Xref: utzoo alt.religion.computers:1120 gnu.misc.discuss:547 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: GNUclear Warfare Message-ID: <4774@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 16 Dec 89 20:07:31 GMT References: <2558@flatline.UUCP> <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com> <4ZW1ijS00WBKE1qh5C@andrew.cmu.edu> Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 108 In article <4ZW1ijS00WBKE1qh5C@andrew.cmu.edu>, jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) writes: > Ever hear the saying that there are *more* than two sides to every story? Noice to hear. I've been getting the impression that the FSF folks see only two sides: themselves the likes of Apple. > Now, some other people (or was it the same people?) are saying that they > really wish that rms and the FSF would change their minds and forget > about GPL and the copyleft because they would *really* like to use bison > and gcc (or whatever the particular programs were) and its hard to find > software thats as nice as that for what they want to do (in their > opinion, of course). Not me. I couldn't care less if they released Bison or not. In fact I wish they weren't on the market. They're making it harder for the folks trying to get REALLY freely-redistributable stuff accepted. > Now, we *could* say "Hey - you lose! No one is > forcing you to use GNU software - so take a flying leap and get the heck > out of our faces - go do your own thing" In fact, some claim that this > has been said "Write your own " Well, that~s what rms did - he > didn~t like the actions that some group was taking, he had access to > their stuff, he reversed engineered the software and viola - he had a > version to use (or give away as i believe he did) and he didn~t have to > put up with the other people bs. Fine. No problem with that. The problem is that Microsoft doesn't try to assert rights over other people's source code. Apple does, but then I agree with the folks who call Apple unethical. I don't really see that much difference between RMS and Apple. Your argument *here* seems to be "RMS is more moral than Apple, therefore he's a saint.". I just think he's less of a scoundrel. > Of course not! Computer nerds would *never* be interested in actually > building hardware! BIOS is software. > Computer nerds are only interested in compilers, > debuggers, and the latest version of tetris. Get real. If no one is > interested in BIOS, then why does Phoenix claim that pirates are running > them out of business? Maybe they are. It's *expensive* to reverse-engineer IBM's bugs. > What you *can* say (and what i gather you are saying) is that given that > MicroSoft hadn~t written Excel or Word, you sure-as-blue-blazes wouldn~t > have either. I haven't seen *any* PD software that wasn't either (a) oriented towards computer geeks, or (b) strictly limited in utility. Prove me wrong. Provide a counter-example. > See previous post about "pirates". Note: pirates and supporters of GNU > are not an identical set Never even implied they were. > pirating is a purely reactionary action - it attempts to circumvent an > industry that, like *you* Mr. DaSilva ignores them or worse yet, calls > them computer nerds in an attempted insult (apparently). Hell no. I'm a computer nerd. And proud of it. > I don~t know about XYZcalc, but if you bother to *read* the GNU > manifesto, it specifically states that rms intends to have one > spreadsheet - (barring contributions from others). I have a spreadsheet. It's called SC. It's freely redistributable. It's also pretty limited by comparison with commercial versions. > Now, if *you~re* so > good at programming, why don~t *you* write a XYZcalc clone It's no fun. > Again you falaciously mix GNU and pirating in the same barrel. Nope. I'm talking about two seperate populations. The people at the FSF who compete with Microsoft and Borland with freeware compilers, and the pirates who compete with Microsoft and Lotus with pirate copies of 1-2-3 and Word. [ long discussion of how he works for free and lives off my tax money ] Go ahead and charge for your services. > What~s the matter, afraid of a little > competition? Hell no. I'm all in favor of free software. I write free software. And I write for-pay software. I just don't agree with coercing people to write free software. > (assumign creativity is spewing and programming is creative) Them's fighting words. Remember: 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. > Of course, you could alway says (with a tone of superiority) "well, if > you want it, then reverse engineer it!" I've done it, when I needed to. I'd certainly like to have more source available. I just don't feel justified in forcing people to give it to me. -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' 'U` "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"