Real men don't attack straw men

[Tony Aberenthy]

David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>     Each of us should judge Richard according to his own standards,
> words and acts.

Seems like that is precisely what most everybody posting to this
thread had been doing.  
Emphasis on the word judge.

[Douglas A. Tutty]

On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 03:36:21AM +0000, Gilbert Fernandes wrote:
 

> 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.

I curious (and not wanting to start a new flame war) about the decision
tree to put debain on the workstations instead of BSD everywhere.  What
factors were involved?  Where there logistical issues that debian sovled
better in this case than BSD?  Is it OpenBSD or another?

Doug.

[L-9]

> marina@... wrote:
>> Oh, and by the way, I'm not a real man.
>>
>> Actually I'm not a man at all.
>>
>> Not all people who are in software are men.
>>

This an interesting point..

I came up with a solution and also wrote it down here:

http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=The-He-She-Woman-Man-Problem-Solved

Yee will find it interesting if yee is a uman.

[BOFH-5]

On Dec 16, 2007 1:26 PM, L <l@...> wrote:
> > marina@... wrote:
> >> Oh, and by the way, I'm not a real man.
> I came up with a solution and also wrote it down here:
>
> http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=The-He-She-Woman-Man-Problem-Solved
>
> Yee will find it interesting if yee is a uman.

The language is not ready for it.  Other languages do not have such a problem


--
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

[Deanna Phillips-2]

L writes:

> Yee will find it interesting if yee is a uman.

Har, har.

Just use "they".

It used to be considered poor English to use "they" when
speaking of a single person, but the language has evolved.

I did not find the thread title objectionable; in fact I found
it humorous that anyone thought manhood was at stake in a
discussion about software.

[William Boshuck]

On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 08:01:53AM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 12:11:16AM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> > ...
> >     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.

This is not called free speech, but it is one form of behaviour
that may attach to 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.

Not to mention that the general project to emancipate the great
unwashed was not motivated by the common person's feeling bereft
of the right to be timidly obsequious.

[marina-25]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 03:36:21AM +0000, Gilbert Fernandes wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I curious (and not wanting to start a new flame war) about the decision
> tree to put debain on the workstations instead of BSD everywhere.  What
> factors were involved?  Where there logistical issues that debian sovled
> better in this case than BSD?  Is it OpenBSD or another?
>
> Doug.
>
>

Oh, please. A lot of us here are quite agnostic. Personally i like OS's.
I run the following. OpenBSD for router, FreeBSD for webserver, Ubuntu
linux for desktop at home. Plan9 for desktop and VNC at work, Linux on
one box, FreeBSD on most of my servers Centos where the job has told me
to install it. Back to home i run inferno for os supporting editor Acme
Sac on occassion and Windows under Qemu when i must at work. My wife may
give me her WinXP license when she upgrades to Vista and i will use that
under Qemu just for the perverse thrill of running windows in an emu under
linux. I also like what the folks are doing with DragonFlyBSD, though i
do not run it any more now that my test boxes have all died. Oh, and the
laptop runs Plan9 and ubuntu.

Now, i will say thank you to all the coders that are here listening that
make my software experience possible ;-)

--- Marina Brown

[Dope Ice Apollyon the Third]

On Dec 16, 2007 2:02 PM, Deanna Phillips <deanna@...> wrote:

> L writes:
>
> > Yee will find it interesting if yee is a uman.
>
> Har, har.
>
> Just use "they".
>
> It used to be considered poor English to use "they" when
> speaking of a single person, but the language has evolved.
>

Actually, it just came back to it's roots:
http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html

But now we're offtopic.
-Nick

[BOFH-5]

The reasons I've are:

Need to support commercial packages
Linux is more mainstream
Debian has a maintenance program in place (ie, security patches are
back ported to supported platforms)
Longetivity of a particular level of release

And... Hell of a lot of "opensource" programmers think cross-platform
means it compiles on *both* fedora and *debian*!!!!





On 12/16/07, Douglas A. Tutty <dtutty@...> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 03:36:21AM +0000, Gilbert Fernandes wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I curious (and not wanting to start a new flame war) about the decision
> tree to put debain on the workstations instead of BSD everywhere.  What
> factors were involved?  Where there logistical issues that debian sovled
> better in this case than BSD?  Is it OpenBSD or another?
>
> Doug.
>
>

--
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com

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

[Richard Stallman]

    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.

I have carefully avoided personal attacks in this discussion.  I have
not attacked OpenBSD either.

[Richard Stallman]

    No No NO. You miss the point. GNU is fighting for their view
    of freedom. Not *real* freedom.

The GNU Project campaigns to give software users these four essential
freedoms:

Freedom 0: the freedom to run the program as you wish.
Freedom 1: the freedom to study the source code and change it
  so it does what you wish.
Freedom 2: the freedom to distribute exact copies to others
  when you wish.
Freedom 3: the freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions
  to others when you wish.

That's what I think is real freedom in regard to using a program.
Whether or not you agree, at least you know what my views are.

[Richard Stallman]

    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...

They won't get that idea from me.  I tell people regularly in my
speeches that I found a free software operating system in use at MIT
when I started working there in 1971.  It is stated in print too.

How about making an effort to find out the facts of what I do and say
before you criticize?

[BOFH-5]

The chinese have this phrase "the flames cover the eyes".

I think uninterested 3rd parties who're shown a copy of what was
originally said, and a copy of this thread would probably not conclude
that rms is trying to disparage OpenBSD.  Seriously.

Remember, his "I cannot recommend $X" includes most versions of linux
as well (in the past, it was all versions, iirc).

Now, as for gcc and emacs on windows, he has given his reasons.

I know some developers have joined in, but what was disgusting about
this whole thread was how some users who jumped in to fan the flames,
as if the more militant you get, the more openbsd street creds you
have.   Remember, if you're not a developer, you're NOT a developer,
and any amount of frothing or finding faults and supposed insults from
others won't make you a developer.

This really is a very small deal.



On 12/16/07, Marco Peereboom <slash@...> wrote:

> 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.
>
>

--
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com

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

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

Marco Peereboom wrote:
> 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.
>  
Agreed, but would you except either in ports ?
The question is not what is possible, but what are you willing to endorse.

The purpose of the extreme example is to point out that including
something within
ports has meaning.

[Ray Percival-2]

On Dec 16, 2007, at 11:58 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

> Marco Peereboom wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> Agreed, but would you except either in ports ?
> The question is not what is possible, but what are you willing to  
> endorse.
>
> The purpose of the extreme example is to point out that including
> something within
> ports has meaning.

Sure. Of course. A tool is just a tool. To not point at a given tool  
just because it could be used for evil is fairly fucking arrogant.

But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all  
(be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it,  
including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby  
mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia.
Theo cvs@... mailing list, May 29, 2001

[Floor Terra]

On Dec 16, 2007 8:35 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:

>     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...
>
> They won't get that idea from me.  I tell people regularly in my
> speeches that I found a free software operating system in use at MIT
> when I started working there in 1971.  It is stated in print too.
>
> How about making an effort to find out the facts of what I do and say
> before you criticize?
>
>

I agree, let's stick to the facts and relevant details.

I feel there are two issues here:
1) Does OpenBSD INCLUDE non-free software in it's distribution?
2) If supporting non-free software is bad, why do gcc and emacs (for
example) include code to support non-free software?

I just finished listening to the BSDTalk interview for the second time
and this is what I think:
Richard explains in the interview that all BSD distributions (not
OpenBSD specifically) INCLUDE non-free software in their ports system.
Using the "normal" definition of include, this statement is incorrect.
Richard explains here what he means by "include" and although his
statement is technically correct using his definition, someone
listening to the interview will interpret it in the wrong way because
he assumes all words are used with their "normal" meaning. This leads
to a misunderstanding about all the BSD's.

Once you get over the fact that some words Richard uses are not what
they seem, you get to a second issue. This second issue is why Richard
is called a hypocrite by Theo. If the BSD's are so bad when they
include references to non-free software in their non-recommended ports
system, why does code written by Richard himself include code to
actively support non-free software?

Let's stick to the facts, or even better: Shut up and code!

Floor Terra

[Gilbert Fernandes-4]

On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 01:10:54PM -0500, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:

> > 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.
>
> I curious (and not wanting to start a new flame war) about the decision
> tree to put debain on the workstations instead of BSD everywhere.  What
> factors were involved?  Where there logistical issues that debian sovled
> better in this case than BSD?  Is it OpenBSD or another?

I guess it's not a problem of what those Debian do that a BSD
could not do but because the people we are building systems and
tools around are working with very advanced mathematics, use
some software and tools which do require a Linux base.

We could have the whole thing work from BSD code of course.
But we dont have the time and we work for people who really
wants to have things done.

When you have a lack of time, a lot of work and people that
judge on things that work and those which dont you get a very
low tolerance for stuff that does not immediatly work once
installed, and when configured properly.

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

[davelab6]

Rico Secada wrote:

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.

Earlier - http://www.nabble.com/Real-men-don%27t-attack-straw-men-tp14256924r0p14344642.html - Richard appears to have explained how when free software programs support already-known non-free operating systems, that will not lead to people not already using those OS to start using them - but by including references to non-free programs in the ports system, OpenBSD can lead people not already using non-free programs to using them.

[Hannah Schroeter]

Hi!

On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 11:26:17AM -0700, L wrote:
>>marina@... wrote:
>>>Oh, and by the way, I'm not a real man.

>>>Actually I'm not a man at all.

>>>Not all people who are in software are men.

>This an interesting point..

>I came up with a solution and also wrote it down here:

>http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=The-He-She-Woman-Man-Problem-Solved

>Yee will find it interesting if yee is a uman.

No need to invent yet another kind of wheel, in my eyes.

See for example
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun
Seems Middle English even already had a completely neutral singular 3rd
person pronoun but that got lost again. From the neologistic
neutral/epicene singular 3rd person pronouns, the ones I see most are
singular use "they", sie/hir, zie/zir, ze/hir (somewhat close to
sie/hir), or the slashed variant (s/he, etc.). For the neutral noun,
nothing wrong with "human" (the latin origin with the male bias is remote
enough for me so it feels neutral in its current use) or "person", no need
to invent another word for that.

But then, I've been bugged with non-linguistic sexist assumptions even
more than by the linguistic ones. Yes, here. Like "you can't really be
a woman if you're a that good {programmer,OS person,choosewhatyoulike}".
If that's not sexist, what is?

Kind regards,

Hannah.

[Steve Shockley]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> The GNU Project campaigns to give software users these two essential
> freedoms and two essential requirements:
>
> Freedom 0: the freedom to run the program as you wish.
> Freedom 1: the freedom to study the source code and change it
>   so it does what you wish.
> Requirement 2: the requirement to distribute exact copies to others
> Requirement 3: the requirement to distribute copies of your modified versions
>   to others.

Fixed that for you.