If OpenBSD is a force field/bubble and richard stallman entered into it.. The bubble would be contaminated and the whole biosphere would have to be shut down and re-built in a new clean environment that's why... Just because some asshole with a God complex
>> No. Nothing begs the question of what we do. We are not going to >> change our process in any way as a result of what some loony retard >> says. --Amen to that good brother. "I know who I am, do you know who you are ?" Just keep talking.. You'll be dead soon and it won't matter anymore.. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 5:57 PM To: David H. Lynch Jr. Cc: Theo de Raadt; OpenBSD-Misc; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men David: The OpenBSD position is best expressed in this rather rude statement: Shut up and code. RMS is a philosopher of the evangelical sort. Folks here are a bit more pragmatic and want to code. A lot of us are infuriated by this discussion. You suggested that Theo might have Asbergers. As someone who has a nervous condition that mimics Asbergers in certain aspects i will tell you that arguing fast on a mailing list will do nothing but irritate me even if the arguments are cogent. A person with a condition like that is easilly distracted from imporatant work. So get it ? Shut up and code ! If you want an OpenBSD that RMS would like, write a patch that would remove the stuff he hates from the tree. Even though i have not written anything for OpenBSD in years (1 port to my credit) i am getting VERY frustrated with this discussion. --- Marina Brown On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: > Theo de Raadt wrote: >>> Theo de Raadt wrote: >>> >>>> Hell, the OpenBSD ports tree should perhaps contain patches which >>>> REMOVE such commercial operating system support. That's a fork >>>> Richard would surely approve of. >>>> >>>> Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo. >>>> >>>> >>> I have no doubt that in some context Richard is hypocritical. >>> Though most of us would be hard pressed to structure our lives to be >>> consistent with our beleifs and principles to the extent that he >>> has. >>> >>> But this is not about EMACS, nor is it about hypocracy. >>> >> >> RMS made statements first. RMS will pay for his lies. >> > Why did I even bother. > > I was not trying to defend RMS or attack you. > I was actually looking at the possibility that there might be some way > of getting something positive out of this for OpenBSD. There is an > obvious win-win for everybody, but you are fixated on revenge for > imaginary slights. > > > This sounds like something from my eight year old. You are > 30something, Grow up. > Do you really write your own email, or do you have some kid do them > for you ? > > It is more important to you to catch Stallman in some mis-statement > or lie than to even figure out what is best for OpenBSD ? > Rather than figure out if there is anyway OpenBSD can benefit, it is > more important to find a way to screw somebody else ? > > Every once in a while you show rationality and intelligence, and I > think maybe there is some real value and real hope for OpenBSD, then > you lob off a message like this one. > >> No. Nothing begs the question of what we do. We are not going to >> change our process in any way as a result of what some loony retard >> says. >> >> > So if Richard adopted the BSD/ISC you would switch to the GPL just > to spite him ? > >> We know _exactly_ what our principles are, and we are sticking to >> them very clearly. >> > Yes, the screw RMS, Screw the FSF, and screw the world, and screw > ourselves principle. > Because frankly I can't see where you are following any other. > > Your position on closed hardware and binary blobs is exactly the same > as Stallman's, and logically leads to the same position on software. > Yet so far I have gotten no position on software - aside from the > claim that Stallman somehow insulted OpenBSD. > The only way his remarks could be taken as an insult, would be if you > actually have the same principles. > Even then it would be more of an uninformed error than an insult. > It is not an insult for him to claim that you tacitly endorse non-free > software - if you do. > > Whatever your principles are you are sticking to them so clearly that > I do not even think most of the OpenBSD developers know what they > actually are - well aside from the screw everybody else principle. > That one seems abundantly clear. > >>> From the perspective of OpenBSD values, >>> How far does the OpenBSD disdain for non-free software extend ? >>> >> >> Richard does not stand in a position where he can ask that question >> to us. Nor do you. We'll do what we want, and your questions don't >> change anything. >> > Forget Richard, Forget me, Forget all the people you think have fucked > you over. > Instead of trying to figure out how to extract revenge, figure out > what is best for OpenBSD. > > There is nothing wrong with doing what you want. > But it sure as hell looks as if you are more interested in making > certain that you do NOT do anything that richard might want. > That anytime he says black, you are going to say white. > > In many circles I am known for having nearly an absolutist position on > Free Speech. Your expressed position is even more absolutist than mine. > Yet here you are telling others we can not even ask questions. My we > have clay feet. > > Richard has actually answer the challenges you have thrown at him. > In those instances where someone found that something that he > recommended was not adhering to the standards he established, he > commited to look into it and either fix it or revoke his recommendation. > You refuse to deign to allow anyone else to ask questions. > > >>> Establish what your principles and policies are or are going to be. >>> >> >> We did. Years ago. > I got it, OpenBSD is good, non-free software is good, but anything > having anything to do with RMS is evil. > > Seriously, nothing I have read of any OpenBSD policies and > principles is inconsistent with Richard's on this issue. > If I am wrong about that, then OpenBSD has done a poor job of > expressing its policies and principles. > If I am right you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. > > This does not effect me personally one way or another. > I could give a rats ass about the future of OpenBSD. > Nor is this childish spat you seem to be having all by yourself > with Richard > of any consequence to me. > > Though I will conceede you are incredibly frustrating, > how the hell can somebody so obviously intelligent, > be so obviously self destructive and stupid at the same time. > > If one person calls you an ass, that's there problem. > If ten people call you an ass, maybe you should think about it. > If everyone on the planet outside your own cult calls you an ass, > you are either the messiah or an ass. My money is on the latter. > >> Did you? >> >> > Do you have turrets or aspergers or some other reason why you are > compelled to insult virtually everyone ? > >>> Adhere to them and THEN if they are consistent with Richard's >>> you can insist on his endorsement or burn him as a hypocrit. >>> >> >> We do adhere to our principles very exactly. Richard does not adhere >> to what he preaches. >> >> Richard came to our lists on a vendetta of hatred. Richard lied >> about our project. Richard continues, and he won't stop, and >> therefore he is an asshole. He'll get what he deserves -- we don't >> drop this issue now that he's gone so far. >> >> > Richard, Richard, Richard. You would think he is the anti-christ. > Forget Richard, look after your own interests. > > Though Frankly, I suspect you will find that virtually every human > outside the cult of OpenBSD, > that gives enough of a damn to read Richards remarks would conclude that > nothing he said insulted OpenBSD, and that they were accurate. > >>> If you are unwilling to adopt policies consistent with his, >>> accept that you are not getting his endorsement and shut this >>> thread down. >>> >> >> Why do you get to tell people what threads should be shut down? >> > Fine blather away as you please. Atleast Don Quite was fighting > against windmills for a worthwhile cause. > >> Why don't you mail Richard and tell him to stop mailing our lists? >> Or are you his little brother? >> > I have e-mailed him. Pretty much the same thing I emailed you. > I sugested that since on this specific issue I could see no > conflict between what I percieve to be OpenBSD values and policies, > that there had to be someway to reach common ground. > > > But I do not speak for OpenBSD - you do. > And you seem to fixated on revenge for imagined slights to look out > for your own or OpenBSD's interests. > > There are values I share with you, some I share with Richard, and > many I hold as my own. > I have had heated private exchanges with Richard on several topics. > But he has always been civil. He is a brilliant and shares many > other traits with you. > But he seems matured past eight, and realize that that whining and > ranting is not going to get him anywhere. > >> >> There is no cooperation between FSF and OpenBSD, and if Richard keeps >> throwing poo at us, we will keep throwing poo right back at him and >> his hyporcritical project. >> > I got it, if the fate of the human race depended on cooperation > between the two of you, > the rest of us need to bend over and kiss our asses goodbye, > You would rather eat dog shit than concede there is any issue on > the planet that Richard is not wrong about. > If god came down and gave you a choice between a heaven with > Richard in it and eternal damnation, you would pick > eternal damnation. > >> >>> Richard has offered you the oportunity to aquire his endorsement. >>> >> >> That's bullshit. Richard came looking for a fight. I don't think he >> expected to look this much like a loser. >> > Outside the cult of OpenBSD no one else sees it that way. > The few people who are paying attention are trying to figure out > why OpenBSD is more interested > in pissing all over RMS than looking after its own interests, > And Richard only looks stupid for beleiving there was any hope of > rational discourse. >> >>> With very little effort OpenBSD could be the most significant OS >>> with Richard Stallman's impratur >>> certifying it as totally free. >>> >> >> We are free. We don't need some uneducated guy who climbed up into >> some high chair endorsing us; he is jealous of what we do, and that >> noone else listens to him anymore. >> > If he is so jealous, why are you the ones whining because you can't > get anybody to give you any money ? > I read damn little besides sour grapes from the OpenBSD community. > > I think Shakespeare might have some advice - "the fault is not in > our stars, but in ourselves". > But what would I know, like Richard, I am just an uneducated twit. > > From what I can tell GPL/LGPL projects make up almost 75% of all > FOSS projects, and BSD projects less that 6%. > There are nearly as many projects under the new GPLv3 as the BSD > License. > Even Torvald's has gone from dead set against the GPLv3 to being > willing to actually use it in some circumstances. > > All in all Richard has been doing quite well - despite graduating > magna cum laude from Harvard and picking up two honorary doctorates > and > 1 honorary professorship - this year. > > If he gives a damn about OpenBSD at all, it is because if he could > endorse it, he could use it as an effective club to beat on Linux > distributions to get them to conform to his notions of free software. > While gNewSense might actually be more popular than OpenBSD, OpenBSD > is an actual real OS, with a real history even if it has damn few > actual users. "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" > He is not jealous of you. He just wants to use you as a means to much > bigger ends. But god forbid that you might actually benefit from that. > "Alas, alas for you, lawyers and pharisees, hypocrites that you are! > Sure that the kingdom of Heaven awaits you; you will not venture half > so far." > > I am not the leader of the RMS fan club, but personally, it seems > like you can't figure out why he has the stature and attention he has, > and you do not. > Hey I can't figure out why Bill Gates is worth Billions and I am > not. But I am not letting it eat me up. > > And while you are mail bombing Stallman - why don't you revive > another childish blast from the past and lob a few kernel binaries at him. > > Do you actually read the crap you write ? > Please tell me that you have aspergers, or are a paranoid schitz, > so that there is a rational explanation for your behavior. > > I am not out to get you. Richard is not out to get you. The FSF is > not out to get you. The world is not out to get you. But you appear to > be out to get you. > "You show people what you're willing to fight for when you fight > your friends
