🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <hjbD3Cv2G.I9D@netcom.com>, Hwa-Jin Bae <hjb@netcom.com> wrote:
>it is more than fair justification for the criticism of inconsistency
>within GNU community.

This is your opinion.  What is fair and what isn't is subject to
personal interpretation.  So far many of your criticisms have not
seemed fair to me.  You seem not to posses enough of the facts and
enough depth in the matter to criticise fairly to me.  This is my
opinion.

>the truth is: there are inconsistencies,

I have not seen these inconsistencies yet.  Maybe you could share your
views with us and help me understand your views.

>and they need to be clarified.

I am ready and willing, though I may not posses enough knowledge to
help, I shall try if you wish to know the truth.

>in other words, they should not be swept under the rug,

I don't think this is anybody's intention.  When I get down refuting
every point you make or claim, there hasn't been much left.
Unfortunately a lot of people that read this newsgroup might know know
enough to realize this.

>withholding of information, for a period, for the profit -- seems against
>GNU spirit.

This one is just too easy to debunk.  Let's start by transforming the
word profit into benefit, as they mean nearly the same thing.  The FSF
withholds information for benefit all the time.  Do you propose to
boycott the FSF for withholding?  Likewise, and in the exact same way,
or nearly so, Cygnus does the same.  Or maybe, depending upon how you
matter, and if so how?

Please provide the facts, and let people reach the conclusions they
want to reach.

Now, in any event, even if you view that Cygnus does do that, so what?
For example, they withhold my salery information, presumably because
the know that I would sue them if they posted that information to the
net, they would loose profits if they did.  One can almost reasonable
say they withhold my salery information for profit.  But lets get
real, does it harm, or even matter?  The answer is no.  Please state
exactly how Cygnus harms the free software communities effort by
existing.  In all of your posts I don't recall reading anything such
claim by you, but you seem to believe this.

>they do help, but not entirely for free.

I like this attempt to use ambiguous terminogoly to try and make your
point.  Cygnus helps the free software effort, at considerable cost to
them, they also make up for this cost by solving problems for people
that choose to pay them money.

So your right, it isn't free.  Maybe you meant to say something else,
I just don't know, maybe you can state more fully what you mean.

We also don't charge the FSF for all the work we do for them, unlike
some/most of their own employees.  In this sense we do work entirely
for free.

>however, i would prefer to see them abandon their inconsistent
>marketing tricks

I am sorry you don't like marketing sleeze, you're not alone, most
people in some respect hate marketing sleeze.  However, they get their
job done, and that is their profession.  They are a necessary part of
America, I think.

If you think commercial free software can exist without marketing
sleeze, you are free to prove us wrong and form your own company that
doesn't have any.  However, I don't think we should be criticized just
because of it.  In any event I would like to think we have less sleeze
and more real substanance than most.  Whether or not we have too much
is determined not by you, but by our customers (or potiential
customers), as they are the ones it is created for, not you.  It also
really isn't created for people with a clue.  Quite a lot of people on
the net have a clue about gcc and g++ and would find most of our
marketing stuff rather pointless (my guess).

>and i suspect that FSF can influence this,

If they felt strongly on the issue they probably could.  You assume
they would agree with you, I know of no reason why they would.  You
seem to be assuming you know their position on the matter, do you?

You might just get more mileage out of it but explaining what you
think is soo wrong with our marketing material.  Please be specific.
For example, if we say, `g++ will slice bread' and you don't think
this is the case, just state `The statement that g++ slices bread I
believe is wrong, could you please remove that claim from the g++
product specification sheet.'

You haven't done this.  If you want to affect our literature, this
_is_ probably the best way to do it.  Do you want to affect it or do
you just prefer to flame us for no good reason?

>yet i see no evidence of this issue ever coming up in this group in
>any major fashion.

I agree with you.  I see no evidence they should.  rms isn't going to
be bothered with stipud little mindless flames from some random person
on the net that appears to not have a clue.  He considers his time to
valuable to bother.  It s too bad you don't appreciate how valuable
peoples time is.

>ah... true.  we're all too busy getting real work done... except
>those who do not find certain inconsistencies easy to ignore.  the
>reason why the "nits" bother me so much is that it happens to be
>directly against the spirit of information distribution -- that
>information should not be restricted in any way by the person who
>holds it.  i understood this as one of the "prime directives" of
>GNU/FSF.  if i am wrong, please correct me.

I have tried.  You need to hang out for a few years before you can
hope to understand.  You seem new to the whole thing.  Us old timers
generally refer to people like you as newbies.  Generally it is bad
form for a newbie to make false statement in a group of poeple that
know better, as it just makes them look bad.

Maybe you should try lurking instead.  That is were you hang out,
absorb the information present, ask insightful and intelligent
questions, learn and grow.  That is an alternative form of getting
information, and is sometimes slower than the tack of claiming
everything under the sun, in hopes that someone with a clue will then
mail you or post and set you straight.