🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <hjbD3LKH1.DEK@netcom.com>, Hwa-Jin Bae <hjb@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <D3K6xC.6In@kithrup.com>, Mike Stump  <mrs@cygnus.com> wrote:
>>>it is clear that GNU/FSF stands for free flow of information.
>>
>>It does?  Why?  How do you know this?  Is this your opinion, or a
>>fact?  
>
>do you disagree?  if so, why?  i have communicated with RMS, and he seems
>to share this view.

You missed my point it seems.  My point was that while it is the
general idea, he sometimes violates it in specific ways.

>>Isn't the whole point of the GPL to restrict the free flow of
>>information?  
>
>no, i believe the opposite is true. GPL attempts to maximize the free flow
>of information.

Right, it attempts to maximize the free flow of information by
restricting it in certain situations.

>>Did you know that the sources to gcc are artifically and
>>actively restricted by the FSF?  Because they restrict and discourage
>>the free flow of information, why do you think they stand for the free
>>flow of information?
>
>i believe you are wrong on this assumption.

This was not an assumption.  The statement about gcc being artifically
and actively restricted by the FSF is a fact.  The second was a
question.  Questions are not `wrong'.

>>My point is that everything comes in shades, few statements like this
>>are either always true or always false.  They sometimes support the
>>free flow of information, not always support it.
>
>i will say that they always support free flow of information.

Well, you could say that, but that wouldn't be true.  I prefer that
people only make true statements.  RMS has personally expressed to me
that he prefers that I not put up rotd for anonymous ftp.  I know and
understand his reasons.  I respectfully disagree with him, that is
all.  I do it anyway.

In at least this one case he has actively tried to restrict the free
flow of information.  You can try and prove this fact doesn't exist,
or is wrong.  I feel you would have a hard time doing so.

I will also state that this is not the only case, just one of the
cases.

>and yes, even when they restrict the offenders' access to free
>information, to guarantee maximum access to free information, in the
>future, by all.

This is one reason, it is not the only reason.  Please see the above.

>i believe your statements to be just as simplistic, if not more.
>your argument seems to be based on the assumption that one cannot say a
>sentence without all the necessary conditions of perfection.

That is right!  I will demand perfection of any argument I enguage in.
That is my style, sorry.  If you want to win, your argument must be
true or perfect, if not, I will shread it to pieces.  I expect the
same in return.  I demand facts, proof and certainty.  The name of the
game is objective certainty.  Wild speculation, falsehoods and
generalized flames against a company that have no support I don't feel
belong in this group.

>rather than focusing on a single sentence, one should consider the
>whole context of the argument.

I haven't see one yet.  I see little bits and pieces that I feel are
wrong or unfair that choose to dispell or counter.

>even when you consider the sentence alone, "GNU supports free
>information." you cannot derive the type of argument based on
>exclusivity -- such as GNU ALWAYS supports free flow of information.
>not only is it not correct to insert conditions (e.g. ALWAYS), but
>also a distortion of the context.  besides, i believe, as stated
>above, GNU/FSF does always support free flow of information,

I claim this is an overgeneralization.  `They do generally support
free flow of information' is a statement that I believe to be true,
and it more accurate than the statement you made, `GNU/FSF does always
support free flow of information'.

But this path is a dead end, it serves no purpose in the main thrust
of our disagreement, other than for me to show that they do not always
support the free flow of information.

>even when its policy dictates restriction on some who intend to
>further restrict it.  the action of restriction, in this case, is one
>of furthering its goal.  if all you are saying is that that
>instantiation of restriction (on violators who do not believe in
>sharing information) is a proof positive against GNU/FSF's goal to
>free information, you have a weak point -- only subscribed to by
>pedants.

Nope. That was only one instance of many.

>>>it's one thing to alpha-release something.  it's quite another to
>>>purposefully do what cygnus does.
>>
>>What do we do?  Maybe I am just out of touch with what we do
>>now-a-days.  Maybe I am in the dark.  If so, enlighten me!
>
>talk to your co-workers that have already explained much to me.

I would expect to find nothing unexpected.  Do you mean to try and
duck responsibility for your statement by trying to get me to back
down in search of some random point some random person here at cygnus
may or may not have made?

I won't let you.  I choose to hold you responsible for your
statements.  If you cannot back them up, then we all can conclude that
there is a reason why you choose to not substantiate them.  This is a
point for me if you choose not to back it up, and serves to discredit
your prior point.

>>>i have confirmation of this from cygnus personnel, their current
>>>workers.
>>
>>This could lend a lot of credibility to your arguments.  Use it, tell
>>us all exactally what Cygnus does!  I am interested.
>
>do you propose that i copy private email conversations to this forum?

This can be a sticky issue indeed.  The me step back from mt earlier
statement, I am not saying you should or should not post private
email.  You have to use your own judgement and what you should or
should not do.  If the emails support your position or counter
anything I have said this would lend credibility to your position.  My
position is that any such statement could trivially be explained by
myself, and be shown to not support your position at all, if any such
statement exists.

>if so, please post another article saying so.  i will then contact the
>authors of those emails and post them if they agree to it.

If you can get their permission, post it.  Please edit out irrelevant
parts.

>>>cygnus isn't simply delaying distribution of some of their software
>>>for alpha-testing purpose.
>>
>>That is true, so what?
>
>ah... this is interesting.  your statement is in direct contrast to what i
>have been told by yet another cygnus worker.

I am not here it blindly support everything anyone from Cygnus says.
If they make statements that I know are not quite true, I may choose
to correct them, or clarify.

He probably meant the statement applies generally, or only considers
large enough chunks.  There are many possible answers.  He simply
might not be aware of all that we do.  A simple oversight may have
escaped him at the moment he typed it.

>but i suppose you could be right as well.

I try never to enguage in an argument I cannot win and never in one
that I am incorrect in.  This again is my style.

>i do not believe above to be harmful

Ok.

>i do believe that cygnus' marketing brochures that claim to advantage
>its own customers by supplying them the stable releases before others
>get them is against the GNU.

I kinda recall that statement in the past, could you please provide a
pointer to it, preferably to our web page.

First note, that we like to think that we do in fact provide stable
releases before others to our customers.  This is our opinion, we, in
general, believe it to be true.  Not 100% true, but generally true.
Can you show that the statement is false?

This is very hard to measure in general.  I mean, what _is_ stable?
To who?  How is it measured?  Do you count the release with the
patches that we may send out afterwards as the stable release, or do
you count just the release with no patches.  You see my point.  It is
like saying coke is the best.  It cannot be proven, it it true to
some, false to others.  It is marketing hype.  Hype that we can back
up to some degree by customer testimonials, measuring incoming bug
reports against releases, etc...

Let me take a typical case in point to illustrate one truth about the
statement.  It is customary for a user of g++ to hit a snag or two.
They call this unstable (or buggy) software.  The software is not yet
100% bug free.  If they don't sign up for support from Cygnus, they
will have to wait somewhere between 1 day and three years for a
response (maybe more, unlikely to be less).  So, they might have an
unstable g++ for months or years.  If they do sign up with us, we
actually work on their problem on a higher priority bases than the
random bug reports to the net.  The net result is that their problems
are fixed, generally speaking, faster than non-customer's problems.
To them, g++ becomes stable, faster.  This is a fact, that is
generally true.  You may not like it, I wish it weren't so (I want g++
to be 100% bug free, now!), but the truth of the matter remains.  The
truth is irrefutable, as it's basis rests in facts that are provable.
I can prove it.  This is why I know I can `win' this argument,
otherwise I would not attempt to discredit your ideas and views.

In light of the above, your claim can now be read as `the GNU is
against factual claims that Cygnus makes.'  My counter claim is that
the FSF has no such policy.  My counter claim is that the GNU project
is not against people making factual statements.

I think you are reading too much into their position, and that you
should refrain from putting words into other people mouths.  If you
want to verify that they are in fact against something, just ask them!
Don't continue to make such claims here.

You can state that _you_ are against Cygnus making factual claims in
it's marketing literature.  That is fine, and I have no problem with
that, but that isn't what you're doing.

>and this is harmful

Cygnus doesn't believe it harms Cygnus very much.  It doesn't harm the
FSF very much, as the FSF has stated itself that the user is expected
to be a beta tester.  If the FSF feels like objecting to our claim,
they can.  So far, only you have objected to it by my count.

I am sorry you feel it does them great harm.

>-- becuase it sets the precendence by a well known company like
>cygnus -- that you can arbitrarily delay the distribution of free
>software (i.e. restrict) for marketing/profit purpose.

The fact is that we are able to arbitrarily delay the distribution of
(some) free software for any purpose we feel like!  This is a fact,
and the only way you can make that not a fact it is to destroy Cygnus.
You have to trust us to do the right thing.  If you don't, leave.
Don't use any free software we can affect.  Don't use gdb, don't use
g++, don't use gcc, don't use libg++, don't use binutils, don't use
gas, don't use gld.  I know people should always be wary of the phrase
`trust me', but in this case I don't see the harm, as you are _always_
free to take the last release you can find, and directly compete
against us, or hire your own team to work on the software.

Now, let's plant our feet back on the ground.  If Cygnus tried playing
games, the FSF would say fine, we don't need you, we're not going to
play with you anymore.

So this horrible fact that Cygnus has real power doesn't surprise us,
because we trust them. They have a track record that speaks for
itself.  They have spent many years earning trust and respect, a
little here, a little there.  We have not earned your trust and
respect yet.  I think it would be good if we can.  I am unsure how we
can.  Our track record over the years isn't enough, maybe in ten years
you can report back, and let us know if you respect us then.

>whether this is practiced in great degrees in practice is besides the
>point.

Is it?  For example, you could hate me because I could kill puppies.
I practice restraint, I don't.  I think it would be wrong of you to
hate me because I could.  I mean, most people in the world could.

You could delay free software!  You could do unmentionable things to
damage and cripple Cygnus and the FSF and the Internet at large.
Nobody holds this against you!  I mean, we don't expect you will, but
that `is besides the point.'

Why do you view Cygnus's power to withhold or delay _it's_ very own
free software (some work that it payed for) as bad?  It does not
posses extraordinary power over the FSF to delay or withhold free
software.

>because it remains as a selling point for cygnus (why else would it
>be in the marketing literature), but it is against GNU.  i believe
>that RMS agrees with my view on this ( i have corresponded on this)

There you go again, putting your own words in other peoples mouths.
This is speculation.  Post his email.  I do not think that it will
support your position any.

>you should perhaps understand this point a bit more carefully.

Please expplain why and how it hurts the FSF.  In my eyees it doesn't
harm them as much as it seems to in your eyes.

>>>but you should also realize that no matter how you deny it, the fact
>>>remains that certain practices by cygnus are against free flow of
>>>information.
>>
>>This is a true statement.  So what?  For example, we are against
>>putting up our entire product line for anonymous ftp, source code,
>>binaries and all as it will swamp our network link, consume more disk,
>>more human resources, increase the number of people that expect
>>support from us for free...  While it might be nice to do so, and I
>>agree with you there, the money is better spent fixing more bugs in
>>free software like gcc, g++ and gdb.  Wouldn't you agree?
>
>to hear that from a cygnus person in public is not at all what i expected.

Your expectations of things seem to me to not always be accurate.  I
would have expected it.  It is the truth and I am not afraid of the
truth.  That is the flag I wrap myself in.  What's yours?

>this is pretty bad.

I don't share this value judgement of yours.  I doubt any customer of
ours shares your view.  RMS seems to understand business well enough
to respect our decision.

>no, i do not agree that the money is better spent fixing more bugs.

Too bad.  It is our money, and we get to spend it how we see fit.
Gee, that sounds pretty pathetic, I know, but the reason why we get to
make that choice and not you, is because _we_ are accountable to our
customers.  It was their money.  You seem to forget that fact.  The
only reason that we now have it, is that they choose to give it to us.
If you could be responsible to them for it, then you could choose to
do anything you want with it.  The way to make this happen is to form
your own company.

You seem to lack a basic understanding of business.  Maybe a course at
a local university might help.

It is surprising to me that you would choose 100 buggy releases a
second over 5 releases a year that are not buggy.  Niether the FSF nor
RMS shares your view in this matter.  This is a statement of fact.

The net at large probably doesn't really share your view in this
matter either.  Ask them!

>i believe that it is more important to make one's work on GNU
>software available to all.

Your belief is unimportant to me, to Cygnus, and I'll be so bold as to
say the FSF as well.

>the motivation behind two goals (yours and mine) are different.  one
>(yours) is bottom-line approach, where the goal is less important
>than every day reality of running a company that requires revnue.
>the other (mine) is less practical, yet more in tune with the goal.
>i believe that it is wrong to compromise your goals as such.
>
>>In short, I don't see why you think you have any basis for your
>>position.  If you do, I wish to know what that basis is.  Please share
>>it with us.
>
>i will, please declare your willingness to see private cygnus emails to be
>posted here.

See my statement above.