dan@sri-tsc@sri-unix.UUCP (10/04/83)
I agree with Lauren Weinstein's arguments against GNU. I also believe that this is not the forum for such an argument, so I will say no more. (I only send this note to show that he is not alone in his opinion). -Dan
jsq@ut-sally.UUCP (10/09/83)
Lauren's arguments about software fragmentation don't really seem to have
been answered adequately by the GNU people. I support Lauren, so far.
Also, it's a bit hard to believe that anybody posting to net.unix-wizards
could not be aware that that newsgroup has been gatewayed to the UNIX-WIZARDS
mailing list on the ARPANET practically forever (forever being defined as
the beginning of USENET, as the ARPANET list existed long before that).
Just because an article was posted from USENET does not mean it doesn't
have to conform to ARPANET standards, not in net.unix-wizards. Posting
something that endangers the gateway because it clearly violates the standards
strikes me more as irresponsible than as a manifestation of high ethics.
(There are such things as paper mail and telephones where the GNU message
could have gotten out with no restrictions, regardless of money matters.)
It also seems a bit disingenious to open the discussion of GNU in unix-wizards
and then try to suppress it when GNU meets criticism.
--
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
{ihnp4,kpno,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsq, jsq@ut-sally.{ARPA,UUCP}CSvax:Pucc-H:Physics:crl@pur-ee.UUCP (10/10/83)
I will not take a stand on this issue other than to point out that EMACS (ITS TECO version) was developed and distributed under the same type of "public-domain" agreement that GNU proposed (however, EMACS never asked for donations in terms of equipment or money). Having used ITS EMACS on a DEC-20, Gosling's on both VAXen and 11's, and hearing about Montgomery's and CCA's versions, I estimate that the original is at least an order of magnitude better. (This is not to say I don't like the others, just that the original is better.) Thus, a system like this can possibly work, but it's not necessarily a sure thing. Charles LaBrec UUCP: pur-ee!Physics:crl, purdue!Physics:crl INTERNET: crl @ pur-phy.UUCP
flamer@omsvax.UUCP (10/10/83)
Aren't the gateways to and from the ARPANET and Usenet moderated? If so, it's no one's fault but the moderator(s)' that let the GNU article through. And just because you were here first doesn't mean you can take a high-socialite attitude toward us!
jsq@ut-sally.UUCP (10/24/83)
Deleting some irrelevant headers (and faking a non-indented first line
for those who haven't fixed the inews truncation bug):
From: flamer@omsvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Three cheers for Lauren's reply to GNU
Message-ID: <693@omsvax>
Date: Mon, 10-Oct-83 07:59:37 CDT
References: <120@ut-sally.UUCP>
Organization: Intel Corp. - Hillsboro,OR
Aren't the gateways to and from the ARPANET and Usenet moderated?
If so, it's no one's fault but the moderator(s)' that let the GNU
article through. And just because you were here first doesn't mean
you can take a high-socialite attitude toward us!
The ARPANET/USENET gateway for unix-wizards used to be moderated,
but has not been now for some months (how long *was* it, Mike?).
Doubtless ignorance is a perfect excuse.
What, pray tell, is a "high-socialite attitude"? Considering that I *am*
one of you, as you can tell by the path on this message?
I would have replied by mail, but "omsvax!flamer" didn't seem too promising
(though it was certainly appropriate to the content of the message).
--
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
{ihnp4,kpno,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsq, jsq@ut-sally.{ARPA,UUCP}