configure script

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

[OT] Re: configure script

[Glenn Morris]

[off-topic]

David Kastrup wrote:

> ss@janiika.com (Sami Sihvonen) writes:
>>
>> 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.

Really? You need to get out more in that case. ;)
To pick a random example, have you never listened to a politician speak?

> Nobody denies the major contribution of the GNU project to Linux systems.
> Nobody would deny that all available Linux systems _are_ GNU systems.

No reasonable person fully informed of all the facts would deny those
points. I think, however, that many people are not aware of all the facts.
"Linux" is a bit of a media-buzzword, "GNU" is less so, in my experience. 

> But that is no reason to adulterate the name.

Trying to make people more aware of all the facts seems like a good reason
to "adulterate" the name to me.

> 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.

I don't find that a valid analogy. Painting a picture is a creative act of
an entirely different order to the simple functional task of making some
paints. It completely transforms the input materials into something
radically different. Packaging together shells, file manipulation
utilities, a kernel, etc into a distribution, on the other hand, is nowhere
near the same kind of process. (More like making a paint box, if you will,
with some nice brushes and what-have-you. :) A paint box without paints is
pretty useless.). It's just a convenience thing. This is not to say that
I'm not very grateful that someone does it. But I don't feel that the
contribution made by RedHat to the system I am currently running is
anywhere near the level made by those involved in the GNU project (yes, I
am aware that those two categories overlap). I could get by without the
former, but not the latter.

I agree that the people who put together the system get to name it. Others
are, however, entirely at liberty to point out if they think the name is
bad, inaccurate, or misleading. Why should anything be sacred in Open
Source? If we can tell authors what we think is wrong with their code,
their documentation, surely we can criticise the way they brand their
products too? I happen to agree with the view in which the fact that most
distributions are branded as "Acme Linux" (say) is misleading.

A rose by any other name (was Re: [OT] Re: configure script)

[David Masterson]

>>>>> Glenn Morris writes:

[...on renaming "Linux" as "GNU/Linux"...]

> Trying to make people more aware of all the facts seems like a good
> reason to "adulterate" the name to me.

Why?  People are aware of the facts.  Those that are not aware of the
facts are barely able to pronounce "linux" let alone care what it or
the GNU toolset within it is.

> I happen to agree with the view in which the fact that most
> distributions are branded as "Acme Linux" (say) is misleading.

If the FSF had a copyright (not a copyleft) on the GNU toolset, then
perhaps they could request royalties from the Linux distributors and
make an impact on getting the name changed.  As it is, that ship has
already sailed...

-- 
David Masterson                David DOT Masterson AT synopsys DOT com
Sr. R&D Engineer               Synopsys, Inc.
Software Engineering           Sunnyvale, CA

Re: A rose by any other name (was Re: [OT] Re: configure script)

[Richard Stallman]

    > Trying to make people more aware of all the facts seems like a good
    > reason to "adulterate" the name to me.

    Why?  People are aware of the facts.

In my experience, most of the people who have heard about the
GNU/Linux system think it is "Linux"; they have never heard of GNU,
and have a mistaken picture of where the system came from.

Even wizards can be misinformed; they have usually heard of GNU, but
often they think GNU is a brand of "tools", which by good fortune
happened to be useful in the "Linux operating system".  Few are aware
that GNU is the name of an operating system.  They don't know that we
set out in 1984 to develop an operating system, and that the system
they call Linux is largely that system.

Since your message refers to "the GNU toolset", it could be that you
have fallen prey that particular confusion too.  Calling the system
GNU/Linux is easiest and most efficient way to help correct the
confusion.

    If the FSF had a copyright (not a copyleft) on the GNU toolset, then
    perhaps they could request royalties from the Linux distributors and
    make an impact on getting the name changed.

The FSF does has a copyright on some GNU programs (not on all of
them); the copyright on a program is the basis for releasing a program
under the GNU GPL.  However, we do not try to force people to call the
system "GNU/Linux".  We ask people to do this because it is the right
thing to do.

You seem to be saying that if we do not try to force people to give us
credit, we deserve none.  In effect, you're assuming that *might makes
right*--that

I have a different view.  I think that even though we do not force
people to say GNU/Linux, they still ought to do what is right.

Put aside about the other people--you don't make decisions for them,
but you do make decisions for yourself.  How about calling the system
"GNU/Linux" yourself?  We won't try to force you, but if it's the
right thing, how about doing it voluntarily?

Re: A rose by any other name (was Re: [OT] Re: configure script)

[David desJardins]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> Calling the system GNU/Linux is easiest and most efficient way to help
> correct the confusion.

My experience is that this doesn't work for anyone.  The people who
understand the history and the components already have an opinion.  The
people who don't know the history or the components think, at most, that
GNU/Linux is some sort of variant of Linux, like "FreeBSD" is a spinoff
of BSD, and "SCO Unix" was a spinoff of Unix.

On the other hand, I don't have any problem with the request, and I
don't understand why Mr Kastrup rants about it.

  -- David desJardins

Re: A rose by any other name (was Re: [OT] Re: configure script)

[David Masterson]

[followups to gnu.misc.discuss]

>>>>> David desJardins writes:

> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>> Calling the system GNU/Linux is easiest and most efficient way to
>> help correct the confusion.

> My experience is that this doesn't work for anyone.  The people who
> understand the history and the components already have an opinion.
> The people who don't know the history or the components think, at
> most, that GNU/Linux is some sort of variant of Linux, like
> "FreeBSD" is a spinoff of BSD, and "SCO Unix" was a spinoff of Unix.

Or "RedHat Linux" and "SuSE Linux"...

> On the other hand, I don't have any problem with the request, and I
> don't understand why Mr Kastrup rants about it.

From what I've seen, my guess would be that he feels (rightly or
wrongly) that it is a request that comes from RMS and not really from
"all the contributors to GNU".  Since the GNU project is such an open
and eclectic project that has been going on for 18 years and
comprising hundreds or thousands of people, it's hard to ascribe a lot
of weight to the request of one member of the project (even when it is
RMS).  Some (like Mr. Kastrup) might think that the copyright all over
the code would be enough.  Had the request come sooner in the life of
"Linux" (say, around the time it started to graduate from kernel to
O/S), then acceptance of the GNU moniker might've been easier (there
is also the notorious tendency of software engineers to shorten names
to combat).

-- 
David Masterson                David DOT Masterson AT synopsys DOT com
Sr. R&D Engineer               Synopsys, Inc.
Software Engineering           Sunnyvale, CA

Re: A rose by any other name (was Re: [OT] Re: configure script)

[Richard Stallman]

As the founder and leader of the GNU Project, I've been asking people
since around 1994 to please call the system GNU/Linux.

I don't see why that should make a big difference.  Calling the system
"Linux" was never right, and it's better to correct it late than
never.  But for whatever difference it makes, the request came pretty
early.

Re: A rose by any other name (was Re: [OT] Re: configure script)

[David Kastrup]

desj@Math.Berkeley.EDU (David desJardins) writes:

> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> > Calling the system GNU/Linux is easiest and most efficient way to help
> > correct the confusion.
> 
> My experience is that this doesn't work for anyone.  The people who
> understand the history and the components already have an opinion.  The
> people who don't know the history or the components think, at most, that
> GNU/Linux is some sort of variant of Linux, like "FreeBSD" is a spinoff
> of BSD, and "SCO Unix" was a spinoff of Unix.
> 
> On the other hand, I don't have any problem with the request, and I
> don't understand why Mr Kastrup rants about it.

I am not ranting about the request: as it is laid out in its current
form in writing, it is close to be expressed in reasonable words,
probably because it has been through several stages of mitigation by
third sides.  I still find some points rather dubious, and I am
appalled at the relentless priority with which Stallman pursues this
in public as if there was nothing more important, or if there were not
a dozen less confrontational or self-destructive ways of achieving
similar goals (basically recognition of and for GNU).  I know that
every interview with Stallman I read will waste probably half of the
space with GNU/Linux admonishments, one reads off-topic posts from
Stallman about GNU/Linux on Linux developer lists, Stallman refuses to
let a site (in Japan?) serve as a GNU mirror because it has Linux in
its name, Stallman cancels a visit to a national user group because
they have Linux in their name.

Of course I may be lacking the visionary power of RMS here, but I
simply fail to see how this is supposed to strengthen the stand of
Free Software and the GNU project.

Call it ranting, if you want to.  At least it appears that both RMS
and I care enough about Free Software to be susceptible to getting
into rant mode...  By the way, this is entirely off-topic here as
well, and I am sorry to have been drawn into discussing this here.  So
this will be my last post on this matter here.

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

Re: A rose by any other name (was Re: [OT] Re: configure script)

[Sami Sihvonen]

In article <200206132146.g5DLkdN07519@aztec.santafe.edu>,
rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman) wrote:

> In my experience, most of the people who have heard about the
> GNU/Linux system think it is "Linux"; they have never heard of GNU,
> and have a mistaken picture of where the system came from.

Example:

In Finland, where Linus Torvalds made Linux-kernel, there is
three major computer magazines, all of them highly focused on
MS-Windows. Once or twice in a year they usually print large
article about GNU/Linux. 

Those articles always have the same basic idea: "Linux was
made by Linus Torvalds from Finland with the help of thousands
people from the Internet". I have _never_ seen anything about
GNU Project or Free Software Foundation in those articles.

They give the general idea that Linus Torvalds made everything 
with help from the Internet... If correct name was used, 
GNU/Linux, it would help to solve these kind of confusions.

Re: [OT] Re: configure script

[Peter S Galbraith]

Glenn Morris <rgm22@_REMOVETHIS_cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> > Nobody denies the major contribution of the GNU project to Linux systems.
> > Nobody would deny that all available Linux systems _are_ GNU systems.
> 
> No reasonable person fully informed of all the facts would deny those
> points. I think, however, that many people are not aware of all the facts.
> "Linux" is a bit of a media-buzzword, "GNU" is less so, in my experience. 

On a lighter note, don't underestimate the power of GNU with those that
do know about free software.  I wonder if gnuplot is (probably, my guess
anyway) the most popular graphing package in the free software world
because people think it's the GNU approved one, when in fact it has
nothing to do with GNU (and isn't GPLed either).

Peter

Re: [OT] Re: configure script

[David Kastrup]

rgm22@_REMOVETHIS_cam.ac.uk (Glenn Morris) writes:

> I'm not very grateful that someone does it. But I don't feel that
> the contribution made by RedHat to the system I am currently running
> is anywhere near the level made by those involved in the GNU
> project.

The people involved in the GNU project don't get a say about this.  I
had an exchange with RMS just recently in letters to lwn.net where I
tried to get him to tell me just who constitutes the GNU project so
that one could ask their opinion.

The turnout: nobody constitutes the GNU project.  People contributing
don't have a voice.  The voice of the GNU project is Richard
Stallman, and when he talks as "we" when talking about the GNU
project, he is not speaking on behalf of any persons.

So it is not his position that the people working on the GNU project
have a say on the naming issue.  It is, however, by virtue of their
work that _he_ has a say on this issue.

Make of this what you will.

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

Re: [OT] Re: configure script

[David Masterson]

>>>>> David Kastrup writes:

> The people involved in the GNU project don't get a say about this.
> I had an exchange with RMS just recently in letters to lwn.net where
> I tried to get him to tell me just who constitutes the GNU project
> so that one could ask their opinion.

> The turnout: nobody constitutes the GNU project.  People
> contributing don't have a voice.  The voice of the GNU project is
> Richard Stallman, and when he talks as "we" when talking about the
> GNU project, he is not speaking on behalf of any persons.

> So it is not his position that the people working on the GNU project
> have a say on the naming issue.  It is, however, by virtue of their
> work that _he_ has a say on this issue.

> Make of this what you will.

I, of course, was not privy to your exchange with RMS, so I can only
guess the precise statements that were made.  I wonder, however, if
another interpretation might've been that people come and go so
quickly in the "GNU project" that there would be no way to "ask their
opinion".  Therefore, the FSF (and RMS), as the guiding influence and
holders of the copyright assignments, must act as custodians of the
project and attempt to express the wishes of the project.  Presumably,
people contributing code to the project know and understand this when
they copyleft their code.  Or they would be attempting to take back
their contribution.

-- 
David Masterson                David DOT Masterson AT synopsys DOT com
Sr. R&D Engineer               Synopsys, Inc.
Software Engineering           Sunnyvale, CA

Re: [OT] Re: configure script

[Eli Zaretskii]

On 12 Jun 2002, David Kastrup wrote:

> The people involved in the GNU project don't get a say about this.

And your opinions--are they based on some poll of the GNU contributors 
and maintainers?  Or are they just _your_ personal views?

Re: [OT] Re: configure script

[David Kastrup]

eliz@is.elta.co.il (Eli Zaretskii) writes:

> On 12 Jun 2002, David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> > The people involved in the GNU project don't get a say about this.
> 
> And your opinions--are they based on some poll of the GNU contributors 
> and maintainers?  Or are they just _your_ personal views?

My opinions are my own.  But I am not declaring myself a speaker for
the GNU project.  I suggested to Stallman that he might come up with
a definition about who could be considered part of the GNU project,
so that it would be possible to do such a poll and thus clear up the
authority with which and for whom he was speaking.

His answer was that nobody has a say in this rather than he as the
person that put up the GNU project, so such a poll would be pointless.

My views are my personal views and labelled as such.  When Stallman
talks about this issue, he always hinds behind "we".  Because "we"
put together the stuff (according to Stallman), "we" chose the name
GNU.  "We" in this case, Stallman clarified after questioning, means
the GNU project.  Which has as its sole speaker Richard Stallman who
must not consult with others (as the goals of the GNU project have
been fixed before their times) before talking in their behalf.

Stallman is, of course, entitled to his personal views, but I
would prefer if he labelled them as such.

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

Re: [OT] Re: configure script

[Eli Zaretskii]

On 13 Jun 2002, David Kastrup wrote:

> eliz@is.elta.co.il (Eli Zaretskii) writes:
> 
> > On 12 Jun 2002, David Kastrup wrote:
> > 
> > > The people involved in the GNU project don't get a say about this.
> > 
> > And your opinions--are they based on some poll of the GNU contributors 
> > and maintainers?  Or are they just _your_ personal views?
> 
> My opinions are my own.

Then all we have is a "he said, she said" argument.  Richard has his 
views, you have yours.  For all I know, most or all GNU maintainers could 
support Richard, not you.

> I suggested to Stallman that he might come up with
> a definition about who could be considered part of the GNU project,
> so that it would be possible to do such a poll and thus clear up the
> authority with which and for whom he was speaking.
> 
> His answer was that nobody has a say in this rather than he as the
> person that put up the GNU project, so such a poll would be pointless.

If you really cared, you could start a poll yourself.

> Stallman is, of course, entitled to his personal views, but I
> would prefer if he labelled them as such.

Richard is the leader of the GNU project, to say nothing of his personal 
contributions.  He is also the president of the FSF, which works on the 
GNU project.  If anyone is entitled to speak on behalf of GNU, Richard is.

That doesn't necessarily mean you and I should agree with everything 
Richard says (you and others know how many times I disagreed with him on 
various issues), but swerving the argument to discussing whether he can 
or cannot say ``we'' is IMHO a waste of time.  Likewise the accusations 
in hypocrisy: they are not useful in practical terms and terribly wrong 
factually.

Re: [OT] Re: configure script

[David Kastrup]

eliz@is.elta.co.il (Eli Zaretskii) writes:

> On 13 Jun 2002, David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> > eliz@is.elta.co.il (Eli Zaretskii) writes:
> > 
> > > On 12 Jun 2002, David Kastrup wrote:
> > > 
> > > > The people involved in the GNU project don't get a say about this.
> > > 
> > > And your opinions--are they based on some poll of the GNU contributors 
> > > and maintainers?  Or are they just _your_ personal views?
> > 
> > My opinions are my own.
> 
> Then all we have is a "he said, she said" argument.  Richard has his 
> views, you have yours.  For all I know, most or all GNU maintainers could 
> support Richard, not you.
> 
> > I suggested to Stallman that he might come up with
> > a definition about who could be considered part of the GNU project,
> > so that it would be possible to do such a poll and thus clear up the
> > authority with which and for whom he was speaking.
> > 
> > His answer was that nobody has a say in this rather than he as the
> > person that put up the GNU project, so such a poll would be pointless.
> 
> If you really cared, you could start a poll yourself.

What I care about is limiting the damage RMS manages to inflict on
the GNU project.  Since RMS has stated in advance that the outcome of
such a poll could and must not change the way in which he feels fit
to fight for his cause, it would be an exercise in futility.  The
whole "Open Source" splitoff did not came about because people did
not care about Free Software: a certain indication of that is the
prevalent use of the GPL on such software.  It simply came about
because people became embarrassed to be working for the cause of Free
Software under Richard's banner and auspices.

Now Richard is not the one to concede one inch of his position for
mere "political" reasons.  And that has always been one of his
strengths.  For that reason I am trying to persuade him to assume a
less damaging stance by pointing out that his position could be
considered quite inconsistent even without considering the damage I
find it causes.

> > Stallman is, of course, entitled to his personal views, but I
> > would prefer if he labelled them as such.
> 
> Richard is the leader of the GNU project, to say nothing of his
> personal contributions.  He is also the president of the FSF, which
> works on the GNU project.  If anyone is entitled to speak on behalf
> of GNU, Richard is.

Sure thing.  But questions that remain: Is anybody entitled to speak
on behalf of GNU?  If so, with what authority?  Richard's answer is
that he nobody else is entitled to speak on behalf of the GNU project,
and that his speech is not to be encumbered by the opinions of any
contributors.  The next question is: what encompasses the range of
the GNU project that Richard is entitled to be speaking for?
Richard's answer to that is: simply anything that could be a
component of a GNU system.  So while he reserves the right not to ask
anyone about it, he assumes speaking with the authority and
legitimation of about every Free Software author or contribution
towards GNU systems, including the X window system, the BSD
networking utilities, the Linux and Mach kernels, the various system
utilities and so forth and so on.

> That doesn't necessarily mean you and I should agree with everything
> Richard says (you and others know how many times I disagreed with
> him on various issues), but swerving the argument to discussing
> whether he can or cannot say ``we'' is IMHO a waste of time.

The problem is that people stop taking Stallman seriously when he
indulges in petty infighting like this.  This would not in itself
matter so much if the fight for Free Software had already been won.

Unfortunately, it hasn't, and the vigilance and fight for freedom
never can be abandoned.  One of the next critical points I see coming
up involved the infrastructure in the toolchain.  At the current point
of time, GCC is the accepted compiler for both the Linux kernel and
the complete GNU systems being shipped with it.  Most GNU utilities
are pretty much agnostic to the compiler they are being compiled with,
and that is a good thing.  The Linux kernel isn't.  Because of its
prevalence, compiler manufacturers will start to support the necessary
GNU compiler extensions and provide alternatives where this is not
feasible.  Intel's compilers generate considerably better code than
GCC does.  It is only a matter of time until it becomes feasible to
compile complete GNU/Linux systems with proprietary compilers.  This
would mean that the resulting systems could not be modified and
bootstrapped without having to acquire the necessary proprietary
tools.  An awful step backwards from today's situation.  The solution
is to convince distribution maintainers not to switch to superior
non-free technology.  Only in that case, hardware producers like
Intel will keep an interest of keeping GCC more or less up to par.
And given the speed of evolution of today's hardware, manufacturer
support is important.

This involves decisions based on ideals instead of mere technical
merits.  And some of the things that Richard chooses to focus on are
not terribly suited to convince people that his ideals are suitable
for adoption if they lead to the results he comes to.

I would not want to compromise Richard's principles, but it is my
opinion that his chosen ways of fighting for them could be less
contraproductive.

It is precisely because I strongly care about Free Software and the
GNU project that it maddens me to see people getting alienated to
their causes for no reason I would deem compelling.

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

Re: [OT] Re: configure script

[Eli Zaretskii]

On 13 Jun 2002, David Kastrup wrote:

> > If you really cared, you could start a poll yourself.
> 
> What I care about is limiting the damage RMS manages to inflict on
> the GNU project.  Since RMS has stated in advance that the outcome of
> such a poll could and must not change the way in which he feels fit
> to fight for his cause, it would be an exercise in futility.

I doubt that.  An opinion of a sufficient number of maintainers with 
credentials is hard to ignore.

> The
> whole "Open Source" splitoff did not came about because people did
> not care about Free Software: a certain indication of that is the
> prevalent use of the GPL on such software.  It simply came about
> because people became embarrassed to be working for the cause of Free
> Software under Richard's banner and auspices.

From my perspective, that splitoff happened because some people couldn't 
make themselves work with RMS as a person.  It's that simple; everything 
else you hear is rationalizations.

Re: [OT] Re: configure script

[David Kastrup]

eliz@is.elta.co.il (Eli Zaretskii) writes:

> > The whole "Open Source" splitoff did not came about because people
> > did not care about Free Software: a certain indication of that is
> > the prevalent use of the GPL on such software.  It simply came
> > about because people became embarrassed to be working for the
> > cause of Free Software under Richard's banner and auspices.
> 
> From my perspective, that splitoff happened because some people
> couldn't make themselves work with RMS as a person.  It's that
> simple; everything else you hear is rationalizations.

Well, it pretty much amounts to the same thing in my opinion.  After
all, "cooperation" with RMS when developing Free Software does not
require personal contact except on projects where he is personally
involved as a developer (that would be for example the case for the
Emacs/XEmacs split) or where his project management and supervision
is involved (which had some effects on the by now mended gcc/egcs
split).

Where individual projects are concerned, a split of developing teams
because of enmities is probably ineffective, but in the end the better
approach will usually win out.  So the damage is in some way limited.
I consider the schisma in Free Software of a somewhat different
quality.

Open Software chose to distance itself from Free Software because RMS
declares himself solely responsible for the ideological representation
of every developer daring to contribute to Free Software, since in his
opinion this constitutes an implicit contribution to the GNU project
for which he is speaker.

It's pretty much the same manner of the traditional Pope's claims to
be sole representative of _all_ Christian churches (which is IIRC
still the official doctrine, though in practice it has been
ameliorated somewhat to accommodate political realities).

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

Re: [OT] Re: configure script

[Eli Zaretskii]

On 13 Jun 2002, David Kastrup wrote:

> Open Software chose to distance itself from Free Software because RMS
> declares himself solely responsible for the ideological representation
> of every developer daring to contribute to Free Software, since in his
> opinion this constitutes an implicit contribution to the GNU project
> for which he is speaker.

Ideological agreements are not necessary for practical cooperation, 
assuming that there is some common (non-ideological) goal.  People who 
put ideological disagreements as prerequisite to work towards common 
goals simply demonstrate their basic inability to cooperate, because 
asking for agreement on ideological issues is in many cases asking for 
something impossible or illusory.

Re: [OT] Re: configure script

[Andreas Schwab]

Could you please continue the discussion off-list?  This has nothing to do
with bugs in Emacs.

Thanks, Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: [OT] Re: configure script

[Richard Stallman]

I can't speak for the open source movement, let alone for its
founders, but their motivation could not lie in their impressions of
working with me personally, because most of them had never worked
with me directly.

They have been quite articulate about their reasons.  The free
software movement promotes certain views, including the idea that free
software is an ethical imperative and non-free software is
anti-social.  The founders of the open source movement chose to reject
this ethical imperative, and instead to approach business with
arguments based purely on an appeal to selfishness.

As far as I can tell, some open source supporters actually did believe
in the free software movement's ethical position, but decided as a
strategem to avoid mentioning it.  Others, including Eric Raymond,
never agreed with these views, either before or after.  For him, open
source provided an opportunity to convince some people whose views
were more like mine to advocate his views instead.

Subsequently, business has tended to promote "open source", and most
journalists follow business.  As a result, many people don't realize
there is a free software movement.  I regularly encounter people who
agree with the free software movement's position but have no idea that
there is a free software movement.  I ask them to start saying "free
software" instead, and many of them do.

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.