Jacob Meuser wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:56:43PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
Bengt Frost wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
Finally as long as i do not hurt 'someone' (to mutch) then it must
be up to me to choose what i
Rod Whitworth wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:29:43 -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
The NVIDIA binary blob is popular.
There you go again.
You don't know the difference between a blob and an application.
The difference has no meaning in the context of values and principles
Daniel Ouellet wrote:
However, I never thought I would have to remind you that BSD IS a
complete OS, kernel and userland standing on his two feets by itself
in one place.
BSD has and still does depend on GCC.
Even if you manage to successfully replace it tomorow, The BSD's have
depended on it
Gilles Chehade wrote:
I still know of many companies that did not switch to Linux because a
free software foundation provided them with a version of gcc that can
run on their proprietary OS and Richard still did not tell me why the
fsf promotes the use of proprietary software by porting free
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 almost made
William Boshuck wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:36:18PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
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.
You
Ray Percival wrote:
On Dec 15, 2007, at 8:21 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
After reveiwing the OpenBSD Goals and Polices, it appears to me that
the intent is that OpenBSD should be a free/Open Source system. But
unless I am missing something that is not actually made clear. The
polices page
Ted Unangst wrote:
On 12/15/07, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After reveiwing the OpenBSD Goals and Polices, it appears to me that
the intent is that OpenBSD should be a free/Open Source system. But
unless I am missing something that is not actually made clear
Theo de Raadt wrote:
Theo de Raadt wrote:
Richard seperated us out. Jack, don't go telling me that we may not
rail against Richard being a prick.
Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other,
sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is
Marco Peereboom wrote:
You can use OpenBSD to build a baby mulcher or a nookyoular weapon and
you have the choice to retain the source code.
You can use the GPL to build a puppy blood drainer or a dirty bomb
provided you deliver the source code with it.
Agreed, but would you except either
Darrin Chandler wrote:
I judge people less by how much they agree with my own views than by how
they adhere to their own. If I don't agree with someone but they stand
by their principles then at least I know where they stand and that they
have honor.
There is plenty of information
Ray Percival wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007, at 11:58 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
Marco Peereboom wrote:
You can use OpenBSD to build a baby mulcher or a nookyoular weapon and
you have the choice to retain the source code.
You can use the GPL to build a puppy blood drainer or a dirty bomb
Marco Peereboom wrote:
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is exactly
what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent from the
OpenBSD web site.
If it is what OpenBSD beleives
William Boshuck wrote:
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
Ray Percival wrote:
[quoting and excerpt from Theo's log message in (e.g.):
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/etc/Attic/ipf.rules]
...
But software which OpenBSD uses
Ray Percival wrote:
But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all
(be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it,
including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby
mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia.
Firas Kraiem wrote:
However, and that's the difference with people like you (and RMS), they
just consider that it doesn't give them the right to impose their view
of freedom on others, and they let the user do whatever the hell he/she
wishes to do, according to his/her personal view and
Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
On Dec 15, 2007 10:56 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bengt Frost wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Darrb
Finally as long as i do not hurt 'someone' (to mutch) then it must
be up to me to choose what i want to do, f.ex
Rod Whitworth wrote:
You wrote about a port of a program designed to mailbomb Jewish sites.
That was an extreme hypothetical chosen to make a point..
Apparently Theo has used an even more extreme on in the past.
A total wanker dream not a thing that would ever be submitted. Probably
Marco Peereboom wrote:
I am not changing the meaning of words, for the most part I am taking
your words, with your meanings, and applying them consistently
to your system, until it produces a contradiction.
If your words, your definitions and your values were consistent
no contradiction
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
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
Theo de Raadt wrote:
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.
After reveiwing the OpenBSD Goals and Polices, it appears to me that
the intent is that OpenBSD should be a free/Open Source system. But
unless I am missing something that is not actually made clear. The
polices page lists software licenses that are acceptable, and a few that
are not, but I
I beleive the URL
http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions%20.
has been referenced in other messages declaiming Richard's
recommendation of
this or that Distro.
This link was also near the top of the bsdtalk page about the RMS interview.
The explanation - near the top, of why
L wrote:
For about 5 years now I've been looking for an operating system that
doesn't have the whole freedom of speech attached to it, since I don't
fall for that. This recent flamewar simply helped confirm my instinct
that openbsd is not about some idealistic freedom of speech.
OpenBSD
Bengt Frost wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
Finally as long as i do not hurt 'someone' (to mutch) then it must
be up to me to choose what i want to do, f.ex. install packages through
portssystem.
If I wrote a a BSD Licensed program to
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
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
Lars NoodC)n wrote:
Argh, the GPL is so ridiculously complex; nobody understands it.
Many do, though. For me it's rather straight forward, as is the BSD
license. There are many ways to look at the positive goals of the GPL,
but they're not relevant here, since OpenBSD is already
Jacob Meuser wrote:
On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 04:05:10PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
There are other sources as well:
http://www.peereboom.us/ksh_linux.html
http://www.wormhole.hu/~ice/ksh/
Don't know why that dude went through the trouble of putting gplv3 shit
on it.
fear,
The wxwidgets version in packages for 4.2 is fairly old - wxwidgets
2.6.3 and it was apparently built using lots of the assorted string
functions that the OpenBSD gcc pisses and moans about. If I link most
anything to wxwidets get a raft of warnings - making it hard to see if
there are any ne
I have been trying to establish an Xnest connection to an OpenBSD
4.2 machine without success.
I do not care about security - in this particular application.
4.2 is using a newer Gnome and the config files are reorganized.
But they do not appear to be the names/locations as
Peter Hessler wrote:
try enabling acpi at the bootloader prompt..
boot -c
enable acpi
exit
Thanks !
that did the trick.
On 2007 Oct 24 (Wed) at 13:58:29 -0400 (-0400), David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
:I am trying to complete a new install of OpenBSD 4.2 on an HP
:Pavillion dv8000
Matthieu Herrb wrote:
David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
I have tried to install Gnome on two different machines running
OpenBSD 4.2.
The first machine ran Gnome fine under OpenBSD 4.1 (though there
were other problems)
One both machines - fresh installs gdm starts I can attempt
Dag Richards wrote:
Blasphemy
Seems to me that the simplest and most flexible way to do this is to
install Linux or Windows as your host OS and use VMware. I do that on
my MacBook Pro running OS X, and run OBSD, Linux, and Solaris as guest
OSes.
Works great, and I can have all of them
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
Most noticeably, I fail to see any credits to Reyk Floeter in the
above press release.
Moreover, back when the release was first posted at the above address,
there was no credit even to the OpenBSD project, which I found simply
outrageous! Only after I (and
J.C. Roberts wrote:
You and the rest of the linux kernel devs need to realize there are a
lot of angry people who are tired of being ignored by the powers that
be in the GNU/FSF/GPL/SFLC. The claimed distinction between the linux
kernel, the linux operating system, the various linux distros,
Paul de Weerd wrote:
Scenario A, this code is released under the BSD license. You can take
it, improve it and never share your changes with anyone.
Scenario B, this code is released under the GPL license. You can take
it, improve it and never share your changes with anyone.
Where is the
Sebastien Carlier wrote:
So, you are indeed taking the point of view that there is good freedom
and bad freedom, and that coercion is needed to allow good freedom
to prevail. I am glad you said so since it is totally related to what
follows.
Total freedom without coercion is anarchy.
Theo de Raadt wrote:
For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot change
the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, or that
conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157).
It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author,
because it is a
First, I wish to appologize.
While I am actually fairly familiar with the GPL,
I am not intimate with either the various forms of BSD License or
the ISC.
Somehow jumping back and forth between them all on wikipedia before
my original
post I missed the clause that appears to be
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright
notice, not the license itself,
That is entirely false.
Why ? The ISC seems to me to say you can do anything you wish
Theo de Raadt wrote:
For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot change
the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, or that
conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157).
It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author,
because it is a
43 matches
Mail list logo
