Apple's Boot Camp beta

[piratePenguin]

Oh and lol, you picked such a shitty piece about why RMS (and I mean Richard M. Stallman, not root mean sqare, believe it or not) sucks (or should I say 'one thing RMS did that you don't believe was wise/right'?).

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/08/19/2039211&mode=thread&tid=117 (I'd suggest you read this comment also).

[Aloone_Jonez]

You've raised a valid point about art, but it's still very different to software, you don't have to go round fixing bugs or anything. The development model isn't compatable with open source software, it's more like computer games, can you see people going to watch an alpha version of a film and suggesting improvements then watching the beta version and final release? I think they'd get pretty bored of watching the same film over and over.

Richard Martin Stallman is a moron becase he views GNU as a religon and goes round preaching to everyone pissing them off. I can't read any of his articals, I can't read beyond the first couple of paragraphs with most of them without getting annoyed at him and thinking fucking moron. Don't get me wrong I agree with some of the principles (like doing something about software patents) but I don't think he's going the right way about winning people over.

[H_TeXMeX_H]

    "The morale of this is that people will hopefully realize what a control freak and raging manic Stallman is."

Because you say so? I think I'll reserve judgement until I hear something more than "He just is, okay!"

    This $&%$& demands everything to be labeled in a way which credits him and he does not stop before making completely wrong statements like "its variant".

Aha! So that's what it's all about. I find it surprising that someone working on "the GNU C library" as it's called in these release notes, should take exception to the idea that it's supposed to be a part of the GNU operating system.

Calling the operating system GNU/Linux, GNU/Hurd or whatever is not egotism (or not just egotism, anyway). It's an accurate description of what the system is. Look at, for instance, reviews [unixreview.com] calling openUNIX "Linux without Linux". That just sounds absurd, unless you know that the first "Linux" actually means "GNU".

    I find this completely unacceptable and can assure everybody that I consider none of the code I contributed to glibc (which is quite a lot) to be as part of the GNU project and so a major part of what Stallman claims credit for is simply going away.

Well ... what can I say ...

[piratePenguin]

You've raised a valid point about art, but it's still very different to software, you don't have to go round fixing bugs or anything. The development model isn't compatable with open source software, it's more like computer games, can you see people going to watch an alpha version of a film and suggesting improvements then watching the beta version and final release? I think they'd get pretty bored of watching the same film over and over.

I'm not even sure what we're trying to achieve with this art vs. software crap.

Whatever the differences, the law shouldn't "protect" against the copying of any released "product" (be it a python script, a binary for a computer to execute, the source code of a complete application, a piece of hardware, whatever. All these things can be copied (everything can), some easier than others.) IMO. If the developers decide not to release the source code (should there be any - an XFC file or a bunch of C files), so be it. Usually they'll be losing out. They won't ever be fit to prevent people from copying a more expensive future "product" (because it's not possible to prevent copying - especially digital things (that's why digital things are so great for us humans)).

Richard Martin Stallman is a moron becase he views GNU as a religon and goes round preaching to everyone pissing them off.

Um, his name is Richard Matthew Stallman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_M._Stallman).

"GNU as a religon" what do you mean? He makes speaches, mostly about free software. Usually mentions GNU. His beef is with non-free software, not non-GNU stuff.

Then, he does other things. In his opinion GNU is the principal developer of the typical "Linux" system. So he calls it GNU, and adds "/Linux" because Linux is the other critical component in the system, and because simply calling it GNU does not go down with Linux-tards, just like calling it Linux doesn't go down with GNU-tards.

Personally, I agree with him. By "system" I mean what software it takes to get a decent (as in I want a linker and a C library) minimally-operable system up. That means the bootloader (GRUB/lilo), the kernel (Linux), the C library (not strictly necessary but who the fuck writes in assembler these days?), a command interperater (bash/tcsh/whatever, the shell. Wouldn't be necessary if Linux had an embedded one, I believe.), and a dynamic linker (GNU ld). Mosty systems, including mine, use GRUB, Linux, glibc, and bash, and ld (provided by binutils).

That's a lot of GNU, but also a lot of Linux (Linux is a huge project). I'm not gonna refer to such a system as "Linux". "GNU/Linux" captures it all. Especially because it was the GNU people (beginning with RMS) who initially set out to develop a free OS when Linus Torvalds was in nappies I will consider GNU the principal developers.

I can't read any of his articals, I can't read beyond the first couple of paragraphs with most of them without getting annoyed at him and thinking fucking moron.

Then let that motivate you to read, fully, a few of his articles and post back here a response (and email it to rms@gnu.org too if you like. I've emailed him before, he replies \o/ ).

Don't get me wrong I agree with some of the principles (like doing something about software patents) but I don't think he's going the right way about winning people over.

Well I see you're doing a much better job of "winning people over" to do stuff about software patents.

[Aloone_Jonez]

EDIT:
I can't be fucked to continiue yet another one of our pointless flame fests I'd rather focuss my attention on upgrading to the latest Ubuntu release.

[piratePenguin]

I was just stipulating the major differences between the two and if we made it legal to copy films and music then the industry would die.

Why would it?

I disagree the copyright law is there to protect developer's assets.

How would a developer's assets be damaged? I can imagine if they dropped their laptop, a physical object, it might become damaged. But how do you damage software?

I don't care what his name is he's still a moron.

Well you'd be some fool to be going around saying Richard Martin Stallman (who's essays I have never completely-read) is a moron.

Whatever GNU Linux, BSD, freesoftware (let's not argue over minor technicallities) what a stupid religion.

Oh, completely retarded "religion". The world begins to suck far far more every time someone releases something under a free software license like the GPL. MS EULA all the way, yey! Fuck free software, non-free software is better by default!

Whatever suits you, I personally wouldn't contemplate life without Opera

And your point is...?

Opera couldn't contemplate life without the C libraries it uses.

EDIT:
I don't care either way so I can't be bothered.

That's the spirit.

I've got better things to do.

Like... Make that post?

Oh, right so why have software patents been made legal then if RMS has done such a good job of winning people over. :rolleyes:

I don't give a fuck if he failed (if he did), I'm pretty sure HE DID A BETTER JOB THAN YOU. Software patents are not in in Europe, not largely because of Stallman though. LOADS of people were involved.

[piratePenguin]

EDIT:
I can't be fucked to continiue yet another one of our pointless flame fests I'd rather focuss my attention on upgrading to the latest Ubuntu release.

Bit late editing your beautiful post.

[Orethrius]

Aloone, perhaps you should continue - it's a rather off-topic discussion, but a healthy debate is far from a flamewar.