On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 07:17:34AM +0200, Thilo Pfennig wrote: > Theo de Raadt schrieb: > > Hi Theo, > > I hope that nothing I ever say holds back our developers or community > > from doing what is right. I did not realize that the GNU and Linux > > kernel hackers were such dutiful slaves. > Well yeah, the system is called capitalism and many hackers behave like > slaves in this or another way.
No my friend it is the other way around. GNU makes developers slaves to their users. In my world I develop code for me; if you like it good for you; if you don't equally good for you. I don't owe you anything. Capitalism can only be enabled by the proper amount of freedom (actual freedom, not what GNU calls freedom). You are talking about people that think there is morality in big words without living up to their side of the bargain. > > > > If you see a fucked up system, do you want to fight it? Or do you > > want to defend the people who don't fight it? I think you are an > > apologist for those who don't fight the system. > > > Many people see me rather as an open source dogmatist. Personally I am > trying to get the big picture WITHOUT being a fanboy of ANY OS. You are what I would call an OS "intelligent design" or creationist. This is exactly the excuse they use too. > > > > >> And also, as you all know, open documentation has gone a long way > >> till today. > >> > > > > No. Open documentation has NOT gone a long way at all. > I only know that no hardware I used had been supported and there was no > documentation for it when I started running Linux - and that now many > companies share their information, from companies who did not even know > about FLOSS back then or would have declined to open source anything or > share any information. So, sure there is still also a long way to go, > but to say nothing has happened is also wrong and it would also mean > that OpenBSD has not accomplished anything in that matter? > > You all think this is all about 2 kinds of video cards. Video cards, > > video cards, video cards, video cards, video cards, video cards, video > > cards, video cards... cry cry cry. what about all the rest of the > > things in a machine? > > > I cited that because it was falsely stated that Linux hackers have never > tried to change the situation and would do so now for the first time. > They sure havent done enough, or focused too much on only a few > hardware bits like you pointed out. But that wasnt the point. It is true; the best they have done is say, "hey man can you guys please help?", "oh where do I sign?". It is like most things GNU, lip service without action. > > Where do you come up with this load of crap? The eeepc has an > > UNDOCUMENTED ethernet chip and an UNDOCUMENTED wireless chip. > > Actually I have to admit that I just assumed that that would be the > case. I should have checked that. Exactly, assumptions, assumptions, assumptions! See you fit right in with the other GNU fanboys that believe their spiritual leader: blah blah blah without research. > > What a load of crap. You don't know what you are talking about. > > Everything else you said is exactly the same blathering; you are > > trying to say happy Linux things but there are no facts to support > > that the Linux crew or FSF has done ANYTHING which has gotten > > documentation for hardware out there. They have failed to use their > > dominant position to anyone else, and they have done a damn poor job > > of even supporting themselves. > > > > Just for the records: Does this mean that you either count documentation > releases like AMDs, as in fact NOTHING or SOMETHING but has only > happened because of OpenBSD? That is it should be! Why are you giving cookies to companies that do what they are supposed to do? And how long did it take for AMD to free up docs? And why? Answer those questions and suddenly you'll see it wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts. > > Also I thought Coreboot was a good idea. It is not? Sure if you have 1 of the 2 supported motherboards. > > > What did they do? Linux developers and the companies that employ > > them have spend the last ten years signing NDAs with vendors, and > > therefore only that very small group of people have the documentation. > > It's not even "lots of Linux developers" who have those docs; no, in > > each case it is typically 1-3 developers who have docs for a particular > > chipset, and then when a bug is found by an outsider he has to work without > > docs. > > > ACK > > > It wasnt my intention to anger anybody, but obviously I did. As it turns > out this is seen by some as not only a matter of truth but also > something very emotional. What I basically was trying to say is that > from my recognition this is not the first time Linux hackers have spoken > up. I cant make any prove against the cases you have made because I have > not investigated the matters in depth and it would take quite some time. They pretend to speak up followed by no action. In fact GNU fanboys come to the rescue of closed source companies saying "you should be nice to them", "you can't expect to get anything done unless you suck up" etc etc It was projects like OpenBSD that showed what bold faced liars they were for them to change their ways. It was action of the unfriendly kind that got stuff done. Get your facts straight. > > > Regards, > > Thilo > > PS: Although I got a full rant from you I want to say that I have > always liked your standpoint against proprietary drivers and for open > documentation, which was one of the reasons to partly switch to OpenBSD, > because I also felt that Linux hackers did not do and say enough. Anyway. > They haven't and that so called petition is a complete farce; nothing will come out of it as usual. If Linux has a pair he would prohibit module loading as they do today. That would turn some heads and get someone's attention.
