Real men don't attack straw men

[StrongBad]

Jack J. Woehr wrote:
> Theo de Raadt wrote:
>>
>> How is this my fault?
>>  

Theo has made it clear to me in private email that what he was asking here,
is "Why, Jack, are you telling me to shut up and not Richard?" Excuse me
for the inclarity.

Richard, knock off baiting the OpenBSD community, you nudnick. It
doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look like a wanker. Tend
your own garden and stop pissing in other people's garden.

Sheesh. MacArthur "genius" grant winner. Grow up.

Jack

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

[Eric Furman-3]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:14:15 -0500, "bofh" <goodb0fh@...> said:

> 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.

Yes he has. From my earlier mail and his reply;

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:49:22 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <rms@...>
said:
>     It's total BS. If you don't want to pay for software, fine don't, but
>     don't go on some religious crusade trying to get me to believe it's
>     unethical so I won't either.
>
> When you buy a copy of a non-free program, you pay with your money and
> with your freedom.  You apparently don't assign much value to the
> freedom that you would give up.

[Darrin Chandler]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:32:19AM -0700, Jack J. Woehr wrote:
> 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.

Fighting in public is not nice. But sometimes nice takes a backseat to
truth. Aside from any amusement value, I'm getting something real out of
this thread: who sticks by their own principles and who doesn't is
becoming clear to me.

I judge people less by how much they agree with my own views than by how
they adhere to their own. If I don't agree with someone but they stand
by their principles then at least I know where they stand and that they
have honor.

So far, the rationale from rms is extremely murky at best, and
*anything* less than *best* sounds outright hypocritical. So far, Theo's
position is completely consistent. This is what I've taken away from
this thread. This is important in both theory and practice. Theo is
winning this on both ideological and pragmatic ground.

--
Darrin Chandler            |  Phoenix BSD User Group  |  MetaBUG
dwchandler@...   |  http://phxbug.org/      |  http://metabug.org/
http://www.stilyagin.com/  |  Daemons in the Desert   |  Global BUG Federation

[Eric Furman-3]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:25:40 -0500, "bofh" <goodb0fh@...> said:

> 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.

You are wrong. This thread *is* about personal freedom.
It started with RMS's attack on OBSD's ports system
giving references to un-free software. RMS feels this is
bad and the rest of us disagree because we feel it restricts
our personal freedom.
This thread got sidetracked by a stupid licensing issue.

[Travers Buda-2]

* Marco Peereboom <slash@...> [2007-12-15 08:24:21]:

> > Are you afraid that people are just going to go after features
> > rather than free software once they've been tempted?  so you must
> > keep them ignorant.  Plus, how does using GPL software educate
> > people about the GPL philosophy?  Nobody can deny that a VAST
> > majority of the "F(/)OSS" community does not understand the difference
> > between free and open source software, let alone what GPL-free-as-in-speech
> > (for lack of a better term) is all about.  All they know is
> > free-as-in-beer.  Hell, even most of the big linux players don't
> > "get it."
>
> I really wish people would stop using these free analogies.  They are
> misleading and stupid.
>
> GPL licensed software = Gratis software (before you point out that some
> dictionaries use the word "free" as a synonym... remember in school when
> you had to pick the "best option"; that's what this is, the best word to
> describe something).
>
> ISC licensed software = Free software and let me quote some dictionary
> entries so that we all know what we are talking about:
> - exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a
>   person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent;
>   unrestricted.
> - able to do something at will; at liberty: free to choose.
> - exempt or released from something specified that controls, restrains,
>   burdens, etc. (usually fol. by from or of): free from worry; free of
>   taxes.
> - given without consideration of a return or reward: a free offer of
>   legal advice.
> - not subject to special regulations, restrictions, duties, etc.: The
>   ship was given free passage.
> - that may be used by or is open to all: a free market.
>
>
> There is no such thing as free beer.  Someone, somewhere paid for
> production, distribution, etc etc.  This is a stupid concept.
>
> Free as in speech as it is used has similar issues.
> The GPL license is full of legal restrictions and can therefore NOT be
> considered free speech.  I can talk all day long on how free my license
> is (free speech) but it doesn't mean it is true.  Where it falls apart
> is that the GPL enforces legal restrictions that limit free speech.  So
> lets call it what it is; GPL software is gratis.
>
> RMS definitions of free/liberty/freedom etc are contorted to fit his
> believe system.  They are not legal definitions and worse not even
> correct English.  Got to love that the non-native speaker has to point
> that out.
>
> Do yourself a favor and stop listening to his stupid rhetoric.
>

I realize that you are frustrated with the terms and their definitions.
However, if someone is well-versed in the GPL philosophy and rhetoric,
it is understood what is meant when I say free and when I say open.
I don't see any other good way to discuss it.  Certainly in the BSD
camp we don't think that the GPL is "free." Yes, it is a legal
monstrosity and it limits your rights.  I just can't have a coherent
conversation with someone all the while inserting that disclaimer
every damn time I use a word.  However, I have to agree, Stallman's
arguments are rhetorical, they do contain equivocations on words
like free.

Marco, if you can develop a new system of lexicons, I'd be glad to
use it.

What are you talking about?  There is free beer!  =) It's a beer
that you did not pay for, so for all intents and purposes to you,
it is free.  I'll buy you one sometime.  Hehe.

--
Travers Buda

[Travers Buda-2]

* Douglas A. Tutty <dtutty@...> [2007-12-15 09:04:07]:

> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 03:55:59AM -0500, marina@... wrote:
>  
> > Email and web via UUCP ? I see it making a big comeback when humans
> > finally colonize mars ;-) Just no serial handshaking. No kidding. Think
> > of the delays. between here and there.
>
> By the time the US gets to Mars, we'll have quantum communication:
> instantaneous across the universe.  I can't see anyone other than the US
> going to Mars.
>
> Nanu, Nanu.
> :)
> Doug.
>

Yeah quantum entanglement sure would be something neat to exploit.

--
Travers Buda

[Travers Buda-2]

* David H. Lynch Jr. <dhlii@...> [2007-12-15 13:27:26]:

> 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.
>
>

I still am having trouble following your ramblings.

Furthermore, it is considered very poor nettiquite to privatly mail
someone about a thread, recieve that person's reply, and then cc
your reply back to the public thread.

I can't have a discussion with someone who is not civil enough to
practice this.  Take your anti-social techniques elsewhere please.

--
Travers Buda

[L-9]

Jack J. Woehr 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.
>

Flamewars do have benefits.. they get slashdot/kerneltrap publicity and
developers can be attracted to the operating system if they see things
in the flamewars that define where the projects are headed. OpenBSD is
headed for open code. GNU is headed for fighting for freedom. People can
see this from the flamewar and choose an OS that suits them.

True, flamewars can also detract developers who are sensitive and weak
and cannot accept a little beating.

(p.s. I submitted the flamewar to slashdot a day ago. Go to firehose.pl
script and vote it in if you want. So far it has been ignored, yet it
made it to kernaltrap already.. hmm.)

For about 5 years now I've been looking for an operating system that
doesn't have the whole freedom of speech attached to it, since I don't
fall for that. This recent flamewar simply helped confirm my instinct
that openbsd is not about some idealistic freedom of speech. So the
flamewar has positive points, because I confirmed that it's the
operating system I am installing on a few servers of mine that host over
5 million pages.

On the other hand, wimps can say 'blah, OpenBSD people are mean, I'd
never use that OS (The OpenBSD Cliche).

I will repeat some previous quotes I brought up once:

"A philosopher who did not hurt anyone's feelings was not doing his job."
--Plato (source: Wikipedia)

"A programmer who did not hurt anyone's feelings was not doing his job."
--L505 (source: Z505)

One has to speak up and stick up for his programming/philosophy
practices sometimes, otherwise he won't be heard. The guy who spoke up
about earth not being flat was ridiculed, flamed, and arrested.

If you just give in and back down in a flamewar, you may not refresh and
define your true goals in a project. You may not attract more developers
who have similar beliefs. You may not gain publicity. Bad publicity can
be good publicity.

ALL PROGRAMMERS are aggressive online. Every time you fix a bug, you are
being aggressive to the computer. All security experts are aggressive
online.. how do you think we aggressively find exploits and bugs? That
doesn't mean they are bad people in person and as a whole. Every time
you make a sign with the word ENEMY OF YOUR FREEDOM on it you are being
unfriendly too. Blah, who cares. Judge an operating system by its open
code and open attitude.. not some random occasional fun flamewar.

Flamewars are natural and sometimes they can actually help define a
projects goals and weed out some of the weaker folk who just can't take
a fun flamewar.


L505

[Darren Spruell]

On Dec 15, 2007 10:36 AM, Theo de Raadt <deraadt@...> wrote:
> > 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.

Some context:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/07/1097089476287.html

Although I'm sure it's convenient for most of the world to think that
free software and open source originated solely in the Linux and GNU
projects...

DS

[Travers Buda-2]

* Jack J. Woehr <jwoehr@...> [2007-12-15 09:57:01]:

> 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

What? Are you saying that we should _not_ pass judgement?
You want us to suspend our minds?  For a human to do that, it means
death.  We survive only because we can think.  To pass judgement
is paramount.

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon

You can't go blithely tromping around this world, proclaiming that
small pebbles are food and expect to survie.

--
Travers Buda

[BOFH-5]

On Dec 15, 2007 2:37 PM, Eric Furman <ericfurman@...> wrote:
> You are wrong. This thread *is* about personal freedom.
> It started with RMS's attack on OBSD's ports system

Why is it an attack?  He has said the same thing of all the major
linux distros for the longest time.  That is the thing that is
bothering me.  His view is that if you help users, or point them to
proprietary software, that's unfree.  He has said the same thing about
almost all the linux distros.  And gotten flamed for it, by the very
same people who're distributing software using the license he wrote.

Might it be that he didn't understand his own license, or that the
people flaming him didn't understand his view and his license?

--
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

[Michael Spratt]

I guess the drivers for that will be implimented in like OpenBSD V 16.5 or
so.

QID (quantum interface device) or QEID (quantum entaglement interface
device)

The only problem is that at that point the system might gain conciousness
and start making decisions ..

Maybee by then I'll know what the fuk I'm doing...

We have to practice on the moon more in my oppinion.. About the time we
start launching operations from the moon base quantum communications should
be coming into focus.

I think the US/Pentegon is using iraq as practice for going to the moon. No
joke man.. I'm sure at some point civilian contractors will be taken along
on shuttles to the moon on a routine basis. Our earth society first has to
make it out of the last etchings of the dark ages...

Sorry I can't resist commenting on this type of stuff, I don't know what
this has to do with openbsd..

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-misc@... [mailto:owner-misc@...] On Behalf Of
Travers Buda
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 10:57 PM
To: misc@...
Subject: Re: UUCP to mars

* Douglas A. Tutty <dtutty@...> [2007-12-15 09:04:07]:

> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 03:55:59AM -0500, marina@... wrote:
>  
> > Email and web via UUCP ? I see it making a big comeback when humans
> > finally colonize mars ;-) Just no serial handshaking. No kidding.
> > Think of the delays. between here and there.
>
> By the time the US gets to Mars, we'll have quantum communication:
> instantaneous across the universe.  I can't see anyone other than the
> US going to Mars.
>
> Nanu, Nanu.
> :)
> Doug.
>

Yeah quantum entanglement sure would be something neat to exploit.

--
Travers Buda

[Mattieu Baptiste-2]

On Dec 14, 2007 9:49 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:

>
> Could you tell me the name of that facility, or something else about
> it?  If it is specifically and only useful for blobs, perhaps it
> should be remove from gNewSense.  On the other hand, if it is a
> general purpose feature and blobs are merely one thing it could be
> used for, then I probably don't have anything against it.  I don't
> criticize general facilities merely because someone could use them
> to do things with non-free software.
>

For facilities, we can take the example of the prominence of binary-only
linux kernel modules. You're ok with the fact that they can be more than
easily installed by every dump people, you're ok by the fact that your
recommended distro provides facilities for installing these types of
blobs... but on the other side, just because OpenBSD, a full-featured,
*completely free* operating system, is transparent enough to show its users
what software (free or non free) they can install *separately*, you
criticize the project and you not recommend it.

But wait... your recommended gNewSense is just a bunch of scripts to repack
ubuntu without proprietary stuff. You know ubuntu includes a lot of
proprietary software and you know ubuntu is built around proprietary
software (launchpad).

So your points are :
-- You recommend gNewSense which is free and meets your freedom goals.
-- gNewSense is nothing without non-free software.
-- OpenBSD, which is entirely built on free software isn't recommended
because developers are honest enough to be transparent with users.

Quite hypocritical, isn't it ?

This is to me simply pathetic that you don't admit all the merits, qualities
and efforts regarding freedom that OpenBSD developpers made. It's the only
project that fights so hard against unfriendly vendors, try so hard to
replace blobs with free replacements and don't hesitate to take radical
actions to keep his original goal.

We can also debate on the fact that some people of your own projects *run*
proprietary software (like Microsoft Windows) when they port emacs or gcc on
this target OS (I don't know how to port gcc on windows without running
windows...). Again, quite hypocritical from a project claiming a lot of
freedom values.

The only reason I see for this hypocrisy is for justifying some progress to
your "sponsors" regarding all these years where you were not able to
"recommend" any system. It would be very hard to say to people than after
more than 20 years of donations you are still not able to show any operating
system which adhere to your principles...



--
Mattieu Baptiste
"/earth is 102% full ... please delete anyone you can."

[Floor Terra]

On Dec 15, 2007 8:56 PM, Travers Buda <traversbuda@...> wrote:

> * Douglas A. Tutty <dtutty@...> [2007-12-15 09:04:07]:
>
>
> > On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 03:55:59AM -0500, marina@... wrote:
> >
> > > Email and web via UUCP ? I see it making a big comeback when humans
> > > finally colonize mars ;-) Just no serial handshaking. No kidding. Think
> > > of the delays. between here and there.
> >
> > By the time the US gets to Mars, we'll have quantum communication:
> > instantaneous across the universe.  I can't see anyone other than the US
> > going to Mars.
> >
> > Nanu, Nanu.
> > :)
> > Doug.
> >
>
> Yeah quantum entanglement sure would be something neat to exploit.
>
> --
> Travers Buda
>
>

And I hope that comment about faster than light communication is a joke.
And don't say entanglement, because you can't send information using
entanglement alone.

[Daniel Ouellet]

Marco Peereboom wrote:
> RMS definitions of free/liberty/freedom etc are contorted to fit his
> believe system.  They are not legal definitions and worse not even
> correct English.  Got to love that the non-native speaker has to point
> that out.

Marco,

With all due respect, you made a huge mistake and omission here. I think
you were to polite and try to be politically correct.

No offense would have been taken if the full truth would have been put
forward here. The above should have read:

"Got to love that the non-native speaker *with the comprehension of a 12
years old* has to point that out."

Very big different here! But again, a higher lever of understanding is
needed to get it too! (I could have said educations, but that most
likely would have been to harsh)

It does however bare the more important meaning and question for Richard
extreme flexibility to play with words and change their usage and
meaning at will. It may actually not be a gift that I am welling to
grant him, but a lack of understanding and proper usage of them. I don't
know. I am welling to give the man the benefit of the dough here.

However, it bring even a much more important and sensitive question.

What is really the level of comprehension  and understanding of
Richard's blind supporters and/or defenders at any cost? Can it be any
higher, can it? Or wouldn't they be stock in the same space. Note, I
really couldn't be as mean as saying any lower. I can't think as being
fare saying that.

Might be very dangerous to associate oneself with this men then! If one
self estime, ego and persona as well as one public image is important to
them, or one is not fully in peace and confident with it's straight and
weakness... It could be very psychologically damaging I guess.

That said without intention to offend anyone, but again, may be they
wouldn't understand what I meant either. Or if they do, I sure can
always excuse it on my low level of English comprehension right! (;> If
it works for Richard's I can't imagine it wouldn't work for me would it?

I think this out to be the full explication of this tread, why and how
it started.

Best regards,

Daniel

[Richard Stallman]

    How does using non-free software, by your definition anything none
    GPL'ed I gather, bring actual physical harm to anyone anywhere?

Physical harm is not the only kind of harm.
Losing your freedom is harm too.  Social practices that lead
people into a life without freedom are harmful.

[Richard Stallman]

    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.

Exaggerating my position is not a valid way to criticize it.  You end
up criticizing your own exaggeration rather than my position.

[Richard Stallman]

    Again, Richard made foul and faulty comments about OpenBSD first.

Neither one.

What I said was that I don't recommend OpenBSD because the ports
system suggests non-free programs.  That's neither faulty nor foul.

It is factually accurate: the ports system does contain recipes to
install non-free programs.

It is civil in tone, not harsh or nasty.  Yes it is a criticism, but
not a foul criticism.  I do not hate OpenBSD and I don't speak as
if I did.  You and several others seem to perceive hostility which
is not present in my words.

    Richard then came to the OpenBSD mailing lists looking for a fight.

I did not desire a fight and I did not start one.  Others have tried
to, but their fight remains one-sided: they attack me, but I do not
attack them; instead I remain civil and stick to the issues.

[Richard Stallman]

    > 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.

Free speech means you are free to tell people about the Adobe flash
plug-in, and also free to decide not to tell them.

I exercise my freedom of speech by not telling people about the Adobe
flash plug-in.  I think you should, too.  But I will not try to force
you to do that, because I respect your freedom of speech.

[Richard Stallman]

    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.

All I can do personally is bless your computer.  But if it has
non-free software installed, it needs an exorcism.