Re: [!NEWS] The GNUtards Must Be Crazy

[David Kastrup]

Rjack <user@example.net> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
>>
>>> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>>> David Kastrup wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [... about me ...]
>>>>
>>>>> He is serious about being an idiot.
>>>> Said GNUtian "Huh? You can't be held to a contract you did not
>>>> sign" dak.
>>>
>>> Seldom have truer words been spoken:
>>>
>>> "When have you EVER seen a truly innovative piece of GPL software?
>>> Everything in GPL is a bad copy of some other software that was
>>> developed under a commercial license or a true open source license
>>> like BSD."
>>>
>>> http://kuoi.com/~kamikaze/read.php?id=157
>>
>> Our local trolls get debile.
>
> Yeah... GNUtians all have balls the size of grapefruit and the
> brains the size of friggin' peanuts.
>
>> They jump to premature confusions, not staying with one
>> non-sequitur until having milked the bull for what it's worth.
>>
>> So what are the non-GPL superior equivalents and precursors in
>> innovation to:
>>
>> <URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs>
>> <URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/auctex/preview-latex.html>
>> <URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc>
>>
>
> The above mentioned programs are all knock-offs of stolen ideas
> and projects of other folks:
>
> "Emacs development began at the MIT AI Lab during the 1970s..."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Emacs

Huh?  You _are_ aware that Stallman worked at the MIT AI Lab during the
1970s?  If you mean that all GPL licensed programs started out
non-licensed, then obviously you are confused.

> "LaTeX is based on Donald E. Knuth's TeX typesetting language or
> certain extensions. LaTeX was first developed in 1985 by Leslie
> Lamport..."
> http://www.latex-project.org/intro.html

This is astonishingly stupid even for your standards.  Nobody was
talking about LaTeX anyway, LaTeX is not under the GPL, and being built
with TeX as a base does not mean that it knocks off or steals ideas from
TeX.

So please read the link that you are replying to.

> "gcc is just another C compiler,

Uh, and a C++ compiler, and a Fortran compiler, and an Ada compiler, and
an Objective C compiler.

> and not a very good one. The Intel compilers compile significantly
> faster and produce faster and more memory-efficient code from the same
> source.

Uh, gcc is cross-platform, not just for Intel platforms.  And its use of
assembly templates both for its own compilation as well as seamless
integration into the optimization passes of user code have no
predecessors I know of.

Quite a few of its C language features were innovative enough that they
have made it (either unmodified or with small changes) into newer C
standards.

> I'm sure Borland's compilers are still faster and more efficient than
> gcc, too. There used to be many others, but the widespread
> availability of a shitty but "free" gcc has poisoned the market."
> http://kuoi.com/~kamikaze/read.php?id=157

So in short: you have no clue what you are talking about, are too lazy
to make yourself knowledgeable, and quote the unsubstantiated drivel
from some GNU-hate rant as reference.

And you wonder why nobody takes you and your ilk seriously?

-- 
David Kastrup