Real men don't attack straw men

On Dec 14, 2007 9:23 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. <dhlii@...> wrote:
>     Securing the RSM seal of approval may or may not appeal to you.

OpenBSD does not, pardon the french, give a shit about RMS' "seal of approval".

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

As opposed to RMS and FSF, OpenBSD is not on a crusade against non-free software
and it's not a goal of the project to abolish such software.

>     Criticizing others is easy.

It sure seems to be so for RMS...

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

OpenBSD's policies were established a long time ago.

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

OpenBSD does not seek his endorsement. That doesn't mean individuals involved
with OpenBSD can't be critical of him and his criteria.

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

OpenBSD does not want him to make an exception.

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

Are we supposed to feel special?

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

It was pointless from the start.

---
Lars Hansson

[Rick Pettit]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 08:26:25PM +0100, Raimo Niskanen wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:52:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> :
> >
> >     It contains URL's to non-free software, and free Makefiles that
> >     knows how to build that non-free software.   But the entire ports
> >     tree has no non-free software in it at all.
> >
> >     Does that make it non-free?
> >
> > Even giving the URLs has the effect of referring people to those
> > non-free programs.  It gives those non-free programs legitimacy,
> > and thus contradicts the idea that "software should be free".
> >
> >     Are all operating systems non-free then, because they can be used
> >     to write free Makefiles which compile non-free software?
> >
> > No, that's a totally different question.
> >
> > Q1: could your system support a port to install non-free program FOO.
> > Q2: does your system come with a port to install FOO.
> >
> > The answer to Q1 is always yes.  I'm concerned with Q2.
>
> It now seems fairly clear where Mr. Stallman draws the line.
> For him to recommend a distribution as a free software distribution
> it should ignore non-free software. Not pretend that non-free
> software does not exist, but just not point where to find it.
>
> OpenBSD's port tree is stated to contain (pointers to) some non-free software
> but mostly free so you have been warned, but it takes an active step by the
> user to filter the port tree if one wants to avoid non-free software.
> Therefore the OpenBSD distribution is not kosher in Stallman's view.

I've been a user for years and could care less what Stallman thinks.

> If OpenBSD's port tree would be stated to contain only (pointers to) free
> software, that is the current port tree would be split into a free port
> tree in the distribution and a non-free tree to download from some
> other site ready to drop into the free port tree. Then the distribution
> would be Stallman-kosher. With a not too huge effort.

The OpenBSD team doesn't put releases together for Richard Stallman, so who
cares?

> If then the installation pages would have links to and explanation
> about the non-free part of the port tree, I do not know if that
> would render the whole distribution non-Stallman-kosher.

Based on some of Theo's recent postings I'm not sure Stallman's own web site is
Stallman kosher--I just hope Stallman can sleep at night.

> But if there is enough benefit for OpenBSD to be on Stallman's list
> of free operating systems, to do such a change, that is a
> completely different question.

Who is Stallman that we as users should even care?

> And if Stallman's definition of a free software distribution is
> a good one, that is obviously debatable. Many feel OpenBSD
> is already freer than most, and I also feel it is.
> At least in spirit.

Is this even debatable? What lawyer in his right mind would argue that
Stallman's licenses are *more* free than OpenBSD!?

> But that is not enough for Mr. Stallman,
> and he is free to have that opinion.

He sure is (free to debate the merits of OpenBSD on *his* mailing lists).

I've been an OpenBSD advocate for years. This stuff gets rather tired after a
while (I can't even imagine what it must be like to be a core member of the
OpenBSD team and have to read this stuff).

-Rick

[Theo de Raadt]

> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 08:26:25PM +0100, Raimo Niskanen wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:52:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > :
> > >
> > >     It contains URL's to non-free software, and free Makefiles that
> > >     knows how to build that non-free software.   But the entire ports
> > >     tree has no non-free software in it at all.
> > >
> > >     Does that make it non-free?
> > >
> > > Even giving the URLs has the effect of referring people to those
> > > non-free programs.  It gives those non-free programs legitimacy,
> > > and thus contradicts the idea that "software should be free".
> > >
> > >     Are all operating systems non-free then, because they can be used
> > >     to write free Makefiles which compile non-free software?
> > >
> > > No, that's a totally different question.
> > >
> > > Q1: could your system support a port to install non-free program FOO.
> > > Q2: does your system come with a port to install FOO.
> > >
> > > The answer to Q1 is always yes.  I'm concerned with Q2.
> >
> > It now seems fairly clear where Mr. Stallman draws the line.
> > For him to recommend a distribution as a free software distribution
> > it should ignore non-free software. Not pretend that non-free
> > software does not exist, but just not point where to find it.
> >
> > OpenBSD's port tree is stated to contain (pointers to) some non-free software
> > but mostly free so you have been warned, but it takes an active step by the
> > user to filter the port tree if one wants to avoid non-free software.
> > Therefore the OpenBSD distribution is not kosher in Stallman's view.
>
> I've been a user for years and could care less what Stallman thinks.
>
> > If OpenBSD's port tree would be stated to contain only (pointers to) free
> > software, that is the current port tree would be split into a free port
> > tree in the distribution and a non-free tree to download from some
> > other site ready to drop into the free port tree. Then the distribution
> > would be Stallman-kosher. With a not too huge effort.
>
> The OpenBSD team doesn't put releases together for Richard Stallman, so who
> cares?
>
> > If then the installation pages would have links to and explanation
> > about the non-free part of the port tree, I do not know if that
> > would render the whole distribution non-Stallman-kosher.
>
> Based on some of Theo's recent postings I'm not sure Stallman's own web site is
> Stallman kosher--I just hope Stallman can sleep at night.
>
> > But if there is enough benefit for OpenBSD to be on Stallman's list
> > of free operating systems, to do such a change, that is a
> > completely different question.
>
> Who is Stallman that we as users should even care?
>
> > And if Stallman's definition of a free software distribution is
> > a good one, that is obviously debatable. Many feel OpenBSD
> > is already freer than most, and I also feel it is.
> > At least in spirit.
>
> Is this even debatable? What lawyer in his right mind would argue that
> Stallman's licenses are *more* free than OpenBSD!?
>
> > But that is not enough for Mr. Stallman,
> > and he is free to have that opinion.
>
> He sure is (free to debate the merits of OpenBSD on *his* mailing lists).
>
> I've been an OpenBSD advocate for years. This stuff gets rather tired after a
> while (I can't even imagine what it must be like to be a core member of the
> OpenBSD team and have to read this stuff).

RMS has been on our lists before, spouting the same basic shit.  He
hates what we do.

If he really hated what we do, he should stop using OpenSSH.  He says
he uses it.  He should not.  We are horrible people; he should not use
our software.

The only way to make it clear to him that he should not come here to
our lists in the future, is to teach him a hard lesson, and that is
done by continually re-adding cc's back to him -- because the mails
talk about him -- even when his friends come our mailing lists and delete
the his address from the cc list.

Like this message, which adds him hack in.

Richard, you are a lying cheating hypocrite.

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

Theo de Raadt wrote:

>> Theo de Raadt wrote:
>>    
>>> Hell, the OpenBSD ports tree should perhaps contain patches which
>>> REMOVE such commercial operating system support.  That's a fork
>>> Richard would surely approve of.
>>>
>>> Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo.
>>>  
>>>      
>>     I have no doubt that in some context Richard is hypocritical.
>> Though most of us would be hard pressed to structure our lives
>> to be consistent with our beleifs and principles to the extent
>> that he has.
>>
>>     But this is not about EMACS, nor is it about  hypocracy.
>>    
>
> RMS made statements first.  RMS will pay for his lies.
>  

Why did I even bother.

I was not trying to defend RMS or attack you.
I was actually looking at the possibility that there might be some way
of getting something positive out of this
for OpenBSD. There is an obvious win-win for everybody, but you are
fixated on revenge for imaginary slights.


This sounds like something from my eight year old. You are 30something,
Grow up.
Do you really write your own email, or do you have some kid do them for
you ?

It is more important to you  to catch Stallman in some mis-statement or
lie than to even figure out what is best for OpenBSD ?
Rather than figure out if there is anyway OpenBSD can benefit, it is
more important to find a way to screw somebody else ?

Every once in a while you show rationality and intelligence, and I think
maybe there is some real value and real hope for
OpenBSD, then you lob off a message like this one.

> No.  Nothing begs the question of what we do.  We are not going to
> change our process in any way as a result of what some loony retard
> says.
>
>  
    So if Richard adopted the BSD/ISC you would switch to the GPL just
to spite him ?
   
> We know _exactly_ what our principles are, and we are sticking to them
> very clearly.
>  
Yes, the screw RMS, Screw the FSF, and screw the world, and screw
ourselves principle.
Because frankly I can't see where you are following any other.

Your position on closed hardware and binary blobs is exactly the same as
Stallman's,
and logically leads to the same position on software.
Yet so far I have gotten no position on software - aside from the claim
that Stallman somehow insulted OpenBSD.
The only way his remarks could be taken as an insult, would be if you
actually have the same principles.
Even then it would be more of an uninformed error than an insult.
It is not an insult for him to claim that you tacitly endorse non-free
software - if you do.

Whatever your principles are you are sticking to them so clearly that I
do not even think most of the  OpenBSD
developers know what they actually are - well aside from the screw
everybody else principle. That one seems abundantly clear.

>>     From the perspective of OpenBSD values,
>>     How far does the OpenBSD disdain for non-free software extend ?
>>    
>
> Richard does not stand in a position where he can ask that question
> to us.  Nor do you.  We'll do what we want, and your questions don't
> change anything.
>  
Forget Richard, Forget me, Forget all the people you think have fucked
you over.
Instead of trying to figure out how to extract revenge, figure out what
is best for OpenBSD.

There is nothing wrong with doing what you want.
But it sure as hell looks as if you are more interested in making
certain that you do NOT do anything that richard might want.
That anytime he says black, you are going to say white.

In many circles I am known for having nearly an absolutist position on
Free Speech. Your expressed  position is even more absolutist than mine.
Yet here you are telling others we can not even ask questions. My we
have clay feet.

Richard has actually answer the challenges you have thrown at him.
In those instances where someone found that something that he
recommended was not adhering to the standards he established,
he commited to look into it and either fix it or revoke his recommendation.
You refuse to deign to allow anyone else to ask questions.


>>     Establish what your principles and policies are or are going to be.
>>    
>
> We did.  Years ago.  
    I got it, OpenBSD is good, non-free software is good, but anything
having anything to do with RMS is evil.

    Seriously, nothing I have read of any OpenBSD policies and
principles is inconsistent with Richard's on this issue.
    If I am wrong about that, then OpenBSD has done a poor job of
expressing its policies and principles.
    If I am right you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    This does not effect me personally one way or another.
    I could give a rats ass about the future of OpenBSD.
    Nor is this childish spat you seem to be having all by yourself
with Richard
    of any consequence to me.

    Though I will conceede you are incredibly frustrating,
    how the hell can somebody so obviously intelligent,
     be so obviously self destructive and stupid at the same time.

    If one person calls you an ass, that's there problem.
    If ten people call you an ass, maybe you should think about it.
    If everyone on the planet outside your own cult calls you an ass,
    you are either the messiah or an ass. My money is on the latter.

> Did you?
>
>  
    Do you have turrets or aspergers or some other reason why you are
compelled to insult virtually everyone ?
   

>>     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.
>
>  

    Richard, Richard, Richard. You would think he is the anti-christ.
    Forget Richard, look after your own interests.

    Though Frankly, I suspect you will find that virtually every human
outside the cult of OpenBSD,
    that gives enough of a damn to read Richards remarks would conclude that
    nothing he said insulted OpenBSD, and that they were accurate.  

>>     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?
>  
    Fine blather away as you please. Atleast Don Quite was fighting
against windmills for a worthwhile cause.
   
> Why don't you mail Richard and tell him to stop mailing our lists?
> Or are you his little brother?
>  
    I have e-mailed him. Pretty much the same thing I emailed you.
    I sugested that since on this specific issue I could see no conflict
between what I percieve to be  OpenBSD  values and policies, that there
had to be someway to reach common ground.


    But I do not speak for OpenBSD - you do.
    And you seem to fixated on revenge for imagined slights to look out
for your own or OpenBSD's interests.

    There are values I share with you, some I share with Richard, and
many I hold as my own.
    I have had heated private exchanges with Richard on several topics.
    But he has always been civil. He is a brilliant and shares many
other traits with you.
    But he seems matured past eight, and realize that that whining and
ranting is not going to get him anywhere.

>
> 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.
>  
    I got it, if the fate of the human race depended on cooperation
between the two of you,
    the rest of us need to bend over and kiss our asses goodbye,
    You would rather eat dog shit than concede there is any issue on the
planet that Richard is not wrong about.
    If god came down and gave you a choice between a heaven with Richard
in it and eternal damnation, you would pick
    eternal damnation.

>  
>>     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.
>  
    Outside the cult of OpenBSD no one else sees it that way.
    The few people who are paying attention are trying to figure out why
OpenBSD is more interested
    in pissing all over RMS than looking after its own interests,
    And Richard only looks stupid for beleiving there was any hope of
rational discourse.

>  
>>     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 he is so jealous, why are you the ones whining because you can't
get anybody to give you any money ?
    I read damn little besides sour grapes from the OpenBSD community.

    I think Shakespeare might have some advice - "the fault is not in
our stars, but in ourselves".
    But what would I know, like Richard, I am just an uneducated twit.

    From what I can tell GPL/LGPL projects make up almost 75% of  all
FOSS projects, and BSD projects less that 6%.
    There are nearly as many projects under the new GPLv3 as the BSD
License.
    Even Torvald's has gone from dead set against the GPLv3 to being
willing to actually use it in some circumstances.

    All in all Richard has been doing quite well - despite graduating
magna cum laude from Harvard and picking up two honorary doctorates and
1 honorary professorship - this year.

    If he gives a damn about OpenBSD at all, it is because if he could
endorse it, he could use it as an effective club to beat on Linux
distributions to get them to conform to his notions of free software.
While gNewSense might actually be more popular than OpenBSD, OpenBSD is
an actual real OS, with a real history even if it has damn few actual
users.  "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
He is not jealous of you. He just wants to use you as a means to much
bigger ends. But god forbid that you might actually benefit from that.
"Alas, alas for you, lawyers and pharisees, hypocrites that you are!
Sure that the kingdom of Heaven awaits you; you will not venture half so
far."

    I am not the leader of the RMS fan club, but personally, it seems
like you can't figure out why he has the stature and attention he has,
and you do not.
    Hey I can't figure out why Bill Gates is worth Billions and I am
not. But I am not letting it eat me up.
 
    And while you are mail bombing Stallman - why don't you revive
another childish blast from the past and lob a few kernel binaries at him.

    Do you actually read the crap you write ?
    Please tell me that you have aspergers, or are a paranoid schitz, so
that there is a rational explanation for your behavior.

    I am not out to get you. Richard is not out to get you. The FSF is
not out to get you. The world is not out to get you. But you appear to
be out to get you.
    "You show people what you're willing to fight for when you fight
your friends

[L-9]

David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

>>>> Hell, the OpenBSD ports tree should perhaps contain patches which
>>>> REMOVE such commercial operating system support.  That's a fork
>>>> Richard would surely approve of.
>>>>
>>>> Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo.
>>>>  
>>>>      
>>>     I have no doubt that in some context Richard is hypocritical.
>>> Though most of us would be hard pressed to structure our lives
>>> to be consistent with our beleifs and principles to the extent
>>> that he has.
>>>
>>>     But this is not about EMACS, nor is it about  hypocracy.
>>>    
>> RMS made statements first.  RMS will pay for his lies.
>>  
> Why did I even bother.
>
> I was not trying to defend RMS or attack you.
> I was actually looking at the possibility that there might be some way
> of getting something positive out of this
> for OpenBSD. There is an obvious win-win for everybody, but you are
> fixated on revenge for imaginary slights.
>
>
> This sounds like something from my eight year old. You are 30something,
> Grow up.

Sounds like an insult from you.

> Do you really write your own email, or do you have some kid do them for
> you ?
>

Sounds like an insult from you

> It is more important to you  to catch Stallman in some mis-statement or
> lie than to even figure out what is best for OpenBSD ?
> Rather than figure out if there is anyway OpenBSD can benefit, it is
> more important to find a way to screw somebody else ?
>

Sounds like an insult from you.

> Every once in a while you show rationality and intelligence, and I think
> maybe there is some real value and real hope for
> OpenBSD, then you lob off a message like this one.
>
>> No.  Nothing begs the question of what we do.  We are not going to
>> change our process in any way as a result of what some loony retard
>> says.
>>
>>  
>     So if Richard adopted the BSD/ISC you would switch to the GPL just
> to spite him ?
>    
>> We know _exactly_ what our principles are, and we are sticking to them
>> very clearly.
>>  
> Yes, the screw RMS, Screw the FSF, and screw the world, and screw
> ourselves principle.
> Because frankly I can't see where you are following any other.
>
> Your position on closed hardware and binary blobs is exactly the same as
> Stallman's,
> and logically leads to the same position on software.
> Yet so far I have gotten no position on software - aside from the claim
> that Stallman somehow insulted OpenBSD.
> The only way his remarks could be taken as an insult, would be if you
> actually have the same principles.
> Even then it would be more of an uninformed error than an insult.
> It is not an insult for him to claim that you tacitly endorse non-free
> software - if you do.
>
> Whatever your principles are you are sticking to them so clearly that I
> do not even think most of the  OpenBSD
> developers know what they actually are - well aside from the screw
> everybody else principle. That one seems abundantly clear.
>

Look up how 'openbsd' was started and learn about the whole 'open' idea.
The open CVS server, open documentation, open drivers, etc.

Hmm maybe RMS won't recommend OpenBSD because it is open.. and being
open implies open source, which.. is not good.. it must be free
software, not open software.

>>>     From the perspective of OpenBSD values,
>>>     How far does the OpenBSD disdain for non-free software extend ?
>>>    
>> Richard does not stand in a position where he can ask that question
>> to us.  Nor do you.  We'll do what we want, and your questions don't
>> change anything.
>>  
> Forget Richard, Forget me, Forget all the people you think have fucked
> you over.

Sounds like a childish insult from you.

> Instead of trying to figure out how to extract revenge, figure out what
> is best for OpenBSD.
>
> There is nothing wrong with doing what you want.
> But it sure as hell looks as if you are more interested in making
> certain that you do NOT do anything that richard might want.
> That anytime he says black, you are going to say white.
>
> In many circles I am known for having nearly an absolutist position on
> Free Speech.

IMO software has nothing to do with speech. It is about open code, open
development and even free of cost code at times to make it wonderful.
Software is like engineering electronic circuit blueprints.. it isn't
like a protest where you hammer on people's doors and talk about the
blood and gory of the protest on 99th street where everyone was holding
big signs and getting beaten by the police for bringing up censorship.

Nobody goes around talking about how grocery stores are censoring our
freedom by not giving us the chemical blueprints of Apples.

So if some guy releases a closed source piece of code and it happens to
work, who cares.. let them do that. It's just an apple without a blueprint.

Instead of just leaving the Apple alone, a free software hacker will
make extra effort to fight the grocery store for giving away an apple
without apple blueprints. Why not just leave it alone, and go on with
your open development and open code? Because free software developers
waste time on fighting the Apple instead of just developing open code.

Free Speech is why 'open' developers don't get along with free
developers.. because the whole free speech thing confuses everyone.

For example, I'd like for all GNU developers to stop censoring their
books, and consulting and stop holding a gun to my head whenever I want
a support contract.. that should be free, as in speech, and I shouldn't
be restricted. So what really is free speech? It is a vague, meaningless
phrase because if I apply free speech to consulting and books, then all
hardcover and paperback books should be opened and freed, as compiling a
book is censoring it only to those who can pay for the book. When you
take free speech to far, everything becomes censorship.. even the apple
in your store and the banana in your store which don't come with
molecular or atomic molecular blueprints.

All boxes of cookies do not come with exact molecular blueprints on
them. They only contain censored ingredients and no build instructions
for the cookies. Reality is free speech could be taken so far as to
demand all cookie boxes contain exact instructions on how every cookie
in the box was cooked and at what temperature. Some cookie vendors
simply don't have time for this nonsense, since they know that most
cookie eaters don't view the cookie as free speech, since the cookie
isn't speech.. just as software is not speech.. software is just code.
So stop the whole free speech nonsense and focus on open code. At least
that's what I do.

Methinks bsd is more of an open OS whereas GNU is more of a political
fight for our anti-censorship kinda toolset.

 > Your expressed  position is even more absolutist than mine.
> Yet here you are telling others we can not even ask questions. My we
> have clay feet.
>
> Richard has actually answer the challenges you have thrown at him.
> In those instances where someone found that something that he
> recommended was not adhering to the standards he established,
> he commited to look into it and either fix it or revoke his recommendation.
> You refuse to deign to allow anyone else to ask questions.
>

You are asking them right now, this is email.. anything goes. Stop worrying.

>
>>>     Establish what your principles and policies are or are going to be.
>>>    
>> We did.  Years ago.  
>     I got it, OpenBSD is good, non-free software is good, but anything
> having anything to do with RMS is evil.
>
>     Seriously, nothing I have read of any OpenBSD policies and
> principles is inconsistent with Richard's on this issue.
>     If I am wrong about that, then OpenBSD has done a poor job of
> expressing its policies and principles.
>     If I am right you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
>
>     This does not effect me personally one way or another.
>     I could give a rats ass about the future of OpenBSD.
>     Nor is this childish spat you seem to be having all by yourself
> with Richard
>     of any consequence to me.
>
>     Though I will conceede you are incredibly frustrating,
>     how the hell can somebody so obviously intelligent,
>      be so obviously self destructive and stupid at the same time.
>
>     If one person calls you an ass, that's there problem.
>     If ten people call you an ass, maybe you should think about it.
>     If everyone on the planet outside your own cult calls you an ass,
>     you are either the messiah or an ass. My money is on the latter.
>
>> Did you?
>>
>>  
>     Do you have turrets or aspergers or some other reason why you are
> compelled to insult virtually everyone ?

Since when was 'did you' an insult?

>    
>>>     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.
>>
>>  
>     Richard, Richard, Richard. You would think he is the anti-christ.
>     Forget Richard, look after your own interests.
>
>     Though Frankly, I suspect you will find that virtually every human
> outside the cult of OpenBSD,
>     that gives enough of a damn to read Richards remarks would conclude that
>     nothing he said insulted OpenBSD, and that they were accurate.  
>

I am not part of the OpenBSD cult, I just started using it a couple days
ago and I think that the whole 'openbsd isn't worthy of freedom' is an
insult since OpenBSD developers develop open and free software..but see
it is open and that might tick some people off.. since open is a very
very bad word. It is a swear word, in fact.

>>>     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?
>>  
>     Fine blather away as you please. Atleast Don Quite was fighting
> against windmills for a worthwhile cause.
>    
>> Why don't you mail Richard and tell him to stop mailing our lists?
>> Or are you his little brother?
>>  
>     I have e-mailed him. Pretty much the same thing I emailed you.
>     I sugested that since on this specific issue I could see no conflict
> between what I percieve to be  OpenBSD  values and policies, that there
> had to be someway to reach common ground.
>
>
>     But I do not speak for OpenBSD - you do.
>     And you seem to fixated on revenge for imagined slights to look out
> for your own or OpenBSD's interests.
>
>     There are values I share with you, some I share with Richard, and
> many I hold as my own.
>     I have had heated private exchanges with Richard on several topics.
>     But he has always been civil. He is a brilliant and shares many
> other traits with you.
>     But he seems matured past eight, and realize that that whining and
> ranting is not going to get him anywhere.
>

You are ranting about his ranting.
Funny when you look in the mirror.

All ranters are always criticized for ranting, but this rant against
ranting is a rant itself.

Please see:

http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=There-Are-Ranters-or-There-Are-Ranters

>> 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.
>>  
>     I got it, if the fate of the human race depended on cooperation
> between the two of you,
>     the rest of us need to bend over and kiss our asses goodbye,
>     You would rather eat dog shit than concede there is any issue on the
> planet that Richard is not wrong about.
>     If god came down and gave you a choice between a heaven with Richard
> in it and eternal damnation, you would pick
>     eternal damnation.
>
>>  
>>>     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.
>>  
>     Outside the cult of OpenBSD no one else sees it that way.

Actually, I started using OpenBSD a couple days ago. And I see Richard
coming in and encouraging this whole  unfriendliness cliche by saying
things like 'can't talk to Theo but I'm on this list' and 'OpenBSD is
not worthy of freedom' and 'OpenBSD encourages non-free stuff so much
that we can't even consider it free'.

Which are all exaggerated lies.. or excuses. The main excuse was that
'can't talk to Theo because he is unfriendly even though if I look in
the mirror I am the same, and any programmer who gets told lies is the
same'.

>     The few people who are paying attention are trying to figure out why
> OpenBSD is more interested
>     in pissing all over RMS than looking after its own interests,
>     And Richard only looks stupid for beleiving there was any hope of
> rational discourse.

You spelled beleiving wrong.
Bwahahahhaha
Bwahahahhaha

>>  
>>>     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 he is so jealous, why are you the ones whining because you can't
> get anybody to give you any money ?
>     I read damn little besides sour grapes from the OpenBSD community.
>
>     I think Shakespeare might have some advice - "the fault is not in
> our stars, but in ourselves".
>     But what would I know, like Richard, I am just an uneducated twit.
>
>     From what I can tell GPL/LGPL projects make up almost 75% of  all
> FOSS projects, and BSD projects less that 6%.

75% of people have brains the size of a dehydrated pea
75% of people pay taxes to government
75% of people advocate C, the most insecure programming language.
75% of people read newspapers each day and actually believe them
75% of people have TV's, and actually use them
75% of people drink Coke, a drink that has no nutritional value
75% of people have brains the size of a dehydrated pea

 >     There are nearly as many projects under the new GPLv3 as the BSD
 > License.
 >     Even Torvald's has gone from dead set against the GPLv3 to being
 > willing to actually use it in some circumstances.
 >

Anytime Torvalds is brought up, it automatically voids the entire email.


>     All in all Richard has been doing quite well - despite graduating
> magna cum laude from Harvard and picking up two honorary doctorates and
> 1 honorary professorship - this year.

Sounds like you are trying encourage a new jealousy flamewar now.

>
>     If he gives a damn about OpenBSD at all, it is because if he could
> endorse it, he could use it as an effective club to beat on Linux
> distributions to get them to conform to his notions of free software.
> While gNewSense might actually be more popular than OpenBSD, OpenBSD is
> an actual real OS, with a real history even if it has damn few actual
> users.  "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
> He is not jealous of you. He just wants to use you as a means to much
> bigger ends. But god forbid that you might actually benefit from that.
> "Alas, alas for you, lawyers and pharisees, hypocrites that you are!
> Sure that the kingdom of Heaven awaits you; you will not venture half so
> far."
>
>     I am not the leader of the RMS fan club, but personally, it seems
> like you can't figure out why he has the stature and attention he has,
> and you do not.

Sounds like you are trying encourage a new jealousy flamewar now.

>     Hey I can't figure out why Bill Gates is worth Billions and I am
> not. But I am not letting it eat me up.
>  
>     And while you are mail bombing Stallman - why don't you revive
> another childish blast from the past and lob a few kernel binaries at him.
>
>     Do you actually read the crap you write ?

Sounds like a childish insult from you, therefore a return favor is
possibly cooking up.

>     Please tell me that you have aspergers, or are a paranoid schitz, so
> that there is a rational explanation for your behavior.
>

Sounds like a childish insult from you.

What goes around comes around.

This is just email after all.

L505

[Michael Schmidt-3]

michael hamerski schrieb:
> Nah, it's too much fun... seriously though, even though ultimately
> pointless, I think it's a worthy public debate. Let him expound his
> theories and ethics and let's dissect them layer by layer. For the
> record.
>  

Wise remark :-)

--
Michael Schmidt     MIRRORS:
Watcom              ftp://ftp.fh-koblenz.de/pub/CompilerTools/Watcom/
OpenOffice          ftp://ftp.fh-koblenz.de/pub/OpenOffice/

[Richard Stallman]

    You said "Real men don't attack straw men". Yet this is *EXACTLY* what
    you are now doing. You continue to repeatedly write that OpenBSD
    recommends the ports system to its users, *which it does not*. Let me
    say that once again: OpenBSD recommends that EVERYBODY USE PACKAGES,
    NOT THE PORTS TREE.

OpenBSD distributes the ports tree.  In my book, that's recommending
all the programs that are in it, referring people to those programs.

I believe what you say about the other facts, but those facts don't
override these facts.  For instance, the statement urging people to
use the binary packages doesn't cancel out the fact that the ports
tree refers them to the non-free programs.

The statement, as you quoted it, does not say "Never use the ports!"
Obviously the ports are provided so people can use them.  The statement
urges people to try the binary packages first.  That makes sense,
but it isn't relevant to this question.

    conversation, where I will be happy to explain to you exactly the
    nature of the OpenBSD ports and packages systems. But let's do that
    off-list,

Ok, let's do so.

    But I would also like you to answer my emails, especially this one:
    http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119741909911558&w=2

I have no obligation to answer each and every message that people
post, or address every issue anyone else raises.  Some issues don't
seem to need answers.

However, because of your offer, I will send mail to try to find the
message that URL refers to, and then send you a private answer if I
have not posted one already.

[Richard Stallman]

    It also seems silly to me this idea between "tainted" and "clean"
    oses, such as Open and gNewSense, respectively.  Take for example
    a user that runs Ubuntu [GNU/]Linux but proscribes to your free-only
    philosophy.  They don't have to install the adobe flash plugin
    (which I believe is still a binary of sorts.) They can choose not
    to.

The Adobe flash plug-in is non-free software, and people should not
install it, or suggest installing it, or even tell people it exists.
That Firefox offers to install it is a very bad thing.

I've been trying for a couple of years to get going a modified version
of Firefox that won't offer to install any non-free plug-ins, but we
don't have enough people to make this work very well.  If you would
like to help, please let me know.  It is an important project.

[Gilles Chehade-5]

Richard Stallman a icrit :
> I have no obligation to answer each and every message that people
> post, or address every issue anyone else raises.  Some issues don't
> seem to need answers.
>  
There is a difference between "I have no obligation to answer each and
every message" and "I cannot find a coherent answer to several messages".
Why are you encouraging people to use Windows by making gcc and emacs
available for that system ?

I know of at least four companies I've worked with/for that *rely* on
gcc and that would switch to Linux/BSD if gcc was not available on Windows.
You are making it easier for them to keep using a proprietary system,
why are you doing this ? Why are you promoting proprietary software ?

You don't WANT to answer these questions because you know you have no
answer but "We wanted a broader public".

You look like a lawyer twisting laws to serve his own purpose, the irony
being that in that case you made the "laws" that you are now trying to
work-around as they do not serve your purpose well. Please, prove me
wrong, answer the questions that have been asked over a dozen times on
this list already.

Gilles

--
SCHNEIER FACT #69:
  If Bruce Schneier rot-13s a plaintext, it cannot be broken by
applying rot-13 again.

[Edd Barrett]

Hi Richard,

On 14/12/2007, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:

>     But I would also like you to answer my emails, especially this one:
>     http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119741909911558&w=2
>
> I have no obligation to answer each and every message that people
> post, or address every issue anyone else raises.  Some issues don't
> seem to need answers.
>
> However, because of your offer, I will send mail to try to find the
> message that URL refers to, and then send you a private answer if I
> have not posted one already.

I don't understand "send mail to try to find the message the URL refers to".

How do you browse the web?


--
Best Regards

Edd

---------------------------------------------------
http://students.dec.bournemouth.ac.uk/ebarrett

[Han Boetes]

Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Yet on Richard's side of this fence, emacs and gcc _directly
> include_ code which lets users use those two pieces of software
> on commercial operating systems.

He facilitates using something good on something bad, which helps
end users realize that open source products can be good.


> The gcc and emacs developers -- led by Richard -- have decided
> the directly include support for commercial operating systems in
> their respective distributions.
>
> Hell, the OpenBSD ports tree should perhaps contain patches
> which REMOVE such commercial operating system support.  That's a
> fork Richard would surely approve of.
>
> Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo.

He is arguing against facilitating something bad on something
good.  Your argument does not hold and it's unnecessarily
insultive.

BTW I personally think that people should be free to choose to
install whatever software they wish on their machine and that the
ports tree sufficiently warns about the used license. I'd wish you
would keep your arguing at that.



# Han

[overdrive openbsd]

Why Stallman comes here? I am not going to all mailing of different
operating systems that I don't like, saying "you're shit, use my OS" (ah,
no, RMS didn't write a code in the last 12 years?).

Anyway you're insulting us, telling what I should use or not, I don't need a
mentor to tell me nothing and if I need, I will call you. Looks like the
encyclopedia's vendor when they come to your house once time more... and the
worse is that you don't have consistent argument (you're doing exactly the
opposite thing that you're saying and you're telling use 'don't do that'.

I don't like GPL for one reason, I can read that in your website
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

"If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to
permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what
you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this
License."

That does not mean 'freedom' to me, however I'm not going to gnu mailing
lists to tell that I don't like this license...

Borja Tarraso

On Dec 14, 2007 7:20 AM, Theo de Raadt <deraadt@...> wrote:

> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 08:26:25PM +0100, Raimo Niskanen wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:52:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > > :
> > > >
> > > >     It contains URL's to non-free software, and free Makefiles that
> > > >     knows how to build that non-free software.   But the entire
> ports
> > > >     tree has no non-free software in it at all.
> > > >
> > > >     Does that make it non-free?
> > > >
> > > > Even giving the URLs has the effect of referring people to those
> > > > non-free programs.  It gives those non-free programs legitimacy,
> > > > and thus contradicts the idea that "software should be free".
> > > >
> > > >     Are all operating systems non-free then, because they can be
> used
> > > >     to write free Makefiles which compile non-free software?
> > > >
> > > > No, that's a totally different question.
> > > >
> > > > Q1: could your system support a port to install non-free program
> FOO.
> > > > Q2: does your system come with a port to install FOO.
> > > >
> > > > The answer to Q1 is always yes.  I'm concerned with Q2.
> > >
> > > It now seems fairly clear where Mr. Stallman draws the line.
> > > For him to recommend a distribution as a free software distribution
> > > it should ignore non-free software. Not pretend that non-free
> > > software does not exist, but just not point where to find it.
> > >
> > > OpenBSD's port tree is stated to contain (pointers to) some non-free
> software
> > > but mostly free so you have been warned, but it takes an active step
> by the
> > > user to filter the port tree if one wants to avoid non-free software.
> > > Therefore the OpenBSD distribution is not kosher in Stallman's view.
> >
> > I've been a user for years and could care less what Stallman thinks.
> >
> > > If OpenBSD's port tree would be stated to contain only (pointers to)
> free
> > > software, that is the current port tree would be split into a free
> port
> > > tree in the distribution and a non-free tree to download from some
> > > other site ready to drop into the free port tree. Then the
> distribution
> > > would be Stallman-kosher. With a not too huge effort.
> >
> > The OpenBSD team doesn't put releases together for Richard Stallman, so
> who
> > cares?
> >
> > > If then the installation pages would have links to and explanation
> > > about the non-free part of the port tree, I do not know if that
> > > would render the whole distribution non-Stallman-kosher.
> >
> > Based on some of Theo's recent postings I'm not sure Stallman's own web
> site is
> > Stallman kosher--I just hope Stallman can sleep at night.
> >
> > > But if there is enough benefit for OpenBSD to be on Stallman's list
> > > of free operating systems, to do such a change, that is a
> > > completely different question.
> >
> > Who is Stallman that we as users should even care?
> >
> > > And if Stallman's definition of a free software distribution is
> > > a good one, that is obviously debatable. Many feel OpenBSD
> > > is already freer than most, and I also feel it is.
> > > At least in spirit.
> >
> > Is this even debatable? What lawyer in his right mind would argue that
> > Stallman's licenses are *more* free than OpenBSD!?
> >
> > > But that is not enough for Mr. Stallman,
> > > and he is free to have that opinion.
> >
> > He sure is (free to debate the merits of OpenBSD on *his* mailing
> lists).
> >
> > I've been an OpenBSD advocate for years. This stuff gets rather tired
> after a
> > while (I can't even imagine what it must be like to be a core member of
> the
> > OpenBSD team and have to read this stuff).
>
> RMS has been on our lists before, spouting the same basic shit.  He
> hates what we do.
>
> If he really hated what we do, he should stop using OpenSSH.  He says
> he uses it.  He should not.  We are horrible people; he should not use
> our software.
>
> The only way to make it clear to him that he should not come here to
> our lists in the future, is to teach him a hard lesson, and that is
> done by continually re-adding cc's back to him -- because the mails
> talk about him -- even when his friends come our mailing lists and delete
> the his address from the cc list.
>
> Like this message, which adds him hack in.
>
> Richard, you are a lying cheating hypocrite.

[Tony Aberenthy]

Edd Barrett wrote:
> How do you browse the web?
emacs?

[Ray Percival-2]

On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:18 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

<snip>
>
>
> It is completely irrelevant to Stallman whether the OS he endorses is
> actually useful. In his world view, his definition of free trumps
> functional.
> It is always possible to improve the quality of something, it is  
> may not
> be possible to regain freedom once it is lost.

Nice work if you can get it. In a  little place I call "reality" I  
make a living solving problems and I need something useful. This  
pretty much makes Stallman a useless fucktard in my book.
>
> You do not have to accept his thesis. Though OpenBSD does take an
> indistinguishable stance particularly on hardware and binary blobs.

No. OpenBSD is against including blobs in their code. To quote  
Stallman "non-free software, and people should not install it, or  
suggest installing it, or even tell people it exists." If the  
difference between "We won't include a blob in base.", what the quote  
from Stallman above implies, and the OpenBSD ports system is  
"indistinguishable" to you then you really are a simple fucking son  
of a bitch. Or a liar. Stupid would be charitable and I don't tend  
towards charity.

> And maybe you do not accept that he goes to fairly extreme efforts to
> conform his behavior to his own principles, but I do.

No, I accept it. I know it for a fucking fact. I think both those  
principles and the fact that he goes to the efforts he does to  
conform to them makes him a  fucktard.

>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> None of the "distros" that Stallman is talking about are actually
>> USEFUL beyond the most trivial of applications. For those of us who
>> actually need tools to solve problems with the bullshit Commissar
>> Stallman spews is beyond fucking useless. If I gave two shits what he
>> thinks the only choice I'd have most of the time is what vendor to  
>> buy
>> borken shit from. Even if I were to grant his arguments about non-
>> free
>> (which I most certainly do NOT) I don't see how anybody who isn't a
>> total fucking nutter could see that as better.
> OpenBSD has taken a strong principled stance against binary blobs and
> closed hardware - even when that results in loss of functionality.
> There is absolutely no distinction between the absolutist OpenBSD
> position on hardware and that of RMS on software.

No. in Stallman's world to even mention that, for example, the non-
free nvidia driver exists is a bad thing. OpenBSD takes a somewhat  
more adult much less religious talk about it but don't use it. Also,  
and this is the SINGLE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE, Theo and his folks are  
TRYING to bridge that gap and, in point of fact, they've written code  
that makes many bits of hardware work better than they do under the  
blobs that they reject. When was the last time that Stallman produced  
code or something useful?
>
> Absolutely any insult you toss at him regarding his stance on software
> can be reworded and lobbed back at you in the context of hardware.

No. Because this isn't about his stance on software. This is about  
the fact that he made a statement that was wrong. The fact that you  
can install a non-free app or two with the ports system does not meet  
any real world definition of "suggests" only in a world where books  
that mention such things need burning does his argument make any  
sense at all. And the rest of us don't live in that world. OTOH  
OpenBSD not including blobs has direct real world benefits to me by  
leaving me with the sure knowledge that if I run into a bug with a  
driver that I won't have to depend on a vendor to fix it and that I  
won't have to worry about some vendor suddenly dropping support for  
it and the fact that they encourage others to reject those blobs  
would have even more direct real world benefits to me if they were to  
take their advice, by increasing free and open support for even more  
hardware and meaning they wouldn't have to keep reverse engineering  
things to make them work. In one case good is being done in the real  
world. In the other some fucktard is just blowing smoke out his ass  
to no good purpose. If you would like to make your above statement  
correct prove to me how pretending that non-free apps don't exist by  
not talking about them at all makes my life easier. Again any clear  
thinking adult will be able to see the clear difference between the  
two. I really question your motives if you can't.

>
>
>
>>
>> So, yeah, fuck Stallman. Fuck his endorsement. There is nothing good
>> about this fucking nutter or anything he's trying to do. Orthodoxy is
>> EVIL no matter what god it's in service of.
>
> OpenBSD is an extremely religiously orthodox system. Frankly it is  
> a cult.
>
> There is a zero tolerance police for binary blobs.
> There is a zero tolerance policy for GPL in base and a low tolerance
> elsewhere.
> No other group in existance adheres to security with the same  
> religious
> fanaticism.
>
> If orthodoxy, zealotry and fanaticism are evil, then OpenBSD is hell.

Yeah, sure in a world where a ports system that makes it a wee bit  
easier to install a non-free app than it would be otherwise is the  
same as those things sure that makes sense. But I have this sinking  
feeling that trying to explain the difference between that world and  
reality to you would be like trying to explain red to a blind man so  
I'll just make sure your words are seen by a large audience of people  
who don't have your delusions so that they can be mocked.

>
>
> The fundamental problem here is that Stallman has caught you in a  
> logic
> trap against your own principles.
> There are several easy ways out - but you refuse to take them.
>
> reject non-free software, and suffer the ignomy or Stallman's
> recommendation.
> Accept non-free software - which makes Stallman correct in his
> assessment of OpenBSD.
> Accept the Linux style necescary evil argument - and again Stallman is
> right.
>
> As I see it the OpenBSD community is so full of spite that it would
> rather cut off its hand than accept the possibilty that Stallman might
> endorse it..

Yeah, sure, whatever. See the above about the disconnect between  
whatever world you and the good Commissar live in and the reality  
that the rest of us deal with.

[Damien Miller]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Richard Stallman wrote:

>     You said "Real men don't attack straw men". Yet this is *EXACTLY* what
>     you are now doing. You continue to repeatedly write that OpenBSD
>     recommends the ports system to its users, *which it does not*. Let me
>     say that once again: OpenBSD recommends that EVERYBODY USE PACKAGES,
>     NOT THE PORTS TREE.
>
> OpenBSD distributes the ports tree.  In my book, that's recommending
> all the programs that are in it, referring people to those programs.

"GNU software includes compatibility support for Windows. In my book,
that's recommending Windows, encouraging users to use it in favour of
free systems."

It is quite easy to make such absurd statements when one is willing
to dilute the meaning of words like "recommend" beyond recognition,
but what is the point? By doing this you are traducing the work of a
project that takes software freedom extremely seriously, and insulting
the developers who put in the work to make it this way.

-d

[Damien Miller]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Richard Stallman wrote:

>     It also seems silly to me this idea between "tainted" and "clean"
>     oses, such as Open and gNewSense, respectively.  Take for example
>     a user that runs Ubuntu [GNU/]Linux but proscribes to your free-only
>     philosophy.  They don't have to install the adobe flash plugin
>     (which I believe is still a binary of sorts.) They can choose not
>     to.
>
> The Adobe flash plug-in is non-free software, and people should not
> install it, or suggest installing it, or even tell people it exists.
> That Firefox offers to install it is a very bad thing.
>
> I've been trying for a couple of years to get going a modified version
> of Firefox that won't offer to install any non-free plug-ins, but we
> don't have enough people to make this work very well.  If you would
> like to help, please let me know.  It is an important project.

This incredibly misguided. People won't switch to free software
because of hectoring and hamfisted attempts to frustrate their
choices, but they instantly switch when free software becomes a
compelling replacement - look at Apache or OpenSSH.

Rather than wasting effort trying to make firefox unusable for an
unfortunately large proportion of its userbase and on insulting
OpenBSD developers with spurious accusations, why not spend the
energy on making a usable flashplayer replacement? or on getting
Adobe to open their source/specifications?

-d

[michael hamerski-2]

Sorry, back to list, public debate.

On Dec 14, 2007 11:51 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. <dhlii@...> wrote:

> michael hamerski wrote:
> >
> >>  In
> >> other words, a society in which non-free software more or less doesn't
> >> exist.
> >>
> >
> > And there you go denying non-free software, by your definition, the
> > very right to exist.
>     We attempt to deny slavery the right to exist, or polio, or smallpox.

How does using non-free software, by your definition anything none
GPL'ed I gather, bring actual physical harm to anyone anywhere? You
keep on using these grand words to shore up legitimacy for your little
crusade. It doesn't work.

>
>      You do not have to accept his definitions of good and evil, or
> anything else,
>     but once you do, the rest works fairly well,

Once you accept Scientology as factual, it works pretty well. Ask Tom
Cruise. The same is true of any belief system ever imagined.

>and not only is he not
> ignorant of several milenia of thought,

He is if he can't see that one of the possible outcomes, if not the
most probable, of his ideals is totalitarianism. As I said before,
misguided at best.

>      but he has done a pretty good job of using the laws and principles
> resulting from that to accomplish his
>     own purposes.
>

And therein lies the problem, "his own purposes", not the future of
mankind, not the future of computing. and certainly not freedom.
But perhaps he might like the opportunity to reply for himself.

mike

[Marc Espie-2]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 11:37:02PM +1100, Damien Miller wrote:
> This incredibly misguided. People won't switch to free software
> because of hectoring and hamfisted attempts to frustrate their
> choices, but they instantly switch when free software becomes a
> compelling replacement - look at Apache or OpenSSH.

Don't bother. You forget that Richard no longer lives in the real
world. That's one of the working assumptions: he's a fool disconnected
from real pursuits.


The other possibility being that he knows exactly what he's doing, and
just has double standards. It's very easy for him to say "he doesn't
recommend OpenBSD" (which some people will construe
as "he recommends AGAINST OpenBSD", this is the way people work, even
if he doesn't say so) and at the same time to endorse emacs, gcc,
gnewwhateverlinuxdistroofthemonth, and to conveniently say he's either
`not aware' of non-free software in there, or that `it's a problem' with
that distribution.

All in all, since we live in a non-perfect world, there
is no real world endeavor that will rise up to Richard's ideal.

The choice of what to endorse, and what not to endorse is definitely
a political choice.

Richard, you can try to weasel your way all you can, saying you're `not
aware' of such and such. In the end, if you want to be true to your goals,
you should say you do not recommend ANYTHING. Heck, you should say to people
that they should not use computers at all, for obvious reasons.

See ? this is about the same sophistry you are using AGAINST OpenBSD.
All that talk of ethical choices and whatnot is complete balloney.

You are doing *exactly the same thing* you accuse us of doing. Publishing
your Yes/No opinions about *some* software is *exactly* the kind of
editorial work we do with the ports tree of OpenBSD.

I cannot believe you do not know there *are* some non-free pieces of
software in some work you recommend, or that there *are* non-free extensions
to your work in GCC and emacs.  In the end, where you choose to place the
barrier is completely arbitrary.

I am now firmly convinced that you place OpenBSD outside that barrier for
reasons you won't state. The ports tree is just a pretext. We are outside
the fuzzy realm of Richard's world *just because we have a strongly
different opinion* about licensing.

We believe in people freedom.

We don't try to force our own twisted variation of `freedom' down their
throat.

And that's what this is all about. All your nice arguments are just weaseling.
They're not even consistent. You're still delaying on a definite answer on
the GCC, Emacs situation.

... which is why I adopted Theo's terms, because it's true. You're just
an hypocrit with delusions of self righteousness. It might even be possible
that you finally believe your own lies.

[Johan Mson Lindman]

David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>     I am not out to get you. Richard is not out to get you. The FSF is
> not out to get you. The world is not out to get you. But you appear to
>  

Again, Richard made foul and faulty comments about OpenBSD first.
Richard then came to the OpenBSD mailing lists looking for a fight.

David you need to check the facts and shut your mouth.
Now, go away troll (that goes for both Stallman and the other clown).


Regards
Johan M:son Lindman

[michael hamerski-2]

On Dec 14, 2007 9:09 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. <dhlii@...> wrote:

> >
>     Do you have turrets or aspergers or some other reason why you are
> compelled to insult virtually everyone ?

Wow, now we're taking potshots at the handicapped. There goes that
fluffy PC do-gooder image then.
>

> >
>     Outside the cult of OpenBSD no one else sees it that way.

Here we go again, there is no cult, get over it. I'm speaking for
myself, as a lowly user. Theo doesn't need me to fight his corner, I'm
just fighting mine, as probably most of the people on this list,
although I wouldn't know as we don't communally bask in the shining
glory of Our One True Leader.  There's actually no "we" per se, from
my viewpoint here.

I happen to use OpenBSD, firstly because it works, secondly because it
works and thirdly because the project doesn't try to shove
self-serving incoherent crap down my throat the whole time. Oh and it
also happens to coincide with my beliefs on things like freedom, but
then again I don't think a bunch of raving extremist nutters could
code a working OS. It takes a fair amount of rational thinking.

Nah, I'm not descending to your level. Here's a brand new shovel. You
sweat and dig your own hole.

mike