🚀 go-pugleaf

I am gonna have to take the subject line as a complement you know!

First, let me start of by completmenting you on your style!  I enjoyed
reading your message very much.  Thanks.

In article <3h6fn2$1nm@umd5.umd.edu>,
Peter Brewer <brewer@hamlet.umd.edu> wrote:
>Foolish boy you dare lecture me on the meaning of nepotism?

Yes [sliming young boy in front of an ominous figure of a powerful
being], as I don't share you view that any favoritism exists.  You
make the bold statement that someone is showing favoritism.  Prove it!

Either my head is buried too far into the sand and I just don't see
the the nepotism of the sitation, you have no clue what the word means
or you are just plain wrong.  Which is it?  I hastily guessed that you
didn't know what the word meant.  If you do I am sorry.  I now hope
that you can show me why my head in buried deep in the sand!

>Nepotism: From the Latin root nepos -otis ; pertaining to a nephew or
>grandson... derives the Latin/Italian word nepotismo; tendencies of
>certain fathers/grandfathers in past centuries to favor their own
>family or good friends with 'blessings' or favors. Favoritism of
>relatives or friends.  [ See the "Godfather" pts I, II, & III ]
>
>From Webster's Unabridged 2nd edition: favoritism shown to 'nephews'
>( which could mean friends, 'godchildren', etc., etc. ) by medieval
>prelates. favoritism shown to nephews and other relations; the practice
>of appointing relative to situations of emolument, in disregard oof the
>Now, in light of the definition of nepotism, please explain why I, or
>Cygnus achieved our status because we (or I) are related on a
>non-technical basis to the FSF, and how we are unqualified to do the
>job we do, and how there are others that are in fact more qualified.
>claims of others better fitted for the offices.
>
>*** NOTHING says that the individual or group has to be a
>    'relation' to obtain favors.

To quote you quoting it `family or good friends'.  Show that we are
`family or good friends.'  Cygnus and the FSF have a working
relationship.  Do you think they are good friends?  Why?

>    *IN* fact numbskull the definitions out of their way to place
>    nephew or grandson in parentheses.

All right, so The FSF and Cygnus are not blood related, show they are
good friends.

Also, your posting seems to have been eaten a little bit.  Could you
please quote Webster's again.  There was something about `appointing
relative to situations of emolument, in disregard of'...  that I think
is relevant here.  I want you to show how the FSF showed disregard.

>    It also says absolutely nothing; nothing about 'granting power'.

Oh dear, we are back to the fact that you seem to have no clue what
nepotism means!  I'll don my flame suit, and let you explain to me why
The American Heritage Dictionary (please, no laughter from the
audience) says `Favoritism shown to relatives, esp. in filling
political positions.'  Last time I check, most political positions
(all?) come with power.  Some more than other.  By filling a position
of power with a relative, one indirectly grants _power_ to that
relative.  I mean, why accept an appointment by your father if it
doesn't bring you money and/or power!

>    Basically the 'godson/nephew/grandson' goes to the
>    'father/signore' his 'blessing'. Albeit the 2nd definition in
>    line mentions something about less than deserving 'nephews'
>    earning something they do not deserve; this is not the true
>    'gist' of the meaning.

Well, I don't know about `true' meanings.  Last I read webster, I must
have missed the section that talked about true meanings, and untrue
meanings.

This is the aspect I was refering to.  I asked you to show why I or
Cygnus (or whoever you thought was being shown favoritism was
undeserving.  It would lend to the idea that nepotism exists.  If you
cannot show it, it might not mean that nepotism does not exists, but
it, in my mind, lends to the idea that none exists.

>I believe I used the word correctly given your vitriolic attack on me.

I don't see that as supporting your position.

>Your diatribe could be considered a 'favor' or 'blessing' rendered to
>your company just because they are 'your company' and not because
>they deserve to be defended.

I was challenging the idea that Cygnus should not be allowed to mention
the FSF or GNU name.

>AND what wild claims, pray?

I consider the claim of nepotism pretty wild.  You have done little to
show any exists, you just make the claim.

>>Wrong.  You just don't have a clue.  I _am_ the offcial FSF maintainer
>>for g++.  I work for them for free, they have never, nor will they
>>ever reimburse me for my work.
>
>*AND* therefore do not represent Cygnus but yourself in cooperation
>with the FSF.

Ok, if you say so.  I usually represent myself first.  Cygnus second,
and the FSF third.  At times I represent one _over_ the another.
Different contexts require different hats.

>If you are assigned to act as maintainer by Cygnus there is a
>definite conflict of interest in my opinion.

And what is that?  Maybe there is some amount of conflict of interest.
So what?  I don't think it is unresolvable or hurts any.  The usual
conflict of interest is, do I work on fixing Cygnus customer bugs, or
do I work on net reported bugs?  In some sense, I run into this
problem everyday.  It is resolvable, I donate some of my time
(Cygnus's time) to the FSF, not 100%, but not 0% either.  I find the
amount I can donote to them, and I donate.  I have few complaints from
the FSF that my donation is too little.  I think they understand that
what I am able to donate is limited.  I wish it weren't.

Now, as to why this isn't a problem in the grand scheme of things is
that Cygnus customers have hit, or will hit the exact same bugs in g++
that people on the net will hit, and visa versa.  No _real_ conflict
of interest exists in this area.  Just an apparent conflict, or a
conflict with respect to a specific bug.

>And what is your job description vis-a-vis the GNU/FSF tools?

I don't recall reading one lately.  If I made one up, it might go
something like this:

Master-O-Merge		I do all the FSF<->Cygnus merging of g++
Release-Meister		I can help decide when to release gcc and what
			 goes into it
Test-Master		I do g++ testing
Bug-Fixer		I do a bit of this too
EH-god			I do g++ exception handling

...

I am sure I could dream up other things, but you get the point.

>*IF* Cygnus pumps millions of dollars into designing and writing new
>code, docs, and maintenance for Cygnus that is fine. If they do it
>in order to create a situation wherein their company might be
>'control' the FSF and its software products through this funding

We don't donate code to control the FSF.  We donate code because our
company is founded on the fact that everything we write should be
free.  We donate because we win free engineers that help improve our
products and we don't have to pay them anything.

You don't give the FSF enough credit.  The FSF seems to be perfectly
capable of resisting any undue control we may exert.

Now as to control over the FSF's software products.  Cygnus has
substantial (no, I didn't say absolute) control over some of the FSF
software products.  In part, because we have dumped oodles of cash
into FSF software products, we were able to attain maintainership
status.  We `want' maintainership status, as it does make it easier to
install changes.  To us, it is economically more efficient that we are
the maintainers.

>then the FSF/LPF are not capable of enough objectivity

I think rms maintains enough objectivity. I happen to have the utmost
respect for his ability to be objective.  I am sorry you don't share
in my level of respect, I think he has earned it and it worthy of it.

>to call for boycotts, protests, etc. against other commercial
>entities given the obvious 'nepotism' inherent in this type of
>relationship.

>>Cygnus support advances the free software for the FSF.  Cygnus does
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I find this to be a very questionable relationship if true.

It's true.  Cygnus isn't the only one, there are plenty of others.
Cygnus just happens to do a lot of it.

Since you seem to not know that was true, you must not understand the
relationship very much.

I guess I don't see why the relationship should be questionable.  I
have never questioned it in this respect before, and know not why you
find it so.  Enlighten us all.

>Is the FSF controlled by a commercial entity

I don't think they are.

>which competes for $$ with firms like Apple, Lotus, and Unisys?

I suddenly find myself not knowing who you mean to suggest is maybe
controlling them.  Do you mean Cygnus?  You don't understand us if you
think we compete with firms like Apple, Lotus and Unisys.  You seem to
want to cast a dark shadow by mentioning that group of companies.

>I find this most unsettling from an ethical point of view.

Can you explain why you think it is unethical.  I intent to violently
rip apart any notion that it is unethical.

>FINE! As long as it is for Cygnus.

[pardon the hot poker into the side] We do it for the FSF!  We also do
it for ourselves.

[ I won't respond to your swiming around in deep waters. ]

>>>Your company is *small* potatoes in the overall scheme of who gets
>>>the credit
>>You just don't have a clue.  Go read the details in gcc/*ChangeLog*,
>>gcc/cp/*ChangeLog*, gdb/*/*ChangeLog*... and after you have the facts,
>>then tell me who in fact does the work.  You seem to not understand
>>that without the people doing the work, the software wouldn't exist.
>Okay, ask Berkeley who funded BSD. Ask AT&T where most of the money
>came from to fund C++, C, etc., etc.

I was talking about FSF's GPLed software.  I don't know why you
suddenly jumped out of context into the Internet, UNIX, C++ and
BSD land.

>I have no problem with you as an individual separate from Cygnus

How can one separate me from them?  I feel free to claim that I wrote
X, as I wrote it, I feel free to claim that Cygnus wrote it, because
Cygnus paid me to write it.

>claiming credit for hard work; but I do if Cygnus has any type
>of control over the FSF source tree.

You are in the dark, we have so much control over it it would make
your head spin.  [did you feel the hot poker that time? :-)]

Seriously we have what I would call `massive' amounts of control over
it, not just some.  It is not absolute, as I have stated before.  It
is not unchecked control.  We are directly accountable to the FSF for
any control we exercise in any of their products.

>Do you see the difference?

You confused me.  I think I should answer no.

>You see Cygnus' contribution is a small 'drop in the bucket' in the
>overall scheme of things.

I guess this is just a fundamental difference of opinion.  You seem to
want to dilute the notion of contribution out to include secondary
factors and beyond (way beyond).  I prefer to give credit to those
that are more immediately invloved and responsible.  I give no credit
for the Internet to Mr. Bell for example, even though he played a key
and critical role that led directly to the Internet's existence.

There is nothing wrong with this differing opinion.  I respect your
opinion, I just happen to not share it.

>Jumping Jack Flash just burned your rants!

Hum [looking confused], ok.

>>Go check the copyrights, they say FSF.  Cygnus Support assigns most of
>>it's work over to the FSF.
>
>Well they shouldn't be!

They _must_.  The FSF demands it.  Again, you seem to be lacking basic
facts.

>Go check the contracts for the MPO and DARPA. Stop being naieve and
>come to realize who is really paying the bill here!

I am confused, what are you talking about?  I thought this was
gnu.misc.discuss.  Weren't we talking about FSF software?

You seem to want to claim that MPO and DARPA is paying my salery?
Last time I looked Cygnus was.  Last time I looked, they were paid by
customers.  Last time I looked neither of those organizations were
customers of ours.

When you jump off the deep end, boy, do you go deep.

>You are a young cretin who doesn't know how to listen. I made my
>point

I wanted you to back it up.  I don't share in your belief that you
made your point.  You simply stated something.  I refute some of what
you say.

>I don't like all of the references to Cygnus it seems scandalous.
>And as to your 'Changelog' I bought my first C++ translator from
>Bjarne Stroustrup and AT&T. It was v1.0 and as I recall g++
>did not even exist yet. Kind of puts it all in perspective doesn't
>it. 

Ok, now I am convinced I have no idea what you are talking about.  I
withdraw any claim I may have made about knowing what your point was.

I was operating on the assumption we were talking about the FSF and
free software.  This assumption appears to be wrong.