Re: [LI] Message from RMS.

[Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,
>>"Atul" == Atul Chitnis <achitnis@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

 Atul> Before I comment here, let me point out that I was (and still
 Atul> am) addressing the way *Ragoo* strafes the LI lists with
 Atul> something he has little understanding of to begin with, and
 Atul> nothing to gain with. I think my last para made that abundantly
 Atul> clear.

        As far as that goes, I agre with you. It was not clear to me
 from that post that your remarks were restricted to ragoos mail. 

 Atul> On 4 Dec 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

 >> >>"Atul" == Atul Chitnis <achitnis@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
 >> 
 >> Actually, they use the perfectly capitalistic concept of
 >> intellectual property and copyright law to achieve what they believe
 >> is a protection of the end user. 

 Atul> So did the Russians and the East Germans. Except that there is no
 Atul> protection involved. I object to that term. If you want to defend it,
 Atul> explain Ragoo's "Rs.60" post to me.

        Umm, I contend that there may well be protection involved, and
 there may be uninformed people with misplaced enthusiam engaging in
 inappropriate behaviour. These are not mutually exclusive, you know.

        As an anecdotal support for my belief, I offer the objective C
 support in gcc as an example: A certain company added Objective C
 support, ad one of their employees later confessed that it was the
 GPL that made them offer the enhancement to the community rather than
 selling it. (I know this is not proof, and anyone can come up with
 anecdotes. I shall let you decide how far to trust this story, after
 saying that I talked to the employee in question in person).

        This is a measure of ``protection'', in my opinion.

 >> Shoe me where there is a clause in the GPL that says
 >> you can't charge what you wish for your GPL'd software. The artistic
 >> licence has an (unenforceable) no charge clause, but not the GPL.

 Atul> Again, what does this have to do with Ragoo's "Rs.60" attitude? 

        Umm -- I don't defend idiotic posts like that. I shall,
 however, attempt to defend the GPL, and richard, since I do, to an
 extent, agree with them (I do not agree with richard that proprietary
 sofware is evil)


 Atul> Yes, RH is making money - and hence RH is the devil and "The
 Atul> Microsoft of the Linux world". (whoah - I just drained by
 Atul> sarcasm barrel on that one - excuse me while I refill).

        Actually, Richard never said that -- but since RH does sell
 proprietary software, one can say that by extension RH is also
 engaging in evil practices, if you take RMS's more incendiary
 statements.

        However, I, and a lot of other people who espouse the GPL, do
 not fully endorse RMS's views. We think that the views keep the rest
 of us honest, and help to keep the rest of us from straying from the
 path ;-) ;-)


 >> Quote chapter and verse please. You are bordering on slander.

 Atul> That's OK. Sue me. RMS will be in Bangalore next month, he will
 Atul> have ample opportunity to do so. I am not going to turn LIG
 Atul> into a historical archive.

        Oh, good. Just listen to him. Go there with an open mind. You
 probably won't agree to all of what he says.  My impression of
 richard is like my impression of Gandhi -- I respect what they did, I
 agree with most of their beliefs (and I respect their integrity even
 for things I do not agree with). I would not, and could not, go to
 the extent and make the sacrifices either have made for their
 beliefs. 

        If you examine either belief system, they are internally
 consistent. Both men had flaws (I am less than enamoured of some
 aspects of both their personal interactions).

 Atul> It *is* reasonable, but what is not is RMS's way of trying to
 Atul> *enforce* this acknowledgement - complete with the antics, the
 Atul> staged "protest speecheds, the embarrasment of an entire
 Atul> community, etc.

        Oh yes, I agree. Richard is his own worst enemy. Ignore, for
 the moment, his tactics, and look at the message: as we agreed, the
 message is reasonable, the delivery stinks.

        Richard is impossible

 Atul> What stops him from *finally* getting Hurd into a usable shape
 Atul> so that he can have his own "free" kernel?
 >> 
 >> We are working on it. Stay tuned for Debian GNU/HURD, to be
 >> along side Debian GNU/Linux.
 >> 
 >> The HURD is several decades ahead of UNIX based Linux OS --
 >> and cutting edge research operating systems take time to
 >> stabilize. Linux, after all, is based on 30 year old technology. The
 >> HURD is far newer.

 Atul> JESUS CHRIST, MANOJ! YOU SOUND LIKE MICROSOFT! WASH YOUR MOUTH OUT WITH
 Atul> SOAP THIS INSTANT!

        Stop for a moment. I am not propogandizing. (Nor do I use the
 HURD). This was just a statement of fact. Is the HURD useable at the
 moment? No. Is it going to be in the near future?  No. Do I
 contribute to it? No.  Is it a contender for a useable OS at the
 moment? No. 

        But it is cutting edge OS reasearch material. The concept of
 having people on the machine at the same time, one presented with a
 Linux like OS, one with *Bsd front ends, one with MacOS, is new.


        There are no built in device drivers, and need for a super
 user: Each user can bring in their own versions for resources they
 own. So, there is no root: and only security is required to access
 what one owns, and if you wish to share access/resources.

        There are translators (I am fuzzy on this)

 >> Could it be because he is indian? That is just as logical as
 >> your accusation.

 Atul> I give up. I am dissappointed at the amount of ignorance and bigotry
 Atul> displayed in this post.

        ;-)

 Atul> So *I* am not disappointed.
         ;-)


        manoj

-- 
 Corry's Law: Paper is always strongest at the perforations.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@xxxxxxxxxx>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8
6E
1024D/BF24424C fingerprint = 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24
424C