Real men don't attack straw men

[Stuart VanZee]

>From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
>Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 10:03 AM
>To: misc@...
>Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
>
>On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 08:19:38PM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
>> Nobody out here is going to listen to what you're going to say, and
>> you are going to go on and on about how you were justified in labeling
>> OpenBSD as not compliant with your interpretation of the word "free",
>> which we don't give a farthing for.
>
>He only doesn't want to *recommend* OpenBSD because of the ports tree
>distributing some (however few exceptions those are) proprietary software.
>
>He's not labelling OpenBSD non-free, just non-free-friendly because some
>non-free are distributed in the ports site.
>
>Now, you may disagree with his non-recommendation, but you're
>misinterperting what's being said completely, and perhaps giving a worse
>judgement of his words than what he "did" (depending on the point of view).
>
>Rui
>
>(ps: if someone wants to answer back with insults just shove it, ok? I'm
>a fan of the Free Software operating system called OpenBSD and it's
>policy on pro-active security)
>

And yet, you still don't have it quite right.  Saying that the ports system
distributes software is not correct.  The ports system only distributes some
make files and a few patches (all free).  These make files contain links to
where to download said "evil" software and make them easy to install...
should the user choose to.  It does not actually distribute the software.  I
for one think it is much more free to be allowed to choose for myself if I
want to stick with free software (99.9% of the time) or "go the low road"
(usually only if the free choice isn't useable for a particular situation)
and use non-free (non-free friendly) software and I am very thankful to the
devs at OpenBSD for not only allowing that choice, but making it easy to do
so.

Freedom is about choice.  No matter how you stack it, limiting choice limits
freedom.  The whole political BS of GPL vs BSD etc boils down to this.
OpenBSD
does not limit choice.  I can do with it what I want.  If I could figure out
how to run IE on OpenBSD (legally) and I could talk one of the ports devs to
add it to the ports tree (legally) IE would become one more choice of web
browser to use with OpenBSD and no matter what kind of religious/political
issues anyone else has about it, in my book that would be a good thing
because
it would give yet another choice.  Would I use it?  NOPE!  Would I make fun
of anyone I saw using it?  YUP!  But, in a perverse way, it would make
OpenBSD
even more free, because some nut job out there would have the freedom to
choose to run IE on OpenBSD if he wanted to.

So I ask you:  How does that limit freedom?

s

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:38:08AM -0500, Stuart VanZee wrote:
> >From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> >
> >He's not labelling OpenBSD non-free, just non-free-friendly because some
> >non-free are distributed in the ports site.
>
> And yet, you still don't have it quite right.  Saying that the ports system
> distributes software is not correct.  The ports system only distributes some
> make files and a few patches (all free).

I'm not talking about the CVS tree, I'm talking about

http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386.html

I'm sorry for the "abuse" of language if you want to make a strong
difference between port and package.

That is an OpenBSD site which has software, like for instance zangband,
which is proprietary and is compiled and distributed from:

ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/4.2/packages/i386/zangband-2.6.2p1-no_x11.tgz

> These make files contain links to
> where to download said "evil" software and make them easy to install...

This is no mere link to a file, it's plain forward availability of a
conveniently pre-compiled package which is installable and is tantamount
to a recommendation.

> should the user choose to.

Since I'm (at least) smart enough not to install proprietary software,
I don't have a strong problem with it, but for someone like RMS who
want's to be able to recommend strictly Free Software operating systems,
this can be seen as a severe drawback.

I don't understand such violent answers from some people, they are as
unproportional as some of their claims are false.

> choose to run IE on OpenBSD if he wanted to.
> So I ask you:  How does that limit freedom?

When you promote the usage of proprietary software, you're promoting a
network effect that ends-up with more people being less free:

 those who chose to entrust others with their good judgement because
they are not knowledgeable enough to make the decision just by
themselves and get to accept your recommendations.

Then some pages which only work with IE are now accessible, and maybe
more people will use IE instead of Free Software browsers, and where
does this road lead to? No good, IMHO.

Best,

--
All Hail Discordia!
Today is Pungenday, the 3rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

[Michael Schmidt-3]

Mayuresh Kathe schrieb:
> Mr. Stallman,
>  

...

> Nobody out here is going to listen to what you're going to say, and
> you are going to go on and on about how you were justified in labeling
> OpenBSD as not compliant with your interpretation of the word "free",
> which we don't give a farthing for.
>  


Hello Mayuresh,

a possible reason can be that he is thinking "Some of it might stick".

--
Michael Schmidt     MIRRORS:
Watcom              ftp://ftp.fh-koblenz.de/pub/CompilerTools/Watcom/
OpenOffice          ftp://ftp.fh-koblenz.de/pub/OpenOffice/

[Gilles Chehade-6]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 03:53:26PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
> [blablabla]
>
> Since I'm (at least) smart enough not to install proprietary software,
> I don't have a strong problem with it, but for someone like RMS who
> want's to be able to recommend strictly Free Software operating systems,
> this can be seen as a severe drawback.
>

Just a few questions then:

        - Why is it so easy to use gcc and emacs from Windows XP
          without ever having to even know about gNewSense ? I'd
          lie if I said I knew gNewSense before Stallman came to
          troll here, and I've been working with people who make
          a great use of gcc and emacs on Windows. Can't this be
          seen as a severe drawback ?

        - What makes you think you are smarter than anybody just
          because you don't install proprietary software ?
          My parents are using Windows XP and know nothing about
          Linux/Unix, however I think they are smarter than you,
          at least they realize that what is best for them isn't
          best for me and vice versa. I'd be a real idiot to try
          and impose my choices on them. Do you see what I mean?

        Gilles

--
Gilles Chehade

[dereck]

> Hello Mayuresh,
>
> a possible reason can be that he is thinking "Some
> of it might stick".

Not likely.

Go back under your rock, along with RMS and the rest
of the bunch.

>
> --
> Michael Schmidt     MIRRORS:
> Watcom            
> ftp://ftp.fh-koblenz.de/pub/CompilerTools/Watcom/
> OpenOffice        
> ftp://ftp.fh-koblenz.de/pub/OpenOffice/

[Gilles Chehade-6]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 04:50:27PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:04:44AM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 03:53:26PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > > Since I'm (at least) smart enough not to install proprietary software,
> > > I don't have a strong problem with it, but for someone like RMS who
> > > want's to be able to recommend strictly Free Software operating systems,
> > > this can be seen as a severe drawback.
> > >
> >
> > Just a few questions then:
> >
> > - Why is it so easy to use gcc and emacs from Windows XP
> >  without ever having to even know about gNewSense ? I'd
> >  lie if I said I knew gNewSense before Stallman came to
> >  troll here, and I've been working with people who make
> >  a great use of gcc and emacs on Windows. Can't this be
> >  seen as a severe drawback ?
>
> No, they are using more Free Software than before. The opposit is a
> drawback, IMHO, because more people is using proprietary software.
>

So basically, as long as you can adapt your rules conveniently its ok ?

According to this new rule, how comes it is a drawback to provide users
with the freedom to install proprietary applications if it makes them
use more free software (i.e: users installing OpenBSD because they know
they will be able to achieve some task vs. people installing Windows
because they are unable to achieve the same task under OpenBSD) ?

If we don't provide some proprietary app, wouldn't we discourage use of
a free system by forcing users to chose another system ? Or are the FSF
rules bending again so that its ok for you but not for us ?

> > - What makes you think you are smarter than anybody just
> >  because you don't install proprietary software ?
>
> Not smarter, at least smart enough on this subject not to do that.
>
> >  and impose my choices on them. Do you see what I mean?
>
> I do, but you didn't see what I meant. Maybe I wasn't clear enough for
> you.
>

That's probably because I am not smart enough, I am not 100% pure.

--
Gilles Chehade

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:04:44AM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 03:53:26PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > Since I'm (at least) smart enough not to install proprietary software,
> > I don't have a strong problem with it, but for someone like RMS who
> > want's to be able to recommend strictly Free Software operating systems,
> > this can be seen as a severe drawback.
> >
>
> Just a few questions then:
>
> - Why is it so easy to use gcc and emacs from Windows XP
>  without ever having to even know about gNewSense ? I'd
>  lie if I said I knew gNewSense before Stallman came to
>  troll here, and I've been working with people who make
>  a great use of gcc and emacs on Windows. Can't this be
>  seen as a severe drawback ?

No, they are using more Free Software than before. The opposit is a
drawback, IMHO, because more people is using proprietary software.

> - What makes you think you are smarter than anybody just
>  because you don't install proprietary software ?

Not smarter, at least smart enough on this subject not to do that.

>  and impose my choices on them. Do you see what I mean?

I do, but you didn't see what I meant. Maybe I wasn't clear enough for
you.

Rui

--

Today is Pungenday, the 3rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

[Rubén González Arnau-2]

Why don't you tell us about emacs and gcc as Theo said?

If you don't want to answer nothing new here

Don't feed the troll!!

[Stuart VanZee]

> From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 10:53 AM
> To: Openbsd Misc (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:38:08AM -0500, Stuart VanZee wrote:
> > >From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> > >
> > >He's not labelling OpenBSD non-free, just
> non-free-friendly because some
> > >non-free are distributed in the ports site.
> >
> > And yet, you still don't have it quite right.  Saying that
> the ports system
> > distributes software is not correct.  The ports system only
> distributes some
> > make files and a few patches (all free).
>
> I'm not talking about the CVS tree, I'm talking about
>
> http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386.html
>
> I'm sorry for the "abuse" of language if you want to make a strong
> difference between port and package.
>
> That is an OpenBSD site which has software, like for instance
> zangband,
> which is proprietary and is compiled and distributed from:
>
> ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/4.2/packages/i386/zangband-2
> .6.2p1-no_x11.tgz
>
> > These make files contain links to
> > where to download said "evil" software and make them easy
> to install...
>
> This is no mere link to a file, it's plain forward availability of a
> conveniently pre-compiled package which is installable and is
> tantamount
> to a recommendation.
>
> > should the user choose to.
>
> Since I'm (at least) smart enough not to install proprietary software,
> I don't have a strong problem with it, but for someone like RMS who
> want's to be able to recommend strictly Free Software
> operating systems,
> this can be seen as a severe drawback.
>
> I don't understand such violent answers from some people, they are as
> unproportional as some of their claims are false.
>
> > choose to run IE on OpenBSD if he wanted to.
> > So I ask you:  How does that limit freedom?
>
> When you promote the usage of proprietary software, you're promoting a
> network effect that ends-up with more people being less free:
>
>  those who chose to entrust others with their good judgement because
> they are not knowledgeable enough to make the decision just by
> themselves and get to accept your recommendations.
>
> Then some pages which only work with IE are now accessible, and maybe
> more people will use IE instead of Free Software browsers, and where
> does this road lead to? No good, IMHO.
>
> Best,
>
> --
> All Hail Discordia!
> Today is Pungenday, the 3rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174
> + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
> + Whatever you do will be insignificant,
> | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
> + So let's do it...?
>

Wow... it is incredibly telling that you chose a game, a pretty
obscure one at that as far as I can tell, to base your argument on.

The world will fall because OpenBSD "recommends" that people
install a game... a game that is free to copy and use for non-
commercial use (I looked it up), and you had to go through almost
the ENTIRE package collection all the way to the Zs before you
could find such a pitiful example.

This discussion all started because Mr. Stallman very publicly
stated that OpenBSD was non-free and distributed non-free software
in it's ports tree.  I am pretty sure he had no knowledge of
zangband and it's non-free license.  He was talking about non-free
software in the ports tree.

Let us further examine this. The statement was: since this non-
free software is in our ports tree, it means that we are
recommending it to those who don't know any better than to use
non-free software (and therefore should be protected from it).  I
have to take that as a great compliment to the OpenBSD ports devs
because you are basicly saying that the ports tree is so easy to
use that even someone that is clueless can use it!  Sadly, your
complement is an empty one.  As wonderful as the ports tree is,
a person would have to have at least some technical know-how to
use it and that kind of know how doesn't grow inside a bubble.
This theoretical person would surely have come across at least
a little knowledge about open-source software principles while
gaining the knowledge to use the ports tree.  So what are we left
with?  We are left with you having a political/religious belief
in your ideals of "free software" that you want to limit the
choices of others as to if they want to use this software or not.

Hmm... lets look through history for others who want to limit
people in the name of protecting them:

     Hitler - The Jews would be better off in containment.
     USA - We must confine Japanese Americans for their own
          good while we are at war!
     USA (again) - McCarthyism... We must imprison and destroy
          the lives of all communists in America.  Basicly going
          after people for their thoughts!
     Much of the world - slavery (particularly USA)
     Catholics (and many other christ-based religous types) - we
          must kill all the witches and satanists! (pretty much
          all pagan faiths were targeted).

I am not seeing one example of anything good coming from limiting
people based upon a person or groups own ideals.  Before you get
all in a huff... no, I am not saying you are like Hitler or as
bad as Hitler.  I am saying that a persons ideals become evil
when they try to push them onto others no matter how good the
intentions are.  The only freedom is the freedom of choice,
everything else is a limit.  It would be nice if everyone used
free software, but that doesn't excuse anyone to try to force
people to use free software.

Disclaimer:  I am an American, if you are one of those patriotic
types who think America can do no wrong and I am an asshole for
bringing up the evils of Americas past or think that I was un-
duely picking on America.
GROW UP!

s

[L-9]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:04:44AM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote:
>  
>> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 03:53:26PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>>    
>>> Since I'm (at least) smart enough not to install proprietary software,
>>> I don't have a strong problem with it, but for someone like RMS who
>>> want's to be able to recommend strictly Free Software operating systems,
>>> this can be seen as a severe drawback.
>>>
>>>      
>> Just a few questions then:
>>
>> - Why is it so easy to use gcc and emacs from Windows XP
>>  without ever having to even know about gNewSense ? I'd
>>  lie if I said I knew gNewSense before Stallman came to
>>  troll here, and I've been working with people who make
>>  a great use of gcc and emacs on Windows. Can't this be
>>  seen as a severe drawback ?
>>    
>
> No, they are using more Free Software than before. The opposit is a
> drawback, IMHO, because more people is using proprietary software.
>
>  

No, people that have an OpenBSD CD to install the OS have the chance to
use MORE free software than before. They install openbsd which frees
them from using Windows Server 2003 or whatever the heck they were going
to use as a server. They have a whole COMPLETE operating system that is
free.

Once they install OpenBSD.. they are using free software.. the only
thing they MIGHT do is go on google and download Opera, or check the
ports system to find a link/url/file to download opera.  This was not
advertised to them.. they had to take extra effort to do this. Just like
someone with GCC might go on google and say 'how do I install GCC on MS
Windows?" In fact, there is no extra effort with GCC.. it is SO EASY to
download GCC for windows that it ENCOURAGES more people to continue
using Windows since GCC works so great on Windows without advertising
gNewSense anywhere.

GCC for ms WIndows does not even REQUIRE thinking first. Everyone knows
GCC is a great Windows Proprietary compiler to create proprietary
software.. it's just a cheaper compiler than MS VC. It is so easy to get
or make GCC on windows,  because Stallman knows his figurehead will
increase in size if he encourages everyone and anyone to use GCC for
proprietary closed source use.

Hypocrite, Hypocrite.


With GCC:
1. you can create bad non free software
2. you use bad non free software with GCC.. MS Windows
3. there are PLENTY of MS Windows users who use GCC and never touch
gnewsense
4. this all because GCC runs so splendidly on MS Windows.. it is so EASY
to set it up with EditPlus/Slickedit
5. be a hypocrite

This is all about a figurehead increasing his popularity. And you are
playing along and you have been brainwashed into thinking that magically
if 3 million people use GCC on Windows, that's not encouraging non free
software usage. Nope, somehow these 3 million GCC people on windows are
magically all going to move to gNewSense since GCC has a pop up window
each time you compile that says 'you must use gNewSense or I kill you.'

If they so happen to go onto google and search for 'bad proprietary
software' like Opera or whatever you consider bad (I do NOT consider
opera bad) then fine, go f*ck them up the nose for being such horrible
people - and build a nice big sign saying 'do not support Google, they
offer a scaffold where people can DOWNLOAD ANY BAD SOFTWARE they wish...
similar to the OpenBSD ports system and similar to GCC which let's
people BUILD bad software.. not just USE bad software but BUILD bad
software'.

>> - What makes you think you are smarter than anybody just
>>  because you don't install proprietary software ?
>>    
>
> Not smarter, at least smart enough on this subject not to do that.
>
>  
>>  and impose my choices on them. Do you see what I mean?
>>    
>
> I do, but you didn't see what I meant. Maybe I wasn't clear enough for
> you.
>
> Rui
>
>  

No, you are a hypocrite to. Have you been brainwashed?

I am going to add the 'cult strategies' and brainwashing warnings to the
GNG website. You've all been fooled by the cute animals on the GNU site.
SNAP OUT OF IT.

IN fact, you are a troll.. why am I replying? This just goes ON, and ON,
and ON, and ON.


Regards,
L505
http://z505.com/gng/

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:22:35AM -0700, L wrote:

> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:04:44AM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote:
>>  
>>> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 03:53:26PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>>>    
>>>> Since I'm (at least) smart enough not to install proprietary software,
>>>> I don't have a strong problem with it, but for someone like RMS who
>>>> want's to be able to recommend strictly Free Software operating systems,
>>>> this can be seen as a severe drawback.
>>>>
>>>>      
>>> Just a few questions then:
>>>
>>> - Why is it so easy to use gcc and emacs from Windows XP
>>>  without ever having to even know about gNewSense ? I'd
>>>  lie if I said I knew gNewSense before Stallman came to
>>>  troll here, and I've been working with people who make
>>>  a great use of gcc and emacs on Windows. Can't this be
>>>  seen as a severe drawback ?
>>>    
>>
>> No, they are using more Free Software than before. The opposit is a
>> drawback, IMHO, because more people is using proprietary software.
>
> No, people that have an OpenBSD CD to install the OS have the chance to use
> MORE free software than before.

That's got nothing to do with what was talked about. It's not about the
OpenBSD cd, but about having ...

        http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386.html

... distributing proprietary software, which is tantamount to a
recommendation that is RMS's problem with OpenBSD. Nothing else... even
the extremely rude personalities of some of the people here wouldn't
stop him from recommending OpenBSD if it wasn't for that.

That small (it's only a few packages) problem could be easily fixed and
get OpenBSD listed at FSF's page.

Don't act like children in a tantrum, who seldom listen to reason.

> GCC for ms WIndows does not even REQUIRE thinking first. Everyone knows GCC
> is a great Windows Proprietary compiler to create proprietary software..
> it's just a cheaper compiler than MS VC. It is so easy to get or make GCC
> on windows,  because Stallman knows his figurehead will increase in size if
> he encourages everyone and anyone to use GCC for proprietary closed source
> use.

This list is actually the first place I read of widespread use of GCC
for making proprietary software. Since so many lies are said about what
RMS promotes or not, I don't feel confident in taking your word for it
(specially since you seem to resort easily into insults).

> No, you are a hypocrite to. Have you been brainwashed?
>
> I am going to add the 'cult strategies' and brainwashing warnings to the
> GNG website. You've all been fooled by the cute animals on the GNU site.
> SNAP OUT OF IT.
>
> IN fact, you are a troll.. why am I replying? This just goes ON, and ON,
> and ON, and ON.

/me smiles... such a troll I must be, who's replacing proprietary packet
filters with OpenBSD everywhere I can.

Rui

--
Or not.
Today is Pungenday, the 3rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

[Roberto J. Dohnert]

While reading this thread the course it has taken really surprises me.
I dont agree with Richards take on OpenBSD. I think OpenBSD is fine,
good for recommendations for a truly free OS.  But what really surprises
me is that Stallman has resorted to blatant troll like posting just to
incite a battle with people on the mailing list.  Sometimes its just
best to let it go.  Richard and Theo wont budge so why keep discussing
this?

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:05:37PM -0500, Stuart VanZee wrote:
> Wow... it is incredibly telling that you chose a game, a pretty
> obscure one at that as far as I can tell, to base your argument on.
>
> The world will fall because OpenBSD "recommends" that people
> install a game... a game that is free to copy and use for non-
> commercial use (I looked it up), and you had to go through almost
> the ENTIRE package collection all the way to the Zs before you
> could find such a pitiful example.

Because they are such pitiful cases, they could be easily removed and
remove Stallman's objections to list OpenBSD at the recommended Free
Software operating systems, right? More promotion of OpenBSD would be
good, right?

Stopping this childish-tantrum regarding the FSF would also be very much
more productive.

> This discussion all started because Mr. Stallman very publicly
> stated that OpenBSD was non-free and distributed non-free software
> in it's ports tree.

He didn't say OpenBSD was non-free, but that it distributed non-free
Software.

Looking at
ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/4.2/packages/i386/zangband-2.6.2p1.tgz

... seems to me pretty a pretty clear case.

> I am pretty sure he had no knowledge of
> zangband and it's non-free license.  He was talking about non-free
> software in the ports tree.

BTW, I think he was (as I frequently happen to by "abuse of language")
referring to the packages site, e.g.:

http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386.html

Best,
Rui

--
Grudnuk demand sustenance!
Today is Pungenday, the 3rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

[Siju George]

On Jan 3, 2008 10:28 PM, Ruben Gonzalez Arnau <ruben@...> wrote:
> Why don't you tell us about emacs and gcc as Theo said?
>
> If you don't want to answer nothing new here
>

The "wget" he uses is worse.
You can download any non-free software with it and it does not warn
the user at all!!!

[Tobias Ulmer]

nostromo:tobiasu$ for x in ">blahblah" STFU. KTHXBYE; do banner $x; done
  #
   #     #####   #         ##    #    #  #####   #         ##    #    #
    #    #    #  #        #  #   #    #  #    #  #        #  #   #    #
     #   #####   #       #    #  ######  #####   #       #    #  ######
    #    #    #  #       ######  #    #  #    #  #       ######  #    #
   #     #    #  #       #    #  #    #  #    #  #       #    #  #    #
  #      #####   ######  #    #  #    #  #####   ######  #    #  #    #

 #####  ####### ####### #     #
#     #    #    #       #     #
#          #    #       #     #
 #####     #    #####   #     #
      #    #    #       #     #   ###
#     #    #    #       #     #   ###
 #####     #    #        #####    ###

#    #  ####### #     # #     # ######  #     # #######
#   #      #    #     #  #   #  #     #  #   #  #
#  #       #    #     #   # #   #     #   # #   #
###        #    #######    #    ######     #    #####
#  #       #    #     #   # #   #     #    #    #
#   #      #    #     #  #   #  #     #    #    #
#    #     #    #     # #     # ######     #    #######

[William Boshuck]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 05:48:13PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:05:37PM -0500, Stuart VanZee wrote:
> > Wow... it is incredibly telling that you chose a game, a pretty
> > obscure one at that as far as I can tell, to base your argument on.
> >
> > The world will fall because OpenBSD "recommends" that people
> > install a game... a game that is free to copy and use for non-
> > commercial use (I looked it up), and you had to go through almost
> > the ENTIRE package collection all the way to the Zs before you
> > could find such a pitiful example.
>
> Because they are such pitiful cases, they could be easily removed and
> remove Stallman's objections to list OpenBSD at the recommended Free
> Software operating systems, right? More promotion of OpenBSD would be
> good, right?

Richard Stallman referred to certain URLs in certain Makefiles
in the ports tree---not the collection of packages, after (in
the interview which indirectly prompted this thread) confusing
OpenBSD's ports tree with its installation system.  He did not
refer to the packages collection in the statement in question.

> > This discussion all started because Mr. Stallman very publicly
> > stated that OpenBSD was non-free and distributed non-free software
> > in it's ports tree.
>
> He didn't say OpenBSD was non-free, but that it distributed non-free
> Software.

He said that it "include[s] in [its] installation system ...  non-free
software".

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 01:23:21PM -0500, William Boshuck wrote:
> Richard Stallman referred to certain URLs in certain Makefiles
> in the ports tree---not the collection of packages, after (in
> the interview which indirectly prompted this thread) confusing
> OpenBSD's ports tree with its installation system.  He did not
> refer to the packages collection in the statement in question.

I seem to have read somewhere he asked for an adenda clarifying the
situation, was it referred to these? I seem to have understood it to be
the packages distribution.

> > > This discussion all started because Mr. Stallman very publicly
> > > stated that OpenBSD was non-free and distributed non-free software
> > > in it's ports tree.
> >
> > He didn't say OpenBSD was non-free, but that it distributed non-free
> > Software.
>
> He said that it "include[s] in [its] installation system ...  non-free
> software".

I'm willing to bet he got bad information or missed the "ports/packages"
components. People ain't computers.

Rui

--
Wibble.
Today is Pungenday, the 3rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

[Marco Peereboom]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 05:48:13PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:05:37PM -0500, Stuart VanZee wrote:
> > Wow... it is incredibly telling that you chose a game, a pretty
> > obscure one at that as far as I can tell, to base your argument on.
> >
> > The world will fall because OpenBSD "recommends" that people
> > install a game... a game that is free to copy and use for non-
> > commercial use (I looked it up), and you had to go through almost
> > the ENTIRE package collection all the way to the Zs before you
> > could find such a pitiful example.
>
> Because they are such pitiful cases, they could be easily removed and
> remove Stallman's objections to list OpenBSD at the recommended Free
> Software operating systems, right? More promotion of OpenBSD would be
> good, right?

His recommendation is as empty as his ideals.  They are "Free" from any
rational thought.

More promotion for OpenBSD is only good if it benefits the project.
Having a bunch of morons show up is not a goal.  We aren't after
conquering the world unlike some other projects.

>
> Stopping this childish-tantrum regarding the FSF would also be very much
> more productive.

It would be nice if people would stop defending non defensible
hypocritical positions.  His arguments are a misleading hyperbole.

>
> > This discussion all started because Mr. Stallman very publicly
> > stated that OpenBSD was non-free and distributed non-free software
> > in it's ports tree.
>
> He didn't say OpenBSD was non-free, but that it distributed non-free
> Software.

Which is inaccurate.

>
> Looking at
> ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/4.2/packages/i386/zangband-2.6.2p1.tgz
>
> ... seems to me pretty a pretty clear case.
>
> > I am pretty sure he had no knowledge of
> > zangband and it's non-free license.  He was talking about non-free
> > software in the ports tree.
>
> BTW, I think he was (as I frequently happen to by "abuse of language")
> referring to the packages site, e.g.:
>
> http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386.html
>
> Best,
> Rui
>
> --
> Grudnuk demand sustenance!
> Today is Pungenday, the 3rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174
> + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
> + Whatever you do will be insignificant,
> | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
> + So let's do it...?

[Marco Peereboom]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 06:30:44PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 01:23:21PM -0500, William Boshuck wrote:
> > Richard Stallman referred to certain URLs in certain Makefiles
> > in the ports tree---not the collection of packages, after (in
> > the interview which indirectly prompted this thread) confusing
> > OpenBSD's ports tree with its installation system.  He did not
> > refer to the packages collection in the statement in question.
>
> I seem to have read somewhere he asked for an adenda clarifying the
> situation, was it referred to these? I seem to have understood it to be
> the packages distribution.

He should have researched this himself instead of spouting horseshit.

>
> > > > This discussion all started because Mr. Stallman very publicly
> > > > stated that OpenBSD was non-free and distributed non-free software
> > > > in it's ports tree.
> > >
> > > He didn't say OpenBSD was non-free, but that it distributed non-free
> > > Software.
> >
> > He said that it "include[s] in [its] installation system ...  non-free
> > software".
>
> I'm willing to bet he got bad information or missed the "ports/packages"
> components. People ain't computers.

Time to grow up and take responsibility for one's actions.  Assuming he
actually "got" bad information don't you think he should have spent 3
minutes of his time to figure reality out?  Why are you giving him a
free out of jail card?  He does this over and over again; is it truly
just a mistake?

I think not.

>
> Rui
>
> --
> Wibble.
> Today is Pungenday, the 3rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174
> + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
> + Whatever you do will be insignificant,
> | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
> + So let's do it...?

[L-9]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

>> le that have an OpenBSD CD to install the OS have the chance to use
>> MORE free software than before.
>>    
>
> That's got nothing to do with what was talked about. It's not about the
> OpenBSD cd, but about having ...
>
>     http://www.openbsd.org/4.2_packages/i386.html
>
> ... distributing proprietary software, which is tantamount to a
> recommendation that is RMS's problem with OpenBSD. Nothing else...
>
>  

GNU file sharing software (P2P) distributes proprietary software.

Google distributes links to proprietary software.

Your internet subscription is distributing proprietary software to you..
your internet connection allows you to download tarballs and zips. Blame
your internet company for distributing all the bad stuff to you. Don't
use an internet connection unless it is a free internet connection that
does not link to and point to any proprietary software. But go ahead and
download GCC for windows which allows you to build infinite amounts of
proprietary software to run on Windows... because that is perfectly OKAY.

GCC does not FORCE people to build proprietary software.. nor does your
internet company force you to use GNU based P2p clients that distribute
proprietary software. OpenBSD does not FORCE people to build stuff from
ports. gNewSense does not FORCE people to use binary blobs (or maybe it
does if we look into it and find something which will be corrected soon
only because we mentioned it)


> That small (it's only a few packages) problem could be easily fixed and
> get OpenBSD listed at FSF's page.
>
>  

GCC could be easily fixed by someone deleting all copies of MS Windows
version of GCC off the internet.

My free software foundation states in the fifth freedom, that one must
not distribute copies of a compiler that can:
1. encourage the use of non free software
2. encourage building infinite amounts of non free software
3. allow existing non free software users to be able to build more
proprietary software easily

It would maybe be better if OpenBSD was never mentioned on FSF page..
because if it was listed on the FSF page, people would mistake OpenBSD
with having something to do with the FSF or having some relation to FSF.
This would not be good.. since it would mean OpenBSD would be tied in to
the Stallmanist system.

> Don't act like children in a tantrum, who seldom listen to reason.
>
>  

Speaking? May I ask who is calling?

My entire life is dedicated to reason, rationale, science.

Look up the word 'free' in the dictionary and let me know what you find.

A dictionary is the standard definition reference guide. Not some
personal opinion website based on Stallmanist view.

>> GCC for ms WIndows does not even REQUIRE thinking first. Everyone
>> knows GCC is a great Windows Proprietary compiler to create
>> proprietary software.. it's just a cheaper compiler than MS VC. It is
>> so easy to get or make GCC on windows,  because Stallman knows his
>> figurehead will increase in size if he encourages everyone and anyone
>> to use GCC for proprietary closed source use.
>>    
>
> This list is actually the first place I read of widespread use of GCC
> for making proprietary software. Since so many lies are said about what
> RMS promotes or not, I don't feel confident in taking your word for it
> (specially since you seem to resort easily into insults).
>
>  

It's not that RMS directly promotes people to use GCC for propeitary
software.

It's that RMS provides a scaffold for people to use GCC for propreitary
software.
A worse scaffold than the openbsd ports link.

The entire GCC compiler has a link in it or scaffold which points to MS
Windows.

The GCC scaffold I speak of is the one which recommends using MS WIndows
to compile GCC software.. the links that point to MS WIndows zip files
that allow anyone to easily install GCC on MS WIndows so that they do
not have to use free operating systems.. and so that they can use GCC to
build infinite amounts of proprietary software.

You haven't heard about embedded developers using GCC for C development?
What did you think they used, Watcom C? MS Visual C?

>> No, you are a hypocrite to. Have you been brainwashed?
>>
>> I am going to add the 'cult strategies' and brainwashing warnings to
>> the GNG website. You've all been fooled by the cute animals on the
>> GNU site. SNAP OUT OF IT.
>>
>> IN fact, you are a troll.. why am I replying? This just goes ON, and
>> ON, and ON, and ON.
>>    
>
> /me smiles... such a troll I must be, who's replacing proprietary packet
> filters with OpenBSD everywhere I can.
>
> Rui
>
>  

The problem is not you.. you have been brainwashed. I am forgiving you
for it. The problem is the cult that has brainwashed you. I meant not to
be rude to you. I meant to be rude to the cult who has brainwashed you.

When you have been brainwashed, it is not your fault. What we have to do
is undergo therapy.. once you have been un-brainwashed with my therapy,
you will thank me for my therapy.


L505