17 Jun 89 19:47:14 GMT
References: <27030@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <8906170530.AA00863@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Reply-To: brooks@maddog.llnl.gov (Eugene Brooks)
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 49

In article <8906170530.AA00863@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes:
>The volume of messages now is driving people off the list who were on
>it to see our announcements.  This is interfering with the purpose of
Some of the people on this list, including myself, were on it to see
the TECHNICAL announcements.  The rare political postings disgusted us
but did not run us off.  I could have been run off like all the others,
but I tend to hang in there for a change for the better, and do my best
to induce a change (sometimes using coarse means).  Volume is not the
problem here, it is the "dual" content.  You might ask each who has dropped
off just what he was on the list for and see if you can't serve your "dual"
following better by having seperate lists for seperate purposes.

Claiming that there is a distinction between the FSF mailing list and a
"standard USENET" group is a twisted view of reality.   Regardless of
who says what, the same network paid for by the same people is being used
for transmission.  This is in fact even independent of "News groups" per say,
if you set up a mailing list anyone can post to, you are again using a public
network in the same manner.  Its not FSF's network, its only FSF's computer
stuffing the phone lines.  If FSF were really paying for transmission the
"newspaper editorial control" rules would apply, this is not the case.

>There may be another list, or maybe just a newsgroup, for discussions
>among people who support the aims of GNU (at least in general) about
>the best and most honorable means to achieve them.  I hope the people
>who don't support our aims will be polite enough not to impose on
>these discussions.
Simply switching away from "GNU is not USENET" and using the USENET
properly with appropo rules would seems a turn for the better.  If FSF wants
to reach people without USENET access it can bounce USENET traffic onto
a short mailing list.

Any public, and any discussion which makes use of the national computer
networks for FREE transmission are rightfully public, political discussion
should be open to the views of the other side.  This is again in the AMERICAN,
let alone USENET tradition.  You needn't worry about ME disturbing you fellows
on gnu.politics, however.  FSF's more radical goals are economically bankrupt,
and will go down the same tubes communism is sliding through these days.
I need not worry with trying to talk you fellows into a reasonable political
position as economics will take care if it eventually.  I just hope that when
GNUers finally face economic reality and realize that they have to work on
proprietary software to make a living, that they continue to contribute to fine
"free" efforts such as GCC as I have done in the past and will continue to do.
Considering this class of contributers HOSTILE is a stake through the heart
of the project.




brooks@maddog.llnl.gov, brooks@maddog.uucp