Real men don't attack straw men

[L-9]

Richard Stallman wrote:
>     What is an operating system? An OS could be considered an "application",
>
> You could consider an OS an "application", and you could consider
> hardware software, just as you could consider the Earth a pumpkin.  My
> response is that you're starting from assumptions I find questionable,
> so I don't accept the conclusions.
>
>
>  

A kernel is just a program..
And yes an OS is not a kernel, of course... but...
An operating system runs a kernel, and the kernel allows modules to be run.

Consider my MP3 player.. it has an LCD screen. It loads up.. it runs a
program. I select "play song" on the mp3 player on my screen.. and this
is playing the song through the mp3 program that is running on the chip.
The program that is running on the chip, is in fact the Mp3 operating
system...

In the case of multi tasking OS.. the kernel is just a program that
loads modules... the modules are like dynamic shared objects... but
people see them as processes. The kernel is just launching modules...
like libraries... but people see them as "processes", even though they
are library modules. The OS that is running is really the kernel program
and the modules combined. Therefore one big program, the kernel,
dictates the modules... and without the moduels it is not an OS... but
required for the OS is the program that loads the modules.. so the
operating system is really a program that loads modules.

Am I wrong?

I think Emacs.. if it had a built in Kernel, could seriously be run as
an OS. Midnight Commander could also seriously be run as an OS.. if
someone hacked the Elf/a.out into a kernel.  Why is this not possible?
Seriously. Imagine an MP3 player with Midnight Commander on it. It is
possible.. just for MC to be the kernel. I know it is possible. It needs
hacking.. but it is possible to make MC an OS. The murky line between
program and kernel is because of the fact that a kernel is just a
program that loads modules... Am I wrong?

L505

[Gilles Chehade-6]

On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 01:13:25PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:

> On Jan 6, 2008 4:25 AM, Gilles Chehade <gilles@...> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 01:42:16AM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
> > > > Firmware are not free enough when they have a license that does not
> > > > allow them to be redistributed with the system.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You are talking of free as in freedom and not price, right? If the
> > > whole point was to avoid paying $$$ in OpenBSD, my bad.
> > >
> >
> > What has money to do with this ?
> > You sound like you have issues understanding, so I will make it as simple
> > as I can, please take the time to read a few times, and make sure you get
> > it, before replying to this mail:
> >
> >         - vendor A sells hardware that requires a firmware
> >
> >         - OpenBSD wants to support that hardware and needs the firmware
> >                 to be shipped, say in /etc/firmware/, to have the
> >                 hardware work out of the box
> >
> >         - vendor A says "if a customer wants the firmware, he must go
> >                 to out website and fill a registration form online".
> >
> >         - OpenBSD does not ship the firmware because it is not free
> >                 enough.
> >
> > See ? This is an example, it is unrelated to money, and you still failed
> > to show us ONE point where we don't stick to our goals.
> >
>
> So registration form = non-free. You failed to prove how it was not
> free. I asked if it required OpenBSD to pay money to a vendor, or the
> issue was about something else besides the money. I don't see the
> registration form being a problem here. Maybe they might simply take
> down your name and address for contact details or whatever. I don't
> see why a registration form must be non-free here.
>

It's not me that fails to prove anything, it's you that fails to
comprehend simple logic:

if OpenBSD wants to provide support for a software, BUT the required
firmware requires USER to fill a form, how can OpenBSD ship the
firmware ?

Think for a just a second.

--
Gilles Chehade

[L-9]

Amarendra Godbole wrote:

> On Jan 6, 2008 1:05 PM, L <L@...> wrote:
>  
>> On 1/5/08, Marco Peereboom <slash@...> wrote:
>>
>>    
>>> There is no such thing as free as in beer.  This is one of the dumbest
>>> analogies I have ever heard.  Who came up with it anyway?
>>>
>>>      
>> Free as in yeast infection,  not free as in beer.
>> Free as in idiotic lunacy.
>>
>> A yeast infection occurs in brewing, yeasties replicate for free free FREE!
>>
>> First ten people to call "b u l l s h i t" on GNU get the following sent
>>    
> [...]
>
> Hope I am one of the first ten

Still positions left :)

Most people are wussies on this list, that buy their soda and cider from
stores.
Wussies drink coke too.

Real men make their own soda and cider.

[L-9]

Richard Stallman wrote:
>     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.
>
> There are two issues here: the practical effects, and the message conveyed.
>
> The practical effects are mixed.  Making free apps run on non-free
> systems paves the way for some users to migrate to free systems, and
> for some users eliminates a motivation to migrate.  

> So it has both
> good and bad effects.  I don't know which effect is bigger, but I
> speculate that the good effect is bigger over all.  The negative
> effect is limited to power users, people who might switch systems as
> if it were an easy thing to do.  Most users are reluctant to change
> operating systems at all.
>  
Please review (and correct) my logic deduction:

1. negative effect is power users (you said)
2. power users are able to change OS (you said)
3. all people that use a compiler are power users.. only advanced users
run a compiler
4. all MsWin gcc users are power users because of above point
5. the negative effect is therefore all MsWin GCC users
6. since the negative effect is all MSwin gcc users.. MsWin GCC is negative
7. GCC is to be removed from MSWin, since it is overall negative.

Where did I go wrong?

Or what is the reason for power users being negative?
Power users are advanced users... people that can switch operating
systems. Their bundled OS with their computer can be changed - they are
advanced enough to not fear changing bundled OS. So.... is it negative
for power users to run GCC.. because they should be running a free OS
since they know they can install one? i.e. they are abusing their GCC
since they are using windows even though they know they can run an OS
like gNewSense?

Since RMS you said that the negative effect is power users - I'm saying
that since all MsWin GCC users are power users, then MsWin GCC users are
all affecting FSF negatively. Because the logic deduction is that power
users are affecting GNU negatively.. so if compiler users are power
users.. then the logic is that all GCC windows compiler folks are
negative.. and gcc needs to be removed? Where am I wrong or what am I
not seeing that you see? Why do you think power users are negatively
affecting GNU, for example?

[Duncan Patton a Campbell]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 06:44:48 +0000
Jacob Meuser <jakemsr@...> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 08:39:35PM -0600, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 17:28:39 -0800 (PST)
> > Reid Nichol <rnichol_rrc@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Well OpenBSD is fine here.  But, are you sure about RMS?  Because he
> > > has been contradicting himself all over the place in this thread alone.
> >
> > Richard appears to be falling into a "single point of failure" setup.  
> > Its like the "Drug Czar" concept where a single man is given enormous
> > powers and his individual weaknessess, however small and insignificant,
> > become a mechanism for prying open the whole system.
>
> not the same at all.  RMS is not an appointed figurehead.  he is the
> founder of the system he represents.
>
> the only setup is Richard's own inability to be convincingly accurate
> and consistent.  that is neither small nor insignificant.
>

"Some men are born to greatness, some achive greatness,
and some have greatness thrust upon them."

Power is power, all the same.

Dhu


> --
> jakemsr@...
> SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org

[Paul de Weerd]

Please keep this on-list or out of my mailbox.

On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 03:38:43PM +0530, V. Karthik Kumar wrote:
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
| Hash: SHA1
|
| Paul de Weerd 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,
| >
| > You really have no clue about what the portstree and the packages do
| > in OpenBSD, do you ?
| >
| I use OpenBSD and ports. Go check out Freenode #openbsd

Good for you. That doesn't mean you actually understand what's going
on.

| > OpenBSD is Free, Functional and Secure. This is not required from
| > software you install from packages or via the ports tree. It's the OS
| > that is free. Try to understand : all of OpenBSD is Free. Everything.
| > Nothing in OpenBSD is not free (barring bugs, but I believe those have
| > been eradicated by now). The kernel is free, binaries and manpages are
| > free, the ports tree is free, software used to install packages
| > (pkg_add) is free, free free free. You can get them at no extra charge
| > (apart from you internet connection fee + storage cost etc.) so the OS
| > is free as in "gratis" or "without charge". You can look at the source
| > of the kernel, binaries, manpages, portstree, pkg_add and change them
| > to your liking so the OS is free as in "freedom" : you have the
| > freedom to use and change it as you like.
| Look, I know all this.

Do you now ? So you know that OpenBSD is free ?

| > OpenBSD got to be free because it fights blob vendors and calls them
| > nasty names. This keeps the OS Free (no restricting your freedom) and
| > Functional (it actually works on the hardware) and Secure (no blobs
| > running on your CPU/in your kernel that may do whatever).
| >
| Look, first the blobs may do whatever. Userland can equally do
| whatever. Adobe Flash Player restricts my freedom because the whole
| world is putting Flash sites and I need to trust a binary whose code
| is not available to view the site on my OpenBSD system. Worse, some
| people need to use flash based forms to authenticate or to navigate to
| pages (read some previous posts by people having such difficulty with
| government sites).. I am asking: why use such things and bring doom
| upon yourself?

Ah, I see. Adobe Flash Player. I'm sorry, could you point to the
location in the OpenBSD cvs repository that gives me Adobe Flash
Player ? I mean the player (or its source), not a file that contains a
URL to where you can download the player.

I think most here know that the internet has a lot of Flash. Perhaps
you can point to the website that states that one of the goals of the
OpenBSD project is to prevent people from using flash.

| I really don't like such binaries encouraged as part of OpenBSD. I am
| sure many people will accept my stand on this.

Nobody (at least, nobody with something to say on the matter) is
encouraging such binaries to be part of OpenBSD. And the good part
is : it isn't ! Adobe Flash is not part of OpenBSD. And it probably
never will be (I doubt Adobe will ever release the source under a
permissive license).

| > And another cool part : OpenBSD does not restrict you (aka, gives you
| > the freedom) in what software you wish to install and run on your
| > system, be it free or non-free. That's another point for the
| > 'free' part : freedom to install non-free software (if you chose to do
| > so) (also, it's another point for the 'functional' part, but that goes
| > without saying).
|
| I am hammering the other side to remove free on non-free as well; I
| hope this will in turn fix problems for OpenBSD from being undermined
| as well. Please understand that. I am not anti-OpenBSD:
| anti-propaganda in general.  :-)

I'm not saying you are anti-OpenBSD. You made a claim about OpenBSD
not being free. I'll repeat it here for your convenience :

> 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,

Upon close examination, we see that you think that because OpenBSD
allows users to run non-free software (like *EVERY OPERATING SYSTEM
EVER*), it should not be called free and we shouldn't strive to be
free (by fighting blob vendors) either.

                           YOU ARE WRONG.

A little earlier in this e-mail you said you knew that OpenBSD is
free. All free, 100%. If you know that, why do you then claim that
OpenBSD shouldn't put the 'Free.' in 'Free. Functional, Secure.' ?

I'll make it easy for you and repeat once more : YOU ARE WRONG.

| > | 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.
| >
| > So, in closing : You are wrong, please fix the problem at your end,
| > it's our turn now.
| I'm waiting for your turn now. :-)

Will you then please stop making false claims here and let us have our
turn ?

Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

--
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
                 http://www.weirdnet.nl/                 

[Paul de Weerd]

I repeat : keep this onlist or out of my mailbox.

On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 06:16:38PM +0530, V. Karthik Kumar wrote:
| > | Look, first the blobs may do whatever. Userland can equally do
| > | whatever. Adobe Flash Player restricts my freedom because the whole
| > | world is putting Flash sites and I need to trust a binary whose code
| > | is not available to view the site on my OpenBSD system. Worse, some
| > | people need to use flash based forms to authenticate or to navigate to
| > | pages (read some previous posts by people having such difficulty with
| > | government sites).. I am asking: why use such things and bring doom
| > | upon yourself?
| >
| > Ah, I see. Adobe Flash Player. I'm sorry, could you point to the
| > location in the OpenBSD cvs repository that gives me Adobe Flash
| > Player ? I mean the player (or its source), not a file that contains a
| > URL to where you can download the player.
| >
| Oh.. so that is your argument; Just because you don't keep it in
| distfiles doesn't make you any right. jolan is a developer of OpenBSD.
| Look in here: http://mirrors.protection.cx/~jolan

Oh will you please cut it out ? Everybody here knows that there is
non-free software. Everybody also knows (some of) it runs on OpenBSD.
And we all know that some people actually *use* the non-free software
that is out there and that runs on OpenBSD.

Jolan is an OpenBSD developer and he hosts a website. Oh boy oh boy oh
boy. I'll have a firm talk with Jolan about how he can not do things
that are unrelated to OpenBSD next to being an OpenBSD developer. And
also that he can not mirror some files on his own website. BAD BAD
Jolan.

Yes, it really is very bad that Jolan committed all that non-free
stuff to OpenBSD. How could he ! OpenBSD is not worth being called
'Free'. Jolan (and I'm sure you know a lot more examples) really is
the bad guy here. Ehm, only thing is, I can't seem to find Jolans
non-free stuff in the OpenBSD cvs repository. Maybe you can help me
out and point me at this code ? I seem to recall asking you before...

| Keeping it this way is mighty cunning, I might add.

Yes, keeping OpenBSD free is indeed quite smart.

| > I think most here know that the internet has a lot of Flash. Perhaps
| > you can point to the website that states that one of the goals of the
| > OpenBSD project is to prevent people from using flash.
| >
| > | I really don't like such binaries encouraged as part of OpenBSD. I am
| > | sure many people will accept my stand on this.
| >
| > Nobody (at least, nobody with something to say on the matter) is
| > encouraging such binaries to be part of OpenBSD. And the good part
| > is : it isn't ! Adobe Flash is not part of OpenBSD. And it probably
| > never will be (I doubt Adobe will ever release the source under a
| > permissive license).
| Check out: www/opera-flashplugin: If it weren't there, I wouldn't be
| talking.

Oooh ! I checked it out ! Whoohoo ! Guess what : YOU ARE WRONG. There
is not a single bit not free in there. Not one. Zero. You see ?
OpenBSD is free. All files in www/opera-flashplugin are *FREE*. Here's
the files in that part of the tree :

        o Makefile
        o distinfo
        o pkg/DESCR
        o pkg/PLIST

There's a total of 1154 bytes in those four files - ALL FREE.

I challenged you to show me one single file that is non-free in the
cvs repository as found on http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/
and so far you've tried once and failed.

Show us a non-free file or shut up.

Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

PS: Apologies to Jolan and thanks for your work on OpenBSD and for
hosting the stuff you have on your website.

--
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
                 http://www.weirdnet.nl/                 

[guilt]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Paul de Weerd wrote:
> I repeat : keep this onlist or out of my mailbox.
>
This one is on the list.

>
> | Oh.. so that is your argument; Just because you don't keep it in
> | distfiles doesn't make you any right. jolan is a developer of OpenBSD.
> | Look in here: http://mirrors.protection.cx/~jolan
>
> Oh will you please cut it out ? Everybody here knows that there is
> non-free software. Everybody also knows (some of) it runs on OpenBSD.
> And we all know that some people actually *use* the non-free software
> that is out there and that runs on OpenBSD.
>
> Jolan is an OpenBSD developer and he hosts a website. Oh boy oh boy oh
> boy. I'll have a firm talk with Jolan about how he can not do things
> that are unrelated to OpenBSD next to being an OpenBSD developer. And
> also that he can not mirror some files on his own website. BAD BAD
> Jolan.
>
> Yes, it really is very bad that Jolan committed all that non-free
> stuff to OpenBSD. How could he ! OpenBSD is not worth being called
> 'Free'. Jolan (and I'm sure you know a lot more examples) really is
> the bad guy here. Ehm, only thing is, I can't seem to find Jolans
> non-free stuff in the OpenBSD cvs repository. Maybe you can help me
> out and point me at this code ? I seem to recall asking you before...

And maybe I did.
>
> | Keeping it this way is mighty cunning, I might add.
>
> Yes, keeping OpenBSD free is indeed quite smart.
If (smart==cunning) OpenBSD=free|secure;

>
>
> Oooh ! I checked it out ! Whoohoo ! Guess what : YOU ARE WRONG. There
> is not a single bit not free in there. Not one. Zero. You see ?
> OpenBSD is free. All files in www/opera-flashplugin are *FREE*. Here's
> the files in that part of the tree :
>
>     o Makefile
>     o distinfo
>     o pkg/DESCR
>     o pkg/PLIST
>

Woohoo.. so I guess we have been talking about useless FREE textfiles
in the CVS. Great job kid!
> There's a total of 1154 bytes in those four files - ALL FREE.
>
> I challenged you to show me one single file that is non-free in the
> cvs repository as found on http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/
> and so far you've tried once and failed.
>
> Show us a non-free file or shut up.
Run make install on that directory (www/opera-flashplugin) and woohoo!

And remember to use: find /usr/local/lib -name libflashplayer.so

And without the trailing .*

- -1
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHgOHeRzTnZfDdIE8RAqCPAJ9Cq++8Nh/qfV9dIgLk5X1Rl0H89QCfd2Um
Oba9FWaOjUuBCmivgUF6gIQ=
=nN9E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Andrés Delfino]

On Jan 6, 2008 7:47 AM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:

>     "Run GNOME in a **VMWare Player** in a Linux virtual machine."
>
>     Or:
>
>     "Run GNOME on a virtual machine using QEMU on Linux or **Parallels**
>     for **Mac** or Linux."
>
>     promoting the use of non-free software?
>
> This is a case of running a free program on non-free platforms.
> Nonetheless, I think it is more of a problem than running on Windows,
> because those non-free platforms are optional add-ons to the system.
>
> Thanks for telling me about this.  I have not visited this site
> myself:
>
>     http://torrent.gnome.org/
>
> Would you be so kind as to tell me the precise URLs where you
> found those quotes?  If not, I will look for someone else who
> will do that for me.

Richard, I'm having a very hard time not calling you an $insult...

I've already tell you: http://torrent.gnome.org/

[Floor Terra]

On Jan 6, 2008 12:45 PM, L <L@...> wrote:

> Amarendra Godbole wrote:
> > On Jan 6, 2008 1:05 PM, L <L@...> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/5/08, Marco Peereboom <slash@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> There is no such thing as free as in beer.  This is one of the dumbest
> >>> analogies I have ever heard.  Who came up with it anyway?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Free as in yeast infection,  not free as in beer.
> >> Free as in idiotic lunacy.
> >>
> >> A yeast infection occurs in brewing, yeasties replicate for free free
> FREE!
> >>
> >> First ten people to call "b u l l s h i t" on GNU get the following
> sent
> >>
> > [...]
> >
> > Hope I am one of the first ten
>
> Still positions left :)
>
> Most people are wussies on this list, that buy their soda and cider from
> stores.
> Wussies drink coke too.
>
> Real men make their own soda and cider.
>
> I can't reply, but you choose to call me a wuss?!

I have no problem problem with name calling but what do you hope to
accomplish by you request to call GNU bullshit?
Although my opinion of GNU is not as positive as it was before this
whole RMS vs OpenBSD discussion, I will not insult people just to receive
free gifts


Floor Terra

"Never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance."
--Sam Brown

[Paul de Weerd]

On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 07:42:47PM +0530, V. Karthik Kumar wrote:
| Paul de Weerd wrote:
| > I repeat : keep this onlist or out of my mailbox.
| >
| This one is on the list.

Thank you.

| > Yes, it really is very bad that Jolan committed all that non-free
| > stuff to OpenBSD. How could he ! OpenBSD is not worth being called
| > 'Free'. Jolan (and I'm sure you know a lot more examples) really is
| > the bad guy here. Ehm, only thing is, I can't seem to find Jolans
| > non-free stuff in the OpenBSD cvs repository. Maybe you can help me
| > out and point me at this code ? I seem to recall asking you before...
| And maybe I did.

You did not.

| > Oooh ! I checked it out ! Whoohoo ! Guess what : YOU ARE WRONG. There
| > is not a single bit not free in there. Not one. Zero. You see ?
| > OpenBSD is free. All files in www/opera-flashplugin are *FREE*. Here's
| > the files in that part of the tree :
| >
| >     o Makefile
| >     o distinfo
| >     o pkg/DESCR
| >     o pkg/PLIST
| >
| Woohoo.. so I guess we have been talking about useless FREE textfiles
| in the CVS. Great job kid!

Why useless ? Because you don't like non-free software that can be
installed by using those files ? Fine, don't use the files, don't
install the port and consider them useless. The fact that you don't
use everything that comes with the system does not make the system any
less free. My firewall has software to play audio files - it doesn't
even have the required hardware ! I'm not complaining that there's
stuff in OpenBSD or in the OpenBSD portstree that I'm not using - are
you ?

Perhaps you're *USING* these 4 files to install the adobe flash player
on your machine (your example a little bit later in this mail seems to
indicate you have at least installed it). That's non-free software
you've installed, but you are free to do so. Then, to you, those four
small files are not so useless, are they ?

But you're not complaining that these (FREE) files are useless.
There's almost 5000 ports in the tree now, you are not using them all
(you're not even using all the ports for free programs) so there's a
lot more to complain about if that was your gripe. I've made an effort
to reply to your argument but we were discussing the free-ness of
OpenBSD, not the usefulness. Please stick to the subject and do not
try to divert the discussion to unrelated matters.

| > There's a total of 1154 bytes in those four files - ALL FREE.
| >
| > I challenged you to show me one single file that is non-free in the
| > cvs repository as found on http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/
| > and so far you've tried once and failed.
| >
| > Show us a non-free file or shut up.
| Run make install on that directory (www/opera-flashplugin) and woohoo!

You have not shown a file that is non-free in the OpenBSD cvs
repository.

| And remember to use: find /usr/local/lib -name libflashplayer.so

I'll spell it out for you : Give me a link to the online web version
of the CVS repository that is a non-free file. I can tell you in
advance that you won't find a file by the name of "libflashplayer.so"
in the repository (I have a local copy), so try something else for a
change.

SHOW ME THE NON-FREE FILE ! It must be in the repository (I've
explained this several times now). Show it and I'll concede. Until
then : YOU ARE WRONG.

Here's a nice trick. On any OpenBSD system simply do the following :

        ftp http://tinyurl.com/83kyc

Et voila ! You now have non-free software on your system. It is the
Microsoft PowerPoint Viewer (it's gratis (doesn't cost money) but it's
not open source). You did this with free software (ftp from OpenBSD) !
Ohnoes ! That software (OpenBSD ftp) isn't free, I can use it to
download non-free software !

Boohoo. Now explain again how this makes OpenBSD any less free.

After your 'make install' in /usr/ports/www/opera-flashplugin, *YOU*
have installed libflashplayer.so on your system. Why does that make
OpenBSD any less free ?

Again : show us any non-free file *IN THE OpenBSD CVS REPOSITORY* and
I'll concede. And a final suggestion : Try not to send any other mails
on this thread until you've shown us this file.

Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

--
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
                 http://www.weirdnet.nl/                 

[Marco Peereboom]

On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 01:13:25PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:

> On Jan 6, 2008 4:25 AM, Gilles Chehade <gilles@...> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 01:42:16AM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
> > > > Firmware are not free enough when they have a license that does not
> > > > allow them to be redistributed with the system.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You are talking of free as in freedom and not price, right? If the
> > > whole point was to avoid paying $$$ in OpenBSD, my bad.
> > >
> >
> > What has money to do with this ?
> > You sound like you have issues understanding, so I will make it as simple
> > as I can, please take the time to read a few times, and make sure you get
> > it, before replying to this mail:
> >
> >         - vendor A sells hardware that requires a firmware
> >
> >         - OpenBSD wants to support that hardware and needs the firmware
> >                 to be shipped, say in /etc/firmware/, to have the
> >                 hardware work out of the box
> >
> >         - vendor A says "if a customer wants the firmware, he must go
> >                 to out website and fill a registration form online".
> >
> >         - OpenBSD does not ship the firmware because it is not free
> >                 enough.
> >
> > See ? This is an example, it is unrelated to money, and you still failed
> > to show us ONE point where we don't stick to our goals.
> >
>
> So registration form = non-free. You failed to prove how it was not
> free. I asked if it required OpenBSD to pay money to a vendor, or the
> issue was about something else besides the money. I don't see the
> registration form being a problem here. Maybe they might simply take
> down your name and address for contact details or whatever. I don't
> see why a registration form must be non-free here.

Yes it is non-free!  Very much so.

I will pertinently refuse to fill out ANY webform unless I am paying for
something.  My personal information is one of my most prized possessions.
Company XYZ that sold (past tense) me a piece of hardware does not need
to know ANYTHING about me.

If I go to a news site and they require me to fill out a form I close
the tab.  I also refuse to click on any web ad as they can track my
information based on my IP address.

See the difference is that you don't care about freedom you care about
gratis.  You are a cheapskate hunting for a bargain I cherish my liberty
and protect it as much as I can.  You'll happily give away your liberty
in change for some gratis stuff.

In conclusion you don't know what free means.  It is getting old isn't
it?  How many times do we need to tell you to read a dictionary?

[Benoit Chesneau-3]

On Jan 6, 2008 3:12 PM, V. Karthik Kumar <karthikkumar@...> wrote:

> Run make install on that directory (www/opera-flashplugin) and woohoo!


so _you_ decided to install non-free software. The question is why .
Nothing forced you to install it.

--
- benont

--
- benont

[guilt]

> Perhaps you're *USING* these 4 files to install the adobe flash player
> on your machine (your example a little bit later in this mail seems to
> indicate you have at least installed it). That's non-free software
> you've installed, but you are free to do so. Then, to you, those four
> small files are not so useless, are they ?
>

Okay, I didn't install it. But it's like saying 'There is no proof
that the Makefiles won't work unless at least one person has installed
them and verified". In any case, I put forward the argument that the
Makefiles are useless because no single person has reported a
successful install with them. BooHoo!

> But you're not complaining that these (FREE) files are useless.
> There's almost 5000 ports in the tree now, you are not using them all
> (you're not even using all the ports for free programs) so there's a
> lot more to complain about if that was your gripe. I've made an effort
> to reply to your argument but we were discussing the free-ness of
> OpenBSD, not the usefulness. Please stick to the subject and do not
> try to divert the discussion to unrelated matters.

No, i'm talking about the usefulness of your supposedly free (and
useful) makefiles in installing nonfree software.

>
> Here's a nice trick. On any OpenBSD system simply do the following :
>
>         ftp http://tinyurl.com/83kyc
>

Have you performed the above step too? Shame on you for using
Microsoft PowerPoint .. or whatever it is you people use.

> Et voila ! You now have non-free software on your system. It is the
> Microsoft PowerPoint Viewer (it's gratis (doesn't cost money) but it's
> not open source). You did this with free software (ftp from OpenBSD) !
> Ohnoes ! That software (OpenBSD ftp) isn't free, I can use it to
> download non-free software !
>
> Boohoo. Now explain again how this makes OpenBSD any less free.
>
> After your 'make install' in /usr/ports/www/opera-flashplugin, *YOU*
> have installed libflashplayer.so on your system. Why does that make
> OpenBSD any less free ?
>

Like I already replied to someone: They put a cigarette pack in
OpenBSD with the warning: 'Smoking causes Cancer'. They say it's there
but you're not supposed to smoke it. It's not going to harm you unless
you smoke it. Do you see the analogy?

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

[Dusty-7]

On Jan 6, 2008 6:22 PM, Karthik Kumar <karthikkumar@...> wrote:

> > Perhaps you're *USING* these 4 files to install the adobe flash player
> > on your machine (your example a little bit later in this mail seems to
> > indicate you have at least installed it). That's non-free software
> > you've installed, but you are free to do so. Then, to you, those four
> > small files are not so useless, are they ?
> >
>
> Okay, I didn't install it. But it's like saying 'There is no proof
> that the Makefiles won't work unless at least one person has installed
> them and verified". In any case, I put forward the argument that the
> Makefiles are useless because no single person has reported a
> successful install with them. BooHoo!
>
> > But you're not complaining that these (FREE) files are useless.
> > There's almost 5000 ports in the tree now, you are not using them all
> > (you're not even using all the ports for free programs) so there's a
> > lot more to complain about if that was your gripe. I've made an effort
> > to reply to your argument but we were discussing the free-ness of
> > OpenBSD, not the usefulness. Please stick to the subject and do not
> > try to divert the discussion to unrelated matters.
>
> No, i'm talking about the usefulness of your supposedly free (and
> useful) makefiles in installing nonfree software.
>
> >
> > Here's a nice trick. On any OpenBSD system simply do the following :
> >
> >         ftp http://tinyurl.com/83kyc
> >
>
> Have you performed the above step too? Shame on you for using
> Microsoft PowerPoint .. or whatever it is you people use.
>
> > Et voila ! You now have non-free software on your system. It is the
> > Microsoft PowerPoint Viewer (it's gratis (doesn't cost money) but it's
> > not open source). You did this with free software (ftp from OpenBSD) !
> > Ohnoes ! That software (OpenBSD ftp) isn't free, I can use it to
> > download non-free software !
> >
> > Boohoo. Now explain again how this makes OpenBSD any less free.
> >
> > After your 'make install' in /usr/ports/www/opera-flashplugin, *YOU*
> > have installed libflashplayer.so on your system. Why does that make
> > OpenBSD any less free ?
> >
>
> Like I already replied to someone: They put a cigarette pack in
> OpenBSD with the warning: 'Smoking causes Cancer'. They say it's there
> but you're not supposed to smoke it. It's not going to harm you unless
> you smoke it. Do you see the analogy?

Your analogy needs work.
Its more like saying "here is 20 bucks. You can spend it on a cigarette IF
YOU CHOOSE to. Smocking causes Cancer"

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

Dusty

[Gilles Chehade-6]

On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 07:46:42PM +0530, V. Karthik Kumar wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Gilles Chehade wrote:
> > I don't care about puppy linux or slax, I am just pointing out that
> > you talked out of your ass and made an uninformed comment again
> > when you said that openbsd ships with nothing.
> >
> I am sorry. It ships with utter crap.
> >
> >>
> >> No. I say calling it 'secure by default' is an oxymoron.
> >
> > Yet, you fail to argument and comment on the whole paragraph above.
> >  OpenBSD ships with a lot of things and users enable them if they
> > need them, whatever you say or think of this won't make it change.
> >
> >
> >
> It ships with only what the developers want and care about. And only
> FEW people ever find all of what it ships useful. Most of them find
> what they want in the ports tree and not in the base. If you can find
> more people who like it with what it ships than those who think
> otherwise, bring them to me and prove me wrong.
>

So what is your point ?


> > Obviously OpenBSD is less than a blackbox than any other system you
> > can come up with. I can create a copy of the official cdrom by
> > using only the content in cvs, while if I do the same with another
> > system I will probably be missing a few drivers.
> >
> Fancy Blackbox. What do I care? I'm not a programmer.
>

So what is your point ?

So far, the only point you made was that you are clueless.

--
Gilles Chehade

[Paul de Weerd]

On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 09:52:18PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
| > Perhaps you're *USING* these 4 files to install the adobe flash player
| > on your machine (your example a little bit later in this mail seems to
| > indicate you have at least installed it). That's non-free software
| > you've installed, but you are free to do so. Then, to you, those four
| > small files are not so useless, are they ?
| >
|
| Okay, I didn't install it. But it's like saying 'There is no proof
| that the Makefiles won't work unless at least one person has installed
| them and verified". In any case, I put forward the argument that the
| Makefiles are useless because no single person has reported a
| successful install with them. BooHoo!

You are making an argument that Makefiles are useless when we are
discussing the free-ness of OpenBSD. It doesn't have a lot to do with
the subject at hand (again...), but there you go.

First of all, you ridicule yourself with this argument. Of course
people have tested this particular (and all the other) ports. People
have installed them and verified them. In fact, some years ago, when I
needed to use flash on my OpenBSD system, I did the same. Works
perfectly.

The Makefiles work fine, people use them and it has been known to work
for quite some time now. These people want or have to use a free
Operating System (OpenBSD) for whatever reason they have. Now they
want or have to use non-free flash. They install it and use it. It's
useful to the people requiring this software to be able to install it
through the portstree. It's not causing you any harm if you prefer not
to use it, nor does it do any damage to the free-ness of OpenBSD.

| > But you're not complaining that these (FREE) files are useless.
| > There's almost 5000 ports in the tree now, you are not using them all
| > (you're not even using all the ports for free programs) so there's a
| > lot more to complain about if that was your gripe. I've made an effort
| > to reply to your argument but we were discussing the free-ness of
| > OpenBSD, not the usefulness. Please stick to the subject and do not
| > try to divert the discussion to unrelated matters.
|
| No, i'm talking about the usefulness of your supposedly free (and
| useful) makefiles in installing nonfree software.

Yes, completely irrelevant when discussing how free OpenBSD is. Stick
to the subject. You said OpenBSD should not call itself free because
you think it's not free. I've shown how it *IS* free and asked you to
prove me wrong. You reply with irrelevant arguments about usefulness
when we are discussing freedom.

| > Here's a nice trick. On any OpenBSD system simply do the following :
| >
| >         ftp http://tinyurl.com/83kyc
| >
|
| Have you performed the above step too? Shame on you for using
| Microsoft PowerPoint .. or whatever it is you people use.

I did, I tested the above procedure before sending my mail to the
list. Doesn't mean I've used it, but if you think it's shameful to
prove you wrong, I think that says more about you than about me.

| > Et voila ! You now have non-free software on your system. It is the
| > Microsoft PowerPoint Viewer (it's gratis (doesn't cost money) but it's
| > not open source). You did this with free software (ftp from OpenBSD) !
| > Ohnoes ! That software (OpenBSD ftp) isn't free, I can use it to
| > download non-free software !
| >
| > Boohoo. Now explain again how this makes OpenBSD any less free.
| >
| > After your 'make install' in /usr/ports/www/opera-flashplugin, *YOU*
| > have installed libflashplayer.so on your system. Why does that make
| > OpenBSD any less free ?
| >
|
| Like I already replied to someone: They put a cigarette pack in
| OpenBSD with the warning: 'Smoking causes Cancer'. They say it's there
| but you're not supposed to smoke it. It's not going to harm you unless
| you smoke it. Do you see the analogy?

You still have not shown any file in the OpenBSD cvs repository that
is not free. You make gratuitous analogies that are completely
irrelevant - try to stick to the subject, no analogies necessary.
There's no cigarettes in OpenBSD, it's all free bits of software etc.

Could you please point us to non-free software in the cvs repository
now ? I'm replying to all your nonsensical arguments but you fail to
give me the one thing I've been asking you for quite some time now. I
will concede once you show me a non-free file in the OpenBSD cvs
repository. If you can not show me such a file, it would not hurt to
publicly state that you were wrong when you said that OpenBSD does not
deserve the title 'Free'.

Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

--
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
                 http://www.weirdnet.nl/                 

[Dave Anderson-4]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Richard Stallman wrote:

>    I don't think OpenBSD users understand what you mean by "recommend
>    non-free software",
>
>I explained it earlier in this thread.
>
> so if you could, please, give an example by
>    showing where OpenBSD (web-site?) says that it recommend non-free
>    software and the URL.
>
>In OpenBSD the recommendation for certain non-free programs
>is in the recipes for installing them.

IMO, a big part of the problem here is that when you say "recommend" in
this context what you actually mean appears (based on the discussion
here) to be something that most people would express as "not
deliberately erect barriers against".

If you were to consistently express yourself using the common
definitions of words rather than your own perverse definition of
"recommend", I expect that most of this discussion would end.

        Dave

--
Dave Anderson
<dave@...>

[guilt]

On Jan 6, 2008 10:41 PM, Paul de Weerd <weerd@...> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 09:52:18PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
> | > Perhaps you're *USING* these 4 files to install the adobe flash player
> | > on your machine (your example a little bit later in this mail seems to
> | > indicate you have at least installed it). That's non-free software
> | > you've installed, but you are free to do so. Then, to you, those four
> | > small files are not so useless, are they ?
> | >
> |
> | Okay, I didn't install it. But it's like saying 'There is no proof
> | that the Makefiles won't work unless at least one person has installed
> | them and verified". In any case, I put forward the argument that the
> | Makefiles are useless because no single person has reported a
> | successful install with them. BooHoo!
>
> You are making an argument that Makefiles are useless when we are
> discussing the free-ness of OpenBSD. It doesn't have a lot to do with
> the subject at hand (again...), but there you go.

You argued Makefiles are FREE. See ma, no .so in cvs.. etc. Now you
use ftp and download PowerPoint to test if the system works, and say:
hey. it's a free tool and I downloaded non-free. But just testing. But
it's a free tool, like uhm. make and Makefile s ... so I guess
everyone can use it to simply test if the non-free can be downloaded
with free tools. Is that what you're getting at, about the FREE
makefiles and their usefulness? Ah, okay; I understand you.

>
>
> I did, I tested the above procedure before sending my mail to the
> list. Doesn't mean I've used it, but if you think it's shameful to
> prove you wrong, I think that says more about you than about me.
>

You're not proving me wrong. Whom are you kidding? You need to come to
terms with yourself.

>
> You still have not shown any file in the OpenBSD cvs repository that
> is not free. You make gratuitous analogies that are completely
> irrelevant - try to stick to the subject, no analogies necessary.
> There's no cigarettes in OpenBSD, it's all free bits of software etc.
>

Free bits of software which can download non-free bits = Harmless bits
of paper and tobacco which when lit and inhaled will cause cancer.

If you feel the analogy is painful, tough luck bro.

I'm through talking to you here. I'm not going to reply to your posts again.

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

[Gilles Chehade-6]

On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 10:39:18PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:

> On Jan 6, 2008 10:35 PM, Gilles Chehade <gilles@...> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 07:46:42PM +0530, V. Karthik Kumar wrote:
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > Gilles Chehade wrote:
> > > > I don't care about puppy linux or slax, I am just pointing out that
> > > > you talked out of your ass and made an uninformed comment again
> > > > when you said that openbsd ships with nothing.
> > > >
> > > I am sorry. It ships with utter crap.
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> No. I say calling it 'secure by default' is an oxymoron.
> > > >
> > > > Yet, you fail to argument and comment on the whole paragraph above.
> > > >  OpenBSD ships with a lot of things and users enable them if they
> > > > need them, whatever you say or think of this won't make it change.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > It ships with only what the developers want and care about. And only
> > > FEW people ever find all of what it ships useful. Most of them find
> > > what they want in the ports tree and not in the base. If you can find
> > > more people who like it with what it ships than those who think
> > > otherwise, bring them to me and prove me wrong.
> > >
> >
> > So what is your point ?
> >
> >
> > > > Obviously OpenBSD is less than a blackbox than any other system you
> > > > can come up with. I can create a copy of the official cdrom by
> > > > using only the content in cvs, while if I do the same with another
> > > > system I will probably be missing a few drivers.
> > > >
> > > Fancy Blackbox. What do I care? I'm not a programmer.
> > >
> >
> > So what is your point ?
> >
> > So far, the only point you made was that you are clueless.
> >
>
> You've been fighting all along too. You said many things yourself. You
> should know what the point is. I end our discussion here.
>

I haven't been fighting, I've been setting the record straight so that
people who lookup about OpenBSD get the real facts and not junk thrown
by a fsf zealot.

I have requested *several times* that you point JUST ONE fact where we
are in breach with out license and goals, and you failed to do that. I
can't believe you find so many things to say, unrelated on to another,
yet you cannot find ONE real fact to throw at my face to backup any of
your claims.

As you said you are not a programmer, yet you talk about things you do
not comprehend. Your are not a sysadmin (or a real bad one) and you do
think you know how a system should be configured out of the box. It is
in your best interest to just shut up now, before your name appears on
all search engines associated to this pile of junk you kept sending. A
future employer may lookup your history and see what an idiot you are.

Oh, and should you send mail to me again, let the list cc-ed.

Bye.
Gilles

--
Gilles Chehade