🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <hjbD3C7xy.6sM@netcom.com>, Hwa-Jin Bae <hjb@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <3gogrg$ir6@hermes.synopsys.com>,
>Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com> wrote:
>however, statements in Cygnus' info file like this: 
> "Cygnus is officially recognized by the Free Software Foundation as the
>  maintainer of gdb, the g++ front end, GNU binary file utilities, the
>  GNU assembler - gas, and many ports of gcc. Enhancements to the
>  toolchain are reviewed, approved by, and integrated by Cygnus Support."

I don't understand your point.  These are all hard facts, and very
provable.  I don't usually consider hard and provable facts to be
marketing sleeze.

Do you prefer we remove hard facts like this from our marketing stuff.
If not, what's your point?  If so, please state why, I just can't
imagine why facts should be hidden from people.

>In addition, just browse their WEB site, and read the preachy
>discourse regarding the free software, Sourceware, etc.  they
>definitely are wrapping themselves with GNU flag,

So?  We have been given the power to define what _is_ GNU (to some
extent).  I am sorry you don't like this fact, but I am confused why
we shouldn'ty tell people the truth.

>and this is a big selling point.  the hypocrisy, as in your
>definition, "saying one thing and doing another", seems to apply here
>-- since they are playing stupid games like mis-informing

Is this another groundless claim of yours that we all shold ignore, or
can you back it up?

>(or not fully informing) all they should about GNU software

And you consider yourself judge and jury on the matter, why?  You have
no clue about what marketing marterial is, or what it tries to
accomplish, if you think that is meant to fully inform.  Please take a
marketing course at a local univeristy, maybe then you might
inderstand.

>that is, saying something like, "GNU tools downloaded from the
>Internet are available "as is". They are not the same as the Cygnus
>GNU Toolset and have not been through the same rigorous testing
>process..", for example, while not informing their customers about
>the fact that there really is NO way for them to restrict the
>redistribution of their Cygnus GNU Toolset.

So it all boils down to this?  We could not state that, as it would be
a lie.  We could sue them, and have a court order them to cease
distributing our toolset if they violated any provisions of the GPL
for example.

>all it takes it one customer of Cygnus' to buy it, and upload the
>entire thing on an FTP site.

You're free to do this.  By not doing this you are intentionally
restricting the free flow of information.

>you won't see this type of loophole, purposefully inserted into GNU
>license, explicitly declared in any of their marketing papers.  why?
>because they're playing silly games to make money.

You just don't have a clue.  Please explain why that sentence is more
valuable to our customers than the sentance that g++ can compile
InterViews.

You seem to not understand that we cannot possibly state all facts and
truths in the marketing material.  You seem think you know why we omit
certain facts from the material.  Back it up.

>and this silly game, as silly as it may sound, seems very
>inconsistent to me.

I am sorry you don't understand marketing.

>>I'm not thrilled with everything about Cygnus, but you are being grossly
>>unfair.
>
>Perhaps you are right.

He has been around for many many years, he has been a Cygnus customer,
he understands more than most people.  I generally find him very
credible and reliable.

>perhaps my objections seem trivial (and they probably are)

We omit facts from our marketing material, that's a fact.  We don't
mind you stating it.  The sky is also blue, so what?  Every company
that has ever advertized has omitted information and facts from its
marketing material.  Most of the world already knows this fact.  You
don't have to tell us.  I mean, the FSF has omitted facts.  For
example, what portion of gcc what written by Cygnus?  That fact is
completely missing from all FSF marketing material they have ever
produced.  Will I flame them for it, no.  Did you know that Cygnus
does 99%+ of the work for g++?  What that fact mentioned in the FSF
material, no!

Please don't flame us for doing what everybody does, unless you flame
everyone.  It is unfair to target only us and not target everyone
else.

>compared to the amount of benefit (in terms of raw lines of code i
>get to use for free) we all get from Cygnus.

No need to even compare the fact we omit from the fact that we
contribute.  You should even flame the company that can contribute
only five good lines of code to the project!

>But!  ;-) it does not mean that their inconsistent behavior should be
>sanctioned blindly, without any criticisms.

Find something to criticize first.  You are way off on the deep end,
it is too bad you just don't know how far out you are.

>I believe that Cygnus CAN and WILL make just as much money without
>having to resort to various silly tactics they employ in order to win
>customers.  If they can't, without resorting to all that, then they
>have failed in showing that the FSF/GNU model of doing business
>works.  if they have succeeded by playing little silly games
>(actually some of the games are not that silly, IMHO, they go to the
>core of the GNU philosophy) for money, they have not really proved
>that that model of business works.  they have only proved that it
>works with a new set of compromises that undermines the goal.

I am sorry you think that marketing is a comprimise and that it
undermines the goal.  Clearly we don't have the same goal as you.  We
spend oddles of dollars on marketing, so obviously we don't agree.

>i'm not trying to make enemies here.

I don't think anybody should hate you for not understanding.

>I'm trying to make people understand
>this issue better. 

You don't understand the issue.  Before you can hope to help others
understand you first have to understand yourself.