>     Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods?

    >

    > My method is to ask other people to do it for me.  I use that method

    > because it is efficient.  Its results are accurate, too.

    >

    > However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not always

    > checked.  Sometimes I just took his word for it.  The problems that

    > have been reported here in various free systems (and, mostly,

    > corrected) show I need to discuss the criteria more carefully with

    > them.
    You contradict yourself.  You say it's efficient and accurate and then

    point out its inefficiency inaccuracy.  I find it stunning that you can

    reconcile this.
There is nothing to reconcile -- you have combined two statements

about two different things, so the resulting contradiction didn't come

from me.
When I want research, I ask people to do it.  That is efficient, and

we have not seen any errors in it.
In the case of AROS, it's possible I did not ask anyone to do

research.  I might have just taken the developers' word that the

system is free.  It was years ago and I do not know what happened.
However, most of these problems had nothing to do with quality of

research, because they did not arise until after I had decided to

endorse a program.  Research can only check the present, not the

future.  For instance, the reference to unrar on BLAG's site was in a

wiki; it was posted by a user in the recent past.  (It is possible

that this happened with AROS too.)  Likewise for the GNU/Darwin

problem.  I think this occurred in several others too.
My conclusion is that I should do more detailed discussions with the

developers of the FSF-endorsed systems about these specific possible

problems and how to avoid them.