Real men don't attack straw men

[marina-25]

David:

The OpenBSD position is best expressed in this rather rude statement:
Shut up and code. RMS is a philosopher of the evangelical sort. Folks
here are a bit more pragmatic and want to code. A lot of us are infuriated
by this discussion.

You suggested that Theo might have Asbergers. As someone who has a nervous
condition that mimics Asbergers in certain aspects i will tell you that
arguing fast on a mailing list will do nothing but irritate me even if the
arguments are cogent. A person with a condition like that is easilly
distracted from imporatant work. So get it ?

Shut up and code !

If you want an OpenBSD that RMS would like, write a patch that would
remove the stuff he hates from the tree.

Even though i have not written anything for OpenBSD in years (1 port to
my credit) i am getting VERY frustrated with this discussion.


--- Marina Brown



On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

> 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

[Woodchuck-3]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, 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.

Put another way:

        The presence of an OpenBSD port entry for "opera" encourages
the wider use of OpenBSD and all the other free software that implies.

        The presence of a port of gcc to Windoze encourages the
development of software, free and otherwise, for Windoze, encouraging
the wider use of Windoze and all the "unfree" software that Windoze
implies.

A good example of the second case is the encouragement to use Windoze
that the gcc-enabled port of Mozilla-* to Windoze has almost certainly
caused.  I would use the lousy and dangerous behavior of I.E. as an
advocacy talking-point to lure Windoze users away from their drug.
Mozilla-* has weakened that talking-point.

I like opensource, free software.  I'll continue to support the OS
and userland that best advances that cause.  That would be OpenBSD.

Dave
--
                          I told you so.
                                  -- Cassandra

[Eric Furman-3]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:09:46 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <rms@...>
said:

>     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.

It's only a "Very Bad Thing" to nutjobs like you.
Now please go away and spew your nutjob nonsense somewhere else.
Give it up Richard, your 15 minutes is over.

[Marco Peereboom]

How interesting,... *NOT*

Flash is about the worst thing that has ever happened to the internet.
I as a user do not use so what is your point again?  Who cares that it
is in ports?  I certainly don't.  Why would I care if someone wants to
see ads shooting at them when they visit a site?  Good for them; keep
the internet cheaper for me bud by watching ads.  Yay you!

This is such an infantile argument.

ZOMG1!!!111!!!! THEY CAN INSTALL, LIKE, SOFTWARE ON THEIR OS!!!!111!!!

Really who gives a rats ass?

Ask yourself some better questions.  Who funds the FSF?  Do you think
they need some special attention?  How about the software that companies
like Sun put out under the GPL; did you gain anything from it?  Or did
Sun essentially used your GPL against you?  Is IBM really writing code
using the GPL because they are great?  Or are they just selling services
and hardware?  The double speak and double standards are beyond obvious.
You people need a better spokes person for these stupid arguments.  I
believe Tony Snow (a.k.a. snowjob) is available.

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 09:27:48PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:

> ports tree. browser's flash player.
>
> On 12/14/07, Marco Peereboom <slash@...> wrote:
> > $ uname -a
> > OpenBSD moobile.peereboom.us 4.2 GENERIC#7 i386
> > $ locate libflashplayer.so
> > $
> >
> > what the fuck are you talking about?
> >
> > 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
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Karthik
> http://guilt.bafsoft.net

[michael hamerski-2]

Richard, you're being cc'ed because people speak in your name.

On Dec 14, 2007 9:35 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. <dhlii@...> wrote:
> michael hamerski wrote:

> 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.
> >

David,

Which term in public debate do you fail to get? I am not in the least
interested in your private opinion. I am however willing to take the
time to dissect the nonsense you and others spout on this list. For
the record, it's a pleasure. And you've chosen the worst list ever to
pick a fight on ethics.

>     There has been no debate.
>     I no of no reason why OpenBSD can not atleast decide one way or
> another what their actual policy is on non-free software.

http://openbsd.org/policy.html educate yourself and come back or shut up.

>
>     If it is acceptable - that's fine, but then RMS was speaking the truth.
>     If not than get rid of it.
>     The remaining alternative is the Torvald's - it is a necescary evil way.

Nothing to get rid of. Your free is not my free. Besides which I have
absolutely no impact on the way OpenBSD is run. I am just a user.
>
>     Theo is not even willing to state what the policy is - aside from
> that it is settled and well known.
>     Well it's a well know secret then.

Again read and educate yourself. It does wonders.

>
>     I am having a hard time seeing why RMS is the hypocrit here.
>
>

Yes, well that would figure wouldn't it? See, the funny thing is I had
a lenient attitude towards the GPL, FSF, RMS before. Live and let
live, and they're fighting for freedom so it's ok. Thank you for
opening my eyes. The fact is that slander sticks, there is an agenda
behind continuously repeating the nonsense that OpenBSD somehow
promotes non-free software.

mike

[guilt]

If the confusion regarding whether such a flash player exists at all:
http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070907181228

--
Karthik
http://guilt.bafsoft.net

[Marco Peereboom]

Who cares?  Opera is also in pots, who cares?  I am sure we have more of
those things in there.  It's exactly the same as having windows binaries
for emacs.  Not interesting.

This is a non argument.

Stop lying and we'll stop telling you that you are a hypocrite.

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 09:35:57PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
> If the confusion regarding whether such a flash player exists at all:
> http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070907181228
>
> --
> Karthik
> http://guilt.bafsoft.net

[Dope Ice Apollyon the Third]

On Dec 14, 2007 5:09 AM, 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
>
> 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.
>

Out of curiousity, why can't you access that URL yourself? You have a
website yourself, presumably you must have a web browser if for
nothing more than to test your website. Is HTTP not free-enough for
you?

[Gilles Chehade-5]

Sorry Karthik but I prefer to keep misc@ cc-ed as it is archived and
people will later be able to know that you are a troll when they do a
lookup about you.

The page you are refering to mentions three new ports. If you had spent
your time doing something as productive as reading the faq instead of
talking out of your ass, you'd have learnt that these are optionnal
packages that (here's the tricky part:) *DO NOT COME SHIPPED WITH THE
OPERATING SYSTEM*. That's right. If you install OpenBSD and start
firefox, you'll get a command not found. Then if you install firefox and
go to a flash enabled site, you will see nothing. If you have it
installed, then it means that at some point YOU decided to download the
optional ports infrastructure and explicitely requested installation of
the flashplayer.

Please, do not comment further as it is annoying and only points out the
fact that you don't know what you are talking about and don't know how
to read.

Gilles


Karthik Kumar a C)crit :

> okay. so the exact name might vary. take a look at this:
> http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070907181228
>
>
> On 12/14/07, Gilles Chehade <gilles@...> wrote:
>  
>> 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/
>>
>>    

--
SCHNEIER FACT #68:
  Bruce Schneier writes his personal journal in Linear A.

[Ted Unangst-2]

On 12/14/07, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
> The Adobe flash plug-in is non-free software, and people should not
> install it, or suggest installing it, or even tell people it exists.

so much for free speech.

[Michael Spratt]

If OpenBSD is a force field/bubble and richard stallman entered into it..
The bubble would be contaminated and the whole biosphere would have to be
shut down and re-built in a new clean environment that's why... Just because
some asshole with a God complex

>> 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.
--Amen to that good brother.  

"I know who I am, do you know who you are ?"

Just keep talking.. You'll be dead soon and it won't matter anymore..


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-misc@... [mailto:owner-misc@...] On Behalf Of
marina@...
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 5:57 PM
To: David H. Lynch Jr.
Cc: Theo de Raadt; OpenBSD-Misc; rms@...
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men

David:

The OpenBSD position is best expressed in this rather rude statement:
Shut up and code. RMS is a philosopher of the evangelical sort. Folks here
are a bit more pragmatic and want to code. A lot of us are infuriated by
this discussion.

You suggested that Theo might have Asbergers. As someone who has a nervous
condition that mimics Asbergers in certain aspects i will tell you that
arguing fast on a mailing list will do nothing but irritate me even if the
arguments are cogent. A person with a condition like that is easilly
distracted from imporatant work. So get it ?

Shut up and code !

If you want an OpenBSD that RMS would like, write a patch that would remove
the stuff he hates from the tree.

Even though i have not written anything for OpenBSD in years (1 port to my
credit) i am getting VERY frustrated with this discussion.


--- Marina Brown



On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

> 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

[Breen Ouellette-3]

-----
This is a reply to David's email to me. I have left out his original
message since it was sent privately and without permission to repost to
the list.
-----

This is all I have left to say on the matter. How you take it from here
is up to you.

OpenBSD only endorses OpenBSD. I have never seen a single piece of
software outside of the OpenBSD base endorsed by OpenBSD.

It has a ports tree which makes it possible to run a large number of
software packages, some of which do not meet the definition of free
software put forth by the FSF.

However, this does not constitute endorsement. Merriam-Webster:

2 a*:* to approve openly </endorse/ an idea>; /especially/ *:* to
express support or approval of publicly and definitely </endorse/ a
mayoral candidate> b*:* to recommend (as a product or service) usually
for financial compensation <shoes /endorsed/ by a pro basketball player>

The ports tree offers a number of similar software packages of varying
licences. There is no endorsement by OpenBSD of any single package as
being better than any other package. Options are offered, and it is up
to the user to decide which one to use. OpenBSD doesn't define itself as
a censor of anything outside of the base system. The only reasons I have
ever seen for leaving something out of ports were based on legal issues,
which isn't censorship but merely covering the project's hindquarters.

RMS' statement that OpenBSD endorses non-free software goes too far, and
the intention was to detract from OpenBSD - no matter how much sugar
coating it came with.

On the FSF side of the fence, gcc allows interoperability with non-free
systems and software. That hardly means the FSF endorses it, but Theo
has been using that example to illustrate the ludicrous and hypocritical
nature of RMS' statements.

OpenBSD surely tolerates and allows a broad range of software to be
installed through ports and executed on the system. This is not at odds
with the OpenBSD project goals:

http://openbsd.org/goals.html

Based on this, I see no hypocrisy from OpenBSD.

If RMS had made the statement that OpenBSD doesn't actively prevent the
user from running non-free software then I think there wouldn't be an
issue here - what operating system does? Then again, it wouldn't have
the same impact as claiming that OpenBSD contains and endorses non-free
software. That's far more accusatory. But it's wrong.

As for Theo being abrasive, it has never been my experience that he is,
but I have been fortunate to meet him in person, and so I don't fill in
the blanks left by email correspondence with images of this Theo-monster
everyone writes about. I read his emails for what they are -
uncompromisingly intolerant of ignorance and sincere misinformation,
which doesn't sit so well with the bleeding-heart majority. People
expect their sincere misinformation to be countered with polite
explanations. Nothing but wimpy social custom requires such - and the
older I get the more I've come to agree with Theo's stance of fighting
the ridiculous with ridicule. It is the most effective and reasonable
method of dealing with these people.

RMS, on the other hand, comes in with a half baked idea that OpenBSD
endorses non-free software, AND he openly endorses censorship of all
non-free software. I can't get behind that. If he isn't happy with the
landscape of non-free software then he should work on improving the
landscape of free software to compete with these non-free packages he
despises.

My opinion is that he has failed to convince the world that all software
should be free. He can't make his vision of free software stand on its
own two feet so instead he is trying to kick out the legs of everything
else which doesn't actively support his vision. Well, I for one have
never felt that censorship of any sort is a viable way of growing a
competing idea. Censorship ultimately leads down an evil path.

I'm out.

Breeno

[Eric Furman-3]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:35:57 +0530, "Karthik Kumar"
<karthikkumar@...> said:
> If the confusion regarding whether such a flash player exists at all:
> http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070907181228

Yes, of course it exists. But you stated that OpenBSD includes it.
It does not. It is not part of base. *You* must get it and *You*
must install it. *Your* decision, not OpenBSD's.
It's actually beside the point anyway, because OpenBSD is not
on a crusade to free the world of un-free software so saying
this is *any* form of hypocrisy is flat out bullshit.
I am only a lowly user, but I can feel pretty safe in stating that
OBSD will never change just to make itself more RMS friendly.
Nobody gives a flying fuck about him. His 15 minutes were up
a long time ago. All he is now is a self aggrandizing lunatic.
Now shut up and go away.

[Michael Spratt]

Yes you being coppied come quick and install your GNU licence on us before
it escapes you.
Come oh dilbert of gnu, stamp your licence upon all who code. Propegate your
gnu legacy through the universe down to the plank scale. Install your agenda
near and far. Come and spread the evangalistic word.

I summon you ohh old and defunct goat. Come shed your hairs upon our path.
Come and grace us with your holey eminence for all who roam the land shall
fall under thy dictate.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-misc@... [mailto:owner-misc@...] On Behalf Of
michael hamerski
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 6:59 PM
To: dhlii@...; rms@...; OpenBSD general usage list
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men

Richard, you're being cc'ed because people speak in your name.

On Dec 14, 2007 9:35 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. <dhlii@...> wrote:
> michael hamerski wrote:

> 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.
> >

David,

Which term in public debate do you fail to get? I am not in the least
interested in your private opinion. I am however willing to take the time to
dissect the nonsense you and others spout on this list. For the record, it's
a pleasure. And you've chosen the worst list ever to pick a fight on ethics.

>     There has been no debate.
>     I no of no reason why OpenBSD can not atleast decide one way or
> another what their actual policy is on non-free software.

http://openbsd.org/policy.html educate yourself and come back or shut up.

>
>     If it is acceptable - that's fine, but then RMS was speaking the
truth.
>     If not than get rid of it.
>     The remaining alternative is the Torvald's - it is a necescary evil
way.

Nothing to get rid of. Your free is not my free. Besides which I have
absolutely no impact on the way OpenBSD is run. I am just a user.
>
>     Theo is not even willing to state what the policy is - aside from
> that it is settled and well known.
>     Well it's a well know secret then.

Again read and educate yourself. It does wonders.

>
>     I am having a hard time seeing why RMS is the hypocrit here.
>
>

Yes, well that would figure wouldn't it? See, the funny thing is I had a
lenient attitude towards the GPL, FSF, RMS before. Live and let live, and
they're fighting for freedom so it's ok. Thank you for opening my eyes. The
fact is that slander sticks, there is an agenda behind continuously
repeating the nonsense that OpenBSD somehow promotes non-free software.

mike

[Michael Spratt]

I have a question, I'm trying to recompile a flavor of bind but I can't find
the port because its part of the base install.

Could you point me in the right direction on how I would do it ?

I downloaded the bind source and compiled it but obviously the original
version that ships on base should be un-installed from openbsd first..

I don't know how to do it because its part of the base system.

Sorry if I'm posting in the wrong area if so please direct me to the proper
area. I don't have experinece interacting with the community here.  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-misc@... [mailto:owner-misc@...] On Behalf Of
Gilles Chehade
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 7:24 PM
To: Karthik Kumar
Cc: misc@...
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men

Sorry Karthik but I prefer to keep misc@ cc-ed as it is archived and people
will later be able to know that you are a troll when they do a lookup about
you.

The page you are refering to mentions three new ports. If you had spent your
time doing something as productive as reading the faq instead of talking out
of your ass, you'd have learnt that these are optionnal packages that
(here's the tricky part:) *DO NOT COME SHIPPED WITH THE OPERATING SYSTEM*.
That's right. If you install OpenBSD and start firefox, you'll get a command
not found. Then if you install firefox and go to a flash enabled site, you
will see nothing. If you have it installed, then it means that at some point
YOU decided to download the optional ports infrastructure and explicitely
requested installation of the flashplayer.

Please, do not comment further as it is annoying and only points out the
fact that you don't know what you are talking about and don't know how to
read.

Gilles


Karthik Kumar a C)crit :

> okay. so the exact name might vary. take a look at this:
> http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070907181228
>
>
> On 12/14/07, Gilles Chehade <gilles@...> wrote:
>  
>> 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/
>>
>>    

--
SCHNEIER FACT #68:
  Bruce Schneier writes his personal journal in Linear A.

[Paul de Weerd]

Re-adding the original recipients. Please keep this on-list or out of
my mailbox.

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 07:12:46AM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
| Paul de Weerd wrote:
| > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 06:56:57PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
| > | I don't recommend Torvalds' version of Linux.  The versions of Linux
| > | in Ututo and gNewSense, which I recommend, do not have the blobs.
| >
| > Interesting, these linux distributions. They seem to be pretty new,
| > what did you recommend before these came onto the scene ? None of
| > these seemed to exist 8 years ago.
| >
| > A free and usable operating system was already well available back
| > then, and it still is today : OpenBSD.
| >  
| OpenBSD is unwilling to even make it clear whether it does or does not
| meet RMS's criteria.

OpenBSD's criteria are crystal clear and spelled out on the website.
It's RMS's criteria that are being discussed (at least, that I tried
to discuss in the mail you replied to). Those are unclear, since he
goes against his own advice and clearly supports non-free operating
systems.

| Binary blobs are a relatively recent addition to Linux.
| And anyone can trivially eliminate them.
| Rolling your own Linux distro has been an option pretty much since day one.
| And while you can laugh GNU has been kicking Hurd arround for a long,
| long time.

The last time I looked, Hurd was not even close to being useable. I
just checked and the website says this :

        "It is not ready for production use, as there are
        still many bugs and missing features."

(from http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html)

OpenBSD, on the other hand, has been ready for production use for well
over ten years. I'm not claiming it doesn't have bugs, all software
does, but it's been ready for production use, and has been used, for
quite some time now.

| > You are, however, being asked to explain how you combine these views
| > with the support for several non-free OS'es within the copyleft
| > software packages of emacs and gcc. By providing binaries for (for
| > example) the Windows family of operating systems on your web and/or
| > ftp servers (and I say 'your' to mean the servers of the foundation
| > you appear to represent, the FSF), you seem to go fully against your
| > recommendation of people to use free software.
| >  
| A bridge from non-free software to free software
| is at the opposite ethical extreme from a bridge from free software to
| non-free software..

Basically, what you're saying is that a little pragmatism goes a long
way ? Is that what you're saying ? How should we interpret your
words ?

How about a little pragmatism in the other direction ? Let me pick one
simple example : Your environment depends on flash.

You've just seen the light and want to migrate to 'free software'. You
can install OpenBSD and tons and tons of free software and still be
able to use flash until such a time that you're ready to remove your
dependency on flash (or a free alternative is readily available).

However, this was not the point. The point was, as Richard Stallman
put it, giving legitimacy to non-free software. I, and others, pose
that supporting non-free operating systems in your free software
package (gcc, emacs) gives this same legitimacy to non-free software.

"Opposite ethical extreme" is a nice term, by the way. It is an
ethical extreme to claim that an OS endorses non-free software simply
because it eases its installation through the ports infrastructure. I
consider this quite 'extreme' indeed.

Please note that I'm not saying gcc or emacs should not support
windows, solaris, ultrix or any other non-free operating system. I do
not hold these extreme ethical views. I merely question RMS's ethics.

| > Ironically enough, providing the users of non free operating systems
| > with free software encourages them to keep using their non-free
| > software and thereby promotes the use of non-free software. How is
| > that for ethics ?
| >  
| Maybe for you, but alot of the rest of us came from the M$ world
| and did not move in one single giant leap.

I too have used (and still use) non-free software. Not only from
Microsoft but also from providers such as IBM, Sun, Digital, SGI and
Apple. My personal preference is for free software, mostly OpenBSD.
Because of practical or pragmatic reasons, I still use non-free
software on a daily basis, yet I seek to replace these with free
alternatives.

| Discovering the free software exists and that its quality is excellent
| without
| taking a huge step into the abyss seems to me to be promotion,
| while anything from free software back towards non-free software
| has entirely different ethical value.

Again, I hear you say 'a little pragmatism goes a long way'. Please,
if that is not what you're saying correct me if I'm wrong but note
that if it is what you're saying then I concur. A little pragmatism
does go a long way. I'm not taking the extreme view that non-free
software is evil and must be abolished. Non-free software is often
(yet, not always) the choice of the user. I do have an issue with
someone who takes a very extreme position but doesn't follow through.
I will question the ethics of these people, in this particular case
Richard Stallman.

Again, in his words :

        Including a program by name in the ports system does
        suggest using that program. It grants the program a
        sort of legitimacy, and that is what I am opposed to.

Providing binaries for non-free operating systems suggests using those
binaries *on those non-free OS'es*, does it not ? It grants those
non-free OS'es a sort of legitimacy, does it not ? RMS states that
granting legitimacy to non-free software is what he is opposed to, yet
it is exactly what he does by providing support for non-free OS'es in
his copyleft software.

Please, explain to us how this is not true. Your argument of it being
at the other extreme ethical standpoint does not hold, since Richard
spoke of granting legitimacy to non-free software, not about a
direction to move from non-free to free or vice versa.

| > On the other hand, providing users of a free operating system (which
| > already provides users the ability to install and use non-free
| > software, as you've so eloquently pointed out) with an easy interface
| > to install *AND REMOVE* non-free software, might actually encourage
| > them to investigate other, free, alternatives to the non-free software
| > they sought to use.
| Huh ? Giving someone a gun does not encourage them to become pacifist,
| unless maybe by getting them to shoot their neighbor to see the error of
| their ways.

Your metaphor makes absolutely gNoSense; at all. Please try to stay on
topic in the discussion, no need for esoteric metaphors to make your
point.

Also, please have another look at the example I provided earlier about
the use of Flash.

| >  As has been said before, the ports tree is just a
| > scaffold, used to force third party programs (be they free or non-free
| > and for whatever value of freedom you wish) to install into a sane and
| > known location within the filesystem, easing the task of installing
| > and uninstalling said program. This, in no way, encourages or promotes
| > the use of said software (free or non-free).
| >  
| It is an expression of values. Personally it is a pretty clear one.

Apparantly, someone valued the program enough to warrant the effort of
writing a port for it. Others then valued this work enough to submit
the port to the tree. We can agree that there at least some people
expressed an interest in the port, but please do elaborate how it
encourages or promotes the use of said port (free or non-free).

| It also is a rejection of the value that the free software community
| can stand on its own. And actively discourages efforts to do so.

And the free software community can not stand on its own. Have another
look at flash. No viable free alternatives exist (although work is
progressing). I disagree violently with your observation that it
actively discourages efforts to do so : the mere fact that people work
on free alternatives for flash players contradicts you here. The lack
of a free flash player, the fact people are forced to use the non-free
player, is the major driving force to create an alternative.

| > Truly, OpenBSD is the most free operating system available to the
| > public at large today. If your system happens to contain an NVidia
| > videocard and you run any linux variant (including gNewSense), you
| > will be able to find, download and install the non-free binary blob
| > that allows using the advanced accelerated 3d features of this piece
| > of hardware. Some other BSD's also allow these to be used. OpenBSD
| > makes it virtually impossible to use such blobs. It is the ONLY OS (at
| > least to my knowledge, and I do try to stay informed on this
| > particular topic) that actively approaches hardware vendors to ask for
| > open and free (of NDA's) documentation so drivers can be written to
| > support that hardware, the only one to take a firm stance AGAINST
| > binary blobs and take positive action where other systems happily
| > accept loadable modules to support their hardware (as the linux kernel
| > in gNewSense and Ututo).
| >
| >  
| Excellent, fantastic, so what is the logic that results in this
| absolutist position on binary blobs,
| and hardware, yet thoroughly rejects exactly the same position with
| respect to software ?

Please, read again the goals and policies of OpenBSD. The OS should be
free to be used an re-used by anyone, it has been said even for the
creation of baby mulching machines.

The OS is free software. The user is then allowed to do with it
however he or she pleases. If the user wants to install non-free
software (s)he can. It is not the objective of the project to tell
users what to do with it. This is free software, users are free to do
with it however they want. The developers work VERY hard to keep it
free.

The non-free software you speak of IS NOT PART OF OPENBSD. You can
jump high and low, but really : nobody is trying to force or persuade
you to install non-free software on OpenBSD.

| And RMS is supposed to be hypocritical ?

Ehm, no. RMS is supposed to stick to his ethics the way he claims he
does. If he does not do this, people call him a hypocrit.

| > There's a whole community of people who take very great care of using
| > free software out here and who are well aware of the rights (and
| > duties) that free software brings to the user. Your remarks are
| > considered out of place and even offensive by some who put very much
| > effort into creating a truly free operating system. I've been using
| > "free unix-like systems" for well over a decade now and after some
| > years of trying I've found the only system that is truly free and
| > actively fights for the freedoms it gives to its users is OpenBSD.
| >  
| Go back and read RMS's posts.

I've read them.

| I do not recall a single disparaging post about OpenBSD.

He claims OpenBSD suggest the use of non-free software. After having
used it for quite some time, such a suggestion was never made to me.
In fact, developers have continuously suggested OpenBSD users to fight
for software (and documentation) freedom, leading by example in very
many cases. Fighting for software freedom and then being told you're
suggesting users to use non-free software is quite a stab, I'd say.

| Thee closest is the observation that Theo is unfriendly,
| which is an incredible understatement.

After having only recently met Theo I must say that I, once again,
violently disagree with you. He was very friendly. Even after I made
fun of him (a joke in relation to my employer), he kept smiling and
remained friendly (and made a bit of fun out of me).

However, I can not say I'm surprised he doesn't like being told he's
suggesting the use of non-free software. I suppose he also violently
disagrees with such statements and acts accordingly (but I'm not
speaking for him here, these are mere assumptions).

| Unless you are going to assert that truth is an insult,
| or that explaining, defending, and frankly fairly lightly advocating,
| his views is offensive, how do you reach offensive.

See here above. There's no truth in the "OpenBSD suggests the use of
non-free software". Claiming it is true, is an insult.

| Th most strongly neegative statement he has made is that OpenBSD does
| not reach the standard he requires to recommend.

That is fair. However, many here find his standards dubious,
especially in light of the support for non-free OS'es that his own
software sports.

| That appears to be the remark that is so offensive to the OpenBSD community.

I don't think so. I'm no developer and I can only speak for myself,
but I think the OpenBSD community really isn't seeking RMS's blessing
all that much.

Cheers,

Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

--
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
                 http://www.weirdnet.nl/                 

[Deanna Phillips-2]

Karthik Kumar writes:

> If the confusion regarding whether such a flash player exists at all:
> http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070907181228

The irony there is that I stopped working on Gnash (an official
FSF project) for OpenBSD when they added a Windows developer as
a project member.  While I was working to fix various bugs on
OpenBSD, he loudly argued that they drop support for
"insignificant" OSes like OpenBSD, sticking with the important 3
(Windows, Mac OS X and Linux).  He was widely praised for this
"important" work on Windows support, and ended up with commit
access and project membership.  The OpenBSD port rots.

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:54:47AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Richard, your pants are full of hypocritical poo.

You too.

I still remember cheering when I read

http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00460.html

    * From: Theo de Raadt <deraadt@...>
    * Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:11:00 -0600
    * Cc: ports@...

    > I am just curious - why exactly were all the DJB ports dropped?

    Precisely because of what the commit message says:

    > "Removed qmail; license does not permit modification [camield
    > 2001-08-14]"

Sadly you're too quick to launch the 'hypocrit' word...

http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386/zangband-2.6.2p1.tgz-long.html

According to Sourceforge:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/zangband
License: Other/Proprietary License

Rui

--

Today is Pungenday, the 56th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

[Byron Sonne]

> Orthodoxy is EVIL no matter what god it's in service of.

Oh that's rich coming from OpenBSD land...

[Marc Espie-2]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:48:44PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386/zangband-2.6.2p1.tgz-long.html
>
> According to Sourceforge:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/zangband
> License: Other/Proprietary License

Bullshit.
If you had gone to the trouble of reading the OpenBSD port, you would see:

PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM=   not-for-profit redistribution only
PERMIT_PACKAGE_FTP=     Yes
PERMIT_DISTFILES_CDROM= not-for-profit redistribution only
PERMIT_DISTFILES_FTP=   Yes

we are consistent. We do not allow this package to end on our cds, but it's
perfectly fine on the ftp server.

If you look closely inside the binary package, you'll notice this marker
carries inside the package.

If you read through pkg_add's manpage, you'll see the -P option can be used
to error out if the package is not to be distributed on cdrom, or through ftp.