Real men don't attack straw men

[Chris Zakelj]

bofh wrote:

> On Dec 15, 2007 1:26 AM, Chris Zakelj <c.zakelj@...> wrote:
>  
>> bofh wrote:
>>    
>>> On Dec 14, 2007 7:11 PM, Chris Zakelj <c.zakelj@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>> How, pray tell, would purchasing and using this software reduce my
>>>> freedom, given that not only does it allow me to make money doing
>>>> something I find fun, but also enjoy summer weekends in the sun
>>>> watchings kids have fun, too?
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> Come now, there are serious questions about whether Richards line in
>>> the sand is in the correct place, but this question is silly.  He's
>>> not talking about your personal freedom, he's talking about end user's
>>> freedom.  GPL is about the end user's freedom.  BSD is about the
>>> developer's freedom.  The two does not have to meet.
>>>
>>> This is why there's such a big deal over OOXML right now.
>>>      
>> No, this is exactly on point.  As I understand his view, Richard seems
>> to think that any software licensed under a schema that doesn't meet his
>> definition of "free" is bad/unethical/whatever, and for an OS to support
>> said software, even if only by reference, is not only also bad, but also
>> diminishes my own freedom.  I fail to see how using a software package
>> (remember, *I* would be the end user here), proprietary and
>> license-restricted though it may be, somehow causes a loss in my
>> freedom.  I am free to (not) use/purchase such software as I see fit,
>>    
>
> Again - this discussion is not about your personal freedom.  Stop
> trying to change the discussion.  This is about licensing and what you
> can, and cannot do with the source code.  The current discussion is
> actually pretty important, and muddying up the waters like this is not
> useful.

How about you let Richard decide whether or not my question is
important?  I don't see your name on the list of OBSD developers, nor
donators, nor as a fellow (or whatever the board is called) of the FSF,
nor anything else which gives you the right to say "Your question is
stupid.  Shut up."  In case you missed it, this discussion revolves just
as much around the concept of what Richard considers freedom as it does
around licenses and source.  This is what I'm on about.  My
understanding of Richard's viewpoint is that proprietary software sucks,
and doing anything to support it sucks as well.  I want to know why
buying (and thus supporting) a proprietary package causes me to suck as
well, when in my view, I'm out there having fun, and helping others have
fun as well.

[BOFH-5]

On Dec 15, 2007 11:04 AM, Chris Zakelj <c.zakelj@...> wrote:
> stupid.  Shut up."  In case you missed it, this discussion revolves just
> as much around the concept of what Richard considers freedom as it does
> around licenses and source.  This is what I'm on about.  My
> understanding of Richard's viewpoint is that proprietary software sucks,
> and doing anything to support it sucks as well.  I want to know why
> buying (and thus supporting) a proprietary package causes me to suck as
> well, when in my view, I'm out there having fun, and helping others have
> fun as well.

He has never said the end user can not buy anything they want.


--
http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk
"This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity."
-- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.
"Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or
internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks
factory where smoking on the job is permitted."  -- Gene Spafford
learn french:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0&feature=related

[Chris Zakelj]

bofh wrote:

> On Dec 15, 2007 11:04 AM, Chris Zakelj <c.zakelj@...> wrote:
>  
>> stupid.  Shut up."  In case you missed it, this discussion revolves just
>> as much around the concept of what Richard considers freedom as it does
>> around licenses and source.  This is what I'm on about.  My
>> understanding of Richard's viewpoint is that proprietary software sucks,
>> and doing anything to support it sucks as well.  I want to know why
>> buying (and thus supporting) a proprietary package causes me to suck as
>> well, when in my view, I'm out there having fun, and helping others have
>> fun as well.
>>    
> He has never said the end user can not buy anything they want.

Agreed.  But what he has (apparently) said is that doing so sucks, as it
encourages them to continue their proprietary (and hence, bad/unethical)
ways.  I'd like to know why paying for a company's software, in a very
niche market with no BSD/GPL/otherfree alternative, makes me suck as well.

[BOFH-5]

On Dec 15, 2007 11:19 AM, Chris Zakelj <c.zakelj@...> wrote:
> Agreed.  But what he has (apparently) said is that doing so sucks, as it
> encourages them to continue their proprietary (and hence, bad/unethical)
> ways.  I'd like to know why paying for a company's software, in a very
> niche market with no BSD/GPL/otherfree alternative, makes me suck as well.

He had posted a couple of links to his philosophy, and it makes
specific mention of this situation.


--
http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk
"This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity."
-- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.
"Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or
internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks
factory where smoking on the job is permitted."  -- Gene Spafford
learn french:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0&feature=related

[ropers]

On 15/12/2007, Douglas A. Tutty <dtutty@...> wrote:
>
> By the time the US gets to Mars, we'll have quantum communication:
> instantaneous across the universe.

Did you read "On Bullshit", then? ;-) Or what do you know that we don't?

> I can't see anyone other than the US going to Mars.

Sure, because the US space program has been such an unmitigated success lately.
;o) In your face, Seppo^W--no, wait, you're a... Canuck rooting for
the Septics? Strange. But anyway -- in your face:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Express ;-P

One or two years and the ESA launch fleet will be complete, including,
I may add, a man safe launcher with an excellent 40 year safety
record:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Space_Agency#Launch_vehicle_fleet

> Nanu, Nanu.
NANU, well, who knows, maybe them as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NANU
The debt-ridden US might well be beat by the Ukraine. They (still)
have the (proven Soviet) technology. ;-)

</trolling>

[Pekka Niiranen-2]

Chris Zakelj wrote:

> bofh wrote:
>> On Dec 15, 2007 11:04 AM, Chris Zakelj <c.zakelj@...> wrote:
>>  
>>> stupid.  Shut up."  In case you missed it, this discussion revolves just
>>> as much around the concept of what Richard considers freedom as it does
>>> around licenses and source.  This is what I'm on about.  My
>>> understanding of Richard's viewpoint is that proprietary software sucks,
>>> and doing anything to support it sucks as well.  I want to know why
>>> buying (and thus supporting) a proprietary package causes me to suck as
>>> well, when in my view, I'm out there having fun, and helping others have
>>> fun as well.
>>>    
>> He has never said the end user can not buy anything they want.
> Agreed.  But what he has (apparently) said is that doing so sucks, as it
> encourages them to continue their proprietary (and hence, bad/unethical)
> ways.  I'd like to know why paying for a company's software, in a very
> niche market with no BSD/GPL/otherfree alternative, makes me suck as well.
>
>

http://blue-gnu.biz/content/importance_039_completely_libre_039_distributions

[StrongBad]

Theo de Raadt wrote:
> EVERYTHING code related that people thinks comes from the FSF today,
> comes to us without Richard Stallman actually working on it.  Richard
> is just another random long haired hypocritical mouthpiece, who will
> be known after his death as the original author of the C compiler
> which is used by more of the closed-source embedded industry than any
> other C compiler.
Now now. Order.

Richard is the face that launched a thousand Gnus. You as well as anyone
here know what he did for the concept of giving away source code. He
inspired a whole generation of free software writers. Look at the Gnu
tree sometime, it's the core of everything we do, all of us.

I profoundly respect both of you and know you both f2f.  Richard
has been my house guest twice. You're both tyrannical, bratty
absolute tyrants, the difference being Richard is passive-aggressive
and Theo is aggressive-aggressive.

You two please play nice and don't demand that your fans line up on one
side or another. It's not fair to us who depend on both of you so much.

--
Jack J. Woehr
Director of Development
Absolute Performance, Inc.
jwoehr@...
303-443-7000 ext. 527

[Chris Zakelj]

bofh wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2007 11:19 AM, Chris Zakelj <c.zakelj@...> wrote:
>  
>> Agreed.  But what he has (apparently) said is that doing so sucks, as it
>> encourages them to continue their proprietary (and hence, bad/unethical)
>> ways.  I'd like to know why paying for a company's software, in a very
>> niche market with no BSD/GPL/otherfree alternative, makes me suck as well.
>>    
> He had posted a couple of links to his philosophy, and it makes
> specific mention of this situation.
Sadly, I gave up on following links about four or five emails in.  The
signal-to-noise ratio was already depressing at that point.  I will,
however, go back through the trash bin looking for that email.

[Theo de Raadt]

> Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > EVERYTHING code related that people thinks comes from the FSF today,
> > comes to us without Richard Stallman actually working on it.  Richard
> > is just another random long haired hypocritical mouthpiece, who will
> > be known after his death as the original author of the C compiler
> > which is used by more of the closed-source embedded industry than any
> > other C compiler.
> Now now. Order.
>
> Richard is the face that launched a thousand Gnus. You as well as anyone
> here know what he did for the concept of giving away source code. He
> inspired a whole generation of free software writers.

I was not inspired by him, but by Chris Torek, Keith Bostic, and Mike
Karels, who chose to not play politics.

> Look at the Gnu
> tree sometime, it's the core of everything we do, all of us.

I don't know what a GNU tree is.  I only look at operating system
code.  When I look at operating system code, there's Linux.  That's
what I suppose you meant, but you described it wrong.

> You two please play nice and don't demand that your fans line up on one
> side or another. It's not fair to us who depend on both of you so much.

Richard seperated us out.  Jack, don't go telling me that we may not
rail against Richard being a prick.

[StrongBad]

Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Richard seperated us out.  Jack, don't go telling me that we may not
> rail against Richard being a prick.
>  
Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other,
sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing
there looking
sheepish, all covered with poop.

--
Jack J. Woehr
Director of Development
Absolute Performance, Inc.
jwoehr@...
303-443-7000 ext. 527

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

Ray Percival wrote:

>
>>
>> I guess major advertising firms, politicians, and ghandi are not clear
>> thinking adults.
>
> Good one. For a minute there I thought you were serious but now I see
> that you're just taking the piss since anybody who will hold up
> advertising firms and politicians as shining beacons of how to hold
> public discourse and intellectual honesty and imply that the Ghandi
> quote can be mentioned in the same statement HAS to be joking around.
> Very funny joke, well done.

No I am looking to the guide of marketing professionals and politicians
as people who are expert at communicating their messages.
Ghandi, Jefferson, Adams, Churchill were all politicians. If you want to
understand the distinction between mentioning, referring to, and
ignoring, you look to the best people in the profession of communicating.

[Theo de Raadt]

> Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Richard seperated us out.  Jack, don't go telling me that we may not
> > rail against Richard being a prick.
> >  
> Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other,
> sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing
> there looking
> sheepish, all covered with poop.

How is this my fault?

Richard slagged our efforts.  In the public space.

Richard is a hyprcrite, since he does exactly the same thing.

Richard walked onto this mailin list, telling lies.

So, Jack, why are you acting as if this is my fault?  Why are you
picking on me?  Did I invite Richard to set double standards, dismiss
our efforts, apply his standards to us, and walk into a fight on a
mailing lists where he does not belong, and flaunt his hypocrisy?

No, I did not invite Richard to do these things -- he did it all by
himself.

Why don't you tell your buddy Richard to get lost instead?

[William Boshuck]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:49:19PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     > I should more precisely have said that the OpenBSD ports system
>     > includes instructions for fetching, building and installing specific
>     > non-free programs.
>
>     Yes, that would be the truth.  What you did say, however,
>     is not the truth.
>
> What I said was the same thing, in different words.

The truth about OpenBSD is this:

OpenBSD is 100% free.  OpenBSD neither includes nor distributes
non-free software.  OpenBSD has a ports tree.  It is not part
of the OpenBSD installation system.  The OpenBSD ports tree is
100% free.  It contains Makefiles, patches and so forth, including
URL's which point to non-free software, and code for installing
non-free software (none of which is included in, or distributed
by, OpenBSD).

You said (about BSD's in general and hence, in particular, about
OpenBSD):

     "... all of them include, in their installation
     systems---in some cases I believe it's called a
     ports system, I don't know if they all use that
     term---they all include some non-free programs,
     and as a result I can't recommend any of them."

This is not the truth about OpenBSD, in different words; as it
applies to OpenBSD it is an utterly false statement, for at
least two reasons.  Above you say 'I should more precisely have
said ...', but this quote is neither unclear nor imprecise.
It is simply false.  You should repudiate that falsehood.
Demonstrate that you are actually willing to tell the truth.

How about 'I, Richard Stallman, acknowledge that the software
included in, and distributed by, OpenBSD is 100% free software'?

Please acknowledge publicly the truth about OpenBSD.

> As a courtesy to the OpenBSD developers, and avoid the risk of
> confusion, I will try from now on to state this in a more precise way.

It would have been courteous to learn something about the project
before making false public statements about it.  Had you bothered
to assimiliate a few basic facts about OpenBSD you would not have
said anything like what you did about OpenBSD (assuming that you
are inclined to tell the truth when you speak).

I do not know personally any OpenBSD developers, yet I shall have
the temerity to presume that they are proud of the fact that they
produce a completely free operating system, and that not one of
them will swoon with the desire to carry your love child because
you deign, out of courtesy, to make a back-handed comment about
the OpenBSD ports tree in which you are careful to not to tell the
truth that OpenBSD (including the ports tree itself) is 100% free.

Please, just tell the truth about OpenBSD.

[StrongBad]

Theo de Raadt wrote:
>
> I was not inspired by him, but by Chris Torek, Keith Bostic, and Mike
> Karels,
Heroes of my g-g-generation, bless them all and the code and documentation
they wrote.
> who chose to not play politics.
>  
Here in Colorado, I've paraded Richard to lobby before elected
officials. I know his shtick.  One of my Democrat friends whom
Richard lectured in 1995 on the threat to human freedom imposed
by digital rights legislation is now up and coming and a member
of the US Congress. Richard has done us *service* whether
or not he's a big silly.

I can't speak for Richard. If he wants to be childish and repeat the
same arguments over and over again in an OpenBSD newsgroup
while the OpenBSD gang makes the same responses, well, that's
the PeeWee Herman routine: "I know you are, but what am I?"

--
Jack J. Woehr
Director of Development
Absolute Performance, Inc.
jwoehr@...
303-443-7000 ext. 527

[StrongBad]

Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other,
>> sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing
>> there looking
>> sheepish, all covered with poop.
>>    
>
> How is this my fault?
>  
It's not your fault. You're still standing there waiting for more poop to
be flung on you though.
> Richard slagged our efforts.  In the public space.
>  
Over the 1/4 century of flamefests I've seen online, the truth of the
proposition under debate was obvious from the first few lines. The
rest is gratuitous verbal violence.

> Richard is a hyprcrite, since he does exactly the same thing.
> Richard walked onto this mailin list, telling lies.
>  
He must be lonely and raring for a good poop sling. Or the validation
of being drawn into one.
> So, Jack, why are you acting as if this is my fault?
I don't blame it on you other than when Richard reels out a string
and dangles a catnip mouse in front of you, you pounce on it.
>  
> Why don't you tell your buddy Richard to get lost instead?
>  
He always does, eventually. Then, every few years, it's our turn
to host the RMS Show again.

Do you think we'll all ever grow up? They'll certainly find us darned
humorous when they read about us after we're gone.

--
Jack J. Woehr
Director of Development
Absolute Performance, Inc.
jwoehr@...
303-443-7000 ext. 527

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

Travers Buda wrote:

> * David H. Lynch Jr. <dhlii@...> [2007-12-14 14:39:49]:
>>
>> Put away the licenses and open up your mind. God did not write the
>> licenses,
>> People wrote them. They wrote them to meet specific needs.
>>
>> Blobs are not bad because Theo says so, or RMS says so or the GPL says
>> so or BSD says so.
>> Whether software hardware or whatever there are good logical reasons.
>> There is no classic BSD vs. GPL - not unless you are trapped in one
>> world or the other.
>> Either you know what free means to you without a license to refer to or
>> you don't.
>> If you really beleive that somehow hardware binary blobs - not that thee
>> really is such a thing are evil, and software ones
>> aren't then say so. If not then why are you arguing?
>>
>>    
>
> What? Your argument is not concise.
>  

I am not sure how to state this much clearer. My argument is best on my
understanding of OpenBSD principles.
It does not matter what set of values you use to condemn binary blobs
for drivers. The same logic works elsewhere.
It is not my argument I am using, its yours. I just happen to aggree
with it.
> Evil? Blobs are not evil! That's stupid. Blobs are stupid. Blobs mean
>  
>>>> Rely on someone else to make it
>>>> Rely on someone else to fix it
>>>> Design X.org in a crappy way so said blobs can be used
>>>> Security...  Christ, it's not about ethics, it's about the
>>>>        
> quality of the OS.  You GPL zealots are a bunch of religious nut-jobs
>  
The quality of nothing else matters ?
I do embedded work, there is often little or no boundary between the OS
and user space.
M$ has proven fairly effectively that you can take an OS with a
reasonable security model and make it
incredibly insecure through poor policy, and applications that ignore
security entirely.

I have not picked labels at random and slapped them on you. While I am
not a GPL zealot,
even if I were it adds nothing.
My argument had nothing to do with any license.
I took your statements to their logical conclusion.

[Iñigo Tejedor Arrondo-2]

El sC!b, 15-12-2007 a las 09:57 -0700, Jack J. Woehr escribiC3:

> I profoundly respect both of you and know you both f2f.  Richard
> has been my house guest twice. You're both tyrannical, bratty
> absolute tyrants, the difference being Richard is passive-aggressive
> and Theo is aggressive-aggressive.

I see other differences:

Theo write code, see and supervise commits to the OpenBSD tree, fight
whit hardware manufacturers directly, and have puntual and clear
fundamentals, opinions and statements.

Richard promote non clear software, linked to non clear libraries, that
manage non clear formats even on non clear platforms, on unreadable tons
of code very difficult to audit and defend.

Bot of them use to cause furor or flames when speak. Could be because of
the people predisposition, or ignorance or intelligence. But there are
other differences:

While one is making (really free) commits to a cvs, the other is walking
without clothes on your non-free house, non-free flying and eating your
non-free food, to go to speak through proprietary microphones to people
that use windows PDAs, and tell a story that "may be wrong, or my be ok,
because it is my story or may don't be, blabla"

While one is going to try to convince his fable, legend, about a kernel
that wasn't GNUable but it was the only recomendable option, flaming on
list, papers, interviews, talks and songs, the other is going to hack on
a really recomendable system, bit by bit, line by line, function by
function...

While one is wrong, confusing, manipulating, saying things are not true
or not reality, or not the full picture of a reality, where he is called
or where he isn't called, and touching eggs, so that people do that he
(from his memory and oxidized vision of the 90's linux) says. The other
is usually typing things useful and whit quality, far from media
movements, masses, crowds, shit and mediocrity (until someone comes
touching eggs)

So yes... on this situation one is passive-aggressive (liar, hypocrite
and vague) ant the other is aggressive-aggressive (worker, accurate,
consistent and informed). You are true.

Best regards.

[StrongBad]

IC1igo Tejedor Arrondo wrote:

> El sC!b, 15-12-2007 a las 09:57 -0700, Jack J. Woehr escribiC3:
>
>  
>> I profoundly respect both of you and know you both f2f.  Richard
>> has been my house guest twice. You're both tyrannical, bratty
>> absolute tyrants, the difference being Richard is passive-aggressive
>> and Theo is aggressive-aggressive.
>>    
>
> I see other differences:
>  

I do, too. I like them both. I want them to stop fighting in public. I don't
care which one started it. I suppose it was Richard. It doesn't matter. Our
reputations as human beings will long outlive our reputations as coders.

--
Jack J. Woehr
Director of Development
Absolute Performance, Inc.
jwoehr@...
303-443-7000 ext. 527

[Pieter Verberne]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 10:49:12AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:

> > Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > Richard seperated us out.  Jack, don't go telling me that we may not
> > > rail against Richard being a prick.
> > >  
> > Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other,
> > sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing
> > there looking
> > sheepish, all covered with poop.
>
> How is this my fault?
>
> Richard slagged our efforts.  In the public space.
>
> Richard is a hyprcrite, since he does exactly the same thing.
>
> Richard walked onto this mailin list, telling lies.
>
> So, Jack, why are you acting as if this is my fault?  Why are you
> picking on me?  Did I invite Richard to set double standards, dismiss
> our efforts, apply his standards to us, and walk into a fight on a
> mailing lists where he does not belong, and flaunt his hypocrisy?
>
> No, I did not invite Richard to do these things -- he did it all by
> himself.
>
> Why don't you tell your buddy Richard to get lost instead?

When someone is annoying to me, I (internally) smile and think "I know
better you do."

[Marc Espie-2]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:49:54PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     So have you sent these types of "unrecommendations" to other OS'
>     mailing lists or just OpenBSD's?
>
> I generally don't raise the issue, and I did not raise it this time.
> I did not start this discussion.  I posted on this list because people
> were making inaccurate statements about my views.

Nope. Your interview on bsdtalk is the starting point of this discussion.

Think whatever you will, but if you publish your views like that, you can
expect criticism.