🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <D3MK1s.3vw@kithrup.com>, Mike Stump  <mrs@cygnus.com> wrote:
>I am gonna have to take the subject line as a complement you know!
>
>First, let me start of by completmenting you on your style!  I enjoyed
>reading your message very much.  Thanks.
>
>In article <3h6fn2$1nm@umd5.umd.edu>,
>Peter Brewer <brewer@hamlet.umd.edu> wrote:
>>Foolish boy you dare lecture me on the meaning of nepotism?
>
>Yes [sliming young boy in front of an ominous figure of a powerful
>being], as I don't share you view that any favoritism exists.  You
>make the bold statement that someone is showing favoritism.  Prove it!
>
Thanks. ;-) But, I think the other Cygnites are getting too angry
about this even if it is entertaining. Even RMS has become 
moody. :-(

-- peter


>Either my head is buried too far into the sand and I just don't see
>the the nepotism of the sitation, you have no clue what the word means
>or you are just plain wrong.  Which is it?  I hastily guessed that you
>didn't know what the word meant.  If you do I am sorry.  I now hope
>that you can show me why my head in buried deep in the sand!
>
>>Nepotism: From the Latin root nepos -otis ; pertaining to a nephew or
>>grandson... derives the Latin/Italian word nepotismo; tendencies of
>>certain fathers/grandfathers in past centuries to favor their own
>>family or good friends with 'blessings' or favors. Favoritism of
>>relatives or friends.  [ See the "Godfather" pts I, II, & III ]
>>
>>From Webster's Unabridged 2nd edition: favoritism shown to 'nephews'
>>( which could mean friends, 'godchildren', etc., etc. ) by medieval
>>prelates. favoritism shown to nephews and other relations; the practice
>>of appointing relative to situations of emolument, in disregard oof the
>>Now, in light of the definition of nepotism, please explain why I, or
>>Cygnus achieved our status because we (or I) are related on a
>>non-technical basis to the FSF, and how we are unqualified to do the
>>job we do, and how there are others that are in fact more qualified.
>>claims of others better fitted for the offices.
>>
>>*** NOTHING says that the individual or group has to be a
>>    'relation' to obtain favors.
>
>To quote you quoting it `family or good friends'.  Show that we are
>`family or good friends.'  Cygnus and the FSF have a working
>relationship.  Do you think they are good friends?  Why?
>
>>    *IN* fact numbskull the definitions out of their way to place
>>    nephew or grandson in parentheses.
>
>All right, so The FSF and Cygnus are not blood related, show they are
>good friends.
>
>Also, your posting seems to have been eaten a little bit.  Could you
>please quote Webster's again.  There was something about `appointing
>relative to situations of emolument, in disregard of'...  that I think
>is relevant here.  I want you to show how the FSF showed disregard.
>
>>    It also says absolutely nothing; nothing about 'granting power'.
>
>Oh dear, we are back to the fact that you seem to have no clue what
>nepotism means!  I'll don my flame suit, and let you explain to me why
>The American Heritage Dictionary (please, no laughter from the
>audience) says `Favoritism shown to relatives, esp. in filling
>political positions.'  Last time I check, most political positions
>(all?) come with power.  Some more than other.  By filling a position
>of power with a relative, one indirectly grants _power_ to that
>relative.  I mean, why accept an appointment by your father if it
>doesn't bring you money and/or power!
>
>>    Basically the 'godson/nephew/grandson' goes to the
>>    'father/signore' his 'blessing'. Albeit the 2nd definition in
>>    line mentions something about less than deserving 'nephews'
>>    earning something they do not deserve; this is not the true
>>    'gist' of the meaning.
>
>Well, I don't know about `true' meanings.  Last I read webster, I must
>have missed the section that talked about true meanings, and untrue
>meanings.
>
>This is the aspect I was refering to.  I asked you to show why I or
>Cygnus (or whoever you thought was being shown favoritism was
>undeserving.  It would lend to the idea that nepotism exists.  If you
>cannot show it, it might not mean that nepotism does not exists, but
>it, in my mind, lends to the idea that none exists.
>
>>I believe I used the word correctly given your vitriolic attack on me.
>
>I don't see that as supporting your position.
>
>>Your diatribe could be considered a 'favor' or 'blessing' rendered to
>>your company just because they are 'your company' and not because
>>they deserve to be defended.
>
>I was challenging the idea that Cygnus should not be allowed to mention
>the FSF or GNU name.
>
>>AND what wild claims, pray?
>
>I consider the claim of nepotism pretty wild.  You have done little to
>show any exists, you just make the claim.
>
>>>Wrong.  You just don't have a clue.  I _am_ the offcial FSF maintainer
>>>for g++.  I work for them for free, they have never, nor will they
>>>ever reimburse me for my work.
>>
>>*AND* therefore do not represent Cygnus but yourself in cooperation
>>with the FSF.
>
>Ok, if you say so.  I usually represent myself first.  Cygnus second,
>and the FSF third.  At times I represent one _over_ the another.
>Different contexts require different hats.
>
>>If you are assigned to act as maintainer by Cygnus there is a
>>definite conflict of interest in my opinion.
>
>And what is that?  Maybe there is some amount of conflict of interest.
>So what?  I don't think it is unresolvable or hurts any.  The usual
>conflict of interest is, do I work on fixing Cygnus customer bugs, or
>do I work on net reported bugs?  In some sense, I run into this
>problem everyday.  It is resolvable, I donate some of my time
>(Cygnus's time) to the FSF, not 100%, but not 0% either.  I find the
>amount I can donote to them, and I donate.  I have few complaints from
>the FSF that my donation is too little.  I think they understand that
>what I am able to donate is limited.  I wish it weren't.
>
>Now, as to why this isn't a problem in the grand scheme of things is
>that Cygnus customers have hit, or will hit the exact same bugs in g++
>that people on the net will hit, and visa versa.  No _real_ conflict
>of interest exists in this area.  Just an apparent conflict, or a
>conflict with respect to a specific bug.
>
>>And what is your job description vis-a-vis the GNU/FSF tools?
>
>I don't recall reading one lately.  If I made one up, it might go
>something like this:
>
>Master-O-Merge		I do all the FSF<->Cygnus merging of g++
>Release-Meister		I can help decide when to release gcc and what
>			 goes into it
>Test-Master		I do g++ testing
>Bug-Fixer		I do a bit of this too
>EH-god			I do g++ exception handling
>
>...
>
>I am sure I could dream up other things, but you get the point.
>
>>*IF* Cygnus pumps millions of dollars into designing and writing new
>>code, docs, and maintenance for Cygnus that is fine. If they do it
>>in order to create a situation wherein their company might be
>>'control' the FSF and its software products through this funding
>
>We don't donate code to control the FSF.  We donate code because our
>company is founded on the fact that everything we write should be
>free.  We donate because we win free engineers that help improve our
>products and we don't have to pay them anything.
>
>You don't give the FSF enough credit.  The FSF seems to be perfectly
>capable of resisting any undue control we may exert.
>
>Now as to control over the FSF's software products.  Cygnus has
>substantial (no, I didn't say absolute) control over some of the FSF
>software products.  In part, because we have dumped oodles of cash
>into FSF software products, we were able to attain maintainership
>status.  We `want' maintainership status, as it does make it easier to
>install changes.  To us, it is economically more efficient that we are
>the maintainers.
>
>>then the FSF/LPF are not capable of enough objectivity
>
>I think rms maintains enough objectivity. I happen to have the utmost
>respect for his ability to be objective.  I am sorry you don't share
>in my level of respect, I think he has earned it and it worthy of it.
>
>>to call for boycotts, protests, etc. against other commercial
>>entities given the obvious 'nepotism' inherent in this type of
>>relationship.
>
>>>Cygnus support advances the free software for the FSF.  Cygnus does
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>I find this to be a very questionable relationship if true.
>
>It's true.  Cygnus isn't the only one, there are plenty of others.
>Cygnus just happens to do a lot of it.
>
>Since you seem to not know that was true, you must not understand the
>relationship very much.
>
>I guess I don't see why the relationship should be questionable.  I
>have never questioned it in this respect before, and know not why you
>find it so.  Enlighten us all.
>
>>Is the FSF controlled by a commercial entity
>
>I don't think they are.
>
>>which competes for $$ with firms like Apple, Lotus, and Unisys?
>
>I suddenly find myself not knowing who you mean to suggest is maybe
>controlling them.  Do you mean Cygnus?  You don't understand us if you
>think we compete with firms like Apple, Lotus and Unisys.  You seem to
>want to cast a dark shadow by mentioning that group of companies.
>
>>I find this most unsettling from an ethical point of view.
>
>Can you explain why you think it is unethical.  I intent to violently
>rip apart any notion that it is unethical.
>
>>FINE! As long as it is for Cygnus.
>
>[pardon the hot poker into the side] We do it for the FSF!  We also do
>it for ourselves.
>
>[ I won't respond to your swiming around in deep waters. ]
>
>>>>Your company is *small* potatoes in the overall scheme of who gets
>>>>the credit
>>>You just don't have a clue.  Go read the details in gcc/*ChangeLog*,
>>>gcc/cp/*ChangeLog*, gdb/*/*ChangeLog*... and after you have the facts,
>>>then tell me who in fact does the work.  You seem to not understand
>>>that without the people doing the work, the software wouldn't exist.
>>Okay, ask Berkeley who funded BSD. Ask AT&T where most of the money
>>came from to fund C++, C, etc., etc.
>
>I was talking about FSF's GPLed software.  I don't know why you
>suddenly jumped out of context into the Internet, UNIX, C++ and
>BSD land.
>
>>I have no problem with you as an individual separate from Cygnus
>
>How can one separate me from them?  I feel free to claim that I wrote
>X, as I wrote it, I feel free to claim that Cygnus wrote it, because
>Cygnus paid me to write it.
>
>>claiming credit for hard work; but I do if Cygnus has any type
>>of control over the FSF source tree.
>
>You are in the dark, we have so much control over it it would make
>your head spin.  [did you feel the hot poker that time? :-)]
>
>Seriously we have what I would call `massive' amounts of control over
>it, not just some.  It is not absolute, as I have stated before.  It
>is not unchecked control.  We are directly accountable to the FSF for
>any control we exercise in any of their products.
>
>>Do you see the difference?
>
>You confused me.  I think I should answer no.
>
>>You see Cygnus' contribution is a small 'drop in the bucket' in the
>>overall scheme of things.
>
>I guess this is just a fundamental difference of opinion.  You seem to
>want to dilute the notion of contribution out to include secondary
>factors and beyond (way beyond).  I prefer to give credit to those
>that are more immediately invloved and responsible.  I give no credit
>for the Internet to Mr. Bell for example, even though he played a key
>and critical role that led directly to the Internet's existence.
>
>There is nothing wrong with this differing opinion.  I respect your
>opinion, I just happen to not share it.
>
>>Jumping Jack Flash just burned your rants!
>
>Hum [looking confused], ok.
>
>>>Go check the copyrights, they say FSF.  Cygnus Support assigns most of
>>>it's work over to the FSF.
>>
>>Well they shouldn't be!
>
>They _must_.  The FSF demands it.  Again, you seem to be lacking basic
>facts.
>
>>Go check the contracts for the MPO and DARPA. Stop being naieve and
>>come to realize who is really paying the bill here!
>
>I am confused, what are you talking about?  I thought this was
>gnu.misc.discuss.  Weren't we talking about FSF software?
>
>You seem to want to claim that MPO and DARPA is paying my salery?
>Last time I looked Cygnus was.  Last time I looked, they were paid by
>customers.  Last time I looked neither of those organizations were
>customers of ours.
>
>When you jump off the deep end, boy, do you go deep.
>
>>You are a young cretin who doesn't know how to listen. I made my
>>point
>
>I wanted you to back it up.  I don't share in your belief that you
>made your point.  You simply stated something.  I refute some of what
>you say.
>
>>I don't like all of the references to Cygnus it seems scandalous.
>>And as to your 'Changelog' I bought my first C++ translator from
>>Bjarne Stroustrup and AT&T. It was v1.0 and as I recall g++
>>did not even exist yet. Kind of puts it all in perspective doesn't
>>it. 
>
>Ok, now I am convinced I have no idea what you are talking about.  I
>withdraw any claim I may have made about knowing what your point was.
>
>I was operating on the assumption we were talking about the FSF and
>free software.  This assumption appears to be wrong.