On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 09:20:19PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: > So if I write a non-free insecure kernel and install it via ports that > is acceptable.
Sure, why not? If you could get the linux kernel (e.g. with the nVidia blob) to compile on OpenBSD and run an OpenBSD userland, why not? Then one could dual-boot one partition. Linux to do some graphics thingy off-line, then reboot bsd to do real work on-line. You see, such a push-me-pull-you could be useful to someone who likes OBSD but requires a non-free thingy for a very important purpose, such as earning a living. Sure its easy to say that nobody should do any work requiring 3D accelleration until there is a free driver for free hardware. If such work were to actually stop then there would be no 3D work done for worth-while uses (i.e. not games). On the other hand, there's the real-world experince with OS/2 that was mentioned a while back. I understand the ethical dilemma. RMS cuts the Geordian knot. Sure everyone could choose to not use non-free software. However, sometimes the cost is too high. Last week I had to access a government service on the web and it required the flash-player plug-in; the phone line refers one to the web and if you don't have internet access it refers you to your local library for free access. So either on my computer or the library's I'll have to use non-free software. The cost to my family was too high to forgo the government service (health-care related). Thus, I feel that OpenBSD has made the best choice for supporting open software in the real world. Doug.
