I think it's important to note that the FSF are not necessarily "damning" those distros it does not list. It's merely stating the facts and explaining why they cannot be listed as 100% free distros. I don't get some of the anti FSF/GNU sentiment you see on some boards - they set the bar, and if most distros fail to reach it, but get 99% of the way there, that's good enough, it's free software and better than the 100% proprietary alternatives.

'feh -FZ' gets the similar result. No title bar though, but faster in image rendering IMO.

They did? Finally? LMAO!

I stopped paying attention to that well over a decade ago.

Nice of RMS to show up to the party when everyone's already paired off for the evening and going home to bang.

That having been said, there are definitely good things out there having arisen from his vitriolic tirades...

Most notably, I now have even more browsers to test with, thanks to icecat ;) LOL.

But then again, when installing deb, I find myself muttering when adding in and enabling those default repos for things I just install by default (whether I use them or not anymore - like pine/pico, etc.)

When I think of him (oh, that doesn't happen on my own), or when someone mentions that bonehead, I just say to myself...

Whatev.....

Kindest regards,

.

You are assuming that the FSF/GNU version of "free software" is the ideal everyone is striving for (and failing to reach). The free and open source software movements are two entirely different things. Not everyone agrees with the GNUs ideology. It isn't that they resent them for setting the bar too high.

Hurd works but isn't finished. It is nowhere near finished too. Last release was 0.3 and that was years ago. I think most people, Stallman included, have given up even if they don't admit it.

The problem is that Mach (what Hurd runs on top of) isn't good enough. I don't know all the ins and outs, but it is a dead end to carry on using it. The idea was to port everything to L4. But that isn't good enough either.

From wikipedia

and

I don't know anything about kernel development, but I'm not sure why they aren't developing their own microkernel instead of basing it on Mach or L4 or whatever else there is. But while they're trying to find a replacement their efforts are becoming less relevant.

I have never used xv. Guess I would have to start this by reading the man page.

honeybadger doesn't care about xv.

What a hoot!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg

I do.

Pat, please don't move it to pasture.

.

Pat wrote that honeybadger doesn't care. He didn't write that he didn't care. ;)

It seems that the FSF, by their own definitions, doesn't even believe the Linux itself is free is free enough for them

http://linux-libre.fsfla.org/pub/lin...eases/3.6-gnu/

The FSF are a bunch of foolish hypocrites if you ask me. By their standards all hardware drivers should be completely open to the public to see as well as their competitors and such. This can not be done for many reason some of which involve APIs and property and trade secret rights. Even then most modern hardware depends on firmware for a long time until suitable drivers can be made, if they can be made.

The FSF would as soon as make people use crippled hardware than a fully working system.

Quit BASH'ing the FSF. Yes they seem like zealots and purists. But on the subject of internet rights, computer freedoms, Richard Stallman for all his faults has been a prophet.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html < this is becoming more real as the days past.


And if not for FSF the tools to create Linux and hence Slackware would never of been available as free software.

Actually, if 386/BSD had been available Linux would have never been born period. FSF had NOTHING to do with Linux's creation. GNU gave it an OS to work with because GNU-Mach and GNU-HURD were not even viable projects. Torvalds had other choices of operating system software also, but chose GNU because it was the only viable choice at the time for his needs.

Right-to-read, isn't necessarily a necessity. Far from it. It's actually more of an excuse to say, "everyone owns this, not just you".

The Linux community has only asked mainly in the majority for hardware OEMs to support their products, which they now have started doing more actively because they see a need for it. Even if they are closed source, proprietary, or non-free drivers, at least driver do exist and can be acquired, and the same goes for software also.

The same goes for people like John Bradley. John didn't HAVE to release the full source code public and allow people to build XV on their own systems and use it without paying. He could have distributed binary only and even time-locked out copies of his XV, but he didn't. He allowed people full access to the sources because it not only was beneficial to getting his software out there, but also allowed people to submit back patches if they found problems, wanted to expand XV more, and even just in general look at the sources. All he asked is you keep the shareware licensing code untouched and at least credit him for making XV.

The FSF has just as much to be judged over as for what they judge others over themselves.