🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
In article <396t37$geq@csnews.cs.Colorado.EDU> Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:

Tom> I supply one quote from RMS's public statements that should cause
Tom> you to question his view on freedom of choice:

Tom>     Some people plan to use Tcl because they want to use Tk.
Tom> Thankfully, it is possible to use Tk without Tcl.  A Scheme
Tom> interpreter called STk is already available.  Please, if you want
Tom> to use Tk, use it with STk, not with Tcl.  One place to get STk
Tom> is from
Tom> ftp.cs.indiana.edu:pub/scheme-repository/imp/STk-2.1.tar.Z

He was providing information... so?  Is there something wrong
with letting people know there are better alternatives?  Is it 
presumptious for Richard Stallman to think someone might be
interested in an experienced well-known hackers view?  Take it or 
leave it.  Honestly.

Tom> I know that don't look forward to a GNUOS where sysadmin files
Tom> are in lisp; I doubt whether other many sysadmins do either.

I would guess folks hacking Hurd will crib lots of Linux sources.
And that for some time, on some dimensions, it would look a lot like
the Unix, we know and hate.  Other things in Hurd will be much
more general and won't make sense to implement in flat ways.

Tom> While I don't really think this will be done for the hurd, you
Tom> never know.  Even if it's the C-like scheme front end, it'll be
Tom> so radically different from other systems which use (k|ba)sh,
Tom> sed, awk, and perl for their admin that it will annoy a lot of
Tom> folks.

So now it is bad to do things differently, even if they are 
radically better?  This is getting depressing.