Slashdot Mirror
Stallman Clarifies Position RE:Gnome & .Net
RMS ? has sent The Register an email in which he corrects their 'inaccurate' representation of his stance on the GNOME & .NET issue. He states, "I am pretty sure something was garbled in the quotation which has me asking Miguel to 'explain himself to us', because those words would be
explicitly confrontational, and I did not have any wish to do that."
RMS "explicitly confrontational?" Surely you jest!
;-)
- but - shouldnt that quote have been italicized?
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
those words would be explicitly confrontational, and I did not have any wish to do that.
Uhm, RMS...since when do you not wish to be confrontational? Your whole approach is confrontational.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Stallman says:
"Another misleading point in the article was the reference to GNOME as an "open source project." The Open Source Initiative has the right to define a criterion for open source and note the fact that GNOME fits it, but GNOME has no connection with them. GNOME, like the GNU Project as a whole, is part of the free software movement. GNOME is a free software project par excellence, because it was started in 1997 as a defense against the threat to our freedom posed by the (at the time, since changed) non-free license of Qt."
But right there on gnome.org, I see otherwise!
"GNOME is part of the GNU project, and is free software (some times referred to as open source software.)"
So, is GNOME open source software or isn't? On one hand Stallman denies it, and on the other it's confirmed on the project web page. Theories:
(1) Stallman is lying
(2) Stallman is out-of-touch with what-is-gnome
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
Wow, this is turning into a ping-pong match.
You have to wonder how much relevant information is lost before a story makes it to press these days. Partial quotes, reassembled sentences, poor fact checking. This is meant to address the media in general, not this article specifically.
We need a newspaper/website that quotes people word for word rather than just the highlights, and always sends two reporters to cover a job separately. Not that it will ever happen but I bet we'd have a considerably different view of world events if it happened.
is the road of destruction. Icaza is either a fool or a sellout for getting in bed with Microsoft.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
RMS has never been confrontational. But he has always stood his ground.
Unfortunately many "nutbags" seem unable to understand the difference.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
First, check your spelling.
Then point those "internal things" out.
Third, are you really aware of the difference
between "Open Source" - http://opensource.org
and "Free Software" - http://www.fsf.org
The current licenses used by the free software
movement (GPL, LGPL, GFDL etc.) are, as long
as they refer to software and not, for example,
documentation (as the GFDL), are "OSI Compliant
Open Source" with regards to the open source
definition, and so free software qualifies as
open source.
That the OSI is not approving non-software
licenses is really a pity.
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
The very existence of GNOME is the direct result of our ideals of freedom, precisely what the open source movement was founded in 1998 to reject.
:)
So open source rejects your ideals of freedom, and has done since its foundation?
Someone better notify the press
Henry
i don't do sigs. oops.
He can criticize any particular GNU project
because he leads the GNU project as a whole.
Be content with it or not, but you can't
change the facts.
Of course you can fork, the [L]GPL allows this.
Please note, as you can read from my other
comments on this, I am no GPL fan either.
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
"...those words would be explicitly confrontational, and I did not have any wish to do that."
;)
right... rms has never been known to be confrontational.
What has the FSF done for us today, and more importantly, what are they going to do for us tomorrow?
He's not. If you bothered to read the article you'd see that someone told RMS that Miguel wanted to change the licence of Gnome to the X11 licence. RMS said he would not like that and that he did not belive Miguel would do that.
If "RMS" would be a topic(TM), you could
filter it in your preferences page.
Anyways, you can just filter GNU.
Oh wait... you aren't logged in?
D'oh.
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
I actually have a few issues to address regarding the Register's report...
.NET framework -
.NET technology specifically for GNOME. As we all know, that is far from the case... While this involves a quite obvious conflict of interest for M$ as a corporation (industry acceptance of .NET -vs- inadvertently providing Linux w/ new technology), I wouldn't say that M$ has been overly cooperative!!!
.NET including SmartClients and the new Microsoft security model. ®"
First, I would like to raise the question of exactly where it is that I can view de Icaza's comments.
"Miguel de Icaza has issued his own clarification, here, which also amounts to 'move along folks, there's nothing to see'."
Unfortunately, however, the good people at the Register neglected to actually link the here in that statement! Anyone have any ideas???
Next, I move to a quote the Register supplies from de Icaza regarding the
".NET is a fantastic technology upgrade for GNOME from Microsoft,"
Perhaps it's just me, perhaps it is the fault of the translation, but in this quote it sounds to me as if de Icaza is portraying Microsoft as having graciously created the
And finally, I point to the final line of the article referencing comments by de Icaza -
"In the interview, he praised many aspects of
Please...someone say it ain't so!!! Is this individual actually praising the evil empire's security model? Has he been smoking dope!!! I think I'll just forget that I saw that and move on as if nothing ever happened...
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. -- Benjamin Franklin
"I saw that people were getting tired of my irritating childishness and my desire to stamp my own ownership on the concept of non-ownership, so I backed off until I could find another way to impose my will on developers who wishes to associate themselves with open source, which I of course invented and I of course own."
I do have to admit that the "Oh, I didn't really mean Gnome should be based on .NET" was amusing, though. The email making that statement and then describing why it would be a good idea anyways was great.
Ah well, Ximian will get to write one program and sell to the Windows and Linux markets, which is the entire point of Mono to begin with. (Anthing else is just justification for this common sense business decision.)
.technomancer
Things like this belong into the .sig, too.
Meta-Slashdot thread found in CmdrTaco's
Journal (IIRC).
Check my
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
It's like I said before.
Slashdot is becoming a sensationalistic tabloid.
Miguel's response to this controversy appeased a lot of my concerns about what they actually want do do with Mono, and especially his apparent admiration for Microsoft's stuff (he likes .Net, but still thinks everything that came before it is garbage). While I still disagree with his fetish for next-gen APIs over designing an actual desktop (which KDE seems much farther along with), at least he doesn't appear to be selling out to M$ as readily as it first seemed.
He was misquoted, and he straightened it out. It is amazing how many letters I have read in magazines from RMS, because they violated the gpl, or called gnu/linux linux, or whatever. I've gotta hand it to him, he doesnt take bull from anyone..
Comment removed based on user account deletion
RMS's ideals of freedom don't impress me as being very ideal, or very free.
Freedom is when you give someone something, and they can do what they like with it because now it's theirs. Lots of good people in the open source community give such gifts. I appreciate it a great deal and try to return the favor.
RMS's "ideals" are of the coercive sort: you are free to do what he tells you you can do. It is a license, not a gift.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Not exactly. It's "OSI Certified Open Source Software". "OSI Certified" is the modifier, "Open Source Software" is the noun. Sorry that we don't approve non-software licenses, but we have to draw the line somewhere. We had somebody ask us to approve a license for a movie a year or so ago!
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
It's no big secret that I don't like Stallman.... however, he's had some good ideas and he gave us the GPL, one of the most useful pieces of software of the last 20 years (yes, contracts are software too!)
So why is it that he continually manages to irritate so many people? I think the answer is, you have to think a lot like RMS in order to understand what he's saying... particularly on the first try. As a result, he's prone to miscommunication. He appears confrontational because he frequently speaks his mind in a way that's going to get misinterpreted by everyone else. So is it our fault for not understanding his 'great mind'?
I don't think so. Richard, if you'd just have some respect for other people's 'user interfaces', you'd have a lot fewer problems, and do the community a whole world of good. RMS is not 'intuitive' or 'user friendly' for most of the world. Understanding how people communicate is critical to building effective interfaces to software. It's even more critical as a tool of persuasion. The Free Software community, like it or not, has a public face now, and you're it. Do you really want to keep hurting the community you built?
I can see many people hates RMS.
So many comments and so many marked as -1, troll, offtopic, or flamebait...
Get a life, people.
What RMS thinks is HIS opinion, and he has the right to express his opinion.
Isn't America about freedom?
Okay, I'll call you out. Which of RMS's four freedoms is not present in any OSI-approved license?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Astroturfer go home!
Once again, The Register screws up and misrepresents the truth as some sensationalistic trash. Why am I not surprised? They can't just sit back and admit they made a mistake putting up that article and try to blame it on some other tech site. And they go on to try and demonize Miguel de Icaza a bit more at the bottom! Come on guys, what ever happened to fact checking and journalistic integrity? You wrote the article, you didn't check your facts, you were in the wrong. Admit it.
Hah. The day The Register posts an honest retraction and admits they made a mistake without trying to weasel out of it is the day satan drives to work in a snowplow.
I honestly can't believe the amount of crap Miguel gets, based on The Register's blatant misreporting of the truth. It's time people stopped going after leaders like Miguel and after the people who profiteer from turning the community on itself.
All opinions expressed are opinions. Duh.
It continues to amaze me over and over, how uninformed people attack Richard Stallman not substantively, but personally - attacking the way he looks, the way he talks, but never substantively refuting what he says. It amazes me even more, how these ad hominem attacks get up-modded. Apparently there is a lot of hatred out there for people of principle.
/. "community"). But it was precisely his unyielding, principled approach to software development that made the GNU project succeed in the end, despite the odds.
Well let's first get some facts straight. No one who uses GNU/Linux or any of the related free or open source software built on the Gnu/Linux platform would be enjoying the use of this stuff if it wasn't for Richard Stallman. In the mid-80s when he decided to rebuild Unix from scratch, all my geek and hacker friends who were Unix users at the time, thought he was totally nuts (just like a good part of the
Linus Torvald, a great programmer and a man worthy of praise, finished up what Stallman had started. But he was standing on the shoulder of a giant. If Richard Stallman feels that the OS should be called GNU/Linux he is 100% justified, whether or not its an ego issue as many here contend, or an issue of principle, as he does. Either way, as the man who made it happen, he has the right to make that demand. Whether you honor it or not is your choice. But insulting him while you continue to use the fruits of his labor is worse than hypocrisy - its theft.
There is not one, not one person, in the free software or open source world who has contributed more to the existance of this stuff than Richard Stallman. So at the very least, he deserves the gratitude of anyone who uses this software, for whatever reason they might use it.
To say that Richard Stallman's radical ideas are a hindrance to the acceptance of non-proprietary alternatives is absurd. This is the guy who invented the whole concept, this is the man who made it happen. It's precisely because he is fanatical and unyielding that this movement came into being. All those willing to compromise would never have stayed the course he did.
That doesn't mean you have to accept his point of view. I personally think that in the commercial world, there is a place for BSD-style licenses, and unlike Richard Stallman I don't think these are immoral.
Nonetheless I feel tremendous gratitude for what he has done and continues to do, I respect and admire his principled approach to his work and his life. I strongly resent the ungrateful, spiteful, empty-headed sniping that gets thrown his way in this forum. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!
Oops, sorry for my misquoting.
As to the non-software-not-certifying,
I asked why not to replace "software" by
"work" in the thread about redesigning parts
of the OSD, and got answered this.
That's why I asked, because I was rejected.
(I do the replace in my variant of the X.net)
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
I have a great deal of respect for Stallman and laud his accomplishments on the behalf of free software. I have read many quotes (some lengthy) by him, however, and cannot characterize them as anything less than confrontational. His remarks also tend to have a sanctimonious tone. In this vein, I once saw an interesting photograph of Stallman, one that I am sure was taken and distributed with his consent. The photo showed a glowing halo over Stallman's head and his affecting the posture of a saint.
A lawyer & digital forensics examiner. Also an expert on open source software (OSS).
You're, like... absolutely right... um... That just -- that's just what we need. The... ah... exact words that people, that people say. Then we would get like... um... the story, I mean the real story, you know?
On the other hand, maybe a little editorial discretion wouldn't be so bad.
Don't forget the tendency of this community to interpret everything he says in as negative a way as possible.
If he disagrees with something, everyone starts screaming about he's a ranting ideologue who's bent on coercing everyone to follow his ideals. It doesn't matter how he phrases it, it's immediately translated by the anti-RMS crowd into some kind of insane crusade against whatever he's talking about.
Look at the current incident. Someone asks him a question that's based on faulty assumptions. He points out that the questioner might have some of his facts wrong, then says if they were right he'd disagree with it. Instantly the anti-RMS crowd comes out en masse, shrieking.
What's next? RMS order soup with his dinner, and we get the slashdot headline "RMS blasts salad as entree choice"?
I'm not sure why there's such a huge anti-RMS movement in the free software/open source communities. I have some theories though:
1. Stallman has the audacity not to uncritically support everything everyone else does in the open source arena.
2. He represents an older generation of programmers who did the real pioneering stuff, and young programmers today have self-esteem problems with recognizing anyone older than themselves.
3. They don't like his political views.
Wait... the Register misinformed people to show a story in a particular light, even if that wasn't the reality?!
No! It must be all lies!
RMS has never been confrontational.
You mean like that time he tore a reporter a new asshole for using the term "Linux"?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
ok, I'm offtopic...
Is it just me, or does anyone else think root-mean-square every time you see "RMS?" I really hope not.
how'd he get that nickname "RMS?" (yes, I know that's his initials you twit, but no one calls me NAP)
2 bit dictators also run "Open" democracies and have "Transparent" legislatures. Same with powerful rich dictators.
miguel never talked about binding mono TO gnome. in fact he even said its not in his responsibility to do so. he just thinks its smart to produce a #c-compiler for linux, cause it would bring the benefits of binary compatibility of linux and windows applications. i am no serious programmer but i can understand why he does it. if its possible why shouldnt that be taken into account. if you look at wine, its the same - no one flames about wine bringing microsoft to linux.
as i understood mono brings the benefits of developers being able to produce for windows _and_ linux without having to use java.
and stop complaining. when gnome 3 will be released we will tell our grand-children tales about grey-box-shaped computers that got hot enough to burn their processor without apropriate cooling...
i flame slashdot for this stupid headline. i think both people know its just a flamewar iniciated by journalists and not the persons involved. if you look at the register interview _AND_ the headline you get the clue...
journalists love this, its just imaginated nonsense and all people read the articles, post in forums, click banners, launch nuclear missiles etc.
my 2 Euro-cent
and yes, the karma-system sukks
What's next? A loss of that sexy beard?
Never mock a man's hirsute appendage. It isn't "Insightful," it isn't clever, but it does reveal one of two things:
1. You weren't mocking; you really do find RMS's beard arousing, but were disguising this truth, even from yourself, behind sarcasm.
2. You judge people based on faulty criteria.
Which is it?
Neopets - the best free game on the Int
RMS has never been confrontational. But he has always stood his ground.
What's the difference? If you cannot compromise, you will precipitate a confrontation. Do you expect us to believe that he'll only adopt a popular ground to stand upon?
Really....I don't give a crap what RMS says, thinks...get a life. Use you own best judgement about technology and the way you conduct yourself.
I was wrong, so I'm now playing down my stance. :-)
That was jsut for the people not familiar with RMS who has been known to be openly confrontational.
Derek Greene
It's interesting to note that the BSD license
is the original prototype for all the follow-on
so called free or open source software. Before
BSD, it simply was not popular nor common for
companies or anyone for that matter to give away
source code, only binaries and binary modules,
which are a plain to deal with comparing to having
the source. We really need to acknowledge BSD
Unix and its role in the history of free source.
But, nice try with your 'questioning my sexuality' angle. Too bad I'm one of precious few Slashdotters who are secure in that way.
-
Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
There was a discussion re: Smoothwall firewall, and the founder/creator, which conincendentially just happens to be Richard (or more appropriately Dick.)
From what I've seen about both guys (it might not be true, but it is from different sources, and widely accepted.) both are abrasive and rather unpleasant. (I'm not saying they're the same, but making some observations, and using both to make a point.)
I've had some friends and acquantences, who thought the whole world was wrong. And in fact, in many ways, they're right! But the way they go about "fixing" the problem - is in itself a problem. They attack everyone. They are abrasive. They are often hypocritical. They burn their bridges, and aren't polite. They use massive shock value to make a point, often offending many, including those who might help them.
Eventually, enough people are really sick of them, and practically want to burn them at the stake (or is that steak?)!
The point is this. I like pleasant people. Pleasant people don't have to compromise their principles, or sell out. But people who are not offensive and have an inflated sence of self importance are just more effective.
RMS probbaly isn't going to change, and that's too bad. From what I can see, his actions are his own worst enemy. Same with Richard from Smoothwall. They could have lots of positive effects, but they make themselves largely ineffective.
That's just too bad.
As to the hypercritical (hyper not hypo) response to them...well what's to surprise? They offend people, and then expect an evenhanded response. Sure, it would be more fair, but I know as well as anyone else, that a fair response is not very likely.
RMS by and large, helps shape the response he gets. I assume that he knows it, and doesn't care. That's the way things go.
Cheers!
Slashdot is worth saving / trolling & flamebait are not.
Find a way to rid the system of worthless tripe, slashdot is not congress or the only place for trolls to post and they are now essentially a clot.
This clot will have the same effect on slashdot, that it has on the heart or more cogently the brain. Rid the system of clots; Moderate them to the "spellcheck/read it before/linux sux/pr0n" playpen.
Please they are doing it to destroy you, or at least to drive _us_ away, fight back.
It is essentially the same as having a competitor dump offal and feces infront of your store every morning.
Move along... there are tens of thousands of other professionals we could listen to each day...
Silly billy? What are you, a fag? "Hey Spike, can I get you a bone, huh, can I Spike, can I, can I, huh?" "Hey Spike, how's about you and me go and beat up some cats? That'd be fun, wouldn't it Spike? Huh? Wouldn't it?"
"Yah, maybe not, Spike. Hey, but can I still get you that bone, Spike? Can I? Huh, can I, Spike?"
"Spike is my friend!"
Why is it even here?
One more big difference. Richard Stallman is a genius. Richard Morrell is just a dick.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Source code IS AN INTERMEDIATE LANGUAGE. To claim that free software needs another means of distributing itself is obsurd.
Did anyone else see "...major applications of GNOME into C# . I hope that the readers who reacted sharply to the idea..." Haha, RMS made a funny. (wow, i'm going to regret posting this)
Linus Torvalds says that, contrary to popular belief, he really does like shrimp, Alan Cox just got a haircut, Miguel de Icaaza is Spanish, and RMS really does want free software.
Seriously, does anybody care about a flamewar between people just because it's RMS. You don't have to be a Kreskin to know that he's gonna end up in a lot of confrontations. I'd think that Slashdot would be one of those societies where celebrity-stalking wouldn't take place.
However, I still can't bring myself to think that Stallman wasn't trying to start a confrontation with GNOME. Call me a cynic. I mean, even the tone of the Register's article must have picked up the confrontational "feeling" from somewhere.
"A free replacement for Visual Basic which works with GNOME would be a major step forward; any capable team that wants to launch this project should please contact gnu@gnu.org." --RMS
Psst, Mr. Stallman sir, you've already got one: GNOME Basic.
If you go from Emacs to kwrite you are not only a fucking idiot, but also a woefully incompetent computer user. Go back to windows where you belong with the other fuckwits.
(I don't know if he is still using that login account anymore or not, ever since MIT stopped providing guest access to those computers I've not kept track of who is logged in.)
Oh wait, I don't suck cock. I just kiss cock and maybe I wrap my lips around your big fat balls. You're taking me out of context!!! I'm not even a homosexual!
The way people kick RMS around these days, you'd think he was JonKatz or something :)
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
If you read some Open Source licenses and read the Open source Initiative, you will see that OS is just a fancy name for proprietary licenses. There is no one single Open Source license. They are all different, depending on the vendor, or author, etc.
I'd live for the one, and die for the one.
The one is RMS. That's all I have to say.
Where have you been the last 3 years?
These kinds of disputes are not what the community needs to stay together! It seems to me that the oss community is filled with more whiny self-righteous pigs than truly stellar and motivated programmers? Am i misguided in this assumption?
Did you not mean Sun R&D? I don't see a lot of value-add from .NET over Java, that could not easily be added to Java if it appears to be popular (like more cross language support). Perhaps if they'd done a lot more than just capitalize method names, or even added generics to get a little ahead of the Java VM... (generics coming in JDK 1.5, around 2005).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
is it also true that RMS believes that any non free software should be illegal. In that, his belief is allegedly that no developer should have the choice in what license to choose, and that freedom of choice is irrellevant to freedom of cost. Is this true?
So why is it that he continually manages to irritate so many people?
I don't know, I like the guy. But I can tell you this, someone who's phil@phil.org and who assumes that everybody knows his opinion on RMS, "It's no big secret that I don't like Stallman", now that's a little irritating.
Stallman Email says :The Open Source Initiative has the right to
define a criterion for open source and note the fact that GNOME fits it, but GNOME has no connection with them.
To the best of my knowledge the G in GNOME stands for GNU???
And geez with so much good research out there, why did Icaza have to choose a Microsoft product for a base to Gnome. Just seems to be a way to attract attention, needlessly by the way, I just think that there are great virtual machine architectures out there that could be used to implement a common runtime base for most languages.
Lastly, Richard Stallman is not only a free software activist, he is also the president to a prestigious foundation, with too much accomplished to let this PR blunder damage his reputation, so he released a nice email publicly retreating from a personal confrontation from Icaza.
But lets face it, in private he`s cursing Icaza's guts right now...damn he chose Microsoft after all....all you MSFT lovers don't bother replying, I have an affair with open source UNIX....
Broken Hearts are for Assholes. - Frank Zappa
Heh. You have a point.
Go read what he as to say about the .NET Framework, Mono and GNOME.
He also replys directly to the RMS controversy.
Wax on, wax off baby!
...the guy's a neanderthal. He's the classic geek, lacking in maturity and social skills. These can be developed though, and along with his technical knowledge could help him rise to new heights. I suggest he read the book "Emotional Intelligence," for a start...
And lay off the hemp (it ain't just a plant, dammit).
Oh I'm logged in, baby.
[*] Post Anonymously
As a result, he's prone to miscommunication. He appears confrontational because he frequently speaks his mind in a way that's going to get misinterpreted by everyone else. So is it our fault for not understanding his 'great mind'?
Not being able to understand what RMS is saying demonstrates a serious lack of verbal comprehension skills. I can't think of any frequent writer/speaker who states things more plainly than RMS.
RMS is disliked because he stands on principle and won't budge. He's misunderstood because we are living in probably the least principled time in recorded human history.
Best,
-jimbo
XML Tools for Mac OS X
RMS is one of the clearest speakers I've seen - he always goes to great pains to explain exactly what is meant by what he says - far more so than most other people - and still people manage to make him one of the most mis-quoted people around. How is that? Has nobody realised that each time someone claims he's denounced this good thing or supported that evil thing or whatever, that he can almost without fail raise his hand, point to a transcription of exactly what he said and go "No I didn't - look!"?
"...A free replacement for Visual Basic which works with GNOME would be a major step forward; any capable team that wants to launch this project should please contact gnu@gnu.org." [RMS}
Ya. I was having my cup of coffee this morning and thinking, "Man, it's been a long time since I've been infected with a solid high quality virus. I should go install W2k."
I keep trying to pick fights, but I can't shake this Excellent karma.
Why do you keep
posting like this?
Are you trying
to write in verse?
Is your browser
all messed up?
Anyway, please
stop doing this.
It looks like ass.
I think that it is important that a variety of licensing schemes, and I think that developers' should be free to choose the licenses for their code so long as they are not taking code from other projects.
Freedom is freedom is diversity of opinion. I think that if the BSD or GPL licenses died out, I think that it would be a sad day.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Dixnux (having hint of southern rebelliousness, it is evocative of ballsy stands that are not welcomed outside their region),
Ricksnix, Ricksnux (dead serious yet embued with a knowing jocularity)
starickynix (evoking political/commerical conspiracy theories)
RXnix (the perscribed 'nix, the good doctor's orders)
'Chardnix (evoking 'vintage Stallman' and a hint of scorched earth, and liter-assay)
SGNOTnix (Stallman's Gnews it's NOT uNix unIX)
I could be proud to have my nose counted amongst those found running SGNOTnix...leaving people green with ... envy! But I think I prefer 'Chardnix best, since some agreement can be had to give liters a good assay most days, regardless of license taken.
It "isn't free" because it "cost him" something? Aha, OK, to you "free" means only "doesn't cost anything".
I wonder if you think you're a free man? Do you live in a free country?
Do you have ANY fucking clue?
Christian R. Conrad
mail me at iki.fi ; same user ID as here
Open source wouldn't so much be "breaking into" MS dominated areas, as *expanding* them, helping prop up the monopoly.
Don't do it.
Christian R. Conrad
mail me at iki.fi ; same user ID as here
In practice, this happens so often that when you encounter someone who feels *too* "pleasant", you can't help but wonder if -- heck, you petty much gotta assume that! -- he's compromised his principles, or sold out.
Christian R. Conrad
mail me at iki.fi ; same user ID as here