Real men don't attack straw men

[fuzzyping]

On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:15 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:30:28PM +0100, Marc Balmer wrote:
>> while we do provide a free operating system,
>> http://www.gnu.org/software/for-windows.html
>> makes it total clear that you are a hypocrite and a liar.
>
> And makes it total clear that you are the hypocrite and a liar.
>
> Choice quotes from that page:
>
> Microsoft Windows is a clear and instructive example of non-free
> software.
>
> Using free software on Microsoft Windows (or any non-free
> operating system) is the first step towards freedom, but it does
> not get you all the way there.
>
> So the next step is to replace Windows with a free operating
> system such as GNU/Linux[1].
>
> However, on this page we're concerned with the first step.
>
> [1] Now I see why you have such animosity towards this page...

RMS claims that OpenBSD does not meet his criteria as a recommendable  
free operating system since the userland ports infrastructure contains  
references to non-free software.  As your choice quotes demonstrate,  
Richard Stallman, the FSF and the GNU project advocate the use of non-
free operating systems.  They go so far as to provide binary  
executables on their own official servers.

It doesn't get any more hypocritical than that.

---
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net

[michael hamerski-2]

> > Richard, I may be unfriendly, but you are a lying hypocritical
> > asshole.
>
>
> this pretty much sums up everything. can we all stop now? (-:
>
> aaron.glenn
>

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.

[Daniel Ouellet]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:51:37AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> If such an issue arises for a GNU package, and people think it is not
> doing the most useful thing, I will look at the issue and then if
> necessary discuss it with the developers.

I forgot, dictator do create rules for others to follow, but never apply
to them. They kill the one that put their kingdom in jeopardy and
provide more viable and respectful alternative to their view point.

With all the very long lists of self infringement on your own rules
provided to you today from your own servers, etc. Looks like you will
have a lots to talk about for many years to come then, and we shall now
return to a peace state of affair.

Go do your penitences now, you need it. You must be very well paid to
try to destroy project that actually provide very real alternative to
not only Microsoft empire like you say you are fighting against, but
also to Apple, SunOS, Cisco, Juniper, NetScreen, Fortigate, and many
others as well. Support for BGP alone in OpenBSD does it so well now,
that there isn't a need for alternative i most cases now, nor any others
alternative of firewall out there that can't even come close to what
OpenBSD free alternative provides, and even soon looks lie to your own
GCC compiler too and many others. OpenBSD doesn't do everything, not
does it pretend to do, but what it does, it is doing very well and in a
complete *FREE* matter. It's a shame to not see and value that.

Must be really hard to see that with the biggest bunch of programmers
following you, you can't come with free software that can even touch, or
remotely come close to what makes OpenBSD such a great and *FREE* OS in
such a clean, efficient, simple, well documented and secure way.

The treat must be so bad as to feel the needs to try to destroy it
burned your finger. That out to be the only logical explications to your
actions in the last 48 hours.

If you can't beat them, joint them, so why don't you see the light and
start acting accordingly.

You are a great preacher, just doesn't apply to your own church, does it?!

With all due respect, if there is any left,
Best regards,

Daniel

PS: With everything put to light, how can you put a judgment on others
port tree, or even distribution systems. Your obviously violate your own
rules way more.

[Rod Whitworth-3]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:02:45 +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
>

That's NOT a blob. It is a browser thing running in userland. Just like
Opera does and many other things IF THE USER CHOOSES TO.

Just another userland binary not something compiled/loaded into the
kernel.

Rod/
/earth: write failed, file system is full
cp: /earth/creatures: No space left on device

[Benjamin M. A'Lee-2]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 03:59:08PM -0500, Daniel Ouellet wrote:

> Richard Stallman wrote:
>>     recently we saw theft of BSD to GPL, and a large part of the
>>     GPL community thinks there's no problem with that, that the
>>     BSD community is being "petty" to make an issue out of it.
>>
>> I don't think it is wrong in general to relicense code from BSD to
>> GPL.  However, in some cases I think it is more useful not to do so,
>> in order to contribute changes back to the original BSD-licensed
>> project.
>
> How could you in all conscience come and *talk, arguing, judging and
> pretend to defend and promote freedom* when you are in fact publicly
> promoting license to steel!?
>
> Richard, *the secret software agent 007 with license to kill*?
>
> How dare you to come and talk about freedom and promoting actions like

that!
>
> You *can't relicense* code under your choice without the author consent
> period!

I assumed that the issue was *adding* GPL code to a BSD-licenced project,
not changing the licence on the already-written code. In this case, RMS
is right that there is nothing technically wrong with this, but that
licencing the code under a BSD licence may be more useful.

You are right, of course, that only the licence-holder can change the
licence. I'd prefer to assume, though, that RMS simply misunderstood the
hypothetical situation, rather than intentionally recommending copyright
violation.

        Ben

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

[Greg Thomas-3]

On Dec 13, 2007 10:58 AM, Tom Rosso <tom.rosso@...> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2007 10:30 AM, Mayuresh Kathe <kathe.mayuresh@...> wrote:
>
> > Good people of MISC land, could we please drop this thread, its lasted
> > way longer than really needed.
> >
>
> I'm enjoying watching RMS struggle and fail to make any headway with his
> argument.
>

His argument would be more acceptable to me if it wasn't so
hypocritical.  Not that I would ever agree with it but least it would
hold a little more water.

Greg

--
Dethink to survive - Mclusky

[Greg Thomas-3]

On Dec 13, 2007 2:09 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms@...> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 12:59:27PM -0700, 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.
> >
> > Please see
> >
> >        http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/windows/faq2.html
> >
> > And
> >
> >         ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/
> >
> > What's that, there?
>
> Free Software.
>
> > Emacs *binaries* for *Windows*
> > Supplied right by Richard's http and ftp mirrors.
>
> Yes, Emacs for people who aren't as fortunate as you or I am.
>
> > Richard, I may be unfriendly, but you are a lying hypocritical
> > asshole.
>
> I believe Richard might have been misinformed about ports, while you...
> ... should know better.
>
> It's the difference between helping people run more Free Software vs
> spreading proprietary software.

Nice double speak.  The fact of the matter is he's encouraging the
usage of non-free OSes.

Greg
--
Dethink to survive - Mclusky

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

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.
   
    It is about OpenBSD.
    Securing the RSM seal of approval may or may not appeal to you.

    But that still begs the question of OpenBSD's stance on non-free
software.
    Whether you literally adopt Richard's views or not
    rather than try to persuade him to back down on his principles,
    it might make sense to actually decide what yours are.
    Criticizing others is easy.

    From the perspective of OpenBSD values,
    How far does the OpenBSD disdain for non-free software extend ?
   
    Establish what your principles and policies are or are going to be.
    Adhere to them and THEN if they are consistent with Richard's
    you can insist on his endorsement or burn him as a hypocrit.
   
    If you are unwilling to adopt policies consistent with his,
    accept that you are not getting his endorsement and shut this thread
down.

    This whole RSM is a hypocritical asshole because he will not make an
exception for OpenBSD
   thread is absurd.
    Trying to argue that there is a technological means of circumventing
principles is ludicrous.
    In the event there actually was, it would just demonstrate another
loophole that needed closed.

    In essence Stallman has thrown the guantlet at you. This is not
about the GPL vs. ISC/BSD.
    There is nothing here that contravenes OpenBSD core principles as I
understand them.
    Even if there is conform your policy to your principles - whatever
they are.
    There is an oportunity here for some real cooperation between the
FSF and OpenBSD, in ways that
    would be both beneficial to both and consistent with the principles
of both.

    Richard has offered you the oportunity to aquire his endorsement.

    With very little effort OpenBSD could be the most significant OS
with Richard Stallman's impratur
    certifying it as totally free.

    If that does not matter then shut this thread down, because it is
pointless.
   


   



>  


--
Dave Lynch      DLA Systems
Software Development:           Embedded Linux
717.627.3770       dhlii@...  http://www.dlasys.net
fax: [phone]           Cell: 1.717.587.7774
Over 25 years' experience in platforms, languages, and technologies too numerous to list.

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."
Albert Einstein

[Ingo Schwarze]

Stuart Henderson wrote on Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 06:43:00PM +0000:
> On 2007/12/13 11:51, Richard Stallman wrote:

>> I'm talking about something else:
>> what the system distro suggests that the user do.

> OpenBSD does not suggest that people use ports.
> We suggest people use binary packages.

I think this answer is slightly incomplete and, in that sense,
not entirely accurate in the present context.

http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#PkgVsPorts

 "15.4.6 - What should I use: packages or ports?

  In general, you are *highly* *advised* to use packages
  over building an application from ports.
    [ ... snip about two paragraphs elaborating why ... ]
  Of course, there are a few good reasons
  to use ports over packages in some cases:
   - Distribution rules prohibit OpenBSD from distributing a package.
   - [ ... snip three other uncontroversial reasons ... ]
  However, for most people and most applications, using packages
  is a much easier, and definitely the recommended way of adding
  applications to an OpenBSD system."

Thus, *if* somebody is really determined to use non-free software
on OpenBSD, using ports is officially recommended, though certainly
not in any prominent way.  I think the recommendation makes sense
the way it is.

Thus, the project recommends *how* to install non-free software,
not sure whether the project *suggests* to install non-free software,
probably the project does not recommend using non-free software.

Using non-free software under OpenBSD is considerably more difficult
than using free software.  But note that these difficulties are not
artificially constructed in order to scare people away from non-free
software.  These difficulties just arise naturally as some of the
inherent downsides of non-free software; other downsides, no doubt,
will be less obvious to the casual user.

I understand that many people deem the right to keep the product
of one's own work to oneself an essential part of freedom,
even people contributing huge amounts of work to free software.
By contrast, I certainly hope for a world where *everybody* enjoys
sharing the products of her/his thought freely; yet, currently,
i do commercial software development to earn a living.
Completely coherent human beings are hardly imaginable:
If i understand correctly, Emacs Windows binaries might serve as
another example.   Either way, i don't feel like pointing fingers at
port Makefiles supporting non-free software right now.

> With two exceptions (which look like they're marked in error since
> their licenses do indeed allow source code redistribution), where we
> provide a binary package, we also provide the source distribution
> files used to build them.

[Travers Buda-2]

* Karthik Kumar <karthikkumar@...> [2007-12-14 05:02:45]:

> 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
>
>

Take into consideration that OpenBSD primairly does not use blobs
because they force you to:

Rely on someone else to make it
Rely on someone else to fix it
Design X.org in a crappy way so said blobs can be used
Security...

It's not because of some ethical reason.  Do your homework before
you accuse people.

--
Travers Buda

[Daniel Ouellet]

Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 03:59:08PM -0500, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
>> Richard Stallman wrote:
>>>     recently we saw theft of BSD to GPL, and a large part of the
>>>     GPL community thinks there's no problem with that, that the
>>>     BSD community is being "petty" to make an issue out of it.
>>>
>>> I don't think it is wrong in general to relicense code from BSD to
>>> GPL.  However, in some cases I think it is more useful not to do so,
>>> in order to contribute changes back to the original BSD-licensed
>>> project.
>> How could you in all conscience come and *talk, arguing, judging and
>> pretend to defend and promote freedom* when you are in fact publicly
>> promoting license to steel!?
>>
>> Richard, *the secret software agent 007 with license to kill*?
>>
>> How dare you to come and talk about freedom and promoting actions like
> that!
>> You *can't relicense* code under your choice without the author consent
>> period!
>
> I assumed that the issue was *adding* GPL code to a BSD-licenced project,
> not changing the licence on the already-written code. In this case, RMS
> is right that there is nothing technically wrong with this, but that
> licencing the code under a BSD licence may be more useful.

Let the men talk for himself! I am sure his English is 10x better then
mine and he could berry me under words I couldn't even dream to fully
understand!

I may not great at this, but he clearly chose and wrote *I don't think
it is wrong in general to relicense code from BSD to GPL* with the full
knowledge and understanding of the meaning of each of the words as
**relicense**.

I may not be English speaking born, but for crying at loud, I am not
that stupid and if I can understand what he meant, I can't imagine
others born with the gift of the language Richard's likes to play with,
can't clearly understand his meaning full well!

If I can use my level of understanding of the language and argue and
fully understand his meaning, Richard sure don't need your help to make
a foul of himself or even to try to excuse him. Sorry, no cookie for you
here!

And I sure don't think he needs you to defend his twisted mind and
choices of words. If I don't need help to express myself, Richard sure
don't need your!

He is so naked in his propaganda, and like some have said, each layers
have been peeled away so bad, one at the time from his own doing, no one
else, that there is only the bones left to pick on and even that start
to be in a very advance stage of "Osteoporosis"!

Regards,

Daniel

PS: I can't believe in the face of total absurdity, people still find
ways to defend it. No wonder layers makes a killing just by playing with
the meaning of others verbal and written expression of events to their
own benefits.

[Theo de Raadt]

> 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.

>     It is about OpenBSD.
>     Securing the RSM seal of approval may or may not appeal to you.

RMS may have tried to make this about OpenBSD, but he's failed, because
he has shown that he does _exactly_ what he says we should not do.

>     But that still begs the question of OpenBSD's stance on non-free
> software.

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.

>     Whether you literally adopt Richard's views or not
>     rather than try to persuade him to back down on his principles,
>     it might make sense to actually decide what yours are.
>     Criticizing others is easy.

We know _exactly_ what our principles are, and we are sticking to them
very clearly.

>     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.

>     Establish what your principles and policies are or are going to be.

We did.  Years ago.  Did you?

>     Adhere to them and THEN if they are consistent with Richard's
>     you can insist on his endorsement or burn him as a hypocrit.

We do adhere to our principles very exactly.  Richard does not adhere
to what he preaches.

Richard came to our lists on a vendetta of hatred.  Richard lied about
our project.  Richard continues, and he won't stop, and therefore he
is an asshole.  He'll get what he deserves -- we don't drop this issue
now that he's gone so far.

>     If you are unwilling to adopt policies consistent with his,
>     accept that you are not getting his endorsement and shut this thread
> down.

Why do you get to tell people what threads should be shut down?

Why don't you mail Richard and tell him to stop mailing our lists?
Or are you his little brother?

>     This whole RSM is a hypocritical asshole because he will not make an
> exception for OpenBSD
>    thread is absurd.

Having jumped onto the pulpit, Richard cannot preach that which he does
not follow himself.

>     Trying to argue that there is a technological means of circumventing
> principles is ludicrous.

So go tell Richard.  Don't tell us.

>     In the event there actually was, it would just demonstrate another
> loophole that needed closed.
>
>     In essence Stallman has thrown the guantlet at you. This is not
> about the GPL vs. ISC/BSD.
>     There is nothing here that contravenes OpenBSD core principles as I
> understand them.
>     Even if there is conform your policy to your principles - whatever
> they are.
>     There is an oportunity here for some real cooperation between the
> FSF and OpenBSD, in ways that
>     would be both beneficial to both and consistent with the principles
> of both.

There is no cooperation between FSF and OpenBSD, and if Richard keeps
throwing poo at us, we will keep throwing poo right back at him and
his hyporcritical project.

>     Richard has offered you the oportunity to aquire his endorsement.

That's bullshit.  Richard came looking for a fight.  I don't think he
expected to look this much like a loser.

>     With very little effort OpenBSD could be the most significant OS
> with Richard Stallman's impratur
>     certifying it as totally free.

We are free.  We don't need some uneducated guy who climbed up into
some high chair endorsing us; he is jealous of what we do, and that
noone else listens to him anymore.

>     If that does not matter then shut this thread down, because it is
> pointless.

Threads continue when idiots like you post to them.

[Ray Percival-2]

On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:23 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>     If you are unwilling to adopt policies consistent with his,
>     accept that you are not getting his endorsement and shut this  
> thread
> down.

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  
about ripping him apart, yeah it's turned into a bit of a feeding  
frenzy but he brought it on himself. I'd LOVE to see somebody cross  
post this to the Debian and Ubuntu threads just to see what they  
think of his thoughts on the subject. Fuck, gNewSense? Seriously? I  
mean all joking aside, SERIOUSLY? He can see no reason that it's not  
a functional reason to choose OpenBSD over -that-? The most  
charitable way to read that is that alzheimer's has set in and to  
give him our pity. If anybody thinks I'm wrong go ahead and tell me  
how to do this with gNewSense or that I'd get that kind of support  
out of them. Go ahead try it.
http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20071008153119

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.

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.

[Theo de Raadt]

> On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:23 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> >     If you are unwilling to adopt policies consistent with his,
> >     accept that you are not getting his endorsement and shut this  
> > thread
> > down.
>
> 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  
> about ripping him apart, yeah it's turned into a bit of a feeding  
> frenzy but he brought it on himself. I'd LOVE to see somebody cross  
> post this to the Debian and Ubuntu threads just to see what they  
> think of his thoughts on the subject. Fuck, gNewSense? Seriously? I  
> mean all joking aside, SERIOUSLY? He can see no reason that it's not  
> a functional reason to choose OpenBSD over -that-? The most  
> charitable way to read that is that alzheimer's has set in and to  
> give him our pity. If anybody thinks I'm wrong go ahead and tell me  
> how to do this with gNewSense or that I'd get that kind of support  
> out of them. Go ahead try it.
> http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20071008153119
>
> 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.
>
> 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.

Guys, don't forget to make sure that His Royal Hypocrite is cc'd.
Some people have replied in, and tried to remove him.

[Breen Ouellette]

David H. Lynch Jr. 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.
>    
>     It is about OpenBSD.

You were right up until this point.

I highly doubt that many OpenBSD developers or users care whether or not
RMS endorses OpenBSD. I know I don't.

RMS has made statements which detract against OpenBSD and contradict the
actions of his own organization, the FSF. They do not even take his
fundamentalist stance with some of their own software, as pointed out by
Theo.

Calling him on his hypocrisy is this project's most reasonable defense
against his statements. Anything else would require more effort from
OpenBSD than it took RMS to muck about in the first place. And it's not
worth any additional effort.

RMS has not thrown the gauntlet at OpenBSD, he has thrown mud. We are
throwing it back because we don't feel OpenBSD deserves it.

There will never be an opportunity for cooperation between OpenBSD and
the FSF because the FSF has an agenda which is at odds with OpenBSD. The
project is trying to remove the GPL where ever possible, and I think
that is part of what motivated RMS to make his negative statements about
the OpenBSD project.

To me, the tone of your email indicates that you think we should stand
here and listen to his crap, and then try to build a relationship from
it. He didn't come here to build anything. He came here wagging his
tongue like a loon and those of us that support OpenBSD are now exposing
him for what he is.

He brought this on himself and he deserves it. Shame on him and shame on
those who try to make excuses for him.

Breeno

[Gilles Chehade-5]

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/

[Theo de Raadt]

> David H. Lynch Jr. 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.
> >    
> >     It is about OpenBSD.
>
> You were right up until this point.
>
> I highly doubt that many OpenBSD developers or users care whether or not
> RMS endorses OpenBSD. I know I don't.
>
> RMS has made statements which detract against OpenBSD and contradict the
> actions of his own organization, the FSF. They do not even take his
> fundamentalist stance with some of their own software, as pointed out by
> Theo.
>
> Calling him on his hypocrisy is this project's most reasonable defense
> against his statements. Anything else would require more effort from
> OpenBSD than it took RMS to muck about in the first place. And it's not
> worth any additional effort.
>
> RMS has not thrown the gauntlet at OpenBSD, he has thrown mud. We are
> throwing it back because we don't feel OpenBSD deserves it.
>
> There will never be an opportunity for cooperation between OpenBSD and
> the FSF because the FSF has an agenda which is at odds with OpenBSD. The
> project is trying to remove the GPL where ever possible, and I think
> that is part of what motivated RMS to make his negative statements about
> the OpenBSD project.
>
> To me, the tone of your email indicates that you think we should stand
> here and listen to his crap, and then try to build a relationship from
> it. He didn't come here to build anything. He came here wagging his
> tongue like a loon and those of us that support OpenBSD are now exposing
> him for what he is.
>
> He brought this on himself and he deserves it. Shame on him and shame on
> those who try to make excuses for him.
>
> Breeno
>

Be sure to cc Richard so that he knows.

[ropers]

This site uses ABLOBE Flush*, but it's TEH FUNNAY:
http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=OpenBSD&word2=Richard+Stallman

*) But it's also lynx(1) compatible: Follow the IFRAME: content link
to see the gist of things. In the Flush version there's also a winning
stick figure knocking the kumquats out of a losing one.

[Breen Ouellette]

ropers wrote:
> This site uses ABLOBE Flush*, but it's TEH FUNNAY:
> http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=OpenBSD&word2=Richard+Stallman
>
> *) But it's also lynx(1) compatible: Follow the IFRAME: content link
> to see the gist of things. In the Flush version there's also a winning
> stick figure knocking the kumquats out of a losing one.
>
>  

Try these match ups:

 - "TdR" vs "RMS"
 - "OpenBSD" vs "gNewSense"
 - "Theo de Raadt" vs "Richard Stallman"
 - "Common Sense" vs "Richard Stallman"

And my personal favourite: "The World" vs "Richard Stallman"

:)

Thanks for the lighter side, ropers.

Breeno

[ropers]

For kicks, I headed over to gnewsense.org.

I really encourage people to check out the forums there (
http://wiki.gnewsense.org/ForumMain/ForumMain ) and see the kinds of
quality discussions going on there:
http://wiki.gnewsense.org/ForumMain/GNewSenseIsUgly
http://wiki.gnewsense.org/ForumMain/WhyILikeGNewSense

Anyway, then I found this thread:
http://wiki.gnewsense.org/ForumMain/WhatSucksAboutGNewSense
and this email:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnewsense-users/2007-11/msg00042.html

As it turns out, there are a bunch of pieces of non-free software in
gNewSense, and the gNewSense people know it.

*They just don't know where those pieces are.*

And they are having a hard time thinking of a good way to even find
all the non-free software that is in gNewSense right now.

I'm not trying to bash gNewSense. They may be well-intentioned, and
that's cool.
I'm just writing this to lend perspective to Richard's endorsement of
gNewSense and his rejection of OpenBSD.

Thanks and regards,
--ropers