On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Chuck Cole wrote: >> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Chuck Cole wrote: >> >>> More credit is due von Neumann than GNU in any case. >> >> More credit for what? Not for GNU or GNU/Linux or Linux, or whatever >> you want to call it. That would be like saying that the credit for >> Michelangelo's great stone sculptures should go more to the inventor of >> the chisel than to Michelangelo. That is a bit of an exaggeration but >> you'll get my point. > > It's way too much a stretch of the fact I pointed out. Non-Harvard, non > von Neumann machines are responsible for much of the chaos that Amazing > Grace's work toward portability (via COBOL) eventually achieved. > Stallman's work would not exist or run without those developments as > specific parts of host environments for his stuff. Not a chisel, it's > the physical art and also a canvas that provides the reality that > Stallman (et alii) can do their unreal virtual stuff upon. Without a > realization of von Neuman's work as a host, Stallman's has no existence > at all. That deserves as much credit if not more but it's the real > stuff, not some virtual reality :-) You are talking about computers, but is our group about the hardware or about the software? Do you think that Rembrandt's paintings should be considered the work of those who made the pigments and canvases, and not Rembrandt's work? Please. >> I am not trying to usurp any authority. > > There is none. There is no "group", no leadership, and no way to make > decisions except by fiat. I think Rick Tanner's opinion is essential > for this.. maybe a few others. Jima's role seems to me to be more > significant than he admits. Someone manages the web pages. Whoever has write permission on those files is the one who has to make changes. If changes cannot be made, and someone wants to start a new group that includes GNU in the name, then someone can do that. The group isn't a *lot* more than the email list and that is easy to move. Mike