On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:50:41PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Why is it so hard for you to answer that question...
>
> To answer the question was not hard. To answer it before I saw it
> would have been very hard.
>
> You failed to answer these several times already,
>
> When you said that, it was 21:00 here. At that time I had not even
> seen any of those messages; they were not in my computer. They
> arrived in my next mail transfer, today at 12:00. Subsequently I saw
> them and wrote an answer. You will get the answer in my next
> transfer, which is likely to be at 22:00. That will be 25 hours after
> the first of those messages was sent. I regret the delay, but it is
> inevitable.
>
Sorry, but i find it hard to believe that you couldn't take a minute to
answer my simple question and that you did find the time to put up with
this mail that further delays an explanation.
My question is simple and it doesn't require much thinking.
> It must be quite common that a person doesn't answer in 2 hours. You
> may not know the details of how I transfer mail; but there are many
> other reasons why someone may not answer so fast. He might be
> sleeping, which many people do for 8 hours at a stretch. He might be
> checking some facts before before responding. These are things you
> know about.
>
Checking which facts ?
- gcc runs on windows because it has code that specifically makes it
work on that system.
- the fsf distributes that code.
- you *know* that gcc works on windows.
What fact that you don't already know prevents you from answering my
simple question as to why you do support windows ?
> I think it indicates that you are looking for excuses to put me in the
> wrong. If something happens which you can interpret as putting me in
> a bad light, you seize on that interpretation, ignoring the other
> possibilities.
>
You looking good or bad is not something that particularly matters to
me, what matters is that you were not honest and people need to make
an opinion based on facts.
The facts are as follow:
- you say that OpenBSD is not free and you don't encourage
it's use. I could care less but the reasons that
you mention are wrong and misleading for users.
- you and your project actually encourage the use of many
applications on proprietary systems. There is an
long list of gnu tools that I have used on a
Windows computer.
- you refuse to admit you were wrong and you refuse to explain
why your own rules don't apply to you. Why does OpenBSD
providing optional makefiles for those who explicitely
want a non-free application is bad because it encourages
users to install non-free applications, and why is it ok
for the fsf to support Windows and MacOSX ?
What are the other possibilities that I missed ?
> Such an attitude can be seen in many of the messages on this list.
> It is not one you should want to adopt into your heart.
>
There is no bad attitude, I am frustrated that I don't get an answer
to a very simple question that doesn't call for long research. It is
your foundation and your projects after all ...
--
Gilles Chehade
http://www.evilkittens.org/
http://www.evilkittens.org/blog/gilles/
