Real men don't attack straw men

[Siju George]

On Jan 5, 2008 11:24 AM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:

>     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.
>

BUT I WILL STILL GO ON SPREADING THE LIE THAT OpenBSD CONTAINS
NON-FREE SOFTWARE SO PEOPLE ARE MISLEAD!!!!

> 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.
>

Please cut off that "anyone else" from the above statement.
If you haven't forgotten counting then please count the no. mails you
got from people who think you are wrong

[Siju George]

On Jan 5, 2008 11:24 AM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> 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!!!
>
> I don't object to general-purpose tools just for being general.
>

How about OpenBSD ports system a general purpose tool given by
developers to the users?

[Denis Doroshenko]

On Jan 5, 2008 7:54 AM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
>     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 have nothing against running a web site.

you have *nothing* against a distribution that makes it easier to install
"non-free" (by FSF meaning) software? then why separate to those who
you recommend and those you don't? so you do have something against?
then why do you use it and get benefit off it for free?

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

there is a misconception, you need to think it through more
thoroughly. otherwise "if it sounds like shit and it looks like
shit then it must be shit" (boogie nights movie)

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

http://fitz.blogspot.com/2007/07/stallman-shoots-free-software-movement.html

> This continues the pattern of straw men.

yup, you make yourself look like the straw man which needs to go
to the wizard of oz to ask for a brain...

>  Over and over,
> people on this list criticize me for doing something which
> neither I nor anyone else here actually thinks is wrong.

you get criticized because you do criticize when you're not in
position to do it. your principles are so fuzzy and you spin
and stretch words to make them fit your agenda.

On Jan 5, 2008 1:54 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> 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!!!
>
> I don't object to general-purpose tools just for being general.

OpenBSD is a general-purpose tool.

[Rod Whitworth-3]

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 12:09:16 +0200, Denis Doroshenko wrote:

>On Jan 5, 2008 7:54 AM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
>>     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 have nothing against running a web site.
>
>you have *nothing* against a distribution that makes it easier to install
>"non-free" (by FSF meaning) software? then why separate to those who
>you recommend and those you don't? so you do have something against?
>then why do you use it and get benefit off it for free?
>
>> I don't endorse Debian, but I don't object to getting free software
>> from Debian (or from OpenBSD) and installing it.
>
>there is a misconception, you need to think it through more
>thoroughly. otherwise "if it sounds like shit and it looks like
>shit then it must be shit" (boogie nights movie)
>
>> As for Subversion, I don't know why it is mentioned there, but I have
>> nothing against using Subversion.  It is free software.
>
>http://fitz.blogspot.com/2007/07/stallman-shoots-free-software-movement.html
>
>> This continues the pattern of straw men.
>
>yup, you make yourself look like the straw man which needs to go
>to the wizard of oz to ask for a brain...
>
>>  Over and over,
>> people on this list criticize me for doing something which
>> neither I nor anyone else here actually thinks is wrong.
>
>you get criticized because you do criticize when you're not in
>position to do it. your principles are so fuzzy and you spin
>and stretch words to make them fit your agenda.
>

Thanks Denis, for a prime example of how it is not just the misc@ list
that gets wishywashy BS about misremembering and lack of rigor in
research (if any was done at all).

Looks like the RMS MO, I'd say, but maybe it is Old Timer's Disease
creeping up.



Rod/
/earth: write failed, file system is full
cp: /earth/creatures: No space left on device

[Sunnz]

2008/1/5, Richard Stallman <rms@...>:
>     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.

Yet you object a general purpose, free software that implements a
facility that users use? Namely, the port system?

I think we are running in circles here... so if you can, please explain:

How would the ports system encourage the use of non-free software
anymore than ReactOS? You said:

> There is a lot of non-free software written for the Lose32 API, but

Well, like I said in my pass message, the main purpose of ReactOS
would be to run software that are only compatible with Win32 (Lose32?)
API, simply because they are non-free (and possibly buried with EULA
and/or NDA) such that they cannot be ported to a free OS.

Whereas ports system on the other hand, is just a general purpose tool
and it supports much much more free software than non-free software...
if you like to put it this way, there are going to be more users
installing non-free software on ReactOS than users installing non-free
software on OpenBSD with ports.

Don't get me wrong, I love to see a stable version of ReactOS someday,
these days I had to run Windows XP in a virtual machine, as a "just in
case" thing for school and work, and I couldn't wait to replace it
with ReactOS.

So I got to ask this... is it the case that you only care if a "url to
potentially non-free web-sites" are included in such systems?

> 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 don't know much about 'private/unreleased software'... but the ports
system does support a large number of free software - certainly fits
the criteria of "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.

I haven't actually used the port system for non-free software, but "if
memory serves", the ports system does display a
warning/disclaimer/license/EULA if you do try to install non-free
stuff.

--
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

[Sunnz]

2008/1/5, Richard Stallman <rms@...>:

>     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 am not playing straw person here, I was just curious.

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

Ok, it is just a bit strange to me that you are getting free software
from something you don't endorse when you do endorse something else
which you get also that get 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.
>
>
>

In case you don't know, this _is_ a public mailing list and many
people doesn't actually know you in person or even heard of you at
all!! So a lot of people can only make criticism based on the words of
the messages you said or posted, and straw person could occur
naturally.

--
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

[Richard Stallman]

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

    And ReactOS is next?

Does ReactOS recommend non-free software?
If so. please show me what it says, and the URL.
I do not have a lot of influence with them, but I could
at least remove the link to ReactOS if it comes to that.

    I am hoping to spend a few hours in a while auditing the other fringe
    projects that the [Free] Software Foundation recommends.

Thank you.  I very much appreciate the feedback that this list has
provided, showing me things that need to be corrected.  Specific
problems identified in the free software directory, in BLAG, and in
the Ututo web site, have been corrected already.

[Richard Stallman]

    I guess I missed the part where you explained how it makes sense to
    apply a label like "not recommended because it supports non-free
    software" to OpenBSD but not to FSF (emacs, etc.).

As I've said, I think it's acceptable for free applications to run on
non-free platforms (and say that they do), because this doesn't
recommend the installation of those non-free platforms.  But free
systems should not recommend, suggest, or offer to install non-free
apps.

I follow these principles without discriminating between people
or groups.

Thus, I think it is legitimate for apps to run on Windows, so I apply
this to both GNU applications and OpenBSD-related applications such as
OpenSSH.  I recognize that this can have the negative effect of
reducing the pressure for people to move away from Windows, but I don't
think that alone is a reason to reject apps that can run on Windows.

Meanwhile, for operating systems, I endorse the ones that don't
recommend, suggest, or offer to install non-free apps.  I apply this
principle to GNU/Linux distros and to BSD distros just the same.

When people discover a recommendation for non-free software in a
distro which is supposed not to have any, my first response is to show
it to the distro developers and ask them to remove it.  Everyone makes
mistakes, so my aim is to get the mistakes corrected, not jump down
their throats.

[Siju George]

On Jan 5, 2008 11:24 AM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Please list the names of so called straw men in your opinion and try
to find out if thaty have done misleading interviews and has taken a
blatantly hippocritic stand for freedom as you have and played dirty
politics just for the sake of fame and revenge.

If real men should be like you then I don't want to be one!

[Sunnz]

2008/1/6, Richard Stallman <rms@...>:
>     > Thank you for telling me about this problem.  I will talk with them
>     > about this ASAP.  I expect they will probably remove those.
>
>     And ReactOS is next?
>
> Does ReactOS recommend non-free software?
> If so. please show me what it says, and the URL.
> I do not have a lot of influence with them, but I could
> at least remove the link to ReactOS if it comes to that.

I don't think OpenBSD users understand what you mean by "recommend
non-free software", so if you could, please, give an example by
showing where OpenBSD (web-site?) says that it recommend non-free
software and the URL.

--
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

[fuzzyping]

On Jan 5, 2008, at 9:30 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:

> As I've said, I think it's acceptable for free applications to run on
> non-free platforms (and say that they do), because this doesn't
> recommend the installation of those non-free platforms.

Yes, it does.   It's even WORSE since these projects spent countless  
hours modifying their code to support those non-free systems.

Hypocrite!


---
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net

[Marc Espie-2]

On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 09:30:09AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     I guess I missed the part where you explained how it makes sense to
>     apply a label like "not recommended because it supports non-free
>     software" to OpenBSD but not to FSF (emacs, etc.).
>
> As I've said, I think it's acceptable for free applications to run on
> non-free platforms (and say that they do), because this doesn't
> recommend the installation of those non-free platforms.  But free
> systems should not recommend, suggest, or offer to install non-free
> apps.

I hope you do realize how much this reminds us of _1984_ ?

Not talking about something is a bit like sticking your head in the sand.

It's really not a healthy attitude.

As far as free software goes, it's a bit like developping everything in
your own corner, completely ignoring whatever goes on in the commercial
corner of the world... or not acknowledging its influences.

I'm sorry, but not talking about something that exists won't make it go
away.

[guilt]

On Jan 5, 2008 8:19 PM, Sunnz <sunnzy@...> wrote:

> 2008/1/6, Richard Stallman <rms@...>:
> >     > Thank you for telling me about this problem.  I will talk with them
> >     > about this ASAP.  I expect they will probably remove those.
> >
> >     And ReactOS is next?
> >
> > Does ReactOS recommend non-free software?
> > If so. please show me what it says, and the URL.
> > I do not have a lot of influence with them, but I could
> > at least remove the link to ReactOS if it comes to that.
>
> I don't think OpenBSD users understand what you mean by "recommend
> non-free software", so if you could, please, give an example by
> showing where OpenBSD (web-site?) says that it recommend non-free
> software and the URL.
>

Pardon me for intervening:

http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq13.html#javaflash tells the user how to
get these things into a clean OpenBSD system.
I am sure that it doesn't include the words: "Zomg! you have to use it
and we highly recommend it" but _every_ OpenBSD user is encouraged to
read the FAQ and as a consequence ends up reading these sessions.
Maybe they should come with the kind of dubious warning signs we get
on cigarette packs: Use of non-free software is highly harmful to your
computer and ethics.

On a more serious note: everybody who criticizes the other of non-free
software must come clean first: No clean, no talk.

>
> --
> Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
> See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
> 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
>
>



--
Karthik
http://guilt.bafsoft.net

[Andrés Delfino]

On Jan 5, 2008 11:30 AM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
> As I've said, I think it's acceptable for free applications to run on
> non-free platforms (and say that they do), because this doesn't
> recommend the installation of those non-free platforms.  But free
> systems should not recommend, suggest, or offer to install non-free
> apps.

ReactOS is a free software operative system with a support database
that indicates which programs it can run.

 It can lists those programs in different ways, including, by vendor.

Here is Adobe:
http://www.reactos.org/support/index.php/comp/vendor/id/4/

And here is Microsoft:
http://www.reactos.org/support/index.php/comp/vendor/id/2/

If I understand you weird meaninig of promotion, then you'll find this
"a bad thing" too, right?

Greetings.

[Gilles Chehade-6]

On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 08:51:33PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:

> On Jan 5, 2008 8:19 PM, Sunnz <sunnzy@...> wrote:
> > 2008/1/6, Richard Stallman <rms@...>:
> > >     > Thank you for telling me about this problem.  I will talk with them
> > >     > about this ASAP.  I expect they will probably remove those.
> > >
> > >     And ReactOS is next?
> > >
> > > Does ReactOS recommend non-free software?
> > > If so. please show me what it says, and the URL.
> > > I do not have a lot of influence with them, but I could
> > > at least remove the link to ReactOS if it comes to that.
> >
> > I don't think OpenBSD users understand what you mean by "recommend
> > non-free software", so if you could, please, give an example by
> > showing where OpenBSD (web-site?) says that it recommend non-free
> > software and the URL.
> >
>
> Pardon me for intervening:
>
> http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq13.html#javaflash tells the user how to
> get these things into a clean OpenBSD system.
> I am sure that it doesn't include the words: "Zomg! you have to use it
> and we highly recommend it" but _every_ OpenBSD user is encouraged to
> read the FAQ and as a consequence ends up reading these sessions.
> Maybe they should come with the kind of dubious warning signs we get
> on cigarette packs: Use of non-free software is highly harmful to your
> computer and ethics.
>

On another hand we are not GNU/GPL and we don't mind our users installing
non free software if it is what they want. The FAQ is where this needs to
be documented for users to get their job done faster.


> On a more serious note: everybody who criticizes the other of non-free
> software must come clean first: No clean, no talk.
>

one who criticizes the other should come informed too.

--
Gilles Chehade

[guilt]

> On another hand we are not GNU/GPL and we don't mind our users installing
> non free software if it is what they want. The FAQ is where this needs to
> be documented for users to get their job done faster.
>

If you don't mind users using non-free software, you shouldn't be
putting the 'Free. ' in 'Free. Functional. Secure.'; You shouldn't be
fighting those blob vendors and call them nasty names; Rather,
probably document how to use such drivers and firmware 'faster'. Then
you shouldn't be making a claim that 'OpenBSD supports openness'. If
you can manipulate your reasons for making this ethical, you shouldn't
be calling others names. And you shouldn't bring back ethics' dead
body around your neck.

>
> > On a more serious note: everybody who criticizes the other of non-free
> > software must come clean first: No clean, no talk.
> >
>
> one who criticizes the other should come informed too.
>

And the rest who do should avoid red herring arguments and accept what
they are doing. In other words, they should say: 'I am wrong. I will
fix the problem at my end. Your turn now.' I don't see anybody doing
it. Don't you see how you're not doing anything but complaining? It
doesn't make this any different.

> --
> Gilles Chehade
>



--
Karthik
http://guilt.bafsoft.net

[Siju George]

On Jan 5, 2008 8:51 PM, Karthik Kumar <karthikkumar@...> wrote:
>
> Pardon me for intervening:
>

Its alright :-)

> http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq13.html#javaflash tells the user how to
> get these things into a clean OpenBSD system.
> I am sure that it doesn't include the words: "Zomg! you have to use it
> and we highly recommend it" but _every_ OpenBSD user is encouraged to
> read the FAQ and as a consequence ends up reading these sessions.
> Maybe they should come with the kind of dubious warning signs we get
> on cigarette packs: Use of non-free software is highly harmful to your
> computer and ethics.
>

Please Ask RMS to put it in the softwares on the FSF software list.
He is the one who started it all!!
Its bad you didn't cc him.

> On a more serious note: everybody who criticizes the other of non-free
> software must come clean first: No clean, no talk.
>

Again this is typically what you must have said to RMS and not to misc@

[Siju George]

On Jan 5, 2008 9:58 PM, Karthik Kumar <karthikkumar@...> wrote:

> > On another hand we are not GNU/GPL and we don't mind our users installing
> > non free software if it is what they want. The FAQ is where this needs to
> > be documented for users to get their job done faster.
> >
>
> If you don't mind users using non-free software, you shouldn't be
> putting the 'Free. ' in 'Free. Functional. Secure.'; You shouldn't be
> fighting those blob vendors and call them nasty names; Rather,
> probably document how to use such drivers and firmware 'faster'. Then
> you shouldn't be making a claim that 'OpenBSD supports openness'. If
> you can manipulate your reasons for making this ethical, you shouldn't
> be calling others names. And you shouldn't bring back ethics' dead
> body around your neck.
>

again this is good advice RMS should hear so i am ccing to him :-)
especially the phrase "manipulate your reasons for making this ethical"



> >
> > one who criticizes the other should come informed too.
> >

EXACTLY WHAT RMS DID NOT DO!!!
Boy you should be sending this to RMS instead.
You talk a little sense in some of the phrases in your replies.
But you are talking to the wrong people.
So please Cc RMS.


>
> And the rest who do should avoid red herring arguments and accept what
> they are doing. In other words, they should say: 'I am wrong. I will
> fix the problem at my end. Your turn now.' I don't see anybody doing
> it. Don't you see how you're not doing anything but complaining? It
> doesn't make this any different.
>

Again this is for RMS.
He does not fix the problem at his end. those are

1) Apologize for slandering other projects who don't come under his control.
2) Do Research to find out the truth
3) Be practical ( Demon+wget )

And all he does is is complain.

1) I made a minor mistake.
2) Everything He says is OK.
3) rolling in the mud after falling down without trying to get up and be clean.
4) Lament how Linux devs don't listen to him.

and more...........

[Unix Fan]

> As I've said, I think it's acceptable for free applications to run on

> non-free platforms (and say that they do), because this doesn't

> recommend the installation of those non-free platforms.  But free

> systems should not recommend, suggest, or offer to install non-free

> apps.



What is an operating system? An OS could be considered an "application", Thus it's very "convent" that you can "recommend" free software on non-free operating systems, but then attack free operating systems that only offer an optional "scaffold" for using non-free software.



Richard, You're a hypocrite.. and your values are flawed..  I think you need to re-evaluate your position, and for goodness sake.. use a web browser so you can actually backup your claims. (With research..)



Please, Go back to HURD land.. stop biting the hand that feeds the community, by writing drivers.. obtaining vendor docs.. and protesting binary blobs - And stop making uneducated accusations and assessments based on what some "friend's friend's brothers mother" told you in passing.



-Nix Fan.