rms@AI.MIT.EDU (06/17/89)
Actually, the more correct analogy is a public service cable TV
channel refusing to carry Berry's message.
info-gcc is not a public access channel. It was never supposed to be
one. It is intended for announcements, questions and requests from
the FSF.
I can see why the presence of so much discussion in the past, as well
as messages asking for help, might have given people the impression
that info-gcc was a public access channel. Those uses weren't what we
intended, but they weren't outrageous, and didn't interfere with the
purpose of the list. So we didn't see a reason to hassle people about
it. Alas, our easy-going approach seems to have communicated a
specific message that we never intended. I regret whatever distress
has been caused by this mistake.
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
the list, so we will have to moderate it. There will be some other
list, or perhaps just a newsgroup, for unmoderated discussions about
whether GNU is a good thing. The details haven't been worked out yet.
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.
In this case the situation
is differnet. We must remember that FSF is using the USENET to
achieve further distribution of their news
I believe the people from Ohio State, who maintain the gateway, have
explained that this is not so: the repeater newsgroups gnu.* are not
part of USENET, merely distributed using the same software.
This might seem at first like a distinction without a difference. The
difference is that it is voluntary for each host to distribute these
groups; in fact, it requires explicit action for a host to start. So
we are not imposing any costs of distribution on the hosts. We can
say what the newsgroups are for, and hosts that think this is a good
thing can then propagate them. Those who don't like the purpose,
don't have to propagate them.
It would be different if the gnu.* newsgroups automatically propagated
through all the hosts of USENET by default.brooks@vette.llnl.gov (Eugene Brooks) (06/18/89)
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
jim@kaos.Stanford.EDU (Jim Helman) (06/18/89)
When the gnu groups become moderated, if someone asks on gnu.rose if GNU rose runs on moonshine-3's and the following messages are posted as replies. Would either or both of them be censored? Reply #1: No, GNU rose doesn't run on moonshine-3's, but tulip (free software) and weed (commercial software) do. Tulip is prettier than weed, but weed is more robust. Reply #2: It's not distributed with GNU, but we have a non-FSF supported port of GNU rose that runs on moonshine-3's. It can be found on software.hog.com. Jim Helman Department of Applied Physics P.O. Box 10494 Stanford University Stanford, CA 94309 (jim@thrush.stanford.edu) (415) 723-4940
rms@AI.MIT.EDU (06/18/89)
When the gnu groups become moderated, if someone asks on gnu.rose if
GNU rose runs on moonshine-3's
Since such a question isn't an announcement from the FSF, we wouldn't
let it through on the mailing list info-rose, regardless of what we
thought about moonshine-3 machines. This has nothing to do with
boycotts. People have objected to the volume of mail resulting from
having users ask questions on info-gcc.rms@AI.MIT.EDU (02/28/90)
There seems to be some confusion still about what info-gcc should be used for. So I will restate the purpose. The purpose of this mailing list (info-gcc, aka the newsgroup gnu.gcc) is to post announcements from the Free Software Foundation to the users of GCC. This includes both technical announcements such as new versions, and political announcements, such as our support for the League for Programming Freedom. By contrast, gnu.misc.discuss has been created for discussions.
spee@qmfl.jrdc.go.jp (Paul SPEE) (02/28/90)
In article <9002272346.AA01632@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes: >There seems to be some confusion still about what info-gcc should be >used for. So I will restate the purpose. > >The purpose of this mailing list (info-gcc, aka the newsgroup gnu.gcc) >is to post announcements from the Free Software Foundation to the >users of GCC. This includes both technical announcements such as new >versions, and political announcements, such as our support for the >League for Programming Freedom. > >By contrast, gnu.misc.discuss has been created for discussions. In article <9002280004.AA01740@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes: >There seems to be an argument under way in info-gcc about what kinds >of variable allocation strategies are legitimate for a C compiler to use. > >Please stop this argument. It does not help me decide what to >implement. It is also not very useful for the other readers; even >assuming they want to know the answer to this question, the low >signal-to-noise ratio in such an argument makes it a bad way of >informing them. > >In the future, if you see something which GCC does which might perhaps >be suboptimal, please report it to bug-gcc@prep.ai.mit.edu. That is >where all suggestions should be sent--not to info-gcc or (aka gnu.gcc). >I appreciate suggestions, but I would prefer if they were sent in a >fashion that did not impose on all the users. > >If someone else makes a suggestion, please don't send your opinion of >the suggestion to either of the mailing lists. Please leave it to me >to decide whether I would like to use the suggestion. I propose the creation of the newsgroup alt.gcc, as the use of this newsgroup (gnu.gcc) is limited to the officers of the Free Software Foundation. I will refrain from posting my remarks on local register allocation, but instead reply to the original author. Anyone interested in them can send me a mail and I will send a copy. Regards, Paul Spee