It would be very hard to put mirrors of slashdot because its contents are permanently changing. They would have to be updated every 10 minutes and the html forms would still have to be linked to the central server. Sounds like a headache.
That is one of the most stupid post I have read on Slashdot.
Are you trying to make a little confession?
AFC
RMS knows how to treat people.
on
Wired on RMS
·
· Score: 1
Well, I have never met RMS in real life, but we have exchanged a few emails. I am developing an application that *may* be released as part of the GNU project so most (if not all) are related with it. However, from the very beginning, the responses I have received from him have been very warm. I have received a wonderful treatment from him. There is nothing I could complain about.
The first email I sent him was a question, I asked him why did he want us to call it GNU/Linux and then critiziced what he called the "obnoxious BSD advertising clause". His response was very nice, he had no idea who I was yet he took the time to write me back and explain his reasons.
He has always been very respectful.
I can't believe someone calls the Open Source/GNU movement hypocritical (is that how you spell it?).
It is true, no one (umm, well... actually... umm) will give you support for free. If you expect developers not only to give you their applications for free (free as in $0) but also give you support, you are probably dog c^H^H^H^H^Humm rather silly.
There's no hypocresy (heh... again... how do you spell it?) in the GNU movement. Well, at least I can't see it.
Its sad to see so many persons personally attacking RMS. I have never felt the same curiosity and admiration for a hacker as I feel for him.
He wrote gcc, emacs and many stuff which we use everyday. Without it, Linux (the kernel) would probably not exist.
Take a look at the gcc code, take a look at emacs. You will recognize the mark of an *incredible* inteligence there.
Do you know he suffered physical problems at around 1990 that caused him great pain on his hand and couldn't code anymore? He hired students and tried to continue to code thru their hands but that didn't work. He had to stop. How did you want him to create a Kernel (or anything) without hands?
Some say he's forcing everyone to call it GNU Linux. He's not. He's just making a "a polite request" (he's fingers typed that). Have you seen the GPL clausule where it says you have to call it GNU/Something if you use his free software? He's just making a polite request.
Few programs are as Sublime (its a matter of Art) as the ones he wrote. However, that is not the reason why I think he deservers more credit than Linus and anyone else. More important than emacs, gcc and all the wonderful GNU software, he wrote the GPL and the GNU manifesto. He started the Free Software (now called Open Source by many) movement. GPL. How would our computing world be if GPL did not exist? Can't you see he started our movement?
Richard Stallman deserves more credit than any other hacker.
I can't see why this would affect Unix more than MacOS, WinNT, AmigaOS, BeOS, OS2 or any other operating system at all.
It affects any poorly implemented daemon. Imagine apache forked a new process for every HTTP request. Heh. Now that would suck. All daemons designed to be run by the inetd should check and see how many of the same are already running or, better, we could hack GNU's inetd to allow the user to set a maximum number of fork'ed processes per service.
I am rather tired of the UseLinuxBecauseItsLinux people.
I use Linux and love it. I hate MS shit. I am thinking about trying FreeBSD soon. Viva el Open Source.
But Im tired of them UseLinuxBecauseItsLinux. PromoteLinuxBecauseItsLinux.
Why should we LIE to companies and tell them to port to Linux software we know we are not going to buy?
Please, the Open Source movement does not need that. If we Open Source followers need a program, we will code it ourselves.
Only those who would actually buy their port should email them. And I am pretty sure many who wouldn't buy it will write.
I, for my self, would write: "I couldn't care less if you port your application to Linux or not. I will never buy it anyway. I would like you to port it just as it would promote my favorite OS, but don't expect me to actually buy it".
I did exactly what you did and it went exactly as you describe it. I followed the HOWTO and everything works perfectly, except the noise ldconfig now makes: ldconfig: warning:/usr/lib/libgmodule.so appears to be for multiple libc's People out there who complaint that Slackware should use glibc2 should simply install it.:o) AFC.
Yes, the one who writes the lyrics owns them. I agree with that.
> how big of a role do lyrics play in you liking a > song ?
You think getting the lyrics for an album will keep people from buying it? I don't know anyone who has bought an album merely for the lyrics.
You can't compare a song by Bowie or Hendrix with its lyrics. Its lyrics are nothing. You can't compare listening to a concert with having someone merely read you the lyrics, can you?
I don't think they play a big role.
> Would you still love 'Imagine', for example, as > much if the lyrics were not there ?
The lyrics are only worth because they are part of the song. How much would you pay to get the lyrics on a piece of paper? And how much would you pay to get the lyrics if you didn't know the song, if it didn't exist?
I don't agree a single bit with that. Without all the wonderful GNU utilities, my life would be really painful.
The -- for long options is a nice feature. Why do we need two options, you ask? Why not? What's wrong with it? I think its well worth it. They do all your normal non-GNU utilities do and more. I don't use long options that much, but I don't have a problem with 'em. I think the typical newbie you want to attract will find programs easier to use with long options.
Well, I wouldn't completely agree about the info stuff either. While its true that GNU should put more attentions on the manuals, documentation on an hypertext source is really better when you want to learn how to use *new* stuff. As I see it, both things, manual and info, are useful and have different objectives. May be info is not the format to use, but hypertext is the thing. And I have found info useful anyway.
So, you see *data* saying GNU behaves better than anything else and you say they're the worse set of utilities out there ? You think they cheated or do you simply care about "-- and -" and "manual pages missing" more than having a utility do what its meant to do?
Slashdot Mirror
It would be very hard to put mirrors of slashdot because its contents are permanently changing. They would have to be updated every 10 minutes and the html forms would still have to be linked to the central server. Sounds like a headache.
AFC.
Stupid people say stupid things.
That is one of the most stupid post I have read on Slashdot.
Are you trying to make a little confession?
AFC
Well, I have never met RMS in real life, but we have exchanged a few emails. I am developing an application that *may* be released as part of the GNU project so most (if not all) are related with it. However, from the very beginning, the responses I have received from him have been very warm. I have received a wonderful treatment from him. There is nothing I could complain about.
The first email I sent him was a question, I asked him why did he want us to call it GNU/Linux and then critiziced what he called the "obnoxious BSD advertising clause". His response was very nice, he had no idea who I was yet he took the time to write me back and explain his reasons.
He has always been very respectful.
I can't believe someone calls the Open Source/GNU movement hypocritical (is that how you spell it?).
It is true, no one (umm, well... actually... umm) will give you support for free. If you expect developers not only to give you their applications for free (free as in $0) but also give you support, you are probably dog c^H^H^H^H^Humm rather silly.
There's no hypocresy (heh... again... how do you spell it?) in the GNU movement. Well, at least I can't see it.
AFC.
Do you really think having a GUI is more important than being able to compile programs?
Umm.
What non-gcc-based, open-source compilers are there?
AFC.
Its sad to see so many persons personally attacking RMS. I have never felt the same curiosity and admiration for a hacker as I feel for him.
He wrote gcc, emacs and many stuff which we use everyday. Without it, Linux (the kernel) would probably not exist.
Take a look at the gcc code, take a look at emacs. You will recognize the mark of an *incredible* inteligence there.
Do you know he suffered physical problems at around 1990 that caused him great pain on his hand and couldn't code anymore? He hired students and tried to continue to code thru their hands but that didn't work. He had to stop. How did you want him to create a Kernel (or anything) without hands?
Some say he's forcing everyone to call it GNU Linux. He's not. He's just making a "a polite request" (he's fingers typed that). Have you seen the GPL clausule where it says you have to call it GNU/Something if you use his free software? He's just making a polite request.
Few programs are as Sublime (its a matter of Art) as the ones he wrote. However, that is not the reason why I think he deservers more credit than Linus and anyone else. More important than emacs, gcc and all the wonderful GNU software, he wrote the GPL and the GNU manifesto. He started the Free Software (now called Open Source by many) movement. GPL. How would our computing world be if GPL did not exist? Can't you see he started our movement?
Richard Stallman deserves more credit than any other hacker.
AFC.
I have used X for years and it has NEVER crashed on me.
I can't see why this would affect Unix more than MacOS, WinNT, AmigaOS, BeOS, OS2 or any other operating system at all.
It affects any poorly implemented daemon. Imagine apache forked a new process for every HTTP request. Heh. Now that would suck. All daemons designed to be run by the inetd should check and see how many of the same are already running or, better, we could hack GNU's inetd to allow the user to set a maximum number of fork'ed processes per service.
AFC.
I am rather tired of the UseLinuxBecauseItsLinux people.
I use Linux and love it. I hate MS shit. I am thinking about trying FreeBSD soon. Viva el Open Source.
But Im tired of them UseLinuxBecauseItsLinux. PromoteLinuxBecauseItsLinux.
Why should we LIE to companies and tell them to port to Linux software we know we are not going to buy?
Please, the Open Source movement does not need that. If we Open Source followers need a program, we will code it ourselves.
Only those who would actually buy their port should email them. And I am pretty sure many who wouldn't buy it will write.
I, for my self, would write: "I couldn't care less if you port your application to Linux or not. I will never buy it anyway. I would like you to port it just as it would promote my favorite OS, but don't expect me to actually buy it".
AFC.
I did exactly what you did and it went exactly as you describe it. I followed the HOWTO and everything works perfectly, except the noise ldconfig now makes: /usr/lib/libgmodule.so appears to be for multiple libc's :o)
ldconfig: warning:
People out there who complaint that Slackware should use glibc2 should simply install it.
AFC.
Yes, the one who writes the lyrics owns them. I agree with that.
> how big of a role do lyrics play in you liking a
> song ?
You think getting the lyrics for an album will keep people from buying it? I don't know anyone who has bought an album merely for the lyrics.
You can't compare a song by Bowie or Hendrix with its lyrics. Its lyrics are nothing. You can't compare listening to a concert with having someone merely read you the lyrics, can you?
I don't think they play a big role.
> Would you still love 'Imagine', for example, as
> much if the lyrics were not there ?
The lyrics are only worth because they are part of the song. How much would you pay to get the lyrics on a piece of paper? And how much would you pay to get the lyrics if you didn't know the song, if it didn't exist?
Azul.
What ? GNU the worst set of utilities ?
I don't agree a single bit with that. Without all the wonderful GNU utilities, my life would be really painful.
The -- for long options is a nice feature. Why do we need two options, you ask? Why not? What's wrong with it? I think its well worth it. They do all your normal non-GNU utilities do and more. I don't use long options that much, but I don't have a problem with 'em. I think the typical newbie you want to attract will find programs easier to use with long options.
Well, I wouldn't completely agree about the info stuff either. While its true that GNU should put more attentions on the manuals, documentation on an hypertext source is really better when you want to learn how to use *new* stuff. As I see it, both things, manual and info, are useful and have different objectives. May be info is not the format to use, but hypertext is the thing. And I have found info useful anyway.
So, you see *data* saying GNU behaves better than anything else and you say they're the worse set of utilities out there ? You think they cheated or do you simply care about "-- and -" and "manual pages missing" more than having a utility do what its meant to do?
Azulejo.