[buug] TonStanco is at it again...

[Feedlebom]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Rick Moen wrote:

> > I kinda was left with the impression that it was the issue.
> 
> But you have to pick your battles.

Agreed..

> Anyone who makes the topic of discussion with that fellow his failure to
> use open-source software will probably end up hearing whines about
> difficulty and inconvenience, demands that people help him on his terms,
> etc.  Which struck me as a truly painful experience, and I have better
> ways to use my time.

The only problem with Tony is the fact that he's a lot more than a
whiner.  Don't forget: he was (allegedly) working on a story for
publication.  Press having the wrong idea about what this is about is far
worse than your average whiner being misinformed.

> By the way, like most of us, I can't claim particular purity:  I still
> use Netscape Communicator 4.x for Web browsing.  It's not in any way
> open source.  You use Pine.  It's not open source, either (not since 
> v 3.91 -- modified binaries may not be distributed).  

I never claim purity.  I also use Microsoft Windows.  You will recall that
in my statements to him that I never thought that open-only software was
any better than the current world we live in.  I use open source software
when I benefit from it.  When closed-source software does the job, it gets
used (and paid for).

Similarly, I'm not an open-source advocate, nor do I position myself that
way.  To be frank, Linux has fattened my wallet because it's created job
opportunities that I probably would not have in the Windows
world.  Because of that, Linux is good.  

Napster bad.  :)

I don't view the open source movement as the white knight saving me from
the evil daemons (heh) of Redmond.  I do view them as competant peers who
have developed superior technology.

> Check the licence, if you weren't aware of that:
> http://www.washington.edu/pine/overview/legal.html  It's fairly benign,
> but not open source. 

I am aware of Pine's "free beer but not free speech" licensing.  In many
ways, I have no problem with their licensing terms, and I understand their
approach.  Their primary (stated) concerns are: 1. commercial
redistribution [I can understand that since development of Pine/Pico/Pilot
occurred at Washington State taxpayer expense, there is a desire to
restrict commercial profiteering] 2. code forking, and 3. disclaimer of
warrantee.

While it is not completely compatible with the letter (or in some cases
spirit) of the GPL, it is nowhere near the evils of truly
"closed" softare.

> There's a 100% compatible GPLed clone of pico called "nano".  Nobody's
> yet created a GPLed clone of pine (or updated 3.91), but you can operate
> the Mutt MUA with a "Pinerc" configuration that makes it very similar.

I actually have nano installed on most of my boxes.  I've never really
liked pico for anything but message editing, anyway.

vim has lots of neat-o code features, and is open source.
 
> As soon as Mozilla M18 comes out, I'm hoping to drop the last piece of
> non-free software from _my_ personal computing environment.

Heh.

-Fedl