Real men don't attack straw men

[L-9]

L wrote:

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

http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Embedded-Systems-Development-Tools/dp/0596009836

This book is a scaffold/link..and it is a an endorsement and
recommendation to use GCC to distribute closed proprietary hardware and
sell the hardware distributing GCC based software inside the closed
hardware.

http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Embedded-Systems-Development-Tools/dp/0596009836


This book is the enemy of your freedom.

Start making signs today.

[Stuart VanZee]

> From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 12:48 PM
> To: Openbsd Misc (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: FW: Real men don't attack straw men
>
>
> 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?
>

CASE... not cases, you have come up with one CASE.  One example, IF
I chose to believe in your modification of the original statement
that sparked this thread (which I don't) and believe that Mr. Stallman
was speaking of non-free software in packages your side of the argument
gets smaller and smaller.  See what happens when you have to prove your
argument?  It all boils down to you having an issue with ONE package.
A game at that.  Not production software, or a web browser, or an email
package, a game.  A single game that, from the tone of your argument
must be destroying all that free software stands for.  Guess what...
I read the license text for that game and it sounds exactly like what
your precious GPL would say if it was boiled down to it's most basic
components.  You can have the source code...  You can modify the source
code... You just can't use the source code for your commercial
application.  Sound familiar?  That is almost exactly what I was told
by a GPL Zealot that the GPL lic was all about when I was first
introduced to Linux so many years ago.

So your example of why OpenBSD isn't free is a farce.  It wouldn't
bother me if the OpenBSD devs decided to axe that package.  If I
wanted to use it I could install it from ports just fine, I usually
do anyway, but the argument that they should do so to fit yours or
Mr Stallman's ideals of what free software is about are wrong on so
many levels.

It comes down to trying to force others to live by your ideals. It's
just like the christian croud thinking that it's ok to discriminate
against the pagans because it would take such a small thing for them
(us) to convert to christianity. Never mind that many of us pagans
view christianity as a violent death cult, so why would we ever want
to. You say that it would be such a small thing for the OpenBSD
project to do to live up to your ideals when it comes to free software
but quite frankly, I think that many of the OpenBSD crowd think that
your ideals are wrong.  Freedom is all about freedom of choice,
If that means people choose non-free software on OpenBSD at least they
are using OpenBSD which is in itself free software.  OpenBSD with ALL
the non-free software from ports (yes, really ports) would still be a
much more free system than any Windows system using as much free apps
as a person could find for it.


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

childish-tantrum?  You know, when you resort to attacking the character
of the other persons argument rather than argue the facts of your case
it means you have pretty much lost the debate and have nothing more to
say.

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

Ok... I get it... You are saying that zangband is such an important piece
of software that it alone is the cause of the downfall of free software.
Because OpenBSD distributes zangband nobody has any reason to install a
free OS or switch from MS Office to free office production software.

No... wait... I don't get it.  zangband is a GAME.  It could fall off the
face of the earth and nobody would blink.  The few people who play it would
move on to the next game.

I can't believe that this thread has gone on this long and this one GAME
is what it is all about.  Oh wait.... it really isn't, but when we boil
the argument down, it does become the final stand for a free software
zealot who didn't realize that he didn't have a real position in the
first case

s

[Marco Peereboom]

> 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).

This just underscores how completely uninformed you are.  I work with a
large amount of hardware vendors.  All of them now use gcc on windows
for firmware development.  These companies used UNIX/Linux in the past
until it became so easy to use gcc on windows.  It even integrates with
visual slick edit!!

One of my colleagues is a religious emacs user.  He uses it for
everything.  He dropped Linux on the floor in favor of windows because
now he can use word and excel to import/export stuff into emacs.

I can go on for a while.

I can insult you some more but I am not sure you'd get it.

[Marco Peereboom]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 03:02:40PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> 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.

Not interesting what he recommends.  I don't know how often I need to
repeat this to you.  You really can stop your pavlov responses (ding
ding, start salivating).

>
> He's not labelling OpenBSD non-free, just non-free-friendly because some
> non-free are distributed in the ports site.

That's dumb and many people have told you so.  It doesn't matter how
often you try to make it sound good it is still dumb.

>
> 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).

We don't care.  We want him and his bs to go away and leave us alone.
He can promote thurd all day long or not, whatever.

>
> 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)

Then stop replying.  I am pretty sure people will not let you have the
last word on this.  You are spouting crap and people are tired of
listening to it.

>
> --
> Fnord.
> 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...?

[Nils.Reuvers]

Watch your  blood pressure there Stuart.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Stuart VanZee"<StuartV@...>
Sent: 3-1-08 20:23:52
To: "Openbsd Misc (E-mail)"<misc@...>
Subject: Re: FW: Real men don't attack straw men

> From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 12:48 PM
> To: Openbsd Misc (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: FW: Real men don't attack straw men
>
>
> 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?
>

CASE... not cases, you have come up with one CASE.  One example, IF
I chose to believe in your modification of the original statement
that sparked this thread (which I don't) and believe that Mr. Stallman
was speaking of non-free software in packages your side of the argument
gets smaller and smaller.  See what happens when you have to prove your
argument?  It all boils down to you having an issue with ONE package.
A game at that.  Not production software, or a web browser, or an email
package, a game.  A single game that, from the tone of your argument
must be destroying all that free software stands for.  Guess what...
I read the license text for that game and it sounds exactly like what
your precious GPL would say if it was boiled down to it's most basic
components.  You can have the source code...  You can modify the source
code... You just can't use the source code for your commercial
application.  Sound familiar?  That is almost exactly what I was told
by a GPL Zealot that the GPL lic was all about when I was first
introduced to Linux so many years ago.

So your example of why OpenBSD isn't free is a farce.  It wouldn't
bother me if the OpenBSD devs decided to axe that package.  If I
wanted to use it I could install it from ports just fine, I usually
do anyway, but the argument that they should do so to fit yours or
Mr Stallman's ideals of what free software is about are wrong on so
many levels.

It comes down to trying to force others to live by your ideals. It's
just like the christian croud thinking that it's ok to discriminate
against the pagans because it would take such a small thing for them
(us) to convert to christianity. Never mind that many of us pagans
view christianity as a violent death cult, so why would we ever want
to. You say that it would be such a small thing for the OpenBSD
project to do to live up to your ideals when it comes to free software
but quite frankly, I think that many of the OpenBSD crowd think that
your ideals are wrong.  Freedom is all about freedom of choice,
If that means people choose non-free software on OpenBSD at least they
are using OpenBSD which is in itself free software.  OpenBSD with ALL
the non-free software from ports (yes, really ports) would still be a
much more free system than any Windows system using as much free apps
as a person could find for it.


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

childish-tantrum?  You know, when you resort to attacking the character
of the other persons argument rather than argue the facts of your case
it means you have pretty much lost the debate and have nothing more to
say.

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

Ok... I get it... You are saying that zangband is such an important piece
of software that it alone is the cause of the downfall of free software.
Because OpenBSD distributes zangband nobody has any reason to install a
free OS or switch from MS Office to free office production software.

No... wait... I don't get it.  zangband is a GAME.  It could fall off the
face of the earth and nobody would blink.  The few people who play it would
move on to the next game.

I can't believe that this thread has gone on this long and this one GAME
is what it is all about.  Oh wait.... it really isn't, but when we boil
the argument down, it does become the final stand for a free software
zealot who didn't realize that he didn't have a real position in the
first case

s


=============================================================================
====================
A disclaimer applies to this email and any attachments.
Refer to http://www.sparkholland.com/emaildisclaimer for the full text of this
disclaimer.

[Theo de Raadt]

Rui Miguel Silva is continually making you guys remove rms@...
from the cc's of your messages.

If you are going to flame rms, it is best to keep him cc'd.

> > From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 12:48 PM
> > To: Openbsd Misc (E-mail)
> > Subject: Re: FW: Real men don't attack straw men
> >
> >
> > 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?
> >
>
> CASE... not cases, you have come up with one CASE.  One example, IF
> I chose to believe in your modification of the original statement
> that sparked this thread (which I don't) and believe that Mr. Stallman
> was speaking of non-free software in packages your side of the argument
> gets smaller and smaller.  See what happens when you have to prove your
> argument?  It all boils down to you having an issue with ONE package.
> A game at that.  Not production software, or a web browser, or an email
> package, a game.  A single game that, from the tone of your argument
> must be destroying all that free software stands for.  Guess what...
> I read the license text for that game and it sounds exactly like what
> your precious GPL would say if it was boiled down to it's most basic
> components.  You can have the source code...  You can modify the source
> code... You just can't use the source code for your commercial
> application.  Sound familiar?  That is almost exactly what I was told
> by a GPL Zealot that the GPL lic was all about when I was first
> introduced to Linux so many years ago.
>
> So your example of why OpenBSD isn't free is a farce.  It wouldn't
> bother me if the OpenBSD devs decided to axe that package.  If I
> wanted to use it I could install it from ports just fine, I usually
> do anyway, but the argument that they should do so to fit yours or
> Mr Stallman's ideals of what free software is about are wrong on so
> many levels.
>
> It comes down to trying to force others to live by your ideals. It's
> just like the christian croud thinking that it's ok to discriminate
> against the pagans because it would take such a small thing for them
> (us) to convert to christianity. Never mind that many of us pagans
> view christianity as a violent death cult, so why would we ever want
> to. You say that it would be such a small thing for the OpenBSD
> project to do to live up to your ideals when it comes to free software
> but quite frankly, I think that many of the OpenBSD crowd think that
> your ideals are wrong.  Freedom is all about freedom of choice,
> If that means people choose non-free software on OpenBSD at least they
> are using OpenBSD which is in itself free software.  OpenBSD with ALL
> the non-free software from ports (yes, really ports) would still be a
> much more free system than any Windows system using as much free apps
> as a person could find for it.
>
>
> > Stopping this childish-tantrum regarding the FSF would also
> > be very much
> > more productive.
> >
>
> childish-tantrum?  You know, when you resort to attacking the character
> of the other persons argument rather than argue the facts of your case
> it means you have pretty much lost the debate and have nothing more to
> say.
>
> > > 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
> >
> >... seems to me pretty a pretty clear case.
> >
>
> Ok... I get it... You are saying that zangband is such an important piece
> of software that it alone is the cause of the downfall of free software.
> Because OpenBSD distributes zangband nobody has any reason to install a
> free OS or switch from MS Office to free office production software.
>
> No... wait... I don't get it.  zangband is a GAME.  It could fall off the
> face of the earth and nobody would blink.  The few people who play it would
> move on to the next game.
>
> I can't believe that this thread has gone on this long and this one GAME
> is what it is all about.  Oh wait.... it really isn't, but when we boil
> the argument down, it does become the final stand for a free software
> zealot who didn't realize that he didn't have a real position in the
> first case
>
> s

[Gilles Chehade-5]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 10:40:47AM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote:

> 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 ?
>

Why won't you answer this Ruis, why do you find the time to send more and
more messages yet you cannot find the time to answer this easy one ?

Why is it that you and your happy hippy friend find the time to troll and
reply to several messages yet, strangely, fail to see the questions which
are annoying or which exposes the flaws in your reasonning ?

Are you too using email batches that conveniently gives you hours to find
your next word play ?

No need to remove your friend from the list, I will keep adding him until
this thread is over. There is no reason my mailbox gets filled with a lot
of your crap while you guys don't get annoyed by your own ranting.

Gilles

--
Gilles Chehade

[Gregg Reynolds-4]

On 1/3/08, Siju George <sgeorge.ml@...> wrote:
>
> The "wget" he uses is worse.
> You can download any non-free software with it and it does not warn
> the user at all!!!
>
And electricity!  I'm pretty sure (unless I'm misinformed) he uses
electricity provided by plants and distribution systems that are
controlled by non-free software!  And it can be used to run non-free
software!  I don't see how that can be considered anything but a plot
to steal our freedom!

Sorry.  I can't help myself.  I blame my non-free software for
allowing me to read sorry-ass threads like this.

[Unix Fan]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

>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



How many times do we have to tell you it's NOT proprietary, and It's not "illegal/prohibbted" to distribute "Zangband".



Go the hell away you troll!



http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119766148717919&w=2



-Nix Fan.

[Marco Peereboom]

Re-adding RMS.

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:34:24PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:

> 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...?

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:33:26PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva is continually making you guys remove rms@...
> from the cc's of your messages.

FYI, I continually remove people from the CC on mailing-list posts.

I consider it rude to receive duplicate email.

> If you are going to flame rms, it is best to keep him cc'd.

That's the spirit, no doubpt about that.

No solving differences, flame away. *sheesh*

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...?

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:34:24PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> It would be nice if people would stop defending non defensible
> hypocritical positions.  His arguments are a misleading hyperbole.

Your attitude is also indefensible and ostentiously hypocritical, with a
rudeness that only "adds" value to every single word you write.

Many times you falsely misrepresented what people say, either by lack of
english understanding or by intention. None of them bore well on your
character.

Rui

--
Kallisti!
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...?

[Daniel Ouellet]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:33:26PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> Rui Miguel Silva is continually making you guys remove rms@...
>> from the cc's of your messages.
>
> FYI, I continually remove people from the CC on mailing-list posts.
>
> I consider it rude to receive duplicate email.

Except in his case, He is not subscribe to the list and if you don't cc
him, he will simply not get it.

Plus, he is rude on the list by passing fud, so nothing wrong to be rude
back by ccing if you want.

>> If you are going to flame rms, it is best to keep him cc'd.
>
> That's the spirit, no doubpt about that.
>
> No solving differences, flame away. *sheesh*
>
> Rui

[Miod Vallat (on the road)]

> > Rui Miguel Silva is continually making you guys remove rms@...
> > from the cc's of your messages.
>
> FYI, I continually remove people from the CC on mailing-list posts.

Yet you have no idea whether these people are subscribed to these
mailing lists.

> I consider it rude to receive duplicate email.

Isn't it rude to prevent people from receiving answers they are
seeking? Not everyone not subscribed to this list will end his/her
messages with a ``please cc: me as I am not subscribed'' notice, because
they expect people to do the right thing. Which is ``reply to all''.

If duplicate answers bother you, train your mail user agent to merge
them.

[Ray Percival-2]

> That is an OpenBSD site which has software, like for instance  
> zangband,
> which is proprietary


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it  
means.

[Ted Unangst-2]

On 1/3/08, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms@...> wrote:
> 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.

stop repeating this bullshit.  zangband is not proprietary.  i called
you on this before.

[L-9]

Marco Peereboom wrote:

>> 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).
>>    
>
> This just underscores how completely uninformed you are.  I work with a
> large amount of hardware vendors.  All of them now use gcc on windows
> for firmware development.  These companies used UNIX/Linux in the past
> until it became so easy to use gcc on windows.  It even integrates with
> visual slick edit!!
>
> One of my colleagues is a religious emacs user.  He uses it for
> everything.  He dropped Linux on the floor in favor of windows because
> now he can use word and excel to import/export stuff into emacs.
>
> I can go on for a while.
>
> I can insult you some more but I am not sure you'd get it.
>
>
>  

What's funny is that is not even an insult. He is calling it insulting,
and you are playfully pretending it is an insult... rather it is just
conversation. He is taking it as an insult.. every time we mention the
word 'slickedit' it's as if we are swearing or something.  When a cult
member loses an argument about his cult and a fact is brought up such as
slickedit, they treat it as an insult because now you are providing
evidence that could hurt their cult.. so instead of attending the
evidence they instead divert the conversation elsewhere completely off
topic.. such as 'but that is an insult!' and 'but your mom isn't even
involved in this!' It is the openbsd Cliche again. It is a harping on
'truthful people are mean', instead of discussion.

I called this one out before..

Someone said a simple line.. like 'Did you?' and then someone took this
simple 'Did you' and turned it into an insult.

>> Did you?
>>
>>  
>     Do you have turrets or aspergers or some other reason why you are
> compelled to insult virtually everyone ?

Since when was 'did you' an insult?

[L-9]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:34:24PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
>  
>> It would be nice if people would stop defending non defensible
>> hypocritical positions.  His arguments are a misleading hyperbole.
>>    
>
> Your attitude is also indefensible and ostentiously hypocritical, with a
> rudeness that only "adds" value to every single word you write.
>
> Many times you falsely misrepresented what people say, either by lack of
> english understanding or by intention. None of them bore well on your
> character.
>
> Rui
>
>  

That is an insult! Why are you being so mean to Marco?

And why are you being so mean to me too? I read this list too!
You are insulting me!

See how the whole insulting part about it has NOTHING to do with the
conversation?

Anything can be taken as an insult.

Stick to discussing the matters at hand, instead of continually trying
to divert the conversation to a topic of 'who is insulting'.

Did you know that people who speak the truth are insulting at times?
People that do not put up with bull are very hard people at times? Do
you think cops and police are nice people all the time when they are
dealing with liars? SHould they just be nice to all the criminals who
lie? Not saying GNU people are criminals, just giving an example of when
NOT to be nice.

Did you know skillful liars are very nice people? Did you know cults
drag people into their cults by being very nice and calm and positive?

Did you know that overly positive people are actually dangerous people?

What scares me is the amount of positivity of the whole FSF even when
they are in deep trouble. It's like they have no fear of being wrong..
because being wrong is part of the game.

L505

[Sunnz]

Hmmm Mr. Stallman is this your home page: stallman.org

I was a bit curious about what would someone who reads web-sites by
using a wget daemon through e-mails whose own web-site looks like...
well...

Apache httpd 2.0.54 ((Debian GNU/Linux) DAV/2 SVN/1.2.0 PHP/4.3.10-22
mod_ssl/2.0.54 OpenSSL/0.9.7e)

And I thought you do not 'endorse' Debian nor Subversion?

I am ready to hear what kind of exception rule you would to define next.

[Richard Stallman]

    This is the same with your recommended system GNU/Darwin:

    http://www.gnu-darwin.org/index.php?page=ports

    Who also contains instructions to install the such port system.

Thank you for telling me about this problem.  I will talk with them
about this ASAP.  I expect they will probably remove those.