Real men don't attack straw men

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 05:44:59PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
> :-) that was to the guy who called you a troll right?
> I said perhaps you are a paid FSF mercenary or as you accused me
> "delusional" :-)

I wish I was paid to only work on Free Software, I'd be much more
productive.

Rui

--

Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th 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...?

[Andrés Delfino]

Rui, I kindly ask you to not remove Richards's e-mail, since he is as
interested as everyone else who follows this thread.

Richard does not receive duplicated e-mail, since he is not in
misc@..., so don't hesitate to add him.

Greetings.

[Chris Eidem]

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-misc@... [mailto:owner-misc@...] On Behalf
Of
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 3:21 PM
To: misc@...
Subject: Re: FW: Real men don't attack straw men

Daniel Ouellet wrote:

>
>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.
>

It appears that even if you _do_ cc him, he doesn't get it...

[Miod Vallat (on the road)]

> > > 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.
>
> If they are not, why do their emails get into the mailing list?

Because they sent it to it.

> Some moderator enjoys letting flames come up? That's even more
> interesting...

This list is not moderated. Sometimes I wish it was.

> > 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''.
>
> Their problem.

I could apply the same attitude to people who complain about getting the
same message twice.

[Denis Doroshenko]

that's right, it's there!
eh, Richard, my mom told me once that it is the best thing to tell
truth, even when the truth is salty, as when you start to lie, you
cannot stop and eventually you get all your lies exposed.

Server: Apache/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

this sums it all up.
jeez, that much for those principles of yours!

gosh! to think of it...
when i was in school, i read in a journal (a soviet one at that
time) about great Richard Stallman, which fought the corporations by
creating free software and the software was better than the commercial
competition. i thought then "wow, that's the man, he's so great!".
now, that's a *disappointment* to see that the "great man freeing the
world" in reality is behaving like irrelevant, lying politician.

Theo's right, absolutely "Richard, you are a lying hypocritical
irrelevant man." You've completely lost your way, irrelevant,
having many people that listen to you, you speak irresponsibly.
and you're not sorry a bit.

br, the judging reader

On Jan 4, 2008 5:56 AM, Sunnz <sunnzy@...> wrote:

> 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.

[Ted Unangst-2]

On Jan 4, 2008 1:22 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms@...> wrote:
> > Otherwise why should he repeatedly say some thin that is not
> > proprietary as proprietary even after being informed by tedu and
> > others?
>
> Because for me it is proprietary when I can't run it in a commercial
> context.

you clearly don't know what proprietary means.  if you don't
understand the big words, stop using them.  you also totally failed to
comprehend the license.

what i find even more hysterical is your claim that running a 5 year
old rogue clone is needed to get your work done.

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 02:26:12PM -0800, Ted Unangst wrote:

> On Jan 4, 2008 1:22 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms@...> wrote:
> > > Otherwise why should he repeatedly say some thin that is not
> > > proprietary as proprietary even after being informed by tedu and
> > > others?
> >
> > Because for me it is proprietary when I can't run it in a commercial
> > context.
>
> you clearly don't know what proprietary means.  if you don't
> understand the big words, stop using them.  you also totally failed to
> comprehend the license.

No, I understood it quite well.

> what i find even more hysterical is your claim that running a 5 year
> old rogue clone is needed to get your work done.

What I find even more hysterical is your lack of english comprehension,
for what I said is that restrictions against commercial usage make it
proprietary, not that I need that piece of software.

Rui

--
Or not.
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th 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...?

[Ted Unangst-2]

On Jan 4, 2008 2:31 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms@...> wrote:
> What I find even more hysterical is your lack of english comprehension,
> for what I said is that restrictions against commercial usage make it
> proprietary, not that I need that piece of software.

you still don't get to make up new definitions for proprietary.

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 02:49:45PM -0800, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2008 2:31 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms@...> wrote:
> > What I find even more hysterical is your lack of english comprehension,
> > for what I said is that restrictions against commercial usage make it
> > proprietary, not that I need that piece of software.
>
> you still don't get to make up new definitions for proprietary.

Neither do you, so you could spare everyone by not keeping this thread
going.

Rui

--
Umlaut Zebra |ber alles!
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th 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:
>>  know what proprietary means.  if you don't
>> understand the big words, stop using them.  you also totally failed to
>> comprehend the license.
>>    
>
> No, I understood it quite well.
>
>  
Yes, no I did not understood it nor not quite never well.

>> what i find even more hysterical is your claim that running a 5 year
>> old rogue clone is needed to get your work done.
>>    
>
> What I find even more hysterical is your lack of english comprehension,
> for what I said is that restrictions against commercial usage make it
> proprietary, not that I need that piece of software.
>
> Rui
>
>  

Last time I tried to download VirtualBox emulator (GPL'd), they would
not let a company download the binary compiled versions of VirtualBox
for commercial use... i.e. they were restricting my commercial use of
the software only to source code copies, which is obnoxious and
restrictive. To me and 99 percent of other companies, only the binaries
are the things we care about for the working emulator package. Having
the source code is an additional nice extra to have, but not essential.

Personal users are of course allowed to download the VirtualBox binaries
- but companies are forced to download the obnoxious sources only.

GPL software can therefore be proprietary software (since your
definition of proprietary software is restricting the commercial users).
Several GNU softwares out there restrict the binaries from companies or
restrict other factors.. such as documentation and consulting (which
could be recorded on audio tapes and copied millions of times instead).

[Ray Percival-2]

On Jan 4, 2008, at 14:26, "Ted Unangst" <ted.unangst@...> wrote:

> On Jan 4, 2008 1:22 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms@...> wrote:
>>> Otherwise why should he repeatedly say some thin that is not
>>> proprietary as proprietary even after being informed by tedu and
>>> others?
>>
>> Because for me it is proprietary when I can't run it in a commercial
>> context.
>
> you clearly don't know what proprietary means.  if you don't
> understand the big words, stop using them.  you also totally failed to
> comprehend the license.
>
> what i find even more hysterical is your claim that running a 5 year
> old rogue clone is needed to get your work done.

No he's claiming that not being able to use a five year old rogue  
clone in a commercial setting is a great injustice and unethical. See  
now that makes perfect sense. NOT.

[L-9]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> Neither do you
>
>  
that's insulting.

[Johan Mson Lindman]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 02:49:45PM -0800, Ted Unangst wrote:
>  
>> On Jan 4, 2008 2:31 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms@...> wrote:
>>    
>>> What I find even more hysterical is your lack of english comprehension,
>>> for what I said is that restrictions against commercial usage make it
>>> proprietary, not that I need that piece of software.
>>>      
>> you still don't get to make up new definitions for proprietary.
>>    
>
> Neither do you, so you could spare everyone by not keeping this thread
> going.
>
> Rui
>
>  

This thread was started by Stallman, not the OpenBSD folks.
That said I think it is important for OpenBSD developers to tell us
users what a complete and unsolicited
fucknut you are so that we, the users, don't get the impression you have
any kind of authority.

Anyway it has now been communicated what a blatant fucksteak you are so
now that everyone knows,
feel free to stop posting to the thread.


Regards
Johan M:son Lindman

[Richard Stallman]

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

I don't object to general-purpose tools just for being general.

[Richard Stallman]

    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)

I use wget for personal reasons.  I have nothing against running a web
site.

I don't endorse Debian, but I don't object to getting free software
from Debian (or from OpenBSD) and installing it.

As for Subversion, I don't know why it is mentioned there, but I have
nothing against using Subversion.  It is free software.

This continues the pattern of straw men.  Over and over,
people on this list criticize me for doing something which
neither I nor anyone else here actually thinks is wrong.

[Richard Stallman]

      My favorite organization, the FSF, was not involved.  If
    > any of "my friends" were involved, they did not inform me.
    >

    Good friends you have then.

More likely they aren't my friends.  You may have noticed that the
Linux developers disagree with my philosophy.  I know very few of
them, and they wouldn't listen to me about anything.

If you and they have a dispute about some legal issue, I will leave it
to lawyers.

[Richard Stallman]

    http://directory.fsf.org/project/Windows32API/
    http://directory.fsf.org/project/wxwindows/
    http://wxwindows.org/about/credits.htm

    see the acknowledgment from one of the softwares endorsed by FSF your
    favourite organization.

    ==========================================================================================================
    Thank you to Microsoft for donating a copy of Visual C++ 6.0 to help
    wxWidgets compile on this version of the compiler (for a Virginia Tech
    course).

We do not refuse to list a program merely because it mentions
a non-free platforms on which it runs.  I've explained that already.

I don't like the warm and positive attitude towards Microsoft
expressed by that thank-you.  If wxwindows were a GNU package I would
ask the developers to change that.

But wxwindows is not a GNU package, and I doubt I have veryx much
credit with its developers.  I'd rather not use it on this.

[Richard Stallman]

    Before you argue that ReactOS is merely a free implementation of Win32
    API, let me clarify: if the purpose of ReactOS isn't to run some
    Windows-only software S, then what is the purpose of ReactOS? if S was
    free, it wouldn't be Windows-only as it would have ported to free
    OS's.

I don't object to implementing free software to support APIs that
users use.

There is a lot of non-free software written for the Lose32 API, but
there is also a lot of private (unreleased) software which runs on
that API.  Thus, its use is not only for running proprietary software.
I would ask the developers of platforms that run the Lose32 API
to tell the users that running proprietary Windows apps is not freedom.

[Tony Aberenthy]

keeps objecting that he doesn't object.

[Siju George]

On Jan 5, 2008 11:25 AM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:

>     http://directory.fsf.org/project/Windows32API/
>     http://directory.fsf.org/project/wxwindows/
>     http://wxwindows.org/about/credits.htm
>
>     see the acknowledgment from one of the softwares endorsed by FSF your
>     favourite organization.
>
>     ==========================================================================================================
>     Thank you to Microsoft for donating a copy of Visual C++ 6.0 to help
>     wxWidgets compile on this version of the compiler (for a Virginia Tech
>     course).
>
> We do not refuse to list a program merely because it mentions
> a non-free platforms on which it runs.  I've explained that already.
>

Developing a program ( real software ) for a non-free platform is big
encouragement by loud communication ( actions speak better than words
) to use or continue using that non-free platform.
( Which is exactly what gcc and emacs does by the way )
 And you endorse such software that promotes other non-free platforms
through your FSF website.

But you cannot stand when a Project which has done more than any other
project to :

1) Stand for freedom
2) Take enormous steps to improve quality and security of software
given out freely.
2) Stand against blobs even when Linux and FreeBSD people wimped out.
3) Worked ( some times with the support of their community ) to get
numerous closed hardware documentation freely available for developers
so that they can write free software and maintain it.
4) Taken the pains to reverse engineer and write free drivers for new
hardware support.

has a few free URLs in its ports system which they DONOT recommend as
the primary way to install software but warns the user if they try to
compile non-free software?

And you even go to the extend of spreading a lie that this Operating
system "CONTAINS" free software?

There is some thing terribly wrong with your logic.
That is why I asked to take a "Bipolar Disorder" test in the beginning.

By the way ( Perhaps, I don't know which ) some of the free drivers
that Gnuisance has were made possible only through the efforts of the
OpenBSD project freeing up documentation from the vendors. And even in
those efforts the Linux people had worked against them encouraging
vendors to give out blobs and to keep documentation closed. Have you
investigated about them at any point?

I know this Demon+wget system will not allow you to do much research.
So Switch back to some thing sane.
Do some good reading.
Prepare before an Interview.
Unless you deliberately want to start spreading lies and ruin the
reputation of projects who are sincerely standing and  fighting for
freedom consistent to what they say!!!


> I don't like the warm and positive attitude towards Microsoft
> expressed by that thank-you.  If wxwindows were a GNU package I would
> ask the developers to change that.
>
> But wxwindows is not a GNU package, and I doubt I have veryx much
> credit with its developers.  I'd rather not use it on this.
>

Please remove it ( and all similar software ) from the FSF website
because it encourages people to use non-free platforms ( which is
worse ) with a wrong feeling that they are actually encouraging use of
free software by using those . Be consistent. I know its hard but try
it :-)

And publicly apologize that you made a mistake by telling that OpenBSD
"CONTAINS" non-free software because their platform is free the
packages they recommend are free. And if at all somebody uses the
ports system they are warned while installing non-free software unlike
your FSF website where you give the wrong impression to people and
justify your hippocricy.