Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 12th Jan 2012 22:54 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 503077
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-24
Look. I voted you up. But that doesn't mean I agree with you. I just don't think you should have been modded into oblivion.
Certainly, I've been pissed off enough by FSF arrogance in the past to seek to have an FSF-free home system. It's not easy. That small percentage of code needed on a Linux system which derives from FSF is hard to replace. And most people in the Linux world are pragmatic enough not to try just for spite's sake. The situation is somewhat better for the *BSDs. At least FSF doesn't have a strangle-hold on their libc.
It makes me feel better to have the option to jump ship completely, if I choose. The FSF is annoying... and sometimes downright scary. And Linux distros had better hustle to stay ahead. Someday, we might just get *too* complacent. (As opposed to the "short of the limit" level of complacency we currently maintain re: the other unix-like OSes.) And our hard-working competitors would have the well-deserved opening they've understandably been waiting for.
As a Linux guy, I'm quite happy for my *BSD counterparts.
-Steve