Theo de Raadt wrote:
Yes, and you are being the usual slimy hypocritical asshole.
...
You treat these issues different because you are a hypocrite.
...
In honour of your hypocrisy.
...
How convenient for your hypocrisy.
...
It is lying, and it is hypocrisy.
Third time I've said that. I'll
Hi,
On 2007-05-10 8:40:36 Claudio Jeker wrote:
With many shortliving connections you have a lot of sockets in TIME_WAIT.
Because you are testing from one host only you start to hit these entries
more and more often this often results in a retry from the client.
I'm curious what you meant by:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, ropers wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
do you give a no-recommendation to the internet as well?
Well, his past statements about not being able to view HTTPS pages,
catching web pages (browsing through email?) and receiving messages in
batches
sorry guys, but:
from http://www.openbsd.org/mail.html:
misc
User questions and answers, general questions. This is the most
active list. Please, read the FAQ and the installation documents,
and see How to report a Problem before posting.
advocacy
Promoting the use of OpenBSD.
I understand that OBSD releases patches only for the base system. But
if I, for example, run Firefox and there's a vulnerability in it, is
there any way to patch that without running -current or trying to
update Firefox from the Mozilla Foundation? What are some of the ways
to patch
On 2007/12/15 21:04, Chris wrote:
I understand that OBSD releases patches only for the base system. But
if I, for example, run Firefox and there's a vulnerability in it, is
there any way to patch that without running -current or trying to
update Firefox from the Mozilla Foundation?
Not at
On 2007/12/14 19:30, Bret wrote:
So the question is.. will haveing the 10.90.0.0/16 subnet cause
conflicts with the 10.70.0.0/16 and 10.80.0.0/16 networks on the
OpenBSD (1) box's routing table.
I think you should read the Understanding IP Addressing document
referenced in faq 6.1.
I didn't
2007/12/14, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
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).
please stop spreading lies (or looking like a fool) by not doing
El vie, 14-12-2007 a las 15:49 -0500, Richard Stallman escribiC3:
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
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:12:49PM +0100, Martin Schr?der wrote:
[...]
know the license of OpenSSH, which you probably use daily. Please stop
this if my memory serves. It makes you look as either incompetent or
malovelent.
or senile really... I still did not get an answer because of
The ldapvacation program with the exact same configuration works fine
testing it on my (i386) thinkpad but not on my amd64 servers. I'm
wondering if anyone else can confirm that this program has problems
running on amd64. Here is the command I run and the output I get:
Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote:
They're not required to make their changes available. They're required
to acknowledge your copyright, but your licence does not require
proprietary developers to release changes at all and it does not require
GPL developers to release changes under your choice of
Gilles Chehade wrote:
or senile really... I still did not get an answer because of apparent
mail-batch-or-checking-the-facts-or-whatever issues, I don't know why
he won't answer, maybe he has conveniently forgotten that question ?
One of the advantages of old age is a convenient memory.
(At
I see both Theo and Richard as principled iconoclasts, stubbornly
creating
Eh, that was a very long time ago that Richard created interesting software...
and promoting software that meets their individual high
standards, meeting and overcoming difficult opposition.
Richard Stallman's
I honestly don't think if you get Theo's email that there is any hope
for you but let me try to add to it.
First lets start off with the fact that you are NOT allowed to change
the SOURCE license.
So joe-schmoe-programmer takes moo.c which is ISC licensed and adds some
crud to it. He can decide
On Dec 15, 2007 1:26 AM, Chris Zakelj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
bofh wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 7:11 PM, Chris Zakelj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How, pray tell, would purchasing and using this software reduce my
freedom, given that not only does it allow me to make money doing
something I find
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 03:55:59AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Email and web via UUCP ? I see it making a big comeback when humans
finally colonize mars ;-) Just no serial handshaking. No kidding. Think
of the delays. between here and there.
By the time the US gets to Mars, we'll have
Are you afraid that people are just going to go after features
rather than free software once they've been tempted? so you must
keep them ignorant. Plus, how does using GPL software educate
people about the GPL philosophy? Nobody can deny that a VAST
majority of the F(/)OSS community does
Hi. I set a sappnd flag to .history file in my home dir. After few days i
can't login, system hang after password entering... top report 50% CPU usage
from ksh... and no prompt apears... i find out that problem is caused by
.history file ( defined in ~/.profile - export HISTFILE=~/.history ).
nevermind wrote:
Hi. I set a sappnd flag to .history file in my home dir. After few days i
can't login, system hang after password entering... top report 50% CPU usage
from ksh... and no prompt apears... i find out that problem is caused by
.history file ( defined in ~/.profile - export
On Dec 15, 2007 11:04 AM, Chris Zakelj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
stupid. Shut up. In case you missed it, this discussion revolves just
as much around the concept of what Richard considers freedom as it does
around licenses and source. This is what I'm on about. My
understanding of Richard's
bofh wrote:
On Dec 15, 2007 11:04 AM, Chris Zakelj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
stupid. Shut up. In case you missed it, this discussion revolves just
as much around the concept of what Richard considers freedom as it does
around licenses and source. This is what I'm on about. My
On 15/12/2007, Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the time the US gets to Mars, we'll have quantum communication:
instantaneous across the universe.
Did you read On Bullshit, then? ;-) Or what do you know that we don't?
I can't see anyone other than the US going to Mars.
Sure,
On Dec 15, 2007 11:19 AM, Chris Zakelj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agreed. But what he has (apparently) said is that doing so sucks, as it
encourages them to continue their proprietary (and hence, bad/unethical)
ways. I'd like to know why paying for a company's software, in a very
niche market
Zhivko Tashev wrote:
taka li trqbva da govorish za stranata ni?
Focus on topic...
... spesti mi patrioti4nite si izqvi zanapred...
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/.history-file-prevent-login-tp14351761p14352495.html
Sent from the openbsd user - misc mailing list
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.
Richard,
We understand
Theo de Raadt wrote:
EVERYTHING code related that people thinks comes from the FSF today,
comes to us without Richard Stallman actually working on it. Richard
is just another random long haired hypocritical mouthpiece, who will
be known after his death as the original author of the C compiler
Chris Zakelj wrote:
bofh wrote:
On Dec 15, 2007 11:04 AM, Chris Zakelj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
stupid. Shut up. In case you missed it, this discussion revolves just
as much around the concept of what Richard considers freedom as it does
around licenses and source. This is what I'm on
/ __ \
( (__) )
_\/___
/ | | /\
/_/
bofh wrote:
On Dec 15, 2007 1:26 AM, Chris Zakelj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
bofh wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 7:11 PM, Chris Zakelj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How, pray tell, would purchasing and using this software reduce my
freedom, given that not only does it allow me to make money
I've got a D-Link DWL-G520+ wireless acx111-based PCI card. It is
listed as supported device on acx(4) man page. When I boot up my i386
box, I get it picked up by acx driver, but when I try to run dhclient
on acx0, I get no DHCPOFFERs, but only acx0: watchdog timeout errors
comming up about every
bofh wrote:
On Dec 15, 2007 11:19 AM, Chris Zakelj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agreed. But what he has (apparently) said is that doing so sucks, as it
encourages them to continue their proprietary (and hence, bad/unethical)
ways. I'd like to know why paying for a company's software, in a very
Theo de Raadt wrote:
EVERYTHING code related that people thinks comes from the FSF today,
comes to us without Richard Stallman actually working on it. Richard
is just another random long haired hypocritical mouthpiece, who will
be known after his death as the original author of the C
Theo de Raadt wrote:
Richard seperated us out. Jack, don't go telling me that we may not
rail against Richard being a prick.
Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other,
sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing
there looking
Theo de Raadt wrote:
Richard seperated us out. Jack, don't go telling me that we may not
rail against Richard being a prick.
Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other,
sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing
there
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:49:19PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
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,
Theo de Raadt wrote:
I was not inspired by him, but by Chris Torek, Keith Bostic, and Mike
Karels,
Heroes of my g-g-generation, bless them all and the code and documentation
they wrote.
who chose to not play politics.
Here in Colorado, I've paraded Richard to lobby before elected
Theo de Raadt wrote:
Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other,
sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing
there looking
sheepish, all covered with poop.
How is this my fault?
It's not your fault. You're still standing
Travers Buda wrote:
* David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-14 14:39:49]:
Put away the licenses and open up your mind. God did not write the
licenses,
People wrote them. They wrote them to meet specific needs.
Blobs are not bad because Theo says so, or RMS says so or the GPL says
El sC!b, 15-12-2007 a las 09:57 -0700, Jack J. Woehr escribiC3:
I profoundly respect both of you and know you both f2f. Richard
has been my house guest twice. You're both tyrannical, bratty
absolute tyrants, the difference being Richard is passive-aggressive
and Theo is
IC1igo Tejedor Arrondo wrote:
El sC!b, 15-12-2007 a las 09:57 -0700, Jack J. Woehr escribiC3:
I profoundly respect both of you and know you both f2f. Richard
has been my house guest twice. You're both tyrannical, bratty
absolute tyrants, the difference being Richard is passive-aggressive
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:49:54PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
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
Ray Percival wrote:
I guess major advertising firms, politicians, and ghandi are not clear
thinking adults.
Good one. For a minute there I thought you were serious but now I see
that you're just taking the piss since anybody who will hold up
advertising firms and politicians as shining
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 10:49:12AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Theo de Raadt wrote:
Richard seperated us out. Jack, don't go telling me that we may not
rail against Richard being a prick.
Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other,
sooner or later
Jack J. Woehr wrote:
Theo de Raadt wrote:
How is this my fault?
Theo has made it clear to me in private email that what he was asking here,
is Why, Jack, are you telling me to shut up and not Richard? Excuse me
for the inclarity.
Richard, knock off baiting the OpenBSD community, you
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:14:15 -0500, bofh [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Dec 15, 2007 11:04 AM, Chris Zakelj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
stupid. Shut up. In case you missed it, this discussion revolves just
as much around the concept of what Richard considers freedom as it does
around licenses
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:32:19AM -0700, Jack J. Woehr wrote:
I do, too. I like them both. I want them to stop fighting in public. I don't
care which one started it. I suppose it was Richard. It doesn't matter. Our
reputations as human beings will long outlive our reputations as coders.
delurking briefly, hoping not to annoy everyone...
but from where I sit, all y'all are awesome.
Free software inspired me to get interested in computers which
helped my income. I really had no interest prior to learning there were
alternatives to Microsoft.
And I've read that the BSD tcp/ip
* Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-15 09:04:07]:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 03:55:59AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Email and web via UUCP ? I see it making a big comeback when humans
finally colonize mars ;-) Just no serial handshaking. No kidding. Think
of the delays.
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:25:40 -0500, bofh [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Dec 15, 2007 1:26 AM, Chris Zakelj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
bofh wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 7:11 PM, Chris Zakelj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How, pray tell, would purchasing and using this software reduce my
freedom,
* Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-15 08:24:21]:
Are you afraid that people are just going to go after features
rather than free software once they've been tempted? so you must
keep them ignorant. Plus, how does using GPL software educate
people about the GPL philosophy?
On Dec 15, 2007 10:36 AM, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard is the face that launched a thousand Gnus. You as well as anyone
here know what he did for the concept of giving away source code. He
inspired a whole generation of free software writers.
I was not inspired by him,
* David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-15 13:27:26]:
Travers Buda wrote:
* David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-14 14:39:49]:
Put away the licenses and open up your mind. God did not write the
licenses,
People wrote them. They wrote them to meet specific needs.
* Jack J. Woehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-15 09:57:01]:
Now now. Order.
Richard is the face that launched a thousand Gnus. You as well as anyone
here know what he did for the concept of giving away source code. He
inspired a whole generation of free software writers. Look at the Gnu
tree
On Dec 15, 2007 2:37 PM, Eric Furman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are wrong. This thread *is* about personal freedom.
It started with RMS's attack on OBSD's ports system
Why is it an attack? He has said the same thing of all the major
linux distros for the longest time. That is the thing that
On Dec 15, 2007 8:56 PM, Travers Buda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-15 09:04:07]:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 03:55:59AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Email and web via UUCP ? I see it making a big comeback when humans
finally colonize mars ;-)
Jack J. Woehr wrote:
Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each
other,
sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing
there looking
sheepish, all covered with poop.
How is this my fault?
It's not your fault. You're still standing
I guess the drivers for that will be implimented in like OpenBSD V 16.5 or
so.
QID (quantum interface device) or QEID (quantum entaglement interface
device)
The only problem is that at that point the system might gain conciousness
and start making decisions ..
Maybee by then I'll know what the
On 2007/12/15 20:33, Dmitrij Czarkoff wrote:
I've got a D-Link DWL-G520+ wireless acx111-based PCI card. It is
listed as supported device on acx(4) man page. When I boot up my i386
box, I get it picked up by acx driver, but when I try to run dhclient
on acx0, I get no DHCPOFFERs, but only
It all boils down to language and rhetorical strategy. rms claims
that OBSD encourages the use of non-free software. The OBSD folks
consider that incorrect and slanderous.
Instead of tis so - tis not argumentation, I propose a search, not
for agreement, but for clear, simple, and pragmatic
On Dec 14, 2007 9:49 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Marco Peereboom wrote:
RMS definitions of free/liberty/freedom etc are contorted to fit his
believe system. They are not legal definitions and worse not even
correct English. Got to love that the non-native speaker has to point
that out.
Marco,
With all due respect, you made a huge mistake
OpenBSD refuses to accept it's users being forced into depending on
vendor binaries and pushes people to send a message that open support
for hardware matters.
I appreciate those actions. They help our community.
How does using non-free software, by your definition anything none
GPL'ed I gather, bring actual physical harm to anyone anywhere?
Physical harm is not the only kind of harm.
Losing your freedom is harm too. Social practices that lead
people into a life without freedom are harmful.
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
RMS' statement that OpenBSD endorses non-free software goes too far,
What I said is that the ports system contains recipes for installing
non-free software. In another message in this batch I address the
question of what words to use to refer to that relationship. For me,
the issue is that
For personal reasons, I do not browse the web from my computer. (I
also have not net connection much of the time.) To look at page I
send mail to a demon which runs wget and mails the page back to me.
It is very efficient use of my time, but it is slow in real time.
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.
Free speech means you are free to tell people about the Adobe flash
plug-in, and also free to decide not to tell them.
I doubt someone who is truly unfriendly could organize a hackathon, a
friendly social event.
He may be perfectly friendly to others. What is relevant is that he
tends to be unfriendly to me.
The same argument could be made about your unfriendliness. We could not
talk to you
How does using non-free software, by your definition anything none
GPL'ed I gather, bring actual physical harm to anyone anywhere?
Physical harm is not the only kind of harm.
Losing your freedom is harm too. Social practices that lead
people into a life without freedom are harmful.
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.
All I can do personally is bless your computer. But if it has
non-free
On Saturday 15 December 2007 21:37:37 Mattieu Baptiste wrote:
This is to me simply pathetic that you don't admit all the merits,
qualities and efforts regarding freedom that OpenBSD developpers
made.
http://www.fsf.org/news/fsaward2004.html
Not to mention the countless times Richard
What I said was that I don't recommend OpenBSD because the ports
system suggests non-free programs.
On the bsd talk show you did not withhold your recommendation because
the ports system suggests non-free programs. No way, that's not what
you said on that show.
What actually happened is that
Torvalds' version of Linux is not free software, for this reason.
Ututo and gNewSense include a version of Linux which remove the
firmware blobs, in order to make it free software.
that's awesome, can users add these back in if they choose?
I suppose so. I don't see
On Dec 15, 2007 11:17 PM, bofh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You do realize he has been criticizing most linux distros for years,
right? For exactly the same thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0feature=related
Yes, most. Why not gNewSense ?
--
Mattieu Baptiste
/earth is 102%
This incredibly misguided. People won't switch to free software
because of hectoring and hamfisted attempts to frustrate their
choices,
Convincing people to switch to free software is just one part of what
we need to do to establish a society in which users are free. We also
have to
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 01:52:26PM -0600, Travers Buda wrote:
However, if someone is well-versed in the GPL philosophy and rhetoric,
it is understood what is meant when I say free and when I say open.
but Richard is not talking to people who are well versed in GPL
philosophy. he is talking to
On Dec 15, 2007 11:11 PM, Firas Kraiem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 15 December 2007 21:37:37 Mattieu Baptiste wrote:
This is to me simply pathetic that you don't admit all the merits,
qualities and efforts regarding freedom that OpenBSD developpers
made.
On Dec 15, 2007 3:37 PM, Mattieu Baptiste [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 9:49 PM, Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Dec 14, 2007 3:06 PM, Mark Bucciarelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007-05-10 8:40:36 Claudio Jeker wrote:
With many shortliving connections you have a lot of sockets in TIME_WAIT.
Because you are testing from one host only you start to hit these entries
more and more often this often
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:32:19AM -0700, Jack J. Woehr wrote:
I do, too. I like them both. I want them to stop fighting in public. I don't
care which one started it. I suppose it was Richard. It doesn't matter. Our
You meant contaminate not bless right ? :)
Here is the rest of the quote that you failed to include (obviously
sarcastic and hinting that you not come blather in this forum)
I summon you ohh old and defunct goat. Come shed your hairs upon our path.
Come and grace us with your holey eminence
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.
Is there anyone here that actually believes it is wrong for free
programs to have
Again, Richard made foul and faulty comments about OpenBSD first.
Neither one.
What I said was that I don't recommend OpenBSD because the ports
system suggests non-free programs. That's neither faulty nor foul.
It is factually accurate: the ports system does contain recipes to
install
| As has been said before, the ports tree is just a
| scaffold, used to force third party programs (be they free or non-free
| and for whatever value of freedom you wish) to install into a sane and
| known location within the filesystem, easing the task of installing
|
He claims OpenBSD suggest the use of non-free software. After having
used it for quite some time, such a suggestion was never made to me.
I will not argue with your statement about your personal experience.
The point is that OpenBSD distributes the ports system, and the ports
system
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.
One difference is that the first one is true, and the second one is
false. As you've seen by now, people were looking for something
sinister in a
* Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-15 17:18:52]:
So lets repeat it, GPL software is GRATIS.
The term gratis seems like a good one. However, the GPL states that:
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,
and you may at your option offer warranty protection
I exercise my freedom of speech by not telling people about the Adobe
flash plug-in. I think you should, too. But I will not try to force
you to do that, because I respect your freedom of speech.
That's rich coming from someone who advocates limit of speech via a
restrictive license. Shame
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:36:29PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
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.
Is there
On Dec 15, 2007, at 4:37 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
This incredibly misguided. People won't switch to free software
because of hectoring and hamfisted attempts to frustrate their
choices,
Convincing people to switch to free software is just one part of what
we need to do to establish
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:37:45PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
This incredibly misguided. People won't switch to free software
because of hectoring and hamfisted attempts to frustrate their
choices,
Convincing people to switch to free software is just one part of what
we need
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 01:02:42PM +0100, knitti wrote:
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
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.
Free speech means you are free to tell people about the Adobe flash
plug-in, and also free to decide not to tell
Please can we stop this thread? hasn't this gone on long enough already? :(
--
Kimi
I realize that you are frustrated with the terms and their definitions.
However, if someone is well-versed in the GPL philosophy and rhetoric,
it is understood what is meant when I say free and when I say open.
I don't see any other good way to discuss it. Certainly in the BSD
camp we don't
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:05:16 -0800
Ryan Corder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand and appreciate the freedom that is defined by both the
BSD and GPL licenses; that of ensuring the authors continual right of
ownership. However, in terms of true freedom, both have limitations in
place.
It
On Saturday 15 December 2007 23:50:38 Mattieu Baptiste wrote:
On Dec 15, 2007 11:46 PM, Firas Kraiem [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So what ? Are you telling me that, just because there is one thing
about which Richard disagrees with OpenBSD, he shouldn't have the
right to also tell the good he
Good afternoon.
I have a Supermicro 1011S-MR2B server with one of their H8SSL-i2
motherboards, and an Opteron 1210 CPU and 40 GB Western Digital SATA drive.
The system runs perfectly fine and has no problems fscking all
partitions on the release version of 4.1 with all the errata relevant to
On Saturday 15 December 2007 23:27:25 Mattieu Baptiste wrote:
On Dec 15, 2007 11:11 PM, Firas Kraiem [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Not to mention the countless times Richard acknowledged all the
positive contributions of OpenBSD as a whole to the Free Software
movement, including in this very
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
