Re: Strange line in the routing table after carp failover?
* Charles Price [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-13 23:46]: yes,that is the result of games carp plays with routes (which it shouldn not, imo, but anyway). it should finally work as advertised in -current even with unnumbered carpdevs. Hi Henning, Updating to -current did the trick. Thanks very much. What was the problem here? nasty complicated details :) -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg Amsterdam
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:02:45AM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
Hey, we could all use the same arguments and call OpenBSD hypocritical:
say no to blobs (it's even on the nvidia-wallpaper!) but say yes to
libflashplayer.so (which is of course secure because it's obscure, but
more than that it's a necessity for so many users which makes it
ethical to use it anyway) = maybe this will be the next misc@ thread
So who's the hypocrite huh? These spats will never end.
And for those who didn't notice, rms takes about a day to respond to
his emails; So please don't scream if you don't get a timely reply.
Karthik
sparky:gilles {101} find /usr/lib -name 'libflashplayer.so.*'
sparky:gilles {102} find /usr/local/lib -name 'libflashplayer.so.*'
sparky:gilles {103}
now, please go back to sleep.
--
Gilles Chehade
http://www.evilkittens.org/
http://www.evilkittens.org/blog/gilles/
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Theo de Raadt wrote: Theo de Raadt wrote: Hell, the OpenBSD ports tree should perhaps contain patches which REMOVE such commercial operating system support. That's a fork Richard would surely approve of. Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo. I have no doubt that in some context Richard is hypocritical. Though most of us would be hard pressed to structure our lives to be consistent with our beleifs and principles to the extent that he has. But this is not about EMACS, nor is it about hypocracy. RMS made statements first. RMS will pay for his lies. Why did I even bother. I was not trying to defend RMS or attack you. I was actually looking at the possibility that there might be some way of getting something positive out of this for OpenBSD. There is an obvious win-win for everybody, but you are fixated on revenge for imaginary slights. This sounds like something from my eight year old. You are 30something, Grow up. Do you really write your own email, or do you have some kid do them for you ? It is more important to you to catch Stallman in some mis-statement or lie than to even figure out what is best for OpenBSD ? Rather than figure out if there is anyway OpenBSD can benefit, it is more important to find a way to screw somebody else ? Every once in a while you show rationality and intelligence, and I think maybe there is some real value and real hope for OpenBSD, then you lob off a message like this one. No. Nothing begs the question of what we do. We are not going to change our process in any way as a result of what some loony retard says. So if Richard adopted the BSD/ISC you would switch to the GPL just to spite him ? We know _exactly_ what our principles are, and we are sticking to them very clearly. Yes, the screw RMS, Screw the FSF, and screw the world, and screw ourselves principle. Because frankly I can't see where you are following any other. Your position on closed hardware and binary blobs is exactly the same as Stallman's, and logically leads to the same position on software. Yet so far I have gotten no position on software - aside from the claim that Stallman somehow insulted OpenBSD. The only way his remarks could be taken as an insult, would be if you actually have the same principles. Even then it would be more of an uninformed error than an insult. It is not an insult for him to claim that you tacitly endorse non-free software - if you do. Whatever your principles are you are sticking to them so clearly that I do not even think most of the OpenBSD developers know what they actually are - well aside from the screw everybody else principle. That one seems abundantly clear. From the perspective of OpenBSD values, How far does the OpenBSD disdain for non-free software extend ? Richard does not stand in a position where he can ask that question to us. Nor do you. We'll do what we want, and your questions don't change anything. Forget Richard, Forget me, Forget all the people you think have fucked you over. Instead of trying to figure out how to extract revenge, figure out what is best for OpenBSD. There is nothing wrong with doing what you want. But it sure as hell looks as if you are more interested in making certain that you do NOT do anything that richard might want. That anytime he says black, you are going to say white. In many circles I am known for having nearly an absolutist position on Free Speech. Your expressed position is even more absolutist than mine. Yet here you are telling others we can not even ask questions. My we have clay feet. Richard has actually answer the challenges you have thrown at him. In those instances where someone found that something that he recommended was not adhering to the standards he established, he commited to look into it and either fix it or revoke his recommendation. You refuse to deign to allow anyone else to ask questions. Establish what your principles and policies are or are going to be. We did. Years ago. I got it, OpenBSD is good, non-free software is good, but anything having anything to do with RMS is evil. Seriously, nothing I have read of any OpenBSD policies and principles is inconsistent with Richard's on this issue. If I am wrong about that, then OpenBSD has done a poor job of expressing its policies and principles. If I am right you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. This does not effect me personally one way or another. I could give a rats ass about the future of OpenBSD. Nor is this childish spat you seem to be having all by yourself with Richard of any consequence to me. Though I will conceede you are incredibly frustrating, how the hell can somebody so obviously intelligent, be so obviously self destructive and stupid at the same time. If one person calls you an ass, that's there problem. If ten people call you an ass,
Re: Exclusion caused by SMALL_KERNEL
* Mats Erik Andersson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-13 02:28]: having spent most of the evening to understand why my kernel build suddenly aborted compilation with a pointer to a missing call rt_mpath_next, I found that the option SMALL_KERNEL clashes with pseudo-device pf 1, and that this was the sole cause for my failure. My original reason for this experiment was to produce a small kernel for a router system. we do provide a small kernel for router systems. It is called GENERIC. -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg Amsterdam
Re: Getting envolved
Mathieu Stumpf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I disagree. A complex interface implies a lot of code. a lot of code leads to unreliablity, either through bugs or detracting valuable developer time from more important things A simple interface (well designed) imples less code, which leads to reliability. So, you mean a more intuitive software is necessary more complex? Can't we make a simple but intuitive interface without a lot of code? Well? Can you? Try. Let us know how it went. Users who can no invest the effort learn enough to use a simple interface do not deserve a reliable operating system. They deserve windows, and they deserve pop up buttong in their browsers that they click ok blindly for everything. -Bob Do you apply this reasoning to anything in life or do you reserve this kind of eugenics only to IT? :) It's reality. //art
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
You said Real men don't attack straw men. Yet this is *EXACTLY* what you are now doing. You continue to repeatedly write that OpenBSD recommends the ports system to its users, *which it does not*. Let me say that once again: OpenBSD recommends that EVERYBODY USE PACKAGES, NOT THE PORTS TREE. OpenBSD distributes the ports tree. In my book, that's recommending all the programs that are in it, referring people to those programs. I believe what you say about the other facts, but those facts don't override these facts. For instance, the statement urging people to use the binary packages doesn't cancel out the fact that the ports tree refers them to the non-free programs. The statement, as you quoted it, does not say Never use the ports! Obviously the ports are provided so people can use them. The statement urges people to try the binary packages first. That makes sense, but it isn't relevant to this question. conversation, where I will be happy to explain to you exactly the nature of the OpenBSD ports and packages systems. But let's do that off-list, Ok, let's do so. But I would also like you to answer my emails, especially this one: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=119741909911558w=2 I have no obligation to answer each and every message that people post, or address every issue anyone else raises. Some issues don't seem to need answers. However, because of your offer, I will send mail to try to find the message that URL refers to, and then send you a private answer if I have not posted one already.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Hell, the OpenBSD ports tree should perhaps contain patches which REMOVE such commercial operating system support. That's a fork Richard would surely approve of. Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo. I have no doubt that in some context Richard is hypocritical. Though most of us would be hard pressed to structure our lives to be consistent with our beleifs and principles to the extent that he has. But this is not about EMACS, nor is it about hypocracy. RMS made statements first. RMS will pay for his lies. Why did I even bother. I was not trying to defend RMS or attack you. I was actually looking at the possibility that there might be some way of getting something positive out of this for OpenBSD. There is an obvious win-win for everybody, but you are fixated on revenge for imaginary slights. This sounds like something from my eight year old. You are 30something, Grow up. Sounds like an insult from you. Do you really write your own email, or do you have some kid do them for you ? Sounds like an insult from you It is more important to you to catch Stallman in some mis-statement or lie than to even figure out what is best for OpenBSD ? Rather than figure out if there is anyway OpenBSD can benefit, it is more important to find a way to screw somebody else ? Sounds like an insult from you. Every once in a while you show rationality and intelligence, and I think maybe there is some real value and real hope for OpenBSD, then you lob off a message like this one. No. Nothing begs the question of what we do. We are not going to change our process in any way as a result of what some loony retard says. So if Richard adopted the BSD/ISC you would switch to the GPL just to spite him ? We know _exactly_ what our principles are, and we are sticking to them very clearly. Yes, the screw RMS, Screw the FSF, and screw the world, and screw ourselves principle. Because frankly I can't see where you are following any other. Your position on closed hardware and binary blobs is exactly the same as Stallman's, and logically leads to the same position on software. Yet so far I have gotten no position on software - aside from the claim that Stallman somehow insulted OpenBSD. The only way his remarks could be taken as an insult, would be if you actually have the same principles. Even then it would be more of an uninformed error than an insult. It is not an insult for him to claim that you tacitly endorse non-free software - if you do. Whatever your principles are you are sticking to them so clearly that I do not even think most of the OpenBSD developers know what they actually are - well aside from the screw everybody else principle. That one seems abundantly clear. Look up how 'openbsd' was started and learn about the whole 'open' idea. The open CVS server, open documentation, open drivers, etc. Hmm maybe RMS won't recommend OpenBSD because it is open.. and being open implies open source, which.. is not good.. it must be free software, not open software. From the perspective of OpenBSD values, How far does the OpenBSD disdain for non-free software extend ? Richard does not stand in a position where he can ask that question to us. Nor do you. We'll do what we want, and your questions don't change anything. Forget Richard, Forget me, Forget all the people you think have fucked you over. Sounds like a childish insult from you. Instead of trying to figure out how to extract revenge, figure out what is best for OpenBSD. There is nothing wrong with doing what you want. But it sure as hell looks as if you are more interested in making certain that you do NOT do anything that richard might want. That anytime he says black, you are going to say white. In many circles I am known for having nearly an absolutist position on Free Speech. IMO software has nothing to do with speech. It is about open code, open development and even free of cost code at times to make it wonderful. Software is like engineering electronic circuit blueprints.. it isn't like a protest where you hammer on people's doors and talk about the blood and gory of the protest on 99th street where everyone was holding big signs and getting beaten by the police for bringing up censorship. Nobody goes around talking about how grocery stores are censoring our freedom by not giving us the chemical blueprints of Apples. So if some guy releases a closed source piece of code and it happens to work, who cares.. let them do that. It's just an apple without a blueprint. Instead of just leaving the Apple alone, a free software hacker will make extra effort to fight the grocery store for giving away an apple without apple blueprints. Why not just leave it alone, and go on with your open development and open code? Because free software developers waste time on fighting the Apple instead of just developing open code.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
It also seems silly to me this idea between tainted and clean oses, such as Open and gNewSense, respectively. Take for example a user that runs Ubuntu [GNU/]Linux but proscribes to your free-only philosophy. They don't have to install the adobe flash plugin (which I believe is still a binary of sorts.) They can choose not to. The Adobe flash plug-in is non-free software, and people should not install it, or suggest installing it, or even tell people it exists. That Firefox offers to install it is a very bad thing. I've been trying for a couple of years to get going a modified version of Firefox that won't offer to install any non-free plug-ins, but we don't have enough people to make this work very well. If you would like to help, please let me know. It is an important project.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Richard Stallman a icrit : I have no obligation to answer each and every message that people post, or address every issue anyone else raises. Some issues don't seem to need answers. There is a difference between I have no obligation to answer each and every message and I cannot find a coherent answer to several messages. Why are you encouraging people to use Windows by making gcc and emacs available for that system ? I know of at least four companies I've worked with/for that *rely* on gcc and that would switch to Linux/BSD if gcc was not available on Windows. You are making it easier for them to keep using a proprietary system, why are you doing this ? Why are you promoting proprietary software ? You don't WANT to answer these questions because you know you have no answer but We wanted a broader public. You look like a lawyer twisting laws to serve his own purpose, the irony being that in that case you made the laws that you are now trying to work-around as they do not serve your purpose well. Please, prove me wrong, answer the questions that have been asked over a dozen times on this list already. Gilles -- SCHNEIER FACT #69: If Bruce Schneier rot-13s a plaintext, it cannot be broken by applying rot-13 again.
Re: : : no 4.2-stable package updates??
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 04:10:39PM -0500, Jason Beaudoin wrote: On Dec 13, 2007 1:05 PM, Raimo Niskanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 01:07:17PM +, Jonathan Thornburg wrote: First, I'd like to thank those who provided useful responces to my query (which started this thread), both on- and off-list. I had missed the announcement (http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-portsm=119347390302171w=1) that -stable ports packages are no longer maintained. As I recall from the FAQ and installation manual, an overall philosphy for OpenBSD is that the package system is the recommended. Users are encouraged to install from binary packages. And regular users should follow the stable branch. Does this still apply. It seems not from this thread, so in what way should a regular user now follow the stable branch? And yes, it should be in the FAQ. Or is this just a temporary setback? As an inexperienced user, I still hear: use the package system. But on -release.. which is *supported.* Oh dear, sorry about the noise. I apparetly have misunderstood simple things. -release being patched from the package system is exactly what I want. I have mistaken -stable for -release. I am sorry again. I agree that since there were -release, -stable and -current; -stable is the least important. And there are still snapshots that will do as a substitute for -stable. Keep up the good work. I will be hiding in shame for a while... -- / Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Edd Barrett wrote: How do you browse the web? emacs?
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Hi Richard, On 14/12/2007, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I would also like you to answer my emails, especially this one: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=119741909911558w=2 I have no obligation to answer each and every message that people post, or address every issue anyone else raises. Some issues don't seem to need answers. However, because of your offer, I will send mail to try to find the message that URL refers to, and then send you a private answer if I have not posted one already. I don't understand send mail to try to find the message the URL refers to. How do you browse the web? -- Best Regards Edd --- http://students.dec.bournemouth.ac.uk/ebarrett
swap encryption Re: Putting partition in RAM
Gilbert, Douglas, swap encryption on OpenBSD is done different than what you advise. just use a sysctl for vm.swapencrypt.enable. Much less maintenance headaches. an yes, don't complain about being reminded that this is not a netbsd / linux support list. --knitti
Re: swap encryption Re: Putting partition in RAM
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 01:02:42PM +0100, knitti wrote: Gilbert, Douglas, swap encryption on OpenBSD is done different than what you advise. just use a sysctl for vm.swapencrypt.enable. Much less maintenance headaches. besides, since a few releases it has been enabled by default. -Otto
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:18 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: snip It is completely irrelevant to Stallman whether the OS he endorses is actually useful. In his world view, his definition of free trumps functional. It is always possible to improve the quality of something, it is may not be possible to regain freedom once it is lost. Nice work if you can get it. In a little place I call reality I make a living solving problems and I need something useful. This pretty much makes Stallman a useless fucktard in my book. You do not have to accept his thesis. Though OpenBSD does take an indistinguishable stance particularly on hardware and binary blobs. No. OpenBSD is against including blobs in their code. To quote Stallman non-free software, and people should not install it, or suggest installing it, or even tell people it exists. If the difference between We won't include a blob in base., what the quote from Stallman above implies, and the OpenBSD ports system is indistinguishable to you then you really are a simple fucking son of a bitch. Or a liar. Stupid would be charitable and I don't tend towards charity. And maybe you do not accept that he goes to fairly extreme efforts to conform his behavior to his own principles, but I do. No, I accept it. I know it for a fucking fact. I think both those principles and the fact that he goes to the efforts he does to conform to them makes him a fucktard. None of the distros that Stallman is talking about are actually USEFUL beyond the most trivial of applications. For those of us who actually need tools to solve problems with the bullshit Commissar Stallman spews is beyond fucking useless. If I gave two shits what he thinks the only choice I'd have most of the time is what vendor to buy borken shit from. Even if I were to grant his arguments about non- free (which I most certainly do NOT) I don't see how anybody who isn't a total fucking nutter could see that as better. OpenBSD has taken a strong principled stance against binary blobs and closed hardware - even when that results in loss of functionality. There is absolutely no distinction between the absolutist OpenBSD position on hardware and that of RMS on software. No. in Stallman's world to even mention that, for example, the non- free nvidia driver exists is a bad thing. OpenBSD takes a somewhat more adult much less religious talk about it but don't use it. Also, and this is the SINGLE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE, Theo and his folks are TRYING to bridge that gap and, in point of fact, they've written code that makes many bits of hardware work better than they do under the blobs that they reject. When was the last time that Stallman produced code or something useful? Absolutely any insult you toss at him regarding his stance on software can be reworded and lobbed back at you in the context of hardware. No. Because this isn't about his stance on software. This is about the fact that he made a statement that was wrong. The fact that you can install a non-free app or two with the ports system does not meet any real world definition of suggests only in a world where books that mention such things need burning does his argument make any sense at all. And the rest of us don't live in that world. OTOH OpenBSD not including blobs has direct real world benefits to me by leaving me with the sure knowledge that if I run into a bug with a driver that I won't have to depend on a vendor to fix it and that I won't have to worry about some vendor suddenly dropping support for it and the fact that they encourage others to reject those blobs would have even more direct real world benefits to me if they were to take their advice, by increasing free and open support for even more hardware and meaning they wouldn't have to keep reverse engineering things to make them work. In one case good is being done in the real world. In the other some fucktard is just blowing smoke out his ass to no good purpose. If you would like to make your above statement correct prove to me how pretending that non-free apps don't exist by not talking about them at all makes my life easier. Again any clear thinking adult will be able to see the clear difference between the two. I really question your motives if you can't. So, yeah, fuck Stallman. Fuck his endorsement. There is nothing good about this fucking nutter or anything he's trying to do. Orthodoxy is EVIL no matter what god it's in service of. OpenBSD is an extremely religiously orthodox system. Frankly it is a cult. There is a zero tolerance police for binary blobs. There is a zero tolerance policy for GPL in base and a low tolerance elsewhere. No other group in existance adheres to security with the same religious fanaticism. If orthodoxy, zealotry and fanaticism are evil, then OpenBSD is hell. Yeah, sure in a world where a ports system that makes it a wee bit easier to install a
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Dec 14, 2007 9:09 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you have turrets or aspergers or some other reason why you are compelled to insult virtually everyone ? Wow, now we're taking potshots at the handicapped. There goes that fluffy PC do-gooder image then. Outside the cult of OpenBSD no one else sees it that way. Here we go again, there is no cult, get over it. I'm speaking for myself, as a lowly user. Theo doesn't need me to fight his corner, I'm just fighting mine, as probably most of the people on this list, although I wouldn't know as we don't communally bask in the shining glory of Our One True Leader. There's actually no we per se, from my viewpoint here. I happen to use OpenBSD, firstly because it works, secondly because it works and thirdly because the project doesn't try to shove self-serving incoherent crap down my throat the whole time. Oh and it also happens to coincide with my beliefs on things like freedom, but then again I don't think a bunch of raving extremist nutters could code a working OS. It takes a fair amount of rational thinking. Nah, I'm not descending to your level. Here's a brand new shovel. You sweat and dig your own hole. mike
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Richard Stallman wrote: It also seems silly to me this idea between tainted and clean oses, such as Open and gNewSense, respectively. Take for example a user that runs Ubuntu [GNU/]Linux but proscribes to your free-only philosophy. They don't have to install the adobe flash plugin (which I believe is still a binary of sorts.) They can choose not to. The Adobe flash plug-in is non-free software, and people should not install it, or suggest installing it, or even tell people it exists. That Firefox offers to install it is a very bad thing. I've been trying for a couple of years to get going a modified version of Firefox that won't offer to install any non-free plug-ins, but we don't have enough people to make this work very well. If you would like to help, please let me know. It is an important project. This incredibly misguided. People won't switch to free software because of hectoring and hamfisted attempts to frustrate their choices, but they instantly switch when free software becomes a compelling replacement - look at Apache or OpenSSH. Rather than wasting effort trying to make firefox unusable for an unfortunately large proportion of its userbase and on insulting OpenBSD developers with spurious accusations, why not spend the energy on making a usable flashplayer replacement? or on getting Adobe to open their source/specifications? -d
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Sorry, back to list, public debate. On Dec 14, 2007 11:51 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: michael hamerski wrote: In other words, a society in which non-free software more or less doesn't exist. And there you go denying non-free software, by your definition, the very right to exist. We attempt to deny slavery the right to exist, or polio, or smallpox. How does using non-free software, by your definition anything none GPL'ed I gather, bring actual physical harm to anyone anywhere? You keep on using these grand words to shore up legitimacy for your little crusade. It doesn't work. You do not have to accept his definitions of good and evil, or anything else, but once you do, the rest works fairly well, Once you accept Scientology as factual, it works pretty well. Ask Tom Cruise. The same is true of any belief system ever imagined. and not only is he not ignorant of several milenia of thought, He is if he can't see that one of the possible outcomes, if not the most probable, of his ideals is totalitarianism. As I said before, misguided at best. but he has done a pretty good job of using the laws and principles resulting from that to accomplish his own purposes. And therein lies the problem, his own purposes, not the future of mankind, not the future of computing. and certainly not freedom. But perhaps he might like the opportunity to reply for himself. mike
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
michael hamerski schrieb: Nah, it's too much fun... seriously though, even though ultimately pointless, I think it's a worthy public debate. Let him expound his theories and ethics and let's dissect them layer by layer. For the record. Wise remark :-) -- Michael Schmidt MIRRORS: Watcom ftp://ftp.fh-koblenz.de/pub/CompilerTools/Watcom/ OpenOffice ftp://ftp.fh-koblenz.de/pub/OpenOffice/
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
David: The OpenBSD position is best expressed in this rather rude statement: Shut up and code. RMS is a philosopher of the evangelical sort. Folks here are a bit more pragmatic and want to code. A lot of us are infuriated by this discussion. You suggested that Theo might have Asbergers. As someone who has a nervous condition that mimics Asbergers in certain aspects i will tell you that arguing fast on a mailing list will do nothing but irritate me even if the arguments are cogent. A person with a condition like that is easilly distracted from imporatant work. So get it ? Shut up and code ! If you want an OpenBSD that RMS would like, write a patch that would remove the stuff he hates from the tree. Even though i have not written anything for OpenBSD in years (1 port to my credit) i am getting VERY frustrated with this discussion. --- Marina Brown On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Theo de Raadt wrote: Theo de Raadt wrote: Hell, the OpenBSD ports tree should perhaps contain patches which REMOVE such commercial operating system support. That's a fork Richard would surely approve of. Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo. I have no doubt that in some context Richard is hypocritical. Though most of us would be hard pressed to structure our lives to be consistent with our beleifs and principles to the extent that he has. But this is not about EMACS, nor is it about hypocracy. RMS made statements first. RMS will pay for his lies. Why did I even bother. I was not trying to defend RMS or attack you. I was actually looking at the possibility that there might be some way of getting something positive out of this for OpenBSD. There is an obvious win-win for everybody, but you are fixated on revenge for imaginary slights. This sounds like something from my eight year old. You are 30something, Grow up. Do you really write your own email, or do you have some kid do them for you ? It is more important to you to catch Stallman in some mis-statement or lie than to even figure out what is best for OpenBSD ? Rather than figure out if there is anyway OpenBSD can benefit, it is more important to find a way to screw somebody else ? Every once in a while you show rationality and intelligence, and I think maybe there is some real value and real hope for OpenBSD, then you lob off a message like this one. No. Nothing begs the question of what we do. We are not going to change our process in any way as a result of what some loony retard says. So if Richard adopted the BSD/ISC you would switch to the GPL just to spite him ? We know _exactly_ what our principles are, and we are sticking to them very clearly. Yes, the screw RMS, Screw the FSF, and screw the world, and screw ourselves principle. Because frankly I can't see where you are following any other. Your position on closed hardware and binary blobs is exactly the same as Stallman's, and logically leads to the same position on software. Yet so far I have gotten no position on software - aside from the claim that Stallman somehow insulted OpenBSD. The only way his remarks could be taken as an insult, would be if you actually have the same principles. Even then it would be more of an uninformed error than an insult. It is not an insult for him to claim that you tacitly endorse non-free software - if you do. Whatever your principles are you are sticking to them so clearly that I do not even think most of the OpenBSD developers know what they actually are - well aside from the screw everybody else principle. That one seems abundantly clear. From the perspective of OpenBSD values, How far does the OpenBSD disdain for non-free software extend ? Richard does not stand in a position where he can ask that question to us. Nor do you. We'll do what we want, and your questions don't change anything. Forget Richard, Forget me, Forget all the people you think have fucked you over. Instead of trying to figure out how to extract revenge, figure out what is best for OpenBSD. There is nothing wrong with doing what you want. But it sure as hell looks as if you are more interested in making certain that you do NOT do anything that richard might want. That anytime he says black, you are going to say white. In many circles I am known for having nearly an absolutist position on Free Speech. Your expressed position is even more absolutist than mine. Yet here you are telling others we can not even ask questions. My we have clay feet. Richard has actually answer the challenges you have thrown at him. In those instances where someone found that something that he recommended was not adhering to the standards he established, he commited to look into it and either fix it or revoke his recommendation. You refuse to deign to allow anyone else to ask questions. Establish what your principles and policies are or are going to be. We did. Years ago. I got it, OpenBSD is good, non-free
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: I am not out to get you. Richard is not out to get you. The FSF is not out to get you. The world is not out to get you. But you appear to Again, Richard made foul and faulty comments about OpenBSD first. Richard then came to the OpenBSD mailing lists looking for a fight. David you need to check the facts and shut your mouth. Now, go away troll (that goes for both Stallman and the other clown). Regards Johan M:son Lindman
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:09:46 -0500, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: It also seems silly to me this idea between tainted and clean oses, such as Open and gNewSense, respectively. Take for example a user that runs Ubuntu [GNU/]Linux but proscribes to your free-only philosophy. They don't have to install the adobe flash plugin (which I believe is still a binary of sorts.) They can choose not to. The Adobe flash plug-in is non-free software, and people should not install it, or suggest installing it, or even tell people it exists. That Firefox offers to install it is a very bad thing. It's only a Very Bad Thing to nutjobs like you. Now please go away and spew your nutjob nonsense somewhere else. Give it up Richard, your 15 minutes is over.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 11:37:02PM +1100, Damien Miller wrote: This incredibly misguided. People won't switch to free software because of hectoring and hamfisted attempts to frustrate their choices, but they instantly switch when free software becomes a compelling replacement - look at Apache or OpenSSH. Don't bother. You forget that Richard no longer lives in the real world. That's one of the working assumptions: he's a fool disconnected from real pursuits. The other possibility being that he knows exactly what he's doing, and just has double standards. It's very easy for him to say he doesn't recommend OpenBSD (which some people will construe as he recommends AGAINST OpenBSD, this is the way people work, even if he doesn't say so) and at the same time to endorse emacs, gcc, gnewwhateverlinuxdistroofthemonth, and to conveniently say he's either `not aware' of non-free software in there, or that `it's a problem' with that distribution. All in all, since we live in a non-perfect world, there is no real world endeavor that will rise up to Richard's ideal. The choice of what to endorse, and what not to endorse is definitely a political choice. Richard, you can try to weasel your way all you can, saying you're `not aware' of such and such. In the end, if you want to be true to your goals, you should say you do not recommend ANYTHING. Heck, you should say to people that they should not use computers at all, for obvious reasons. See ? this is about the same sophistry you are using AGAINST OpenBSD. All that talk of ethical choices and whatnot is complete balloney. You are doing *exactly the same thing* you accuse us of doing. Publishing your Yes/No opinions about *some* software is *exactly* the kind of editorial work we do with the ports tree of OpenBSD. I cannot believe you do not know there *are* some non-free pieces of software in some work you recommend, or that there *are* non-free extensions to your work in GCC and emacs. In the end, where you choose to place the barrier is completely arbitrary. I am now firmly convinced that you place OpenBSD outside that barrier for reasons you won't state. The ports tree is just a pretext. We are outside the fuzzy realm of Richard's world *just because we have a strongly different opinion* about licensing. We believe in people freedom. We don't try to force our own twisted variation of `freedom' down their throat. And that's what this is all about. All your nice arguments are just weaseling. They're not even consistent. You're still delaying on a definite answer on the GCC, Emacs situation. ... which is why I adopted Theo's terms, because it's true. You're just an hypocrit with delusions of self righteousness. It might even be possible that you finally believe your own lies.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Richard Stallman wrote: You said Real men don't attack straw men. Yet this is *EXACTLY* what you are now doing. You continue to repeatedly write that OpenBSD recommends the ports system to its users, *which it does not*. Let me say that once again: OpenBSD recommends that EVERYBODY USE PACKAGES, NOT THE PORTS TREE. OpenBSD distributes the ports tree. In my book, that's recommending all the programs that are in it, referring people to those programs. GNU software includes compatibility support for Windows. In my book, that's recommending Windows, encouraging users to use it in favour of free systems. It is quite easy to make such absurd statements when one is willing to dilute the meaning of words like recommend beyond recognition, but what is the point? By doing this you are traducing the work of a project that takes software freedom extremely seriously, and insulting the developers who put in the work to make it this way. -d
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Richard, you're being cc'ed because people speak in your name. On Dec 14, 2007 9:35 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: michael hamerski wrote: I think it's a worthy public debate. Let him expound his theories and ethics and let's dissect them layer by layer. For the record. David, Which term in public debate do you fail to get? I am not in the least interested in your private opinion. I am however willing to take the time to dissect the nonsense you and others spout on this list. For the record, it's a pleasure. And you've chosen the worst list ever to pick a fight on ethics. There has been no debate. I no of no reason why OpenBSD can not atleast decide one way or another what their actual policy is on non-free software. http://openbsd.org/policy.html educate yourself and come back or shut up. If it is acceptable - that's fine, but then RMS was speaking the truth. If not than get rid of it. The remaining alternative is the Torvald's - it is a necescary evil way. Nothing to get rid of. Your free is not my free. Besides which I have absolutely no impact on the way OpenBSD is run. I am just a user. Theo is not even willing to state what the policy is - aside from that it is settled and well known. Well it's a well know secret then. Again read and educate yourself. It does wonders. I am having a hard time seeing why RMS is the hypocrit here. Yes, well that would figure wouldn't it? See, the funny thing is I had a lenient attitude towards the GPL, FSF, RMS before. Live and let live, and they're fighting for freedom so it's ok. Thank you for opening my eyes. The fact is that slander sticks, there is an agenda behind continuously repeating the nonsense that OpenBSD somehow promotes non-free software. mike
Re: swap encryption
On Dec 14, 2007 10:45 AM, Lars Noodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not that clear if it is, at least on the version of OpenBSD 4.2 I have. It's very much a plain vanilla setup however, /etc/sysctl.conf says: #vm.swapencrypt.enable=0 # 0=Do not encrypt pages that go to swap To me that implies that the swap is not encrypted by default. However, checking sysctl vm.swapencrypt.enable shows that it *is* enabled by default. What would be the correct method for asking for the default sysctl.conf to be updated? Send a diff?
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Theo de Raadt wrote: Yet on Richard's side of this fence, emacs and gcc _directly include_ code which lets users use those two pieces of software on commercial operating systems. He facilitates using something good on something bad, which helps end users realize that open source products can be good. The gcc and emacs developers -- led by Richard -- have decided the directly include support for commercial operating systems in their respective distributions. Hell, the OpenBSD ports tree should perhaps contain patches which REMOVE such commercial operating system support. That's a fork Richard would surely approve of. Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo. He is arguing against facilitating something bad on something good. Your argument does not hold and it's unnecessarily insultive. BTW I personally think that people should be free to choose to install whatever software they wish on their machine and that the ports tree sufficiently warns about the used license. I'd wish you would keep your arguing at that. # Han
Re: : Real men don't attack straw men
Why Stallman comes here? I am not going to all mailing of different operating systems that I don't like, saying you're shit, use my OS (ah, no, RMS didn't write a code in the last 12 years?). Anyway you're insulting us, telling what I should use or not, I don't need a mentor to tell me nothing and if I need, I will call you. Looks like the encyclopedia's vendor when they come to your house once time more... and the worse is that you don't have consistent argument (you're doing exactly the opposite thing that you're saying and you're telling use 'don't do that'. I don't like GPL for one reason, I can read that in your website http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this License. That does not mean 'freedom' to me, however I'm not going to gnu mailing lists to tell that I don't like this license... Borja Tarraso On Dec 14, 2007 7:20 AM, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 08:26:25PM +0100, Raimo Niskanen wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:52:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: : It contains URL's to non-free software, and free Makefiles that knows how to build that non-free software. But the entire ports tree has no non-free software in it at all. Does that make it non-free? Even giving the URLs has the effect of referring people to those non-free programs. It gives those non-free programs legitimacy, and thus contradicts the idea that software should be free. Are all operating systems non-free then, because they can be used to write free Makefiles which compile non-free software? No, that's a totally different question. Q1: could your system support a port to install non-free program FOO. Q2: does your system come with a port to install FOO. The answer to Q1 is always yes. I'm concerned with Q2. It now seems fairly clear where Mr. Stallman draws the line. For him to recommend a distribution as a free software distribution it should ignore non-free software. Not pretend that non-free software does not exist, but just not point where to find it. OpenBSD's port tree is stated to contain (pointers to) some non-free software but mostly free so you have been warned, but it takes an active step by the user to filter the port tree if one wants to avoid non-free software. Therefore the OpenBSD distribution is not kosher in Stallman's view. I've been a user for years and could care less what Stallman thinks. If OpenBSD's port tree would be stated to contain only (pointers to) free software, that is the current port tree would be split into a free port tree in the distribution and a non-free tree to download from some other site ready to drop into the free port tree. Then the distribution would be Stallman-kosher. With a not too huge effort. The OpenBSD team doesn't put releases together for Richard Stallman, so who cares? If then the installation pages would have links to and explanation about the non-free part of the port tree, I do not know if that would render the whole distribution non-Stallman-kosher. Based on some of Theo's recent postings I'm not sure Stallman's own web site is Stallman kosher--I just hope Stallman can sleep at night. But if there is enough benefit for OpenBSD to be on Stallman's list of free operating systems, to do such a change, that is a completely different question. Who is Stallman that we as users should even care? And if Stallman's definition of a free software distribution is a good one, that is obviously debatable. Many feel OpenBSD is already freer than most, and I also feel it is. At least in spirit. Is this even debatable? What lawyer in his right mind would argue that Stallman's licenses are *more* free than OpenBSD!? But that is not enough for Mr. Stallman, and he is free to have that opinion. He sure is (free to debate the merits of OpenBSD on *his* mailing lists). I've been an OpenBSD advocate for years. This stuff gets rather tired after a while (I can't even imagine what it must be like to be a core member of the OpenBSD team and have to read this stuff). RMS has been on our lists before, spouting the same basic shit. He hates what we do. If he really hated what we do, he should stop using OpenSSH. He says he uses it. He should not. We are horrible people; he should not use our software. The only way to make it clear to him that he should not come here to our lists in the future, is to teach him a hard lesson, and that is done by continually re-adding cc's back to him -- because the mails talk about him -- even when his friends come our mailing lists and delete
Re: Getting envolved
Users who can no invest the effort learn enough to use a simple interface do not deserve a reliable operating system. They deserve windows, and they deserve pop up buttong in their browsers that they click ok blindly for everything. I couldn't agree more, people expect that they will have to take some time to learn to ride a bike, operate a car, cook a new dish, and etc. But by god their computer better just work. I started out life as a pc tech at a large company, i can't tell you the number of times i've heard but i don't want to learn how to do it or i just can't understand computers or I shouldn't have to learn how to do it, it should be eaiser and we weren't talking about developing a diff for the kernel then rebuilding the entire base system from source, it was typically something simple like changing the background color in a power point presentation. -Josh On 14 Dec 2007 10:14:37 +0100, Artur Grabowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mathieu Stumpf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I disagree. A complex interface implies a lot of code. a lot of code leads to unreliablity, either through bugs or detracting valuable developer time from more important things A simple interface (well designed) imples less code, which leads to reliability. So, you mean a more intuitive software is necessary more complex? Can't we make a simple but intuitive interface without a lot of code? Well? Can you? Try. Let us know how it went. Users who can no invest the effort learn enough to use a simple interface do not deserve a reliable operating system. They deserve windows, and they deserve pop up buttong in their browsers that they click ok blindly for everything. -Bob Do you apply this reasoning to anything in life or do you reserve this kind of eugenics only to IT? :) It's reality. //art
Re: swap encryption
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:45:11PM +0200, Lars Nood??n wrote: Otto Moerbeek wrote: On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 01:02:42PM +0100, knitti wrote: Gilbert, Douglas, swap encryption on OpenBSD is done different than what you advise. just use a sysctl for vm.swapencrypt.enable. Much less maintenance headaches. besides, since a few releases it has been enabled by default. -Otto It's not that clear if it is, at least on the version of OpenBSD 4.2 I have. It's very much a plain vanilla setup however, /etc/sysctl.conf says: #vm.swapencrypt.enable=0 # 0=Do not encrypt pages that go to swap To me that implies that the swap is not encrypted by default. However, checking sysctl vm.swapencrypt.enable shows that it *is* enabled by default. What would be the correct method for asking for the default sysctl.conf to be updated? -Lars sysctl.conf does not show commented out default values, but suggested alternatives to default values. -Otto
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
If the confusion regarding whether such a flash player exists at all: http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20070907181228 -- Karthik http://guilt.bafsoft.net
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
How interesting,... *NOT* Flash is about the worst thing that has ever happened to the internet. I as a user do not use so what is your point again? Who cares that it is in ports? I certainly don't. Why would I care if someone wants to see ads shooting at them when they visit a site? Good for them; keep the internet cheaper for me bud by watching ads. Yay you! This is such an infantile argument. ZOMG1!!!111 THEY CAN INSTALL, LIKE, SOFTWARE ON THEIR OS111!!! Really who gives a rats ass? Ask yourself some better questions. Who funds the FSF? Do you think they need some special attention? How about the software that companies like Sun put out under the GPL; did you gain anything from it? Or did Sun essentially used your GPL against you? Is IBM really writing code using the GPL because they are great? Or are they just selling services and hardware? The double speak and double standards are beyond obvious. You people need a better spokes person for these stupid arguments. I believe Tony Snow (a.k.a. snowjob) is available. On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 09:27:48PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote: ports tree. browser's flash player. On 12/14/07, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: $ uname -a OpenBSD moobile.peereboom.us 4.2 GENERIC#7 i386 $ locate libflashplayer.so $ what the fuck are you talking about? On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:02:45AM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote: Hey, we could all use the same arguments and call OpenBSD hypocritical: say no to blobs (it's even on the nvidia-wallpaper!) but say yes to libflashplayer.so (which is of course secure because it's obscure, but more than that it's a necessity for so many users which makes it ethical to use it anyway) = maybe this will be the next misc@ thread So who's the hypocrite huh? These spats will never end. And for those who didn't notice, rms takes about a day to respond to his emails; So please don't scream if you don't get a timely reply. Karthik -- Karthik http://guilt.bafsoft.net
Re: swap encryption
Otto Moerbeek wrote: On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 01:02:42PM +0100, knitti wrote: Gilbert, Douglas, swap encryption on OpenBSD is done different than what you advise. just use a sysctl for vm.swapencrypt.enable. Much less maintenance headaches. besides, since a few releases it has been enabled by default. -Otto It's not that clear if it is, at least on the version of OpenBSD 4.2 I have. It's very much a plain vanilla setup however, /etc/sysctl.conf says: #vm.swapencrypt.enable=0 # 0=Do not encrypt pages that go to swap To me that implies that the swap is not encrypted by default. However, checking sysctl vm.swapencrypt.enable shows that it *is* enabled by default. What would be the correct method for asking for the default sysctl.conf to be updated? -Lars
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Dec 14, 2007 5:09 AM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I would also like you to answer my emails, especially this one: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=119741909911558w=2 However, because of your offer, I will send mail to try to find the message that URL refers to, and then send you a private answer if I have not posted one already. Out of curiousity, why can't you access that URL yourself? You have a website yourself, presumably you must have a web browser if for nothing more than to test your website. Is HTTP not free-enough for you?
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Sorry Karthik but I prefer to keep misc@ cc-ed as it is archived and
people will later be able to know that you are a troll when they do a
lookup about you.
The page you are refering to mentions three new ports. If you had spent
your time doing something as productive as reading the faq instead of
talking out of your ass, you'd have learnt that these are optionnal
packages that (here's the tricky part:) *DO NOT COME SHIPPED WITH THE
OPERATING SYSTEM*. That's right. If you install OpenBSD and start
firefox, you'll get a command not found. Then if you install firefox and
go to a flash enabled site, you will see nothing. If you have it
installed, then it means that at some point YOU decided to download the
optional ports infrastructure and explicitely requested installation of
the flashplayer.
Please, do not comment further as it is annoying and only points out the
fact that you don't know what you are talking about and don't know how
to read.
Gilles
Karthik Kumar a C)crit :
okay. so the exact name might vary. take a look at this:
http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20070907181228
On 12/14/07, Gilles Chehade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:02:45AM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
Hey, we could all use the same arguments and call OpenBSD hypocritical:
say no to blobs (it's even on the nvidia-wallpaper!) but say yes to
libflashplayer.so (which is of course secure because it's obscure, but
more than that it's a necessity for so many users which makes it
ethical to use it anyway) = maybe this will be the next misc@ thread
So who's the hypocrite huh? These spats will never end.
And for those who didn't notice, rms takes about a day to respond to
his emails; So please don't scream if you don't get a timely reply.
Karthik
sparky:gilles {101} find /usr/lib -name 'libflashplayer.so.*'
sparky:gilles {102} find /usr/local/lib -name 'libflashplayer.so.*'
sparky:gilles {103}
now, please go back to sleep.
--
Gilles Chehade
http://www.evilkittens.org/
http://www.evilkittens.org/blog/gilles/
--
SCHNEIER FACT #68:
Bruce Schneier writes his personal journal in Linear A.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:35:57 +0530, Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: If the confusion regarding whether such a flash player exists at all: http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20070907181228 Yes, of course it exists. But you stated that OpenBSD includes it. It does not. It is not part of base. *You* must get it and *You* must install it. *Your* decision, not OpenBSD's. It's actually beside the point anyway, because OpenBSD is not on a crusade to free the world of un-free software so saying this is *any* form of hypocrisy is flat out bullshit. I am only a lowly user, but I can feel pretty safe in stating that OBSD will never change just to make itself more RMS friendly. Nobody gives a flying fuck about him. His 15 minutes were up a long time ago. All he is now is a self aggrandizing lunatic. Now shut up and go away.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
If OpenBSD is a force field/bubble and richard stallman entered into it.. The bubble would be contaminated and the whole biosphere would have to be shut down and re-built in a new clean environment that's why... Just because some asshole with a God complex No. Nothing begs the question of what we do. We are not going to change our process in any way as a result of what some loony retard says. --Amen to that good brother. I know who I am, do you know who you are ? Just keep talking.. You'll be dead soon and it won't matter anymore.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 5:57 PM To: David H. Lynch Jr. Cc: Theo de Raadt; OpenBSD-Misc; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men David: The OpenBSD position is best expressed in this rather rude statement: Shut up and code. RMS is a philosopher of the evangelical sort. Folks here are a bit more pragmatic and want to code. A lot of us are infuriated by this discussion. You suggested that Theo might have Asbergers. As someone who has a nervous condition that mimics Asbergers in certain aspects i will tell you that arguing fast on a mailing list will do nothing but irritate me even if the arguments are cogent. A person with a condition like that is easilly distracted from imporatant work. So get it ? Shut up and code ! If you want an OpenBSD that RMS would like, write a patch that would remove the stuff he hates from the tree. Even though i have not written anything for OpenBSD in years (1 port to my credit) i am getting VERY frustrated with this discussion. --- Marina Brown On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Theo de Raadt wrote: Theo de Raadt wrote: Hell, the OpenBSD ports tree should perhaps contain patches which REMOVE such commercial operating system support. That's a fork Richard would surely approve of. Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo. I have no doubt that in some context Richard is hypocritical. Though most of us would be hard pressed to structure our lives to be consistent with our beleifs and principles to the extent that he has. But this is not about EMACS, nor is it about hypocracy. RMS made statements first. RMS will pay for his lies. Why did I even bother. I was not trying to defend RMS or attack you. I was actually looking at the possibility that there might be some way of getting something positive out of this for OpenBSD. There is an obvious win-win for everybody, but you are fixated on revenge for imaginary slights. This sounds like something from my eight year old. You are 30something, Grow up. Do you really write your own email, or do you have some kid do them for you ? It is more important to you to catch Stallman in some mis-statement or lie than to even figure out what is best for OpenBSD ? Rather than figure out if there is anyway OpenBSD can benefit, it is more important to find a way to screw somebody else ? Every once in a while you show rationality and intelligence, and I think maybe there is some real value and real hope for OpenBSD, then you lob off a message like this one. No. Nothing begs the question of what we do. We are not going to change our process in any way as a result of what some loony retard says. So if Richard adopted the BSD/ISC you would switch to the GPL just to spite him ? We know _exactly_ what our principles are, and we are sticking to them very clearly. Yes, the screw RMS, Screw the FSF, and screw the world, and screw ourselves principle. Because frankly I can't see where you are following any other. Your position on closed hardware and binary blobs is exactly the same as Stallman's, and logically leads to the same position on software. Yet so far I have gotten no position on software - aside from the claim that Stallman somehow insulted OpenBSD. The only way his remarks could be taken as an insult, would be if you actually have the same principles. Even then it would be more of an uninformed error than an insult. It is not an insult for him to claim that you tacitly endorse non-free software - if you do. Whatever your principles are you are sticking to them so clearly that I do not even think most of the OpenBSD developers know what they actually are - well aside from the screw everybody else principle. That one seems abundantly clear. From the perspective of OpenBSD values, How far does the OpenBSD disdain for non-free software extend ? Richard does not stand in a position where he can ask that question to us. Nor do you. We'll do what we want, and your questions don't change anything. Forget Richard, Forget me, Forget all the people you think have fucked you over. Instead of trying to figure out how to extract revenge, figure out what is best for OpenBSD. There is nothing wrong with doing what you
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Who cares? Opera is also in pots, who cares? I am sure we have more of those things in there. It's exactly the same as having windows binaries for emacs. Not interesting. This is a non argument. Stop lying and we'll stop telling you that you are a hypocrite. On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 09:35:57PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote: If the confusion regarding whether such a flash player exists at all: http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20070907181228 -- Karthik http://guilt.bafsoft.net
Re: swap encryption
Bret Lambert wrote: ... The fact that you have to *change* a setting to get it to *not* encrypt swap should be a strong indicator that the default is to do so. Yes. That's what I wrote: according to sysctl, encryption is enabled by default. But the examples in /etc/sysctl.conf are set up the opposite of how many other tools are. Many tools have the *defaults* listed in the configuration file, such as OpenSSH and Apache, not the opposites of the defaults. It's not wrong one way or the other. However, the lines at the head of the sysctl.conf file could be made more clear about whether the items below simply identify the default or do the opposite. Currently: # This file contains a list of sysctl options the user wants set at # boot time. See sysctl(3) and sysctl(8) for more information on # the many available variables. Could be: # This file contains a list of sysctl options. See sysctl(3) # and sysctl(8) for more information on the many variables # available. Uncommenting the lines below will change the # variables set at boot time. -Lars
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
- This is a reply to David's email to me. I have left out his original message since it was sent privately and without permission to repost to the list. - This is all I have left to say on the matter. How you take it from here is up to you. OpenBSD only endorses OpenBSD. I have never seen a single piece of software outside of the OpenBSD base endorsed by OpenBSD. It has a ports tree which makes it possible to run a large number of software packages, some of which do not meet the definition of free software put forth by the FSF. However, this does not constitute endorsement. Merriam-Webster: 2 a*:* to approve openly /endorse/ an idea; /especially/ *:* to express support or approval of publicly and definitely /endorse/ a mayoral candidate b*:* to recommend (as a product or service) usually for financial compensation shoes /endorsed/ by a pro basketball player The ports tree offers a number of similar software packages of varying licences. There is no endorsement by OpenBSD of any single package as being better than any other package. Options are offered, and it is up to the user to decide which one to use. OpenBSD doesn't define itself as a censor of anything outside of the base system. The only reasons I have ever seen for leaving something out of ports were based on legal issues, which isn't censorship but merely covering the project's hindquarters. RMS' statement that OpenBSD endorses non-free software goes too far, and the intention was to detract from OpenBSD - no matter how much sugar coating it came with. On the FSF side of the fence, gcc allows interoperability with non-free systems and software. That hardly means the FSF endorses it, but Theo has been using that example to illustrate the ludicrous and hypocritical nature of RMS' statements. OpenBSD surely tolerates and allows a broad range of software to be installed through ports and executed on the system. This is not at odds with the OpenBSD project goals: http://openbsd.org/goals.html Based on this, I see no hypocrisy from OpenBSD. If RMS had made the statement that OpenBSD doesn't actively prevent the user from running non-free software then I think there wouldn't be an issue here - what operating system does? Then again, it wouldn't have the same impact as claiming that OpenBSD contains and endorses non-free software. That's far more accusatory. But it's wrong. As for Theo being abrasive, it has never been my experience that he is, but I have been fortunate to meet him in person, and so I don't fill in the blanks left by email correspondence with images of this Theo-monster everyone writes about. I read his emails for what they are - uncompromisingly intolerant of ignorance and sincere misinformation, which doesn't sit so well with the bleeding-heart majority. People expect their sincere misinformation to be countered with polite explanations. Nothing but wimpy social custom requires such - and the older I get the more I've come to agree with Theo's stance of fighting the ridiculous with ridicule. It is the most effective and reasonable method of dealing with these people. RMS, on the other hand, comes in with a half baked idea that OpenBSD endorses non-free software, AND he openly endorses censorship of all non-free software. I can't get behind that. If he isn't happy with the landscape of non-free software then he should work on improving the landscape of free software to compete with these non-free packages he despises. My opinion is that he has failed to convince the world that all software should be free. He can't make his vision of free software stand on its own two feet so instead he is trying to kick out the legs of everything else which doesn't actively support his vision. Well, I for one have never felt that censorship of any sort is a viable way of growing a competing idea. Censorship ultimately leads down an evil path. I'm out. Breeno
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On 12/14/07, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Adobe flash plug-in is non-free software, and people should not install it, or suggest installing it, or even tell people it exists. so much for free speech.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Theo de Raadt wrote: Richard, you are a total hypocrite. You are in here creating a fuss about our software, saying it is non-free, when you are doing exactly the same thing yourself. Put another way: The presence of an OpenBSD port entry for opera encourages the wider use of OpenBSD and all the other free software that implies. The presence of a port of gcc to Windoze encourages the development of software, free and otherwise, for Windoze, encouraging the wider use of Windoze and all the unfree software that Windoze implies. A good example of the second case is the encouragement to use Windoze that the gcc-enabled port of Mozilla-* to Windoze has almost certainly caused. I would use the lousy and dangerous behavior of I.E. as an advocacy talking-point to lure Windoze users away from their drug. Mozilla-* has weakened that talking-point. I like opensource, free software. I'll continue to support the OS and userland that best advances that cause. That would be OpenBSD. Dave -- I told you so. -- Cassandra
Re: KDE presents a distorted screen or quits in the middle of starting up
On 12 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, It takes me 3 or 4 startx's before I get a KDE screen that looks normal. When it looks bad, the terminal background is black and other contrast problems exist. Other times it simply locks up in the middle of starting up. Has any one else had these problems? I run KDE on a thinkpad-t43 (-current), and don't have this problem. Could it be an X11 problem with color-depth? Thanks, Rob. -- Regards, Bill Karh Thanks for the advice. I will try 16 bits. I am at 24 by default. But this is not a KDE issue. It happens on Windowmaker too. But it would pretty lame if I couldn't run my system at 24 bit depth. Rob. -- Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds Bob Marley, Redemption Song
Re: no 4.2-stable package updates??
I would like to apologize for my early post to this topic, I was extremely rude and disrespectful. Please disregard it. -Nix Fan.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Orthodoxy is EVIL no matter what god it's in service of. Oh that's rich coming from OpenBSD land...
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Karthik Kumar writes: If the confusion regarding whether such a flash player exists at all: http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20070907181228 The irony there is that I stopped working on Gnash (an official FSF project) for OpenBSD when they added a Windows developer as a project member. While I was working to fix various bugs on OpenBSD, he loudly argued that they drop support for insignificant OSes like OpenBSD, sticking with the important 3 (Windows, Mac OS X and Linux). He was widely praised for this important work on Windows support, and ended up with commit access and project membership. The OpenBSD port rots.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Re-adding the original recipients. Please keep this on-list or out of my mailbox. On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 07:12:46AM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: | Paul de Weerd wrote: | On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 06:56:57PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: | | I don't recommend Torvalds' version of Linux. The versions of Linux | | in Ututo and gNewSense, which I recommend, do not have the blobs. | | Interesting, these linux distributions. They seem to be pretty new, | what did you recommend before these came onto the scene ? None of | these seemed to exist 8 years ago. | | A free and usable operating system was already well available back | then, and it still is today : OpenBSD. | | OpenBSD is unwilling to even make it clear whether it does or does not | meet RMS's criteria. OpenBSD's criteria are crystal clear and spelled out on the website. It's RMS's criteria that are being discussed (at least, that I tried to discuss in the mail you replied to). Those are unclear, since he goes against his own advice and clearly supports non-free operating systems. | Binary blobs are a relatively recent addition to Linux. | And anyone can trivially eliminate them. | Rolling your own Linux distro has been an option pretty much since day one. | And while you can laugh GNU has been kicking Hurd arround for a long, | long time. The last time I looked, Hurd was not even close to being useable. I just checked and the website says this : It is not ready for production use, as there are still many bugs and missing features. (from http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html) OpenBSD, on the other hand, has been ready for production use for well over ten years. I'm not claiming it doesn't have bugs, all software does, but it's been ready for production use, and has been used, for quite some time now. | You are, however, being asked to explain how you combine these views | with the support for several non-free OS'es within the copyleft | software packages of emacs and gcc. By providing binaries for (for | example) the Windows family of operating systems on your web and/or | ftp servers (and I say 'your' to mean the servers of the foundation | you appear to represent, the FSF), you seem to go fully against your | recommendation of people to use free software. | | A bridge from non-free software to free software | is at the opposite ethical extreme from a bridge from free software to | non-free software.. Basically, what you're saying is that a little pragmatism goes a long way ? Is that what you're saying ? How should we interpret your words ? How about a little pragmatism in the other direction ? Let me pick one simple example : Your environment depends on flash. You've just seen the light and want to migrate to 'free software'. You can install OpenBSD and tons and tons of free software and still be able to use flash until such a time that you're ready to remove your dependency on flash (or a free alternative is readily available). However, this was not the point. The point was, as Richard Stallman put it, giving legitimacy to non-free software. I, and others, pose that supporting non-free operating systems in your free software package (gcc, emacs) gives this same legitimacy to non-free software. Opposite ethical extreme is a nice term, by the way. It is an ethical extreme to claim that an OS endorses non-free software simply because it eases its installation through the ports infrastructure. I consider this quite 'extreme' indeed. Please note that I'm not saying gcc or emacs should not support windows, solaris, ultrix or any other non-free operating system. I do not hold these extreme ethical views. I merely question RMS's ethics. | Ironically enough, providing the users of non free operating systems | with free software encourages them to keep using their non-free | software and thereby promotes the use of non-free software. How is | that for ethics ? | | Maybe for you, but alot of the rest of us came from the M$ world | and did not move in one single giant leap. I too have used (and still use) non-free software. Not only from Microsoft but also from providers such as IBM, Sun, Digital, SGI and Apple. My personal preference is for free software, mostly OpenBSD. Because of practical or pragmatic reasons, I still use non-free software on a daily basis, yet I seek to replace these with free alternatives. | Discovering the free software exists and that its quality is excellent | without | taking a huge step into the abyss seems to me to be promotion, | while anything from free software back towards non-free software | has entirely different ethical value. Again, I hear you say 'a little pragmatism goes a long way'. Please, if that is not what you're saying correct me if I'm wrong but note that if it is what you're saying then I concur. A little pragmatism does go a long way. I'm not taking the extreme view that non-free software is evil and must be abolished. Non-free software is
Bind port for bind/dmz
I have a question, I'm trying to recompile a flavor of bind but I can't find
the port because its part of the base install.
Could you point me in the right direction on how I would do it ?
I downloaded the bind source and compiled it but obviously the original
version that ships on base should be un-installed from openbsd first..
I don't know how to do it because its part of the base system.
Sorry if I'm posting in the wrong area if so please direct me to the proper
area. I don't have experinece interacting with the community here.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Gilles Chehade
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 7:24 PM
To: Karthik Kumar
Cc: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Sorry Karthik but I prefer to keep misc@ cc-ed as it is archived and people
will later be able to know that you are a troll when they do a lookup about
you.
The page you are refering to mentions three new ports. If you had spent your
time doing something as productive as reading the faq instead of talking out
of your ass, you'd have learnt that these are optionnal packages that
(here's the tricky part:) *DO NOT COME SHIPPED WITH THE OPERATING SYSTEM*.
That's right. If you install OpenBSD and start firefox, you'll get a command
not found. Then if you install firefox and go to a flash enabled site, you
will see nothing. If you have it installed, then it means that at some point
YOU decided to download the optional ports infrastructure and explicitely
requested installation of the flashplayer.
Please, do not comment further as it is annoying and only points out the
fact that you don't know what you are talking about and don't know how to
read.
Gilles
Karthik Kumar a C)crit :
okay. so the exact name might vary. take a look at this:
http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20070907181228
On 12/14/07, Gilles Chehade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:02:45AM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
Hey, we could all use the same arguments and call OpenBSD hypocritical:
say no to blobs (it's even on the nvidia-wallpaper!) but say yes to
libflashplayer.so (which is of course secure because it's obscure,
but more than that it's a necessity for so many users which makes it
ethical to use it anyway) = maybe this will be the next misc@
thread
So who's the hypocrite huh? These spats will never end.
And for those who didn't notice, rms takes about a day to respond to
his emails; So please don't scream if you don't get a timely reply.
Karthik
sparky:gilles {101} find /usr/lib -name 'libflashplayer.so.*'
sparky:gilles {102} find /usr/local/lib -name 'libflashplayer.so.*'
sparky:gilles {103}
now, please go back to sleep.
--
Gilles Chehade
http://www.evilkittens.org/
http://www.evilkittens.org/blog/gilles/
--
SCHNEIER FACT #68:
Bruce Schneier writes his personal journal in Linear A.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:48:44PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386/zangband-2.6.2p1.tgz-long.html According to Sourceforge: http://sourceforge.net/projects/zangband License: Other/Proprietary License Bullshit. If you had gone to the trouble of reading the OpenBSD port, you would see: PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM= not-for-profit redistribution only PERMIT_PACKAGE_FTP= Yes PERMIT_DISTFILES_CDROM= not-for-profit redistribution only PERMIT_DISTFILES_FTP= Yes we are consistent. We do not allow this package to end on our cds, but it's perfectly fine on the ftp server. If you look closely inside the binary package, you'll notice this marker carries inside the package. If you read through pkg_add's manpage, you'll see the -P option can be used to error out if the package is not to be distributed on cdrom, or through ftp.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On 2007-12-14 18:48, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:54:47AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo. You too. I still remember cheering when I read http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00460.html * From: Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:11:00 -0600 * Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am just curious - why exactly were all the DJB ports dropped? Precisely because of what the commit message says: Removed qmail; license does not permit modification [camield 2001-08-14] Sadly you're too quick to launch the 'hypocrit' word... http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386/zangband-2.6.2p1.tgz-long.html According to Sourceforge: http://sourceforge.net/projects/zangband License: Other/Proprietary License ^ It says Other/Proprietary, where I come from the / is usually read as or, which means that zangband is licensed under a license not known to SF or it is proprietary, in this case it was the former: This software may be copied and distributed for educational, research, and not for profit purposes provided that this copyright and statement are included in all such copies. -- Erik WikstrC6m
Re: Intel DQ35MP
I'm sure i installed the install42.iso from december 6th , maybe there was something wrong on that image? I'll try burning the newest one Thanks! - Original Message - From: Jason George [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: misc@openbsd.org Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:42 PM Subject: Re: Intel DQ35MP Hello, I've just installed OpenBSD current on an Intel DQ35MP motherboard with a Quad processor, this is the dmesg log. Some devices are not recognized (PCI slot, ethernet, etc) OpenBSD 4.2-current (GENERIC) #558: Tue Nov 20 10:36:15 MST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC That isn't a current -CURRENT snapshot. A lot has been changed in the 3+ weeks since that snapshot was released into the wild.
Re: Getting envolved
* Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-13 21:46]: On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 08:22:07PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: When I read that, it sounded a lot to me like saying if you're not a skilled medical practitioner, you don't deserve decent health care. Seems to me one of the better aspects of our society is our ability to allow specialists to provide good services to non-specialists (or at least those who can afford to pay for it). Yes -- when those specialists are paid. Also, OpenBSD is not a service to be deserved. It is a labour of love; the object of that labour is OpenBSD itself not the great unwashed masses. Health care is provided by healthcare service providers (paid or not) hopefully also as a labour of love; the object of that labour is the recipient of the care. Note the difference. Doug (RN). The differences still aren't all that different. OpenBSD also has limited resources (particularly developer time) and constraints under which it operates. In the end the guy that does his homework and invests the effort will have more benefit from it. The Health system, no matter what country, is the same in that particular respect. The guy who keeps himself healthy will get the liver transplant before the guy who is smoking and drinking and weighs 300 pounds. No amount of whining about but I deserve a click ok for a liver button, the health care system should invest resources to provide me one is going to change that. -Bob
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Yes you being coppied come quick and install your GNU licence on us before it escapes you. Come oh dilbert of gnu, stamp your licence upon all who code. Propegate your gnu legacy through the universe down to the plank scale. Install your agenda near and far. Come and spread the evangalistic word. I summon you ohh old and defunct goat. Come shed your hairs upon our path. Come and grace us with your holey eminence for all who roam the land shall fall under thy dictate. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of michael hamerski Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 6:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; OpenBSD general usage list Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men Richard, you're being cc'ed because people speak in your name. On Dec 14, 2007 9:35 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: michael hamerski wrote: I think it's a worthy public debate. Let him expound his theories and ethics and let's dissect them layer by layer. For the record. David, Which term in public debate do you fail to get? I am not in the least interested in your private opinion. I am however willing to take the time to dissect the nonsense you and others spout on this list. For the record, it's a pleasure. And you've chosen the worst list ever to pick a fight on ethics. There has been no debate. I no of no reason why OpenBSD can not atleast decide one way or another what their actual policy is on non-free software. http://openbsd.org/policy.html educate yourself and come back or shut up. If it is acceptable - that's fine, but then RMS was speaking the truth. If not than get rid of it. The remaining alternative is the Torvald's - it is a necescary evil way. Nothing to get rid of. Your free is not my free. Besides which I have absolutely no impact on the way OpenBSD is run. I am just a user. Theo is not even willing to state what the policy is - aside from that it is settled and well known. Well it's a well know secret then. Again read and educate yourself. It does wonders. I am having a hard time seeing why RMS is the hypocrit here. Yes, well that would figure wouldn't it? See, the funny thing is I had a lenient attitude towards the GPL, FSF, RMS before. Live and let live, and they're fighting for freedom so it's ok. Thank you for opening my eyes. The fact is that slander sticks, there is an agenda behind continuously repeating the nonsense that OpenBSD somehow promotes non-free software. mike
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:54:47AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo. You too. I still remember cheering when I read http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00460.html * From: Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:11:00 -0600 * Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am just curious - why exactly were all the DJB ports dropped? Precisely because of what the commit message says: Removed qmail; license does not permit modification [camield 2001-08-14] Sadly you're too quick to launch the 'hypocrit' word... http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386/zangband-2.6.2p1.tgz-long.html According to Sourceforge: http://sourceforge.net/projects/zangband License: Other/Proprietary License Rui -- Today is Pungenday, the 56th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
/dev/agp0, Do I need a new one?
People have been suggesting to me that I keep kernel and world in sync, and by all means MAKEDEV agp0.But I have always had /dev/agp0 and I assume it was regenerated when I MAKEDEV all a couple of days ago. I installed my snapshot right before the remake config warning, and been cvsup'ing ever since. I'm certain there was a /dev/agp0 there. Thanks, Rob. -- Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds Bob Marley, Redemption Song
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
* Karthik Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-14 21:35:57]: If the confusion regarding whether such a flash player exists at all: http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20070907181228 -- Karthik http://guilt.bafsoft.net What's your point? Of course it exists... this is Open BSD after all, it's pretty Open about things: anoncvs, cvsup, cvssync, the web cvs browser on openbsd.org, public mailling lists... I think what you're trying to say is that the OpenBSD camp has some morality against flash but it's included in the tree anyhow. Wrong, there is no ethical problem with flash in this camp. However, we do _despise_ flash-based websites and ads. It certainly tops my list of things on the WWW that are unportable, inefficient, and a pain in the ass. Sorry, the only hypocrite here is Stallman; who, incidentally, I did have respect for before this thread. -- Travers Buda
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Dec 14, 2007 5:43 PM, Breen Ouellette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - This is a reply to David's email to me. I have left out his original message since it was sent privately and without permission to repost to the list. - Yeah, I have a bunch of emails from him, which despite my best efforts to have a public discussion, he keeps sending privately. For me, he has failed the Turing test, and I now know him to be a particularly viral new form of gnubot. Anyway, I would like to beg the pardon of our technically-inclined readers for my participation in this farce and bow out of this thread gracefully with a little song: GNU Man ( nicked from Black Sabbath's Iron Man ) Has he lost his mind? Can he see or is he blind? Can he walk at all, Or if he moves will he fall? Is he alive or dead? Has he thoughts within his head? Well just pass him there Why should we even care? He was turned to steel In the great GNUmetic field Where he traveled time For the future of mankind Nobody wants him He just stares at the world Planning his vengeance That he will soon unfold Now the time is here For GNU man to spread fear Vengeance from the grave Kills the people he once saved Nobody wants him They just turn their heads Nobody helps him Now he has his revenge Heavy boots of lead Fills his victims full of dread Running as fast as they can GNU man lives again! feel free to further adapt the lyrics to your own taste, we might have a hit... over and out, mike
Re: Getting envolved
On Dec 13, 2007 7:39 PM, Jeremy Huiskamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Users who can no invest the effort learn enough to use a simple interface do not deserve a reliable operating system. They deserve windows, and they deserve pop up buttong in their browsers that they click ok blindly for everything. -Bob When I read that, it sounded a lot to me like saying if you're not a skilled medical practitioner, you don't deserve decent health care. No, you misconstrued. If you aren't skilled medical practitioner, and you can't take basic precautions in choosing reputable professionals to diagnose and treat your ailments, then you are at least somewhat liable for the disaster that can happen as a result. You need to be able to take some personal stock in the diagnosis that is given you and act responsibly in getting second opinions if you need to. Good hospitals and good doctors endorse this patient takes stock mentality in treatment. Bad ones let users remain clueless and shoot themselves in proverbial foot. Or, If you aren't yourself an auto mechanic, you need to *at least* nail down basic auto maintenance skills - changing your oil, keeping coolant up, getting new tires when threadbare etc. You *shouldn't* complain if you've run your car into the ground at 30,000 miles because you weren't aware you needed to maintain it yourself or at least get it in regularly. And you shouldn't complain to loudly when the auto mechanic recognizes you as a complete idiot and gouges you on the price. Educate yourself a little bit more about that item you dropped $40,000 dollars on and protect yourself a little bit more. These are parallels and don't work perfectly, really, but the point is that computers cannot keep getting dumber because the users are. Remember back in the day when it required some amount of skill to be a computer operator? See the state the Internet is in now that every moron on Earth is being connected to it, not wanting to have to use, maintain, or secure their computers responsibly? DS
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:54:47AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo. You too. I still remember cheering when I read http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00460.html * From: Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:11:00 -0600 * Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am just curious - why exactly were all the DJB ports dropped? Precisely because of what the commit message says: Removed qmail; license does not permit modification [camield 2001-08-14] Sadly you're too quick to launch the 'hypocrit' word... http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386/zangband-2.6.2p1.tgz-long.html According to Sourceforge: http://sourceforge.net/projects/zangband License: Other/Proprietary License Its was not a question of the license being proprietary, it was a question of qmail not allowing modification. To get it running on OpenBSD required modification - so it was removed from ports. The qmail licence was quite clear: If you want to distribute modified versions of qmail (including ports, no matter how minor the changes are) you'll have to get my approval. This does not mean approval of your distribution method, your intentions, your e-mail address, your haircut, or any other irrelevant information. It means a detailed review of the exact package that you want to distribute. If every port required 'a detailed review of the exact package that you want to distribute' from maintainers then we would have far less ports. We'd have far less maintainers! Theo made the right decision not to tolerate it. To do anything else would open the floodgates of maintainer hell. Now that qmail is moving to the public domain I wouldn't be surprised if it re-enters the ports system since it will no longer contain this restriction. Of course, it will require someone willing to maintain the port. The zangband licence, on the other hand, reads: /* * Copyright (c) 1989 James E. Wilson, Christopher J. Stuart * * This software may be copied and distributed for educational, research, and * not for profit purposes provided that this copyright and statement are * included in all such copies. */ There is no explicit requirement to obtain the author's approval before distributing a modified version. Since OpenBSD doesn't have to go out of its way to please the original creator with unreasonable demands zangband has been kept in ports. You are wrong. It does not matter how sincerely you present your misinformation, it still marks you as lazy, apathetic, and willing to make statements without first understanding the situation or researching your ideas. If you don't like Theo because he doesn't handle you or others with kid gloves, then just say so. Just say I don't like Theo because he hurts my feelings and be done with it. Stop trying to make ridiculous arguments based on misinformation. One thing I can almost guarantee - Theo will be far more pleasant in response to you if you simply stop spreading bullshit. It would be so wonderful if people would simply read and understand the essay /On Bullshit/ by Harry Frankfurt before posting anything to this list. The traffic here would be succinct and entirely useful. Much like OpenBSD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit Breeno
Re: Bind port for bind/dmz
Michael Spratt wrote: I have a question, I'm trying to recompile a flavor of bind but I can't find the port because its part of the base install. Could you point me in the right direction on how I would do it ? I downloaded the bind source and compiled it but obviously the original version that ships on base should be un-installed from openbsd first.. I don't know how to do it because its part of the base system. Sorry if I'm posting in the wrong area if so please direct me to the proper area. I don't have experinece interacting with the community here. If you have src.tar.gz downloaded from an FTP mirror, You can use the local modified version of BIND instead of trying to hack it out of the base system. /usr/src/usr.sbin/bind/Makefile.bsd-wrapper would be the file to look at... I hope this helps, Good luck. -Nix Fan.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: You too. I still remember cheering when I read http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00460.html * From: Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:11:00 -0600 * Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am just curious - why exactly were all the DJB ports dropped? Precisely because of what the commit message says: Removed qmail; license does not permit modification [camield 2001-08-14] Sadly you're too quick to launch the 'hypocrit' word... http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386/zangband-2.6.2p1.tgz-long.html According to Sourceforge: http://sourceforge.net/projects/zangband License: Other/Proprietary License Rui Nice try, but... every file in that CVS repository has: http://zangband.cvs.sourceforge.net/zangband/zangband/src/main.c?revision=1.44view=markup ~~SNIP~~ /* * Copyright (c) 1997 Ben Harrison, and others * * This software may be copied and distributed for educational, research, * and not for profit purposes provided that this copyright and statement * are included in all such copies. */ ~~SNIP~~ According to the licence header on each one of those files, I don't see any reason why binary packages can't be made available... Go away troll.. You're not welcome here... -Nix Fan.
Developers: First Reply Gets My Copy Of /On Bullshit/
OpenBSD developers, In recognition of all the bullshit flying around recently on misc@, I would like to offer to mail my copy of of the essay /On Bullshit/ by Harry Frankfurt as a gift to the first OpenBSD developer to request it. This essay is bound in a blue hardcover 4 x 6 (10cm x 15cm) in size, and spans approximately 70 pages. It can be read in less than one hour. Just let me know where to send it and I will drop it off at the courier. For everyone else, we are all lucky enough to be able to access the full text at the following link: http://web.archive.org/web/20031204195648/www.jelks.nu/misc/articles/bs.html Breeno
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On 12/14/07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am just curious - why exactly were all the DJB ports dropped? Precisely because of what the commit message says: Removed qmail; license does not permit modification [camield 2001-08-14] Sadly you're too quick to launch the 'hypocrit' word... http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386/zangband-2.6.2p1.tgz-long.html According to Sourceforge: http://sourceforge.net/projects/zangband License: Other/Proprietary License duh, you retard, you think there is only one Other license?
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Along with Godwin's law, there must be some rule of flame fests that people forget how it started or fail to note when they make ridiculous statements. Example, how it started. Some recent comments: RMS made statements first. RMS will pay for his lies. Nobody here asked for or WANTS his endorsement. He started the thread. Again, Richard made foul and faulty comments about OpenBSD first. Richard then came to the OpenBSD mailing lists looking for a fight. The flame fest began with this thread: http://marc.info/?t=11972568891r=1w=2 and specifically this message: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=119725673616073w=2 Mr. Stallman did not join in until 13 hours later, when he posted this message starting the current thread: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=119730630513821w=2 Example, whether OpenBSD gives a shit. Some recent comments: Nobody here asked for or WANTS his endorsement. He started the thread. We could give a shit about what he thinks. Now it's just I highly doubt that many OpenBSD developers or users care whether or not RMS endorses OpenBSD. I know I don't. OpenBSD does not, pardon the french, give a shit about RMS' seal of approval. These statements disprove themselves -- if OpenBSD really didn't care, no one would be posting such impassioned messages claiming no one cares. It's said when the following is one of the more intelligent messages seen on misc the past couple days: Dearest Partner, I am Mrs.Rose gomo, From Abidjan Cote'd'ivoire West Africa. I am a widow being that I lost my husband a couple of years ago. please can u help me invest in your country like Real Estate and Industrial Production?? I need an urgent answer please. Mrs.Rose . - Mrs Rose
Re: : no 4.2-stable package updates??
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like security on a lot of systems is trying to play catch-up with the latest patches. I I have an enemy, that is exactly where I want him. Seems like long ago OBSD tended to have fixed the latest whatever about 6 months before everybody else woke up to the whatever. Compared to most other systems, methinks you'd come out ahead by waiting for the next CDs and then upgrading. The -release does need to be in place just in case anything critical is actually needed. To paraphrase something or other, Security is never having to patch. Dunno if OBSD is really there yet, but seems like they're close. Well.. I agree in some ways.. though I think I'm a bit too experienced to really know better. That being said, my real goal is to understand the system, how it works, and how development is done, so I'm investing the effort to better understand how to do these things. Kind regards, ~Jason
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
misc, Richard: As someone from a relatively outside perspective, I find this thread puzzling. My feelings have swung from one side to the other as the thread has surged on. I just don't know the players well enough to draw a firm conclusion. The nub of the perceived slight is this: RMS can't endorse OpenBSD /at all/ over what turns out to be a very small point of principle. But I feel any impartial observer would conclude that OpenBSD has a clearly articulated open source policy, and goes to great lengths to adhere to it. In thinking back, a key point for me is that RMS never out-and-out said he was /seeking/ to endorse OpenBSD. If RMS *is* seeking to endorse OpenBSD, then his message might be 'Of all the OS distros I don't approve, I find yours to be the freest. If you would but cast this mote out of your eye, we could advance free software'. If that is close to what he means, he has just been rather clumsy and undiplomatic in his approach, or he has a talent for saying things in controversial ways in order to draw attention to his words. But if he is *not* looking to endorse OpenBSD, then it is hard to not draw the conclusion that he is a clever provocateur, and the OpenBSD list has shown a lot of forbearance in tolerating him for as long as they did before the flames got really hot. So, I ask you respectfully, Richard: what is your intent in making your original comments, and starting this thread? That would be the deciding factor for me. -Ken
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Dec 14, 2007 8:33 AM, Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/14/07, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Adobe flash plug-in is non-free software, and people should not install it, or suggest installing it, or even tell people it exists. so much for free speech. I think from now on, when people argue with me about RMS being completely off his rocker, I'll just refer them to this comment.
Re: Developers: First Reply Gets My Copy Of /On Bullshit/
Man, that's the best thing I've got on misc@ in the last two or three days. On 12/14/07, Breen Ouellette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip For everyone else, we are all lucky enough to be able to access the full text at the following link: http://web.archive.org/web/20031204195648/www.jelks.nu/misc/articles/bs.html snip
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
I've been trying for a couple of years to get going a modified version of Firefox that won't offer to install any non-free plug-ins, but we don't have enough people to make this work very well. If you would like to help, please let me know. It is an important project. One last question.. simple: how is this a useful venture of engineering effort? more involved remarks: The people who'll use an application such as this, with these restrictions, won't be installing said non-free software any way... and trying to provide other folks (i.e. the general public, who wouldn't otherwise know better...in that they'll use whatever application they're given) with this type of software is simply upsetting and frustrating for them (what?! no youtube??), resulting in them not wanting to use open source stuff (because they don't know the basic difference in what you've provided versus what opensource, or free software, or whatever we're trying to provide the world, is about, etc).. and *avoiding* applications *they* label as such. Why does that matter? well.. it would seem to me, that it should matter to you because this would effectively work against the software world you are trying to create. Regards, ~Jason
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Aaron Glenn wrote: On Dec 14, 2007 8:33 AM, Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/14/07, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Adobe flash plug-in is non-free software, and people should not install it, or suggest installing it, or even tell people it exists. so much for free speech. I think from now on, when people argue with me about RMS being completely off his rocker, I'll just refer them to this comment. you totally forgot to CC the old man hypocrite.
Re: Developers: First Reply Gets My Copy Of /On Bullshit/
Me! Me! Ship it to my address:
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
Boston, MA 02110-1301
USA
-Bob
* Breen Ouellette [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-14 13:02]:
OpenBSD developers,
In recognition of all the bullshit flying around recently on misc@, I
would like to offer to mail my copy of of the essay /On Bullshit/ by
Harry Frankfurt as a gift to the first OpenBSD developer to request it.
This essay is bound in a blue hardcover 4 x 6 (10cm x 15cm) in size,
and spans approximately 70 pages. It can be read in less than one hour.
Just let me know where to send it and I will drop it off at the courier.
For everyone else, we are all lucky enough to be able to access the full
text at the following link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20031204195648/www.jelks.nu/misc/articles/bs.html
Breeno
--
#!/usr/bin/perl
if ((not 0 not 1) != (! 0 ! 1)) {
print Larry and Tom must smoke some really primo stuff...\n;
}
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:54:47AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo. You too. I still remember cheering when I read http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00460.html * From: Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:11:00 -0600 * Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am just curious - why exactly were all the DJB ports dropped? Precisely because of what the commit message says: Removed qmail; license does not permit modification [camield 2001-08-14] Sadly you're too quick to launch the 'hypocrit' word... http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386/zangband-2.6.2p1.tgz-long.html According to Sourceforge: http://sourceforge.net/projects/zangband License: Other/Proprietary License Rui I'm glad you went to all that effort to show OpenBSD promotes proprietary software From the zangband website: Licensing: You are free to distribute Zangband as a binary or as source code so long as such distribution is in accordance with its license. You may also hack Zangband to your hearts content so long as your end product is distributed in accordance with the license restrictions. The following license applies to Zangband: Copyright (c) 1997 Ben Harrison, James E. Wilson, Robert A. Koeneke This software may be copied and distributed for educational, research, and not for profit purposes provided that this copyright and statement are included in all such copies. Other copyrights may also apply. Gee, what a horribly restrictive proprietary license. I guess in your mind this equates to the JDB license Theo didn't like: Quoting DJB's qmail license page : If you want to distribute modified versions of qmail (including ports, no matter how minor the changes are) you'll have to get my approval. This does not mean approval of your distribution method, your intentions, your e-mail address, your haircut, or any other irrelevant information. It means a detailed review of the exact package that you want to distribute. To those not addled in the brain, they are vastly different. It seems all RMSs backers arguments are as full of holes as his own.
Re: Developers: First Reply Gets My Copy Of /On Bullshit/
On Dec 14, 2007 8:16 PM, Breen Ouellette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OpenBSD developers, In recognition of all the bullshit flying around recently on misc@, I would like to offer to mail my copy of of the essay /On Bullshit/ by Harry Frankfurt as a gift to the first OpenBSD developer to request it. This essay is bound in a blue hardcover 4 x 6 (10cm x 15cm) in size, and spans approximately 70 pages. It can be read in less than one hour. Just let me know where to send it and I will drop it off at the courier. For everyone else, we are all lucky enough to be able to access the full text at the following link: http://web.archive.org/web/20031204195648/www.jelks.nu/misc/articles/bs.html Breeno Maybe you should send it to a non-OpenBSD developer. Who needs to learn about bullshit when you have this motto: Shut up and code! Floor
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
It's total BS. If you don't want to pay for software, fine don't, but don't go on some religious crusade trying to get me to believe it's unethical so I won't either. When you buy a copy of a non-free program, you pay with your money and with your freedom. You apparently don't assign much value to the freedom that you would give up. I respect your right to your views.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
An anthology contains the actual licensed material of the books. The ports tree only contains urls of these pieces of software you object to. You're right, but I don't think that difference matters for this issue. Giving just the URLs for non-free software is referring people to them.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
running non-GPL-covered software? Not I. I frequently run OpenSSH, whose license is not the GNU GPL, and is incompatible with the GPL (if my memory serves). Richard, please stop spreading lies (or looking like a fool) by not doing research. The license of OpenSSH is here: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/ssh/LICENCE?rev=HEAD According to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html this is GPL-compatible (modified BSD license or better). Thanks for correcting me about that point. I was not sure about it, which is why I said (if my memory serves) in the text you quoted. What puzzles me is why you think this mistake was a lie, or that it might make me look like a fool. People normally don't call someone a liar, or a fool, because of a little (and tangential) mistake like this.
Re: Developers: First Reply Gets My Copy Of /On Bullshit/
It's yours Bob. Given the address you've posted, I imagine that you might want me to send it in care of someone with the initials RMS? Breeno Bob Beck wrote: Me! Me! Ship it to my address: 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA -Bob * Breen Ouellette [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-14 13:02]: OpenBSD developers, In recognition of all the bullshit flying around recently on misc@, I would like to offer to mail my copy of of the essay /On Bullshit/ by Harry Frankfurt as a gift to the first OpenBSD developer to request it. This essay is bound in a blue hardcover 4 x 6 (10cm x 15cm) in size, and spans approximately 70 pages. It can be read in less than one hour. Just let me know where to send it and I will drop it off at the courier. For everyone else, we are all lucky enough to be able to access the full text at the following link: http://web.archive.org/web/20031204195648/www.jelks.nu/misc/articles/bs.html Breeno
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Since both emacs and gcc contain code inside them which permit them to compile and run on commercial operating systems which are non-free, you are a slimy hypocrite. I see you are being your usual friendly self ;-}. There is a big practical difference between making a free system suggest a non-free package, and making a free package run on a non-free system. We treat the two issues differently because they are different. People already know about non-free systems such as Windows, so it is unlikely that the mention of them in a free package will tell them about a system and they will then switch to it. Also, switching operating systems is a big deal. People are unlikely to switch to a non-free operating system merely because a free program runs on it. Thus, the risk of leading people to use a non-free system by making a free program run on it is small. However, it is our practice when doing this to remind people that the non-free system is unethical and bad for your freedom. If the pages about the Emacs binaries for Windows don't say this, I'll make sure to add it. By contrast, many non-free applications are not well known, and installing one is much easier--it does not require changing everything else you do. Thus, even telling people about a non-free application could very well lead them to install it. I've published both of these positions before, but in this discussion I only mentioned the one that is relevant to my views about OpenBSD. Is that hypocrisy? Is that lying? No, just sticking to the point. But now that people have raised the other issue, here is my position on it.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
If OpenBSD could spin off the ports system (perhaps people could put it on the Pirate Bay), and break off connection with it, then it would cease to convey any message from OpenBSD to the users. Then I could recommend OpenBSD while not recommending its ports system. Currently, that option does not exist. That option does exist. Ports tree is not installed by default. Users are not required to install the ports tree. When installing software, the ports tree is viewed as a last resort by both users and developers of OpenBSD. So if you refer someone to use OpenBSD, and tell them not to use the ports tree, they'll do just fine without using it. When speaking privately to someone I know is not likely to install non-free software, that is true. I can say to him, You could use OpenBSD, as long as you take care, if you use the ports system, to check that the programs you install are free. When speaking to the public, that is not a real option; if I tried to do that, it would get simplified in transmission down to Use OpenBSD, and that would lead people to use OpenBSD including the ports system. It's much like the situation for Debian. When speaking privately to someone who is not likely to install non-free software, I can recommend the official Debian GNU/Linux system and warn him to avoid the nonfree section which is also on the Debian servers. But if I said that to the public, it would get simplified in transmission down to recommending everything on Debian's servers. Thus, I don't recommend Debian.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Why is it so hard for you to answer that question... To answer the question was not hard. To answer it before I saw it would have been very hard. You failed to answer these several times already, When you said that, it was 21:00 here. At that time I had not even seen any of those messages; they were not in my computer. They arrived in my next mail transfer, today at 12:00. Subsequently I saw them and wrote an answer. You will get the answer in my next transfer, which is likely to be at 22:00. That will be 25 hours after the first of those messages was sent. I regret the delay, but it is inevitable. It must be quite common that a person doesn't answer in 2 hours. You may not know the details of how I transfer mail; but there are many other reasons why someone may not answer so fast. He might be sleeping, which many people do for 8 hours at a stretch. He might be checking some facts before before responding. These are things you know about. So what does it indicate, that just 2 hours after the subject was first raised, you said I had failed to answer, as if it were proof that I am bad, disregarding what you know? I think it indicates that you are looking for excuses to put me in the wrong. If something happens which you can interpret as putting me in a bad light, you seize on that interpretation, ignoring the other possibilities. Such an attitude can be seen in many of the messages on this list. It is not one you should want to adopt into your heart.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
However, if distribution D includes this easier way to install in its ports system, by doing so distribution D endorses it and takes on the ethical responsibility for it. We all know that the linux kernel (on which gNewSense is based) has an easy way to install binary blobs, like nvidia binary drivers. You've taken my words out of context. I was talking about a specific thing, the inclusion in the ports system of a recipe to install a particular non-free program. Someone else described such a recipe as an easier way to install that non-free program. I responded using his words, in quotation marks. By attributing his words to me, and by disregarding the context, you misunderstood the point of my message. I'm not talking about any and all things that make installation of anything easier. Just about giving recipes for installing particular non-free programs. That's what the issue is. OpenBSD non-free packages are not in the base system and not even available... That's true, but the ports system gives recipes for installing them. Moreover, this facility to install blobs that the linux kernel *provides* comes with the base gNewSense system... Could you tell me the name of that facility, or something else about it? If it is specifically and only useful for blobs, perhaps it should be remove from gNewSense. On the other hand, if it is a general purpose feature and blobs are merely one thing it could be used for, then I probably don't have anything against it. I don't criticize general facilities merely because someone could use them to do things with non-free software.
Re: Developers: First Reply Gets My Copy Of /On Bullshit/
Nice one there Bob!
On 12/14/07, Bob Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Me! Me! Ship it to my address:
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
Boston, MA 02110-1301
USA
-Bob
* Breen Ouellette [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-14 13:02]:
OpenBSD developers,
In recognition of all the bullshit flying around recently on misc@, I
would like to offer to mail my copy of of the essay /On Bullshit/ by
Harry Frankfurt as a gift to the first OpenBSD developer to request it.
This essay is bound in a blue hardcover 4 x 6 (10cm x 15cm) in size,
and spans approximately 70 pages. It can be read in less than one hour.
Just let me know where to send it and I will drop it off at the courier.
For everyone else, we are all lucky enough to be able to access the full
text at the following link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20031204195648/www.jelks.nu/misc/articles/bs.html
Breeno
--
#!/usr/bin/perl
if ((not 0 not 1) != (! 0 ! 1)) {
print Larry and Tom must smoke some really primo stuff...\n;
}
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
So have you sent these types of unrecommendations to other OS' mailing lists or just OpenBSD's? I generally don't raise the issue, and I did not raise it this time. I did not start this discussion. I posted on this list because people were making inaccurate statements about my views.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
In other words, a society in which non-free software more or less doesn't exist. And there you go denying non-free software, by your definition, the very right to exist. How free is that? It is much freer than a world in which non-free programs entice many people into surrendering their freedom.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
I should more precisely have said that the OpenBSD ports system includes instructions for fetching, building and installing specific non-free programs. Yes, that would be the truth. What you did say, however, is not the truth. What I said was the same thing, in different words. When the ports system contains a recipe to build and install P, it's natural to say that P is included in the ports system. You are interpreting the word included in a very literal sense, but that's not the only normal usage of the word. The gcc and emacs distributions contain enough information inside them to let a person compile those distributions on non-free systems. Hypocrite.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
I should more precisely have said that the OpenBSD ports system includes instructions for fetching, building and installing specific non-free programs. Yes, that would be the truth. What you did say, however, is not the truth. What I said was the same thing, in different words. When the ports system contains a recipe to build and install P, it's natural to say that P is included in the ports system. You are interpreting the word included in a very literal sense, but that's not the only normal usage of the word. As a courtesy to the OpenBSD developers, and avoid the risk of confusion, I will try from now on to state this in a more precise way.
Re: : Real men don't attack straw men
If he really hated what we do, he should stop using OpenSSH. He says he uses it. He should not. We are horrible people; he should not use our software. I don't hate what you do. I don't hate OpenBSD. I have a specific criticism of one point about OpenBSD, but that is not hatred. I appreciate many of the good things that OpenBSD does for free software. I don't think that you are horrible. You are behaving rather badly to me, but that's just a small part of what you are as a person; I would not judge you overall based on that. (I also would not reject a free program because of personal disapproval of its developer.) It looks like you really believe I hate you and really believe I think the OpenBSD developers are horrible. But that does not come from me. I wish you could see that.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
This philosophy disturbs me, and reminds me of the rationale for censorship in dictatorships and police states. Admitting the existence of something even referencing it does not give it legitimacy. Should we remove any reference to nazi germany from our history books in order to avoid legitimizing the nazi point of view? They're not the same kind of question. Talking non-free software as a phenomenon is different from telling people about specific non-free programs they might want to use. Having recipes for non-free programs in the ports system is more like including present-day neofascist web sites in the list of interesting links in your web site. I am against censorship, so I do not believe in closing down those neofascist web sites. But I won't refer people to them.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
RMS wrote: I've been trying for a couple of years to get going a modified version of Firefox that won't offer to install any non-free plug-ins, but we don't have enough people to make this work very well. If you would like to help, please let me know. It is an important project. Hahaha!!! Oh my god, this is just so fucking funny! I've been trying for a couple of years to get people to castrate themselves so it won't be possible for them to do bad things(tm), but it does not seem to be working too well... If you would like to help, please let me know. It is an important project. Eric.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
You *can't relicense* code under your choice without the author consent period! That BSD license gives permission for almost any kind of use, including distributing the code under other licenses. The only requirement is not to remove the BSD license statement itself. Another message raised the question of what relicensing means and whether that involves changes to the code. When I say relicensing I mean distributing the code with another license applied. That doesn't mean deleting the old license. The concept of relicensing does not imply changing or adding code, and the legality of relicensing doesn't depend on changing or adding code. However, I would urge people to relicense only if they make very big changes. If they make lesser changes, it is better to contribute them to the original project, and if they make no changes, relicensing is just silly (in most cases).
Re: Developers: First Reply Gets My Copy Of /On Bullshit/
* Bob Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED] [071214 15:51]:
Me! Me! Ship it to my address:
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
Boston, MA 02110-1301
USA
-Bob
* Breen Ouellette [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-14 13:02]:
OpenBSD developers,
In recognition of all the bullshit flying around recently on misc@, I
would like to offer to mail my copy of of the essay /On Bullshit/ by
Harry Frankfurt as a gift to the first OpenBSD developer to request it.
This essay is bound in a blue hardcover 4 x 6 (10cm x 15cm) in size,
and spans approximately 70 pages. It can be read in less than one hour.
Just let me know where to send it and I will drop it off at the courier.
For everyone else, we are all lucky enough to be able to access the full
text at the following link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20031204195648/www.jelks.nu/misc/articles/bs.html
Breeno
--
#!/usr/bin/perl
if ((not 0 not 1) != (! 0 ! 1)) {
print Larry and Tom must smoke some really primo stuff...\n;
}
ROTFLOL
And Bob, I think you forgot to add c/o RMS.
Jim
(Thread name objectionable as well) Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Oh, and by the way, I'm not a real man. Actually I'm not a man at all. Not all people who are in software are men. I've contributed in small ways to OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Linux and Plan9. --- Marina Brown On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Richard Stallman wrote: An anthology contains the actual licensed material of the books. The ports tree only contains urls of these pieces of software you object to. You're right, but I don't think that difference matters for this issue. Giving just the URLs for non-free software is referring people to them.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:19:06 -0600, Ken Ismert [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: So, I ask you respectfully, Richard: what is your intent in making your original comments, and starting this thread? That would be the deciding factor for me. Self aggrandizement has been RMS's only agenda for a long time. His 15 minutes are up and he has become irrelevant. He refuses to accept this. This crap just makes him more goggleable. BTW, gcc is crap and I pray everyday someone will come up with a BSD licensed replacement (there was ipf and now there isn't. Wish the same effort would happen for gcc) and I much prefer vi to emacs.
Re: Intel DQ35MP
I think the newest install42.iso is also wrong. I open the .iso and the files inside have old dates (november 20 2007, and november 13 2007) I'll make my own .iso with the rest of the files from the i386 snapshot directory Regards, - Original Message - From: Marcos Laufer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jason George [EMAIL PROTECTED]; misc@openbsd.org Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 3:39 PM Subject: Re: Intel DQ35MP I'm sure i installed the install42.iso from december 6th , maybe there was something wrong on that image? I'll try burning the newest one Thanks! - Original Message - From: Jason George [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: misc@openbsd.org Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:42 PM Subject: Re: Intel DQ35MP Hello, I've just installed OpenBSD current on an Intel DQ35MP motherboard with a Quad processor, this is the dmesg log. Some devices are not recognized (PCI slot, ethernet, etc) OpenBSD 4.2-current (GENERIC) #558: Tue Nov 20 10:36:15 MST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC That isn't a current -CURRENT snapshot. A lot has been changed in the 3+ weeks since that snapshot was released into the wild.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
| I don't recommend Torvalds' version of Linux. The versions of Linux | in Ututo and gNewSense, which I recommend, do not have the blobs. Interesting, these linux distributions. They are GNU/Linux distributions. (See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html.) They seem to be pretty new, what did you recommend before these came onto the scene ? None of these seemed to exist 8 years ago. Nothing! For many years there was no system distribution I could recommend to the public, and that is what I said. You are, however, being asked to explain how you combine these views with the support for several non-free OS'es within the copyleft software packages of emacs and gcc. Yes, after one person brought this up, many others repeated it (as if sheer volume of namecalling meant something). My message about this issue will go out in the same batch as this message. One person asked why it was hard for me to answer this question. It wasn't hard for me to respond, but it would have been impossible to respond quickly. I have to sleep, you know. And since I review my messages before actually sending them, I don't send mail quickly. It usually takes 12 to 24 hours from when a message is sent to when I send a response. Plenty of opportunity--for those who seek one--to claim that my silence proves I have no comeback.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
What puzzles me is why you think this mistake was a lie, or that it might make me look like a fool. People normally don't call someone a liar, or a fool, because of a little (and tangential) mistake like this. Because someone in your position, with the influence you have, communicating these messages, requires that the information you base these statements on be more accurate, more of the time.. and if anything at least more so than has been displayed in *this* discussion. With greater influence and power comes greater responsibility. Kindest regards, ~Jason
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
And for all those people who keep trying to say that OpenBSD doesn't support ports - we do. If we put it out, that's the support already. But - seriously, as a project, do we need the validation from FSF/Richard? OpenBSD certainly doesn't need my permission for anything. If people don't care what I think, they can ignore me. I posted the first message on this list, a few days ago, because people had published inaccurate statements about my views towards OpenBSD. My aim is to explain what those views really are. Once that is done, the readers of this list may agree or disagree with me, but at least they won't criticize me for views which are not mine. Now, on the other hand, the question for Richard is this - if OpenBSD includes ports (on the CD), which is not an installable option, which the FAQ discourages you from using, how different/worse is this from a linux kernel that allows blobs to be installed? I don't know any details about what part of Linux allows blobs to be installed, so I can only guess that it is a general feature which permits installation of firmware into devices, and that it works regardless of whether the firmware is free or non-free. I don't see anything wrong with general features that can install or build any sort of software. Thus, for instance, I don't think it is bad that OpenBSD and gNewSense have general-purpose features that a user might employ to install a non-free program. I don't think it is bad that GCC can compile a non-free program, or that you can use Emacs or VIP to edit one. (It's inevitable that general purpose facilities can operate on non-free code.) The ports system may contain a general facility which could build and install any program. (I don't know if it does.) If so, I have nothing against that. But it certainly contains specific recipes for installing specific non-free programs. That's what I object to.
come, help me with something more productive
Heh. I think we're having far too much fun in the other threads. I have a serious question. I'm a mangler in a largish company. We have developers, and contractors. No coding standards and all that, so, things are... messy. I'm not in charge of development, but I want to help them develop something useful, and secure. Other than doing a braindump of the developers here, what are the things that you people have found useful to have in secure programming practises? I'm looking for advice, tips, procedures, processes, whatever. I will be looking through my old notes from Matt Bishop's class at SANS, and other things I've gathered throughout the years. Unfortunately, it's rather flat here, so I can't even invite Theo to come by and give a talk. Thanx! -- 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: Real men don't attack straw men
On 12/14/07, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... People already know about non-free systems such as Windows, so it is unlikely that the mention of them in a free package will tell them about a system and they will then switch to it. Also, switching operating systems is a big deal. People are unlikely to switch to a non-free operating system merely because a free program runs on it. Quite right; they're more likely to stay with the non-free system, since the kind people at the FSF have helped make such useful free packages run on it. Thus, the risk of leading people to use a non-free system by making a free program run on it is small. However, it is our practice when That's one risk; the flip side is the risk of preventing people from exploring free systems by making the non-free systems so cozy. Is this hard? From where I sit, few people do more than the FSF to minimize the cost of staying with non-free systems. If all free software developers were to follow the lead of emacs, nobody would have any reason to switch from proprietary systems - everything useful would just run on windows, or osx, so why bother switching? doing this to remind people that the non-free system is unethical and bad for your freedom. If the pages about the Emacs binaries for Windows don't say this, I'll make sure to add it. Maybe you should consider doing this sort of thing (including, say, checking the license on SSH before declaring it GPL-incompatible - the as far as I know prophylactic is weak at best and disingenuous at worst) before lecturing the world on ethics. You know, physician, heal thyself? One might argue that is extremely unethical to declare that System X encourages non-free software while presiding over an organization that goes to such lengths to make non-free software useful. Sort of like campaigning for women's rights while beating one's wife. FWIW, I not fanatical about either side, and the ad hominem attacks appall me; I'm just very surprised (and discouraged) by what I see as the fundamental inconsistencies in your position, to the point where I have to wonder what your real purpose is. Sincerely, gregg
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:50:41PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: Why is it so hard for you to answer that question... To answer the question was not hard. To answer it before I saw it would have been very hard. You failed to answer these several times already, When you said that, it was 21:00 here. At that time I had not even seen any of those messages; they were not in my computer. They arrived in my next mail transfer, today at 12:00. Subsequently I saw them and wrote an answer. You will get the answer in my next transfer, which is likely to be at 22:00. That will be 25 hours after the first of those messages was sent. I regret the delay, but it is inevitable. Sorry, but i find it hard to believe that you couldn't take a minute to answer my simple question and that you did find the time to put up with this mail that further delays an explanation. My question is simple and it doesn't require much thinking. It must be quite common that a person doesn't answer in 2 hours. You may not know the details of how I transfer mail; but there are many other reasons why someone may not answer so fast. He might be sleeping, which many people do for 8 hours at a stretch. He might be checking some facts before before responding. These are things you know about. Checking which facts ? - gcc runs on windows because it has code that specifically makes it work on that system. - the fsf distributes that code. - you *know* that gcc works on windows. What fact that you don't already know prevents you from answering my simple question as to why you do support windows ? I think it indicates that you are looking for excuses to put me in the wrong. If something happens which you can interpret as putting me in a bad light, you seize on that interpretation, ignoring the other possibilities. You looking good or bad is not something that particularly matters to me, what matters is that you were not honest and people need to make an opinion based on facts. The facts are as follow: - you say that OpenBSD is not free and you don't encourage it's use. I could care less but the reasons that you mention are wrong and misleading for users. - you and your project actually encourage the use of many applications on proprietary systems. There is an long list of gnu tools that I have used on a Windows computer. - you refuse to admit you were wrong and you refuse to explain why your own rules don't apply to you. Why does OpenBSD providing optional makefiles for those who explicitely want a non-free application is bad because it encourages users to install non-free applications, and why is it ok for the fsf to support Windows and MacOSX ? What are the other possibilities that I missed ? Such an attitude can be seen in many of the messages on this list. It is not one you should want to adopt into your heart. There is no bad attitude, I am frustrated that I don't get an answer to a very simple question that doesn't call for long research. It is your foundation and your projects after all ... -- Gilles Chehade http://www.evilkittens.org/ http://www.evilkittens.org/blog/gilles/
