This thread is in abeyance - it has been revealing.
Rather than reopen it now, a better use of energy is preparing for Installfest.
However, Nick is entitled to a decent reply, and promptly.
Thanks everyone who posted.
Nick Rout wrote:
On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 21:16, InfoHelp wrote:Referral was made to uname's amendment in several places. Yet the large majority on list are likely to have the standard GNU program, & the same result from running it. The debate is over what can be read from this result. Next week, I'd like to present my view of it.
I read the thread - it proves my point.
Unchanged uname means an fsck-lot more than your anti-RMS vendetta.
what does an unpatched uname mean and what is the point?
the truth is it does not prove anything. I have nothing against RMS,The sense I had intended to convey was this - How can such a talented group of people have the time to want to edit GNU out of Linux history? i.e. defensive disbelief under pressure of manifold vociferous reaction, from perception of a place for GNU in Linux's future (unless replaced by Perl, of course - viz today's lesson on sed).
except I think his attitide is a little OTT. He is a zealot, a well
meaning one and one I (and others) respect. He has done wonderful
things. I just don't go all the way on his philosophy.
Get a life. Please.
Rik, this is not a channel for personal abuse. Surely you can have a debate without stooping to that level. Not everyone in life is going to have the same view as you. Get used to it.
It was not meant as personal abuse Nick, and I am sorry that you took it that way.
Rik
