configure script

configure script

[Edson Alves Pereira]

I´m in linux and when i try to execute the configure script that cames from emacs distribution it never stops. Is there an error?

  PS. The emacs´s version is 21.2

 With best wishes,
 Edson Alves Pereira


__________________________________________________________________
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/

Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/

configure script

[Edson Alves Pereira]

  I´m in linux and when i try to execute the configure script it never stops. Is there an error?

  With best wishes,
  Edson Alves Pereira


__________________________________________________________________
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/

Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/

Re: configure script

[Richard Stallman]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 834 bytes --]

      I´m in linux and when i try to execute the configure script it never stops. Is there an error?

You can't be "in Linux"; Linux is the kernel, and the kernel does not
obey user commands.  You are probably talking to a shell, perhaps
Bash, the GNU Shell.  Is that right?  See
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html.

It sounds like this is a bug in Emacs.  Unfortunately, this bug does
not seem to happen to anyone else, which suggests it only happens in
some unusual circumstances.  Unless someone can reproduce it, the only
way to find the bug is to debug it on your machine.

Can you find a shell wizard to help you debug it?  Or can you read
about debugging facilities in Bash and use them to trace execution in
./configure?  If you send us that output once it starts showing the
loop, we might figure out what the bug is.

Re: configure script

[Sami Sihvonen]

(cc: gnu.emacs.bug, rms@gnu.org)

In article <200206081915.g58JFT128804@aztec.santafe.edu>,
rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman) wrote:

> You can't be "in Linux"; Linux is the kernel, and the kernel does not
> obey user commands.  You are probably talking to a shell, perhaps
> Bash, the GNU Shell.  Is that right?  See
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html.

You mean GNU/Linux, not Linux? :-) Really a shame for GNU/Linux
and Linus Torvalds that they don't notice all the efforts made
by GNU-Project and Free Software Foundation. I agree 100% with
the above URL.

Btw, one small GNU Emacs bug to report:

GNU Emacs v20.5 for MS-DOS crashes under Micros~1 Windows 3.11
for Workgroups running default settings. Default settings give too
little memory, Emacs crashes and blames it on Windows kernel.
Solutation is to edit _default.pif memory settings (XMS/EMS 
unlimited setting "-1" works). Maybe there should be emacs.pif
included in distribution at bin-directory to give better default
settings?

-- 
Sami Sihvonen,
Chief Executive Officer,
Janiika Networks Corporation.

Re: configure script

[David Kastrup]

ss@janiika.com (Sami Sihvonen) writes:

> (cc: gnu.emacs.bug, rms@gnu.org)
> 
> In article <200206081915.g58JFT128804@aztec.santafe.edu>,
> rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman) wrote:
> 
> > You can't be "in Linux"; Linux is the kernel, and the kernel does not
> > obey user commands.  You are probably talking to a shell, perhaps
> > Bash, the GNU Shell.  Is that right?  See
> > http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html.
> 
> You mean GNU/Linux, not Linux? :-) Really a shame for GNU/Linux
> and Linus Torvalds that they don't notice all the efforts made
> by GNU-Project and Free Software Foundation.

This is about the most shameless lie and insinuation that I have ever
heard.  Linus Torvalds has always acknowledged the major influence
GNU has had on Linux development.  He did not choose the GPL for
Linux accidentally.  Nobody denies the major contribution of the GNU
project to Linux systems.  Nobody would deny that all available Linux
systems _are_ GNU systems.  But that is no reason to adulterate the
name.  It is the one putting together a system that gets to name it.
A painting is named by painter, not by the paint manufacturer.
Regardless how good or indispensible the paints have been for the
work.

That RMS quite shamelessly tries to hijack _all_ credit he can think
of and feels comfortable with ignoring everybody else's contribution
to Free systems as long as he gets his in, is quite hypocritical.

RMS never had any naming qualms when he subsumed X, or the BSD
networking utilities and stacks, or Mach kernel, or whatever else
into GNU/Hurd.

RMS is not one to pussyfoot around the issue, and has never been
afraid to voice his opinions about matters, even where his views were
quite different from the "establishment".  That is one of his main
strengths.  It is a pity that now that with his help and visions
indeed a Free Software sphere has been established, he does his best
to fight this as well.  I do think he could employ his strengths
for better causes than that.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Email: David.Kastrup@t-online.de

Re: configure script

[Paul Jarc]

David.Kastrup@t-online.de (David Kastrup) wrote:
> Nobody would deny that all available Linux systems _are_ GNU
> systems.

I'm not sure what you mean by "available", but there exist Linux
systems that are GNUless, or pretty nearly so.

> It is the one putting together a system that gets to name it.

Obviously - though it does not follow that any name they choose will
be a good one.


paul

Re: configure script

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

* David Kastrup writes:
> ss@janiika.com (Sami Sihvonen) writes:
>> You mean GNU/Linux, not Linux? :-) Really a shame for GNU/Linux
>> and Linus Torvalds that they don't notice all the efforts made
>> by GNU-Project and Free Software Foundation.

No, because it is making an distinction between the kernel, Linux, and
the system, GNU, which if you combine you get a GNU system using
Linux, GNU/Linux.

> A painting is named by painter, not by the paint manufacturer.
> Regardless how good or indispensible the paints have been for the
> work.

If a painting is named by the painter, then RMS has all the right to
name the "painting", Linus' _ONLY_ contribution was Linux, RMS (and
all the people that have contributed to the GNU project) busted his
ass of (to put it in mild terms) to produce what you take for
granted (GCC, GDB, GLIBC, Emacs, etc).  Linus' contribution is an
small smudge on the canvas, RMS' (and not to forget everyone who have
contributed to the GNU project) is the whole canvas, including the
paint, brushes, water to clean the brushes and actually painting the
painting, where Linus "just" signed it.

> That RMS quite shamelessly tries to hijack _all_ credit he can think
> of and feels comfortable with ignoring everybody else's contribution
> to Free systems as long as he gets his in, is quite hypocritical.

This has nothing to do with RMS getting more credit, the man has
enough credit to last a life time and more.  This has to do with the
rest of the people that helped with the GNU project.

> RMS never had any naming qualms when he subsumed X, or the BSD
> networking utilities and stacks, or Mach kernel, or whatever else
> into GNU/Hurd.

You are comparing apples to oranges.  XFree86 gets credit (you haven't
looked at the startup of XFree86 in a while have you?), so do all the
network utilities, stacks etc, just take a look at the first few lines
of the copyright header.  Here is a bit from GNU Mach:

 * Mach Operating System
 * Copyright (c) 1991,1990,1989 Carnegie Mellon University
 * All Rights Reserved.

And nobody has tried to deprive CMU from their credit, nor has anyone
tried to deprive anyone from any other credit.  The only project that
has been deprived of the credit is GNU.

-- 
Alfred M. Szmidt

Re: configure script

[David Kastrup]

ams@kemisten.nu (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:

> * David Kastrup writes:
> > ss@janiika.com (Sami Sihvonen) writes:
> >> You mean GNU/Linux, not Linux? :-) Really a shame for GNU/Linux
> >> and Linus Torvalds that they don't notice all the efforts made
> >> by GNU-Project and Free Software Foundation.
> 
> No, because it is making an distinction between the kernel, Linux, and
> the system, GNU, which if you combine you get a GNU system using
> Linux,

Right.

> GNU/Linux.

Wrong.  The name is what the one putting it together calls it.  It is
a GNU system, you might also call it a GNU/Linux system, but it is
not just "GNU/Linux" just as I am not just "Kastrup".  I have a given
name.

> > A painting is named by painter, not by the paint manufacturer.
> > Regardless how good or indispensible the paints have been for the
> > work.
> 
> If a painting is named by the painter, then RMS has all the right to
> name the "painting", Linus' _ONLY_ contribution was Linux,

And that's what he named "Linux".  And RMS does not object to that.
He objects to distribution creators to call their systems Linux
systems.

> RMS (and all the people that have contributed to the GNU project)

The people that have contributed to the GNU project are not asked
their opinion.  It does not count.  RMS talks on behalf of the GNU
project, not its contributors.

> busted his ass of (to put it in mild terms) to produce what you take
> for granted (GCC, GDB, GLIBC, Emacs, etc).

Since the opinion of the contributors does not count, you may just
talk just of RMS' ass being busted off.  It certainly is true that
hardly anybody has sacrificed as much of his life and money into Free
Software.  That demands high respect.  It does not demand sharing his
opinions.

> Linus' contribution is an small smudge on the canvas,

We are not just talking Linus here.  I find the hypocrisy with which
all the contributors to Linux are swept under the rug in order to
claim that "Linux" is merely a single person's work not worth to be
mentioned, while the GNU project has done everything, and so a single
person (namely RMS) should be entitled to do all the calling,
appalling.

> RMS' (and not to forget everyone who have contributed to the GNU
> project)

They are not to be consulted, according to RMS.

> is the whole canvas, including the paint, brushes, water to clean
> the brushes and actually painting the painting, where Linus "just"
> signed it.

Oh, sure, and all the other contributors to the kernel, the system
utilities, the networking (which was taken mostly from BSD), the
windowing system, and whatever else, they should feel fine not to get
credit.  They are not to be consulted.

> > That RMS quite shamelessly tries to hijack _all_ credit he can
> > think of and feels comfortable with ignoring everybody else's
> > contribution to Free systems as long as he gets his in, is quite
> > hypocritical.
> 
> This has nothing to do with RMS getting more credit, the man has
> enough credit to last a life time and more.

You bet he does.  Which makes the whole thing so much more absurd.

> This has to do with the rest of the people that helped with the GNU
> project.

They don't have a voice in this, according to RMS.

> 
> > RMS never had any naming qualms when he subsumed X, or the BSD
> > networking utilities and stacks, or Mach kernel, or whatever else
> > into GNU/Hurd.
> 
> You are comparing apples to oranges.  XFree86 gets credit (you haven't
> looked at the startup of XFree86 in a while have you?), so do all the
> network utilities, stacks etc, just take a look at the first few lines
> of the copyright header.  Here is a bit from GNU Mach:
> 
>  * Mach Operating System
>  * Copyright (c) 1991,1990,1989 Carnegie Mellon University
>  * All Rights Reserved.
> 
> And nobody has tried to deprive CMU from their credit, nor has anyone
> tried to deprive anyone from any other credit.  The only project that
> has been deprived of the credit is GNU.

Oh, you mean that when you start any GNU utility, the nasty Linux
distributors have cut away all of the startup messages and logos
referring to GNU?  That's a new one to me.

Could you please apply the same standards everywhere?  Everything
else is hypocrisy.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Email: David.Kastrup@t-online.de

Re: configure script

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

* David Kastrup writes:
> ams@kemisten.nu (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:
>> * David Kastrup writes:
> Wrong.  The name is what the one putting it together calls it.  It is
> a GNU system, you might also call it a GNU/Linux system, but it is
> not just "GNU/Linux" just as I am not just "Kastrup".  I have a given
> name.

It is not an GNU system, it is an system based on GNU, thus GNU/Linux.
The GNU system is GNU/Hurd.  Linus did _not_ put together the system,
the GNU project did.

>> > A painting is named by painter, not by the paint manufacturer.
>> > Regardless how good or indispensible the paints have been for the
>> > work.
>> 
>> If a painting is named by the painter, then RMS has all the right to
>> name the "painting", Linus' _ONLY_ contribution was Linux,

> And that's what he named "Linux".  And RMS does not object to that.
> He objects to distribution creators to call their systems Linux
> systems.

Because they are not Linux systems, there is no such thing as an Linux
system.  Linus contributed the kernel, not the system, that is was what
the GNU project did.

<sniped a bunch of stuff that opinions by contributors are not consulted>

This is all according to you, and what you claim RMS said.

> Oh, you mean that when you start any GNU utility, the nasty Linux
> distributors have cut away all of the startup messages and logos
> referring to GNU?  That's a new one to me.

Linux distributors, distribute an kernel, not an operating system.

-- 
Alfred M. Szmidt

Re: configure script

[David Kastrup]

ams@kemisten.nu (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:

> * David Kastrup writes:
> > ams@kemisten.nu (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:
> >> * David Kastrup writes:
> > Wrong.  The name is what the one putting it together calls it.  It is
> > a GNU system, you might also call it a GNU/Linux system, but it is
> > not just "GNU/Linux" just as I am not just "Kastrup".  I have a given
> > name.
> 
> It is not an GNU system, it is an system based on GNU, thus
> GNU/Linux.

Nope.  It is a GNU system, according to the criteria RMS has set out
for such a system.  It consists of entirely Free Software.  Some of
this has been collected from freely available sources elsewhere, some
has been specifically done in the frame of the GNU project, some of
it (kernel, system, networking) has been specifically done in order
to complete the system freely.  That is what RMS defined and set out
to achieve as a GNU system.  RMS himself calls GNU/Linux a "deviant
GNU system".

> The GNU system is GNU/Hurd.  Linus did _not_ put together the system,
> the GNU project did.

Could you please stop accusing people of things they never said?
Nobody said Linus put together the system.  The assembly of the system
is done by others, system integrators.  When GNU/Linux systems first
came about, that was a very large chore, with root kits, system disks,
modified hand-crafted libraries, patched utilities, a complete set of
new system utilities and networking stuff and so on.  Since by now the
system libraries and utilities have been extended to play together
well with Linux, the task has become considerably easier.

> >> > A painting is named by painter, not by the paint manufacturer.
> >> > Regardless how good or indispensible the paints have been for the
> >> > work.
> >> 
> >> If a painting is named by the painter, then RMS has all the right to
> >> name the "painting", Linus' _ONLY_ contribution was Linux,

You still don't get it.  Linus has named the kernel "Linux".  He does
not mind what distribution vendors name their system.  If you think
that their work is negligible, then please explain why at least 98%
of all installed GNU/Linux systems running are installed from some
distribution.  People should be able to just get and install a
GNU/Linux system from sources if it is that easy.  We are not talking
about Linus right to name the kernel.  We are talking about the
distributors right to name their distribution.  Debian calls their
system Debian GNU/Linux.  This is a mark of quality: they have strict
criteria of what may or not may be in the core part of their stuff.
Other distributions choose other names.  In fact, I would find it
offensive if distribution vendors including proprietary components
(like Caldera) called their systems GNU/Linux.  It is not in the GNU
spirit.


> > And that's what he named "Linux".  And RMS does not object to that.
> > He objects to distribution creators to call their systems Linux
> > systems.
> 
> Because they are not Linux systems, there is no such thing as an Linux
> system.  Linus contributed the kernel, not the system,

We are not talking about Linus.  You don't get it.

> that is was what the GNU project did.

We are talking about who put the system together and assembled it, and
designed it (file system layout, stuff to include, packaging system
and database and so on).  There is even a Linux Standard Base effort
that decides where all stuff ought to go.  The GNU utilities can
easily be made to follow the standards, because they were _designed_
to be used as components.  They fit into a _host_ of different
environments which don't get called GNU/Solaris, GNU/AIX,
GNU/Windows, GNU/HPUX when one has replaced all of the core
components with the (in almost all cases superior) GNU components.

> <sniped a bunch of stuff that opinions by contributors are not consulted>
> 
> This is all according to you, and what you claim RMS said.

I would have referred you to the "letters by readers" section of the
just appeared Linux Weekly News, where we had this exchange.  Alas, it
seems that the editors have chosen to cut the published part of the
exchange off before RMS clarified those points.  While he clearly
intended the material to be fit for publishing at least in that forum,
I would not want to publicly post it elsewhere before asking his
permission.

> > Oh, you mean that when you start any GNU utility, the nasty Linux
> > distributors have cut away all of the startup messages and logos
> > referring to GNU?  That's a new one to me.
> 
> Linux distributors, distribute an kernel, not an operating system.

Nice discussion tactics.  First claim nonsense, then don't answer the
retort, but rather pick some other stupid detail to nitpick about.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Email: David.Kastrup@t-online.de

Re: configure script

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

* David Kastrup writes:
> I would have referred you to the "letters by readers" section of the
> just appeared Linux Weekly News, where we had this exchange.  Alas, it
> seems that the editors have chosen to cut the published part of the
> exchange off before RMS clarified those points.  While he clearly
> intended the material to be fit for publishing at least in that forum,
> I would not want to publicly post it elsewhere before asking his
> permission.

And this exactly why the whole discussion is really pointless.  Everything is
based on what you claim that RMS said, what you think he said, or what
you think he will say.  So unless RMS will want to waste his time on
this, the discussion is moot.

Cheers,
-- 
Alfred M. Szmidt

Re: configure script

[Richard Stallman]

    This is about the most shameless lie and insinuation that I have ever
    heard.  Linus Torvalds has always acknowledged the major influence
    GNU has had on Linux development.

We recognize Linux, the kernel, as being primary Linus's work,
notwithstanding the many others who contributed to it.  Whether GNU
had any effect on the development of Linux does not seem to be a major
issue.

As for the operating system in which Linux became popular and is
mainly used, to say that we "had a major influence on it" is a gross
understatement.  It was never right to call this operating system
"Linux", and we ask people not to do that.

    That RMS quite shamelessly tries to hijack _all_ credit he can think
    of and feels comfortable with ignoring everybody else's contribution
    to Free systems as long as he gets his in, is quite hypocritical.

I call the system "GNU/Linux" specifically to give a share of the
credit for the system to Linus Torvalds.  I also frequently
acknowledge that many other people and projects have developed
programs that are now included in the system, including X, TeX, Mach,
and nowadays thousands more.  It is true I don't mention them in the
name of the system; is that what you are criticizing me for?  I don't
think we can, or need, mention all the secondary contributions in the
system's name.

Re: configure script

[David Kastrup]

rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman) writes:

> I call the system "GNU/Linux" specifically to give a share of the
> credit for the system to Linus Torvalds.  I also frequently
> acknowledge that many other people and projects have developed
> programs that are now included in the system, including X, TeX,
> Mach, and nowadays thousands more.  It is true I don't mention them
> in the name of the system; is that what you are criticizing me for?

This is double standards, and it makes stuff more annoying.

> I don't think we can, or need, mention all the secondary
> contributions in the system's name.

The main thing I have an issue with is that your way of pressing
GNU's cause is about the most harmful one imaginable.  Instead of
trying to hijack existing brands (like RedHat Linux), you should
establish your own.  Make a "Powered by GNU" label.  Ask distribution
vendors to tack it prominently on their CD boxes and ask them to
include a pointer to the GNU Manifesto where it can be found.  You
will encounter almost no restistance.  Make a "GNU certified Free
Software" label which will only be allowed on distributions
containing completely redistributable components.  Ask people to
consider buying only those CDs.  Make a "Contributor to the GNU
project" label for distribution vendors which seriously contribute
back money or developers.  That's the way to get brand recognition.

Instead you are trying to prohibit the distributors and other
developers the freedom for choosing their own brand.  In consequence,
they get upset.

The main quibble I have with you is not particularly that I find your
case not being convincing.  Even if it were, I would consider the way
you press it harmful for the GNU project.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Email: David.Kastrup@t-online.de

Re: configure script

[Sami Sihvonen]

In article <200206122347.g5CNlNn05901@aztec.santafe.edu>,
rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman) wrote:

> Whether GNU had any effect on the development of Linux does not 
> seem to be a major issue.

The truth be told here for everybody:

Free Software Foundation has funded the rewriting of GNU/Linux 
extensions to the GNU C library so it can be used out-of-the-box
with GNU/Linux. And also Free Software Foundation has funded
development of popular GNU/Linux distribution, Debian GNU/Linux.

> As for the operating system in which Linux became popular and is
> mainly used, to say that we "had a major influence on it" is a gross
> understatement.  It was never right to call this operating system
> "Linux", and we ask people not to do that.

Agreed, GNU Project is so important part of GNU/Linux that it just
can't be ignored. Linux kernel is just another platform to run GNU
tools, just like any commercial Unix(tm) or even Microsoft Windows.

The difference here is that GNU/Linux uses so much GNU tools, it
can't even boot without few dozen of GNU tools. It is just wrong
to ignore GNU Project when talking about GNU/Linux systems.

> I call the system "GNU/Linux" specifically to give a share of the
> credit for the system to Linus Torvalds.

Agreed, Linux kernel is under 3% source code of GNU/Linux systems.
Some GNU/Linux distributions contain 28% of software from GNU 
Project, this has been counted by distribution vendor. And I
guess distributions with a lot of CD's have even higher numbers.

In article <x53cvshjam.fsf@tupik.goethe.zz>,
David.Kastrup@t-online.de (David Kastrup) wrote:

> Linus Torvalds has always acknowledged the major influence
> GNU has had on Linux development. He did not choose the GPL for
> Linux accidentally.

Linux kernel does not wan't to be official kernel for GNU 
Operating System. This is a decision made by Linus Torvalds. 
No friendly operating towards GNU Project or Free Software
Foundation. GNU/Linux uses a lot of efforts from GNU Project 
but it does not give anything back to it. FSF has even funded
development of GNU/Linux,but got nothing back for it.

> Nobody would deny that all available Linux systems _are_ GNU systems.

Everybody who ignores GNU Project contribution to GNU/Linux 
systems keep saying that there are distributions that don't
you any GNU Project material. 

Yes, it is possible to run Linux kernel without any GNU Project
software. But those that I have seen or heard about are few 
floppies distributions that can be used only to do few things. 
Nothing like real OS, like GNU/Linux distributions.

If you keep saying "Dell sells pre-installed Linux systems"
or "IBM does consulting for Linux systems", guess what kind
of Linux systems they are? Anwser: They are all those 
distributions with huge amount of GNU Project software. 

> But that is no reason to adulterate the name. It is the one 
> putting together a system that gets to name it. A painting is 
> named by painter, not by the paint manufacturer.

Check out www.gnu.org for good comments from RMS about this.
Argue them, if you can. I don't think it is possible.

> That RMS quite shamelessly tries to hijack _all_ credit he can think
> of and feels comfortable with ignoring everybody else's contribution
> to Free systems as long as he gets his in, is quite hypocritical.

RMS shamelessly hijacking credit? What a joke... When I was
talking about this same issue in finnish-language GNU/Linux
newsgroup (sfnet.atk.linux) one guy even said "RMS is boosting
his own ego".

RMS is a living legend in world of computers. Anybody who 
tries to say anything else must be having mental problems. 
Gods don't needing hijack any credit or boost their
own egos. Give me a good laugh, try explaining how RMS is
doing a bad work and how he is hurting computer industry?

RMS might use all available means to make his dream code true,
GNU Project and GNU Operating System. All of us benefit from
this, any GPL source code helps us all. Since this is a Good
Thing(tm), I can't blame RMS for attacking GNU/Linux naming 
the way he does. He has got a point and facts to back it up.

-- 
Sami Sihvonen,
Chief Executive Officer,
Janiika Networks Corporation.

Re: configure script

[D. Goel]

Moreover, people lose sight of the fact that the project was always to
be called GNU (GNU's not unix..), back when RMS started it in 83..
back when not many would help out because things weren't 'convenient'
enough for them[1].  In that era, RMS had to make tough choices.. and
he started out by doing it incrementally.. developing unix-equivalent
tools first rather than write the kernel straightaway.  Those tools
slowly became so ubiquitous, present on several op. systems, that
people 'took them for granted'... and simply forgot all about GNU when
a kernel that fit into the gnu project came along. 



> 
> RMS shamelessly hijacking credit? What a joke... When I was
> talking about this same issue in finnish-language GNU/Linux
> newsgroup (sfnet.atk.linux) one guy even said "RMS is boosting
> his own ego".

These people just don't see it.  Heh, it is linux that's named after
linus--whose ego is that boosting? .  RMS isnt' trying to attach his
name, he is just trying to restore the name that he had always given
his system---GNU.  It was these 'linuxers' that hijacked the 10-year
old name GNU and started calling it linux, when the kernel came out.

> Gods don't needing hijack any credit or boost their
> own egos. Give me a good laugh, try explaining how RMS is
> doing a bad work and how he is hurting computer industry?

RMS, imho, with GPL, GNU, years of work when no one else would,
sometimes without an apartment to live in, is the single persom most
responsible for the idea that imvho, ultimately will win out (because
it makes for a better economic model[2], imvho)---that information
should not have owners.  Even today, he lives on a mere $25K from a
fellowship, and has never accepted any payments from FSF.  This guy
has devoted his life to Free Software, and look what he's getting in
return...  


> 
> RMS might use all available means to make his dream code true, GNU
> Project and GNU Operating System. All of us benefit from this, any
> GPL source code helps us all. Since this is a Good Thing(tm), I
> can't blame RMS for attacking GNU/Linux naming the way he does. He
> has got a point and facts to back it up.

And he is not doing it for any ego-boosting or personal
selfishness---case in point: he is not trying to name it 'richarm',
unlike some kernel-developers who conveniently let 'vendors' rename
the entire GNU system after them.  

Just imagine for a moment doing what RMS did--- jumping on the 'linux'
bandwagon, when absolutely none of it existed.. and you might just
appreciate what he has done for you and me. 

[1] Now that RMS's efforts have made Free Software a viable option,
they want to jump on the bandwagon.  But they want to (proudly!) jump
only on a part of the bandwagon and shamelessly proclaim: "I will use
nonfree when it is better.  I don't care about philosophy, and i don't
care about nomenclature. I just want to use what is most productive
for me (read: what is most convenient for me)."


[2] IMVHO, That nonownership of information (/software) makes a better
economic model for the society is obvious if you consider a simple
model in which a million people share 1 bit of information with
everyone else..  Each now has a million bits of info..  and the total
number of resources is suddenly million times million---a millionfold
of what it used to be.  
And imho, it is being proved by the rapid spread of GPL --- i read
somewhere that 70% of all licenses are now GPL's.



DG   <http://www.glue.umd.edu/~deego/>
-- 
It is only the work of idealists that creates surroundings in which
idealism is no longer necessary to let the good choices prevail.
     -- David Kastrup on 'Free Software vs. Convenient Software'

Re: configure script

[Christoph Conrad]

Hi Deepak,

    > Even today, he lives on a mere $25K from a fellowship, and has
    > never accepted any payments from FSF.

1990 he got the MacArthur Foundation fellowship with $240,000. 2001
the japanese Takeda-Foundation gave him a price of 830000$ for
"Starting the free software movement and leading the development of
the GNU operating system" bekommen.

Best regards,
cu, -cc-
-- 
Wenn ich groß bin, werde ich Hühnerhänger bei Wiesenhof.

Re: configure script

[Eli Zaretskii]

On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Sami Sihvonen wrote:

> GNU Emacs v20.5 for MS-DOS crashes under Micros~1 Windows 3.11
> for Workgroups running default settings.

Thanks, this is a known problem with Windows 3.11.

> Default settings give too
> little memory, Emacs crashes and blames it on Windows kernel.
> Solutation is to edit _default.pif memory settings (XMS/EMS 
> unlimited setting "-1" works). Maybe there should be emacs.pif
> included in distribution at bin-directory to give better default
> settings?

The Emacs distribution _does_ include emacs.pif, you can find it in the 
msdos directory.

Re: configure script

[Sami Sihvonen]

In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020612135941.17890A-100000@is>,
eliz@is.elta.co.il (Eli Zaretskii) wrote:

>> GNU Emacs v20.5 for MS-DOS crashes under Micros~1 Windows 3.11
>> for Workgroups running default settings.
> Thanks, this is a known problem with Windows 3.11.

GNU Emacs should report this when starting it, give information 
about having too little memory. Now you can use GNU Emacs v20.5
running under Windows 3.11 and get mysterious crashes blamed on
Windows 3.11 kernel even when editing small files. You need to 
open a very big file to get warning from Emacs about low memory.

> The Emacs distribution _does_ include emacs.pif, you can find it in the 
> msdos directory.

When it was added and is it included in all  distributions? My 
GNU Emacs v20.5 did not have it. I got mine with DJGPP distribution.
There were several zip-files, I did not download any binary files.
Maybe it was included there?

Anyhow, this is not important. Important is that this problem 
should be documented clearly in distributions since this is 
very vital information. And maybe it would be wise to hack 
source code to give better warning about this problem.

Disclaimer (this needs expaining), why I use MS-Win v3.11?
I have one PC-laptop with special hardware that needs Win311.
Normally I use GNU/Debian, but I need that laptop's special
features for work. And ofcourse I wan't GNU Emacs in that 
laptop too. :-)

-- 
Sami Sihvonen,
Chief Executive Officer,
Janiika Networks Corporation.

Re: configure script

[Eli Zaretskii]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, Sami Sihvonen wrote:

> In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020612135941.17890A-100000@is>,
> eliz@is.elta.co.il (Eli Zaretskii) wrote:
> 
> >> GNU Emacs v20.5 for MS-DOS crashes under Micros~1 Windows 3.11
> >> for Workgroups running default settings.
> > Thanks, this is a known problem with Windows 3.11.
> 
> GNU Emacs should report this when starting it, give information 
> about having too little memory.

Unfortunately, this is not possible.  Also, the problem doesn't happen on 
all systems.

> > The Emacs distribution _does_ include emacs.pif, you can find it in the 
> > msdos directory.
> 
> When it was added

A long time ago, perhaps 8 years.

> and is it included in all  distributions?

It's part of the official Emacs distribution.

> My 
> GNU Emacs v20.5 did not have it. I got mine with DJGPP distribution.

It's in em2005s1.zip.