🚀 go-pugleaf

brewer@macbeth.umd.edu (Peter Brewer) writes:

I don't know why I'm bothering to reply to this, since I don't
understand it, but, what the hell, maybe there is a point in it,
somewhere.

>In article <19468@comton.airs.com>, Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com> wrote:
>>brewer@umd5.umd.edu (Peter Brewer) writes:
>>
>>
>>I do not understand what you are trying to say in this paragraph.  The
>>independence of the FSF does not need protecting.  I do want to
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>The FSF and the LPF are different organizations, and I think you are
>>confusing them to some degree.
>Perhaps subterfuge to allow such questionable practices?

Are you claiming, as you appear to be, that the fact that the FSF and
the LPF are different organizations is some sort of subterfuge?
That's a really peculiar statement.

Going back to your original post, the ``questionable practices''
phrase appears to refer to the need of the FSF to remain independent
from any commercial entity.  What does that have to do with the LPF?

Or, are you referring to the underlined phrase in the previous
sentence?  Are you arguing that my statement about the independence of
the FSF is a subterfuge?  Do you mean by that that I am lying, and
that the FSF really does need protection, and I am trying to pacify
people into thinking that it doesn't?  Perhaps you could ask the FSF
directly; of course, even if they said they did not protecting, they
might not realize the true danger, and it would be necessary for
somebody, perhaps you, to protect them anyhow.

>>In any case, Cygnus does not have the FSF seal of approval, whatever
>                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>that is, except in so far as Cygnus is the official maintainer of
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>various FSF programs (g++, gdb, gas, binutils).  
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>In fact, Cygnus does have a few
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>(smaller) competitors, and Cygnus has not wasted time fighting with
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>them.   *Yet*
>^^^^^

Note that the ``*Yet*'' above was not written by me, despite its
appearance in a block of text quoted from my message.  Moreover, it is
not an argument, just a presumption of guilt.  When did you stop
beating your wife?

>I think that you have proven my point about bias, the potential for
>nepotism, and the need to protect the FSF/LPF with your own statements
>outlined above. The only reason you do not see this is because you
>are biased.

Well, perhaps you could it spell out how I have proven your point, and
I would understand it despite my blindness.  In fact, it's pretty
insulting of you to presume that I am not aware of my own biases, but
your post is sufficiently confusing that I can't manage to get too
upset about it.

>>A good percentage don't care that the software is free,
>>except that it means that they don't have to run a license manager.
>They probably are only interested in supported virus-free code to
>make management happy.

It's possible.  I've never actually heard that argument--what was the
last virus you encountered on a Unix system?--but it's possible.

>>I am a Cygnus employee.  I do not speak for it.
>And thus you are biased and unable to speak objectively.

I am always pleased when people I am arguing with resort to personal
attacks, because it generally means that they are unable to think of
anything intelligent to say.
-- 
Ian Taylor | ian@airs.com | First to identify quote wins free e-mail message:
``Let me state here a personal conviction that appears, right now, to be
  profoundly unfashionable; which is that a planned economy can be more
  productive - and more morally desirable - than one left to market forces.''