Re: BUG: GNU takeover.

[Christoph Plattner]

You bring two words together:
"free" and "GNU"

So you are "free" not to use "GNU" software.

For me most freeware projects have a much higher quality as all
the stuff comming from socalled "software houses". This is my
"free" oppinion.

Bye


Alan Grimes wrote:
> 
> om
> 
> =(
> 
> I have been thinking about this for a few days and I have decided to
> report the inclusion of GRUB, as GRUB, in the GNU project as a bug, one
> that I find extremely frustrating. My frustration regarding this subject
> is to the point that I am about to go running through the streets
> screaming... Well not exactly those actions but I am at that level of
> frustration.
> 
> Now I suspect you are about to hit the delete button. We are the high
> and noble free software foundation. We deliver free software to the
> masses. Freedom to everyone to download, modify, and use.
> 
> Well my perspective on the situation is the reverse. I see a general and
> useful project being commendered and perverted to serve RMS's agenda.
> The difference between the FSF/GNU project and Microsoft is that
> Microsoft doesn't preach freedom while locking users into a very narrow
> technology base. They may be evil but they are still above hypocracy.
> Free software tends to be exemplary. I have seen freeware and even Open
> Source freeware such as freePascal (which I intend to use in my OS),
> that can rival or beat any closed source package in existance. I
> currently use the free XOS Loader, and it has been nothing but a
> pleasure to use. And then I see the GNU project which, in my mind, has
> come to be absolutly synonymous with shit. I would even say that a
> software package sucks to the extent it relies on GNU software.
> 
> I have not seen one GNU package that can be said to be more than a few
> fractions better than INTERCAL.
> 
> Okay, maybe I have let myself get a little carried away with my rantings
> against the GNU software project, though none of them are undeserved. If
> I could have things my way I would find a multiboot compliant loader
> that I could use to make a bootdisk for my OS and not even bother with
> the GNU project or any of its products at all. I wouldn't care that the
> "Grand Unified Booter" had been anexed by a single family of operating
> systems. If it were renamed to "The GNU Bootstrap Loader" I wouldn't
> even snort at the irony.
> 
> As it stands, the grand unified booter can only be downloaded onto a
> system that supports unix-style long file names. It can only be
> decompressed with Tar/Gzip. (Which are nominally available for DOS but
> are horrendously destructive in their behavior on that system).
> 
> It can only be compiled with GCC/Binutils, which I have found through
> painful experience can't be made to run with any reasonable ammount of
> effort on the user-aware Be Operating System. (The more an OS is aware
> of its user, the less it is supported by GNU software).
> 
> In short, GNU GRUB is saying to me: You can use me for free but only if
> you install Linux/BSD/HURD on your system.
> 
> Is that supposed to make me feel more free?
> WOO HOOO! I get to choose between three suckey OSes!!! =P
> 
> For GRUB to be GRUB, It absolutly cannot be biased towards (or against)
> any reasonably common OS.
> 
> Let me offer you a truce: Provide for me a GRUB binary that users can
> *EASILY* install onto DOS disks with DOS or windows 9x, that will
> PAINLESSLY load my prototype OS immage, to the extent I can produce a
> good immage, and I will promise not to troll this list -- too much. =P
> 
> If you have any questions about what OS I use, read my e-mail headers.
> 
> --
> Waiting for a typical DOS application to crash is like waiting for hell
> to freeze over.
> http://users.erols.com/alangrimes/  <my website.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-grub mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-grub