Strange, but true - I never got the message that John is responding to 
here, and which is a response to something I wrote.

I am going to have to sort this out.  I am fairly certain that this 
might have been happening for a while, but now it's becoming annoying.

David Jackson


John Hebert wrote:

>--- "Baudouin, Andrew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>  
>
>>I think mindsets like RMS's and yours are terribly
>>wrong.  It's nice to have
>>a free software ideal, and believe that software
>>should be free, but until
>>the cost of living for programmers becomes $0 it
>>just isn't realistic.
>>    
>>
>
>That's why it's called an ideal. Personally, I don't
>know any GPL programmers that carry signs that say:
>"WILL CODE FOR FOOD". Most get along just fine, and
>aren't wacknut crazy anarchists.
>
>Hmm. I thought you understood how free and open-source
>software gets developed and shared, but now I realize
>I was mistaken.
>
>Read Matthew 14:20 again, but now imagine that the
>loaves and fishes aren't appearing by magic.
>
>  
>
>>You
>>guys are simply blind to the fact that most
>>meaningful contributions to
>>Linux are made on the paid dollar and if it were for
>>hobbyists we'd still be
>>at exactly where the GNU Mach/Hurd kernels are right
>>now, 0% market share.
>>    
>>
>
>Proof goes much farther than assumptions. Please
>_think_ about and then explain why IBM, et.al., are
>contributing to the Linux kernel. BTW, this means they
>are "giving away" programming, hence labor and $,
>since the kernel is GPL. Why? Is it some plot to
>undermine Microsoft? Are they simply goofy in the
>head?
>
>Last I checked, IBM was still driven by capitalist
>principles, and quite profitable, yet they have no
>problem with the free software "ideal".
>
>Maybe they know something you don't?
>
>  
>
>>(Put that in your pipe and smoke it).
>>    
>>
>
>My, my. Are we forgetting our manners?
>
>  
>
>>I would go
>>further and say that until
>>there are standards, 1 standard distribution of
>>GNU/Linux (free or not free,
>>    
>>
>
>It is interesting that you call for a single
>distribution and then use the word "free" in the same
>sentence. Think about that. Hint: "free" means
>freedom, not "free" as in beer.
>
>  
>
>>it doesn't matter to the users) then it will not
>>have the success it is
>>looking for.
>>    
>>
>
>Please, explain to us, what success "it" is looking
>for.
>
>To use an analogy: Was the soup in the story "Stone
>Soup" (http://www.stonesoup.com/main2/StoneSoup.html)
>looking to be eaten? Were the people contributing to
>the soup insisting that everyone eat it?
>
>Do you think it is possible that you might
>misunderstand what free and open source software is
>about?
>
>  
>
>>When a user gets introduced to Linux he
>>sees 1000000
>>distributions and it's like "Where do I go from
>>here"
>>    
>>
>
>So what if some less curious computer users stick with
>Windows? Bill G. has gotta eat too. The world will not
>end.
>
>  
>
>>Please forgive me for falling in love with my high
>>school sweetheart,
>>marrying her, and having the ability to raise a
>>beautiful son in close
>>proximity to his grandparents and having a loving
>>center of support all
>>around us.  Forgive me for not having useless ideals
>>that cause me to hop
>>around $8/hr LAMP jobs.  Forgive me for taking a
>>great paying Microsoft
>>development job that allowed me to buy a nice house
>>in Shenandoah Estates at
>>the age of 23.
>>    
>>
>
>Ai-yi-yi. I think you need to back away from the
>keyboard, slowly. You are having an ethical crisis
>over FREE SOFTWARE, for goodness sake. I use both free
>and non-free software for both work and play, yet I
>experience no moral dilemma over it.
>
>Maybe you should put your money where your mouth is:
>Promise to _never_ take a job working with free and
>open source technology, since it is so "wrong". Bill
>G. will _love_ you for it. Heck, you could even tattoo
>"Microserf" on your forehead.
>
>  
>
>>"blah ... Carmack ... blah"
>>    
>>
>
>*gains points for mentioning Carmack*
>
>  
>
>>It's all about the Benjamins baby!
>>    
>>
>
>*loses points for using an overworn cliche*
>
>So one case is all you need for proof? I'll see your
>Carmack and raise you a Berners-Lee.
>
>  
>
>>I don't delude myself into thinking my mom
>>should switch over to
>>it because "software deserves to be free" or some
>>such BS. 
>>    
>>
>
>You are free to say such things, while others are free
>to "waste their time" giving away source code. Will
>you deny them their freedom?
>
>I will use my freedom to say this: you are not winning
>admirers or friends here by the "logical elegance" of
>your arguments. What I get mostly from your emails is
>that you are convinced that you are right, and that
>others with differing opinions are simply wrong, with
>ideals that are "BS".
>
>How old are you, Andrew? I assume you are young, for
>obvious reasons.
>
>Let me tell you something that I have learned:
>
>The world is bigger than you think right now.
>
>John
>
>
>               
>__________________________________ 
>Do you Yahoo!? 
>Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. 
>http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
>
>_______________________________________________
>General mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
>
>  
>

Reply via email to