Path: utzoo!yunexus!telly!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!MCC.COM!rfg From: rfg@MCC.COM (Ron Guilmette) Newsgroups: gnu.gcc Subject: Re: GNU's not GNU... Message-ID: <8903221937.AA01832@riunite.aca.mcc.com> Date: 22 Mar 89 19:37:01 GMT Article-I.D.: riunite.8903221937.AA01832 Sender: daemon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Distribution: gnu Organization: GNUs Not Usenet Lines: 105 Recently, apple!jk@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (John Kullmann) wrote: >I think it is bullshit that just because Stallman has a bug up his ass about >Apple's corporate policies and actions that the GNU project >will have nothing to do with A/UX. Do you want to know what I think? I think that it is bull**** that you somehow are under the delusion that Stallman *owes* you something, just because he is trying to be of some help to a lot of other programmers. As my father was fond of saying while I was growing up, "The world doesn't owe you a living, so you had better learn how to make one of your own." Likewise, Stallman doesn't owe you squat! Now this doesn't mean that he is holding you at gunpoint or anything. If you guys at Apple want to have a good ANSI C compiler (maybe even a free one) then you are perfectly free to go out and write one. The fact that you are now whining that you cannot have your (free) cake and eat it too is only a confirmation for all us GNU fans that Apple is arrogant. >I was going to port over gdb, but fuck it if the GNU-nixs won't >put my changes back into the offical GNU source. We already have most of GNU >ported but met with closed minds and petty bullshit when we tried to get our >changes rolled back into the offical sources. We are just hard working >software jocks like the rest of you and want the stuff we do to be used >and appreciated like you do. It's bullshit to ignore and piss off us poor >software peons just because you do not like Apple's corporate policy. It >is self-defeating towards the goals that GNU is pursuing, and if you think >that ignoring/rejecting us is somehow going to cause Apple to change its >corporate policies you are living in a fantasyland. What do you care whether FSF puts your changes back into the official version (and new releases)? Are you saying that you want to take advantage of all this great free FSF software, pay nothing, do nothing in return (like at least trying to change your company's attitudes), and that you still want the right to *demand* that FSF act as your own (*free*) distribution service? Now that is arrogance!! Look, if you want to have your patches distributed, why don't you just do what other people/companies are now doing... i.e. offer your patches via E-mail, anonymous FTP, or UUCP, on this newsgroup. If that is good enough for the people at DataGeneral why isn't it good enough for you? Now you are demanding not only equal treatment (even thought Apple may have some s*itty policies) but actually *better* treatement! More amazing arrogance! >So I guess GNU is freeware/copyleft/etc/etc as long as we all do what Stallman >or the GNU-nixs want. Great attitude. Maybe you do have to do what Stallman demands if you want to use FSF as your own private distribution service (and pay noting for the privledge). Then again, maybe you don't. That's really not the point right now, because there is no evidence in your flamage that you have even *tried* to make *any* effort to protest Apple's policies within your own company. If you want to talk about great attitudes, lets talk about your's. Your signature line says that you are a technical manager at Apple (not a peon as you claim). If you are a manager, then it seems that you should, at the very least, be able (even if not willing) to bring up the subject of Apple's litigation policies in discussions with (at least) the second level manager(s) directly above you. Have you done that? Have you done anything other than complain that Stallman is a bad boy because he doesn't play by *your* rules and distribute *your* software for *you* for *free* ??? If you had come to Stallman (or posted to this newsgroup/mailing-list) and said "Look everybody... I have tried... I have made an honest effort to wake up the people at Apple, and to alert them that what they have been doing with their litigation is wrong... but I have failed to get agreement". Well, if you had done that, you might get some sympathy (although you might still not get the free re-distribution service you want). As it is however, we have no evidence that either (a) you even agree that what Apple has done is wrong, or (b) that you have done anything to protest these actions within Apple. >Is there anyone else out there that has met with a brick wall when trying to >get changes for a particular architecture rolled back into some piece of >GNU? Yes. There are lots of people/companies, many of whom even play by Stallman's rules (most of the time) who still have trouble getting all of their own private patches folded back in to (future) official releases. Stallman is funny that way. He likes to excersize some personal and (very) knowledgeable quality-control over code with his name on it. ;-) Gee... I wonder why. :-) I've sent him lots of patches that he has thrown in the round file. Funny thing is that after looking at those same patches for awhile, I have generally realized that the ones he discarded were junk anyway. So Stallman acts as a big junk-patch filter... which is a damn good thing. Somebody has to do it. I only hope that whoever he gets to do it next does as good a job as he has. >Is there more to GNU's hatred of Apple than some misguided philisophical >beliefs? Am I wrong to feel this way? Nope. Just {well-}guided philisophical beliefs. ________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer: My boss doesn't even know I'm at work, so how could he know about this! --------------------------------------------------------------- // Ron Guilmette - MCC - Experimental (parallel) Systems Kit Project // 3500 West Balcones Center Drive, Austin, TX 78759 - (512)338-3740 // ARPA: rfg@mcc.com // UUCP: {rutgers,uunet,gatech,ames,pyramid}!cs.utexas.edu!pp!rfg