Is Richard Stallman the Enemy of Freedom?

If it doesn't relate to Debian, but you still want to share it, please do it here

Postby julian67 » 2008-07-05 17:09

ninjatux wrote:The BSDs do use some GNU software, but they do have more than adequate versions of their own. To insinuate that BSDs owe their survival to GNU is a gross error. BSDs do not need GNU, and one of the biggest goals within the OpenBSD community is to find a replacement for GCC. I'll bet that if they accomplish this, then the other BSDs will follow suit. Also, realize that GNU is really much of a Linux thing. Most Unixes that share lineage with the original still have not switched to a GNU userland. In my opinion, the GNU userland is great for its portability, and I have respect for it as such, but GNU/Linux needs to take a different direction towards integration because as a BSD user, I can say that it's a mess. 7500 distributions (and growing) that are trying to accomplish the same few goals is absurd. Look at the BSDS. There are four main projects (with a couple of spin offs that provide preconfigured desktops) and each project has a separate goal. OpenBSD aims for maximum security and stability, FreeBSD for maximum performance and scalability, NetBSD for maximum portability, and DragonflyBSD for best SMP performance and clustering features. These projects share code with one another, and users of one operating system don't hesitate to recommend another if their system doesn't exactly fit the needs. A lot of FreeBSD folks have recommended OpenBSD from time to time for use on a firewall machine and so on. BSD development really reflects what Unix is all about.


It's true that the BSD's have their own set of tools and even RMS doesn't refer to them as GNU systems. But a compiler....c'mon that's not trivial. Possibly the various free BSDs, or something like them, could have been developed without GNU tools but in fact it hasn't happened, they all rely on GNU tools at the most fundamental level, without exception, so the situation (the real one, not some hypothetical one) is that they absolutely depend on the existence of Stallman's creations. If BSD developers can develop their own complete set of tools then more power to them, who could object? But that day hasn't arrived yet.

Insinuating

Nobody is insinuating anything, but pejorative language seems to be popular with many people who use free software but object to its origins or to the some of the people who promote it.
User avatar
julian67
 
Posts: 4648
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around

Postby AdrianTM » 2008-07-05 17:11

If I use GCC on Windows do I have to call it GNU/Windows?
Ubuntu hate is a mental derangement.
User avatar
AdrianTM
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: 2004-09-19 01:08

Postby BioTube » 2008-07-05 17:15

If gcc didn't exist, another compiler would've come along. You're right when you say a compiler ain't trivial, which means the fairy land you live in that BSD can't ever have grown to what it is today without GNU is complete fantasy; like I said, BSD would've made its own compiler.
Image
Ludwig von Mises wrote:The elite should be supreme by virtue of persuasion, not by the assistance of firing squads.
User avatar
BioTube
 
Posts: 7551
Joined: 2007-06-01 04:34

Postby julian67 » 2008-07-05 17:17

AdrianTM wrote:If I use GCC on Windows do I have to call it GNU/Windows?


If you sincerely believe that Windows was compiled with GCC, and that its core tools and utilities are GNU tools and utilities, that it depends on GNU to function then you should call it GNU/Windows. No-one else will agree with you, people will call you a moron, a troll, a half-assed time waster, an idiot and lots of other things too, but don't be shy, give it a go.
User avatar
julian67
 
Posts: 4648
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around

Postby julian67 » 2008-07-05 17:23

BioTube wrote:If gcc didn't exist, another compiler would've come along. You're right when you say a compiler ain't trivial, which means the fairy land you live in that BSD can't ever have grown to what it is today without GNU is complete fantasy; like I said, BSD would've made its own compiler.


But they didn't and they haven't. Who is living in a fairy world? Posting suppositions and assertions based on hypothetical alternative realities as though they are indisputable facts and realities is not as credible as you seem to believe.

Perhaps if we instead address what we know of this world, rather than a hypothetical one of your imagining, we can remain in the realm of the sane?
User avatar
julian67
 
Posts: 4648
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around

Postby AdrianTM » 2008-07-05 17:36

julian67 wrote:
AdrianTM wrote:If I use GCC on Windows do I have to call it GNU/Windows?


If you sincerely believe that Windows was compiled with GCC, and that its core tools and utilities are GNU tools and utilities, that it depends on GNU to function then you should call it GNU/Windows. No-one else will agree with you, people will call you a moron, a troll, a half-assed time waster, an idiot and lots of other things too, but don't be shy, give it a go.

Hmm, I think you enjoy building straw-men to advance your positions... Where did I say or implied that Windows was build with GCC? I specifically said "use GCC on Windows" I have no intention to say that Windows was build with GCC, why would I, and why would you mention it?

The point is there are other compilers, Windows was built with another compiler. What makes you think that it would be impossible to build BSD with another compiler than GCC if there was such a need? Since we do talk hypothetically here, right? We talk if there was no Linux we can very well assume that BSD built or used another compiler, why is that so far fetched?

If you want to make the simple point that "Windows was not built with GCC while BSD was" in such an obnoxious way using words like "a moron, a troll, a half-assed time waster, an idiot and lots of other things too" that's fine by me. But it's a bit funny considering that you bitched and complained about my use of language before even though I was was more restrained and more rational in the use of my language, I would think...
Ubuntu hate is a mental derangement.
User avatar
AdrianTM
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: 2004-09-19 01:08

Postby julian67 » 2008-07-05 17:58

AdrianTM wrote:
julian67 wrote:
AdrianTM wrote:If I use GCC on Windows do I have to call it GNU/Windows?


If you sincerely believe that Windows was compiled with GCC, and that its core tools and utilities are GNU tools and utilities, that it depends on GNU to function then you should call it GNU/Windows. No-one else will agree with you, people will call you a moron, a troll, a half-assed time waster, an idiot and lots of other things too, but don't be shy, give it a go.

Hmm, I think you enjoy building straw-men to advance your positions... Where did I say or implied that Windows was build with GCC? I specifically said "use GCC on Windows" I have no intention to say that Windows was build with GCC, why would I, and why would you mention it?

The point is there are other compilers, Windows was built with another compiler. What makes you think that it would be impossible to build BSD with another compiler than GCC if there was such a need? Since we do talk hypothetically here, right? We talk if there was no Linux we can very well assume that BSD built or used another compiler, why is that so far fetched?

If you want to make the simple point that "Windows was not built with GCC while BSD was" in such an obnoxious way using words like "a moron, a troll, a half-assed time waster, an idiot and lots of other things too" that's fine by me. But it's a bit funny considering that you bitched and complained about my use of language before even though I was was more restrained and more rational in the use of my language, I would think...


I would have refrained from being rude but the forum doesn't have an ignore function.

I set out the conditions which you would have to believe in to arrive at calling it GNU/Windows. If you sincerely believe that simply using GCC in Windows might lead to calling the OS GNU/Windows then your powers of comprehension are remarkably low. If you're fully aware that this isn't the case then you're just trolling. Either way who would be interested?

It's not far fetched to believe that if the GNU project had never existed the BSDs might have arisen anyway, and developed a full set of tools including compiler. All sorts of wonderful and amazing things might have been possible had events unfolded differently, just watch a recent episode of Dr Who. But they didn't. There might be parallel or alternative universes, I really don't know and I guess neither do you. But here we are in this one. So if you want to argue points based on your imaginings being presented as fact that's very nice but please don't expect anyone to think you're making any sense or to join you in your daydream.
User avatar
julian67
 
Posts: 4648
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around

Postby BioTube » 2008-07-05 18:16

julian67 wrote:
BioTube wrote:If gcc didn't exist, another compiler would've come along. You're right when you say a compiler ain't trivial, which means the fairy land you live in that BSD can't ever have grown to what it is today without GNU is complete fantasy; like I said, BSD would've made its own compiler.


But they didn't and they haven't. Who is living in a fairy world? Posting suppositions and assertions based on hypothetical alternative realities as though they are indisputable facts and realities is not as credible as you seem to believe.

Perhaps if we instead address what we know of this world, rather than a hypothetical one of your imagining, we can remain in the realm of the sane?
First you construct a hypothetical scenario and then you bitch, whine and complain whenever someone else uses it. That's called the logical fallacy of being an whiny-faced brat.
Image
Ludwig von Mises wrote:The elite should be supreme by virtue of persuasion, not by the assistance of firing squads.
User avatar
BioTube
 
Posts: 7551
Joined: 2007-06-01 04:34

Postby AdrianTM » 2008-07-05 18:45

BioTube wrote:First you construct a hypothetical scenario and then you bitch, whine and complain whenever someone else uses it. That's called the logical fallacy of being an whiny-faced brat.

Thank you! Exactly my thoughts.

Julian if you think that software and operating systems in particular can be compiled only with GCC then "no-one else will agree with you, people will call you a moron, a troll, a half-assed time waster, an idiot and lots of other things too, but don't be shy, give it a go."

BTW, that's just an exercise in adopting your style of discussing. No, you didn't say that, but neither did I say that Windows was compiled with GCC... so you see... it cuts both ways.
Ubuntu hate is a mental derangement.
User avatar
AdrianTM
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: 2004-09-19 01:08

Postby MeanDean » 2008-07-05 18:48

as the teletubbies would say......BIGGGG HUUUUGGGG......
User avatar
MeanDean
 
Posts: 3953
Joined: 2007-09-01 01:14

Postby julian67 » 2008-07-05 18:49

I asked a question, offered some speculative thoughts, I didn't present them as facts, I used words like "I guess" and "I expect". That's clearly not the same thing as asserting "like I said, BSD would've made its own compiler." as though it's a fact (it isn't), and using that supposed to use as a basis for argument. What might have happened, what could have happened....that's anybody's guess. But what actually did happen is available and interesting enough in its own right and actually relevant.

Words convey meaning. Facts are different to assertions. Asserting something doesn't make it so. Believing or wishing for something doesn't make it so. Disliking a person doesn't mean that person is wrong. Disagreeing with someone is not proof of that person being wrong. If you don't find this to be true then it's not possible for you to actually debate anything.

The easiest facts to deal with are those which are easily verifiable. Fortunately the events discussed in this thread have mostly taken place in public, often via reliably documented forums and mailing lists. Choosing to ignore facts, misrepresent others, make unfounded and erroneous assertions and to do so repeatedly, is unlikely to lead to success and can easily be described as trolling or even crass stupidity, or both.
Last edited by julian67 on 2008-07-05 19:19, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
julian67
 
Posts: 4648
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around

Postby julian67 » 2008-07-05 18:52

AdrianTM wrote:Julian if you think that software and operating systems in particular can be compiled only with GCC then....


But I don't think that, haven't stated that, don't believe that. However I do know that the free operating systems we've talked about are compiled with GCC.

Strawman.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
Last edited by julian67 on 2008-07-05 18:55, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
julian67
 
Posts: 4648
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around

Postby AdrianTM » 2008-07-05 18:54

julian67 wrote:
AdrianTM wrote:Julian if you think that software and operating systems in particular can be compiled only with GCC then....


But I don't think that, haven't stated that, don't believe that.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

That was exactly an example of how you debated in this thread.
Ubuntu hate is a mental derangement.
User avatar
AdrianTM
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: 2004-09-19 01:08

Postby julian67 » 2008-07-05 19:10

AdrianTM wrote:
julian67 wrote:
AdrianTM wrote:Julian if you think that software and operating systems in particular can be compiled only with GCC then....


But I don't think that, haven't stated that, don't believe that.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

That was exactly an example of how you debated in this thread.


No your example is only an example of your style, a style based so far on a lot of misrepresentation. When you offer an hypothesis or assertion as though it's a fact then I'm happy to challenge that. When you assert that I believe something which I don't believe and which I haven't offered as my belief I'm happy to challenge that too. If I write something in plain English like "may" but someone asserts that "may" means "automatically" and then poses an argument on that basis I feel I'm being misrepresented. If it happens just occasionally I'm happy to accept it as an honest misunderstanding. When it's done persistently and repeatedly I can't see it as an honest mistake, but rather as the output of someone who is either remarkably incapable of understanding plain language or is behaving maliciously and disingenuously.

If we can accept that commonly accepted and verifiable facts/events are indeed facts/events and that people's opinions, honestly held, differ when presented with the same facts then we can have a meaningful exchange. If we equate a different opinion with badness or wrongness, or if we misrepresent others and offer falsehoods in place of facts then we can't.
User avatar
julian67
 
Posts: 4648
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around

Postby AdrianTM » 2008-07-05 19:16

If you sincerely believe that Windows was compiled with GCC, and that its core tools and utilities are GNU tools and utilities[...]

I haven't said that or implied it, why would you mention it if not for creating a straw-man? I responded by giving you another example of straw-man similarly constructed so that you can see that I can use your style too.

I don't know what you claim I misrepresented here, except for my initial mistake of assuming that Stallman wouldn't use Debian if he doesn't recommend it to which you brought proof that he does use it, I don't see what I misrepresented, please explain.
Last edited by AdrianTM on 2008-07-05 19:16, edited 1 time in total.
Ubuntu hate is a mental derangement.
User avatar
AdrianTM
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: 2004-09-19 01:08

PreviousNext

Return to Offtopic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

fashionable