Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 16th Dec 2009 00:13 UTC
Gnome In the item we ran yesterday about GNOME and the GNU Project, one aspect got snowed under a little bit. It turns out a claim made in the iTWire article about the role a blog post by Miguel De Icaza was false, and even though the claim wasn't ours, I did repeat it, and therefore, should correct it too. I also need to offer apologies for not framing the opening of the article clear enough - had I framed it better, a lot of pointless discussion and name-calling could've been avoided.
Thread beginning with comment 399803
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Misleading and Unnecessary Retraction
by segedunum on Wed 16th Dec 2009 03:39 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

It turns out a claim made in the iTWire article about the role a blog post by Miguel De Icaza was false.

It wasn't false........nor was it true. All we know is that there had been some complaints about the content of some blog posts on Planet Gnome, but we don't know which specific blog posts. There might well have been some complaints about that post since it has zilch to do with Gnome, but we don't know since the nature of the complaints was never revealed.

Anyone who has tried to read Planet Gnome over time knows that this was long overdue.

I should've made it clear in the teaser that I wanted to talk about RMS and the FSF...

Why would it need to be about RMS and the FSF? The discussion was squarely about Gnome's place as a FSF project, despite the avenue that you chose to go down.

I wanted to talk about how I feel about RMS and the FSF...

Why? That has absolutely nothing to do with the article or the e-mail thread in question. Your inane ramblings and opinions are not germane to the events in discussion.

...and not about GNOME and the GNU Project.

Why not?

As a result, a lot of people probably thought that the GNOME-GNU issue was the main topic of the thread, and this is simply not the case.

It was the main topic of discussion, or at least it should have been. The topic of discussion was a post in a long thread proposing a split from Gnome and the GNU for various reasons discussed. I certainly didn't misread that at all. I certainly read most of that thread.

I hope this clears up some of the confusion, and if the article did any damage anywhere (which I doubt, I have no illusions about OSNews' limited sphere of influence), I want to apologise for that.

Who gives a f--k? The article and the main avenue of discussion was bang on and it was based on a public mailing list discussion. Someone hasn't been badgering you over this have they Thom?

Grow some cajones please and stop telling me or anyone else what they did or didn't read. I do RTFAs and I did gander down the e-mail thread in more than enough detail.

Reply Score: 5

TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

"As a result, a lot of people probably thought that the GNOME-GNU issue was the main topic of the thread, and this is simply not the case.


It was the main topic of discussion, or at least it should have been. The topic of discussion was a post in a long thread proposing a split from Gnome and the GNU for various reasons discussed. I certainly didn't misread that at all. I certainly read most of that thread.
"

Agreed. It was the subject of the article after all...

[url=http://www.osnews.com/story/22610/GNOME_To_Split_from_GNU_Project_]GNOME To Split from GNU Project?[/url]

Reply Parent Score: 2

sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

But it wasn't the core of the discussion in the mailing list, Stallman's argument was.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"I should've made it clear in the teaser that I wanted to talk about RMS and the FSF...


Why would it need to be about RMS and the FSF? The discussion was squarely about Gnome's place as a FSF project, despite the avenue that you chose to go down.
"

Regardless if the topic was actually about GNOME and its alignment (or lack thereof) with the aims of the FSF's project (GNU) of which GNOME is supposed to be a part ... Thom really wanted wanted to rant and whine about Stallman and the FSF.

I thought he made that clear?

OSNews participants are all such nasty people for talking about something other than what Thom wanted.

Where are the [sacrcasm] tags when you need them?[/sarcasm]

PS: for anyone unclear about what the aims of GNU are supposed to be, here they are in all their long-established finery:
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html

"How GNU Will Be Available
GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict its further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that all versions of GNU remain free."


Edited 2009-12-16 05:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

bfr99 Member since:
2007-03-15

Yet another example of Sayre's law:
"In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the stakes at issue"

Reply Parent Score: 1

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

It wasn't false........nor was it true. All we know is that there had been some complaints about the content of some blog posts on Planet Gnome, but we don't know which specific blog posts.


Behdad made it very clear that the trigger was not Miguel.

Why would it need to be about RMS and the FSF? The discussion was squarely about Gnome's place as a FSF project, despite the avenue that you chose to go down.


Probably because RMS weighed in in his role as FSF bigwig.

Why? That has absolutely nothing to do with the article or the e-mail thread in question. Your inane ramblings and opinions are not germane to the events in discussion.


Half of this site is Thom's editorials. If you don't like that, I have no idea why you read it. There are plenty of other news sites out there that are far less subjective.

Reply Parent Score: 3

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Behdad made it very clear that the trigger was not Miguel.

It doesn't prove a thing one way or the other. We know that the whole trigger for the thing was many blog posts made on Planet Gnome (we don't know which ones, obviously) and that post is certainly a prime candidate.

Probably because RMS weighed in in his role as FSF bigwig.

That was no reason to make RMS the sole topic of conversation in an article that was titled something completely different and wasn't about RMS other than the fact that he commented.

I don't know why people feel the need to completely lose track of a discussion topic when RMS's name pops into view and talk totally about him. Those people are, ironically, just as bad if not worse than RMS himself at times.

Half of this site is Thom's editorials. If you don't like that, I have no idea why you read it. There are plenty of other news sites out there that are far less subjective.

Yep, and that freedom of choice is why I feel free to make a comment on it. ;-) Telling people that they can go elsewhere won't change that.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

BTW, is not "cajones" is "cojones".

Reply Parent Score: 2