Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GNOME Foundation Elections - Final Candidate List

Posted by chrisd on from the mc-begat-gnome dept.

Motor writes: "The list of candidates for the forthcoming GNOME foundation election is now available. And yes, RMS is on there..." Note for voters, the email will be sent out the 13th. Please note the Election Rules and Director Overview Good luck to all the candidates!

38 of 286 comments (clear)

  1. I dunno about you guys.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    But I'm gonna do a write-in vote for Alan Cox.. somehow.

    1. Re:I dunno about you guys.. by reynaert · · Score: 4, Informative
      His wife is already a candidate:
      25. TELSA GWYNNE " I do docs, bugs, and hassling developers. I don't code. I also make last minute decisions. " No affiliation. Full statement at http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-announce /2001-November/msg00030.html
  2. Damn... by Korgan · · Score: 3, Troll

    I truly hope that RMS is not voted on. While he has done great things in the past, his more recent attitude towards the community as a whole as done nothing but annoy me.

    Maybe, just maybe, I'm wrong, but I strongly believe RMS has gone from evangelist to extremist. Claiming to be the father of OpenSource, true or not, I feel rather strongly that he has grown too egotistical for his own good and just wants to be in the lime-light more than he wants to promote the over-all success and benefits of OpenSource and the Free Software Foundation.

    Maybe if he wasn't so anti commercial products and accepted that they do have a place and are necessary things would be a lot easier to swallow, but I've just had enough of him.

    Bill Gates and him should have a Celebrity Deathmatch to see who really is the father of OpenSource :-)

    1. Re:Damn... by dvdeug · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > I strongly believe RMS has gone from evangelist to extremist.

      I don't think he's changed behaviors; he's doing the same things he's always done.

      > Claiming to be the father of OpenSource

      When did he say that? From the way you use the word OpenSource, I'd you don't really understand anything that RMS has done, or why he objects to OpenSource.

      > true or not

      If it is true, then how can you fault him for saying it? What, "I don't like you because you know who you are"?

      > just wants to be in the lime-light

      There aren't that many times you can really say RMS wants to be in the lime-light. It's not RMS/Linux he's pushing for, for example, it's GNU/Linux. He wants you to assign the copyrights on GNU projects to the Free Software Foundation, not himself. He wants his project, his beliefs to be in the limelight.

      > if he wasn't so anti commercial products and accepted that they do have a place and are necessary

      Then there would probably be little free software. The only thing that enabled free Linux was free shells, free utilities and a free compiler from the GNU project. Some could have been rewritten; some could have been taken from the BSD projects when they were released and the lawsuits were over. But it would have taken a lot of time to remake the compiler, and the work needed to replace the shells and utilities would have made early work on Linux much harder. He could have used commercial software; but then why replace all the little pieces that permitted complete Open Source operating systems, if they come with Unix already?

    2. Re:Damn... by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 4, Insightful
      For God's sake, someone mod this down as ignorant and uninformed. RMS is the undisputed father of GNU, and everyone should agree that he has been an extremely important figure in the Free Software movement. He's never claimed to be the father of Open Source, and in fact he goes to pains to distinguish himself from that philosophy whenever necessary. Had this guy ever read or heard anything from RMS, he'd know that.

      Also, the idea that RMS is doing this for his personal glorification is absurd -- people may (perhaps rightly) criticize him for portraying himself as a martyr, but he's not starved for attention (*coughESRcough*).

      If people want to start a debate on the place of proprietary software and the philosophies that RMS presents, can't it at least be hung off a slightly informed comment? Somebody who doesn't know any better will read this comment and think it's based in some sort of fact.

  3. My 2c on RMS by Kiro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I really admire RMS, but I have to say, he does go off the deep end to the point that he may be doing more to HURT the FSF than help it.

    I understand that free software is as much a political movement as it is an idea for better software. However, RMS seems to be HOSTILE to those who don't make the same choices he does. Freedom to me, means, that, freedom. It's about having the freedom to make good or bad choices.

    The KDE controversy, the takeover attempt on GLIBC etc, makes him look more like a raving lunatic, and by extension, makes ALL of us who support the principle of the GPL and open source look the same. Why? Because Stallman proclaims himself the leader of the whole movement whenever asked, or not asked.

    While I have tremendous respect for the man, and his philospohy, his despotic style runs contrary to the whole anarchistic nature of free software. RMS needs to realize that not EVERYTHING needs to be called "GNU/"
    ===
    (The price of freedom is eternal vigilance)

    .

  4. Another way of looking at things by AirLace · · Score: 4, Insightful
    You say RMS shoud accept "that [commercial products] do have a place."

    First of all, commercial products and proprietary products are not the same thing. GNU has a clear set diagram that categorises software and makes this clear. RMS has always accepted that commercial products have a place -- he is not a communist. However he believes that these commercial products should embrace the same development methods and openness that the Free Software community does. He has no qualms with CyGNUs Software for example, since all of its work is released under the GNU GPL.


    With this in mind, try to name one single case where proprietary software is valid or acceptable. Now you will begin to see what RMS is getting at. Even if you don't, you shouldn't be misrepresenting his ideas like this.

    1. Re:Another way of looking at things by geomcbay · · Score: 4, Insightful


      RMS has always accepted that commercial products have a place -- he is not a communist. However he believes that these commercial products should embrace the same development methods and openness that the Free Software community does.


      The problem with RMS's view of embracing the same development methods and openess that FS does is that with such a method you can not make money on software. If you have to give the source code away for free to others, how can you make money from it in a practical sense?

      The only known ways are service and support. Service and support is fine for large enterprise software or webservers, the kind of thing OSS is good at now, but its not so good for desktop applications which should just work without being supported or serviced. This is the fundamental problem holding OSS back from the desktop, and the reason why Linux will never be a mainstream desktop OS unless there is some major shift in attitude by its users/developers.

      The fact of the matter is most software developers just can't afford to develop software that will be given away. I think the recent economic downturn is both good and bad for OSS, its good in that companies are more likely to adopt existing OSS software to reduce costs, its bad in that a large number of developers won't have time to further develop OSS because they'll be losing (or already have lost) their cushy day jobs which supported their efforts.

    2. Re:Another way of looking at things by Z4rd0Z · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I'll bite on this.


      With this in mind, try to name one single case where proprietary software is valid or acceptable.

      Wow, I'm amazed you can't think of one case where proprietary software is valid or acceptable. That takes a determined lack of imagination.Here's a quick example off the top of my head of a company who could never survive by making free software. For highly specialized applications that have a very small market, it really doesn't make sense to be pushing free software.


      Now you will begin to see what RMS is getting at.

      Well, I understand what RMS is getting at, because I have read his writings: he wants there to be no such thing as proprietary software. That's fine for him, but not everyone shares his vision. No matter how much philosophizing he does on the subject, my definition of freedom will probably always conflict with his. This is my right. I fear that if his vision were the dominant one, I would no longer have this right.

      --
      You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
    3. Re:Another way of looking at things by johnnyb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you're ignoring the people who do just this and make money.

      You're also ignoring the fact that most development is done for in-house projects, which has no business reason for being closed. 90% of programmers are employed in this fashion.

      --
      Engineering and the Ultimate
    4. Re:Another way of looking at things by Syberghost · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're also ignoring the fact that most development is done for in-house projects, which has no business reason for being closed.

      Actually, most in-house code has the strongest reason for being closed. If you have to pay a bunch of programmers to write your business software, and your competition then uses your code for free, you are at a disadvantage. It looks great to say "gee, we'll get our development for free, we'll just use the community's code", but that pyramid scheme rolls up on somebody who's getting paid to write that stuff.

      And the last thing you want is for there to no longer be a market for all those programmers; Open Source wouldn't exist without people to write it, and most of them are also coding to put food on the table.

    5. Re:Another way of looking at things by hearingaid · · Score: 3, Informative

      It depends on your definition of open source.

      The way I understand open source, what it means is that when you give somebody your binaries, you give them the source as well.

      You just don't glom onto the binaries the way M$ does and refuse to hand over the source.

      This is the normal way of doing in-house code at many establishments. The exception is when the in-house company hires a consultant firm to write the code.

      The definition you seem to be going by is that open source means that you give the source to anybody who asks. This is "free as in beer," and is different from the kind of "free" that RMS talks about all the time.

      --

      my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

    6. Re:Another way of looking at things by mj6798 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I don't care if it's Oracle or RedHat -- the pay-for-support model sucks. It encourages the vendors to ship obscured and difficult products and to not publically release information.

      I agree that if free software is created by the same people intending to support it, that is a problem.

      But free software doesn't disable free market mechanisms. If RedHat ships software that sucks in order to drive up support costs, you don't have to use their software--you can pay someone to create the kind of software you like (perhaps as part of a collective bidding process).

      So, overall, that's not an argument against free software in general, or against the ability to have an efficient market built around free software, it's an argument about one particular broken way of creating free software.

  5. uh oh..... by jeffy124 · · Score: 3, Offtopic

    ...RMS's name is listed 23rd on a list that appears to have no particular order.

    Somehow i fear a bearded man with lots of hair going after the guy who put that page together........

    --
    The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
  6. talk about your newspeak by pnatural · · Score: 5, Funny

    quoth RMS:

    "I've been working for GNOME since years before there was a GNOME."

    RMS would make Orwell proud or scared, I can't tell.

    1. Re:talk about your newspeak by Arandir · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's pronounced "newspeak", but it's spelled "GNUspeak".

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  7. Could RMS fulfill the required role? by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The role of someone on the GNOME Board of Directors is to represent the best interests of the GNOME project not the interests of any other third party. Can RMS make this distinction?

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  8. Re:The father of open source? by bugg · · Score: 3, Insightful
    RMS claiming that he is the father of open source is like Linus Torvalds claiming he is the father of Linux.

    No, it's much worse than that.
    There was no Linux before Linus. There was most certainly open source software before RMS. Fast forward 7 years before there was a FSF and you have free development of UNIX extensions at Berkeley. Fast forward back an additional 10+ years to the first computers owned by individual hobbyists, and all software was free and open source. Open source is a concept much older than the FSF. Now, you could go into the whole "Free" Software thing, but frankly, I don't like people who redefine understood words such as free.

    --
    -bugg
  9. Hold the phone... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I thought RMS doesn't use a GUI at all? Isn't he a strictly command-line only guy?

    If so, shouldn't one of the prerequesites to being on the board of a GUI desktop initiative that you actually use the freaking product? Why would he think that he's the right person for this job?

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  10. RMS by geomcbay · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems pretty likely RMS will be voted in. He's a huge "name" in the Open Source community (for good reason).

    However, I still think in the long run having him on the board will be bad for GNOME. He's way too anti-commercial-software, totally unwilling to compromise, and not really at all good in political situations since he just always says what he means. These are may be good traits in a technical project leader, but IMO not-so-great for people on boards of OSS projects.

    While OSS has made great strides thus far, its not quite at a point where it can live in a vacuum. If RMS scares off all the commercial entities, I can easily see KDE coming in and sweeping up, gaining more developers (commercial developers with vested interest in products but willing to share code back to main trees are very valuable), and just stomping GNOME.

  11. what's with the RMS-bashing? by danny · · Score: 3, Interesting
    RMS has never tried to claim "all the credit" for free software for himself - he does ask for more recognition for the GNU Project, but that's not just RMS, that's thousands of developers. If you check out the partial "GNU's Who" on the web site, you'll find RMS in alphabetical position, not promoted over the others.

    If I were voting for GNOME directors, I should think RMS would make a fine choice. He's an experienced developer himself, he knows a lot about licencing issues, and his committment to free software development is unquestioned. Sure, he'll bring some politics into it, but the whole point of the GNOME Foundation is surely to do the politics, public relations, marketing, and so forth so the developers don't have to.

    Danny.

    --
    I have written over 900 book reviews
  12. Interesting Contrast... by sphealey · · Score: 5, Interesting
    MR. GATES: Let me start out, really the reason that you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines, and the bios of that should be open to everybody to use, and all the extensibility should be there. And so it was very predictable that once we had gotten the PC going, and going and gotten hundreds of millions of machines out there, that it had always been sort of free software and the universities would flourish and there would be more of that. We certainly accept free software as part of the software ecosystem. In fact, there's a very virtuous cycle where people do free things, some people find that adequate, sometimes companies will take that work and turn it into commercial products, those companies will hire people, pay taxes. And so you see the free software and the commercial software existing together.
    Bill Gates speaking at Microsoft's 2001 shareholders' meeting

    ==========

    I've been working for GNOME since years before there was a GNOME. In 1983, while formulating plans for the GNU operating system, I decided it ought to include a window system. Later, around 1988, we obtained X, but we found out that X only did the lower-level half of the job, so I decided we needed to develop a free software desktop to do the rest of the job. After our desktop initiatives in 1990 and 1994/5 didn't produce a working desktop (*), I became aware of another desktop project based on a non-free library (**), and spoke to the community about the problem posed by that dependency. This inspired Miguel to launch our third desktop project, the one that succeeded: GNOME.
    Richard Stallman in his statement of candidacy for the GNOME Board of Directors.

    Hmmm...

    sPh

    1. Re:Interesting Contrast... by mandolin · · Score: 3, Insightful
      After our desktop initiatives in 1990 and 1994/5 didn't produce a working desktop (*),

      This qualifies him to have meaningful control in a third initiative?

      This inspired Miguel to launch our third desktop project, the one that succeeded: GNOME.

      This is an endorsement for Miguel, not RMS.

      Although the rest of RMS's statement (the part you didn't include) looks better, I think its safe to say the man hasn't written a resume in awhile...

  13. Re:Gnome needs to succeed by Arandir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Commercial software companies DO NOT need to purchase the Trolltech license. Only *proprietary* developers do. Huge difference.

    The Qt license may be one of the most "fair" licenses in history. It's Free if you write Free Software (GPL), Open if you write Open Source Software (QPL) and need to make that distinction, and proprietary if you write proprietary software.

    If a company is going to profit $20,000 next year off of a KDE application, then they can afford a $2000 license. If you're only going to make $2000 in profit, however, I would strongly suggest going into another line of work.

    What about the hundreds of other people who pour hard work into Linux for free?

    KDE is not Linux. It is a desktop that runs on Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD, IRIX, etc. Nothing Linux specific about it.

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  14. Vote for Rhett Creighton by KidSock · · Score: 5, Funny

    5. RHETT CREIGHTON " The future is now, and that future is: Bowling Balls. Do you realize that if GNOME starts making bowling balls, we stand to net profit $11,000?! That's right, eleven big ones. Net profit, mind you. " No affiliation. Full statement at

    Name: Rhett Creighton
    Affiliation: none

    I haven't done doodly squat for GNOME. There is absolutely no reason to vote for me. I ran last year and got the least number of votes (3, including my own).

    I believe that free software is overrated. If elected, I will try to adopt a for-profit software model to the GNOME foundation. Actually, GNOME will stop making software altogether. Instead, it will make bowling balls.

    Anyone who votes for me probably should have all of their votes thrown out.

    Hi ho!
    Rhett


    Well, it's good to have someone with a sense of humor on the board. Or is it?

  15. Why is RMS so upset with KDE? by coe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It sounds so strange to me when RMS states that "gnome is the only one that succeeded". He takes pleasure bashing KDE without a reason or what do you think about this quote from:

    http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-announ ce /2001-November/msg00028.html

    -snip-
    I became aware of another desktop project based on a non-free library (**), and spoke to the community about the problem posed by that dependency. This inspired Miguel to launch our third desktop project, the one that succeeded: GNOME.
    -snip-

    --
    -- -Sk (coe.) uuh. yasp.
    1. Re:Why is RMS so upset with KDE? by 10Ghz · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think he means that Gnome is the only GNU-Desktop that succeeded. KDE is (thank god!) not part of the GNU-project.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    2. Re:Why is RMS so upset with KDE? by Korgan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      RMS is against the KDE project because it is based on Qt which is not a GPL application. Because Qt is not fully Free or OpenSource software, RMS refuses to acknowledge it for what it is. As a result, he excludes KDE and anything else that relies on Qt libs as well.

      Things changed when Trolltech changed the licensing policy for the Qt libs so that there were essentially 3 different licensing models... Free, Open and Proprietry. However, even with this change, RMS still refuses to acknowledge it.

      I find it funning that Miguel was inspired to launch "OUR" third desktop project... I didn't know RMS had any part in the code base at all.. Much less that he used a Graphical GUI of any kind.

      Besides, while I use Gnome and haven't even looked at KDE since 2.0 was released, Gnome hasn't succeeded yet. Like Edward Scissorhands, its not finished yet.

  16. Did RMS ever answer ESR's question? by devphil · · Score: 3, Informative

    my definition of freedom will probably always conflict with his. This is my right. I fear that if his vision were the dominant one, I would no longer have this right.

    No kidding... In the flerbage article, ESR asked this question of both RMS and Tim O'Reilly (when the latter two were having their debate): if you two could get a law passed making proprietary licenses illegal, would you do it?

    Did RMS ever answer? Because if Mr. It's All About the Freedom To Choose wants to forbid the existence of proprietary software -- not just discourage it through discussion, but to forbid it beyond discussion -- then he's clearly unfit for any kind of leadership position.

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  17. GPL isn't clear cut about in-house development. by Carnage4Life · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In house projects _don't_ have to have their source code released, according the the GNU license. If you use/extend GNU software in house for your own use, you don't even have to tell anyone you've done so. It's not until you _distribute_ the binaries to others that GNU obligates you to _distribute_ the source

    GPL advocates keep mentioning this but until I see it tested in a court of law this is a very gray area. For example, what if I work for a company that uses a modified version of some GNU software internally that completely outperforms the version used in the main development tree. Now let's say my NDA forbids me from revealing source code I've obtained from work or written while working as an employee as most NDAs do. Yet the GPL specifies that I can redisribute any GPL code I receive with source, not just that but if I redistribute it I must deliver source and also that there should be no restrictions on how I can distribute it. Now if I decide to redistribute it, what has precedence my NDA or the GPL? If it's the GPL then I've done nothing wrong but it then means that people claiming that you can use GPLed software internally and not have to reveal your modifications are not absolutely correct since any body who receives the code internally can redistribute it to the outside world. On the other hand, if it's the NDA then this means that the GPL can be overriden by contractual obligations which may open up a hole from which exploitations of the GPL can begin.

    I am not a lawyer so I cannot answer this but I can see it being argued both ways. Until some legal precedence is set as to whether in-house modifications of GPLed software can be redistributed by those who receive it internally within the company or not, I don't think anyone can state authoritatively that using modified GPLed software in-house doesn't have any pitfalls.

    1. Re:GPL isn't clear cut about in-house development. by RelliK · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can answer this. You can distribute only the code that you either own (the one that you wrote yourself) or when you have an explicit permission to distribute it (such as GPL, BSD, etc.). When you write code for a company, you do not own it. Repeat: it doesn't matter that you wrote the code -- whoever pays you to write the code owns it. Therefore, if the contract you signed prevents you from distributing the code, you cannot distribute it because 1) it's not yours; 2) you don't have permission. The company you did the work for -- and only the company -- can decide whether to distribute the code or not. You can of course distribute the original, unmodified version.

      No grey area there. Move along.

      --
      ___
      If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
  18. Jim Gettys by Pemdas · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I don't know the guy personally, but having worked for Compaq in the past and being familiar with some of his past work, I'm glad to see his name on the list. Something he was involved in that many ./ readers may remember is the Itsy project, which can be found here.

    If I were a voting member (which, sadly, I'm not), he'd definitely get my vote. So instead, I'll just lobby for him here. :)

    1. Re:Jim Gettys by Oggust · · Score: 3, Informative
      Couldn't agree more. Mr Gettys is an X Consortium veteran. He saw that die, and from his postings, he's learned a bit from it; he has strong opinions on how the gnome foundation ought to be run.

      Also, he has all kinds of technical stuff going for him. He was one of the original authors behind X, for example.

      He also has a lot of (IMHO) good opinions on design. A short piece on that.

      I believe he can (continue to) do a lot of good for Gnome.

      /August.

      --
      "An object declared as type _Bool is large enough to store the values 0 and 1." -- 6.1.2.5, C99 standard.
  19. GPL gives permission to distribute by Carnage4Life · · Score: 3

    When you write code for a company, you do not own it. Repeat: it doesn't matter that you wrote the code -- whoever pays you to write the code owns it. Therefore, if the contract you signed prevents you from distributing the code, you cannot distribute it because 1) it's not yours; 2) you don't have permission.

    The GPL gives anyone who receives the code permission to redistribute it. This is the entire point of the GPL. You are claiming that an NDA (an artifact of contract law) can override the GPL (another artifact of contract law). Unless you are a lawyer or even better can show me the court case that shows the precedence for this I'm sorry I but I'll have to dismiss your opinions as just another uninformed opinion just like mine.

    PS: Your post is the same as claiming that an NDA allows you to violate software licenses since the GPL is a software license.

    1. Re:GPL gives permission to distribute by RelliK · · Score: 4, Informative
      This is the entire point of the GPL. You are claiming that an NDA (an artifact of contract law) can override the GPL (another artifact of contract law).

      1. False. I am not claiming that at all. Read my post again. And again. As long as it takes for you to understand. What I said was: you are still allowed to distribute the original (unmodified) version; you are not allowed to distribute the code that you wrote by contract because you don't own it -- the company does. If the comany decides to distribute this code then they must do so according to the terms of GPL. If they decide not to distribute it then they can do whatever they want. Point is: the company owns the code, not you -- therefore the company makes decisions about the code, not you.

      2. GPL has absolutely nothing to do with contract law. It is based entirely in copyright law. Therefore, it is actually stronger than most proprietary licenses (well, until all states pass UCITA anyway ;-)

      --
      ___
      If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    2. Re:GPL gives permission to distribute by RelliK · · Score: 3, Informative
      The only way this paragraph makes sense is if somewhere along the line internal use of software by a company has been explicitly declared as not being distribution.

      Oh, I see what you mean. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is the 1854 (?) supreme court ruling that corporations are individuals and thus have all the rights mere mortals have. (Their vast resourses in effect make them super-people). But in any case, companies are generally treated as one entity in matters such as this. The secretary receiving the peice of software is an employee of the company and, therefore, a part of the same entity. She uses the software for the benefit of the company while doing her job (i.e. she does not get a copy for her home machine). Also, as I mentioned earlier, any work you do for the company is the property of the company (this mystical entity). If the secretary were able to legally get the copy of the software while off work and off the copany's property, then she would be treated as individual if the matter went to cort, and she would not be under contractual obligations to the company. But that implies that the software is distributed outside the company.

      So I guess basically what I'm saying is that an employee is not an individual; an employee is a number in the HR database ;-) When you become an employee, you voluntarily choose to give up some rights in exchange for a paycheque.

      By no means do I claim to be an expert on the subject, but it just wouldn't make sense to me otherwise.

      --
      ___
      If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
  20. Re:Gnome needs to succeed by fault0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > Of course....I can sell software that's under GPL. But then I have to provide the source-code. That is not viable for most businesses.

    And you are saying that $2000 is not viable for most buisinesses? That's utterly BS, even for small shops.

  21. Pagent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is it just me or does the candidate list read just like a Miss America pagent.

    "Hello Internet.. I'm Mr. G.G. Allen from the widget project! I've been hacking since 1986 and enjoy horseback riding and swimming. I really think that Gnome is the best thing since those little sprinkles on pop tarts!"