weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (09/09/88)
In article <720@proxftl.UUCP>, bill@proxftl (T. William Wells) writes: > let's not push FSF and friends. >Their philosophy would make the computer business nonexistent. Please >do not respond to this on the net; if you want to talk about the FSF, >send me e-mail. Of course this is going to be talked about on USENET. Trying to hide it from everyone (maybe you have customers who read the net?) isn't going to work. FSF is not going to make the computer business non-existent. It might make *your* computer business non-existent. So what? Do you use any free software? rn maybe? inews? elm? GNU Emacs? Just waiting for the Randian analysis of what is wrong with FSF.... ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) (09/14/88)
In article <14061@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: : In article <720@proxftl.UUCP>, bill@proxftl (T. William Wells) writes: : > let's not push FSF and friends. : >Their philosophy would make the computer business nonexistent. Please : >do not respond to this on the net; if you want to talk about the FSF, : >send me e-mail. : : Of course this is going to be talked about on USENET. Trying to hide : it from everyone (maybe you have customers who read the net?) isn't : going to work. Perhaps I wasn't clear, so let me try again: *I* do not want to talk about FSF on the net. I would expect that to turn into a flame war (on historical evidence) and I do not want to participate. If anyone else wants to talk about FSF, I have no objections (not that they would matter anyway); I just won't answer. : FSF is not going to make the computer business non-existent. It might : make *your* computer business non-existent. So what? Not likely. The diversity of abilities and knowledge needed to make our kind of software isn't likely to come together for the purpose of creating free software. But anyway, even if it did, we'd be moving on to bigger and better things. : Do you use any free software? rn maybe? inews? elm? GNU Emacs? Sure. I have no objections at all to free software. What I object to is the philosophy that goes along with their free software. : Just waiting for the Randian analysis of what is wrong with FSF.... Well you won't get it here, unless another Objectivist wants to try it. If you really want that analysis, you can ask me vie e-mail. --- Bill novavax!proxftl!bill
weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (09/14/88)
In article <756@proxftl.UUCP>, bill@proxftl (T. William Wells) writes: >In article <14061@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >: In article <720@proxftl.UUCP>, bill@proxftl (T. William Wells) writes: >: Of course this is going to be talked about on USENET. Trying to hide >: it from everyone (maybe you have customers who read the net?) isn't >: going to work. >Perhaps I wasn't clear, so let me try again: *I* do not want to >talk about FSF on the net. Here is what you said: |Uk. However much we might disagree on Byte (and I think we |actually agree and are arguing over words), let's not push FSF |and friends. Their philosophy would make the computer business |nonexistent. Please do not respond to this on the net; if you |want to talk about the FSF, send me e-mail. You are more than welcome to not talk about FSF on the net. You start by not taking gratuitous swipes against them when others are discussing FSF, and going so far as to ask people to back off from their positions regarding FSF. > I would expect that to turn into a >flame war (on historical evidence) and I do not want to >participate. Most of the flames seem based on ignorance of FSF. > If anyone else wants to talk about FSF, I have no >objections (not that they would matter anyway); I just won't >answer. So practice what you preach. >: FSF is not going to make the computer business non-existent. It >: might make *your* computer business non-existent. So what? >Not likely. So what's your concern then? >: Do you use any free software? rn maybe? inews? elm? GNU Emacs? >Sure. I have no objections at all to free software. What I >object to is the philosophy that goes along with their free >software. So ignore their philosophy. Just don't violate their licenses. What's the big deal? >: Just waiting for the Randian analysis of what is wrong with FSF.... >Well you won't get it here, unless another Objectivist wants to >try it. If you really want that analysis, you can ask me vie >e-mail. You do know that John Gilmore, who moves in Libertarian/Objectivist circles of thought, is a major FSF supporter? (His login is "gnu".) Perhaps the two of you could argue it out in alt.individualism? ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
ag@elgar.UUCP (Keith Gabryelski) (09/15/88)
In article <756@proxftl.UUCP> bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: >In article <14061@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu >> FSF is not going to make the computer business non-existent. It might >> make *your* computer business non-existent. So what? > >Not likely. The diversity of abilities and knowledge needed to >make our kind of software isn't likely to come together for the >purpose of creating free software. It already has: Gnu Emacs -- Richard Stallman Rn, Perl, Patch -- Larry Wall Gnews -- Matthew P. GnuMake, GCC, GDB, GAS -- Cast of many. [c.s.u archive site] -- Lots 'o code. All of the above are at least as credible as their paid-for counterparts. And, at least in the instance of perl, you have a product who doesn't have a counterpart in the paid-for universe. >But anyway, even if it did, we'd be moving on to bigger and better >things. If I haven't completely misunderstood, you are saying that once a free product is released, it is immediately outdated (or will be in a short period of time). Is GnuEmacs outdated? Are you still using that worn out Rn, possibly switch to Gnews... Oh, I forgot that is outdated too, Eh? Pax, Keith-- "It took no computation, to dance to the rock 'n roll station." -Lou Reed [ Keith ] UUCP: {ucsd, cbosgd!crash, sdcsvax!crash, nosc!crash}!elgar!ag [Gabryelski] INET: ag@elgar.cts.com ARPA: elgar!ag@ucsd.edu
james@bigtex.uucp (James Van Artsdalen) (09/19/88)
In article <756@proxftl.UUCP>, bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: > Perhaps I wasn't clear, so let me try again: *I* do not want to > talk about FSF on the net. Once you've flamed a public service group like the FSF, it's a little late to pick up your marbles and pout all the way home. > Not likely. The diversity of abilities and knowledge needed to > make our kind of software isn't likely to come together for the > purpose of creating free software. Go try out GNU emacs or GNU C. There are no editors in the PC or Macintosh market to compare with GNU emacs as programmer's editor. Some commercial compilers are no doubt better than GNU C, but at the moment, none of the commercial compilers available for unix on an 80386 are as good, and the AT&T 386 compiler isn't even close. After using each, have a look at the source. These aren't minor spelling checkers or whatever. I *do* believe that eventually commercial offerings will top both GNU emacs and GNU C, but *because* of the GNU programs, not in spite of them. And in the meantime I'll have a working alternative to the PCC... -- James R. Van Artsdalen ...!uunet!utastro!bigtex!james "Live Free or Die" Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 328-0282; 110 Wild Basin Rd. Ste #230, Austin TX 78746
aad@stpstn.UUCP (Anthony A. Datri) (09/22/88)
>Once you've flamed a public service group like the FSF, it's a little >late to pick up your marbles and pout all the way home. Public Services? I guess the Hare Krishna and the Larouchies are public service too. >Go try out GNU emacs or GNU C. There are no editors in the PC or >Macintosh market to compare with GNU emacs as programmer's editor. Ever hear of Epsilon? Unlike GNU, it doesn't require infinite CPU and infinite memory, and it doesn't come out with a new version every half hour. GNU Emacs on a PC? Boy, I'll bet that's REEEEEL fast. -- @disclaimer(Any concepts or opinions above are entirely mine, not those of my employer, my GIGI, or my 11/34) beak is beak is not Anthony A. Datri,SysAdmin,StepstoneCorporation,stpstn!aad
les@chinet.UUCP (Leslie Mikesell) (09/23/88)
In article <2132@stpstn.UUCP> aad@stpstn.UUCP (Anthony A. Datri) writes: >Ever hear of Epsilon? Unlike GNU, it doesn't require infinite CPU and >infinite memory, and it doesn't come out with a new version every >half hour. GNU Emacs on a PC? Boy, I'll bet that's REEEEEL fast. Hmmm.. GNU starts up in a couple of seconds (less for the second copy or if it is already the disk buffers) on an AT&T 6386. Or doesn't that qualify as a PC? Les Mikesell