On Saturday 16 July 2005 02:22 pm, Shannon Roddy wrote: >I don't like Stallman or his motivations. ?That is what got into me. ... >... all or nothing BS is what ticks me off. ?
BS it is. No one's going to force you to use free software, not even RMS. He used non free software to write emacs and gcc and the FSF will tell you to use what you must. There's no GNU Palladium that I'm aware of. All RMS and the FSF will do is remind you of the four software freedoms and blast evil legislation or software that tries to prevent people from using free software. What are you angry about? > > Sure there would have been. ?You really think that the kernel could > not have been written using another compiler? No, I really don't think the Linux kernel could have been written without a Free compiler. Such a large co-operative project needs stable and inexpensive tools. What other compilers were there in 1993 that could have worked? I don't really care. What I don't understand is all of the animosity over RMS asking distributors to call to acknowledge the GNU project, which every single one of the packages included depends on. As GNU/Hurd or cygwin demonstrate, those packages depend on GNU more than they do on Linux. Is this one disagreement enough to make people sound like Steve Ballmer on a bad day? Why flame a new user over it? Changing the name of the BRLUG is a bad idea for practical reasons. Why rant about it?
