lol

ESR, the holy spirit? You can’t be serious…

Who’s Andrew Tanenbaum, the devil trying to lure Torvalds into microker- the hell?

“Meanwhile GNU/Linux worshippers are taking the world to its next evolution.”

I. Evolution requires reproduction to take place.
II. Anyone insisting on “GNU/Linux” is with a degree of certainity a virgin.
I+II. Logical error.

That thar is one heck of an eschatology you’ve cooked up for yourself, son.

But remember the words of the Son:

Matthew 27:46:
Mark 15:34:

'Around the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, saying “Eli Eli lama sabachthani?” which is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”’

Rather appropriate as between RMS and Linus, I think. Quite why Luke decided to be the only one of the synoptic gospels to omit this little detail would take too long to explain, although he was the only Greek one and was probably off playing with pirated software on his Android at the time.

But let’s broaden this religious simile out, shall we?

How about the Trimurti? Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva?

Richard is presumably Brahma. But which one of the other two is Vishnu (maintenance) and which is Shiva (destruction)?

With Eric and Linus, I think you could make an argument either way.

And taking the world to its next Evolution?

I can’t wait. The present one is a sorry sack of shunt.

Upvotted. Mentally replace “By need2bfree” with “By JoeMonco” or “By Administrator” and you 've got the most satiric TM, ever.

A half backed OS (GNU/Linux) is a religion/manifestation of God? :D bwahahahahahaha
And its holy trinity is a mad, bitter hippie eating toe jam, a random guy from Finland, whose hobby is to exercise in x86 assembly and an idiot with palsy who reads Ayn Rand and thinks he understands economy? Bwahahahahahahaah

> A half backed OS (GNU/Linux) is a religion/manifestation of God?

Why not? It’s totally on the right trend.
http://archiv.roumen.cz/archive/gods_power_over_time.jpg

Winbred scum. You guys could learn a lot from a fine upstanding gentlemen like need2bfree.

The Adam twins are at it again.

Well, the father has major differences w/ the son & holy spirit. In fact, most disciples can’t stand the father, but pretty enthusiastically rally behind the son.

I’d don’t think it’s even a trinity – it’s just a one man show – the man being rms. Torvalds & ESR are sane people.

The trinity is a set of faces of the same god, GNU/Linux. Obviously the individual faces are going to be different such that you can worship whichever one you choose and you’re still worshipping GNU/Linux.

“Torvalds & ESR are sane people.”

Torvalds? Mostly, probably, but I digress.

ESR? Seriously?

“ESR? Seriously?”

Well, if you say otherwise to his face, he’ll probably point a gun at you while yelling something about idiotarians.

So yeah, I agree that his political views are less than sane, but his views on software are much better.

So, IMG, do you agree with this?

http://dotcommie.net/?id=160

If you mean, do I agree that GPL is not needed and that permissive licenses such as BSD are better? Then yes, I agree with that.

@IMGX64:

ESR’s views on software are idiotic. If you regard “idiotic” as better than “insane,” then I agree with you. But somehow I don’t think you mean that.

And I’m not talking about the standard FOSS type of argument, which he shares with many others. Those views are open to debate and more a matter of philosophy than anything else.

Nor am I talking about his personal rape fantasies whenever he recalls his time in commercial software. I’d class those as mildly insane, but hey, nobody likes working for a living.

No, I’m talking about the Cathedral and the Bazaar nonsense, and this moronic “million eyes” thing. Idiotic, all of it, and a clear failure in the field. And this is what he’s famous for, and this is what he has made actual money out of.

@IMGX64
“If you mean, do I agree that GPL is not needed and that permissive licenses such as BSD are better? Then yes, I agree with that.”

Ok, I do agree with this as well, but I dont agree with the reasoning that open source is some kind of silver bullet and that you dont need GPL, because the proprietary model is going to somehow punish you, leave you without “business model or product anymore” and you will be forced to go open source anyway. While both of the models have their applications, speaking in such absolute terms is a nonsense to me.

“And this is what he’s famous for, and this is what he has made actual money out of.”

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html

Yeah, talk to the lawyers… I mean, “GPL compliance officers” about that.

“http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html

Yeah, talk to the lawyers… I mean, “GPL compliance officers” about that.”

What does the SFLC have to do with ESR?

“What does the SFLC have to do with ESR?”

A more appropriate question would be, “What does FOSS have to do with making money?”

Oh, wait…

“A more appropriate question would be, “What does FOSS have to do with making money?”“

With FOSS, you can’t make money using the straightforward way (i.e. selling software).

——
“Oh, wait…”

I’m waiting.

I still don’t get your point.

“With FOSS, you can’t make money using the straightforward way (i.e. selling software).”

“Compliance officers” don’t work for free.

Still don’t get it? Too bad then.

OS may not be religion, but according to the creator of Emacs, a text editor is.

Go, figure!

Ignoring the fact that RMS is not quite the “inventor of emacs,” where precisely did he say that?

Oh, and Joe, I’m getting almost as confused by your posts on this one as IMGX64 is. Your argument seems to be that you can’t realistically make money selling FOSS. IMGX64, for some bizarre reason that is clearly opposed to reality in all but the corner cases, seems to think that you can.

Have I summed up both of your arguments for you? Or would you care to try it yourselves?

http://stallman.org/saint.html

“Your argument seems to be that you can’t realistically make money selling FOSS”

Intentionally, no less. And it’s pretty much moot by the way I introduce anyway.

The lawyers are most definitely making money out of FOSS, though, but just not the way you, as an author of software, would like to be done, though.

@Joe:

An interesting thought, in a way.

In other fields, be it a car crash or a specious claim that MacDonalds’ coffee burns your ninety-year old thighs, you get (say) 25% and the lawyer gets 25%. After 50% costs, obviously. Which unfortunately are an unavoidable part of doing legal business, so they go to the lawyer.

But it’s hard to see why the (non-lawyer) Loons are so keen on legal redress. As far as I can see, the scoreline here is:

(Probably otherwise inept) Lawyers: 100%.

Loons: 0%.

“IMGX64, for some bizarre reason that is clearly opposed to reality in all but the corner cases, seems to think that you can.”

No, you can’t make money selling FOSS software, and that’s a disadvantage of FOSS.

And yes, SFLC lawyers make money from FOSS, possibly without the developers’ consent.

Now, how does this relate to ESR?

“Now, how does this relate to ESR?”

It doesn’t. Just in the same sense that ESR doesn’t relate to anything that matters to anybody.