Real men don't attack straw men

[Marco Peereboom]

How,... boring...

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 06:39:15PM -0800, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> On 12/15/07, Jeroen Massar <jeroen@...> wrote:
> > Should I take this that you don't endorse Debian, and thus also Ubuntu
> > and other deriviatives, either, as you are now stating that these
> > contain 'recipes for non-free software'?
>
> Correct.  RMS does not recommend Debian or Ubuntu.

[Gilbert Fernandes-4]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:49:07PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:

> Thus, the risk of leading people to use a non-free system by making a
> free program run on it is small.  However, it is our practice when
> doing this to remind people that the non-free system is unethical and
> bad for your freedom.  If the pages about the Emacs binaries for Windows
> don't say this, I'll make sure to add it.

If all the free software and very good things like firefox,
and so on, are always available to people using proprietary
operating systems, what would be the incentive for them to
change then ?

Having good software spread is good for everyone. It does
improve security (openssh everywhere including in proprietary
products) and standards (firefox everywhere and not only
compilable on linux and bsd-systems).

A few years ago I did thought that our best programs like
firefox and so on should be kept only for free-operating
systems so this would make people move there. But after reflexion,
it's just wrong.

Freedom is letting people choose. And if they choose proprietary,
so be it. Some will change their minds if you explain to them,
some won't. But once you talk people about why they could/should
adopt a free operating system, that's done.

Having good software spread even in proprietary systems is a
good thing. Because when you talk to non-technically oriented
people about replacing their windows by a linux or bsd, you can
tell them : yes, firefox is there too. thunderbird too. what you
use everyday will be there, upon a free operating system.

This is a very good tool to convince people to replace the
lower-layer (their operating system) by something free and not
proprietary. Much more than talking of politics.

This change will not benefit them directly. But people that
have to maintain the computers where they work and Internet
itself if we can replace zombie-prone machines by something
better.

People that are not interested in becoming computer experts
will very fast get annoyed by talks about why they should
change and politics discussions about freedom and such, because
they just see you talk of freedom while underneath all you want
is them to do another choice compared to another one, which they
did (knowing or not why).

I do understand a part of your point of view, Richard.
Some people are not interested in freedom as in fighting
proprietary software. So you imagine a world where we could
move people to free software, even by force, for their good.

Where I work right now, we have bsd and debian on servers.
All user computers run debian or mandrake right now (and
we're going to move those to debian). We dont let them choose.
It is mandatory. We use bsd and some debian on servers, and
they will use free software on computers.

The main reason is not freedom or fighting proprietary
software. It is (1) getting work done and (2) when we got
unix-alike everywhere it makes our job as system admins
and network admins easier.

If you do really want a world without proprietary software,
you must not let people choose. Thus, realize you are not
doing it for freedom but for another goal. Things might be
better in this new world, but the path to this world will
not be freedom.

Here, I have to admit I do understand your point of view
of forcing people to use free software. Okay.

But I disagree when you explain it's because of freedom
we have to force this on them.

And everything doesnt need to be democratic and open
to discussion.

In a company, network and system ingeneers are in charge
of geting work done when it's related to computer systems.
If they put free operating systems everywhere, their main
concern wont be political of freedom-based but to improve
their work, the security, ease of management...

This is the first place to target : the work environment.
And changes there are not freedom based.

I like free operating systems. Having sources, a real
freedom. But all that talk about politics or freedom
in a fantasy-world, no.

If you really want that world which does not exist, where
people would only use free operating sytems and free
programs upon those, you will have to force it down their
throats because a lot, lot of people don't care about
why it should be that way, and don't care of the big picture.

Target the work world where this can be forced upon
people if you really want it. Have this done by people
who install and take care of the tools those people use.
Dont let them choose. Treat them like sheep for their
own good, why not.

I dont talk to people about how it improves their freedom
by having them work from Unix or Linux.

They do not care.

It does improve the techies life, our work.

It gets things done, and that's all about it.

It removed and keeps out the chains our grandpas working
in the same field had with all their proprietary hardware
and softare in their hands.

--
unzip ; strip ; touch ; grep ; find ; finger ; mount ; fsck ; more ;
yes ; fsck ; umount ; sleep

[Gilbert Fernandes-4]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 04:16:47PM -0700, Jack J. Woehr wrote:

> Sounds like the first three lines for Ty's next song!

Perhaps this "thread of the year" will be source
of inspiration for Ty and his wonderful next stickers
to come.

--
unzip ; strip ; touch ; grep ; find ; finger ; mount ; fsck ; more ;
yes ; fsck ; umount ; sleep

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

I beleive the URL
http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions%20.
has been referenced in other messages declaiming Richard's
recommendation of
this or that Distro.

This link was also near the top of the bsdtalk page about the RMS interview.
The explanation - near the top, of why many Distro's including BSD's can
not be listed,
is terse. Whether it is  the complete criteria  would be a question for
Richard.
Regardless, it  is clear that OpenBSD comes close but fails to meet
these criteria.

If OpenBSD-misc insists that Richard Stallman become intimately familiar
with the
policies of OpenBSD and the  technical details of the  OpenBSD
implementation of ports
then it is reasonable that  we should actually read  the information
that is readily available
concerning the criteria for  his recommendation.

[Ray Percival-2]

On Dec 15, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Marc Balmer wrote:

> Richard Stallman wrote:
>
>> For personal reasons, I do not browse the web from my computer.  (I
>> also have not net connection much of the time.)  To look at page I
>> send mail to a demon which runs wget and mails the page back to me.
>> It is very efficient use of my time, but it is slow in real time.
>
> and it shows that you are a complete dork.  you are disconnected
> from reality.  how can we take you for serious?

Why do I keep hearing Grandpa Simpson every time he says something?  
Oh, yeah, they're both weird old sore-headed cranks.

"Dear Advertisers, I am disgusted with the way old people are  
depicted on television. We are not all vibrant, fun loving sex  
maniacs. Many of us are bitter, resentful individuals who remember  
the good old days when entertainment was bland and inoffensive. The  
following is a list of words I never want to hear on television  
again. Number one: bra. Number two: horny. Number three: family jewels."

I'll leave the comedy edits to you fine people.

Oh and Richard is "demon" some HURD thing? The rest of the UNIX  
tradition has these things called "daemons" is  a "demon" something  
like one of those? Oh and why isn't HURD on the list of things you  
recommend? Oh, yeah, sorry mea culpa.

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

    After reveiwing the OpenBSD Goals and Polices, it appears to me that
the intent is that OpenBSD should be a free/Open Source system. But
unless I am missing something that is not actually made clear. The
polices page lists software licenses that are acceptable, and a few that
are not, but I could not find an statement dfining what was and was not
acceptable aside from by example.

     The goals page section on the kernel prefers BSD Licenses over the
GPL, requires source, explictly bans NDA's, but provides no guidance on
the remainder of the cosmos of source providing licenses.

    Would proprietary software with source be acceptable ? The
requirement to respect copyright's and licenses might narrow the field
somewhat, but it still leaves alot of possibilites, pretty much any
license that allows redistributing source.

    I could not find any reference or guidance concerning what is
acceptable outside the kernel itself.

    It is possible to read all of this and conclude that OpenBSD is a
free OS and that non-free software is unacceptable - including
prohibiting non-free URL's in ports. It is also possible to understand
this as allowing the inclusion - even in the kernel of code that does
not even meet the weak OSI definition of Open Source.

[Allie Daneman]

Can someone just kill this thread PLEASE....only a few posts were
actually good, the rest is filling my inbox !!!!

Jason Dixon wrote:

> On Dec 15, 2007, at 6:00 PM, Gilles Chehade wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:36:51PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>>>
>>>    I know of at least four companies I've worked with/for that *rely* on
>>>    gcc and that would switch to Linux/BSD if gcc was not available on
>>> Windows.
>>>
>>> I am surprised by this statement, because in general I don't expect
>>> that very many users would switch to a different operating system just
>>> to use GCC.  Nonetheless, I would be interested in talking with them
>>> to see what they say about this.
>>
>> What you expect (conveniently) is far from what happens to be reality.
>>
>> In the real world, people need their work done and will take the
>> necessary
>> steps to do so. If work involves cross compilation, as an example, and
>> you
>> provide them with a free compiler (as in gratis) that does that job
>> ok, it
>> will be used. If Linux is a prerequisite to this and that you provide
>> them
>> for free (as in gratis), they will install it. When you write code to
>> make
>> gcc work on windows and endorse it, you tell them that there is no
>> need to
>> switch to Linux to get the work done.
>>
>> You are doing precisely what you blame on BSD, except that we provide
>> just
>> a set of Makefiles, and that you actually wrote code to make sure
>> projects
>> will run on a proprietary system and will be used by a broader public.
>>
>> And no, you will not get to talk to the people I worked with. It is
>> not of
>> any interest for me to send them the average troll when they do not
>> care a
>> tiny bit about discussing FSF/GPL and/or BSD philosophy. Live with it,
>> you
>> do encourage people to use proprietary systems by providing them the
>> tools
>> to get their work done without having to ever touch a free system.
>
>
> Richard Stallman is like the wife of a drunk.  He is an enabler.  Until
> he comes to this realization and cuts the ties, no progress will be made.
>
> ---
> Jason Dixon
> DixonGroup Consulting
> http://www.dixongroup.net

[marina-25]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Richard Stallman wrote:

> For personal reasons, I do not browse the web from my computer.  (I
> also have not net connection much of the time.)  To look at page I
> send mail to a demon which runs wget and mails the page back to me.
> It is very efficient use of my time, but it is slow in real time.
>
>

Would you mind sharing the recipie ? That sounds like a great idea.

--- Marina Brown

[marina-25]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Marc Balmer wrote:

> Richard Stallman wrote:
>
>> For personal reasons, I do not browse the web from my computer.  (I
>> also have not net connection much of the time.)  To look at page I
>> send mail to a demon which runs wget and mails the page back to me.
>> It is very efficient use of my time, but it is slow in real time.
>
> and it shows that you are a complete dork.  you are disconnected
> from reality.  how can we take you for serious?
>
>

Some people need to slow down. It's legit. I actually get some of my best
work done when i do not have the distraction of email and web there to
tempt me.

Even the 1 day delay in this email conversation is not quite enough
though.

--- Marina Brown

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

Bengt Frost wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
>  

> Finally as long as i do not hurt 'someone' (to mutch) then it must
> be up to me to choose what i want to do, f.ex. install packages through
> portssystem.
>  
    If I wrote a a BSD Licensed program to mailbomb jews.
Would that be acceptable within ports ?
   
    Either answer makes it clear that inclusion within ports
expresses values.
    Including non-free software in ports makes a statement.
Excluding it makes a different one.
> --bfrost
> (Bengt Frost)
> http://www.fvp.se, http://www.fvpideas.com, http://www.fvpideas.eu
>
>
>  


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

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

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

L wrote:
>
> 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.
     OpenBSD have fairly disparate view on what freedom is, but they
both are zealous about the importance of their view of freedom.

>
>
> "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.

    All of that is called free speech. The right of OpenBSD to be
"mean", The right to spray views you do not like or people you think are
idiots with insults, is called free speech.

    OpenBSD takes a particular extremist view of freedom, and free speech.

[Ray Percival-2]

On Dec 15, 2007, at 8:21 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

>     After reveiwing the OpenBSD Goals and Polices, it appears to me  
> that
> the intent is that OpenBSD should be a free/Open Source system. But
> unless I am missing something that is not actually made clear. The
> polices page lists software licenses that are acceptable, and a few  
> that
> are not, but I could not find an statement dfining what was and was  
> not
> acceptable aside from by example.
>
>      The goals page section on the kernel prefers BSD Licenses over  
> the
> GPL, requires source, explictly bans NDA's, but provides no  
> guidance on
> the remainder of the cosmos of source providing licenses.
>
>     Would proprietary software with source be acceptable ? The
> requirement to respect copyright's and licenses might narrow the field
> somewhat, but it still leaves alot of possibilites, pretty much any
> license that allows redistributing source.
>
>     I could not find any reference or guidance concerning what is
> acceptable outside the kernel itself.
>
>     It is possible to read all of this and conclude that OpenBSD is a
> free OS and that non-free software is unacceptable - including
> prohibiting non-free URL's in ports. It is also possible to understand
> this as allowing the inclusion - even in the kernel of code that does
> not even meet the weak OSI definition of Open Source.

That's all because reasonable, rational, intelligent adults don't  
need to have every little commonsense thing spelled out for them.  
Only people overly concerned with rules need such things the rest of  
us are more than happy with solid general guidelines and principles.  
So what the FUCK is your point?

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

Darrin Chandler wrote:
>
> 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.
>  

There is plenty of information outside this list on all the individuals,
their views, their lives and the extent they conform to them.

Forget what who said about who, find out what each has done, what they
have written,
what they beleive and how they have lived up to that. Check primary
sources, not rantings
on mailing lists.

It will also make it easier to appreciate that while this thread keeps
trying to set
it up that way this is not a contest between people. Admiring one, does
not compel you do
despise the other. Accepting one point of view does not automatically
make those holding
another evil.

[STeve Andre']

On Saturday 15 December 2007 23:42:06 marina@... wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > For personal reasons, I do not browse the web from my computer.  (I
> > also have not net connection much of the time.)  To look at page I
> > send mail to a demon which runs wget and mails the page back to me.
> > It is very efficient use of my time, but it is slow in real time.
>
> Would you mind sharing the recipie ? That sounds like a great idea.
>
> --- Marina Brown

I suspect it involves the use of RFC 1149.

--STeve Andre'

[William Boshuck]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:36:18PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     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.  

You said that OpenBSD "... include[s] in [its] installation
system ... some non-free programs".  (Don't complain about
the brevity of the quote.  The full quote has been posted
several times, and you have had several opportunities to
respond to posts containing it.)  It is at the very least
faulty.  That you decline to repudiate this statement, and
that you decline to acknowledge that OpenBSD neither includes
nor distributes non-free software, after having had the
better part of a week to do so, begins to suggest a foul also.

[Ted Unangst-2]

On 12/15/07, David H. Lynch Jr. <dhlii@...> wrote:
>     After reveiwing the OpenBSD Goals and Polices, it appears to me that
> the intent is that OpenBSD should be a free/Open Source system. But
> unless I am missing something that is not actually made clear. The

"Copyright law is complex, OpenBSD policy is simple - OpenBSD strives
to maintain the spirit of the original Berkeley Unix copyrights."

how much clearer can it be?

>     Would proprietary software with source be acceptable ? The

what is this?

>     It is possible to read all of this and conclude that OpenBSD is a
> free OS and that non-free software is unacceptable - including
> prohibiting non-free URL's in ports. It is also possible to understand
> this as allowing the inclusion - even in the kernel of code that does
> not even meet the weak OSI definition of Open Source.

do you know what the words "freely redistributable" mean?  "non-free
URLs" are freely redistributable.  and who cares what OSI says?  it's
just a bunch of clowns dicking around to approve the latest license of
the week.

[Ted Unangst-2]

On 12/15/07, Jon . <jonforthewin@...> wrote:
> The systems should inform users (or just flag to sys admins yo this is a
> blob) with something along the lines of:
>
> "You and your system are now at the complete mercy of this vendor's
> competence and self-interested wishes, expect to be degraded to the shit
> standard of a windows or mac system, this is an extreme risk[1], would you
> like to continue? =)" along with a link to the "Vendor Reasons and Excuses,
> The Bullshit" presentation (
> http://www.openbsd.org/papers/opencon06-docs/mgp00020.txt).

fuck no.

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

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?
>  

    Because you love OpenBSD soo much that you see threats and insults
even when they are not there.

> Richard slagged our efforts.  In the public space.
>  
    Go back and listen the the actual BSDTalk interview that started
this mess.
   
    OpenBSD never comes up by name. All the BSD's are discused
generically,     There is one sentence about ports. Not the OpenBSD
ports systems, but ports generically across all BSD's. Even so the
remarks are qualifed.

    The most negative statement Richard made is "I can not recommend
them". By standards he has applied consistently to the other BSD's, and
Linux Distro's,
    that is true.

    The whole trying to parse the meaning of the word "include" and
exactly how does ports work is just a red herring. Yes, Richard could
have more chosen a more precise word for a single sentence in a 30minute
interview with thousands of words during which the whole topic of BSD's
gets at base a minute or two, and OpenBSD is never mentioned. He also
could have become more educated about exactly how ports works, except
that he did not have to. There is software that is non-free that can be
installed through ports. I do not beleive you have ever argues that was
not true.

    Richard's exploring ports further would not have changed his
inability to recommend OpenBSD. But your looking into the published
criteria that he uses to assess whether he can recommend and OS would
have made it clear that no argument about how ports works would have
altered his inability to recommend OpenBSD without violating his own
standards.

    Of course Richard has ulterior motives - I suspect he would really
like to see one or all of the BSD's clear out all the non-free software
etc. OpenBSD is by far the closest to being able to receive his
recommendation. I am sure he would love to add a link to OpenBSD on the
GNU/FSF web sites. I suspect he would like to use OpenBSD as a club to
bring other Linux Distro's into line. None of thaat causes you or
OpenBSD any harm.

    Personally, I think both you and most of the OpenBSD community
actually want his recommendation, but you view making any change as a
result of an outside influence - and particularly Richard, the FSF and
GNU as an unacceptable sign of weakness.

    So fine, let this thread die, sit on your thumbs for a month,
re-read your own policies and goals. think about whether having non-free
software even linked to in ports is really consistent with them, decide
to remove non-free software - because it is a good idea and the right
thing to do, because it is inconsistent with atleast the implicit if not
explicit principles of OpenBSD. There are no binary blobs in the kernel,
you claim there is no non-free software in base or packages. If you feel
strongly enough to keep it out of those, why not ports? If it makes you
feel better sacrifice a couple more GNU tools, yank a few more GPL
packages. Whatever it takes to feel self righteous. Do it because it is
the right thing, because you really want to. Then sit back on your
thumbs and ignore Richard and the FSF/GNU some more, wait for Richard to
claim he can not endorse any BSD again, and then beat him to death.
    You want to beat him up over his hypocracy - actually catch him in a
real act of hypocracy first.

> Richard is a hyprcrite, since he does exactly the same thing.
>  
    All of us are hypocrits. I aspire to diminish my own hypocracy to
Richard's leevel.

> Richard walked onto this mailin list, telling lies.
>  
    Each of us should judge Richard according to his own standards,
words and acts.
    Nothing Richard says or does can diminish you. What effects your
stature or that of OpenBSD is your standards, words, and acts.
    Take a couple of valium and reread Richard's original post. You have
to want to be insulted to perceive insult.
    He asserted that under appropriate circumstances he is willing to
RECOMMEND OpenBSD privately.
    If that is what you need to make you happy snip everything but the
last paragraph and post the email to the openbsd website.

[William Boshuck]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:36:31PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> ...
> Remember all the people who accused me of "lying" because at some time
> I described the presence of these recipes as "the ports system
> includes non-free software"?

Actually, in the quote from the interview you refer first to
the installation system, and then confuse the installation
system with the ports tree (as that quote applies to OpenBSD).

> ...
> The people who created this tangent chose one way I described the
> facts, and picked a wrong interpretation, ...

There has been no misintepretation of the quote, were it
pronounced by a competent speaker of the English language.
It is possible that the speaker misspoke, or was ill-informed
at the time of the interview.  In any case, you can clarify
the point by acknowledging on this list that OpenBSD is 100%
free, and neither includes nor distributes non-free software.

> ... they raised an imaginary issue, and denounced me for a claim
> they should have known I did not make.

Oh, but then it is trivial to resolve the imaginary issue.  Just
acknowledge on this list that OpenBSD is 100% free, and neither
includes nor distributes non-free software.

[marina-25]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, STeve Andre' wrote:

> On Saturday 15 December 2007 23:42:06 marina@... wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Richard Stallman wrote:
>>> For personal reasons, I do not browse the web from my computer.  (I
>>> also have not net connection much of the time.)  To look at page I
>>> send mail to a demon which runs wget and mails the page back to me.
>>> It is very efficient use of my time, but it is slow in real time.
>>
>> Would you mind sharing the recipie ? That sounds like a great idea.
>>
>> --- Marina Brown
>
> I suspect it involves the use of RFC 1149.

LOL !

That would have introduced enough dampening into this conversation
to prevent much of the flamage ;-)

--- Marina Brown

>
> --STeve Andre'