Well, at risk of dragging this stupid thread out for one more message,
once more into the breach....

> Sorry, Larry, but I think that David needs no apologies to be made
> for him.  He has done absolutely nothing wrong.

I'm not sure.  At best, he was guilty of poorly chosen wording; at
worst, of grade-school "nyah, nyah, we've got it and you can't have it"
taunting.  (After Larry McVoy's apologia, I personally am leaning more
towards the former interpretation, for what that may be worth.)

> He simply tried to help [...]

If so, he did so with a phraseology that was borderline.  He said, as I
recall, "Under SparcLinux we don't have these problems".  If he had
tacked on something like " - perhaps it would be worth looking at that
code to see if any ideas can be adopted", I think there would have been
no flap, and perhaps even progress.  If he'd tacked on " - get with it,
bring your toy OS up to speed if you wanna play with the big boys",
well, we all saw what happened when someone else called Linux a "toy
OS", and that was calling the _other_ camp names ("other" based on it
appearing on a NetBSD list).

(Of course, there's always the question of whether it's worth
suggesting someone look at SparcLinux to solve a problem, because we
can't use their code, infected as it is with Stallman's damned GPV.
(Yes, that's my opinion of it.  Promoting code sharing, my ass.))

					der Mouse

			    mouse@collatz.mcrcim.mcgill.edu