Real men don't attack straw men

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

Daniel Ouellet wrote:
>
>
> However, I never thought I would have to remind you that BSD IS a
> complete OS, kernel and userland standing on his two feets by itself
> in one place.
BSD has and still does depend on GCC.
Even if you manage to successfully replace it tomorow, The BSD's have
depended on it for almost 15 years.
Like it or not almost every OS is indebted to GNU, and more specifically
to RMS.

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

ropers wrote:

> On 15/12/2007, Jacob Meuser <jakemsr@...> wrote:
>  
>> do you give a no-recommendation to the internet as well?
>>    
>
> Well, his past statements about not being able to view HTTPS pages,
> catching web pages (browsing through email?) and receiving messages in
> batches almost made me suspect that he uses FidoNet or something. (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FidoNet ) Others have already asked him
> just what he uses. He hasn't answered that one yet, but it would not
> surprise me if he boycotts the Internet for some reason. Maybe because
> the Bush administration has broken the US' earlier promise to
> relinquish control of the root? Hey Stallman! There's always ORSN. (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORSN ) No need to use FidoNet. See, you
> can browse TEH Intarwebs too. These tubes are made for surfin'. ;-)
>  

    Maybe he only uses free software ?

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

Gilles Chehade wrote:
>
> I still know of many companies that did not switch to Linux because a
> free software foundation provided them with a version of gcc that can
> run on their proprietary OS and Richard still did not tell me why the
> fsf promotes the use of proprietary software by porting free software
> to it.
>
>  
And there are many more of us that have migrated from non-free to free
in increments.

start with a web browser, or an editor, or a compiler, or ....

First you notice the stuff actually works, in fact its damn good,
then you start looking for more,
eventually you discover that most of what you are running is free
so you actively try to replace the few key apps that are not.
Then you move to a free OS.


Porting free software to non-free OS's builds a one-way bridge leading
to freedom.
burn the bridge down and lots of people will not be able to swim that far..

[j4nKy]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:56:43PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

> 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 ?

"mailbombing" is possible with tools already available.  such a port
would likely be ignored for it's lack of technical value.

further, religious zealots generally can't concentrate on facts
long enough to write good code, so it would also likely be rejected
for being poor quality code.

also, for a port to be included into the ports tree, a developer
would need to import it.  many submitted ports that have no political
intent go ignored because no port devloper decided it was worth their
time/fit their interests, and I find it likely such a politically
charged port would not make it onto any developers to-do list, since
one of OpenBSD's goals is to remain as politics free as possible.

>    
>     Either answer makes it clear that inclusion within ports
> expresses values.

yes, it expresses that OpenBSD values usefulness.

>     Including non-free software in ports makes a statement.
> Excluding it makes a different one.

it says we accept that people want to and will install non-free
software.  sometimes, the non-free software is the only choice,
sometimes it is the best choice to fill the user's needs.  it is
rare that non-free software exists in the ports tree when there
is a completely functionally equivilent free alternative.

> > --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

fitting, this quote is

--
jakemsr@...
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

William Boshuck wrote:

> 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.
>  

Distribute:
4) To pass out or deliver.

By providing URL's in its ports system, OpenBSD distrubutes - passes
out/delivers,
the items pointed to by the URL's.
Some of them are non-free.

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

Ted Unangst wrote:

> 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?
>  

    It is very clear about alot of things, but it provides no information
regarding any position on free/non-free software.

   
>
> 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.
>  
    Freely Redistributable is used twice. In both context's at best it
applies to OpenBSD
itself, the most natural reading would be that it applies to nothing in
ports and packages,
yet I am fairly certain, OpenBSD has rejected projects because they were
not freely redistributable.
Further taking Freely Redistributable and applying OpenBSD's
interpretation of Free would preclude including
anything GPL's, because it is not freely redistributable, redistribution
is restricted to the terms of the GPL
including the requirement to continue to provide source - therefore less
than free.
If only the URL's have to be freely redistributable, then OpenBSD is not
much more constrained than The Pirate Bay.
They only provide URL's
    While you are "distributing" the URL, you are also "distributing" the
target of the URL too. Distribute  means to deliver. The URL came from
OpenBSD
and it delvers software. TPB does not even directly provide URL's to
software etc.
They are atleast one level of redirection further removed then OpenBSD is.
    My reference to OSI was not intended to be favorable.

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

Ray Percival wrote:

>
> 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?

First that using reason, rationality and commonsense, it is not possible
to reach an answer to the question what is OpenBSD's position on
non-free software.
While there are some specific cases such as BSD/GPL/NDA software in the
kernel, where a clear answer exists in most cases, you must infer, and
in some there is no answer.
I am asking for the same precision and clarity you are demanding f RMS,
and I am asking for it from something you have had a decade to polish
rather than uttered as remarks off the cuff.

[Alexey Suslikov]

Richard Stallman wrote:

>   > Torvalds' version of Linux is not free software, for this reason.
>    > Ututo and gNewSense include a version of Linux which remove the
>    > firmware blobs, in order to make it free software.
>
>    that's awesome, can users add these back in if they choose?
>
> I suppose so.  I don't see how anything could stop them.  Whatever the
> changes gNewSense has made in the source code of Linux, a user could
> revert them if he wants to.
>
> is your
>    project worthless because of these users 'actions?
>
> Not at all.  The point is to avoid things to lead users to install
> non-free software, and/or grant ethical legitimacy to non-free
> software.  gNewSense doesn't lead users to install blobs, and doesn't
> kegitimize them.

Richard, can you show us gNewSense dmesg output? Thanks.

- Alexey.

[Gregg Reynolds-4]

On 12/16/07, David H. Lynch Jr. <dhlii@...> wrote:
...
> Distribute:
> 4) To pass out or deliver.
>
> By providing URL's in its ports system, OpenBSD distrubutes - passes
> out/delivers,
> the items pointed to by the URL's.
> Some of them are non-free.

Dude, you're a comic genius!  Absolutely brilliant, I tell ya!  You
touring any time soon?  I'd love to catch your live act.

All the other messages on this thread - they're so serious!  Ugh -
no-funners!  But your posts are another story altogether - I'm always
eager for another dose of your astonishlngly subtle and witty satire.
 I'm sure I speak for just about everybody - even people who are not
subscribed to @misc - when I say: Thanks for brighten upping my day!

Gratefully,
-gregg

[umaxx]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 02:56:52 +0100
Rico Secada <coolzone@...> wrote:

> Who am I Theo asked, a big fat nobody (maybe), but I started this
> issue to begin with and after criticizing Theo for being unnecessary
> rude to Richard I have noticed that Richard keeps avoiding the facts!
>
> Richard you continue to avoid the questions or issues brought forth by
> Theo, could you please focus on the issue rather than commenting the
> same statements over and over again!

FULL ACK!

Richard, please answer to the (following) issues/facts brought up by
Theo!

> Theo wrote:
>
> > On the bsd talk show you did not withhold your recommendation
> > because the ports system suggests non-free programs.  No way,
> > that's not what you said on that show.
> >
> > What actually happened is that you withheld your recommendation
> > because it CONTAINS non-free programs; that is what your words were.
>
> This is the TRUTH, anybody can hear that for himself, and that's why I
> wrote to the list in the first place!
>  
> > It turns out that the above assessment was based on a complete lack
> > of research.  It was uneducated, and you should have apologized for
> > the error.
> >
> > You were really clear in your interview.  And wrong.
> >
> > Later on, on this mailing list, you have changed your statements to
> > say that your recommend against OpenBSD because it now... RECOMMENDS
> > non-free software.
>
> Clearly the TRUTH as well! We have all witnessed that!
>
> > We've made it quite clear that Emacs and gcc recommend the use of
> > non-free software, by directly containing code to support those
> > systems.  The ports tree does not contain code to support non-free
> > components.  It simply provides URLs to a few select things which
> > people might wish to use.  Itself, it contains no non-free code and
> > makes no recommendations.  But gcc and emacs directly contain code
> > which RECOMMENDS compilation on non-free systems, by actually
> > compiling and running there.
>
> This is the TRUTH! By containing code which recommends compilation on
> non-free system then Richard you are doing MORE to support non-free
> than the OpenBSD ports system is! That's a fact! That's NOT an
> opinion.
>
> > You are a hypocritical liar, Richard.
> >
> > Your lies taint the efforts of the entire FSF and GNU communities.
> >
> > Shame on you all for letting Richard mislead you so.
>
> I am sorry Theo, I know you don't give a rats ass, but you are right,
> and you have been right all along!
>
> Dear Richard unless you actually address the above mentioned issues,
> in context of the e-mail from Theo, you will look hypocritical! You
> say what you don't do yourself.
>
> Best regards.
>
> Rico Secada.

[Gregg Reynolds-4]

On 12/15/07, David H. Lynch Jr. <dhlii@...> wrote:
>     If I wrote a a BSD Licensed program to mailbomb jews.
> Would that be acceptable within ports ?

Well now, this brings up an interesting point of jurisprudence.  To
wit:  does Godwin's Law apply here?  One might argue that it only
kicks in at explicit mention of Hitler or the Nazis, but I'm inclined
to think that tasteless references to antisemitic pogroms are also
covered.  I mean, mailbombing Jews - Hitler would've loved that!

If I'm right, we can all now safely disregard further contributions
from Herr Lynch.

[Marco Peereboom]

He got his cookie for that many years ago.

On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 02:52:05AM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

> Daniel Ouellet wrote:
> >
> >
> > However, I never thought I would have to remind you that BSD IS a
> > complete OS, kernel and userland standing on his two feets by itself
> > in one place.
> BSD has and still does depend on GCC.
> Even if you manage to successfully replace it tomorow, The BSD's have
> depended on it for almost 15 years.
> Like it or not almost every OS is indebted to GNU, and more specifically
> to RMS.

[Gilbert Fernandes-4]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:42:06PM -0500, marina@... wrote:

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

It's rather easy to do. I have done it just for fun.
You can also FTP download using mail. You send commands to a
server, it cuts in pieces the file to download and sends those
to you in chunks by email.

Sometimes email is the lowest common element :)

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

[Marco Peereboom]

You can use OpenBSD to build a baby mulcher or a nookyoular weapon and
you have the choice to retain the source code.

You can use the GPL to build a puppy blood drainer or a dirty bomb
provided you deliver the source code with it.

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:56:43PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

> 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

[Marco Peereboom]

On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 12:11:16AM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> 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.

Yes, it is called the "dictionary definition" which is like totally
extreme.

>
> >
> >
> > "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.
>

Yes, it is called the "dictionary definition" which is like totally
extreme.

The home made version used by double talkers is not extreme.  It is ok
for them to change definitions to fit their political agenda.

[Marco Peereboom]

I am not arguing; you are.

On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 11:43:40AM +0530, V. Karthik Kumar wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>  
> > 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.
> >
>
> See.. I have already said that arguing about this is pointless. Either
> remove both (non free on ports and Win*/Makefiles in GNU stuff), or
> keep both and both pretend everything's OK.
> > 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
> >>
> >
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>  
> iD8DBQFHZMIURzTnZfDdIE8RAoxCAKCLg7cNSzd2DY2XWxyq7xWF+b5Z7QCfUaU2
> 7e22LlqQSz2pp+vNYEeIjIc=
> =8SkH
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[L-9]

David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> Daniel Ouellet wrote:
>>
>> However, I never thought I would have to remind you that BSD IS a
>> complete OS, kernel and userland standing on his two feets by itself
>> in one place.
> BSD has and still does depend on GCC.

Has anyone on the OpenBSD devel team reviewed the compiler toolset from
MINUX?

http://tack.sourceforge.net/about.html

It's not as complete, but AFAIK minux was recently released under BSD
license or similar.


> Even if you manage to successfully replace it tomorow, The BSD's have
> depended on it for almost 15 years.
> Like it or not almost every OS is indebted to GNU, and more specifically
> to RMS.
>
>

True, some of BSD developers seem to use Emacs too.. there is nothing
wrong with Stallman's coding or what he has given to the community
(kitchen sink jokes aside). It's just some of us disagree on
philosophical matters mainly.


L505

[Bengt Frost]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:56:43PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

> 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
>
> "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

Albert Einstein - "Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of
a pathological criminal."

--bfrost
(Bengt Frost)
http://www.fvp.se, http://www.fvpideas.com, http://www.fvpideas.eu

[Marco Peereboom]

Can you share some of them drugs you are on?

This is some good shit.

On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 02:13:24AM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

> 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.

[Breen Ouellette]

Marc Balmer wrote:

> Richard Stallman wrote:
>
>>     I doubt someone who is truly unfriendly could organize a
>> hackathon, a     friendly social event.
>>
>> He may be perfectly friendly to others.  What is relevant is that he
>> tends to be unfriendly to me.
>
> What is relevant is that you are a hypocrite and come to our
> mailing lists talking bullshit about OpenBSD.  You do not only
> offend Theo, but all of the OpenBSD / OpenSSH developers.

And many of the OpenBSD users, as well, who appreciate the work done by
the OpenBSD developers and do not wish to see the project slagged off
the cuff by people in the spotlight.

Breeno