Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
a famous one, let S be the set of all elements that do not belong to S On Jan 8, 2008 3:10 AM, Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just recently, I said: On the other hand, well-formed statements can talk about some of their properties in certain systems. If worse comes to worse, you can simply use a different system to evaluate the statement. This really does make sense and there is information conveyed--a parallel would be Raymond Smullyan's example of a sign that reads, This sign was made my Cellini. That sign is actually telling you something. Typographical correction: Raymond Smullyan's example is of a sign that says: This sign was made *by* Cellini. -Eliah
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
On 1/7/08, Floor Terra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: =Offtopic== Can you recommend a book about Godel and his works? I have read A World Without Time from Palle Yourgrau and would like to learn more about his work. I'm afraid I cannot; I'm a rank amateur who couldn't possibly understand his proof without another, oh, 5 years of study. I haven't encountered Yourgrau's book; I'll look for it. I can, however, strongly decommend one book: http://www.amazon.com/Incompleteness-Proof-Paradox-Godel-Discoveries/dp/0393327604/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1199761634sr=1-2 Considering the pedigree of the author, you'd expect a good read, but it's bad writing. -gregg
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
On 01/07/08 02:23, Francisco J. Tsao Santin wrote: And I don't understand how important people that I admire can fall down in so childish discussion. Maybe because those people are not so thoughtful and thus important as you thought? I'm ashamed as free software supporter and I feel insulted by members of two communities. In the beginning I think clearly who was right and who wasn't, but now it is not important. It is very important to make clear that some interesting statements are just lies. All freedom-claims of Richard Stallman are dubious and is main point in life, the DRM part he added to BSD to make it GPL is enslaving programmers without any good reason. So now you can continue flaming yourselves and flame me too everybody. Maybe I'm too old to still believe in peace. Mr Stallman is not peaceful at all he tries to enslave programmers for no reason and he lies to his followers. That's very sad. +++chefren
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:21:03AM -0600, Gregg Reynolds wrote: On 1/7/08, Floor Terra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: =Offtopic== Can you recommend a book about Godel and his works? I have read A World Without Time from Palle Yourgrau and would like to learn more about his work. I'm afraid I cannot; I'm a rank amateur who couldn't possibly understand his proof without another, oh, 5 years of study. I haven't encountered Yourgrau's book; I'll look for it. I can, however, strongly decommend one book: http://www.amazon.com/Incompleteness-Proof-Paradox-Godel-Discoveries/dp/0393327604/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1199761634sr=1-2 Considering the pedigree of the author, you'd expect a good read, but it's bad writing. -gregg How offtopic can one get? It's probably a dumb question, because replies to this will be even more offtopic. -Otto
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500 Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (There are also multiple useful, mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.) Provably so? Dhu
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500 Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (There are also multiple useful, mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.) Provably so? Euclidean and ono-Euclidian geometries should suffice.
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
--- Duncan Patton a Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500 Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (There are also multiple useful, mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.) Provably so? +1 I'd love an example of Math being inconsistent. Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if this is true. best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
--- Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500 Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (There are also multiple useful, mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.) Provably so? Euclidean and ono-Euclidian geometries should suffice. Google (including scholar.g) gave nothing of value (I see 4 results when I search for ono-Euclidean on g and nothing on scholar.g). Any specific references? Or something else that would yield results. best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 00:26:35 -0800 (PST) Reid Nichol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500 Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (There are also multiple useful, mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.) Provably so? Euclidean and ono-Euclidian geometries should suffice. Google (including scholar.g) gave nothing of value (I see 4 results when I search for ono-Euclidean on g and nothing on scholar.g). Any specific references? Or something else that would yield results. ono-Euclidian appears to reference something by Omar Kayam, an 11th c Iranian _POET_. If we are to allow the arg. that Creationism is science, we might allow that such an inconsistency has meaning. Dhu best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
I said: (There are also multiple useful, mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.) Duncan Patton a Campbell said: Provably so? Reid Nichol said: I'd love an example of Math being inconsistent. Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if this is true. Tony Abernethy's example of non-Euclidean geometries being inconsistent with Euclidean geometry is a good one. The statement Mathematics is consistent, is not false. It is meaningless. At least if you try to consider it mathematically. It is sort of like saying, the public library is consistent. In mathematics, there are mathematical systems. Mathematical systems have axioms. Axioms are statements that, within a particular system, are accepted without proof. Using a mathematical system doesn't mean you believe the axioms--it just means that you are willing to see what happens when you suppose that they are true. A set of statements is consistent if the conjunction of all the statements in the set is not a contradiction. (Also, the empty set is consistent.) Otherwise the set is inconsistent. A mathematical system is itself consistent if the set containing all and only axioms of that system is consistent. Otherwise the system is inconsistent. Two or more mathematical systems are mutually consistent if the union of their sets of axioms is consistent, and mutually inconsistent otherwise. Statements A and B are dependent if and only if either provably follows from the other. Otherwise they are independent. The axioms of Euclidean Geometry are provably consistent. The Parallel Postulate, which states that parallel lines intersect nowhere, is provably independent of the other axioms of Euclidean Geometry. Adding in the Parallel Postulate gives you a geometry describing a flat space. Adding in its negation or statements stronger than its negation (i.e. statements from which its negation follows, but which do not follow from its negation) give you geometries describing other spaces. Both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries (such as those in which the parallel postulate does not hold) are used by mathematicians. A similar situation exists where ZFC (accepting the Axiom of Choice) and ZF-C (accepting the negation of the Axiom of Choice) systems are mutually inconsistent extensions of ZF (Zermelo-Frankel) set theory. Both ZFC and ZF-C are used by mathematicians. Separate from the matter of inconsistent systems, there are also fundamental questions in mathematics about how precise or absolute our math really is. What I have just done is to sketch a proof. It is a proof about mathematical systems. To do this proof formally, I need a formal metasystem that handles mathematical systems as mathematical objects. How do I then justify my metasystem? To justify a claim formally, I prove it. How do I justify that I have proved it? Ultimately all formal reasoning rests on informal reasoning. In physics, the obvious example is that General Relativity is inconsistent with quantum mechanics (or if you don't think QM is a system, then with any system based on QM, e.g. QED, QCD). The hope is that a unified field theory can be formulated that makes accurate predictions about gravitation at high energies at the quantum level. To speak fast and loose, this would represent a rewriting of General Relativity to make it consistent with what we know about quantum mechanics, in the same sense that Newtonian physics has to be rewritten to turn it into quantum mechanics. And yet, General Relativity is still hugely useful. Not only does it predict cosmic observations with great accuracy, but your GPS wouldn't work without it (the Earth's gravitational field has an effect on the spacing of signal pulses, and that effect has to be accounted for). In informal language on this list, Richard Stallman has certain ideas about what contains and recommends mean. Theo de Raadt and most other list contributors have a different idea. Defining these terms in different ways, these people come to different results. The results are inconsistent because the definitions are inconsistent. In the way I'd use the words, I don't think OpenBSD contains or recommends any non-free software. I say this because, for Stallman's notion of recommending by reference to make sense, a compilation must at least recommend whatever it contains (e.g. OpenBSD recommends its kernel). But I don't think that presenting non-free software as an option to users constitutes recommendation. Since this is the only way that anyone (e.g. Stallman) has suggested that OpenBSD recommends non-free software, I don't think there is any real recommendation. If this is true then by the contrapositive law OpenBSD doesn't contain non-free software either. That is *not* a proof--just an outline of my thinking. See, it makes sense to me that one might think that presenting non-free software as an option constitutes recommendation. As a somewhat parallel case, I don't think that presenting contraception as an option in sex education
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
oops: NON-Euclidean (still more accurate than a lot of ... on this thread) Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 00:26:35 -0800 (PST) Reid Nichol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500 Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (There are also multiple useful, mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.) Provably so? Euclidean and ono-Euclidian geometries should suffice. Google (including scholar.g) gave nothing of value (I see 4 results when I search for ono-Euclidean on g and nothing on scholar.g). Any specific references? Or something else that would yield results. ono-Euclidian appears to reference something by Omar Kayam, an 11th c Iranian _POET_. If we are to allow the arg. that Creationism is science, we might allow that such an inconsistency has meaning. Dhu best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength __ __ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
Reid Nichol wrote: --- Duncan Patton a Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500 Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (There are also multiple useful, mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.) Provably so? +1 I'd love an example of Math being inconsistent. Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if this is true. System A being inconsistent with System B (that's what the mutually-inconsistent formal systems means) System RMS being self-inconsistent (that's this thread)
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
You have done a pretty good job of summarizing my position. The sex education analogy is quite clear and valid. (I'm in favor of teaching people how to use contraception, because I'm in favor of encouraging sex.) Thank you for helping to explain. In this discussion I have stuck to correcting misstatements about my views, and refuting criticism. I have defended and explained my ethical views in response to attacks, and only for that reason. If others let that question drop, so will I.
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 01:37:46AM -0600, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote: On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500 Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (There are also multiple useful, mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.) Provably so? Yes. For example, in intuitionistic analysis every real-valued function of a real-valued variable is continuous, whereas classically most of them (e.g., in the sense of cardinality) are not. (To anticipate (the substance of) a remark: Yes, e.g., there is no Heaviside function in intuitionistic analysis and no, that does not prevent intuitionistic analysis from being able to do the work in applications that the Heaviside function does for classical analysis (just somewhat differently).) The full picture is more complicated, however. There are translations between the formal systems (or perhaps of one into an expansion by imaginaries, higher types and/or modal operators of (possibly a reduct of) the other). Semantically, this often corresponds to a construction in one formal system of a structure that faithfully (perhaps only relative to certain formulae) models the other formal system. Examples: classically one can verify the foregoing result of intuitionistic analysis, e.g., by interpreting it in a gros topos of subcanonical sheaves on a category of spaces (an extension[1] of Cohen's method of forcing for constructing models of set theory); Klein's model of the hyperbolic plane and the (essentially) Grassmann construction of projective space, each of which is a construction on (part of) an euclidean space. Observe that this does not contradict Matthew's original remark; if anything, it reveals some of the depth of that remark. Matthew knows what he is talking about. [1] This word conceals a lengthy description of an involved relationship; I am sure that some would dispute its aptness.
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 00:02:19 -0800, Reid Nichol wrote: --- Duncan Patton a Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500 Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (There are also multiple useful, mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.) Provably so? +1 I'd love an example of Math being inconsistent. Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if this is true. The following sentence is true. The previous sentence is false. Oh and by the way this sentence is also false. Best regards, Jona -- I am chaos. I am the substance from which your artists and scientists build rhythms. I am the spirit with which your children and clowns laugh in happy anarchy. I am chaos. I am alive, and tell you that you are free. Eris, Goddess Of Chaos, Discord Confusion
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
On 1/7/08, Jona Joachim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 00:02:19 -0800, Reid Nichol wrote: --- Duncan Patton a Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500 Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (There are also multiple useful, mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.) Provably so? +1 I'd love an example of Math being inconsistent. Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if this is true. The following sentence is true. The previous sentence is false. Et ceci: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kurt_G%C3%B6del.jpg n'est pas Kurt Godel.
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 12:02:08 -0500 William Boshuck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. For example, in intuitionistic analysis every real-valued ?intuitionistic? Dhu
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
Just recently, I said: On the other hand, well-formed statements can talk about some of their properties in certain systems. If worse comes to worse, you can simply use a different system to evaluate the statement. This really does make sense and there is information conveyed--a parallel would be Raymond Smullyan's example of a sign that reads, This sign was made my Cellini. That sign is actually telling you something. Typographical correction: Raymond Smullyan's example is of a sign that says: This sign was made *by* Cellini. -Eliah
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
On Jan 7, 2008 11:44 PM, Gregg Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/7/08, Jona Joachim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 00:02:19 -0800, Reid Nichol wrote: --- Duncan Patton a Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500 Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (There are also multiple useful, mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.) Provably so? +1 I'd love an example of Math being inconsistent. Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if this is true. The following sentence is true. The previous sentence is false. Et ceci: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kurt_G%C3%B6del.jpg n'est pas Kurt Godel. =Offtopic== Can you recommend a book about Godel and his works? I have read A World Without Time from Palle Yourgrau and would like to learn more about his work. Floor Terra
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
The following sentence is true. The previous sentence is false. Oh and by the way this sentence is also false. The Liar's Paradox would not be a good example of useful mathematical systems being mutually inconsistent, or of formal language being imprecise or expressing non-absolute ideas. A string of characters in a language is not necessarily evaluable. So =+4()F is not a well-formed statement, and neither are those sentences (Nor the simpler version, This sentence is false.). When you think of how you would formalize something like that (i.e. how you would construct a system where a sentence could discuss its own truth value), you come to realize that there is no way to do so. Which makes sense, since sentences like that don't contain any information anyway. On the other hand, well-formed statements can talk about some of their properties in certain systems. If worse comes to worse, you can simply use a different system to evaluate the statement. This really does make sense and there is information conveyed--a parallel would be Raymond Smullyan's example of a sign that reads, This sign was made my Cellini. That sign is actually telling you something. The famous sentence, This sentence cannot be proved in system S, can be a well-formed statement in some systems. If it can be expressed in system S then system S is either incomplete (there is a true non-theorem) or inconsistent (there is a false theorem). This is Godel's result. The non-obvious and surprising part about Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is that it turns out that any mathematical system powerful enough to provide for basic arithmetic is also in effect powerful enough to express such a statement. Hence there is no single mathematical system that can prove all true statements and disprove all false ones. (Having to do with constraints on statementhood, intuitionist logicians might disagree with that claim--I'm not sure. But then, I don't think intuitionists accept Godel's proof anyway, because it is a reductio.) This seriously calls the notion of absolute mathematical truth into question. And yet, that no mathematical system of useful complexity is both complete and consistent does not diminish the precise nature of mathemtical formalism, nor does it ensure that there be multiple inconsistent systems that are simultaneously useful. Those are for other reasons. Mathematical precision is limited because ultimately any definition is understood on the basis of ideas that are not themselves defined, much as a written tradition cannot exist without an oral tradition that consisting at least of literacy skills. Inconsistent systems are simultaneously useful because it is valuable to take different assumptions seriously and explore their results, and also because when one is describing only part of reality--which is all that anybody has ever been able to do with formal mathematical systems anyway--it is useful to use assumptions different from those most useful describe another part of reality. Similarly, in the world of informal (or less formal) communication, I think it is inherently valuable when people disagree about things, have different perspectives, embrace different worldviews, subscribe to different religions, to have different cultural backgrounds, and so forth. The whole *point* is that they are inconsistent, and not merely that they are different. -Eliah
A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
Hello, I came to the misc@ list from Journal links just to see what is the real discussion about RMS and OpenBSD. From the start I have to tell the list that I'm sad. I have read sad things and now I think I should not read those things. In fact someone should put a waring label like Read with caution or Rude language and affecting text inside. Normally, I am just a common user of OpenBSD and I know that the project runs with some ideas and some peopel which I respect and I think they are good for the purpose of the project. What I will say next should be taken as an user feedback and nothing more. A. License thing Once I asked a lawyer why do people need lawyers in court since we have very clear laws state the rules for us. The man was in difficulty to answer, but eventually he tried and told me that the laws are not very clear like I used to think. Of course, the next question was why don't you make them clear... this way you know when some did something wrong and you know what the punishment is. This time the man was in real trouble answering me and he looked at me and said: I really don't see what you are trying to find out, but what I've learned in school is that the law is always questionable. As a lawyer, it is your job to use it in your client advantage. Later, I found out that our human language is too weak to define laws in absolute and clear terms. Having this said, I have read the BSD licence. Basically I understood that you can do anything with the code, the only request is to put the copyright text inside the source code files. ( If what I understood is not right, maybe some details and examples can be added to the web page.) The GPL licence I never got with it to some understanding. I thing it is very confusing and I was lost in many DOs and DON'Ts. I don't know what GPL allows you and what it doesn't. Basically, I like an example with variations. Of course you need licences, but don't try to be so absolute on defining them because you can't. I think the same applies to free, open, etc. B. Including of non-free software As far as I know, the base of OpenBSD is clear from non-free software. Then we have the ports collection, the root of RMS frustration. As an OpenBSD user I saw a clear delimitation between the base of OpenBSD and the rest. I got this feeling from FAQ: i know that ports are not the goal of the project, they are not going thru the same audit, you will not have support . I got the collection almost as a different project. http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html I sense the ports as a help to manage using what you have. I never felt that OpenBSD is encouraging the use of non-free or propietary software. It was the contrary, the FAQ tells you somehow how the things are. But no sign of encouraging. C. The language I know that OpenBSD people are putting much effort and many things into the project and I think they know better what things should be done. But it is very hard for me to understand and to accept some of the comments I've read on the list. I know, maybe nobody will care but I have said this is just a feedback. Try to look back on your messages and re-read them. Awful. I don't know how this started, but what came next was just a cheap show. A show that I think it was very funny and welcome by the opponents of the open source projects. Both sides started to used stupid and out of context words. Nothing was achieved, just insults and no productive discussion. I think the pressure of working and maybe the New Year come generated this but I like to think you all can do more than this. More good I mean, not more discussions like this. I you felt that RMS did something not appropiate for the project, you should have him contacted in private and clear all the confusion. D. The PR thing From what I know, OpenBSD is not doing a PR (Public Relation) thing, I mean there is no such a big activity to make OpenBSD popular like you can see on other projects. I got the idea that the OS is done for the developers own purposes, but if you like it you can use it and help in many ways. If RMS came up with some statements, then the proper answer should have been Dear Mr. RMS, you are not so well informed about OpenBSD project please check this links I got that as a good answer for my questions. Not to mention the RTFM thing. You say on FAQ that beginners questions will not receive so much help, that the man is your friend. What the hell? 15 days of messages just to answer a beginner-like question. That is not fair ! :-) Bytheway, after some research I'm stuck and I must ask something. But I think I will do this in a different post. Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
On 1/6/08 11:37 PM, Mihai Popescu B. S. wrote: If RMS came up with some statements, then the proper answer should have been Dear Mr. RMS, you are not so well informed about OpenBSD project please check this links I got that as a good answer for my questions. Not to mention the RTFM thing. You say on FAQ that beginners questions will not receive so much help, that the man is your friend. What the hell? 15 days of messages just to answer a beginner-like question. That is not fair ! :-) Mr Stallman says he cannot browse the web, we respect that and are helping him! I do think we shouldn't respond to his croonies. +++chefren
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
Mihai Popescu B. S. wrote: Both sides started to used stupid and out of context words. Nothing was achieved, just insults and no productive discussion. Stallman continually keeps repairing and admitting to a small amount of his errors... and this entire thread has made progress. The only reason stallman started admitting to anything, was because people were so persistent and tough on him. How often I have to beat these quotes below into people I don't know: /...a philosopher who did not hurt anybody's feelings was not doing his job. --Plato (source: Wikipedia)/ /...a programmer who did not hurt anybody's feelings was not doing his job. --L505 (source: Z505)/ /..one of the men who brings legal charges against Socrates, Anytus, warns him about the trouble he may get into if he does not stop criticizing important people. --Wikipedia/ Everyone is so nicey nicey huggy huggy with stallman in other communties and they never speak up about any of his philosophies because they believe everything he says blindly. Linus once in a while speaks up about Stallman and everyone gets mad at Linus. Do you see a pattern here? There is nothing wrong with speaking up once in a while. I'm growing a hatred toward people who are scared of speaking up.. they have no guts and they try and STOP ME from speaking up. They are speaking up themselves, about me speaking up. Hypocrisy? The fact that Stallman himself is replying, shows that he wants to be here. If it was so bad for him, he would have left. He is learning something about freedom.. but he won't admit to it. I have personally taught the man more than anyone else here, as we all know. As for the language? Why can't people just get a sense of humor? Stop being so sensitive about such things. This is email and laughing is healthy. Foul language is not always nice, but at times it is extremely hilarious.. and anyone who whines about being hurt from foul language should really learn to cope with it.. because humans by nature should not be perfectly nice all the time. If we were all nice we'd all believe in the tooth fairy.
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 12:37:26PM -0800, Mihai Popescu B. S. wrote: I came to the misc@ list from Journal links just to see what is the real discussion about RMS and OpenBSD. From the start I have to tell the list that I'm sad. I have read sad things and now I think I should not read those things. In fact someone should put a waring label like Read with caution or Rude language and affecting text inside. [...] +1 I'm a Debian GNU/Linux and OpenBSD user. I'm a FSF member and I buy OpenBSD stuff to support the project, and I try to help Debian, GNU, Linux and OpenBSD projects as far my capabilities allow me. And I don't understand how important people that I admire can fall down in so childish discussion. I'm ashamed as free software supporter and I feel insulted by members of two communities. In the beginning I think clearly who was right and who wasn't, but now it is not important. So now you can continue flaming yourselves and flame me too everybody. Maybe I'm too old to still believe in peace. -- Francisco J. Tsao Santmn http://tsao.enelparaiso.org
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
Later, I found out that our human language is too weak to define laws in absolute and clear terms. Not true. Language can define the laws of of physics or of mathematics in extremely clear, precise, and absolute terms. Bringing the discussion back to operating systems, I think that the our legal system is a giant complicated mess for the same reason that Microsoft Windows is a giant complicated mess: a cleanly-organized system was simply not a priority for its creators.
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
On Jan 6, 2008 9:38 PM, Matthew Szudzik wrote: Not true. Language can define the laws of of physics or of mathematics in extremely clear, precise, and absolute terms. Many if not most physicists and mathematicians would dispute that statement. There are numerous important debates in the fields of physics and mathematics about what fundamental rules mean and how they may and may not be used. (There are also multiple useful, mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.) In math, physics, or software licensing, one must ask whether problems of clarity are the result of the language and how it is used, or the result of people not knowing quite what they mean when they use the language. Imprecise language is valuable when one wants to communicate imprecise ideas. Bringing the discussion back to operating systems, I think that the our legal system is a giant complicated mess for the same reason that Microsoft Windows is a giant complicated mess: a cleanly-organized system was simply not a priority for its creators. A cleanly-organized legal system would operate efficiently and consequently be extremely powerful. Horrible atrocities would result. The US legal system was designed for the express purpose of limiting its own efficiency. I doubt the creators of Microsoft Windows made a bad operating system to empower the people who would be most directly affected by it. While not everything about Microsoft is bad, I wouldn't give them so much credit as to compare their products to a poorly functioning government. -Eliah
Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD
Matthew Szudzik wrote: Not true. Language can define the laws of of physics or of mathematics in extremely clear, precise, and absolute terms. First the obvious: If it can, then why doesn't it? Second, seems like mathematics has axioms not laws. There are a few things you can define with pretty good rigor, not all that easy to do a lot with 'em though. That glib a statement is only made by people who have no concept of clear or of precise or of absolute.
