The Intel compiler is not new. They used to be the industry standard. Yes, that is what I was referring to. Take your meds, gramps.
It might have been worth it... in the 90s. "Highly tuned for Intel chips" isn't exactly a feature for a C compiler. For an assembler, sure. Modern platforms aren't CPU-dependent for any use case that is even close to mainstream, outside of embedded where Intel chips are not popular.
Lots of people, myself included, do not use Visual Whatever. Just for the record, we have no trouble compiling for windows.
When you're confusing a technical discussion with name-calling and HS clique behavior, it might seem to make sense to shout, "but he's a bleepity-bleep!"
The thing to understand is that most adults do not even listen to or measure the substance of your name-calling. He's a famous, successful programmer. People who believe he is some sort of pariah are just idiots, none of whom are qualified for his job, which is a high profile job that he has been very, very successful in. The fact is that is his peers, others with similar qualifications, who work for other distros respect his work deeply and indeed, adopt the very software that armchair morons would somehow "call him out" over.
All your hate just proves you don't even know what he does, much less if he is any good at it or not. You just wave your hands and shout, "but... pejorative! Pejorative!" It tells us something about you, but nothing about why we're ignoring you and choosing systemd.
It is always a weird progression when an OS-X drone asks me for help with their computer. First they get worried, because I'm mousing over things and not finding anything useful, and swearing, and generally making it obvious I have no clue how to use their type of computer. Then I give up on the solution being easily discoverable, open a terminal, and resort to *nix trouble-shooting. At that point it is smooth sailing, and before long the proper configs had been edited and everything is happy again. And at the end they can't understand how such an idiot can also be a magician.
"Luckily they included a UNIX interface, it's a lot more expert-friendly."
If I may delve into the past, this comes close to the GUI-Command line wars in that the command liners knew they hated a Desktop display and mouse, but couldn't quite articulate why.
Usually it was because they couldn't understand how to calculate modelines. And they weren't smart enough to realize that having the X Window System means having multiple CLIs on the screen at the same time.
I was a late adopter of GUIs because I had wimpy computers and "didn't need it," but I never thought that switching between virtual terminals was going to be as efficient for the human as switching between xterms.
I don't know what makes these people think that SysV Init is something to worship. It was always something gross and non-optimal, but that allowed flexibility. All the things about SysV init that made it "popular" originally are even better in systemd. Somebody told them to hate systemd, but they're too young to understand that they were already supposed to be hating SysV, and for technical reasons not just because "I don't like the name of one of the developers."
What bothers/worries me about it are the devs behind it. Poettering
Hateful logical fallacies are your own fault, you can't blame them on others. And no, they don't have technical causes.
It is strange that a SysV (the greatest evil ever known to UNIX, as everybody has known for over 30 years) init replacement would spawn it, but it is somewhat of a Litmus test for separating technical people from raging anti-technical aholes.
If the people involved becomes important to you, rather than the technical concerns, you're a complete failure both as a nerd, and as a human being.
Reminds me of the 2001 interview where they asked Linus where he saw linux in 10 years, and he said hopefully people will have moved on to something better, because Linux was just something useful now, it wasn't the best thing imaginable, and something else should come along and be better.
Fun fact: Utah is not a religious nation, but a secular US State. Fun fact: Only 41% of people in Utah are active Mormons.
Another Fun Fact: Utah is one of 18 "control states" where the State acts as the distributor and sells all the alcohol to the stores. So far from being a place without alcohol, it is actually a State where the government is directly involved in promoting and enabling alcohol consumption.
I've heard a lot of funny myths about Mormons, but being against sex isn't usually one. I wonder how that "multiple wives" stuff they used to (*) do ever got started if they're against sex?
Alcohol may or may not have brought more problems into society than it solved, but if you're looking for harms, I'd put Prohibition right at the top. You can't have the deaths and other evils of Prohibition without whatever you're prohibiting.
Beware of alcohol, it increases the rate of harmful Prohibition!
In Buddhism they teach moderation. Instead of starving yourself all day, or performing rituals all day, monks starve themselves half the day, eat lightly the other half, and mix in rituals all day. (they only eat from sunrise until noon)
They do moderate their moderation, they have annual 10 day festivals where they don't moderate, they just starve themselves the whole 10 days.
Antioxidants aren't to "blame" because the best study showing a reduced death rate at 4 drinks/wk showed the same rate regardless of type of alcohol used, and most don't have high antioxidant levels. Even most wines don't. Also, increased antioxidants are only proven to have a health benefit in people with unnaturally low levels; people who eat processed food and few fresh, unpeeled fruits and vegetables will have increased health from eating antioxidants. Absolutely. People who eat fresh fruit and vegetables, with skins, on a daily basis and in variety are not show to benefit from increased antioxidants, and in this group almost all nutrient supplementation appears to actually be harmful.
I'm surprised you jump to the conclusion that there is no theory of benefit. The studies that show reduced death from specific causes are very, very strong studied; there are absolutely people with an increased risk of heart attack who will benefit from light drinking. The catch, of course, is that stroke risk goes up, along with other risks. The problem is that in a healthy person with normal risk of heart attack and stroke, the studies conflict on if the effect balances out, or one is stronger. So the "no theory to why" concept is a real dud, because the studies are already knee deep in conflicting known whys.
And the flip side, a person with increased stroke risk should probably not touch any alcohol at all, even in moderation. And of course heavy drinking increases heart disease, so unless a person has well-proven self control there is a major question of if self-dosing is effective enough to recommend even the useful level to somebody with heart risk, since over-indulging will actually make it worse. And, socially the concept of "over-indulging" is probably 10x the amount where it stopped being beneficial, so you can't rely on friends and family members to be much help. Even if you gave them the studies, they still keep recommending either "none" or "way more than is beneficial," for example the common recommendation even on slashdot from people who claim to have read up on the subject is "1-2/day," clearly a high level of consumption based on the actual levels that showed benefits. It is undoubted that at 2/day you've increased your stroke risk more than any possible reduction in heart attack rate.
The big 30-year study on medical doctors that showed the reduced rate of death for some levels of alcohol consumption didn't show an improvement at "1-2/day" which is actually a substantial quantity. What it showed was a reduced death rate at 4/week, compared to 0. And at 7/week the death rate was equal to 0. And at 14/week (2/day!) the death rate had already gone up substantially.
One thing I've noticed is that people who want to believe the early study often also want the results to be different than they are; they want to remember that "moderate drinking" is good, and then use the most permissive definition of "moderate" that they can, and then their brain will forget that the study basically said daily drinking is unhealthy.
The fact is the level of drinking that was shown to be healthy is not enough to be socially or recreationally useful. And it doesn't support the "daily large beer that is actually 2 `servings'" either, or even the "glass (or two) of wine with dinner" model.
As to this study, I'll have to wait to find out if it is even worth reading. The linked article gave no facts at all that are useful, and gives the strong impression that the study is designed to refute the media-presented "moderate is good, daily use is moderation" myth. But they don't do any better, and define "moderate" for the reader.
There was a time when it was common for software to require the Intel compiler. But that ended by the mid 90s, because most people didn't care what compiler they used, and gcc was better at almost everything by then.
But, gcc compatibility is so good, by ~ 2000 it could handle most of that older stuff with just a few Makefile tweaks.
I remember Slashdot Radio and email bombing Kurt the Pope, Blockstackers Intergalactic, OSDN buyout, that wookie costume woven entirely from neckbeards, but I don't remember a time when slashdot wasn't 31337.
Nonsense, proprietary software based on OSS has become the norm. Look inside almost any consumer device and you'll find it.
Even Android, perhaps the leading OS, uses that model; there are vastly fewer users on the OSS version than on any of the various proprietary forks.
Also, as BSD style licenses have become more popular than the GPL, nobody has to disclose their proprietary use of OSS, except to employees who can read the files.
Great question. That is exactly the point: "what, exactly?"
There were always people that argued "embrace, extend, extinguish" was fair play and perfectly okay. But it was also a motivator for open source. My question is, now that open source has flourished in numerous forms, are open source projects vulnerable to the same sort of attack?
What if control over any software allowed the attack on freedom, and it had nothing to do with license?
I propose that "embrace, extend, extinguish" is really an attack on the name of the thing, not the thing itself. So Gtk3 is an attack on "the thing named that was named Gtk as of version 2." The code itself is free, it can be forked. But with a proprietary program, you can't fork the code but you can just re-implement it, or implement something similar. Gimp, as the Gtk-related example, started as a work-alike to Photoshop 4. But it was no attack because it was named something different. People who had already chosen "Photoshop" wouldn't get a new version and find out it was really Gimp. But a "Gtk user" in many ways had their choice stripped from them. Do names have meaning? I say they have real physical meaning in the brain, and stealing the names of things by becoming the maintainer and throwing them out, that is theft of the connections people have already formed in their brains. I say Free Software was a great start, and Open Source is a great continuation, but actual Software Freedom has yet to arrive.
It is actually up to Life for the drug charge, and the gun is an enhancement that doubles the original, so it is 2 Life charges, not 20 Years for one.
And since nobody was injured during the crime, the drug charge is 10 years to Life. It would be 20-Life if somebody got hurt. So there is a number 20 in the law, but not in the part cited in this case.
None of that matters, of course, since he made a deal.
Since you took the time to call out slashdot and ars and even Tiffany Kelly, I thought I'd double-check your work. Thanks for providing the link.
Like you say, the firearm count is a double-your-penalty enhancement.
So I looked up the first count, under 21 USC 841 and it says: "a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 10 years or more than life" http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...
Therefore, it is true that the firearm charge could give him an additional life penalty. Your complaint was a misrepresentation to spread more hate.
Also amusing is the list of items he will forfeit: The Glock 26, a Glock 17, a Mossberg.22, Smith & Wesson M&P 15 ( http://www.smith-wesson.com/we... ) and a Keltec PF-9.
I'm honestly surprised that he would carry one the Glocks to the post office, instead of the PF-9 which is more appropriate for casual protection.
I thought egcs was one example of a non-GNU fork becoming so much better that the official gcc was abandoned and the egcs version adopted as the official gcc.
Even when the rebels had a winner, they came crawling back home through the side door so that their code would get used. That is a weakness of the pragmatists. They're not principled enough to stay away, and they're not principled enough to spend the time over decades building a software movement and associated organization that is well-known enough to become a popular choice.
XEmacs was better, too. I used it for probably 3-4 years. But by then, Emacs had implemented the good features, and XEmacs was stagnating.
When the rebels have good ideas, the FSF version is still the smart money if you worry about long-term support and viability. EGCS is a great example. The GNU Project doesn't care who wrote the software. It isn't an issue of code territoriality. It is just like it says on the box; the GNU Project acts to support its principles.
Wet weather with wind from the south generally starts from the South China Sea, in the Bay of Thailand area, comes past Hawaii, and makes a break north off the coast of California.
Most of our wet weather is colder, and comes via the Bering Sea or the Gulf of Alaska.
When we get weather that is significantly from the South of us it is when the Great Basin spills a dry high pressure zone over onto us. Then it can be from Mexico or further, via Arizona.
Anything coming in off the ocean will have come mostly from the West, regardless of the local wind direction after it makes landfall. Because, the Earth spins.
You didn't even address anything I said, much less contradict it. Try harder next time. I recommend that you may want to investigate the possibility of a parser bug.
I never claimed that BSD licenses are a danger. In fact, I use Apache 2 license because I want both GPL and BSD software to make use of what I write. So that claim is shit.
I simply am aware of the FSF view, and respect them enough to assume they have the best view for them. That is why I said, "Not everybody agrees with this position, but it is a well known and easy to understand position." I don't agree with it, but why would that matter?
You're waving your hands and calling names, but you aren't even able to follow the points being made. Is it really such an impossibility that I might point out that the FSF has values, even if I disagree with them? Is biased hyperbole really the only way to understand software licenses? What if the other side simply have different values, what if they don't actually eat babies or worship the [Wrong Deity]?
You clearly didn't read his comments, because you put words in his mouth.
What he actually said:
I don't know what I will find about LLDB. I don't know what conclusions I will reach about it. So I can't say anything concrete about it now.
Installing that change would be favorable for Emacs, probably just a little. It would probably be bad for GDB, but I have no idea how much. Refusing to installing it would be a statement with some significance, but I don't know how much. I can't tell whether it is good or bad to install that change.
Despite this uncertainty, I can say something general about what we should do. We should do what is best for the GNU system's goal of giving the users freedom. This means considering what is good for Emacs and what is good for GDB, to make a decision. Then the whole GNU Project should do what is best. That is the responsibility of each GNU package maintainer.
If GNU packages do not support each other, it will be easier for many of them to fail.
So no, he doesn't say that free software should be less functional. What he says is that there are different harms and benefits for different packages, and the GNU Project should make the decisions in a way that is best for the GNU Project overall, not just each package doing what is best for that package. Not "just because" they're from the same "stable." It isn't a "stable," where different things just happen to be under the same roof for historical reasons, it is a complete project, where the big picture of providing a toolchain that supports the principles of the Free Software Foundation is the over-arching purpose of the whole thing.
To me it seems obvious that gcc is losing market share and the damage to gdb will be done either way. Luckily, gdb is well established and stable and doesn't need a bunch of new features, so there is perhaps little harm to be done by having less contributions. Whereas the danger to Emacs from not supporting newer compilers is more obvious.
If by "similar to... Microsoft" you mean that both organizations want to do what will benefit the goals of the organization, then I'd have say, "well duh." There are strong arguments to be made against that sort of Cathedral approach, and I'm sure there is even extensive published analysis on the differences. None of the critiques would offer to build a better Cathedral, though, so they might just be irrelevant to the decisions that the GNU Project has to make.
The really key thing here to understand though, is that he says: " I can't tell whether it is good or bad to install that change." From that, you took away that he has "in his mind" a conclusion that clearly contradicts what he said is... in his mind. That reminds me a lot of a tactic that Microsoft is famous for: FUD!
Actually it is inverted FUD, because you took an uncertainty that is full of doubt, and tried to make it certain in order to spread fear.
Slashdot Mirror
The Intel compiler is not new. They used to be the industry standard. Yes, that is what I was referring to. Take your meds, gramps.
It might have been worth it... in the 90s. "Highly tuned for Intel chips" isn't exactly a feature for a C compiler. For an assembler, sure. Modern platforms aren't CPU-dependent for any use case that is even close to mainstream, outside of embedded where Intel chips are not popular.
Lots of people, myself included, do not use Visual Whatever. Just for the record, we have no trouble compiling for windows.
When you're confusing a technical discussion with name-calling and HS clique behavior, it might seem to make sense to shout, "but he's a bleepity-bleep!"
The thing to understand is that most adults do not even listen to or measure the substance of your name-calling. He's a famous, successful programmer. People who believe he is some sort of pariah are just idiots, none of whom are qualified for his job, which is a high profile job that he has been very, very successful in. The fact is that is his peers, others with similar qualifications, who work for other distros respect his work deeply and indeed, adopt the very software that armchair morons would somehow "call him out" over.
All your hate just proves you don't even know what he does, much less if he is any good at it or not. You just wave your hands and shout, "but... pejorative! Pejorative!" It tells us something about you, but nothing about why we're ignoring you and choosing systemd.
It is always a weird progression when an OS-X drone asks me for help with their computer. First they get worried, because I'm mousing over things and not finding anything useful, and swearing, and generally making it obvious I have no clue how to use their type of computer. Then I give up on the solution being easily discoverable, open a terminal, and resort to *nix trouble-shooting. At that point it is smooth sailing, and before long the proper configs had been edited and everything is happy again. And at the end they can't understand how such an idiot can also be a magician.
"Luckily they included a UNIX interface, it's a lot more expert-friendly."
If I may delve into the past, this comes close to the GUI-Command line wars in that the command liners knew they hated a Desktop display and mouse, but couldn't quite articulate why.
Usually it was because they couldn't understand how to calculate modelines. And they weren't smart enough to realize that having the X Window System means having multiple CLIs on the screen at the same time.
I was a late adopter of GUIs because I had wimpy computers and "didn't need it," but I never thought that switching between virtual terminals was going to be as efficient for the human as switching between xterms.
I don't know what makes these people think that SysV Init is something to worship. It was always something gross and non-optimal, but that allowed flexibility. All the things about SysV init that made it "popular" originally are even better in systemd. Somebody told them to hate systemd, but they're too young to understand that they were already supposed to be hating SysV, and for technical reasons not just because "I don't like the name of one of the developers."
What bothers/worries me about it are the devs behind it. Poettering
Hateful logical fallacies are your own fault, you can't blame them on others. And no, they don't have technical causes.
It is strange that a SysV (the greatest evil ever known to UNIX, as everybody has known for over 30 years) init replacement would spawn it, but it is somewhat of a Litmus test for separating technical people from raging anti-technical aholes.
If the people involved becomes important to you, rather than the technical concerns, you're a complete failure both as a nerd, and as a human being.
Reminds me of the 2001 interview where they asked Linus where he saw linux in 10 years, and he said hopefully people will have moved on to something better, because Linux was just something useful now, it wasn't the best thing imaginable, and something else should come along and be better.
Fun fact: Utah is not a religious nation, but a secular US State.
Fun fact: Only 41% of people in Utah are active Mormons.
Another Fun Fact: Utah is one of 18 "control states" where the State acts as the distributor and sells all the alcohol to the stores. So far from being a place without alcohol, it is actually a State where the government is directly involved in promoting and enabling alcohol consumption.
I've heard a lot of funny myths about Mormons, but being against sex isn't usually one. I wonder how that "multiple wives" stuff they used to (*) do ever got started if they're against sex?
Alcohol may or may not have brought more problems into society than it solved, but if you're looking for harms, I'd put Prohibition right at the top. You can't have the deaths and other evils of Prohibition without whatever you're prohibiting.
Beware of alcohol, it increases the rate of harmful Prohibition!
In Buddhism they teach moderation. Instead of starving yourself all day, or performing rituals all day, monks starve themselves half the day, eat lightly the other half, and mix in rituals all day. (they only eat from sunrise until noon)
They do moderate their moderation, they have annual 10 day festivals where they don't moderate, they just starve themselves the whole 10 days.
Antioxidants aren't to "blame" because the best study showing a reduced death rate at 4 drinks/wk showed the same rate regardless of type of alcohol used, and most don't have high antioxidant levels. Even most wines don't. Also, increased antioxidants are only proven to have a health benefit in people with unnaturally low levels; people who eat processed food and few fresh, unpeeled fruits and vegetables will have increased health from eating antioxidants. Absolutely. People who eat fresh fruit and vegetables, with skins, on a daily basis and in variety are not show to benefit from increased antioxidants, and in this group almost all nutrient supplementation appears to actually be harmful.
I'm surprised you jump to the conclusion that there is no theory of benefit. The studies that show reduced death from specific causes are very, very strong studied; there are absolutely people with an increased risk of heart attack who will benefit from light drinking. The catch, of course, is that stroke risk goes up, along with other risks. The problem is that in a healthy person with normal risk of heart attack and stroke, the studies conflict on if the effect balances out, or one is stronger. So the "no theory to why" concept is a real dud, because the studies are already knee deep in conflicting known whys.
And the flip side, a person with increased stroke risk should probably not touch any alcohol at all, even in moderation. And of course heavy drinking increases heart disease, so unless a person has well-proven self control there is a major question of if self-dosing is effective enough to recommend even the useful level to somebody with heart risk, since over-indulging will actually make it worse. And, socially the concept of "over-indulging" is probably 10x the amount where it stopped being beneficial, so you can't rely on friends and family members to be much help. Even if you gave them the studies, they still keep recommending either "none" or "way more than is beneficial," for example the common recommendation even on slashdot from people who claim to have read up on the subject is "1-2/day," clearly a high level of consumption based on the actual levels that showed benefits. It is undoubted that at 2/day you've increased your stroke risk more than any possible reduction in heart attack rate.
The big 30-year study on medical doctors that showed the reduced rate of death for some levels of alcohol consumption didn't show an improvement at "1-2/day" which is actually a substantial quantity. What it showed was a reduced death rate at 4/week, compared to 0. And at 7/week the death rate was equal to 0. And at 14/week (2/day!) the death rate had already gone up substantially.
One thing I've noticed is that people who want to believe the early study often also want the results to be different than they are; they want to remember that "moderate drinking" is good, and then use the most permissive definition of "moderate" that they can, and then their brain will forget that the study basically said daily drinking is unhealthy.
The fact is the level of drinking that was shown to be healthy is not enough to be socially or recreationally useful. And it doesn't support the "daily large beer that is actually 2 `servings'" either, or even the "glass (or two) of wine with dinner" model.
As to this study, I'll have to wait to find out if it is even worth reading. The linked article gave no facts at all that are useful, and gives the strong impression that the study is designed to refute the media-presented "moderate is good, daily use is moderation" myth. But they don't do any better, and define "moderate" for the reader.
Why is slashdot talking about celebrities who have nothing to do with tech?
Ethics in journalism
There was a time when it was common for software to require the Intel compiler. But that ended by the mid 90s, because most people didn't care what compiler they used, and gcc was better at almost everything by then.
But, gcc compatibility is so good, by ~ 2000 it could handle most of that older stuff with just a few Makefile tweaks.
I remember Slashdot Radio and email bombing Kurt the Pope, Blockstackers Intergalactic, OSDN buyout, that wookie costume woven entirely from neckbeards, but I don't remember a time when slashdot wasn't 31337.
Slashdot moderators don't moderate, they just rate.
Having a low score does not censor a comment, it just changes how it gets sorted.
No, they can't moderate and also reply.
Any other FAQs I can help you with today, Mr. Coward?
Oh yeah, and get the [bleep] off my lawn.
Nonsense, proprietary software based on OSS has become the norm. Look inside almost any consumer device and you'll find it.
Even Android, perhaps the leading OS, uses that model; there are vastly fewer users on the OSS version than on any of the various proprietary forks.
Also, as BSD style licenses have become more popular than the GPL, nobody has to disclose their proprietary use of OSS, except to employees who can read the files.
Great question. That is exactly the point: "what, exactly?"
There were always people that argued "embrace, extend, extinguish" was fair play and perfectly okay. But it was also a motivator for open source. My question is, now that open source has flourished in numerous forms, are open source projects vulnerable to the same sort of attack?
What if control over any software allowed the attack on freedom, and it had nothing to do with license?
I propose that "embrace, extend, extinguish" is really an attack on the name of the thing, not the thing itself. So Gtk3 is an attack on "the thing named that was named Gtk as of version 2." The code itself is free, it can be forked. But with a proprietary program, you can't fork the code but you can just re-implement it, or implement something similar. Gimp, as the Gtk-related example, started as a work-alike to Photoshop 4. But it was no attack because it was named something different. People who had already chosen "Photoshop" wouldn't get a new version and find out it was really Gimp. But a "Gtk user" in many ways had their choice stripped from them. Do names have meaning? I say they have real physical meaning in the brain, and stealing the names of things by becoming the maintainer and throwing them out, that is theft of the connections people have already formed in their brains. I say Free Software was a great start, and Open Source is a great continuation, but actual Software Freedom has yet to arrive.
It is actually up to Life for the drug charge, and the gun is an enhancement that doubles the original, so it is 2 Life charges, not 20 Years for one.
And since nobody was injured during the crime, the drug charge is 10 years to Life. It would be 20-Life if somebody got hurt. So there is a number 20 in the law, but not in the part cited in this case.
None of that matters, of course, since he made a deal.
Since you took the time to call out slashdot and ars and even Tiffany Kelly, I thought I'd double-check your work. Thanks for providing the link.
Like you say, the firearm count is a double-your-penalty enhancement.
So I looked up the first count, under 21 USC 841 and it says: "a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 10 years or more than life"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...
Therefore, it is true that the firearm charge could give him an additional life penalty. Your complaint was a misrepresentation to spread more hate.
Also amusing is the list of items he will forfeit: The Glock 26, a Glock 17, a Mossberg .22, Smith & Wesson M&P 15 ( http://www.smith-wesson.com/we... ) and a Keltec PF-9.
I'm honestly surprised that he would carry one the Glocks to the post office, instead of the PF-9 which is more appropriate for casual protection.
So, your assertion about the future is based on what, exactly? Crystal Ball? Oracle of Delphi? Genuine tin-foil time machine?
I thought egcs was one example of a non-GNU fork becoming so much better that the official gcc was abandoned and the egcs version adopted as the official gcc.
Even when the rebels had a winner, they came crawling back home through the side door so that their code would get used. That is a weakness of the pragmatists. They're not principled enough to stay away, and they're not principled enough to spend the time over decades building a software movement and associated organization that is well-known enough to become a popular choice.
XEmacs was better, too. I used it for probably 3-4 years. But by then, Emacs had implemented the good features, and XEmacs was stagnating.
When the rebels have good ideas, the FSF version is still the smart money if you worry about long-term support and viability. EGCS is a great example. The GNU Project doesn't care who wrote the software. It isn't an issue of code territoriality. It is just like it says on the box; the GNU Project acts to support its principles.
Wet weather with wind from the south generally starts from the South China Sea, in the Bay of Thailand area, comes past Hawaii, and makes a break north off the coast of California.
Most of our wet weather is colder, and comes via the Bering Sea or the Gulf of Alaska.
When we get weather that is significantly from the South of us it is when the Great Basin spills a dry high pressure zone over onto us. Then it can be from Mexico or further, via Arizona.
Anything coming in off the ocean will have come mostly from the West, regardless of the local wind direction after it makes landfall. Because, the Earth spins.
You didn't even address anything I said, much less contradict it. Try harder next time. I recommend that you may want to investigate the possibility of a parser bug.
I never claimed that BSD licenses are a danger. In fact, I use Apache 2 license because I want both GPL and BSD software to make use of what I write. So that claim is shit.
I simply am aware of the FSF view, and respect them enough to assume they have the best view for them. That is why I said, "Not everybody agrees with this position, but it is a well known and easy to understand position." I don't agree with it, but why would that matter?
You're waving your hands and calling names, but you aren't even able to follow the points being made. Is it really such an impossibility that I might point out that the FSF has values, even if I disagree with them? Is biased hyperbole really the only way to understand software licenses? What if the other side simply have different values, what if they don't actually eat babies or worship the [Wrong Deity]?
You clearly didn't read his comments, because you put words in his mouth.
What he actually said:
So no, he doesn't say that free software should be less functional. What he says is that there are different harms and benefits for different packages, and the GNU Project should make the decisions in a way that is best for the GNU Project overall, not just each package doing what is best for that package. Not "just because" they're from the same "stable." It isn't a "stable," where different things just happen to be under the same roof for historical reasons, it is a complete project, where the big picture of providing a toolchain that supports the principles of the Free Software Foundation is the over-arching purpose of the whole thing.
To me it seems obvious that gcc is losing market share and the damage to gdb will be done either way. Luckily, gdb is well established and stable and doesn't need a bunch of new features, so there is perhaps little harm to be done by having less contributions. Whereas the danger to Emacs from not supporting newer compilers is more obvious.
If by "similar to... Microsoft" you mean that both organizations want to do what will benefit the goals of the organization, then I'd have say, "well duh." There are strong arguments to be made against that sort of Cathedral approach, and I'm sure there is even extensive published analysis on the differences. None of the critiques would offer to build a better Cathedral, though, so they might just be irrelevant to the decisions that the GNU Project has to make.
The really key thing here to understand though, is that he says: " I can't tell whether it is good or bad to install that change." From that, you took away that he has "in his mind" a conclusion that clearly contradicts what he said is... in his mind. That reminds me a lot of a tactic that Microsoft is famous for: FUD!
Actually it is inverted FUD, because you took an uncertainty that is full of doubt, and tried to make it certain in order to spread fear.