Real men don't attack straw men

[Gilles Chehade-5]

On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 09:58:47PM +0530, Karthik Kumar 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.
>

You are talking about unrelated matters, and mixing our goals with the
ones of your own community.

OpenBSD is free software that contains no blob, no closed-source object
and that can be *fully* redistributed with no strings attached. You can
buy the cd and do whatever you want as long as you retain the copyright
on the files in it. You can take any part of OpenBSD and look at source
for it, nothing is obfuscated. You can build a full OpenBSD system from
the sources on the cvs. That's it.

What you do with it is not of our matter and we do not prevent you from
installing a proprietary software on top of it. This is your call, what
you do with what we provide you is none of our business, as long as you
do not remove the copyright notice.

> >
> > > 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.
>

Please, show us what it is that we do and that goes against our goals
and license. Hint: carefully read the two following pages.

        http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html
        http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html

--
Gilles Chehade

[William Boshuck]

On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 09:58:47PM +0530, Karthik Kumar 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.'

The word 'free' is there because OpenBSD is free.  It is not
there because developers mind or don't mind users doing this
or that.

> ; You shouldn't be
> fighting those blob vendors and call them nasty names; Rather,
> probably document how to use such drivers and firmware 'faster'.

Should you wish to inform yourself, there are a number of posts
in the list archives explaining various specific reasons why the
OpenBSD developers are against blobs.  Theo, in particular, wrote
at least one rather short and very cogent message explaining the
reasons.  You should look towards the beginning of the threads,
because later on you are more likely to see Theo losing patience
with respondents who did not read the original posts (carefully
enough, or perhaps not at all).

[guilt]

> 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...........

When I said everybody, I meant Everybody. Not one person. Applying the
same to OpenBSD, all that the people here do is bitch about and
nothing more.

[guilt]

On Jan 5, 2008 10:56 PM, Gilles Chehade <gilles@...> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 09:58:47PM +0530, Karthik Kumar 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.
> >
>
> You are talking about unrelated matters, and mixing our goals with the
> ones of your own community.
>

I represent neither FSF nor OpenBSD. I probably represent the
community which listens to the propagandas put across by both but
wants to fight back against false marketing and for the right things
TM.

> OpenBSD is free software that contains no blob, no closed-source object
> and that can be *fully* redistributed with no strings attached. You can
> buy the cd and do whatever you want as long as you retain the copyright
> on the files in it. You can take any part of OpenBSD and look at source
> for it, nothing is obfuscated. You can build a full OpenBSD system from
> the sources on the cvs. That's it.
>

Yawn. And it makes the flash installation faster after you've built it
from the CVS.

> What you do with it is not of our matter and we do not prevent you from
> installing a proprietary software on top of it. This is your call, what
> you do with what we provide you is none of our business, as long as you
> do not remove the copyright notice.
>

My call: all lies and ego.

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

[Gilles Chehade-6]

On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:28:24PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
> > You are talking about unrelated matters, and mixing our goals with the
> > ones of your own community.
> >
>
> I represent neither FSF nor OpenBSD. I probably represent the
> community which listens to the propagandas put across by both but
> wants to fight back against false marketing and for the right things
> TM.
>

Then you are misunderstanding OpenBSD's goals which are clearly stated
at the link I provided you and that you obviously failed to read.

> > OpenBSD is free software that contains no blob, no closed-source object
> > and that can be *fully* redistributed with no strings attached. You can
> > buy the cd and do whatever you want as long as you retain the copyright
> > on the files in it. You can take any part of OpenBSD and look at source
> > for it, nothing is obfuscated. You can build a full OpenBSD system from
> > the sources on the cvs. That's it.
> >
>
> Yawn. And it makes the flash installation faster after you've built it
> from the CVS.
>

We do not provide flash, we provide a Makefile which will allow someone to
install flash if he wants to. This Makefile is not even part of the system
and needs to be fetched manually by the user. This is *NOT* against goals,
which you do not want to read.

Please stop making uninformed claims, read the goals and policy page which
are accessible from the very home page of the project. When you do so, you
can freely point us where we are in breach with our claims, until then you
are just trolling.


> > What you do with it is not of our matter and we do not prevent you from
> > installing a proprietary software on top of it. This is your call, what
> > you do with what we provide you is none of our business, as long as you
> > do not remove the copyright notice.
> >
>
> My call: all lies and ego.
>

You failed to read two pages and to point out where we are going against
our own claims. My call: troll.

--
Gilles Chehade

[guilt]

On Jan 5, 2008 11:20 PM, William Boshuck <boshuk@...> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 09:58:47PM +0530, Karthik Kumar 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.'
>
> The word 'free' is there because OpenBSD is free.  It is not
> there because developers mind or don't mind users doing this
> or that.
>

You're missing the point why somebody is calling OpenBSD non-free. Or
supposedly why emacs runs on non-free.

> > ; You shouldn't be
> > fighting those blob vendors and call them nasty names; Rather,
> > probably document how to use such drivers and firmware 'faster'.
>
> Should you wish to inform yourself, there are a number of posts
> in the list archives explaining various specific reasons why the
> OpenBSD developers are against blobs.  Theo, in particular, wrote
> at least one rather short and very cogent message explaining the
> reasons.  You should look towards the beginning of the threads,
> because later on you are more likely to see Theo losing patience
> with respondents who did not read the original posts (carefully
> enough, or perhaps not at all).
>

Here is one:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2005-March/081313.html

Notice how Theo talks about "because their firmware images were not
free enough to ship in our releases"

I suppose you can now explain the meaning of the term "free" in
firmware in this context? Don't assume people don't read before
replying in here.


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

[Shane J Pearson-2]

On 06/01/2008, at 3:28 AM, Karthik Kumar 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.'

Huh? OpenBSD is built from free software and allows users the freedom  
to do what they please, even if that means running non-free software.  
You have a strange idea of "free".

An OpenBSD user exercising freedom of choice, by choosing to use some  
non-free software, does not make OpenBSD non or less free.


Shane

[guilt]

> Then you are misunderstanding OpenBSD's goals which are clearly stated
> at the link I provided you and that you obviously failed to read.
>

I understand the goals that are not written on that page: do what you
like and fight for what you believe in. Goals are just text written in
a stupid web page until you live up to them.

>
> > > OpenBSD is free software that contains no blob, no closed-source object
> > > and that can be *fully* redistributed with no strings attached. You can
> > > buy the cd and do whatever you want as long as you retain the copyright
> > > on the files in it. You can take any part of OpenBSD and look at source
> > > for it, nothing is obfuscated. You can build a full OpenBSD system from
> > > the sources on the cvs. That's it.
> > >
> >
> > Yawn. And it makes the flash installation faster after you've built it
> > from the CVS.
> >
>
> We do not provide flash, we provide a Makefile which will allow someone to
> install flash if he wants to. This Makefile is not even part of the system
> and needs to be fetched manually by the user. This is *NOT* against goals,
> which you do not want to read.
>

I use ports. I am not dumb. :P The goals do not specify "to encourage
people to use
non-free software", but I see that happening anyway.

> Please stop making uninformed claims, read the goals and policy page which
> are accessible from the very home page of the project.

I am not uninformed. What makes you say that? You, sir are biased
towards OpenBSD
and you can say what you want but it doesn't make your version of the
truth any better.

> >
>
> You failed to read two pages and to point out where we are going against
> our own claims. My call: troll.
>

Your own claims?

1. (Try to be the #1 most secure operating system). Google for adobe
flash player vulnerabilities.
2. Do not let serious problems sit unsolved. I see that you people
only fight about it and pretend it has never been a problem.

> --
> Gilles Chehade
>



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

[L-9]

Unix Fan 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.
>>    
>
>
>
> What is an operating system? An OS could be considered an "application",

Emacs/XEmacs is an excellent Microsoft Operating system shell to run.
Manage your files and browse the web.

It is released under the GPL (general public license).

Running a program on Windows is not encouraging the use of Windows.
Rather it is actually encouraging people to use Windows, you see. That's
not the same thing.

People publish screenshots of Emacs running on MS Windows and post them
on the internet, and this is the enemy of your freedom. It shows how
excellent XEmacs/Emacs run on Windows so that they don't even have to
run gNewSense.

When the dog wags his tail, the tail actually is wagging his dog. And
when the tail wags the dog, the dog is actually wagging the tail. Not
the other way around.

Oranges are free, grapefruits are not.
Oranges are free, grapefruits are not.
Oranges are free, grapefruits are not.

L505

[Siju George]

On Jan 5, 2008 11:24 PM, Karthik Kumar <karthikkumar@...> wrote:
>
> When I said everybody, I meant Everybody. Not one person. Applying the
> same to OpenBSD, all that the people here do is bitch about and
> nothing more.
>
>

NO! people here are not bitching, May be you are.
People here are setting the record straight when there is a liar
spreading wrong information about the project when he himself is the
one breaking his rules an not OpenBSD.

I you really meant everybody why did you not cc to rms@...?
Even now after you were asked to do it?

[Siju George]

On Jan 5, 2008 11:24 PM, Karthik Kumar <karthikkumar@...> wrote:
> all that the people here do is bitch about and
> nothing more.
>

Most of the devs in here are busy coding and not contributing to this thread.
Theo and a few others were forced to respond because their project is
being slandered and they were forced to let the world know the truth
and expose a lying hippocrite.

[Gilles Chehade-6]

On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:39:17PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:

>
> Here is one:
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2005-March/081313.html
>
> Notice how Theo talks about "because their firmware images were not
> free enough to ship in our releases"
>
> I suppose you can now explain the meaning of the term "free" in
> firmware in this context? Don't assume people don't read before
> replying in here.
>

I don't know about people, but YOU don't read before replying.
Please, read before you reply ... you are calling for rudeness.

Firmware are not free enough when they have a license that does not
allow them to be redistributed with the system.

--
Gilles Chehade

[Siju George]

On Jan 5, 2008 11:28 PM, Karthik Kumar <karthikkumar@...> wrote:
> I represent neither FSF nor OpenBSD. I probably represent the
> community which listens to the propagandas put across by both but
> wants to fight back against false marketing and for the right things
> TM.
>

This is your website right?

http://guilt.bafsoft.net/links.html

If you think OpenBSD is not free then why did you put it under Free
OSes in your site?

==========================

Free OSes

OpenBSD link
Debian link
Slackware link
Minix link
OpenSolaris link

==========================

By now if you have been carefully studying you should have learned
that OpenBSD ans OpenSolaris are as far as east is from the west when
it comes to freedom?

Or Are you also like RMS who knows nothing but opens his big mouth to
utter nonsense?

> > OpenBSD is free software that contains no blob, no closed-source object
> > and that can be *fully* redistributed with no strings attached. You can
> > buy the cd and do whatever you want as long as you retain the copyright
> > on the files in it. You can take any part of OpenBSD and look at source
> > for it, nothing is obfuscated. You can build a full OpenBSD system from
> > the sources on the cvs. That's it.
> >
>
> Yawn.
>

Go to sleep and have a good night and come back in the morning with a
fresh mind :-)


> > What you do with it is not of our matter and we do not prevent you from
> > installing a proprietary software on top of it. This is your call, what
> > you do with what we provide you is none of our business, as long as you
> > do not remove the copyright notice.
> >
>
> My call: all lies and ego.
>

Yup you are so important and famous that everyone should be
discouraged about what you think and say!

[Marco Peereboom]

On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:51:39PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
> > Then you are misunderstanding OpenBSD's goals which are clearly stated
> > at the link I provided you and that you obviously failed to read.
> >
>
> I understand the goals that are not written on that page: do what you
> like and fight for what you believe in. Goals are just text written in
> a stupid web page until you live up to them.

And we do unlike some netcook who likes to twist words.

>
> >
> > > > OpenBSD is free software that contains no blob, no closed-source object
> > > > and that can be *fully* redistributed with no strings attached. You can
> > > > buy the cd and do whatever you want as long as you retain the copyright
> > > > on the files in it. You can take any part of OpenBSD and look at source
> > > > for it, nothing is obfuscated. You can build a full OpenBSD system from
> > > > the sources on the cvs. That's it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yawn. And it makes the flash installation faster after you've built it
> > > from the CVS.
> > >
> >
> > We do not provide flash, we provide a Makefile which will allow someone to
> > install flash if he wants to. This Makefile is not even part of the system
> > and needs to be fetched manually by the user. This is *NOT* against goals,
> > which you do not want to read.
> >
>
> I use ports. I am not dumb. :P The goals do not specify "to encourage
> people to use
> non-free software", but I see that happening anyway.

You do?

What does that make you?  You are the one making the decision to install
it.  If you can use the ports system you probably know at a high level
what you are doing.  You might or might not care about "free" (your
definition) or "non-free" (again your definition) software.  You are
calling that person retarded and unable to make up his/her own mind.
That attitude is repugnant and oppressive.  I hope for you that your
freedom won't be taken from you and that someone calls you retarded for
making your own decisions.

>
> > Please stop making uninformed claims, read the goals and policy page which
> > are accessible from the very home page of the project.
>
> I am not uninformed. What makes you say that? You, sir are biased
> towards OpenBSD
> and you can say what you want but it doesn't make your version of the
> truth any better.
>
> > >
> >
> > You failed to read two pages and to point out where we are going against
> > our own claims. My call: troll.
> >
>
> Your own claims?
>
> 1. (Try to be the #1 most secure operating system). Google for adobe
> flash player vulnerabilities.

Which doesn't run on OpenBSD but does run on Linux.  Oh oh wait,
GNU/Linux because FSF did all the work; oh wait it didn't it is just a
farce.

> 2. Do not let serious problems sit unsolved. I see that you people
> only fight about it and pretend it has never been a problem.

It isn't a problem and until you get that through your skull you'll keep
parroting one FSF representative.

>
> > --
> > Gilles Chehade
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Karthik
> http://guilt.bafsoft.net

[Gilles Chehade-6]

On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:51:39PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
> > Then you are misunderstanding OpenBSD's goals which are clearly stated
> > at the link I provided you and that you obviously failed to read.
> >
>
> I understand the goals that are not written on that page: do what you
> like and fight for what you believe in. Goals are just text written in
> a stupid web page until you live up to them.
>

You are spouting non-sense. These are goals we fight for and believe in.
It is only from the eyes of a fsf zealot that words are meant to be
twisted. Again: show us all where we are doing the opposite of what is
written in these pages.

> >
> > > > OpenBSD is free software that contains no blob, no closed-source object
> > > > and that can be *fully* redistributed with no strings attached. You can
> > > > buy the cd and do whatever you want as long as you retain the copyright
> > > > on the files in it. You can take any part of OpenBSD and look at source
> > > > for it, nothing is obfuscated. You can build a full OpenBSD system from
> > > > the sources on the cvs. That's it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yawn. And it makes the flash installation faster after you've built it
> > > from the CVS.
> > >
> >
> > We do not provide flash, we provide a Makefile which will allow someone to
> > install flash if he wants to. This Makefile is not even part of the system
> > and needs to be fetched manually by the user. This is *NOT* against goals,
> > which you do not want to read.
> >
>
> I use ports. I am not dumb. :P The goals do not specify "to encourage
> people to use
> non-free software", but I see that happening anyway.
>

The goals do not specify "prevent users from running non-free software".
The goals do not mention anything about what people ought to do with our
software, we are NOT the fucking FSF.


> > Please stop making uninformed claims, read the goals and policy page which
> > are accessible from the very home page of the project.
>
> I am not uninformed. What makes you say that? You, sir are biased
> towards OpenBSD
> and you can say what you want but it doesn't make your version of the
> truth any better.
>

You are misinformed because you keep arguing about things as if they are
wrong, yet they are only wrong from an FSF point of view. It is not wrong
and unethical to run proprietary software, I do it every day and I do not
feel wrong about it. It is only unethical in the eyes of a fsf zealot.

Please point out where OpenBSD is in breach with its goals and license.

> > >
> >
> > You failed to read two pages and to point out where we are going against
> > our own claims. My call: troll.
> >
>
> Your own claims?
>
> 1. (Try to be the #1 most secure operating system). Google for adobe
> flash player vulnerabilities.
>

OpenBSD does not ship with a flash player. If you have one, you installed
it yourself as I don't have one.


> 2. Do not let serious problems sit unsolved. I see that you people
> only fight about it and pretend it has never been a problem.
>

Show us a sitting problem that needs to be resolved, until know you have
been talking and failed to point out anything I kindly asked you to point.


--
Gilles Chehade

[Jacob Grydholt Jensen]

(apologies to Karthik who will receive this mail twice)
On 05/01/2008, Karthik Kumar <karthikkumar@...> wrote:

> On Jan 5, 2008 11:20 PM, William Boshuck <boshuk@...> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 09:58:47PM +0530, Karthik Kumar 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.'
> >
> > The word 'free' is there because OpenBSD is free.  It is not
> > there because developers mind or don't mind users doing this
> > or that.
> >
>
> You're missing the point why somebody is calling OpenBSD non-free. Or
> supposedly why emacs runs on non-free.

And you apparently missed the posts where the leading developers of
OpenBSD stated that they don't care about your definition of free. As
a non-English speaker I am aware of the multifacetted English word
'Free' and its many connotations. So it is not hard for OpenBSD to
name itself free. Coming out and saying that OpenBSD should not call
itself free because it freely allows users to install non-free
software is gNonsense.

> > > ; You shouldn't be
> > > fighting those blob vendors and call them nasty names; Rather,
> > > probably document how to use such drivers and firmware 'faster'.
> >
> > Should you wish to inform yourself, there are a number of posts
> > in the list archives explaining various specific reasons why the
> > OpenBSD developers are against blobs.  Theo, in particular, wrote
> > at least one rather short and very cogent message explaining the
> > reasons.  You should look towards the beginning of the threads,
> > because later on you are more likely to see Theo losing patience
> > with respondents who did not read the original posts (carefully
> > enough, or perhaps not at all).
> >
>
> Here is one:
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2005-March/081313.html
>
> Notice how Theo talks about "because their firmware images were not
> free enough to ship in our releases"
>
> I suppose you can now explain the meaning of the term "free" in
> firmware in this context? Don't assume people don't read before
> replying in here.

I assume that Theo were not referring to firmware supposed to run in
the kernel but on some kind of expansion card. Furthermore, I assume
that the original firmware license prohibited free distribution. In
any case: what is your point?

Jacob Grydholt

[Tony Aberenthy]

Karthik Kumar  wrote:

> On Jan 5, 2008 11:20 PM, William Boshuck
> <boshuk@...> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 09:58:47PM +0530, Karthik Kumar 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.'
> >
> > The word 'free' is there because OpenBSD is free.  It is not
> > there because developers mind or don't mind users doing this
> > or that.
> >
>
> You're missing the point why somebody is calling OpenBSD non-free. Or
> supposedly why emacs runs on non-free.
>
> > > ; You shouldn't be
> > > fighting those blob vendors and call them nasty names; Rather,
> > > probably document how to use such drivers and firmware 'faster'.
> >
> > Should you wish to inform yourself, there are a number of posts
> > in the list archives explaining various specific reasons why the
> > OpenBSD developers are against blobs.  Theo, in particular, wrote
> > at least one rather short and very cogent message explaining the
> > reasons.  You should look towards the beginning of the threads,
> > because later on you are more likely to see Theo losing patience
> > with respondents who did not read the original posts (carefully
> > enough, or perhaps not at all).
> >
>
> Here is one:
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2005-Marc
> h/081313.html
>
> Notice how Theo talks about "because their firmware images were not
> free enough to ship in our releases"

in context: "because
their firmware images were not free enough to ship in our releases,
and after 6 months of wasting our time and being stalemated, we
informed Qlogic and our user community (as well as YOUR user
community) that we were removing the support for their controllers.  A
few days later the firmware was free."

Are you complaining because Theo actually accomplished something?

[Brian-79]

Is there any suggested PF setup when using BitTorrent?  

Right now, the biggest problem I have when using BitTorrent is watchdog
timeouts.

Thanks,

Brian




      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

[Reid Nichol]

--- Karthik Kumar <karthikkumar@...> wrote:
> Use of non-free software is highly harmful to your
> computer and ethics.

Please cite a piece of software that can harm my computer merely
because it is "non-free" in the FSF/GNU sense.  And you should probably
qualify that ethics remark with: Should you be an extremist of sorts...


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

Sophistry.  If there is problems in logic, etc then one need not be of
a certain type (with respect to what you're saying) to realize that nor
point it out.  To say so is asinine (above as well).



On a more general note, I'd (and I imagine a lot of people on misc@
too) would appreciate before any more replies are sent from the
religious people, please religious people, read:

Pay special attention to the "Fanaticism" type:
http://criticalsnips.wordpress.com/category/postman/

Link to full text within:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_bullshit


And really really reflect on this before you reply.



best regards,
Reid Nichol

President Bush says:

War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

[Tony Aberenthy]

Siju George wrote:

> On Jan 5, 2008 11:24 PM, Karthik Kumar <karthikkumar@...> wrote:
> >
> > When I said everybody, I meant Everybody. Not one person.
> Applying the
> > same to OpenBSD, all that the people here do is bitch about and
> > nothing more.
> >
> >
>
> NO! people here are not bitching, May be you are.
> People here are setting the record straight when there is a liar
> spreading wrong information about the project when he himself is the
> one breaking his rules an not OpenBSD.
>
> I you really meant everybody why did you not cc to rms@...?
> Even now after you were asked to do it?
>

methinks the proper word is: AMEN!

Unless I'm really confused, this *IS*
misc@...
not
misc@...