🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9104292009.AA01975@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> rms@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) writes:
>activities are equally bad.  It is based on seeing the world as pure
>black and white, with no gray.  I don't see the world that way.
...
>their hardware and their long-distance service.  To boycott Unix would
>be self-defeating because it leaves too little alternative.  (The
>boycott of Apple does not have this problem; there are plenty of
>alternatives we aren't boycotting.)

The decision of whether there are alternatives is not black and white
either - it's a matter of tradeoffs that differ from person to person.
You could always use DOS or VMS or something other than Unix - but
the tradeoffs don't make it worth-while to you.  To some people the
advantages offered by the Mac (and the GUI is only one) do not have
any reasonable alternatives - any more than Unix does to most of us.

I'm not saying the boycott is wrong, anymore than I think the GNU
license is wrong.  I do, however, dislike organized religions that
try and push their values on others.  GNU definitely does this, and
so, in a different way, does Apple.

But, these are GNU newsgroups, and certainly people can request that
Mac support be taken elsewhere.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that while I think the aims of the GNU
boycott are good - don't assume that everyone can participate as easily
as you can.  Different people have different tradeoffs they have to make.

BTW.  Typically in a boycott there should be a well-defined goal.  
What action by Apple will cause the boycott to be stopped?
-- 
Alfalfa Software, Inc.          |       Poste:  The EMail for Unix
nazgul@alfalfa.com              |       Send Anything... Anywhere
617/646-7703 (voice/fax)        |       info@alfalfa.com

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.