Deckard wrote:It was a joke with some truth in it I hope (the forum's general distaste for RMS and his FSF, the distaste for advocacy of FLOSS, the legions of Vim users, Unix affectations like the no-patches-upstream-purity-Vanilla-simplicity fetish, aping BSD, saying that Linux sucks less than the alternatives, "programs that do one thing, and do one thing well," etc.). GNU is literally not Unix, whereas I am not sure Arch has made its mind up yet.
Your first two points might make sense. That is, if their forum has a lot of anti-RMS, anti-FLOSS sentiment, then I might see your point.
The rest of what you mention is irrelevant to assessing how someone feels about GNU.
- Vim users are de facto anti-GNU or anti-FLOSS? I'm assuming that this is a joke. Otherwise, it's moronic. Using Emacs is not, all joking aside, an ideological litmus test (or a religious choice). It's a choice about a piece of software.
- Unix affectations are bad? Unix affectations make you anti-GNU? That's odd. GNU is not literally not Unix. That is, the name is famously a pun and the code is not at all shared, but the entire point of the early GNU tools was to provide a free and open set of Unix-like tools. It's on their own website:
GNU's own website wrote:The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop the GNU operating system, a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software—software which respects your freedom.
Quite a lot of us here like the Unix philosophy too (to one degree or another).
Also, and much, much, much more importantly, how you feel about GNU is not equivalent to how you feel about FLOSS.
I'm probably wrong to care. You were probably being flip. But I don't like seeing choices about software conflated with ideological positions. It bothers me on principle.
Searching the forums there for possible existing answers is what I was referring to.
