2008/1/6, Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
down your name and address for contact details or whatever. I don't
see why a registration form must be non-free here.
Well like... is it not that freedom number 3 or something as defined
by fsf say something like freedom to to distribute to your
ReactOS is a free software operative system with a support database
that indicates which programs it can run.
If I understand you weird meaninig of promotion, then you'll find this
a bad thing too, right?
Yes. Thank you for showing me those specific problems.
I will discuss them
On Jan 6, 2008, at 1:28 AM, Karthik Kumar wrote:
Deliberately ignoring the point doesn't make it any less relevant.
I am saying that the secure by default doesn't hold because lots of
people use ports.
Most people do. Extending your UNIX system to make it work as you want
is a basic,
What is an operating system? An OS could be considered an application,
You could consider an OS an application, and you could consider
hardware software, just as you could consider the Earth a pumpkin. My
response is that you're starting from assumptions I find questionable,
so I don't
On Jan 6, 2008 1:13 PM, Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So registration form = non-free.
YES! Did you fill the form when you downloaded OpenBSD? NO!
You failed to prove how it was not
free.
NO! You failed to see how it was proved.
I will leave the home work to you.
I asked if it
As I've said, I think it's acceptable for free applications to run on
non-free platforms (and say that they do), because this doesn't
recommend the installation of those non-free platforms. But free
systems should not recommend, suggest, or offer to install non-free
apps.
I don't think OpenBSD users understand what you mean by recommend
non-free software,
I explained it earlier in this thread.
so if you could, please, give an example by
showing where OpenBSD (web-site?) says that it recommend non-free
software and the URL.
On Jan 6, 2008 12:52 PM, Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Secure by default. Ship with nothing and call it secure. Wow! Maybe it
shouldn't start the network by default, huh? Then that's secure, isn't
it? Start no daemons, start no shells: ZOMG!!! it's secure :P
So which all daemons
Run GNOME in a **VMWare Player** in a Linux virtual machine.
Or:
Run GNOME on a virtual machine using QEMU on Linux or **Parallels**
for **Mac** or Linux.
promoting the use of non-free software?
This is a case of running a free program on non-free platforms.
Nonetheless, I
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 05:47:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
As I've said, I think it's acceptable for free applications to run on
non-free platforms (and say that they do), because this doesn't
recommend the installation of those non-free platforms. But free
systems
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 06:44:48 +
Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 08:39:35PM -0600, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 17:28:39 -0800 (PST)
Reid Nichol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well OpenBSD is fine here. But, are you sure about RMS?
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 01:13:25PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
On Jan 6, 2008 4:25 AM, Gilles Chehade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 01:42:16AM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
Firmware are not free enough when they have a license that does not
allow them to be
Richard Stallman wrote:
Developing a program ( real software ) for a non-free platform is big
encouragement by loud communication ( actions speak better than words
) to use or continue using that non-free platform.
There are two issues here: the practical effects, and the message
Richard Stallman wrote:
What is an operating system? An OS could be considered an application,
You could consider an OS an application, and you could consider
hardware software, just as you could consider the Earth a pumpkin. My
response is that you're starting from assumptions I find
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 12:52:04PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
On Jan 6, 2008 1:22 AM, Jacob Grydholt Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 05/01/2008, Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use ports. I am not dumb. :P The goals do not specify to encourage
people to use
non-free
Please keep this on-list or out of my mailbox.
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 03:38:43PM +0530, V. Karthik Kumar wrote:
| -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
| Hash: SHA1
|
| Paul de Weerd wrote:
| On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 09:58:47PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
| | On another hand we are not GNU/GPL
Richard Stallman wrote:
What is an operating system? An OS could be considered an application,
You could consider an OS an application, and you could consider
hardware software, just as you could consider the Earth a pumpkin. My
response is that you're starting from assumptions I find
Richard
Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods? Why are you replying on
everybody else to point these things you to you?
Why cant you just go to google like everybody else? Perhaps you would not
have so many mistakes or misunderstandings.
A while ago you also pointed out that people
On Jan 6, 2008 7:47 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Run GNOME in a **VMWare Player** in a Linux virtual machine.
Or:
Run GNOME on a virtual machine using QEMU on Linux or **Parallels**
for **Mac** or Linux.
promoting the use of non-free software?
This is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul de Weerd wrote:
I repeat : keep this onlist or out of my mailbox.
This one is on the list.
| Oh.. so that is your argument; Just because you don't keep it in
| distfiles doesn't make you any right. jolan is a developer of OpenBSD.
| Look in
I repeat : keep this onlist or out of my mailbox.
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 06:16:38PM +0530, V. Karthik Kumar wrote:
| | Look, first the blobs may do whatever. Userland can equally do
| | whatever. Adobe Flash Player restricts my freedom because the whole
| | world is putting Flash sites and I
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 07:42:47PM +0530, V. Karthik Kumar wrote:
| Paul de Weerd wrote:
| I repeat : keep this onlist or out of my mailbox.
|
| This one is on the list.
Thank you.
| Yes, it really is very bad that Jolan committed all that non-free
| stuff to OpenBSD. How could he ! OpenBSD
On Jan 6, 2008 3:12 PM, V. Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Run make install on that directory (www/opera-flashplugin) and woohoo!
so _you_ decided to install non-free software. The question is why .
Nothing forced you to install it.
--
- benont
--
- benont
Perhaps you're *USING* these 4 files to install the adobe flash player
on your machine (your example a little bit later in this mail seems to
indicate you have at least installed it). That's non-free software
you've installed, but you are free to do so. Then, to you, those four
small files
On Jan 6, 2008 6:22 PM, Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps you're *USING* these 4 files to install the adobe flash player
on your machine (your example a little bit later in this mail seems to
indicate you have at least installed it). That's non-free software
you've installed,
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 01:13:25PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
On Jan 6, 2008 4:25 AM, Gilles Chehade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 01:42:16AM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
Firmware are not free enough when they have a license that does not
allow them to be
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 07:46:42PM +0530, V. Karthik Kumar wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gilles Chehade wrote:
I don't care about puppy linux or slax, I am just pointing out that
you talked out of your ass and made an uninformed comment again
when you said that
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Richard Stallman wrote:
I don't think OpenBSD users understand what you mean by recommend
non-free software,
I explained it earlier in this thread.
so if you could, please, give an example by
showing where OpenBSD (web-site?) says that it
On Jan 6, 2008 10:41 PM, Paul de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 09:52:18PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
| Perhaps you're *USING* these 4 files to install the adobe flash player
| on your machine (your example a little bit later in this mail seems to
| indicate you
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 10:39:18PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
On Jan 6, 2008 10:35 PM, Gilles Chehade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 07:46:42PM +0530, V. Karthik Kumar wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gilles Chehade wrote:
I don't care
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 09:52:18PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
| Perhaps you're *USING* these 4 files to install the adobe flash player
| on your machine (your example a little bit later in this mail seems to
| indicate you have at least installed it). That's non-free software
| you've
On Jan 6, 2008, at 8:07, Benoit Chesneau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 6, 2008 3:12 PM, V. Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Run make install on that directory (www/opera-flashplugin) and
woohoo!
so _you_ decided to install non-free software. The question is why .
Nothing forced
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 10:04:07AM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
See ? This is an example, it is unrelated to money, and you still failed
to show us ONE point where we don't stick to our goals.
So registration form = non-free. You failed to prove how it was not
free. I asked if it
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 10:50:47PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
On Jan 6, 2008 10:41 PM, Paul de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 09:52:18PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
| Perhaps you're *USING* these 4 files to install the adobe flash player
| on your machine (your
I appreciate the work that OpenBSD has done in this area.
It is an important contribution to our community.
Curious that it should take this long to obtain that admission from you.
Why do you think it took a long time?
I said it a couple of weeks ago too.
I also said it a
On Jan 6, 2008, at 9:20, Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 6, 2008 10:41 PM, Paul de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 09:52:18PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
| Perhaps you're *USING* these 4 files to install the adobe flash
player
| on your machine (your
- vendor A sells hardware that requires a firmware
- OpenBSD wants to support that hardware and needs the firmware
to be shipped, say in /etc/firmware/, to have the
hardware work out of the box
- vendor A says if a customer
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 10:50:47PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
| You are making an argument that Makefiles are useless when we are
| discussing the free-ness of OpenBSD. It doesn't have a lot to do with
| the subject at hand (again...), but there you go.
|
| You argued Makefiles are FREE. See
Karthik Kumar wrote:
Okay, I didn't install it.
You did install it?
You didn't install it?
You don't know whether you did or didn't?
Seems like there is a substantial disconnect from reality.
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 01:09:42PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
- vendor A sells hardware that requires a firmware
- OpenBSD wants to support that hardware and needs the firmware
to be shipped, say in /etc/firmware/, to have the
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 01:09:42PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
- vendor A sells hardware that requires a firmware
- OpenBSD wants to support that hardware and needs the firmware
to be shipped, say in /etc/firmware/, to have the
Tony Abernethy wrote:
Karthik Kumar wrote:
Okay, I didn't install it.
You did install it?
You didn't install it?
You don't know whether you did or didn't?
Seems like there is a substantial disconnect from reality.
Karthik Kumar is probably using GNG.
GNG is not GNG.
Gilles Chehade wrote:
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 01:09:42PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
- vendor A sells hardware that requires a firmware
- OpenBSD wants to support that hardware and needs the firmware
to be shipped, say in /etc/firmware/, to have the
On 1/6/08 9:28 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
Providing a recipe to install a non-free program is very direct and
clear support for its use.
Clueless.
With the internet everything is 1 click away, ah well, maybe one more. You
have to think/work, yourselves to keep your system in the shape you
Hey young man,
On 1/6/08 8:31 AM, Karthik Kumar wrote:
OpenBSD got pwned a year ago with another remote hole.
There was a second remote hole, it's pretty sure nobody in the industry has
misused it.
Can you give us numbers of your favourite OS?
I hope they find enough so they can stop
2008/1/6, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
so if you could, please, give an example by
showing where OpenBSD (web-site?) says that it recommend non-free
software and the URL.
In OpenBSD the recommendation for certain non-free programs
is in the recipes for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
You see, rms? You were right. OpenBSD has lots of trolls who:
a. Don't find out about the person who is emailing
b. Make assumptions about the person in a.
c. Just troll all day and have no work to do
d. Bitch about everything else because of c.
e.
V. Karthik Kumar wrote:
You see, rms? You were right. OpenBSD has lots of trolls who:
Curious, the contents indicate this is addressed to RMS.
The mail headers indicate otherwise.
This is obviously by one of the trolls.
Quite often, beople are judged by the emails they send
and by the
On Jan 6, 2008, at 20:02, Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
V. Karthik Kumar wrote:
You see, rms? You were right. OpenBSD has lots of trolls who:
Curious, the contents indicate this is addressed to RMS.
The mail headers indicate otherwise.
This is obviously by one of the trolls.
Didn't you do that right from the start when you came
to our lists to post the wrong conclusions you draw from your
un-researched assumptions?
That is not what happened. I stated an accurate conclusion based on
recent research. I expressed it with words that were not clear.
I've
Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods?
My method is to ask other people to do it for me. I use that method
because it is efficient. Its results are accurate, too.
However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not always
checked. Sometimes I just took his word for it.
No, but when you redefine free to mean something specific, you redefine
your own language.
It's normal to develop criteria for what free means in specific
activities. Consider, for instance, free elections. Human rights
organizations and election monitors have worked out specific
2008/1/7, V. Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
You see, rms? You were right. OpenBSD has lots of trolls who:
No he does not see... he is not subscribed to misc...
Here's the rest of your message...
a. Don't find out about the person who is
Richard Stallman wrote:
That is not what happened. I stated an accurate conclusion based on
recent research. I expressed it with words that were not clear.
I've explained the details several times, so I won't repeat now.
Funny thing about details
When they are accurate they can be
Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman and the
FSF for OpenBSD? When I choose an OS I don't go to Richard and the FSF, I
choose the OS I want to use whether its Kubuntu or PCLinuxOS for the desktop
(with all the non-free software that makes my heart sing),
On Jan 6, 2008, at 22:54, Roberto J. Dohnert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard
Stallman and the
FSF for OpenBSD?
Nobody involved in this thread wants this endorsement and it is not
about getting him to change his mind. The point is,
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As I've said, I think it's acceptable for free applications to run on
non-free platforms (and say that they do), because this doesn't
recommend the installation of those non-free platforms. But free
systems should not recommend, suggest, or offer to
Ray Percival wrote:
On Jan 6, 2008, at 22:54, Roberto J. Dohnert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard
Stallman and the
FSF for OpenBSD?
Nobody involved in this thread wants this endorsement and it is not
about getting him to
For example, his Wikipedia article is one sided propaganda:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_stallman
Yeah maybe, but so's the uncyclopedia version! ;)
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
-B
On Jan 5, 2008 11:24 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was a bit curious about what would someone who reads web-sites by
using a wget daemon through e-mails whose own web-site looks like...
well...
Apache httpd 2.0.54 ((Debian GNU/Linux) DAV/2 SVN/1.2.0
On Jan 5, 2008 11:24 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The wget he uses is worse.
You can download any non-free software with it and it does not warn
the user at all!!!
I don't object to general-purpose tools just for being general.
How about OpenBSD ports system a
On Jan 5, 2008 11:25 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://directory.fsf.org/project/Windows32API/
http://directory.fsf.org/project/wxwindows/
http://wxwindows.org/about/credits.htm
see the acknowledgment from one of the softwares endorsed by FSF your
On Jan 5, 2008 7:54 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apache httpd 2.0.54 ((Debian GNU/Linux) DAV/2 SVN/1.2.0 PHP/4.3.10-22
mod_ssl/2.0.54 OpenSSL/0.9.7e)
I have nothing against running a web site.
you have *nothing* against a distribution that makes it easier to install
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 12:09:16 +0200, Denis Doroshenko wrote:
On Jan 5, 2008 7:54 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apache httpd 2.0.54 ((Debian GNU/Linux) DAV/2 SVN/1.2.0 PHP/4.3.10-22
mod_ssl/2.0.54 OpenSSL/0.9.7e)
I have nothing against running a web site.
you have
2008/1/5, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Before you argue that ReactOS is merely a free implementation of Win32
API, let me clarify: if the purpose of ReactOS isn't to run some
Windows-only software S, then what is the purpose of ReactOS? if S was
free, it wouldn't be
2008/1/5, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I was a bit curious about what would someone who reads web-sites by
using a wget daemon through e-mails whose own web-site looks like...
well...
Apache httpd 2.0.54 ((Debian GNU/Linux) DAV/2 SVN/1.2.0 PHP/4.3.10-22
Thank you for telling me about this problem. I will talk with them
about this ASAP. I expect they will probably remove those.
And ReactOS is next?
Does ReactOS recommend non-free software?
If so. please show me what it says, and the URL.
I do not have a lot of influence with
I guess I missed the part where you explained how it makes sense to
apply a label like not recommended because it supports non-free
software to OpenBSD but not to FSF (emacs, etc.).
As I've said, I think it's acceptable for free applications to run on
non-free platforms (and say that
On Jan 5, 2008 11:24 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This continues the pattern of straw men. Over and over,
people on this list criticize me for doing something which
neither I nor anyone else here actually thinks is wrong.
Please list the names of so called straw men in your
2008/1/6, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thank you for telling me about this problem. I will talk with them
about this ASAP. I expect they will probably remove those.
And ReactOS is next?
Does ReactOS recommend non-free software?
If so. please show me what it says, and
On Jan 5, 2008, at 9:30 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
As I've said, I think it's acceptable for free applications to run on
non-free platforms (and say that they do), because this doesn't
recommend the installation of those non-free platforms.
Yes, it does. It's even WORSE since these
On Jan 5, 2008 8:19 PM, Sunnz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/1/6, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thank you for telling me about this problem. I will talk with them
about this ASAP. I expect they will probably remove those.
And ReactOS is next?
Does ReactOS
On Jan 5, 2008 11:30 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I've said, I think it's acceptable for free applications to run on
non-free platforms (and say that they do), because this doesn't
recommend the installation of those non-free platforms. But free
systems should not
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 09:30:09AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
I guess I missed the part where you explained how it makes sense to
apply a label like not recommended because it supports non-free
software to OpenBSD but not to FSF (emacs, etc.).
As I've said, I think it's
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 08:51:33PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
On Jan 5, 2008 8:19 PM, Sunnz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/1/6, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thank you for telling me about this problem. I will talk with them
about this ASAP. I expect they will probably
On another hand we are not GNU/GPL and we don't mind our users installing
non free software if it is what they want. The FAQ is where this needs to
be documented for users to get their job done faster.
If you don't mind users using non-free software, you shouldn't be
putting the 'Free. ' in
On Jan 5, 2008 8:51 PM, Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pardon me for intervening:
Its alright :-)
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq13.html#javaflash tells the user how to
get these things into a clean OpenBSD system.
I am sure that it doesn't include the words: Zomg! you have to use
As I've said, I think it's acceptable for free applications to run on
non-free platforms (and say that they do), because this doesn't
recommend the installation of those non-free platforms. But free
systems should not recommend, suggest, or offer to install non-free
apps.
What is an
On Jan 5, 2008 9:58 PM, Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On another hand we are not GNU/GPL and we don't mind our users installing
non free software if it is what they want. The FAQ is where this needs to
be documented for users to get their job done faster.
If you don't mind users
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 09:58:47PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
On another hand we are not GNU/GPL and we don't mind our users installing
non free software if it is what they want. The FAQ is where this needs to
be documented for users to get their job done faster.
If you don't mind
Again this is for RMS.
He does not fix the problem at his end. those are
1) Apologize for slandering other projects who don't come under his control.
2) Do Research to find out the truth
3) Be practical ( Demon+wget )
And all he does is is complain.
1) I made a minor mistake.
2)
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 09:58:47PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
On another hand we are not GNU/GPL and we don't mind our users installing
non free software if it is what they want. The FAQ is where this needs to
be documented for users to get their job done faster.
If you don't mind
On Jan 5, 2008 11:20 PM, William Boshuck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 09:58:47PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
On another hand we are not GNU/GPL and we don't mind our users installing
non free software if it is what they want. The FAQ is where this needs to
be
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:28:24PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
You are talking about unrelated matters, and mixing our goals with the
ones of your own community.
I represent neither FSF nor OpenBSD. I probably represent the
community which listens to the propagandas put across by both
Then you are misunderstanding OpenBSD's goals which are clearly stated
at the link I provided you and that you obviously failed to read.
I understand the goals that are not written on that page: do what you
like and fight for what you believe in. Goals are just text written in
a stupid web
On Jan 5, 2008 10:56 PM, Gilles Chehade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 09:58:47PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
On another hand we are not GNU/GPL and we don't mind our users installing
non free software if it is what they want. The FAQ is where this needs to
be
On Jan 5, 2008 11:24 PM, Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I said everybody, I meant Everybody. Not one person. Applying the
same to OpenBSD, all that the people here do is bitch about and
nothing more.
NO! people here are not bitching, May be you are.
People here are setting the
Unix Fan wrote:
As I've said, I think it's acceptable for free applications to run on
non-free platforms (and say that they do), because this doesn't
recommend the installation of those non-free platforms. But free
systems should not recommend, suggest, or offer
On Jan 5, 2008 11:28 PM, Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I represent neither FSF nor OpenBSD. I probably represent the
community which listens to the propagandas put across by both but
wants to fight back against false marketing and for the right things
TM.
This is your website right?
On Jan 5, 2008 11:24 PM, Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
all that the people here do is bitch about and
nothing more.
Most of the devs in here are busy coding and not contributing to this thread.
Theo and a few others were forced to respond because their project is
being slandered and
Siju George wrote:
On Jan 5, 2008 11:24 PM, Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I said everybody, I meant Everybody. Not one person.
Applying the
same to OpenBSD, all that the people here do is bitch about and
nothing more.
NO! people here are not bitching, May be you
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:39:17PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
Here is one:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2005-March/081313.html
Notice how Theo talks about because their firmware images were not
free enough to ship in our releases
I suppose you can now explain the
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:51:39PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
Then you are misunderstanding OpenBSD's goals which are clearly stated
at the link I provided you and that you obviously failed to read.
I understand the goals that are not written on that page: do what you
like and fight for
On Jan 6, 2008 12:26 AM, Siju George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 5, 2008 11:28 PM, Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I represent neither FSF nor OpenBSD. I probably represent the
community which listens to the propagandas put across by both but
wants to fight back against false
Richard, isn't:
Run GNOME in a **VMWare Player** in a Linux virtual machine.
Or:
Run GNOME on a virtual machine using QEMU on Linux or **Parallels**
for **Mac** or Linux.
promoting the use of non-free software?
http://torrent.gnome.org/
GNOME _is_ a GNU package.
Greetings!
Richard, Linux is not free software, as you have already stated,
please change your religion, so users don't get confused.
Emacs was originally a text editor, but it became a way of life and a
religion. To join the Church of Emacs, you need only say the
Confession of the Faith three times:
There
On 05/01/2008, Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use ports. I am not dumb. :P The goals do not specify to encourage
people to use
non-free software, but I see that happening anyway.
And so what? I think you were trying to prove that OpenBSD were not
living up to their goals. Instead
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:28:24PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
I represent neither FSF nor OpenBSD. I probably represent the
community which listens to the propagandas put across by both but
wants to fight back against false marketing and for the right things
TM.
Great. The first step is
Firmware are not free enough when they have a license that does not
allow them to be redistributed with the system.
You are talking of free as in freedom and not price, right? If the
whole point was to avoid paying $$$ in OpenBSD, my bad.
--
Gilles Chehade
--
Karthik
Karthik Kumar wrote:
On Jan 5, 2008 11:20 PM, William Boshuck
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 09:58:47PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
On another hand we are not GNU/GPL and we don't mind
our users installing
non free software if it is what they want. The FAQ is
101 - 200 of 856 matches
Mail list logo
