Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
The OpenBSD group chose to take that as a deliberately spiteful missle targeting them. Richard *did* send an email to misc@openbsd.org, notice that this whole thing is in reply to Richard's original post to misc@ if Richard could go Back to the Future I believe he would send the post to /dev/null instead.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Rod Whitworth wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:29:43 -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: The NVIDIA binary blob is popular. There you go again. You don't know the difference between a blob and an application. The difference has no meaning in the context of values and principles. It is like trying to claim that racial discrimination should be acceptable, in Kenya, but not in the US. Further if you try to make values distinctions based on technical differences, you are eventually going to run afoul of technology itself. FPGA's make hardware into software. I can write a decryption algorithm, in a C like language, compile it into bits that create hardware that performs the task completely without a CPU or OS. the firmware of the FPGA is hardware, OS, and application all rolled into one. We have courts cases that hinge on law based on technological distinctions that have been superseded for decades. Wise men do not tie their values and principles to arbitrary technological distinctions. The reasons a binary blob are bad do not change when it becomes an application. a flaw in a binary blob in a rarely executed part of the OS may be less significant that a flaw in a binary blob in a constantly used highly popular application. Security and reliability in the kernel is critical, but security and reliability in an application is not pointless.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:32:37 -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Rod Whitworth wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:29:43 -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: The NVIDIA binary blob is popular. There you go again. You don't know the difference between a blob and an application. The difference has no meaning in the context of values and principles. Weasel words. It is like trying to claim that racial discrimination should be acceptable, in Kenya, but not in the US. No it isn't. Both of them are like you - wrong. Further if you try to make values distinctions based on technical differences, you are eventually going to run afoul of technology itself. FPGA's make hardware into software. I can write a decryption algorithm, in a C like language, compile it into bits that create hardware that performs the task completely without a CPU or OS. the firmware of the FPGA is hardware, OS, and application all rolled into one. Still waffling. We have courts cases that hinge on law based on technological distinctions that have been superseded for decades. Wise men do not tie their values and principles to arbitrary technological distinctions. Appeal to authority. Dishonest. Lose 50 points. The reasons a binary blob are bad do not change when it becomes an application. a flaw in a binary blob in a rarely executed part of the OS may be less significant that a flaw in a binary blob in a constantly used highly popular application. Security and reliability in the kernel is critical, but security and reliability in an application is not pointless. You are full of shit. Blobs in applications? You gave yourself away there too. Blob is the word. Binary blob is a redundancy. Kinda like you. Binary code in apps is NOT a blob. You are. I got it right the first time - you are a dumb shit full of sophistry. Either that or you know exactly what I mean and you think like Uri Geller that we might fall for all the psychobabble and try to do point by point refutation of a load of waffle. Like I said before, wanker, back to your coven with the fools who respect you or who use you as their tool. plonk! Rod/ /earth: write failed, file system is full cp: /earth/creatures: No space left on device
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On 12/16/07 9:20 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: No No NO. You miss the point. GNU is fighting for their view of freedom. Not *real* freedom. The GNU Project campaigns to give software users these four essential freedoms: Freedom 0: the freedom to run the program as you wish. Freedom 1: the freedom to study the source code and change it so it does what you wish. Freedom 2: the freedom to distribute exact copies to others when you wish. Freedom 3: the freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others when you wish. That's what I think is real freedom in regard to using a program. Whether or not you agree, at least you know what my views are. 1/2/3 are capping the the freedoms of the source, the programmer, the creator of programs. If a programmer has a bright idea he should be able to choose to give it away or make money with it, which gives her/him even more freedoms. Richards idea's of freedom mean slavery for precisely the creators. Without those there wouldn't be software at all. Besides that, I still think it's extremely impolite to give something away with something unnecessary attached to it, in this case DRM in pure form. So it's what you give priority, the individual (creator) or the group (that doesn't create in general). I do agree with Richard that dependency by the group should be adressed. I would like to propose a law that makes that software that is isn't supported any more for x years should become BSD licensed. The moment you let people use your software you make people dependent, that's OK as long as it's a free choice with service. But if the service stops the user can become a kind of enslaved and that's not OK +++chefren
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On 12/17/07 4:42 AM, Ray Percival wrote: Who wants to deny Stallman the freedom to do anything he wants? He has the freedom to say and do anything he would like. And I have the freedom to mock him for it. Everybody gets what they want. If he is selfish, for example because he want to lessen freedom of programmers without a proper reason, he may be denyed his unfree speech or at least attacked for it. And he is, he want's users to get things for free they haven't done anything for besides using it. +++chefren
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On 12/17/07 8:25 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: OpenBSD took insult where there was none This discussion is about basic principles and Richard Stallman denies facts contrary to what he states. +++chefren
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Dec 16, 2007, at 9:29 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Sam Fourman Jr. wrote: On Dec 15, 2007 10:56 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bengt Frost wrote: On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Darrb Finally as long as i do not hurt 'someone' (to mutch) then it must be up to me to choose what i want to do, f.ex. install packages through portssystem. If I wrote a a BSD Licensed program to mailbomb jews. Would that be acceptable within ports ? and who exactly would you bribe to get this mailbomb committed to the ports tree? That is the point! Why is it that I can not expect ports to accept this ? Because accepting it would be the same as tacitly endorsing it. Accepting non-free software is is equivalent to tacitly endorsing it. No. Because it's useless and nobody with commit access would want to put the time and effort into doing so. Please move on.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
chefren wrote: If a programmer has a bright idea he should be able to choose to give it away or make money with it, which gives her/him even more freedoms. Despite the rhetoric from Redmond-followers, making money from software is something that both the GPL and BSD licenses allow. There have been many, and the number is increasing, companies that make good money using either license. Early on, FSF was apparently even partially funded by sales of Emacs tapes. However, the start of the thread is not directly about the licenses. When the BSDTalk interview was posted, it was brought up that the ports, which are not part of the base system, include non-free (by everyone's measure) packages. You can find usability studies and findings of fact in court, among other things, which point that bundling implies endorsement. The packages have been carefully selected and include only open source material: http://openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#PkgFind The start of this whole thread is about the ports tree. It *is* possible to filter out the non-free (by everyone's measure) packages from the ports tree. It is just not obvious until one becomes familiar with OpenBSD. What would go a long way in improving an already useful system would be to separate out the non-free (by anyone's measure) packages from the ports tree so that those wanting a quick start with open-source-only packages can do so. It would make sense to play on OpenBSD's strengths, one of which is strict licensing, and have these reflected in the ports tree. Changing what is and isn't allowed in the ports tree would not be a simple task, either technically or politically. However, labeling or partitioning the ports tree would probably be feasible technically. Regards, -Lars
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
David wins that round. David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I wrote a a BSD Licensed program to mailbomb jews. Would that be acceptable within ports ? Sam Fourman Jr. wrote: and who exactly would you bribe to get this mailbomb committed to the ports tree? David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is the point! Why is it that I can not expect ports to accept this ? Because accepting it would be the same as tacitly endorsing it. Accepting non-free software is is equivalent to tacitly endorsing it. Ports is basically a distributed repository, part of the package's material on the official site, some off on other sites. -Lars
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On 2007/12/17 13:42, Lars Noodin wrote: When the BSDTalk interview was posted, it was brought up that the ports, which are not part of the base system, include non-free (by everyone's measure) packages. *everyone*? Not me personally, but people in some countries find Opera to be more free than Firefox.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 01:42:53PM +0200, Lars Nood??n wrote: chefren wrote: If a programmer has a bright idea he should be able to choose to give it away or make money with it, which gives her/him even more freedoms. Despite the rhetoric from Redmond-followers, making money from software is something that both the GPL and BSD licenses allow. There have been many, and the number is increasing, companies that make good money using either license. Early on, FSF was apparently even partially funded by sales of Emacs tapes. However, the start of the thread is not directly about the licenses. When the BSDTalk interview was posted, it was brought up that the ports, which are not part of the base system, include non-free (by everyone's measure) packages. You can find usability studies and findings of fact in court, among other things, which point that bundling implies endorsement. They are free by your account. You see you don't have to pay for them therefore free. I can play this game too.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
I don't hate RMS or GNU or GPL etc. I find them silly at best but that is besides the point. Point is that someone comes and pisses in my sandbox. I piss and poop back. Especially if that someone shows up playing moral high ground while being a complete and total hypocrite. Is there some scatalogical affliction here? Is it possible to discuss anything on the OpenBSD list without piss, poop, and insults? Too late for that. I have been on the OpenBSD list for some time. Every time the Linux Kernel crowd pisses on OpenBSD, OpenBSD hunts RMS down and demands that he compell the LKML'ers to follow OpenBSD edicts. OpenBSD invited RMS into its tent. Further, he did not piss in your sandbox, OpenBSD took insult where there was none, and then got more upset when he bothered to say so. Every time RMS has been asked to come into the tent is when there has been a license violation. His standard reply is no comment. This only reaffirms his lack of respect for other projects and underscores his hypocrisy. He has been invited as a courtesy yet he never took the reaching hand because it didn't fit his agenda. If you think you have the moral high ground then argue that. There are several very easy ways for OpenBSD to take the moral high ground It is easy our values and principles do not permit us to meet the criteria RMS uses for his recommendation. The problems with that are: you have to accept that your commitment to your particular definition of freedom is a higher value than your opposition to non-free software. It also means RMS's remarks are true. Again you are trying to switch the conversation but I'll bite. I do NOT claim to have the moral high ground; RMS does. OpenBSD does not need to claim moral high ground by paying lip service; we write code that is made available to all to do whatever they please. No morality, no ethics, no double speak. Pure and simple. It is when we get accused of $lie by someone who does claim morality and ethics that we speak out. RMS freedom == slavery. Why would I want to have any part of that? You are a fan of his drivel? Good for you! Stop shoving it down my throat.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
2) If supporting non-free software is bad, What I object to is referring people to non-free software as something to install. Supporting is a broader term, and includes various different practices. I don't object to all of them. I just finished listening to the BSDTalk interview for the second time and this is what I think: Richard explains in the interview that all BSD distributions (not OpenBSD specifically) INCLUDE non-free software in their ports system. Using the normal definition of include, this statement is incorrect. I've offered to ask them to post a note to clarify what I meant. I have not seen a response to that offer, but I have decided to ask them anyway. I do not want to misinform anyone.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 12:22:11PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: Requirement 2: the requirement to distribute exact copies to others Requirement 3: the requirement to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. Fixed that for you. The GNU GPL does not require you to distribute copies to anyone, neither exact copies nor modified versions. Good for you, will you go away now ? -- Gilles Chehade http://www.evilkittens.org/blog/gilles/
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Requirement 2: the requirement to distribute exact copies to others Requirement 3: the requirement to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. Fixed that for you. The GNU GPL does not require you to distribute copies to anyone, neither exact copies nor modified versions.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 12:22:16PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: I feel personally attacked by your uneducated comments. I feel personally insulted by your by your condescending tone. I am sorry that you feel attacked and insulted, but I have not done so. Please go away, you don't belong here, you are a waste of time for many of us who have to read your messages and correct the lies you spread to make sure people aren't misinformed. I'm sure many people are interested by your blabla elsewhere, see you ! -- Gilles Chehade http://www.evilkittens.org/blog/gilles/
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On 12/16/07, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sam Fourman Jr. wrote: On Dec 15, 2007 10:56 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I wrote a a BSD Licensed program to mailbomb jews. Would that be acceptable within ports ? and who exactly would you bribe to get this mailbomb committed to the ports tree? That is the point! Why is it that I can not expect ports to accept this ? Because accepting it would be the same as tacitly endorsing it. Accepting non-free software is is equivalent to tacitly endorsing it. can you please give me the URL to this program? i'd like to commit it to ports.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
As your views on open-source have become more and more extreme over time, you have become less and less relevant to a overall practical open-source community I've never agreed with open source at all; my community is the free software community. In 1998 part of the community started to speak of open source instead of free software--the part that doesn't consider freedom for users to be an ethical mandate. The free software movement continues to grow and win support around the world, focusing on areas other than the one you might call practical. You have also made, to be polite, inaccurate statements about OpenBSD which have been corrected in great detail. I expressed myself in a way that could be misunderstood, that is true. Why try to stretch it to something worse? Do you start from a desire to put me in the wrong? But, what I find most disturbing about your behaviour is that it you try to shove your views down other peoples throat with great vigour. I've said repeatedly that I don't insist that anyone here follow my views. I'm only explaining what they are (since others have misrepresented them). You have admitted as much on this list with regards to failed attempts with Ubuntu and Debain and you have now failed here. Actually what I said is that I tried to persuade Ubunu and Debian. You need to recognize the difference between what I said and what you think. You should also investigate the facts before making false statements. When I spoke with them I was polite and always recognized that they would make their own decisions. They would never have listened to me if I did not start by respecting them. I failed to persuade them, but I didn't fail here, because I never intended to try. I know that OpenBSD would not change anything for me. I just want to correct the incorrect statements about my views. Please go away, take your cronies with you and live in your own little pocket universe so the rest of us can live in peace. Please stop posting inaccurate statements of my actions and views, and I will stop correcting them.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Dec 17, 2007 3:11 AM, Sam Fourman Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The OpenBSD group chose to take that as a deliberately spiteful missle targeting them. Richard *did* send an email to misc@openbsd.org, notice that this whole thing is in reply to Richard's original post to misc@ No, someone posted that Richard had mentioned that he cannot recommend openbsd in an interview. Another person probably emailed richard on it, and so Richard emailed misc@ giving the reasons why he did so. Unfortunately, rather than giving him the benefit of the doubt (since he does say the same things about linux in general), people started tearing him a new one. -- http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity. -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted. -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0feature=related
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 12:21:44PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: 2) If supporting non-free software is bad, What I object to is referring people to non-free software as something to install. Supporting is a broader term, and includes various different practices. I don't object to all of them. I just finished listening to the BSDTalk interview for the second time and this is what I think: Richard explains in the interview that all BSD distributions (not OpenBSD specifically) INCLUDE non-free software in their ports system. Using the normal definition of include, this statement is incorrect. I've offered to ask them to post a note to clarify what I meant. I have not seen a response to that offer, but I have decided to ask them anyway. I do not want to misinform anyone. If you wanted to say something short and correct, you could say that (parts of) OpenBSD's ports tree facilitates the installation of (some) non-free software. If you wanted to include a nod to the enormous effort that the OpenBSD developers have put into providing an entirely free operating system, you could mention that OpenBSD itself is entirely free, and that getting the ports tree on your system requires a separate, deliberate, act from that of installing OpenBSD. I don't know whether your statements, or these statements, apply to any of the other BSD's. (Notice how that works. Also, notice the lack of vague reference to hearsay.) But I can well imagine how to find out, and how to determine what would be correct statements about them. It would be responsible to take those measures before pronouncing on the other BSD's. It is not sufficient to just think (or say) 'Well, nobody complained, so it must be true,' or some such.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On 12/15/07, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I wrote a a BSD Licensed program to mailbomb jews. Would that be acceptable within ports ? Well now, this brings up an interesting point of jurisprudence. To wit: does Godwin's Law apply here? One might argue that it only kicks in at explicit mention of Hitler or the Nazis, but I'm inclined to think that tasteless references to antisemitic pogroms are also covered. I mean, mailbombing Jews - Hitler would've loved that! If I'm right, we can all now safely disregard further contributions from Herr Lynch.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 12:11:16AM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: L wrote: For about 5 years now I've been looking for an operating system that doesn't have the whole freedom of speech attached to it, since I don't fall for that. This recent flamewar simply helped confirm my instinct that openbsd is not about some idealistic freedom of speech. OpenBSD have fairly disparate view on what freedom is, but they both are zealous about the importance of their view of freedom. Yes, it is called the dictionary definition which is like totally extreme. A philosopher who did not hurt anyone's feelings was not doing his job. --Plato (source: Wikipedia) A programmer who did not hurt anyone's feelings was not doing his job. --L505 (source: Z505) One has to speak up and stick up for his programming/philosophy practices sometimes, otherwise he won't be heard. The guy who spoke up about earth not being flat was ridiculed, flamed, and arrested. All of that is called free speech. The right of OpenBSD to be mean, The right to spray views you do not like or people you think are idiots with insults, is called free speech. OpenBSD takes a particular extremist view of freedom, and free speech. Yes, it is called the dictionary definition which is like totally extreme. The home made version used by double talkers is not extreme. It is ok for them to change definitions to fit their political agenda.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
You can use OpenBSD to build a baby mulcher or a nookyoular weapon and you have the choice to retain the source code. You can use the GPL to build a puppy blood drainer or a dirty bomb provided you deliver the source code with it. On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:56:43PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Bengt Frost wrote: On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote: Finally as long as i do not hurt 'someone' (to mutch) then it must be up to me to choose what i want to do, f.ex. install packages through portssystem. If I wrote a a BSD Licensed program to mailbomb jews. Would that be acceptable within ports ? Either answer makes it clear that inclusion within ports expresses values. Including non-free software in ports makes a statement. Excluding it makes a different one. --bfrost (Bengt Frost) http://www.fvp.se, http://www.fvpideas.com, http://www.fvpideas.eu -- Dave LynchDLA Systems Software Development: Embedded Linux 717.627.3770 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dlasys.net fax: 1.253.369.9244 Cell: 1.717.587.7774 Over 25 years' experience in platforms, languages, and technologies too numerous to list. Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. Albert Einstein
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:56:43PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Bengt Frost wrote: On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote: Finally as long as i do not hurt 'someone' (to mutch) then it must be up to me to choose what i want to do, f.ex. install packages through portssystem. If I wrote a a BSD Licensed program to mailbomb jews. Would that be acceptable within ports ? Either answer makes it clear that inclusion within ports expresses values. Including non-free software in ports makes a statement. Excluding it makes a different one. --bfrost Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. Albert Einstein Albert Einstein - Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal. --bfrost (Bengt Frost) http://www.fvp.se, http://www.fvpideas.com, http://www.fvpideas.eu
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Theo de Raadt wrote: Theo de Raadt wrote: Richard seperated us out. Jack, don't go telling me that we may not rail against Richard being a prick. Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other, sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing there looking sheepish, all covered with poop. How is this my fault? Because you love OpenBSD soo much that you see threats and insults even when they are not there. Richard slagged our efforts. In the public space. Go back and listen the the actual BSDTalk interview that started this mess. OpenBSD never comes up by name. All the BSD's are discused generically, There is one sentence about ports. Not the OpenBSD ports systems, but ports generically across all BSD's. Even so the remarks are qualifed. The most negative statement Richard made is I can not recommend them. By standards he has applied consistently to the other BSD's, and Linux Distro's, that is true. The whole trying to parse the meaning of the word include and exactly how does ports work is just a red herring. Yes, Richard could have more chosen a more precise word for a single sentence in a 30minute interview with thousands of words during which the whole topic of BSD's gets at base a minute or two, and OpenBSD is never mentioned. He also could have become more educated about exactly how ports works, except that he did not have to. There is software that is non-free that can be installed through ports. I do not beleive you have ever argues that was not true. Richard's exploring ports further would not have changed his inability to recommend OpenBSD. But your looking into the published criteria that he uses to assess whether he can recommend and OS would have made it clear that no argument about how ports works would have altered his inability to recommend OpenBSD without violating his own standards. Of course Richard has ulterior motives - I suspect he would really like to see one or all of the BSD's clear out all the non-free software etc. OpenBSD is by far the closest to being able to receive his recommendation. I am sure he would love to add a link to OpenBSD on the GNU/FSF web sites. I suspect he would like to use OpenBSD as a club to bring other Linux Distro's into line. None of thaat causes you or OpenBSD any harm. Personally, I think both you and most of the OpenBSD community actually want his recommendation, but you view making any change as a result of an outside influence - and particularly Richard, the FSF and GNU as an unacceptable sign of weakness. So fine, let this thread die, sit on your thumbs for a month, re-read your own policies and goals. think about whether having non-free software even linked to in ports is really consistent with them, decide to remove non-free software - because it is a good idea and the right thing to do, because it is inconsistent with atleast the implicit if not explicit principles of OpenBSD. There are no binary blobs in the kernel, you claim there is no non-free software in base or packages. If you feel strongly enough to keep it out of those, why not ports? If it makes you feel better sacrifice a couple more GNU tools, yank a few more GPL packages. Whatever it takes to feel self righteous. Do it because it is the right thing, because you really want to. Then sit back on your thumbs and ignore Richard and the FSF/GNU some more, wait for Richard to claim he can not endorse any BSD again, and then beat him to death. You want to beat him up over his hypocracy - actually catch him in a real act of hypocracy first. Richard is a hyprcrite, since he does exactly the same thing. All of us are hypocrits. I aspire to diminish my own hypocracy to Richard's leevel. Richard walked onto this mailin list, telling lies. Each of us should judge Richard according to his own standards, words and acts. Nothing Richard says or does can diminish you. What effects your stature or that of OpenBSD is your standards, words, and acts. Take a couple of valium and reread Richard's original post. You have to want to be insulted to perceive insult. He asserted that under appropriate circumstances he is willing to RECOMMEND OpenBSD privately. If that is what you need to make you happy snip everything but the last paragraph and post the email to the openbsd website.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Each of us should judge Richard according to his own standards, words and acts. Seems like that is precisely what most everybody posting to this thread had been doing. Emphasis on the word judge.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Can you share some of them drugs you are on? This is some good shit. On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 02:13:24AM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Theo de Raadt wrote: Theo de Raadt wrote: Richard seperated us out. Jack, don't go telling me that we may not rail against Richard being a prick. Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other, sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing there looking sheepish, all covered with poop. How is this my fault? Because you love OpenBSD soo much that you see threats and insults even when they are not there. Richard slagged our efforts. In the public space. Go back and listen the the actual BSDTalk interview that started this mess. OpenBSD never comes up by name. All the BSD's are discused generically, There is one sentence about ports. Not the OpenBSD ports systems, but ports generically across all BSD's. Even so the remarks are qualifed. The most negative statement Richard made is I can not recommend them. By standards he has applied consistently to the other BSD's, and Linux Distro's, that is true. The whole trying to parse the meaning of the word include and exactly how does ports work is just a red herring. Yes, Richard could have more chosen a more precise word for a single sentence in a 30minute interview with thousands of words during which the whole topic of BSD's gets at base a minute or two, and OpenBSD is never mentioned. He also could have become more educated about exactly how ports works, except that he did not have to. There is software that is non-free that can be installed through ports. I do not beleive you have ever argues that was not true. Richard's exploring ports further would not have changed his inability to recommend OpenBSD. But your looking into the published criteria that he uses to assess whether he can recommend and OS would have made it clear that no argument about how ports works would have altered his inability to recommend OpenBSD without violating his own standards. Of course Richard has ulterior motives - I suspect he would really like to see one or all of the BSD's clear out all the non-free software etc. OpenBSD is by far the closest to being able to receive his recommendation. I am sure he would love to add a link to OpenBSD on the GNU/FSF web sites. I suspect he would like to use OpenBSD as a club to bring other Linux Distro's into line. None of thaat causes you or OpenBSD any harm. Personally, I think both you and most of the OpenBSD community actually want his recommendation, but you view making any change as a result of an outside influence - and particularly Richard, the FSF and GNU as an unacceptable sign of weakness. So fine, let this thread die, sit on your thumbs for a month, re-read your own policies and goals. think about whether having non-free software even linked to in ports is really consistent with them, decide to remove non-free software - because it is a good idea and the right thing to do, because it is inconsistent with atleast the implicit if not explicit principles of OpenBSD. There are no binary blobs in the kernel, you claim there is no non-free software in base or packages. If you feel strongly enough to keep it out of those, why not ports? If it makes you feel better sacrifice a couple more GNU tools, yank a few more GPL packages. Whatever it takes to feel self righteous. Do it because it is the right thing, because you really want to. Then sit back on your thumbs and ignore Richard and the FSF/GNU some more, wait for Richard to claim he can not endorse any BSD again, and then beat him to death. You want to beat him up over his hypocracy - actually catch him in a real act of hypocracy first. Richard is a hyprcrite, since he does exactly the same thing. All of us are hypocrits. I aspire to diminish my own hypocracy to Richard's leevel. Richard walked onto this mailin list, telling lies. Each of us should judge Richard according to his own standards, words and acts. Nothing Richard says or does can diminish you. What effects your stature or that of OpenBSD is your standards, words, and acts. Take a couple of valium and reread Richard's original post. You have to want to be insulted to perceive insult. He asserted that under appropriate circumstances he is willing to RECOMMEND OpenBSD privately. If that is what you need to make you happy snip everything but the last paragraph and post the email to the openbsd website.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 08:01:53AM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 12:11:16AM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: ... All of that is called free speech. The right of OpenBSD to be mean, The right to spray views you do not like or people you think are idiots with insults, is called free speech. This is not called free speech, but it is one form of behaviour that may attach to free speech. OpenBSD takes a particular extremist view of freedom, and free speech. Yes, it is called the dictionary definition which is like totally extreme. Not to mention that the general project to emancipate the great unwashed was not motivated by the common person's feeling bereft of the right to be timidly obsequious.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other, sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing there looking sheepish, all covered with poop. I have carefully avoided personal attacks in this discussion. I have not attacked OpenBSD either.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Although I'm sure it's convenient for most of the world to think that free software and open source originated solely in the Linux and GNU projects... They won't get that idea from me. I tell people regularly in my speeches that I found a free software operating system in use at MIT when I started working there in 1971. It is stated in print too. How about making an effort to find out the facts of what I do and say before you criticize?
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
No No NO. You miss the point. GNU is fighting for their view of freedom. Not *real* freedom. The GNU Project campaigns to give software users these four essential freedoms: Freedom 0: the freedom to run the program as you wish. Freedom 1: the freedom to study the source code and change it so it does what you wish. Freedom 2: the freedom to distribute exact copies to others when you wish. Freedom 3: the freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others when you wish. That's what I think is real freedom in regard to using a program. Whether or not you agree, at least you know what my views are.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Marco Peereboom wrote: You can use OpenBSD to build a baby mulcher or a nookyoular weapon and you have the choice to retain the source code. You can use the GPL to build a puppy blood drainer or a dirty bomb provided you deliver the source code with it. Agreed, but would you except either in ports ? The question is not what is possible, but what are you willing to endorse. The purpose of the extreme example is to point out that including something within ports has meaning.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Darrin Chandler wrote: I judge people less by how much they agree with my own views than by how they adhere to their own. If I don't agree with someone but they stand by their principles then at least I know where they stand and that they have honor. There is plenty of information outside this list on all the individuals, their views, their lives and the extent they conform to them. Forget what who said about who, find out what each has done, what they have written, what they beleive and how they have lived up to that. Check primary sources, not rantings on mailing lists. It will also make it easier to appreciate that while this thread keeps trying to set it up that way this is not a contest between people. Admiring one, does not compel you do despise the other. Accepting one point of view does not automatically make those holding another evil.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
The chinese have this phrase the flames cover the eyes. I think uninterested 3rd parties who're shown a copy of what was originally said, and a copy of this thread would probably not conclude that rms is trying to disparage OpenBSD. Seriously. Remember, his I cannot recommend $X includes most versions of linux as well (in the past, it was all versions, iirc). Now, as for gcc and emacs on windows, he has given his reasons. I know some developers have joined in, but what was disgusting about this whole thread was how some users who jumped in to fan the flames, as if the more militant you get, the more openbsd street creds you have. Remember, if you're not a developer, you're NOT a developer, and any amount of frothing or finding faults and supposed insults from others won't make you a developer. This really is a very small deal. On 12/16/07, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you share some of them drugs you are on? This is some good shit. On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 02:13:24AM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Theo de Raadt wrote: Theo de Raadt wrote: Richard seperated us out. Jack, don't go telling me that we may not rail against Richard being a prick. Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other, sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing there looking sheepish, all covered with poop. How is this my fault? Because you love OpenBSD soo much that you see threats and insults even when they are not there. Richard slagged our efforts. In the public space. Go back and listen the the actual BSDTalk interview that started this mess. OpenBSD never comes up by name. All the BSD's are discused generically, There is one sentence about ports. Not the OpenBSD ports systems, but ports generically across all BSD's. Even so the remarks are qualifed. The most negative statement Richard made is I can not recommend them. By standards he has applied consistently to the other BSD's, and Linux Distro's, that is true. The whole trying to parse the meaning of the word include and exactly how does ports work is just a red herring. Yes, Richard could have more chosen a more precise word for a single sentence in a 30minute interview with thousands of words during which the whole topic of BSD's gets at base a minute or two, and OpenBSD is never mentioned. He also could have become more educated about exactly how ports works, except that he did not have to. There is software that is non-free that can be installed through ports. I do not beleive you have ever argues that was not true. Richard's exploring ports further would not have changed his inability to recommend OpenBSD. But your looking into the published criteria that he uses to assess whether he can recommend and OS would have made it clear that no argument about how ports works would have altered his inability to recommend OpenBSD without violating his own standards. Of course Richard has ulterior motives - I suspect he would really like to see one or all of the BSD's clear out all the non-free software etc. OpenBSD is by far the closest to being able to receive his recommendation. I am sure he would love to add a link to OpenBSD on the GNU/FSF web sites. I suspect he would like to use OpenBSD as a club to bring other Linux Distro's into line. None of thaat causes you or OpenBSD any harm. Personally, I think both you and most of the OpenBSD community actually want his recommendation, but you view making any change as a result of an outside influence - and particularly Richard, the FSF and GNU as an unacceptable sign of weakness. So fine, let this thread die, sit on your thumbs for a month, re-read your own policies and goals. think about whether having non-free software even linked to in ports is really consistent with them, decide to remove non-free software - because it is a good idea and the right thing to do, because it is inconsistent with atleast the implicit if not explicit principles of OpenBSD. There are no binary blobs in the kernel, you claim there is no non-free software in base or packages. If you feel strongly enough to keep it out of those, why not ports? If it makes you feel better sacrifice a couple more GNU tools, yank a few more GPL packages. Whatever it takes to feel self righteous. Do it because it is the right thing, because you really want to. Then sit back on your thumbs and ignore Richard and the FSF/GNU some more, wait for Richard to claim he can not endorse any BSD again, and then beat him to death. You want to beat him up over his hypocracy - actually catch him in a real act of hypocracy first. Richard is a hyprcrite, since he does exactly the same thing. All of us are hypocrits. I aspire to diminish my own hypocracy to Richard's leevel.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Dec 16, 2007, at 11:58 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Marco Peereboom wrote: You can use OpenBSD to build a baby mulcher or a nookyoular weapon and you have the choice to retain the source code. You can use the GPL to build a puppy blood drainer or a dirty bomb provided you deliver the source code with it. Agreed, but would you except either in ports ? The question is not what is possible, but what are you willing to endorse. The purpose of the extreme example is to point out that including something within ports has meaning. Sure. Of course. A tool is just a tool. To not point at a given tool just because it could be used for evil is fairly fucking arrogant. But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia. Theo [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list, May 29, 2001
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Dec 16, 2007 8:35 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Although I'm sure it's convenient for most of the world to think that free software and open source originated solely in the Linux and GNU projects... They won't get that idea from me. I tell people regularly in my speeches that I found a free software operating system in use at MIT when I started working there in 1971. It is stated in print too. How about making an effort to find out the facts of what I do and say before you criticize? I agree, let's stick to the facts and relevant details. I feel there are two issues here: 1) Does OpenBSD INCLUDE non-free software in it's distribution? 2) If supporting non-free software is bad, why do gcc and emacs (for example) include code to support non-free software? I just finished listening to the BSDTalk interview for the second time and this is what I think: Richard explains in the interview that all BSD distributions (not OpenBSD specifically) INCLUDE non-free software in their ports system. Using the normal definition of include, this statement is incorrect. Richard explains here what he means by include and although his statement is technically correct using his definition, someone listening to the interview will interpret it in the wrong way because he assumes all words are used with their normal meaning. This leads to a misunderstanding about all the BSD's. Once you get over the fact that some words Richard uses are not what they seem, you get to a second issue. This second issue is why Richard is called a hypocrite by Theo. If the BSD's are so bad when they include references to non-free software in their non-recommended ports system, why does code written by Richard himself include code to actively support non-free software? Let's stick to the facts, or even better: Shut up and code! Floor Terra
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Richard Stallman wrote: The GNU Project campaigns to give software users these two essential freedoms and two essential requirements: Freedom 0: the freedom to run the program as you wish. Freedom 1: the freedom to study the source code and change it so it does what you wish. Requirement 2: the requirement to distribute exact copies to others Requirement 3: the requirement to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. Fixed that for you.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Ray Percival wrote: On Dec 16, 2007, at 11:58 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Marco Peereboom wrote: You can use OpenBSD to build a baby mulcher or a nookyoular weapon and you have the choice to retain the source code. You can use the GPL to build a puppy blood drainer or a dirty bomb provided you deliver the source code with it. Agreed, but would you except either in ports ? The question is not what is possible, but what are you willing to endorse. The purpose of the extreme example is to point out that including something within ports has meaning. Sure. Of course. A tool is just a tool. To not point at a given tool just because it could be used for evil is fairly fucking arrogant. But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia. Theo [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list, May 29, 2001 That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is exactly what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent from the OpenBSD web site. If it is what OpenBSD beleives - have the balls to say so, rather than the watered down language on the website. The OpenBSD website expresses a clear value for code quality, and one of security. It is also inconsistent with providing URL's to software that is not free to all. I do not care whether you use a different definition of freedom than the FSF/GNU/RMS. Whatever your definition of freedom is, if you do not apply it to the things you provide URL's for in ports, then you are saying that that freedom is not really all that important to you. If you really beleive in that stick to it, even with in URL's in ports. Tell RMS that OpenBSD will accept in ports only software that is freely redistributable, regardless, of what its purpose is. One of my problems with OpenBSD, is that the sense I get of what you mean by freedom is the freedom to do whatever I please, including reject your own values, when it is convenient. Further I think you are so hostile to the FSF/GPL/RMS that you would deliberately violate your own principles, to spite RMS.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Dec 16, 2007, at 2:24 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Ray Percival wrote: On Dec 16, 2007, at 11:58 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Marco Peereboom wrote: You can use OpenBSD to build a baby mulcher or a nookyoular weapon and you have the choice to retain the source code. You can use the GPL to build a puppy blood drainer or a dirty bomb provided you deliver the source code with it. Agreed, but would you except either in ports ? The question is not what is possible, but what are you willing to endorse. The purpose of the extreme example is to point out that including something within ports has meaning. Sure. Of course. A tool is just a tool. To not point at a given tool just because it could be used for evil is fairly fucking arrogant. But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia. Theo [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list, May 29, 2001 That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is exactly what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent from the OpenBSD web site. If it is what OpenBSD beleives - have the balls to say so, rather than the watered down language on the website. The OpenBSD website expresses a clear value for code quality, and one of security. Yeah, those are the things that matter. Why do you need so many guidelines and rules? If logic and commonsense isn't enough for you then there are other projects for you to bother. Cause it's more than enough for us. And since we've already established that your use of the word distribute is wacky to say the very least you have not point AT FUCKING ALL. It is also inconsistent with providing URL's to software that is not free to all. I do not care whether you use a different definition of freedom than the FSF/GNU/RMS. Whatever your definition of freedom is, if you do not apply it to the things you provide URL's for in ports, then you are saying that that freedom is not really all that important to you. If you really beleive in that stick to it, even with in URL's in ports. Tell RMS that OpenBSD will accept in ports only software that is freely redistributable, regardless, of what its purpose is. One of my problems with OpenBSD, is that the sense I get of what you mean by freedom is the freedom to do whatever I please, Speaking for myself. Damn straight it is. Put down the crack pipe for a minute and think about if your argument there makes any sense at all. Hint: No reasonable person would think it does. including reject your own values, when it is convenient. Further I think you are so hostile to the FSF/GPL/RMS that you would deliberately violate your own principles, to spite RMS. No. My principles are to to live and let die. In other words I could give a shit what anybody else does with a given system or if there happen to be a URL or two pointing them at some app in ports that might have a license I don't like. What business is it of mine? Since I think everybody should be allowed to do whatever they want with their stuff and that Big Mommy (as represented by Stallman and everybody else who think that reasonable adults will be corrupted in someway by being able to easily install software that might have a less permissive license than others) should fuck off and die this is PERFECTLY in line with what I think. And if you really can't see the difference between a blob loaded into kernelspace and a pointer to a userland app with a less permissive license well then you really are a religious and political shill and I can see why you want somebody enforcing various rules about thoughtcrime.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On 12/16/07, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is also inconsistent with providing URL's to software that is not free to all. not at all. openbsd is free. other software, that is not free, does not make openbsd less free.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 02:58:10PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Marco Peereboom wrote: You can use OpenBSD to build a baby mulcher or a nookyoular weapon and you have the choice to retain the source code. You can use the GPL to build a puppy blood drainer or a dirty bomb provided you deliver the source code with it. Agreed, but would you except either in ports ? Yes. Why would I care? Everybody is entitled to their opinion. I am entitled to tell you if I think it is stupid. That, my friend, is free speech. The question is not what is possible, but what are you willing to endorse. I don't do ports so I don't give a crap what's in it. I endorse nothing there. I use packages that I find convenient and yay ports guys for giving them to me. I am not that cocky to tell others what they should do with their computers. The purpose of the extreme example is to point out that including something within ports has meaning. It doesn't. Your example is foolish.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is exactly what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent from the OpenBSD web site. If it is what OpenBSD beleives - have the balls to say so, rather than the watered down language on the website. The OpenBSD website expresses a clear value for code quality, and one of security. Ports are 3rd party apps. Of course we don't make a value judgement on the OpenBSD website for it. WTF? It is also inconsistent with providing URL's to software that is not free to all. I do not care whether you use a different definition of freedom than the FSF/GNU/RMS. Whatever your definition of freedom is, if you do not apply it to the things you provide URL's for in ports, then you are saying that that freedom is not really all that important to you. If you really beleive in that stick to it, even with in URL's in ports. Tell RMS that OpenBSD will accept in ports only software that is freely redistributable, regardless, of what its purpose is. One is not at liberty to change words around to mean what they want. That is not part of a civil conversation. First we have to agree on the meaning then we can have a debate. As a politician he changes the meaning of words around to fit his purposes. I'll call BS on that every time I'll see it. One of my problems with OpenBSD, is that the sense I get of what you mean by freedom is the freedom to do whatever I please, including reject your own values, when it is convenient. Further I think you are so hostile to the FSF/GPL/RMS that you would deliberately violate your own principles, to spite RMS. You seem to fail to understand that nobody cares what RMS' little OS list looks like. What I care about is that he shows up on my mailing lists and start pissing in my sandbox. I don't care what his opinion is; he can say whatever he wants. What he can't do is lying about my OS in front of me and expect me not to react. He is full of it and we have told him so. If he is sick of being flamed he can stop responding. Until then I'll call him what he is, a lying sack of manure with double standards.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
I feel personally attacked by your uneducated comments. I feel personally insulted by your by your condescending tone. My intelligence has been insulted repeatedly by your linguistic tricks. I am outraged on how you alter meaning of words to fit your agenda. You are not my mom and you don't get to tell me what and how to do things. You also don't get to vote if I feel attacked by your comments. Yes you have attacked OpenBSD for reasons that are beyond me. On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 02:34:26PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other, sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing there looking sheepish, all covered with poop. I have carefully avoided personal attacks in this discussion. I have not attacked OpenBSD either.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Ray Percival wrote: [quoting and excerpt from Theo's log message in (e.g.): http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/etc/Attic/ipf.rules] ... But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia. Theo [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list, May 29, 2001 That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is exactly what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent from the OpenBSD web site. Apart from the rhetorical flourish at the end, that's in the second item in the list near the top of http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html. (The ANY PURPOSE part goes way back, to the summer of '97.) Not to mention policy.html.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Marco Peereboom wrote: On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is exactly what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent from the OpenBSD web site. If it is what OpenBSD beleives - have the balls to say so, rather than the watered down language on the website. The OpenBSD website expresses a clear value for code quality, and one of security. Ports are 3rd party apps. Of course we don't make a value judgement on the OpenBSD website for it. WTF? So if I write a non-free insecure kernel and install it via ports that is acceptable. You are trying to argue both pragmatism and principle concurrently, You are obviously free to try but it makes things very easy for me. It is also inconsistent with providing URL's to software that is not free to all. I do not care whether you use a different definition of freedom than the FSF/GNU/RMS. Whatever your definition of freedom is, if you do not apply it to the things you provide URL's for in ports, then you are saying that that freedom is not really all that important to you. If you really beleive in that stick to it, even with in URL's in ports. Tell RMS that OpenBSD will accept in ports only software that is freely redistributable, regardless, of what its purpose is. One is not at liberty to change words around to mean what they want. That is not part of a civil conversation. First we have to agree on the meaning then we can have a debate. As a politician he changes the meaning of words around to fit his purposes. I'll call BS on that every time I'll see it. I am not changing the meaning of words, for the most part I am taking your words, with your meanings, and applying them consistently to your system, until it produces a contradiction. If your words, your definitions and your values were consistent no contradiction would occur. One of the most serious problems that you have is that if you have a system that is self contraditictory and you accept the contradictions as truth, then you can prove anything. that is a principle of logic. It has nothing to do with me, except that I have used it as a tool. If there is no contraditiction in your system of values, then it will not work. One of my problems with OpenBSD, is that the sense I get of what you mean by freedom is the freedom to do whatever I please, including reject your own values, when it is convenient. Further I think you are so hostile to the FSF/GPL/RMS that you would deliberately violate your own principles, to spite RMS. You seem to fail to understand that nobody cares what RMS' little OS list looks like. What I care about is that he shows up on my mailing lists and start pissing in my sandbox. I don't care what his opinion is; he can say whatever he wants. What he can't do is lying about my OS in front of me and expect me not to react. He is full of it and we have told him so. If he is sick of being flamed he can stop responding. That is not the perception I have of OpenBSD. Whenever, there is some spat with Linux Kernel developers, OpenBSD rushes to demand that RMS straighten it out for them. Providing him with a predefined eexplanation of exactly how his own values requires him to do so, along with, the presumption that he will not and maligning him because he did not - all before even hitting send. In the end you are what you hate. But you are not the real RMS, you are the one your have created.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
William Boshuck wrote: On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Ray Percival wrote: [quoting and excerpt from Theo's log message in (e.g.): http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/etc/Attic/ipf.rules] ... But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia. Theo [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list, May 29, 2001 That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is exactly what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent from the OpenBSD web site. Apart from the rhetorical flourish at the end, that's in the second item in the list near the top of http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html. (The ANY PURPOSE part goes way back, to the summer of '97.) Not to mention policy.html. the statements are different. Unless I am to interpret we want to make available source code, as equivalent to Software which openbsd uses and distrubutes must be free to all. Must is significantly different from want we want to make available source code is not the same as software which openbsd uses and distributes. Regardless, apply it to ports and remove non-free URL's.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Dec 16, 2007, at 6:20 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Marco Peereboom wrote: On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is exactly what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent from the OpenBSD web site. If it is what OpenBSD beleives - have the balls to say so, rather than the watered down language on the website. The OpenBSD website expresses a clear value for code quality, and one of security. Ports are 3rd party apps. Of course we don't make a value judgement on the OpenBSD website for it. WTF? So if I write a non-free insecure kernel and install it via ports that is acceptable. Yeah, sure. Have all sorts of fun. Why would anybody care? You are trying to argue both pragmatism and principle concurrently, You are obviously free to try but it makes things very easy for me. No, the principle is that you or anybody should be able to do anything they want with their system and that we don't care and won't put artificial limits on it. Easy enough to understand. It is also inconsistent with providing URL's to software that is not free to all. I do not care whether you use a different definition of freedom than the FSF/GNU/RMS. Whatever your definition of freedom is, if you do not apply it to the things you provide URL's for in ports, then you are saying that that freedom is not really all that important to you. If you really beleive in that stick to it, even with in URL's in ports. Tell RMS that OpenBSD will accept in ports only software that is freely redistributable, regardless, of what its purpose is. One is not at liberty to change words around to mean what they want. That is not part of a civil conversation. First we have to agree on the meaning then we can have a debate. As a politician he changes the meaning of words around to fit his purposes. I'll call BS on that every time I'll see it. I am not changing the meaning of words, for the most part I am taking your words, with your meanings, and applying them consistently to your system, until it produces a contradiction. If your words, your definitions and your values were consistent no contradiction would occur. One of the most serious problems that you have is that if you have a system that is self contraditictory and you accept the contradictions as truth, then you can prove anything. that is a principle of logic. It has nothing to do with me, except that I have used it as a tool. If there is no contraditiction in your system of values, then it will not work. One of my problems with OpenBSD, is that the sense I get of what you mean by freedom is the freedom to do whatever I please, including reject your own values, when it is convenient. Further I think you are so hostile to the FSF/GPL/RMS that you would deliberately violate your own principles, to spite RMS. You seem to fail to understand that nobody cares what RMS' little OS list looks like. What I care about is that he shows up on my mailing lists and start pissing in my sandbox. I don't care what his opinion is; he can say whatever he wants. What he can't do is lying about my OS in front of me and expect me not to react. He is full of it and we have told him so. If he is sick of being flamed he can stop responding. That is not the perception I have of OpenBSD. You're wrong. But then again in the last few days of emails it's become clear that you're a drooling fucking moron so no big surprise there.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:27:21 -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Regardless, apply it to ports and remove non-free URL's. Yeah, right. Right when you get commit privs. Don't ^W hold your breath. Rod/ /earth: write failed, file system is full cp: /earth/creatures: No space left on device
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:20:19 -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: So if I write a non-free insecure kernel and install it via ports that is acceptable. You are trying to argue both pragmatism and principle concurrently, You are obviously free to try but it makes things very easy for me. snip loads of more fantasia bullshit What the fuck are you on? The Koolaid from FSF? You have postulated totally impossible crap here for days now but this takes the cake! You wrote about a port of a program designed to mailbomb Jewish sites. A total wanker dream not a thing that would ever be submitted. Probably an impossible dream. But you are a self-confessed miracle coder so your bent mind could probably do it. Getting it accepted anywhere including at KKK headquarters might be problematic. Now a non-free kernel that is insecure. I'll bet you could mash something together. Get it to install from ports, I don't think so. Get it accepted into ports? Thin to none. You see, the apps that are unfree which make it into ports are those in big demand because they are useful or fun to run on their home OS and some folk want to not run that OS. Nothing you write is going to get over that hurdle. Wanker. Rod/ Me...a skeptic? I trust you have proof.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Sunday 16 December 2007 23:24:48 David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Ray Percival wrote: On Dec 16, 2007, at 11:58 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Marco Peereboom wrote: You can use OpenBSD to build a baby mulcher or a nookyoular weapon and you have the choice to retain the source code. You can use the GPL to build a puppy blood drainer or a dirty bomb provided you deliver the source code with it. Agreed, but would you except either in ports ? The question is not what is possible, but what are you willing to endorse. The purpose of the extreme example is to point out that including something within ports has meaning. Sure. Of course. A tool is just a tool. To not point at a given tool just because it could be used for evil is fairly fucking arrogant. But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia. Theo [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list, May 29, 2001 That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is exactly what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent from the OpenBSD web site. If it is what OpenBSD beleives - have the balls to say so, rather than the watered down language on the website. The OpenBSD website expresses a clear value for code quality, and one of security. It is also inconsistent with providing URL's to software that is not free to all. How ? OpenBSD neither used nor redistributes the software that is in the ports. It just gives the URL to it so _you_ can install it if _you_ wish, which leads us to the second point... I do not care whether you use a different definition of freedom than the FSF/GNU/RMS. Whatever your definition of freedom is, if you do not apply it to the things you provide URL's for in ports, then you are saying that that freedom is not really all that important to you. If you really beleive in that stick to it, even with in URL's in ports. Tell RMS that OpenBSD will accept in ports only software that is freely redistributable, regardless, of what its purpose is. OpenBSD has made it clear what their definition of freedom is, and the fact that they stick to it 100% in the software they produce and distribute is enough to see how important it is for them. However, and that's the difference with people like you (and RMS), they just consider that it doesn't give them the right to impose their view of freedom on others, and they let the user do whatever the hell he/she wishes to do, according to his/her personal view and beliefs on the matter. That may or may not include installing non-free software, but that is none of your business, or mine, or RMS'. -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments GnuPG public key: http://itsuki.fkraiem.org/gpgkey
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Ray Percival wrote: But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia. Theo [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list, May 29, 2001 That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is exactly what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent from the OpenBSD web site. If it is what OpenBSD beleives - have the balls to say so, rather than the watered down language on the website. The OpenBSD website expresses a clear value for code quality, and one of security. Yeah, those are the things that matter. Why do you need so many guidelines and rules? I have been after values and principles, not guidelines and rules.. The number of values and principles, is up to OpenBSD - what really matters If logic and commonsense isn't enough for you then there are other projects for you to bother. Logic and common sense are the tools you use to go from values and principles to rule and guidelines. One of my problems with OpenBSD, is that the sense I get of what you mean by freedom is the freedom to do whatever I please, Speaking for myself. Damn straight it is. Put down the crack pipe for a minute I am trying really really hard to ignore the practically knee jerk need of virtually everyone on OpenBSD to Malign first, last and always. But if that is acceptable here, then what is your problem with RMS. You claim he has maligned you, yet maligning people weems to be an OpenBSD core value. You believe in absolute freedom - freedom to do whatever you damn well please. Yet you are seeking to deny the same freedom to Richard and everyone else that disagrees.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Dec 16, 2007, at 6:27 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: William Boshuck wrote: On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Ray Percival wrote: [quoting and excerpt from Theo's log message in (e.g.): http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/etc/Attic/ipf.rules] ... But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia. Theo [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list, May 29, 2001 That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is exactly what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent from the OpenBSD web site. Apart from the rhetorical flourish at the end, that's in the second item in the list near the top of http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html. (The ANY PURPOSE part goes way back, to the summer of '97.) Not to mention policy.html. the statements are different. Unless I am to interpret we want to make available source code, as equivalent to Software which openbsd uses and distrubutes must be free to all. Must is significantly different from want we want to make available source code is not the same as software which openbsd uses and distributes. Regardless, apply it to ports and remove non-free URL's. WTF is a non-free URL? They come with licenses now? You kids and your wacky new ideas. Trying to parse through the above gibberish the question remains is putting up a sign for a pub the same as serving drinks to somebody? Sure ports might contain some scripts and URLs for software with less permissive licenses. Who cares? No reasonable person would think of that as distribution. If somebody has found it useful enough to stick in there and some other people find it useful why should anybody care? Their business and we should just butt the fuck out. Code that is being distributed by OpenBSD meets higher standards. This is as it should be. This is as the people who build it and use it want it. Yeah, OK, our immortal souls are going to hell and we make the baby Jesus cry. Guess what? We don't give a shit. We're all adults and can figure out where these lines are without it being handed down from on high in every minor detail. So GTFO and go find a system that's orthodox enough to meet your high standards. We would rather have stuff that makes sense and works well. Wake me when gnewsense or whatever gets to that point.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Monday 17 December 2007 03:44:39 Rod Whitworth wrote: On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:20:19 -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: So if I write a non-free insecure kernel and install it via ports that is acceptable. You are trying to argue both pragmatism and principle concurrently, You are obviously free to try but it makes things very easy for me. snip loads of more fantasia bullshit What the fuck are you on? The Koolaid from FSF? Seems rather high quality stuff. Where can I get some ? ;-) Firas -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments GnuPG public key: http://itsuki.fkraiem.org/gpgkey
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Dec 16, 2007, at 5:52 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Ray Percival wrote: You believe in absolute freedom - freedom to do whatever you damn well please. I really fail to see the problem with that but whatever. Yet you are seeking to deny the same freedom to Richard and everyone else that disagrees. Who wants to deny Stallman the freedom to do anything he wants? He has the freedom to say and do anything he would like. And I have the freedom to mock him for it. Everybody gets what they want.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
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.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
David: Do you even use OpenBSD ? I've been using it for many many years. What stake do you have in this discussion ? --- Marina Brown On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Marco Peereboom wrote: On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is exactly what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent from the OpenBSD web site. If it is what OpenBSD beleives - have the balls to say so, rather than the watered down language on the website. The OpenBSD website expresses a clear value for code quality, and one of security. Ports are 3rd party apps. Of course we don't make a value judgement on the OpenBSD website for it. WTF? So if I write a non-free insecure kernel and install it via ports that is acceptable. You are trying to argue both pragmatism and principle concurrently, You are obviously free to try but it makes things very easy for me. It is also inconsistent with providing URL's to software that is not free to all. I do not care whether you use a different definition of freedom than the FSF/GNU/RMS. Whatever your definition of freedom is, if you do not apply it to the things you provide URL's for in ports, then you are saying that that freedom is not really all that important to you. If you really beleive in that stick to it, even with in URL's in ports. Tell RMS that OpenBSD will accept in ports only software that is freely redistributable, regardless, of what its purpose is. One is not at liberty to change words around to mean what they want. That is not part of a civil conversation. First we have to agree on the meaning then we can have a debate. As a politician he changes the meaning of words around to fit his purposes. I'll call BS on that every time I'll see it. I am not changing the meaning of words, for the most part I am taking your words, with your meanings, and applying them consistently to your system, until it produces a contradiction. If your words, your definitions and your values were consistent no contradiction would occur. One of the most serious problems that you have is that if you have a system that is self contraditictory and you accept the contradictions as truth, then you can prove anything. that is a principle of logic. It has nothing to do with me, except that I have used it as a tool. If there is no contraditiction in your system of values, then it will not work. One of my problems with OpenBSD, is that the sense I get of what you mean by freedom is the freedom to do whatever I please, including reject your own values, when it is convenient. Further I think you are so hostile to the FSF/GPL/RMS that you would deliberately violate your own principles, to spite RMS. You seem to fail to understand that nobody cares what RMS' little OS list looks like. What I care about is that he shows up on my mailing lists and start pissing in my sandbox. I don't care what his opinion is; he can say whatever he wants. What he can't do is lying about my OS in front of me and expect me not to react. He is full of it and we have told him so. If he is sick of being flamed he can stop responding. That is not the perception I have of OpenBSD. Whenever, there is some spat with Linux Kernel developers, OpenBSD rushes to demand that RMS straighten it out for them. Providing him with a predefined eexplanation of exactly how his own values requires him to do so, along with, the presumption that he will not and maligning him because he did not - all before even hitting send. In the end you are what you hate. But you are not the real RMS, you are the one your have created.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On 12/17/07, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yet you are seeking to deny the same freedom to Richard and everyone else that disagrees. No-one is trying to deny RMS the freedom to say and think whatever the hell he wants, no matter how wacky. --- Lars Hansson
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Dec 15, 2007 10:56 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bengt Frost wrote: On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Darrb Finally as long as i do not hurt 'someone' (to mutch) then it must be up to me to choose what i want to do, f.ex. install packages through portssystem. If I wrote a a BSD Licensed program to mailbomb jews. Would that be acceptable within ports ? and who exactly would you bribe to get this mailbomb committed to the ports tree? Sam Fourman Jr.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 09:20:19PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Marco Peereboom wrote: On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is exactly what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent from the OpenBSD web site. If it is what OpenBSD beleives - have the balls to say so, rather than the watered down language on the website. The OpenBSD website expresses a clear value for code quality, and one of security. Ports are 3rd party apps. Of course we don't make a value judgement on the OpenBSD website for it. WTF? So if I write a non-free insecure kernel and install it via ports that is acceptable. You are trying to argue both pragmatism and principle concurrently, You are obviously free to try but it makes things very easy for me. A kernel in ports? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA It is also inconsistent with providing URL's to software that is not free to all. I do not care whether you use a different definition of freedom than the FSF/GNU/RMS. Whatever your definition of freedom is, if you do not apply it to the things you provide URL's for in ports, then you are saying that that freedom is not really all that important to you. If you really beleive in that stick to it, even with in URL's in ports. Tell RMS that OpenBSD will accept in ports only software that is freely redistributable, regardless, of what its purpose is. One is not at liberty to change words around to mean what they want. That is not part of a civil conversation. First we have to agree on the meaning then we can have a debate. As a politician he changes the meaning of words around to fit his purposes. I'll call BS on that every time I'll see it. I am not changing the meaning of words, for the most part I am taking your words, with your meanings, and applying them consistently to your system, until it produces a contradiction. If your words, your definitions and your values were consistent no contradiction would occur. One of the most serious problems that you have is that if you have a system that is self contraditictory and you accept the contradictions as truth, then you can prove anything. that is a principle of logic. It has nothing to do with me, except that I have used it as a tool. If there is no contraditiction in your system of values, then it will not work. If you feel this is the case then there is something wrong with your reading comprehension. You contort my words every time but they don't mean what you say. It was kind of funny earlier but now its getting boring. One of my problems with OpenBSD, is that the sense I get of what you mean by freedom is the freedom to do whatever I please, including reject your own values, when it is convenient. Further I think you are so hostile to the FSF/GPL/RMS that you would deliberately violate your own principles, to spite RMS. You seem to fail to understand that nobody cares what RMS' little OS list looks like. What I care about is that he shows up on my mailing lists and start pissing in my sandbox. I don't care what his opinion is; he can say whatever he wants. What he can't do is lying about my OS in front of me and expect me not to react. He is full of it and we have told him so. If he is sick of being flamed he can stop responding. That is not the perception I have of OpenBSD. Whenever, there is some spat with Linux Kernel developers, OpenBSD rushes to demand that RMS straighten it out for them. Providing him with a predefined eexplanation of exactly how his own values requires him to do so, along with, the presumption that he will not and maligning him because he did not - all before even hitting send. In the end you are what you hate. But you are not the real RMS, you are the one your have created. I don't hate RMS or GNU or GPL etc. I find them silly at best but that is besides the point. Point is that someone comes and pisses in my sandbox. I piss and poop back. Especially if that someone shows up playing moral high ground while being a complete and total hypocrite. If you can't see that I suggest you stop replying to this thread.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Richard, I have followed this thread for the first couple hundred mails. But, as the noise is getting to much for me, someone that is just a lurker, so I feel I must make a couple comments and a request. As your views on open-source have become more and more extreme over time, you have become less and less relevant to a overall practical open-source community (I call it reality). You have also made, to be polite, inaccurate statements about OpenBSD which have been corrected in great detail. But, your response has only been to become a slimy politician and change your views (or those that you have presented on list) as the previous views have failed. Furthermore, you have flat out ignored some corrections and I can only assume that this conflicts with your core values to the point that you refuse to change (much like fundamentalist evangelical *insert religion here*'s) one iota. But, what I find most disturbing about your behaviour is that it you try to shove your views down other peoples throat with great vigour. You have admitted as much on this list with regards to failed attempts with Ubuntu and Debain and you have now failed here. Even your cronies have made, to be polite, little headway because there views are pretty much as extreme as yours. Not to mention the inherent sophistry therein. I think that at this point it is obvious that OpenBSD is /not/ going to change its views because of RMS. And I for one thank the devs because OpenBSD suits me just fine the way it is. IMO, to change it in any way toward your extreme views would only detract from an otherwise clean and free OS. Please go away, take your cronies with you and live in your own little pocket universe so the rest of us can live in peace. regards, Reid Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Firas Kraiem wrote: However, and that's the difference with people like you (and RMS), they just consider that it doesn't give them the right to impose their view of freedom on others, and they let the user do whatever the hell he/she wishes to do, according to his/her personal view and beliefs on the matter. That may or may not include installing non-free software, but that is none of your business, or mine, or RMS'. No one has told you what must or must not do. This whole thread started as a knee jerk reaction to Richard's to a very short remark by Richard on BSDTalk where to paraphrase he said that he was sorry that he could not recommend and of the BSD's despite many positive qualities because they do not conform to his standards for treatment of non-free software. The OpenBSD group chose to take that as a deliberately spiteful missle targeting them. Maybe that is because OpenBSD is the closet to meeting Richard's standards, Maybe it is because, my reading of most of this thread is URL's to non-free software are a bad thing, but we are going to keep doing them anyway, because accepting that they are not consistent with our values might give Richard an occasion to gloat and we would rather insert a binary blob from Redmond than admit that Richard might be the slightest right about anything.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Sam Fourman Jr. wrote: On Dec 15, 2007 10:56 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bengt Frost wrote: On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Darrb Finally as long as i do not hurt 'someone' (to mutch) then it must be up to me to choose what i want to do, f.ex. install packages through portssystem. If I wrote a a BSD Licensed program to mailbomb jews. Would that be acceptable within ports ? and who exactly would you bribe to get this mailbomb committed to the ports tree? That is the point! Why is it that I can not expect ports to accept this ? Because accepting it would be the same as tacitly endorsing it. Accepting non-free software is is equivalent to tacitly endorsing it.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Rod Whitworth wrote: You wrote about a port of a program designed to mailbomb Jewish sites. That was an extreme hypothetical chosen to make a point.. Apparently Theo has used an even more extreme on in the past. A total wanker dream not a thing that would ever be submitted. Probably an impossible dream. The point is that the presence or absence of something in ports has meaning. But you are a self-confessed miracle coder so your bent mind could probably do it. Getting it accepted anywhere including at KKK headquarters might be problematic. What part of deliberately extreme hypothetical is unclear. The point is that accepting it - like accepting non-free software has meaning. Now a non-free kernel that is insecure. I'll bet you could mash something together. Get it to install from ports, I don't think so. Get it accepted into ports? Thin to none Whether it is accepted or not, the decision to do so has meaning. The very act of deciding has meaning. What I am arguing AGAINST is: the claim that non-free software in ports has no meaning. That enough layers of indirection innoculate OpenBSD from the meaning of its acts. That there are technolgical means to work arround issues of principle or values. You see, the apps that are unfree which make it into ports are those in big demand because they are useful or fun to run on their home OS and some folk want to not run that OS. The NVIDIA binary blob is popular. Is the criteria for sacrificing your principles, the extent to which something is popular ? OpenBSD has taken Rigid, principled honourable stands on a wide variety of issues. It has taken an incredibly strong stand on non-free software, and then whimped out when it came to ports. Which matter your principles, or your popularity ?
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
To copy someone else's treatment of one of my mails... :) On Dec 17, 2007 1:15 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No one has told you what must or must not do. This whole thread started as a knee jerk reaction to Richard's to a very short remark by Richard on BSDTalk where to paraphrase he said that he was sorry that he could not recommend and of the BSD's despite many positive qualities because they do not conform to his standards for treatment of non-free software. OK, so far, so good. The OpenBSD group chose to take that as a deliberately spiteful missle targeting them. OK, maybe. Maybe that is because OpenBSD is the closet to meeting Richard's standards, Maybe it is because, my reading of most of this thread is URL's to non-free software are a bad thing, but we are going to keep doing them anyway, because accepting that they are not consistent with our values might give Richard an occasion to gloat and we would rather insert a binary blob from Redmond than admit that Richard might be the slightest right about anything. You went off the tracks there. OpenBSD is *NOT* about blobs. And, unlike linux or anyone else, OpenBSD does not even sign distribution agreements for distributing firmware. -- http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity. -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted. -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0feature=related
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Marco Peereboom wrote: I am not changing the meaning of words, for the most part I am taking your words, with your meanings, and applying them consistently to your system, until it produces a contradiction. If your words, your definitions and your values were consistent no contradiction would occur. One of the most serious problems that you have is that if you have a system that is self contraditictory and you accept the contradictions as truth, then you can prove anything. that is a principle of logic. It has nothing to do with me, except that I have used it as a tool. If there is no contraditiction in your system of values, then it will not work. If you feel this is the case then there is something wrong with your reading comprehension. You contort my words every time but they don't mean what you say. It was kind of funny earlier but now its getting boring. It is basic logic 101. I am actually being much kinder to your words than has OpenBSD has been with Richards. I have not chosen the words, but the meanings I ascribe to them are their ordinary accepted meanings. I did not choose the values. I don't hate RMS or GNU or GPL etc. I find them silly at best but that is besides the point. Point is that someone comes and pisses in my sandbox. I piss and poop back. Especially if that someone shows up playing moral high ground while being a complete and total hypocrite. Is there some scatalogical affliction here? Is it possible to discuss anything on the OpenBSD list without piss, poop, and insults? I have been on the OpenBSD list for some time. Every time the Linux Kernel crowd pisses on OpenBSD, OpenBSD hunts RMS down and demands that he compell the LKML'ers to follow OpenBSD edicts. OpenBSD invited RMS into its tent. Further, he did not piss in your sandbox, OpenBSD took insult where there was none, and then got more upset when he bothered to say so. If you think you have the moral high ground then argue that. There are several very easy ways for OpenBSD to take the moral high ground It is easy our values and principles do not permit us to meet the criteria RMS uses for his recommendation. The problems with that are: you have to accept that your commitment to your particular definition of freedom is a higher value than your opposition to non-free software. It also means RMS's remarks are true.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:15:25 -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: The OpenBSD group chose to take that as a deliberately spiteful missle targeting them. Maybe that is because OpenBSD is the closet to meeting Richard's standards, Maybe it is because, my reading of most of this thread is URL's to non-free software are a bad thing, but we are going to keep doing them anyway, because accepting that they are not consistent with our values might give Richard an occasion to gloat and we would rather insert a binary blob from Redmond than admit that Richard might be the slightest right about anything. You are a word twisting agent provocateur. Who is your puppet master? Your reading of this thread says that you either need a class in remedial reading or psychiatric help. We would rather insert a binary blob from Redmond? You do know that OpenBSD bans blobs from anywhere, don't you? Even linux or freebsd. So in you come twisting words and not even doing that competently. There is only one blob around here right now. You are it. Fuck off wanker. Back to RMS and Eben with you. You are so desparate you are getting careless, little toady. You don't like the OpenBSD way? Good. Piss off and take all your friends with you. This is not a popularity contest, not a market share driven product and damn right, it has an attitude. An attitude of correct code as free as it gets and that suits this community. You have not made any friends, you have not changed any minds, you have not gained any converts. You, sir, are an abyssmal failure. Now learn to know when to quit. You'll get one food pellet when that happens.
Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Theo de Raadt wrote: EVERYTHING code related that people thinks comes from the FSF today, comes to us without Richard Stallman actually working on it. Richard is just another random long haired hypocritical mouthpiece, who will be known after his death as the original author of the C compiler which is used by more of the closed-source embedded industry than any other C compiler. Now now. Order. Richard is the face that launched a thousand Gnus. You as well as anyone here know what he did for the concept of giving away source code. He inspired a whole generation of free software writers. Look at the Gnu tree sometime, it's the core of everything we do, all of us. I profoundly respect both of you and know you both f2f. Richard has been my house guest twice. You're both tyrannical, bratty absolute tyrants, the difference being Richard is passive-aggressive and Theo is aggressive-aggressive. You two please play nice and don't demand that your fans line up on one side or another. It's not fair to us who depend on both of you so much. -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Theo de Raadt wrote: EVERYTHING code related that people thinks comes from the FSF today, comes to us without Richard Stallman actually working on it. Richard is just another random long haired hypocritical mouthpiece, who will be known after his death as the original author of the C compiler which is used by more of the closed-source embedded industry than any other C compiler. Now now. Order. Richard is the face that launched a thousand Gnus. You as well as anyone here know what he did for the concept of giving away source code. He inspired a whole generation of free software writers. I was not inspired by him, but by Chris Torek, Keith Bostic, and Mike Karels, who chose to not play politics. Look at the Gnu tree sometime, it's the core of everything we do, all of us. I don't know what a GNU tree is. I only look at operating system code. When I look at operating system code, there's Linux. That's what I suppose you meant, but you described it wrong. You two please play nice and don't demand that your fans line up on one side or another. It's not fair to us who depend on both of you so much. Richard seperated us out. Jack, don't go telling me that we may not rail against Richard being a prick.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Theo de Raadt wrote: Richard seperated us out. Jack, don't go telling me that we may not rail against Richard being a prick. Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other, sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing there looking sheepish, all covered with poop. -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Theo de Raadt wrote: Richard seperated us out. Jack, don't go telling me that we may not rail against Richard being a prick. Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other, sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing there looking sheepish, all covered with poop. How is this my fault? Richard slagged our efforts. In the public space. Richard is a hyprcrite, since he does exactly the same thing. Richard walked onto this mailin list, telling lies. So, Jack, why are you acting as if this is my fault? Why are you picking on me? Did I invite Richard to set double standards, dismiss our efforts, apply his standards to us, and walk into a fight on a mailing lists where he does not belong, and flaunt his hypocrisy? No, I did not invite Richard to do these things -- he did it all by himself. Why don't you tell your buddy Richard to get lost instead?
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Theo de Raadt wrote: I was not inspired by him, but by Chris Torek, Keith Bostic, and Mike Karels, Heroes of my g-g-generation, bless them all and the code and documentation they wrote. who chose to not play politics. Here in Colorado, I've paraded Richard to lobby before elected officials. I know his shtick. One of my Democrat friends whom Richard lectured in 1995 on the threat to human freedom imposed by digital rights legislation is now up and coming and a member of the US Congress. Richard has done us *service* whether or not he's a big silly. I can't speak for Richard. If he wants to be childish and repeat the same arguments over and over again in an OpenBSD newsgroup while the OpenBSD gang makes the same responses, well, that's the PeeWee Herman routine: I know you are, but what am I? -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Theo de Raadt wrote: Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other, sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing there looking sheepish, all covered with poop. How is this my fault? It's not your fault. You're still standing there waiting for more poop to be flung on you though. Richard slagged our efforts. In the public space. Over the 1/4 century of flamefests I've seen online, the truth of the proposition under debate was obvious from the first few lines. The rest is gratuitous verbal violence. Richard is a hyprcrite, since he does exactly the same thing. Richard walked onto this mailin list, telling lies. He must be lonely and raring for a good poop sling. Or the validation of being drawn into one. So, Jack, why are you acting as if this is my fault? I don't blame it on you other than when Richard reels out a string and dangles a catnip mouse in front of you, you pounce on it. Why don't you tell your buddy Richard to get lost instead? He always does, eventually. Then, every few years, it's our turn to host the RMS Show again. Do you think we'll all ever grow up? They'll certainly find us darned humorous when they read about us after we're gone. -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
El sC!b, 15-12-2007 a las 09:57 -0700, Jack J. Woehr escribiC3: I profoundly respect both of you and know you both f2f. Richard has been my house guest twice. You're both tyrannical, bratty absolute tyrants, the difference being Richard is passive-aggressive and Theo is aggressive-aggressive. I see other differences: Theo write code, see and supervise commits to the OpenBSD tree, fight whit hardware manufacturers directly, and have puntual and clear fundamentals, opinions and statements. Richard promote non clear software, linked to non clear libraries, that manage non clear formats even on non clear platforms, on unreadable tons of code very difficult to audit and defend. Bot of them use to cause furor or flames when speak. Could be because of the people predisposition, or ignorance or intelligence. But there are other differences: While one is making (really free) commits to a cvs, the other is walking without clothes on your non-free house, non-free flying and eating your non-free food, to go to speak through proprietary microphones to people that use windows PDAs, and tell a story that may be wrong, or my be ok, because it is my story or may don't be, blabla While one is going to try to convince his fable, legend, about a kernel that wasn't GNUable but it was the only recomendable option, flaming on list, papers, interviews, talks and songs, the other is going to hack on a really recomendable system, bit by bit, line by line, function by function... While one is wrong, confusing, manipulating, saying things are not true or not reality, or not the full picture of a reality, where he is called or where he isn't called, and touching eggs, so that people do that he (from his memory and oxidized vision of the 90's linux) says. The other is usually typing things useful and whit quality, far from media movements, masses, crowds, shit and mediocrity (until someone comes touching eggs) So yes... on this situation one is passive-aggressive (liar, hypocrite and vague) ant the other is aggressive-aggressive (worker, accurate, consistent and informed). You are true. Best regards.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
IC1igo Tejedor Arrondo wrote: El sC!b, 15-12-2007 a las 09:57 -0700, Jack J. Woehr escribiC3: I profoundly respect both of you and know you both f2f. Richard has been my house guest twice. You're both tyrannical, bratty absolute tyrants, the difference being Richard is passive-aggressive and Theo is aggressive-aggressive. I see other differences: I do, too. I like them both. I want them to stop fighting in public. I don't care which one started it. I suppose it was Richard. It doesn't matter. Our reputations as human beings will long outlive our reputations as coders. -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 10:49:12AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: Theo de Raadt wrote: Richard seperated us out. Jack, don't go telling me that we may not rail against Richard being a prick. Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other, sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing there looking sheepish, all covered with poop. How is this my fault? Richard slagged our efforts. In the public space. Richard is a hyprcrite, since he does exactly the same thing. Richard walked onto this mailin list, telling lies. So, Jack, why are you acting as if this is my fault? Why are you picking on me? Did I invite Richard to set double standards, dismiss our efforts, apply his standards to us, and walk into a fight on a mailing lists where he does not belong, and flaunt his hypocrisy? No, I did not invite Richard to do these things -- he did it all by himself. Why don't you tell your buddy Richard to get lost instead? When someone is annoying to me, I (internally) smile and think I know better you do.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Jack J. Woehr wrote: Theo de Raadt wrote: How is this my fault? Theo has made it clear to me in private email that what he was asking here, is Why, Jack, are you telling me to shut up and not Richard? Excuse me for the inclarity. Richard, knock off baiting the OpenBSD community, you nudnick. It doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look like a wanker. Tend your own garden and stop pissing in other people's garden. Sheesh. MacArthur genius grant winner. Grow up. Jack -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:32:19AM -0700, Jack J. Woehr wrote: I do, too. I like them both. I want them to stop fighting in public. I don't care which one started it. I suppose it was Richard. It doesn't matter. Our reputations as human beings will long outlive our reputations as coders. Fighting in public is not nice. But sometimes nice takes a backseat to truth. Aside from any amusement value, I'm getting something real out of this thread: who sticks by their own principles and who doesn't is becoming clear to me. I judge people less by how much they agree with my own views than by how they adhere to their own. If I don't agree with someone but they stand by their principles then at least I know where they stand and that they have honor. So far, the rationale from rms is extremely murky at best, and *anything* less than *best* sounds outright hypocritical. So far, Theo's position is completely consistent. This is what I've taken away from this thread. This is important in both theory and practice. Theo is winning this on both ideological and pragmatic ground. -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Dec 15, 2007 10:36 AM, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard is the face that launched a thousand Gnus. You as well as anyone here know what he did for the concept of giving away source code. He inspired a whole generation of free software writers. I was not inspired by him, but by Chris Torek, Keith Bostic, and Mike Karels, who chose to not play politics. Some context: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/07/1097089476287.html Although I'm sure it's convenient for most of the world to think that free software and open source originated solely in the Linux and GNU projects... DS
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
* Jack J. Woehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-15 09:57:01]: Now now. Order. Richard is the face that launched a thousand Gnus. You as well as anyone here know what he did for the concept of giving away source code. He inspired a whole generation of free software writers. Look at the Gnu tree sometime, it's the core of everything we do, all of us. I profoundly respect both of you and know you both f2f. Richard has been my house guest twice. You're both tyrannical, bratty absolute tyrants, the difference being Richard is passive-aggressive and Theo is aggressive-aggressive. You two please play nice and don't demand that your fans line up on one side or another. It's not fair to us who depend on both of you so much. -- Jack J. Woehr What? Are you saying that we should _not_ pass judgement? You want us to suspend our minds? For a human to do that, it means death. We survive only because we can think. To pass judgement is paramount. Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon You can't go blithely tromping around this world, proclaiming that small pebbles are food and expect to survie. -- Travers Buda
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Jack J. Woehr wrote: Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other, sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing there looking sheepish, all covered with poop. How is this my fault? It's not your fault. You're still standing there waiting for more poop to be flung on you though. Richard slagged our efforts. In the public space. Over the 1/4 century of flamefests I've seen online, the truth of the proposition under debate was obvious from the first few lines. The rest is gratuitous verbal violence. Flamewars do have benefits.. they get slashdot/kerneltrap publicity and developers can be attracted to the operating system if they see things in the flamewars that define where the projects are headed. OpenBSD is headed for open code. GNU is headed for fighting for freedom. People can see this from the flamewar and choose an OS that suits them. True, flamewars can also detract developers who are sensitive and weak and cannot accept a little beating. (p.s. I submitted the flamewar to slashdot a day ago. Go to firehose.pl script and vote it in if you want. So far it has been ignored, yet it made it to kernaltrap already.. hmm.) For about 5 years now I've been looking for an operating system that doesn't have the whole freedom of speech attached to it, since I don't fall for that. This recent flamewar simply helped confirm my instinct that openbsd is not about some idealistic freedom of speech. So the flamewar has positive points, because I confirmed that it's the operating system I am installing on a few servers of mine that host over 5 million pages. On the other hand, wimps can say 'blah, OpenBSD people are mean, I'd never use that OS (The OpenBSD Cliche). I will repeat some previous quotes I brought up once: A philosopher who did not hurt anyone's feelings was not doing his job. --Plato (source: Wikipedia) A programmer who did not hurt anyone's feelings was not doing his job. --L505 (source: Z505) One has to speak up and stick up for his programming/philosophy practices sometimes, otherwise he won't be heard. The guy who spoke up about earth not being flat was ridiculed, flamed, and arrested. If you just give in and back down in a flamewar, you may not refresh and define your true goals in a project. You may not attract more developers who have similar beliefs. You may not gain publicity. Bad publicity can be good publicity. ALL PROGRAMMERS are aggressive online. Every time you fix a bug, you are being aggressive to the computer. All security experts are aggressive online.. how do you think we aggressively find exploits and bugs? That doesn't mean they are bad people in person and as a whole. Every time you make a sign with the word ENEMY OF YOUR FREEDOM on it you are being unfriendly too. Blah, who cares. Judge an operating system by its open code and open attitude.. not some random occasional fun flamewar. Flamewars are natural and sometimes they can actually help define a projects goals and weed out some of the weaker folk who just can't take a fun flamewar. L505
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote: On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:32:19AM -0700, Jack J. Woehr wrote: I do, too. I like them both. I want them to stop fighting in public. I don't care which one started it. I suppose it was Richard. It doesn't matter. Our reputations as human beings will long outlive our reputations as coders. Fighting in public is not nice. But sometimes nice takes a backseat to truth. Aside from any amusement value, I'm getting something real out of this thread: who sticks by their own principles and who doesn't is becoming clear to me. I judge people less by how much they agree with my own views than by how they adhere to their own. If I don't agree with someone but they stand by their principles then at least I know where they stand and that they have honor. So far, the rationale from rms is extremely murky at best, and *anything* less than *best* sounds outright hypocritical. So far, Theo's position is completely consistent. This is what I've taken away from this thread. This is important in both theory and practice. Theo is winning this on both ideological and pragmatic ground. -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation Writing this mail from my Debian/GNU(?) desktop and sending it through my free OpenBSD firewall/server etc ... Following this thread with great interest and find it very claryfing on licensing issues. I admire Richard Stallman for making people aware of free GNU software as a alternative to M$ and other propriary -closed-software vendors. Thanks Richard Stallman! But must admit that after following this thread mr Stallman's arguments seems __contradictory__. He says f.ex. it's 'ok' to use gcc and emacs ... on propriary system, but it's not 'ok' to give to the user - if she or he __wants__ to - the possibility to install propr*** sofware through the *BSD portssystem(sep. install). Finally as long as i do not hurt 'someone' (to mutch) then it must be up to me to choose what i want to do, f.ex. install packages through portssystem. --bfrost (Bengt Frost) http://www.fvp.se, http://www.fvpideas.com, http://www.fvpideas.eu
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Dec 15, 2007 3:08 PM, L [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jack J. Woehr wrote: Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other, sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing there looking sheepish, all covered with poop. How is this my fault? It's not your fault. You're still standing there waiting for more poop to be flung on you though. Richard slagged our efforts. In the public space. Over the 1/4 century of flamefests I've seen online, the truth of the proposition under debate was obvious from the first few lines. The rest is gratuitous verbal violence. Flamewars do have benefits.. they get slashdot/kerneltrap publicity and developers can be attracted to the operating system if they see things in the flamewars that define where the projects are headed. OpenBSD is headed for open code. GNU is headed for fighting for freedom. People can see this from the flamewar and choose an OS that suits them. Amen. Despite how others may say this brings an overly negative look to the group, I find it refreshing and absolutely needed. I've loved the honesty of this group for ages. Although the flame wars can get brutal, they are so very appropriate for the times. Oh, this guy Stallman and his words should be respected, no matter how odd they seem... he's done *soo* much for the open/free movement!! Give me a break. Stallman speaks. Theo and this group *do*. Since '98 I've been using various Linux and BSD distro's both for work and in private. For the past few years, I've noticed that the only real community who shuts-up and produces is OpenBSD. They may move slow in some areas, the progress may be brutal/ruthless on the mailing lists, and some may leave for nicer more friendly communities... but damn these people produce. And they don't produce crap. Everything original from this group has been nothing less than top-notch software with excellent documentation. I can rarely afford to donate (honestly), but this flame has done nothing but re-affirm my belief that the OpenBSD community is FAR more than a net positive for good, quality, free software... they don't just preach, THEY PRODUCE. As such, my ass (no matter how poor...and in all honestly, not *that* poor... I just like good beer :) got out of my chair and donated. I encourage the rest of you who support obsd to do the same. True, flamewars can also detract developers who are sensitive and weak and cannot accept a little beating. (p.s. I submitted the flamewar to slashdot a day ago. Go to firehose.pl script and vote it in if you want. So far it has been ignored, yet it made it to kernaltrap already.. hmm.) For about 5 years now I've been looking for an operating system that doesn't have the whole freedom of speech attached to it, since I don't fall for that. This recent flamewar simply helped confirm my instinct that openbsd is not about some idealistic freedom of speech. So the flamewar has positive points, because I confirmed that it's the operating system I am installing on a few servers of mine that host over 5 million pages. On the other hand, wimps can say 'blah, OpenBSD people are mean, I'd never use that OS (The OpenBSD Cliche). I will repeat some previous quotes I brought up once: A philosopher who did not hurt anyone's feelings was not doing his job. --Plato (source: Wikipedia) An appropriate quote. For someone who's not that old, and only been involved in free software since I was 18, I constantly find myself attacked for being too young to appreciate what others have done. Basically, I'm told to respect my elders no matter what they say now. OK - I haven't followed Stallman et alia since their inception, so I can't really speak for what happened before my time (at least not with the first-hand 'authority' that others seem to demand). ...But since I have been working in the community, this group has PRODUCED while others have only SPOKEN. A programmer who did not hurt anyone's feelings was not doing his job. --L505 (source: Z505) One has to speak up and stick up for his programming/philosophy practices sometimes, otherwise he won't be heard. The guy who spoke up about earth not being flat was ridiculed, flamed, and arrested. If you just give in and back down in a flamewar, you may not refresh and define your true goals in a project. You may not attract more developers who have similar beliefs. You may not gain publicity. Bad publicity can be good publicity. ALL PROGRAMMERS are aggressive online. Every time you fix a bug, you are being aggressive to the computer. All security experts are aggressive online.. how do you think we aggressively find exploits and bugs? That doesn't mean they are bad people in person and as a whole. Every time you make a sign with the word ENEMY OF YOUR FREEDOM on it you are being unfriendly too. Blah, who cares. Judge an operating system by its open code and open attitude.. not some
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:08:16 -0700, L [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Jack J. Woehr wrote: Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other, sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing there looking sheepish, all covered with poop. How is this my fault? It's not your fault. You're still standing there waiting for more poop to be flung on you though. Richard slagged our efforts. In the public space. Over the 1/4 century of flamefests I've seen online, the truth of the proposition under debate was obvious from the first few lines. The rest is gratuitous verbal violence. Flamewars do have benefits.. they get slashdot/kerneltrap publicity and developers can be attracted to the operating system if they see things in the flamewars that define where the projects are headed. OpenBSD is headed for open code. GNU is headed for fighting for freedom. No No NO. You miss the point. GNU is fighting for their view of freedom. Not *real* freedom. To the GNU folks, freedom=slavery.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
L wrote: For about 5 years now I've been looking for an operating system that doesn't have the whole freedom of speech attached to it, since I don't fall for that. This recent flamewar simply helped confirm my instinct that openbsd is not about some idealistic freedom of speech. OpenBSD have fairly disparate view on what freedom is, but they both are zealous about the importance of their view of freedom. A philosopher who did not hurt anyone's feelings was not doing his job. --Plato (source: Wikipedia) A programmer who did not hurt anyone's feelings was not doing his job. --L505 (source: Z505) One has to speak up and stick up for his programming/philosophy practices sometimes, otherwise he won't be heard. The guy who spoke up about earth not being flat was ridiculed, flamed, and arrested. All of that is called free speech. The right of OpenBSD to be mean, The right to spray views you do not like or people you think are idiots with insults, is called free speech. OpenBSD takes a particular extremist view of freedom, and free speech.
Re: Play Nice - Real men don't attack straw men (Theo)
Bengt Frost wrote: On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote: Finally as long as i do not hurt 'someone' (to mutch) then it must be up to me to choose what i want to do, f.ex. install packages through portssystem. If I wrote a a BSD Licensed program to mailbomb jews. Would that be acceptable within ports ? Either answer makes it clear that inclusion within ports expresses values. Including non-free software in ports makes a statement. Excluding it makes a different one. --bfrost (Bengt Frost) http://www.fvp.se, http://www.fvpideas.com, http://www.fvpideas.eu -- Dave Lynch DLA Systems Software Development:Embedded Linux 717.627.3770 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dlasys.net fax: 1.253.369.9244Cell: 1.717.587.7774 Over 25 years' experience in platforms, languages, and technologies too numerous to list. Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. Albert Einstein
