🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <D3KD0x.81D@kithrup.com>, Mike Stump  <mrs@cygnus.com> wrote:
>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.  

and so is this.  ;-)  what is your point?

> What is fair and what isn't is subject to
>personal interpretation.  

but it is!  fairness is fairly subjective point of view.

>So far many of your criticisms have not
>seemed fair to me.  

and neither have yours been very 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.
>

there you go.  it is your opinion.  i welcome it.  please let me express
mine -- that is without having to say so after each sentence for people
(like you perhaps) that do not understand that what i write 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.

read my previous reply posting to your reply.

>
>>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.
>

and you know "the truth".  go ahead i'm all ears.
i do not claim to know "the truth".  i simply am asserting my opinions on
matters that concern me.  you, or anyone else, are welcome to criticize my
opinions.  but please do not attempt to stifle free speech.

>>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.

but you have not refuted every single point in my articles.  in fact, there
was, and remains to be one point, not several points.

my point is that cygnus' GNU software distribution (stable releases) to
its customers should be done at the same time as all others who wish to
use the distribution.  the point is more targeted towards cygnus'
marketing literature that emphasizes this "early release", than towards
the actual release mechanisms for each of the free software packages.
RMS agrees.  you disagree.  i consider that you have a right to disagree.
yet, it does not prove that you have refuted my point, simply by
disagreeing.

>Unfortunately a lot of people that read this newsgroup might know know
>enough to realize this.
>

i assume you meant to say "might NOT know".  if so, you're refuting the
points made by your co-workers in this same thread.  that is, not all
people who use GNU software are aware of all the nuances of GNU license and
its implications.  some of your co-workers have refuted this.  i find it
odd that cygnus believes this, yet continue to assert that its own
customers get GNU based releases from cygnus earlier than others (for years
now).

>>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.  

FSF does not withhold information for profit.  "benefit" is your
substitution.

>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?

your questions are invalid due to above correction.

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


and likewise, do the same, please.

>
>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.  

wrong, the answer is yes.  difference in opinion.  i do not work for
companies that do that.  i'm a consultant.

>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.
>

you jump to another level on this one.  i have never said,
"Cygnus harms the free software communities effort by existing."
your words, not mine.  i do not believe that statement is true.  

>>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.
>

for profit.  it is a for-profit corporation, is it not?
there is nothing wrong with that.  that is not what i am against.
i am against the specific point (do i have to repeat what i said
above, again, here?) mentioned earlier, which you seem to discard over and
over and claim that i had no point.

>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.
>

if it isn't free, it should be.  or, by free you mean "as in cost".
the beauty of GNU license is that none of it has to be free, but in reality
it becomes free, both in price as well as access.  cygnus support, as the
name suggests, should stick with providing support and charging for it.
not marketing to "sell" free software, essentially -- by claiming "early
access" to its own customers.

>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.
>

good for you.

>>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.
>

not a necessary part, but a necessary evil by inperfection in our society.
this does not make it right.  if status quo is what you're after, why not
work for microsoft instead?

>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.

i believe that what you said here is exactly what cygnus claims to be, in
many references and talks.  if cygnus cannot survive solely on support of
free software, without marketing sleeze, then i do not believe that it is a
valid example of free software success.

no, i am not planning to start another company.  i've done it before,
and i didn't like it.  i do not need much money to survive -- six
months per year contract jobs fit me well.  i have no reason to make
more money than that, personally.  therefore, no reason to start a
company.  i do give away free software, developed on my own free time.
actually, one of the earliest versions of my 68k realtime OS is still
being distributed (mirror'ed) at ftp.cygnus.com.  i prefer to simply
contribute code to the public -- i work on multi-architecture
networking realtime OS (similar to VxWorks) which i will make available
for free -- currently i'm working hard on this on my free time.

>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).

so why not stop all that marketing sleeze?  that's all i'm asking for.
it is a bad example.

>
>>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?

i do.  RMS seems to agree with me.  he said he will talk to cygnus'
management.

>
>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.'
>

sigh. i did, go back and read the whole thread.

>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?
>

i have a good reason.  some of cygnus' engineers even agree with me that
cygnus' marketing sleeze is bad. (and, yes, i do have a copy of email that
says this, -- just let me know if you want it published on the net, with
the author's consent).

>>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.

wrong.  i believe RMS is fairly consistent on this.  he already mentioned
that he'll talk to cygnus' management about this issue.

>
>>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.
>

you believe that you are an old timer, and i am a newbie.  herein lies your
knowledge.  i have been following, using, modifying, supporting GNU tools
since the beginning.  when the very first version of GCC came out i ran it
on SUN-2's.  when GNU emacs came out, i replaced James Gosling's emacs on
all machines i could.  that was a long time ago.  and yes, i have been
around quite much longer than that.  ;-)

>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.

i do not claim to know "the truth", as you do.  i simply am asserting
my opinions on matters that concern me.  you, or anyone else, are
welcome to criticize my opinions.  but please do not attempt to stifle
free speech.