Fascinating interview by Richard Stallman on Russia TV

Discussion in 'Python' started by bolega, Jul 7, 2010.

  1. bolega

    bolega Guest

    bolega, Jul 7, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. bolega

    Mark Tarver Guest

    Re: Fascinating interview by Richard Stallman at KTH on emacs historyand internals

    On 15 July, 23:21, bolega <> wrote:
    > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-kth.html
    >
    > RMS lecture at KTH (Sweden), 30 October 1986
    >
    > (Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan (Royal Institute of Technology))
    > Stockholm, Sweden
    >
    > Arranged by the student society
    > “Datorföreningen Stacken”
    > 30 October 1986
    >
    > [Note: This is a slightly edited transcript of the talk. As such it
    > contains false starts, as well as locutions that are natural in spoken
    > English but look strange in print. It is not clear how to correct them
    > to written English style without ‘doing violence to the original
    > speech’.]
    >
    > It seems that there are three things that people would like me to talk
    > about. On the one hand I thought that the best thing to talk about
    > here for a club of hackers, was what it was like at the MIT in the old
    > days. What made the Artificial Intelligence Lab such a special place.
    > But people tell me also that since these are totally different people
    > from the ones who were at the conference Monday and Tuesday that I
    > ought to talk about what's going on in the GNU project and that I
    > should talk about why software and information can not be owned, which
    > means three talks in all, and since two of those subjects each took an
    > hour it means we're in for a rather long time. So I had the idea that
    > perhaps I could split it in to three parts, and people could go
    > outside for the parts they are not interested in, and that then when I
    > come to the end of a part I can say it's the end and people can go out
    > and I can send Jan Rynning out to bring in the other people. (Someone
    > else says: “Janne, han trenger ingen mike” (translation: “Janne, he
    > doesn't need a mike”)). Jan, are you prepared to go running out to
    > fetch the other people? Jmr: I am looking for a microphone, and
    > someone tells me it is inside this locked box. Rms: Now in the old
    > days at the AI lab we would have taken a sledgehammer and cracked it
    > open, and the broken door would be a lesson to whoever had dared to
    > lock up something that people needed to use. Luckily however I used to
    > study Bulgarian singing, so I have no trouble managing without a
    > microphone.
    >
    > Anyway, should I set up this system to notify you about the parts of
    > the talk, or do you just like to sit through all of it? (Answer:
    > Yeaaah)
    >
    > When I started programming, it was 1969, and I did it in an IBM
    > laboratory in New York. After that I went to a school with a computer
    > science department that was probably like most of them. There were
    > some professors that were in charge of what was supposed to be done,
    > and there were people who decided who could use what. There was a
    > shortage of terminals for most people, but a lot of the professors had
    > terminals of their own in their offices, which was wasteful, but
    > typical of their attitude. When I visited the Artificial Intelligence
    > lab at MIT I found a spirit that was refreshingly different from that.
    > For example: there, the terminals was thought of as belonging to
    > everyone, and professors locked them up in their offices on pain of
    > finding their doors broken down. I was actually shown a cart with a
    > big block of iron on it, that had been used to break down the door of
    > one professors office, when he had the gall to lock up a terminal.
    > There were very few terminals in those days, there was probably
    > something like five display terminals for the system, so if one of
    > them was locked up, it was a considerable disaster.
    >
    > In the years that followed I was inspired by that ideas, and many
    > times I would climb over ceilings or underneath floors to unlock rooms
    > that had machines in them that people needed to use, and I would
    > usually leave behind a note explaining to the people that they
    > shouldn't be so selfish as to lock the door. The people who locked the
    > door were basically considering only themselves. They had a reason of
    > course, there was something they thought might get stolen and they
    > wanted to lock it up, but they didn't care about the other people they
    > were affecting by locking up other things in the same room. Almost
    > every time this happened, once I brought it to their attention, that
    > it was not up to them alone whether that room should be locked, they
    > were able to find a compromise solution: some other place to put the
    > things they were worried about, a desk they could lock, another little
    > room. But the point is that people usually don't bother to think about
    > that. They have the idea: “This room is Mine, I can lock it, to hell
    > with everyone else”, and that is exactly the spirit that we must teach
    > them not to have.
    >
    > But this spirit of unlocking doors wasn't an isolated thing, it was
    > part of an entire way of life. The hackers at the AI lab were really
    > enthusiastic about writing good programs, and interesting programs.
    > And it was because they were so eager to get more work done, that they
    > wouldn't put up with having the terminals locked up, or lots of other
    > things that people could do to obstruct useful work. The differences
    > between people with high morale who really care about what they're
    > trying to do, and people who think of it as just a job. If it's just a
    > job, who cares if the people who hired you are so stupid they make you
    > sit and wait, it's their time, their money but not much gets done in a
    > place like that, and it's no fun to be in a place like that.
    >
    > Another thing that we didn't have at the AI lab was file protection.
    > There was no security at all on the computer. And we very consciously
    > wanted it that way. The hackers who wrote the Incompatible Timesharing
    > System decided that file protection was usually used by a self-styled
    > system manager to get power over everyone else. They didn't want
    > anyone to be able to get power over them that way, so they didn't
    > implement that kind of a feature. The result was, that whenever
    > something in the system was broken, you could always fix it. You never
    > had to sit there in frustration because there was NO WAY, because you
    > knew exactly what's wrong, and somebody had decided they didn't trust
    > you to do it. You don't have to give up and go home, waiting for
    > someone to come in in the morning and fix the system when you know ten
    > times as well as he does what needs to be done.
    >
    > And we didn't let any professors or bosses decide what work was going
    > to be done either, because our job was to improve the system! We
    > talked to the users of course; if you don't do that you can't tell
    > what's needed. But after doing that, we were the ones best able to see
    > what kind of improvements were feasible, and we were always talking to
    > each other about how we'd like to see the system changed, and what
    > sort of neat ideas we'd seen in other systems and might be able to
    > use. So the result is that we had a smoothly functioning anarchy, and
    > after my experience there, I'm convinced that that is the best way for
    > people to live.
    >
    > Unfortunately the AI lab in that form was destroyed. For many years we
    > were afraid the AI lab would be destroyed by another lab at MIT, the
    > Lab for Computer Science, whose director was a sort of empire builder
    > type, doing everything he could to get himself promoted within MIT,
    > and make his organization bigger, and he kept trying to cause the AI
    > lab to be made a part of his lab, and nobody wanted to do things his
    > way because he believed that people should obey orders and things like
    > that.
    >
    > But that danger we managed to defend against, only to be destroyed by
    > something we had never anticipated, and that was commercialism. Around
    > the early 80's the hackers suddenly found that there was now
    > commercial interest in what they were doing. It was possible to get
    > rich by working at a private company. All that was necessary was to
    > stop sharing their work with the rest of the world and destroy the MIT-
    > AI lab, and this is what they did despite all the efforts I could make
    > to prevent them.
    >
    > Essentially all the competent programmers except for me, at the AI lab
    > were hired away, and this caused more than a momentary change, it
    > caused a permanent transformation because it broke the continuity of
    > the culture of hackers. New hackers were always attracted by the old
    > hackers; there were the most fun computers and the people doing the
    > most interesting things, and also a spirit which was a great deal of
    > fun to be part of. Once these things were gone, there is nothing to
    > recommend the place to anyone new, so new people stopped arriving.
    > There was no-one they could be inspired by, no-one that they could
    > learn those traditions from. In addition no-one to learn how to do
    > good programming from. With just a bunch of professors and graduate
    > students, who really don't know how to make a program work, you can't
    > learn to make good programs work. So the MIT AI lab that I loved is
    > gone and after a couple of years of fighting against the people who
    > did it to try to punish them for it I decided that I should dedicate
    > my self to try to create a new community with that spirit.
    >
    > But one of the problems I had to face was the problem of proprietary
    > software. For example one thing that happened at the lab, after the
    > hackers left, was that the machines and the software that we had
    > developed could no longer be maintained. The software of course
    > worked, and it continued to work if nobody changed it, but the
    > machines did not. The machines would break and there would be no-one
    > who could fix them and eventually they would be thrown out. In the old
    > days, yes we had service contracts for the machines, but it was
    > essentially a joke. That was a way of getting parts after the expert
    > hackers from the AI lab fixed the problem. Because if you let the
    > field-service person fix it it would take them days, and you didn't
    > want to do that, you wanted it to work. So, the people who knew how to
    > do those things would just go and fix it quickly, and since they were
    > ten times as competent as any field service person, they could do a
    > much better job. And then they would have the ruined boards, they
    > would just leave them there and tell the field service person “take
    > these back and bring us some new ones”.
    >
    > In the real old days our hackers used to modify the
    >
    > read more »...


    Perhaps as an antidote

    http://danweinreb.org/blog/rebuttal-to-stallmans-story-about-the-formation-of-symbolics-and-lmi

    Mark
     
    Mark Tarver, Jul 16, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Re: Fascinating interview by Richard Stallman at KTH on emacs historyand internals

    On 16 July, 09:24, Mark Tarver <> wrote:
    > On 15 July, 23:21, bolega <> wrote:
    >
    > >http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-kth.html

    >
    > > RMS lecture at KTH (Sweden), 30 October 1986


    did you really have to post all of this...

    <snip>

    > > read more »...


    ....oh sorry only about a third of it...

    > Perhaps as an antidote
    >
    > http://danweinreb.org/blog/rebuttal-to-stallmans-story-about-the-form...


    ....to add two lines?
     
    Nick Keighley, Jul 16, 2010
    #3
  4. bolega

    Emmy Noether Guest

    On Jul 7, 1:57 pm, bolega <> wrote:
    > "Democracy is sick in the US, government monitors your Internet"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BfCJq_zIdk&feature=fvsr
    >
    > Enjoy .....


    In this video, Stall man makes 4 promises to public but stalls on 2nd
    of them.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BfCJq_zIdk&feature=fvsr


    1/ Freedom to Run to the Program
    2/ Freedom to study the source code, you control it <------ Software
    is a puzzle and it must be explained to be able to do that, its like
    a
    lock
    3/ Freedom to help your neightbors, share with them
    4/ Freedom to contribute to your community


    Software is a puzzle and it must be explained to be able to do that,
    its like a lock


    "to MAKE SURE you get the four freedoms"


    He is WRONG !!! He has not made sure. He has not taken the first
    steps.


    Software architecture must be documented. A model minimal release
    must
    be given. If it takes too long to document the program by writing in
    Latex, then he can write by hand or make an video with camera on the
    paper and he can talk.


    Mackenzie, bring a properly written documentation by FSF for example
    on emacs of gcc. I want to see where RMS got his ideas ? Did he
    invent
    all of them himself ? Is he giving proper references to the sources
    of
    the ideas ? Is that plagiarism ?

    I am sick of such jews/zionists like RMS, Roman Polansky, Bernard
    Madoff, Larry Ellison (he had to pay 100K in court to a chinese girl
    he screwed), Stephen Wolfram, Albert Einstein spreading anti-semitism
    by their flagrant unethical behaviour.


    If you use someone else's ideas, give reference. Dont try to portray
    yourself falsely as a genius by hiding sources and weaving rosy false
    pictures of being a victim or born out of wedlock. you went to school
    and got good education. you got insights from your community and good
    mentorship from other jews in aggressive networking in the jews like
    other communities dont have.


    These are facts. Thats why these people dont stand to scrutiny and
    questioning.



    > > Emacs uses BZR, not SVN, and has
    > > done since the beginning of 2010.


    > Thanks for your correction. Updated my site.




    Write a good documentation using pencil and scan that helps newbies
    enter the field.

    If it is not there, you will be subject of perpetual criticism and no
    thanks.
     
    Emmy Noether, Jul 17, 2010
    #4
  5. Emmy Noether <> writes:

    > On Jul 7, 1:57 pm, bolega <> wrote:
    >> "Democracy is sick in the US, government monitors your Internet"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BfCJq_zIdk&feature=fvsr
    >>
    >> Enjoy .....

    >
    > In this video, Stall man makes 4 promises to public but stalls on 2nd
    > of them.
    >
    >
    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BfCJq_zIdk&feature=fvsr
    >
    >
    > 1/ Freedom to Run to the Program
    > 2/ Freedom to study the source code, you control it <------ Software
    > is a puzzle and it must be explained to be able to do that, its like
    > a
    > lock
    > 3/ Freedom to help your neightbors, share with them
    > 4/ Freedom to contribute to your community
    >
    >
    > Software is a puzzle and it must be explained to be able to do that,
    > its like a lock


    There is no unfreedom involved here. Freedom does not hand you a free
    ride. Only a free road.

    --
    David Kastrup
     
    David Kastrup, Jul 17, 2010
    #5
  6. bolega

    Emmy Noether Guest

    On Jul 17, 2:49 pm, Cor Gest <> wrote:
    > Some entity, AKA David Kastrup <>,
    > wrote this mindboggling stuff:
    > (selectively-snipped-or-not-p)


    >>> Software is a puzzle and it must be explained to be able to do that,
    >>> its like a lock


    >> There is no unfreedom involved here.  Freedom does not hand you a free
    >> ride.  Only a free road.


    No one asks for a free ride. A free road is good enough. If RMS used
    other
    people's free roads (gnu is not the first free thing. the first free
    thing is
    what he got at AI labs at TAX Payer money. I read his interview where
    he said
    that the hackers would break into professor's offices. Perhaps we do
    the same
    to him and break into his FSF office and leave a "friend" note we came
    to get
    the docs he has not released.) which has proper signs, proper
    references, and
    he could ask profs proper questions, and get straight answers, he must
    do the
    same in return.

    The concise answer: We want a free road but not a free puzzle.
    Perhaps, next time
    when he is sick he take his DNA code and parse it using bison.

    Now, dont run away from this argument and bring each and every of the
    boys from his
    mailing list to tackle this question. He is a manager and he can put
    the volunteers
    to the task of documenting, illuminating and revealing the operation
    of his softwares
    and its evolution.

    He owes it to others [just like he got for free , I bet ya he could
    never afford any of his machines on his own money at that time when
    they were so rare so it must be public money. Even a company like IBM
    gets public funding. Its all issue of ethics, not of free software.
    Its issue of two way road. Or else our society would die. People all
    away in Africa are beginning to agitate from the theft of their
    resources and evolutionary time by europeans led by jews and so you
    gotta give them back by fully disclosing technologies. I know you can
    bribe say a big player like india. We dont want anti-semitism to
    spread and want the same ethical requirements for everyone.] to
    describe the algorithms used, references, or else, describe them if he
    dont want to give references. He need to give priorty to the past
    undocumented tools. Automatically, more volunteers will come. Right
    now, the mistrust of Richard Stall man and FSF is growing everywhere.
    Strength of my arguments stand on their validity.

    I repeat, no one wants a free ride. We want a free road that you
    seemed to offer. But we dont want a free puzzle. Or else, ask him to
    decode his own DNA alone in reasonable time. Its nothing but a code.

    > You know, nowdadys many 'people' are used to get everything on a platter
    > any mental incovieniences are circumvented as much as possible, so is
    > any try for independent thinking about anything strongly dissuaded.
    >
    > The last 25 years, since click-tah-icon-software emerged
    > "the dumbing down of programming" [1] has been on a rampage.
    >
    > [1]http://www.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/05/cov_12feature.html
     
    Emmy Noether, Jul 18, 2010
    #6
  7. bolega

    Emmy Noether Guest

    The XEMACS programmers have documented in writing that Richard
    Matthews Stallman asked them to explain every single line of code.

    They got exasperated and would explain him blocks.

    I suspect that they were playing the same game as him - perhaps giving
    him the same medicine.

    If he was NEEDY of an explanation of every single line, isn't it
    UTTERLY SHAMELESS of him to deny others similar information and give
    them such a puzzle ?

    We have the right to tell the people what it really is all about.

    By writing the GNU license, he eliminated the competition only from
    those one-in-a-million who were persistent enough to read his code and
    figure it out.

    This is because by not documenting and describing his softwares, he
    ensured that there is little chance that the multitude would be able
    to take the code and do anything with it.

    But by writing the GNU license, he made sure that those few who can
    understand it cant take it away and build on it.

    An new type of license is needed that requires concurrent
    documentation with each release, even if hand-written. Scans can be
    put together in a pdf and diagrams drawn with hand.
     
    Emmy Noether, Jul 18, 2010
    #7
  8. bolega

    Rui Maciel Guest

    Emmy Noether wrote:

    <snip nonsense/>
    > Mackenzie, bring a properly written documentation by FSF for example
    > on emacs of gcc. I want to see where RMS got his ideas ? Did he
    > invent
    > all of them himself ? Is he giving proper references to the sources
    > of
    > the ideas ? Is that plagiarism ?
    >
    > I am sick of such jews/zionists like RMS, Roman Polansky, Bernard
    > Madoff, Larry Ellison (he had to pay 100K in court to a chinese girl
    > he screwed), Stephen Wolfram, Albert Einstein spreading anti-semitism
    > by their flagrant unethical behaviour.

    <snip more nonsense/>

    You are a lousy troll.


    Rui Maciel
     
    Rui Maciel, Jul 18, 2010
    #8
  9. On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Rui Maciel <> wrote:
    > Emmy Noether wrote:
    >
    > <snip nonsense/>
    >> Mackenzie, bring a properly written documentation by FSF for example
    >> on emacs of gcc. I want to see where RMS got his ideas ? Did he
    >> invent
    >> all of them himself ? Is he giving proper references to the sources
    >> of
    >> the ideas ? Is that plagiarism ?
    >>
    >> I am sick of such jews/zionists like RMS, Roman Polansky, Bernard
    >> Madoff, Larry Ellison (he had to pay 100K in court to a chinese girl
    >> he screwed), Stephen Wolfram, Albert Einstein spreading anti-semitism
    >> by their flagrant unethical behaviour.

    > <snip more nonsense/>
    >
    > You are a lousy troll.


    I'm seriously considering blocking everyone who uses the word
    'zionist' in an email. The amount of anti-semitic crap that comes
    through on this list is staggering.

    Geremy Condra
     
    geremy condra, Jul 18, 2010
    #9
  10. On 7/17/10 12:09 PM, Emmy Noether wrote:
    > I am sick of such jews/zionists [...]


    This racist rant may be on-topic for some of the other newsgroups/lists
    you are cross-posting to, but it is most assuredly not on topic for
    Python. Also, its just daft. But that's another thing entirely.

    Reported.

    --

    Stephen Hansen
    ... Also: Ixokai
    ... Mail: me+list/python (AT) ixokai (DOT) io
    ... Blog: http://meh.ixokai.io/


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (Darwin)

    iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMQm6CAAoJEKcbwptVWx/lOrgH/A2FTmVgeCBm9rdBjmitLDP9
    gDTZ0UlA/BqtwJP0whIH77HFX2t0lgw9sDYZbbin8JxjcXlBsWR/aYDTHo/dDNCH
    fLHylTPNlU5GLHjTj50KGES1rDtNGJqFiYImJsn/NnQs3oLZkpGNq9VaeW4meV77
    +4l/sZVuEDfNOLgGlDzbU370S8JGiqAtEIzdZIjXVky1YoHiZRLtS1qPER1VxTt2
    M7wwkIyp8b6aJSSaZ7d786IKsvTWEHHnwscgH7Da7SbvVyQPy8rPS5rlZhVtRvpY
    60oYUiy38WcJMRbPINto+3Ag+GN/Tqja2br45xGVMIsaP7RuBXNdrnvk55Ql3iQ=
    =lODZ
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Stephen Hansen, Jul 18, 2010
    #10
  11. Re: Fascinating interview by Richard Stallman at KTH on emacs history and internals

    In message
    <>, Nick Keighley wrote:

    > On 16 July, 09:24, Mark Tarver <> wrote:
    >> On 15 July, 23:21, bolega <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-kth.html

    >>
    >> > RMS lecture at KTH (Sweden), 30 October 1986

    >
    > did you really have to post all of this...
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >> > read more »...

    >
    > ...oh sorry only about a third of it...


    Still totally unnecessary, though.

    >> Perhaps as an antidote
    >>
    >> http://danweinreb.org/blog/rebuttal-to-stallmans-story-about-the-formation-of-symbolics-and-lmi


    In other words, software that was developed at Symbolics was not given
    way for free to LMI. Is that so surprising?

    Which is conceding Stallman’s point.

    Anyway, that wasn’t Symbolics’s “planâ€; it was part of the MIT licensing
    agreement, the very same one that LMI signed. LMI’s changes were all
    proprietary to LMI, too.

    I don’t understand this bit. The only “MIT licensing agreement†I’m aware
    off _allows_ you to redistribute your copies without the source, but doesn’t
    _require_ it.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 18, 2010
    #11
  12. Emmy Noether <> writes:

    >> Some entity, AKA David Kastrup <>,
    >> wrote this mindboggling stuff:
    >> (selectively-snipped-or-not-p)

    >
    >>>> Software is a puzzle and it must be explained to be able to do that,
    >>>> its like a lock

    >
    >>> There is no unfreedom involved here.  Freedom does not hand you a free
    >>> ride.  Only a free road.

    >
    > No one asks for a free ride. A free road is good enough.


    Obviously you don't understand what you are talking about.

    > Perhaps we do the same to him and break into his FSF office and leave
    > a "friend" note we came to get the docs he has not released.


    You can't "get" anything that has not been written.

    > The concise answer: We want a free road but not a free puzzle.


    You have the freedom to walk the forest you perceive. You have the
    freedom to build the road that you want, in that forest.

    If it is a puzzle to you, that is your own problem. It is not a puzzle
    because somebody would have cut a whole into pieces and scattered them
    around. It is a puzzle because nobody put it together yet.

    Feel free to do so, doing others the service you want done.

    > Now, dont run away from this argument and bring each and every of the
    > boys from his mailing list to tackle this question. He is a manager
    > and he can put the volunteers to the task of documenting, illuminating
    > and revealing the operation of his softwares and its evolution.


    You want a free ride, very obviously.

    > He owes it to others


    And you think your whining entitles you to it.

    What did you ever do to _deserve_ others working for you?

    --
    David Kastrup
     
    David Kastrup, Jul 18, 2010
    #12
  13. bolega

    Nick Guest

    Emmy Noether <> writes:

    > On Jul 7, 1:57 pm, bolega <> wrote:
    >> "Democracy is sick in the US, government monitors your Internet"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BfCJq_zIdk&feature=fvsr
    >>
    >> Enjoy .....

    >
    > In this video, Stall man makes 4 promises to public but stalls on 2nd
    > of them.


    I have no idea of the rights or wrongs of this case. But I've found
    through experience that when someone uses a "witty" misspelling of
    someone's name, they are almost always the one in the wrong. 5 lines in
    and here we are - so if your case has merit, think about whether you
    want to do this.

    BTW - Did you see what I did there? I snipped all the rest of the post
    as it wasn't relevant. I know several people have asked you to do it,
    but you seem to be having difficulty with the concept, so I thought I'd
    give you a practical example.
    --
    Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
    Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
     
    Nick, Jul 18, 2010
    #13
  14. bolega

    Emmy Noether Guest

    On Jul 18, 12:27 am, David Kastrup <> wrote:
    > Emmy Noether <> writes:
    > >> Some entity, AKA David Kastrup <>,
    > >> wrote this mindboggling stuff:
    > >> (selectively-snipped-or-not-p)

    >
    > >>>> Software is a puzzle and it must be explained to be able to do that,
    > >>>> its like a lock

    >
    > >>> There is no unfreedom involved here.  Freedom does not hand you a free
    > >>> ride.  Only a free road.

    >
    > > No one asks for a free ride. A free road is good enough.

    >
    > Obviously you don't understand what you are talking about.
    >
    > > Perhaps we do the same to him and break into his FSF office and leave
    > > a "friend" note we came to get the docs he has not released.

    >
    > You can't "get" anything that has not been written.
    >
    > > The concise answer: We want a free road but not a free puzzle.

    >
    > You have the freedom to walk the forest you perceive.  You have the
    > freedom to build the road that you want, in that forest.
    >
    > If it is a puzzle to you, that is your own problem.  It is not a puzzle
    > because somebody would have cut a whole into pieces and scattered them
    > around.  It is a puzzle because nobody put it together yet.
    >
    > Feel free to do so, doing others the service you want done.
    >
    > > Now, dont run away from this argument and bring each and every of the
    > > boys from his mailing list to tackle this question. He is a manager
    > > and he can put the volunteers to the task of documenting, illuminating
    > > and revealing the operation of his softwares and its evolution.

    >
    > You want a free ride, very obviously.
    >
    > > He owes it to others

    >
    > And you think your whining entitles you to it.


    By his own admission he broke into professor's offices to help others,
    ie unlock the monitors. He has tried to project an image of a saint
    for freedom. Its a DECEPTION. A scoundrel has a right to be scoundrel.
    But if he projects himself as a saint, then people have a right to
    clear the facts.

    > What did you ever do to _deserve_ others working for you?


    What did we do to deserve him to write that elisp manual of 800+
    pages ? NOTHING. He gave it to us in the hope that his software will
    spread like a VIRUS. He had hopes for money from big companies
    probably, which he must be making to pay the astronomical rent in tbe
    boston/cambridge area. I can assure you that he can document all the
    essentials of his program in a thin book of a few hundred pages with a
    trivial amount of man-hours compared to being spent on things which
    brings fewer volunteers.

    It is said : A picture is worth a thousand words. Make some transition
    diagrams, structures, and UML type diagrams of the operation of the
    software.

    > What did you ever do to _deserve_ others working for you?


    Draw a diagram, A state transition diagram to understand how illogical
    you are.

    A person arrives in the state of a newbie and wants to exit in a state
    of having made a contribution to FSF. How can one do it without
    adequate documentation ? Xah Lee has been complaining for a year.
    First you deprive people of ESSENTIAL documentation to contribute.
    Stall man has written user manuals to effect viral spread. But he has
    not written operational details to get the same viral contribution by
    others. He must not want it. Yet you want to use it as a taunt as in
    pot calling the kettle black ???!!!

    OK, why dont you explain a few basic things, if it not a
    puzzle ????!!!!

    DEFUN ("or", For, Sor, 0, UNEVALLED, 0,
    "Eval args until one of them yields non-NIL, then return that value.
    \n\
    The remaining args are not evalled at all.\n\
    If all args return NIL, return NIL.")
    (args)
    Lisp_Object args;
    {
    register Lisp_Object val;
    Lisp_Object args_left;
    struct gcpro gcpro1;

    if (NULL(args))
    return Qnil;

    args_left = args;
    GCPRO1 (args_left);

    do
    {
    val = Feval (Fcar (args_left));
    if (!NULL (val))
    break;
    args_left = Fcdr (args_left);
    }
    while (!NULL(args_left));

    UNGCPRO;
    return val;
    }

    I saw that on comp.lang.c and found no one capable of explaining it.

    And where does the manual explain the C struct or ADT of the basic
    cons cell ? which file has the definition ? where is his eval_quote
    function definition ?

    Basically, Richard Mathew Stall man is a STALLER of PROGRESS. He
    expected the XEMACS people to EXPLAIN HIM EVERY SINGLE line of code.
    What did he do to expect all this ? He was even paid money , as
    claimed by the XEMACS people.

    What did he do to deserve and EXPECT a line by line explanation from
    them ?????!!!!!! ANSWER this question and dont run away !!!!!!

    He is prone to forgetting like all mortals and if he is prolific to
    write that 900 page manual, I am sure he has hidden notes that he has
    not released. Where was he recording the line by line explanation he
    was receiving from the XEMACS people ? If not in his own very personal
    version ???

    Answer these very strong arguments ??? What did he deserve to get the
    XEMACS people's explanations ? AND why is he INCAPABLE of building
    upon the XEMACS work ??? This is all about documentation, professional
    jealousies of these mean spirited people with double standards. Send
    him a CC of this thread. I expect him to explain some of these issues
    of documentation.

    > --
    > David Kastrup
     
    Emmy Noether, Jul 18, 2010
    #14
  15. bolega

    Emmy Noether Guest

    On Jul 18, 1:09 am, Nick <> wrote:
    > Emmy Noether <> writes:
    > > On Jul 7, 1:57 pm, bolega <> wrote:
    > >> "Democracy is sick in the US, government monitors your Internet"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BfCJq_zIdk&feature=fvsr

    >
    > >> Enjoy .....

    >
    > > In this video, Stall man makes 4 promises to public but stalls on 2nd
    > > of them.

    >
    > I have no idea of the rights or wrongs of this case.  But I've found
    > through experience that when someone uses a "witty" misspelling of
    > someone's name, they are almost always the one in the wrong.  


    Huh, you forgot that the whole of GNU = Gnu Not Unix

    You have double standard and you know very well whats right and whats
    wrong.



    > 5 lines in
    > and here we are - so if your case has merit, think about whether you
    > want to do this.
    >
    > BTW - Did you see what I did there?  I snipped all the rest of the post
    > as it wasn't relevant.  I know several people have asked you to do it,
    > but you seem to be having difficulty with the concept, so I thought I'd
    > give you a practical example.
    > --
    > Online waterways route planner            |http://canalplan.eu
    > Plan trips, see photos, check facilities  |http://canalplan.org.uk
     
    Emmy Noether, Jul 18, 2010
    #15
  16. On 2010-07-18, Emmy Noether <> wrote:
    > DEFUN ("or", For, Sor, 0, UNEVALLED, 0,
    > "Eval args until one of them yields non-NIL, then return that value.
    > \n\
    > The remaining args are not evalled at all.\n\
    > If all args return NIL, return NIL.")
    > (args)
    > Lisp_Object args;
    > {
    > register Lisp_Object val;
    > Lisp_Object args_left;
    > struct gcpro gcpro1;
    >
    > if (NULL(args))
    > return Qnil;
    >
    > args_left = args;
    > GCPRO1 (args_left);
    >
    > do
    > {
    > val = Feval (Fcar (args_left));
    > if (!NULL (val))
    > break;
    > args_left = Fcdr (args_left);
    > }
    > while (!NULL(args_left));
    >
    > UNGCPRO;
    > return val;
    > }
    >
    > I saw that on comp.lang.c and found no one capable of explaining it.


    What do you need explained? Other than what's already in the manual
    (Gnu Emacs Internals section of the Elisp manual.)

    > And where does the manual explain the C struct or ADT of the basic
    > cons cell ? which file has the definition ? where is his eval_quote
    > function definition ?


    Try lisp.h
    RMS doesn't really believe in ADTs - that's one of the main complaints
    from XEmacs.
    As for finding functions, I believe Emacs has commands to help with
    that, but personally I just go grep eval_quote *.c
     
    Julian Bradfield, Jul 18, 2010
    #16
  17. bolega

    Nick Guest

    Emmy Noether <> writes:

    > On Jul 18, 1:09 am, Nick <> wrote:
    >> Emmy Noether <> writes:
    >> > On Jul 7, 1:57 pm, bolega <> wrote:
    >> >> "Democracy is sick in the US, government monitors your Internet"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BfCJq_zIdk&feature=fvsr

    >>
    >> >> Enjoy .....

    >>
    >> > In this video, Stall man makes 4 promises to public but stalls on 2nd
    >> > of them.

    >>
    >> I have no idea of the rights or wrongs of this case.  But I've found
    >> through experience that when someone uses a "witty" misspelling of
    >> someone's name, they are almost always the one in the wrong.  

    >
    > Huh, you forgot that the whole of GNU = Gnu Not Unix
    >
    > You have double standard and you know very well whats right and whats
    > wrong.


    Ah. I see. You know my thoughts better than I do.

    That means you're another nutter.

    What I wrote was entirely true - I haven't read these great long posts
    in any detail. I've just deleted your email unread and plonked you.
    --
    Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
    Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
     
    Nick, Jul 18, 2010
    #17
  18. Emmy Noether <> writes:

    > On Jul 18, 12:27 am, David Kastrup <> wrote:
    >
    >> What did you ever do to _deserve_ others working for you?

    >
    > What did we do to deserve him to write that elisp manual of 800+
    > pages ? NOTHING.


    So once one gives you something, you demand everything?

    > He gave it to us in the hope that his software will spread like a
    > VIRUS.


    Yup. It is called "culture". It is _supposed_ to spread exponentially.
    That's what the peculiar brain structure of humans is good for.
    Communicating knowledge instead of inheriting it. That's the
    fundamental advantage we have over other animals. Not something lightly
    given up.

    > A person arrives in the state of a newbie and wants to exit in a state
    > of having made a contribution to FSF.


    That's the problem of the person. It has not been a goal of the GNU
    project to turn every person into somebody useful. They have the
    freedom to try, getting everything for their start that anybody else has
    available.

    > How can one do it without adequate documentation ?


    Emacs development is active, so there are people considering the
    documentation adequate for starting to work on Emacs.

    > Xah Lee has been complaining for a year. First you deprive people of
    > ESSENTIAL documentation to contribute.


    You can't "deprive" anybody of anything that is not there to start with.

    > DEFUN ("or", For, Sor, 0, UNEVALLED, 0,
    > "Eval args until one of them yields non-NIL, then return that value.
    > \n\
    > The remaining args are not evalled at all.\n\
    > If all args return NIL, return NIL.")
    > (args)
    > Lisp_Object args;
    > {
    > register Lisp_Object val;
    > Lisp_Object args_left;
    > struct gcpro gcpro1;
    >
    > if (NULL(args))
    > return Qnil;
    >
    > args_left = args;
    > GCPRO1 (args_left);
    >
    > do
    > {
    > val = Feval (Fcar (args_left));
    > if (!NULL (val))
    > break;
    > args_left = Fcdr (args_left);
    > }
    > while (!NULL(args_left));
    >
    > UNGCPRO;
    > return val;
    > }
    >
    > I saw that on comp.lang.c and found no one capable of explaining it.


    If you see other context-free stuff on comp.lang.c, the situation will
    not be different. The above code is rather trivial. But you'll find
    the respective parts explained in the Emacs Lisp manual. In fact, the
    above is likely extracted from exactly there, from

    (info "(elisp) Writing Emacs Primitives")

    I append the whole at the bottom to not interrupt the flow of
    non-thought.

    > And where does the manual explain the C struct or ADT of the basic
    > cons cell ? which file has the definition ? where is his eval_quote
    > function definition ?


    eval_quote? What's that?

    > Basically, Richard Mathew Stall man is a STALLER of PROGRESS. He
    > expected the XEMACS people to EXPLAIN HIM EVERY SINGLE line of code.
    > What did he do to expect all this ?


    He was the maintainer of upstream Emacs, and it was his decision what
    code was going there. And he had to keep maintainability in mind.
    Something which was less of a priority with XEmacs developers, and
    likely part of the reason that they are running out of fresh blood much
    worse than Emacs these days.

    > He was even paid money , as claimed by the XEMACS people.
    >
    > What did he do to deserve and EXPECT a line by line explanation from
    > them ?????!!!!!! ANSWER this question and dont run away !!!!!!


    There was nothing to "deserve". It was his job to keep Emacs going
    forward, and his opinion and decision that throwing the Lucid Emacs code
    in would not have been good in the long run. It has not been good for
    XEmacs in the long run. Whether it would have been better or worse for
    a grand unified Emacs, noone will ever know. He decided to play it safe
    given the information he had at that time, and Emacs is still there and
    going forward.

    In spite of trolls like you spouting abuse by the hundreds.

    More than can be said for many other projects.


    File: elisp, Node: Writing Emacs Primitives, Next: Object Internals, Prev: Memory Usage, Up: GNU Emacs Internals

    E.5 Writing Emacs Primitives
    ============================

    Lisp primitives are Lisp functions implemented in C. The details of
    interfacing the C function so that Lisp can call it are handled by a few
    C macros. The only way to really understand how to write new C code is
    to read the source, but we can explain some things here.

    An example of a special form is the definition of `or', from
    `eval.c'. (An ordinary function would have the same general
    appearance.)

    DEFUN ("or", For, Sor, 0, UNEVALLED, 0,
    doc: /* Eval args until one of them yields non-nil, then return that
    value. The remaining args are not evalled at all.
    If all args return nil, return nil.
    usage: (or CONDITIONS ...) */)
    (Lisp_Object args)
    {
    register Lisp_Object val = Qnil;
    struct gcpro gcpro1;

    GCPRO1 (args);

    while (CONSP (args))
    {
    val = Feval (XCAR (args));
    if (!NILP (val))
    break;
    args = XCDR (args);
    }

    UNGCPRO;
    return val;
    }

    Let's start with a precise explanation of the arguments to the
    `DEFUN' macro. Here is a template for them:

    DEFUN (LNAME, FNAME, SNAME, MIN, MAX, INTERACTIVE, DOC)

    LNAME
    This is the name of the Lisp symbol to define as the function
    name; in the example above, it is `or'.

    FNAME
    This is the C function name for this function. This is the name
    that is used in C code for calling the function. The name is, by
    convention, `F' prepended to the Lisp name, with all dashes (`-')
    in the Lisp name changed to underscores. Thus, to call this
    function from C code, call `For'. Remember that the arguments must
    be of type `Lisp_Object'; various macros and functions for creating
    values of type `Lisp_Object' are declared in the file `lisp.h'.

    SNAME
    This is a C variable name to use for a structure that holds the
    data for the subr object that represents the function in Lisp.
    This structure conveys the Lisp symbol name to the initialization
    routine that will create the symbol and store the subr object as
    its definition. By convention, this name is always FNAME with `F'
    replaced with `S'.

    MIN
    This is the minimum number of arguments that the function
    requires. The function `or' allows a minimum of zero arguments.

    MAX
    This is the maximum number of arguments that the function accepts,
    if there is a fixed maximum. Alternatively, it can be `UNEVALLED',
    indicating a special form that receives unevaluated arguments, or
    `MANY', indicating an unlimited number of evaluated arguments (the
    equivalent of `&rest'). Both `UNEVALLED' and `MANY' are macros.
    If MAX is a number, it may not be less than MIN and it may not be
    greater than eight.

    INTERACTIVE
    This is an interactive specification, a string such as might be
    used as the argument of `interactive' in a Lisp function. In the
    case of `or', it is 0 (a null pointer), indicating that `or'
    cannot be called interactively. A value of `""' indicates a
    function that should receive no arguments when called
    interactively. If the value begins with a `(', the string is
    evaluated as a Lisp form.

    DOC
    This is the documentation string. It uses C comment syntax rather
    than C string syntax because comment syntax requires nothing
    special to include multiple lines. The `doc:' identifies the
    comment that follows as the documentation string. The `/*' and
    `*/' delimiters that begin and end the comment are not part of the
    documentation string.

    If the last line of the documentation string begins with the
    keyword `usage:', the rest of the line is treated as the argument
    list for documentation purposes. This way, you can use different
    argument names in the documentation string from the ones used in
    the C code. `usage:' is required if the function has an unlimited
    number of arguments.

    All the usual rules for documentation strings in Lisp code (*note
    Documentation Tips::) apply to C code documentation strings too.

    After the call to the `DEFUN' macro, you must write the argument
    list that every C function must have, including the types for the
    arguments. For a function with a fixed maximum number of arguments,
    declare a C argument for each Lisp argument, and give them all type
    `Lisp_Object'. When a Lisp function has no upper limit on the number
    of arguments, its implementation in C actually receives exactly two
    arguments: the first is the number of Lisp arguments, and the second is
    the address of a block containing their values. They have types `int'
    and `Lisp_Object *'.

    Within the function `For' itself, note the use of the macros
    `GCPRO1' and `UNGCPRO'. `GCPRO1' is used to "protect" a variable from
    garbage collection--to inform the garbage collector that it must look
    in that variable and regard its contents as an accessible object. GC
    protection is necessary whenever you call `Feval' or anything that can
    directly or indirectly call `Feval'. At such a time, any Lisp object
    that this function may refer to again must be protected somehow.

    It suffices to ensure that at least one pointer to each object is
    GC-protected; that way, the object cannot be recycled, so all pointers
    to it remain valid. Thus, a particular local variable can do without
    protection if it is certain that the object it points to will be
    preserved by some other pointer (such as another local variable which
    has a `GCPRO')(1). Otherwise, the local variable needs a `GCPRO'.

    The macro `GCPRO1' protects just one local variable. If you want to
    protect two variables, use `GCPRO2' instead; repeating `GCPRO1' will
    not work. Macros `GCPRO3', `GCPRO4', `GCPRO5', and `GCPRO6' also
    exist. All these macros implicitly use local variables such as
    `gcpro1'; you must declare these explicitly, with type `struct gcpro'.
    Thus, if you use `GCPRO2', you must declare `gcpro1' and `gcpro2'.
    Alas, we can't explain all the tricky details here.

    `UNGCPRO' cancels the protection of the variables that are protected
    in the current function. It is necessary to do this explicitly.

    Built-in functions that take a variable number of arguments actually
    accept two arguments at the C level: the number of Lisp arguments, and
    a `Lisp_Object *' pointer to a C vector containing those Lisp
    arguments. This C vector may be part of a Lisp vector, but it need not
    be. The responsibility for using `GCPRO' to protect the Lisp arguments
    from GC if necessary rests with the caller in this case, since the
    caller allocated or found the storage for them.

    You must not use C initializers for static or global variables unless
    the variables are never written once Emacs is dumped. These variables
    with initializers are allocated in an area of memory that becomes
    read-only (on certain operating systems) as a result of dumping Emacs.
    *Note Pure Storage::.

    Do not use static variables within functions--place all static
    variables at top level in the file. This is necessary because Emacs on
    some operating systems defines the keyword `static' as a null macro.
    (This definition is used because those systems put all variables
    declared static in a place that becomes read-only after dumping, whether
    they have initializers or not.)

    Defining the C function is not enough to make a Lisp primitive
    available; you must also create the Lisp symbol for the primitive and
    store a suitable subr object in its function cell. The code looks like
    this:

    defsubr (&SUBR-STRUCTURE-NAME);

    Here SUBR-STRUCTURE-NAME is the name you used as the third argument to
    `DEFUN'.

    If you add a new primitive to a file that already has Lisp primitives
    defined in it, find the function (near the end of the file) named
    `syms_of_SOMETHING', and add the call to `defsubr' there. If the file
    doesn't have this function, or if you create a new file, add to it a
    `syms_of_FILENAME' (e.g., `syms_of_myfile'). Then find the spot in
    `emacs.c' where all of these functions are called, and add a call to
    `syms_of_FILENAME' there.

    The function `syms_of_FILENAME' is also the place to define any C
    variables that are to be visible as Lisp variables. `DEFVAR_LISP'
    makes a C variable of type `Lisp_Object' visible in Lisp. `DEFVAR_INT'
    makes a C variable of type `int' visible in Lisp with a value that is
    always an integer. `DEFVAR_BOOL' makes a C variable of type `int'
    visible in Lisp with a value that is either `t' or `nil'. Note that
    variables defined with `DEFVAR_BOOL' are automatically added to the list
    `byte-boolean-vars' used by the byte compiler.

    If you define a file-scope C variable of type `Lisp_Object', you
    must protect it from garbage-collection by calling `staticpro' in
    `syms_of_FILENAME', like this:

    staticpro (&VARIABLE);

    Here is another example function, with more complicated arguments.
    This comes from the code in `window.c', and it demonstrates the use of
    macros and functions to manipulate Lisp objects.

    DEFUN ("coordinates-in-window-p", Fcoordinates_in_window_p,
    Scoordinates_in_window_p, 2, 2,
    "xSpecify coordinate pair: \nXExpression which evals to window: ",
    "Return non-nil if COORDINATES is in WINDOW.\n\
    COORDINATES is a cons of the form (X . Y), X and Y being distances\n\
    ...
    If they are on the border between WINDOW and its right sibling,\n\
    `vertical-line' is returned.")
    (coordinates, window)
    register Lisp_Object coordinates, window;
    {
    int x, y;

    CHECK_LIVE_WINDOW (window, 0);
    CHECK_CONS (coordinates, 1);
    x = XINT (Fcar (coordinates));
    y = XINT (Fcdr (coordinates));

    switch (coordinates_in_window (XWINDOW (window), &x, &y))
    {
    case 0: /* NOT in window at all. */
    return Qnil;

    case 1: /* In text part of window. */
    return Fcons (make_number (x), make_number (y));

    case 2: /* In mode line of window. */
    return Qmode_line;

    case 3: /* On right border of window. */
    return Qvertical_line;

    default:
    abort ();
    }
    }

    Note that C code cannot call functions by name unless they are
    defined in C. The way to call a function written in Lisp is to use
    `Ffuncall', which embodies the Lisp function `funcall'. Since the Lisp
    function `funcall' accepts an unlimited number of arguments, in C it
    takes two: the number of Lisp-level arguments, and a one-dimensional
    array containing their values. The first Lisp-level argument is the
    Lisp function to call, and the rest are the arguments to pass to it.
    Since `Ffuncall' can call the evaluator, you must protect pointers from
    garbage collection around the call to `Ffuncall'.

    The C functions `call0', `call1', `call2', and so on, provide handy
    ways to call a Lisp function conveniently with a fixed number of
    arguments. They work by calling `Ffuncall'.

    `eval.c' is a very good file to look through for examples; `lisp.h'
    contains the definitions for some important macros and functions.

    If you define a function which is side-effect free, update the code
    in `byte-opt.el' which binds `side-effect-free-fns' and
    `side-effect-and-error-free-fns' so that the compiler optimizer knows
    about it.

    ---------- Footnotes ----------

    (1) Formerly, strings were a special exception; in older Emacs
    versions, every local variable that might point to a string needed a
    `GCPRO'.

    > He is prone to forgetting like all mortals and if he is prolific to
    > write that 900 page manual, I am sure he has hidden notes that he has
    > not released. Where was he recording the line by line explanation he
    > was receiving from the XEMACS people ? If not in his own very personal
    > version ???


    What makes you think he received any such explanation? Why would not
    the XEmacs people, after writing such explanations, put them in their
    own code and manuals?

    Your conspiracy theories just stink.

    > Answer these very strong arguments ???


    Ok, so they stink strongly.

    > What did he deserve to get the XEMACS people's explanations ? AND why
    > is he INCAPABLE of building upon the XEMACS work ??? This is all about
    > documentation, professional jealousies of these mean spirited people
    > with double standards. Send him a CC of this thread. I expect him to
    > explain some of these issues of documentation.


    I quoted the above part from the documentation. I do not consider this
    sort of shit worth his attention and certainly won't forward it, lending
    it credibility. It is not like he has a secret Email address or
    something. I should hope he would have the prudence to just throw crap
    like the above away should he receive it from some anonymous idiot not
    willing to sign his name under his brain farts.

    --
    David Kastrup
     
    David Kastrup, Jul 18, 2010
    #18
  19. Re: Fascinating interview by Richard Stallman at KTH on emacs historyand internals

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message
    > <>, Nick Keighley wrote:
    >
    >> On 16 July, 09:24, Mark Tarver <> wrote:
    >>> On 15 July, 23:21, bolega <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-kth.html
    >>>> RMS lecture at KTH (Sweden), 30 October 1986

    >> did you really have to post all of this...
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >>>> read more »...

    >> ...oh sorry only about a third of it...

    >
    > Still totally unnecessary, though.
    >
    >>> Perhaps as an antidote
    >>>
    >>> http://danweinreb.org/blog/rebuttal-to-stallmans-story-about-the-formation-of-symbolics-and-lmi

    >
    > In other words, software that was developed at Symbolics was not given
    > way for free to LMI. Is that so surprising?
    >
    > Which is conceding Stallman’s point.
    >
    > Anyway, that wasn’t Symbolics’s “planâ€; it was part of the MIT licensing
    > agreement, the very same one that LMI signed. LMI’s changes were all
    > proprietary to LMI, too.
    >
    > I don’t understand this bit. The only “MIT licensing agreement†I’m aware
    > off _allows_ you to redistribute your copies without the source, but doesn’t
    > _require_ it.
    >
    >


    Right, and this "fascinating" and "amazing" and "awesome" post needs
    only one rejoinder: twenty-four years later all we have is "free as in
    beer" software being milked by proprietary enterprises.

    Sadly, they would be more effective and more profitable if RMS had never
    existed, because then they would be paying fair market price for
    significantly better proprietary tools driven by the demands of a
    price/value competitive market.

    What we do not have is any interesting amount of "free as in speech"
    software, because no one uses the GPL.

    The LGPL is Stallman's way of saying, OK, I was wrong.

    kt

    --
    http://www.stuckonalgebra.com
    "The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself."
    Macworld
     
    Kenneth Tilton, Jul 18, 2010
    #19
  20. On 18 July, 09:38, Emmy Noether <> wrote:
    > On Jul 18, 1:09 am, Nick <> wrote:
    > > Emmy Noether <> writes:


    <snip>

    > > > In this video, Stall man makes 4 promises to public but stalls on 2nd
    > > > of them.

    >
    > > I have no idea of the rights or wrongs of this case.  But I've found
    > > through experience that when someone uses a "witty" misspelling of
    > > someone's name, they are almost always the one in the wrong.  

    >
    > Huh, you forgot that the whole of GNU = Gnu Not Unix


    you know someone named GNU? They must have had strange parents...
     
    Nick Keighley, Jul 19, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Nikita Tovstoles
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    316
    Richard Chrenko
    Sep 6, 2004
  2. Nikita Tovstoles
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    657
    Paul Lutus
    Sep 9, 2004
  3. MKS
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    335
  4. sindee
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    386
    sindee
    Feb 13, 2008
  5. bolega
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    901
    nanothermite911fbibustards
    Aug 5, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page