Am Mittwoch, 3. September 2003 20:35 schrieb Matt Sealey: > -- > Matt Sealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dieter Nützel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 03 September 2003 18:45 > > To: Matt Sealey; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [Dri-devel] Re: [OT] Sourceforge CVS > > > > Am Mittwoch, 3. September 2003 18:00 schrieb Matt Sealey: > > > > > Nothing whatsoever. But IMHO there's something wrong with people > > > > > who keep trying to shove non-free tools down everyone else's > > > > > throats. > > > > > > > > The problem with that statement is that it implies that you speak for > > > > everyone, in particular the people who have commit rights in the CVS > > > > tree. > > > > > > > > If you do, it would be nice if those 31 would step foward and say so. > > > > > > I heartily agree. > > > > > > Whether it's free or non-free, if it gets the damned job done, then > > > you should use it. > > > > > > The time spent whining that you don't have the source, or refusing > > > to cooperate because of some moral/ethical issue could be spent coding. > > > > Nobody is whining. > > Quoting Michel Danzer: > > # Nothing whatsoever. But IMHO there's something wrong with people who > # keep trying to shove non-free tools down everyone else's throats. > > # Contrary to earlier statements, you don't seem to have had enough of > # this on lkml yet... > > Now, this guy is whining, because he can't accept that someone actually > makes some money out of helping Linux progress faster and more efficiently.
This is your impression. > I wonder what he thinks of XFree86 considering it is MIT-licensed and > therefore commercially exploitable? Does he frown on it? I doubt it. Don't know ask him. > I could download the source and make a commercial system TOMORROW, > and people would whine about it. It might be faster, better, more > productive and more flexible, but people would whine about it, even > though it's specifically stated that it's possible in the license. We all know. > I personally get paid to code, not to sit on my ass refusing to > work because someone bought some software they could have gotten > "for free" or an "open alternative". OK, I got your point. > > > (hey.. it's software, not famine or nuclear war..) > > > > Are you kidding? > > > > http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2003/03-108.html > > Okay, and what has this got to do with revision control? Nothing, as like as your "joke". > Right, so some dick contractor logged into the plant network with > his nasty virus-infected machine. How is that the problem of > closed-source software? "Fall save systems"? > I don't care if I have the source or not. That _is_ the point! Some people _here_ DO. Now I stop here and move on. -- Dieter Nützel Leiter F&E, WEAR-A-BRAIN GmbH, Wiener Str. 5, 28359 Bremen, Germany Mobil: 0162 673 09 09 ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
