Real men don't attack straw men

[Marco Peereboom]

On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 10:50:47PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:

> 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.

Makefiles *are* free.  And yes exactly, no .so in cvs WHICH WOULDN'T BE
FREE.  Also no .so on the CDs because that would be, you know, NOT
LEGAL.

If anything is a free tool it is 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.

He did about 34958340958439058 times now.

>
> >
> > 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.

It isn't painful it is dumb.  Your analogies are possibly worse than
your arguments.

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

Great!!!!

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

[Ray Percival-2]

On Jan 6, 2008, at 8:07, "Benoit Chesneau" <bchesneau@...> wrote:

> 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.

Because the bad evil obsd devs told him to and overcame all rational  
thought and personal responsibility on his part?
>
>
> --
> - benont
>
> --
> - benont

[Gilles Chehade-6]

On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 10:04:07AM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:

> > > 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?

Good luck trying to get him to read something, he is apparently not
familiar with this concept.

Gilles

--
Gilles Chehade

[Tony Aberenthy]

Karthik Kumar wrote:
> Okay, I didn't install it.
You did install it?
You didn't install it?
You don't know whether you did or didn't?
Seems like there is a substantial disconnect from reality.

[Richard Stallman]

    > I appreciate the work that OpenBSD has done in this area.
    > It is an important contribution to our community.
    >
    Curious that it should take this long to obtain that admission from you.

Why do you think it took a long time?
I said it a couple of weeks ago too.
I also said it a couple of years ago.

[Richard Stallman]

> >         - 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.

In that case, it would be illegal for you to distribute the firmware,
so naturally you don't.  No argument there.

But what about the different case where the company permits
redistribution of the binary firmware, but does not release source
code.  Would OpenBSD distribute the firmware in that case?

[Ray Percival-2]

On Jan 6, 2008, at 9:20, "Karthik Kumar" <karthikkumar@...> wrote:

> 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.

Right. And it is your choice to do or use either so engage your brain  
and start making choices for yourself.
>
>
> I'm through talking to you here. I'm not going to reply to your  
> posts again.
>
> --
> Karthik
> http://guilt.bafsoft.net

[Paul de Weerd]

On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 10:50:47PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote:
| > 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.

Arguing isn't really your strongest point, is it ?

It was *you* who was trying to argue that using the software that is
already present on your system to download something non-free, makes
the system itself non-free. I did the same thing, downloaded non-free
software with a free program.

I have no intention of using Powerpoint on my machine (it doesn't even
run) but some users have a need for the flash plugin on their OpenBSD
machines. So it's useful to them.

| > 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.

I did prove you were wrong. You stated that OpenBSD did not deserve
the term Free. I *proved* that it does by showing you that everything
in OpenBSD is free (both 'without cost' and 'without restrictions').
And the best part is, you agreed with me :

> > 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.

So, by your own admission, I did prove you wrong. However, for some
reason, you keep on arguing about something you said you knew but now
disagree with ? And then I need to come to terms with myself ? I am
kidding someone ?

| > 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.

The two are not in the same domain. Software does not cause cancer,
you will not die because you use free or non-free software. Your
analogy is totally off. Try to argue within the domain.

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

Not painful .. absurd. What next, compare my laptop (an apple) to a
banana and claim they're both fruit ? Make arguments that hold water,
show me just _ONE_ file in the OpenBSD cvs repository that is not free
software. Just one.

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

Of course you won't. It took you no less than *FIVE* mails from me to
realize that I wasn't going to shup up unless you actually *PROVE*
that OpenBSD contains non-free software. Every reply from you that
doesn't prove this will get an answer from me asking for the evidence.
You made a false claim and now that you realize your mistake you
refuse to admit it (even though you've already claimed that you knew I
was right). I already thought it was painful to see you burying
yourself deeper and deeper in this mess, good for you to get out now.

YOU ARE WRONG.

(But please, keep your word, don't reply to my posts again)

Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

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

[L-9]

Floor Terra wrote:

> 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
>
>  

Well, it is my opinion that GNU/FreeSoftware is bull s h i t and it
should be called Stallmanist software. I know that is not the opinion of
everyone.. and I know some of you do not think GNU is bull s h i t. And
I apologize to those people who do not think a lot of it is bull s h i t.

But...regardless, GNU is bull s h i t.

The whole GNU philosophy goes ON, and ON, and ON, and continues to get
more complicated.

It is like a complicated piece of code that keeps getting more complicated.

The algorithm, must be simplified and minimal.  The license is just an
algorithm in words. And GNU licenses are way too complex of an
algorithm. They cause so many complications it reminds me of those 5
page PROPRIETARY licenses.

When I find a complex algorithm, I call bull s h i t. And you, with a
sense of humor, are to do the same.. or just don't reply and don't get
your gift ;-)

[Marco Peereboom]

On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 01:09:42PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:

> > >         - 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.
>
> In that case, it would be illegal for you to distribute the firmware,
> so naturally you don't.  No argument there.
>
> But what about the different case where the company permits
> redistribution of the binary firmware, but does not release source
> code.  Would OpenBSD distribute the firmware in that case?

Of course and going by your description it is nothing but hardware at
that point so there is no ethics violation (whatever that means since
you refuse to explain it).  It is just like micro code and a circuit.

[Gilles Chehade-6]

On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 01:09:42PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:

> > >         - 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.
>
> In that case, it would be illegal for you to distribute the firmware,
> so naturally you don't.  No argument there.
>
> But what about the different case where the company permits
> redistribution of the binary firmware, but does not release source
> code.  Would OpenBSD distribute the firmware in that case?
>

Please, do us all a favor, launch a fucking browser and educate yourself with
a search engine. If you can't figure out how to launch a browser, get some of
your fsf slaves to browse the web for you. This has been discussed many times
and it shouldn't take long for you or your minions to find out that we do not
care about the source of firmware which doesn't load into OpenBSD.

Gilles

--
Gilles Chehade

[Floor Terra]

On Jan 6, 2008 7:42 PM, L <L@...> wrote:

> Floor Terra wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
> Well, it is my opinion that GNU/FreeSoftware is bull s h i t and it
> should be called Stallmanist software. I know that is not the opinion of
> everyone.. and I know some of you do not think GNU is bull s h i t. And
> I apologize to those people who do not think a lot of it is bull s h i t.
>
> But...regardless, GNU is bull s h i t.
>
> The whole GNU philosophy goes ON, and ON, and ON, and continues to get
> more complicated.
>
> It is like a complicated piece of code that keeps getting more
> complicated.
>
> The algorithm, must be simplified and minimal.  The license is just an
> algorithm in words. And GNU licenses are way too complex of an
> algorithm. They cause so many complications it reminds me of those 5
> page PROPRIETARY licenses.
>
> When I find a complex algorithm, I call bull s h i t. And you, with a
> sense of humor, are to do the same.. or just don't reply and don't get
> your gift ;-)
>
>
> I agree with you, but I don't think I feel as strong about it as you do.

And I think you missed my point: Why do you feel the need do "pay"
people just to insult GNU?

I appreciate your play on "free as in beer". In fact, I would really like
to try brewing sometime. But why not offer these gifts for bugfixes?

Floor Terra

[L-9]

Floor Terra wrote:

> On Jan 6, 2008 7:42 PM, L <L@...> wrote:
>
>  
>> Floor Terra wrote:
>>    
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>> Well, it is my opinion that GNU/FreeSoftware is bull s h i t and it
>> should be called Stallmanist software. I know that is not the opinion of
>> everyone.. and I know some of you do not think GNU is bull s h i t. And
>> I apologize to those people who do not think a lot of it is bull s h i t.
>>
>> But...regardless, GNU is bull s h i t.
>>
>> The whole GNU philosophy goes ON, and ON, and ON, and continues to get
>> more complicated.
>>
>> It is like a complicated piece of code that keeps getting more
>> complicated.
>>
>> The algorithm, must be simplified and minimal.  The license is just an
>> algorithm in words. And GNU licenses are way too complex of an
>> algorithm. They cause so many complications it reminds me of those 5
>> page PROPRIETARY licenses.
>>
>> When I find a complex algorithm, I call bull s h i t. And you, with a
>> sense of humor, are to do the same.. or just don't reply and don't get
>> your gift ;-)
>>
>>
>> I agree with you, but I don't think I feel as strong about it as you do.
>>    
> And I think you missed my point: Why do you feel the need do "pay"
> people just to insult GNU?
>
> I appreciate your play on "free as in beer". In fact, I would really like
> to try brewing sometime. But why not offer these gifts for bugfixes?
>
> Floor Terra
>  

It is not insulting GNU.. it is allowing people to tell the truth.
By telling the truth, people get rewarded. Insults, are sometimes the truth.
For example if I say: that person that robbed the bank is an idiot.

That is an insult.. but it is true.

Okay, enough sense of humor for today ;-)

I will provide free gifts for bug fixes too. I am not part of the
OpenBSD devel team yet as I am a really new openbsd user...and cannot
know who has sent bug fixes.. I can only know who sent me bug fixes for
my Powtils web framework that I develop.

The BULL s h i t offer is very automated and easy for me to administer..
people sent me some emails and I scanned the email for the bull s h i t
characters with a script. A bug fix would be harder to determine, as I
would have to filter through the open bsd mailing lists and find  people
who had fixed bugs.

Ultimately,  the bull s h i t  offer was more convenient and easier to
"manage" or administer, basically.

L505
Talking Bull

[L-9]

Tony Abernethy wrote:

> Karthik Kumar wrote:
>  
>> Okay, I didn't install it.
>>    
> You did install it?
> You didn't install it?
> You don't know whether you did or didn't?
> Seems like there is a substantial disconnect from reality.
>
>
>  

Karthik Kumar is probably using GNG.
GNG is not GNG.

[L-9]

Gilles Chehade wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 01:09:42PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>  
>>>>         - 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.
>>>>        
>> In that case, it would be illegal for you to distribute the firmware,
>> so naturally you don't.  No argument there.
>>
>> But what about the different case where the company permits
>> redistribution of the binary firmware, but does not release source
>> code.  Would OpenBSD distribute the firmware in that case?
>>
>>    
>
> Please, do us all a favor, launch a fucking browser and educate yourself with
> a search engine. If you can't figure out how to launch a browser, get some of
> your fsf slaves to browse the web for you. This has been discussed many times
> and it shouldn't take long for you or your minions to find out that we do not
> care about the source of firmware which doesn't load into OpenBSD.
>
> Gilles
>
>  

An OpenSSH connection into an unethical computer  using Lynx web browser
might work...
Then the pipe that lynx feeds back through OpenSSH would be ethical..
since  pipes are not the same as say a DSO/ELF/a.out that displays stuff
on the screen directly.

Is Lynx Stallmanist Software, or is it unethical?

L505

[chefren]

Hey young man,

On 1/6/08 8:31 AM, Karthik Kumar wrote:

> OpenBSD got pwned a year ago with another remote hole.

There was a second remote hole, it's pretty sure nobody in the industry has
misused it.

Can you give us numbers of your favourite OS?

> I hope they find enough so they can stop bragging about 'Secure by default'.

Hope... And of course =other= people should find them?

You seem from the same church as RMS...


OpenBSD is by all standards secure by default, even if the next 10 years
another 2 or even 4 remote holes would be found.

By the way, you can just start working on it and everyone here would love you.
Not because we like you but because we don't like such holes.

> Do you realize that many people just can not live with 'default'?

We all realize everyone is different and certainly not a copy of your pope.

So only the truly necessary is on and you can add what you need with extremely
little effort, and risk of course!

> Look: people do "use" OpenBSD for things other than plain old fvwm
> with xterm. And keeping security as a goal is not just for a stupid
> dubious marketing campaign.

Without security as a main issue during development software that has to be
connected to the internet is not usable.

Your pope Richard Stallman =says= gNewSense is to his standards, but you need
perhaps 200+ good, experienced, and dedicated developers to get Ubuntu to his
prayers within 1 or 2 years.

I strongly believe gNewSense has not one such a developer seriously busy with
cleaning Ubuntu since it's clearly a waste of time. Not at least since Debian
is a better start and OpenBSD is clear since quite some time.

gNewSense can be put in the graveyard besides The Hurt and quite a few other
old prayers of Richard.

You know what? There are people here who started to dig the hole for GCC too,
indeed little chance they will succeed but far more chance than gNewSence
getting up to Richards prayers.

+++chefren

[chefren]

On 1/6/08 9:28 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:

> Providing a recipe to install a non-free program is very direct and
> clear support for its use.

Clueless.

With the internet everything is 1 click away, ah well, maybe one more. You
have to think/work, yourselves to keep your system in the shape you want with
every step you do with it.

If you don't want to think, just disconnect the internet during the
installation of OpenBSD and you have a system that's up to your and OpenBSD's
standards.

For now that is =impossible= with gNewSense so please stop using it and
endorsing it.

+++chefren

[Sunnz]

2008/1/6, Richard Stallman <rms@...>:
>
>                         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.
>

Oh, no URL?

Ok, fine...

In gNewsense the recommendation for certain non-free programs is in
the _inclusion_ of such non-free parts in their distribution and it
isn't a trivial task for users to remove these non-free parts.

Perhaps you should make the 'correction' of not endorsing gNewsense
till it becomes what it claims to be?


--
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

[Brian-79]

--- Leonardo Rodrigues <leonardovcr2@...> wrote:

> Maybe those watchdog timeouts have nothing to do with bittorrent, and
> are probably more related to nic problems. Have you tried running your
> torrent client with a different network card?

I have run into the same issue with my onboard nic card, which doesn't work as
well as my sk nic.  I'm not sure how to debug the issue.  

I just started using pf, so my original question still stands.  Is there a
preferred rule set for pf when using BitTorrent?  

Thanks,

Brian


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

[guilt]

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

You see, rms? You were right. OpenBSD has lots of trolls who:

a. Don't find out about the person who is emailing
b. Make assumptions about the person in a.
c. Just troll all day and have no work to do
d. Bitch about everything else because of c.
e. Get more people to do d.
f. Are just the biggest b******* to the core ever

You were right for all the right reasons.

<x-rated>
@L: Go fuck yourself. I don't find your humor funny at all.
@Marco: Maybe a lawyer ought to analyze your arguments. Maybe he would
tell you what is wrong with your fucking logic and ask you: "Did you
understand, sir?". And maybe you would shut up then.
@Gilles: Maybe if your current employers saw your current emails they
would wonder what they are paying you for.
@Tony, Ray: Don't you F********* read? Someone used ftp for Microsoft
PowerPoint, and it wasn't me.
@Paul: No matter how many fucking emails you send, you will never be
able to reason it out, you moron.

Do yourself a favor and get off OpenBSD.
</x-rated>
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHgZvpRzTnZfDdIE8RAiOmAKCJlXn6OBuZtSap72LnLwTrF373LQCgrnTY
Fb8CvqIYQC0Vwjz0fH10a+Y=
=BI2U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----