Re: [!NEWS] The GNUtards Must Be Crazy

[Rjack]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 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

> 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.

I mean exactly what I first quoted. Try reading it sometime dummkopf.

"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

> 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.

*You* first cited the link that referred to LaTex you friggin' moron.

http://www.gnu.org/software/auctex/preview-latex.html
Remember? Kemo Sabe.




> So please read the link that you are replying 
> to.http://www.gnu.org/software/auctex/preview-latex.html
<URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/auctex/preview-latex.html>
> > "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?