Real men don't attack straw men

[Tony Aberenthy]

V. Karthik Kumar wrote:
>
> You see, rms? You were right. OpenBSD has lots of trolls who:

Curious, the contents indicate this is addressed to RMS.
The mail headers indicate otherwise.
This is obviously by one of the trolls.

Quite often, beople are judged by the emails they send
and by the intelligence or lack there of which is exhibited.

When you are addressing RMS, do you expect him to read your
reply from misc@... or is there some
undisclosed covert channel of communication to him?

not much work, really --- kinda like smashing cockroaches.

[Sunnz]

2008/1/7, V. Karthik Kumar <karthikkumar@...>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> You see, rms? You were right. OpenBSD has lots of trolls who:
>

No he does not see... he is not subscribed to misc...

Here's the rest of your message...

> 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-----
>
>

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

[Richard Stallman]

      Didn't you do that right from the start when you came
    to our lists to post the wrong conclusions you draw from your
    un-researched assumptions?

That is not what happened.  I stated an accurate conclusion based on
recent research.  I expressed it with words that were not clear.

I've explained the details several times, so I won't repeat now.

[Richard Stallman]

    Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods?

My method is to ask other people to do it for me.  I use that method
because it is efficient.  Its results are accurate, too.

However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not always
checked.  Sometimes I just took his word for it.  The problems that
have been reported here in various free systems (and, mostly,
corrected) show I need to discuss the criteria more carefully with
them.

                                                        Why are you replying on
    everybody else to point these things you to you?

Because that's the efficient way to do it.  This is a matter of fixing
bugs.  I don't read the source code of Emacs over again each month
looking for bugs.  That would be prohibitively difficult.  So I wait
for people to report bugs.  It's the same for these problems.

    Pretty much everybody i know will check their email just before going to bed
    and pretty just after they wake up. Why do you take so long then? Why are
    you so disconnected from this computer world?

I get so much email that the process of checking my email takes all day.

[Richard Stallman]

    No, but when you redefine "free" to mean something specific, you redefine
    your own language.

It's normal to develop criteria for what "free" means in specific
activities.  Consider, for instance, "free elections".  Human rights
organizations and election monitors have worked out specific criteria
for what that should mean in practice.

      When you refuse to endorse some free OSes because
    they allow proprietary software to be installed, you are walking a damn
    fine line.

That is not the reason why I do not endorse OpenBSD.  I've explained
several times, so I won't go into detail yet again.

[Ray Percival-2]

On Jan 6, 2008, at 20:02, "Tony Abernethy" <tony@...> wrote:

> V. Karthik Kumar wrote:
>>
>> You see, rms? You were right. OpenBSD has lots of trolls who:
>
> Curious, the contents indicate this is addressed to RMS.
> The mail headers indicate otherwise.
> This is obviously by one of the trolls.
>
> Quite often, beople are judged by the emails they send
> and by the intelligence or lack there of which is exhibited.
>
> When you are addressing RMS, do you expect him to read your
> reply from misc@... or is there some
> undisclosed covert channel of communication to him?
>
> not much work, really --- kinda like smashing cockroaches.

Nuke em from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

[Tony Aberenthy]

Richard Stallman wrote:

> That is not what happened.  I stated an accurate conclusion based on
> recent research.  I expressed it with words that were not clear.
>
> I've explained the details several times, so I won't repeat now.
>
Funny thing about details
When they are accurate they can be repeated and repeated,
easily and generally without inducing errors.
When the details and conclusions were always fuzzy,
they keep coming up differently
that is if you remeber enough to know what you did say.

As long as this thread has been running, the only plausible reasons
I can think of for you not to repeat your claimed accurate conclusion
is either that you do not remember what this claimed accurate conclusion was

or that this claimed accurate conclusion wold now be yet another falsehood.

There might be a point to freedom in software, but from everything I've
seen, you have only succeeded int making your position look silly and
preposterous.
Your idea of "freedom" seems to be that everyone subscribe blindly to your
(and exclusively your) (I have no idea what)

For any rational sense of freedom, OpenBSD seems to me to fit. You do not.
Essentially, your tyranny is not my freedom.

[Kurt B. Kaiser]

Richard Stallman <rms@...> writes:

> 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.

As has been explained a number of times, to install the software in
question, one has to first manually find, install, and configure the
ports tree and then browse though it to find the specific build
instructions.  One must then make and install the software from data
downloaded from the web.  I don't think this constitutes a process to
"recommend, suggest, or offer to install" as those words are commonly
understood.

Most people don't bother installing the ports tree, as the majority of the
applications software, all of which is unencumbered, is available as
binary packages.  These are easily installed directly using pkg_add. (*)

In any case, modifying the ports tree to eliminate the offending items
would be less than an hour's work.  Thus, OpenBSD is less than one hour
from perfection, even by your lights.  Does any GNU/Linux system really
meet this level of freedom?


> I follow these principles without discriminating between people
> or groups.
>
> Thus, I think it is legitimate for apps to run on Windows, so I apply
> this to both GNU applications and OpenBSD-related applications such as
> OpenSSH.  I recognize that this can have the negative effect of
> reducing the pressure for people to move away from Windows, but I don't
> think that alone is a reason to reject apps that can run on Windows.

GNU/Linux systems are available from Wal-Mart and Dell, and 'Linux' is a
household word understood by children and great-grandmothers.  Also,
there are many older systems which run beautifully with GNU/Linux (and
even better with OpenBSD!) and which should not be recycled just so
their owners can move to Vista, which they don't want or need.

I understand your strategy and I think it's been a good choice, but for
five years ago.  This discussion has raised issues which suggest that
it's well past the time to start removing these incentives.

People are ready.  The world is ready.

Also, it's clearly no longer necessary to support embedded cross
development on proprietary platforms to encourage the use of free tools.
As an FSF Associate Member, I request that you consider phasing it out.

Time to start reeling in the bait!  Do you have the ability to do that?

--
KBK



(*) Quoting the FAQ (http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#Ports):

"IMPORTANT NOTE: The ports tree is meant for advanced users. Everyone is
encouraged to use the pre-compiled binary packages. Do NOT ask beginner
questions on the mailing lists like "How can I get the ports tree
working?". If you have questions about the ports tree, it is assumed
that you have read the manual pages and this FAQ, and that you are able
to work with it."

[Roberto J. Dohnert]

Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman and the
FSF for OpenBSD?  When I choose an OS I don't go to Richard and the FSF, I
choose the OS I want to use whether its Kubuntu or PCLinuxOS for the desktop
(with all the non-free software that makes my heart sing), OpenBSD for my
server and NetBSD for my Firewall.  I never consulted anyone on my two
Windows machines either,  Richard Stallman and the FSF have NEVER endorsed a
BSD or UNIX system, so why should that change now?  I'm sure some of you care
what Richard and the FSF think but in the long run.  Does it really matter?  
To me this thread has spiraled out of control with no give or take from
either side and its equatable to trying to convince Bill and Steve to open
source Windows.

[Reid Nichol]

--- Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:

>     Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods?
>
> My method is to ask other people to do it for me.  I use that method
> because it is efficient.  Its results are accurate, too.
>
> However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not always
> checked.  Sometimes I just took his word for it.  The problems that
> have been reported here in various free systems (and, mostly,
> corrected) show I need to discuss the criteria more carefully with
> them.

You contradict yourself.  You say it's efficient and accurate and then
point out its inefficiency inaccuracy.  I find it stunning that you can
reconcile this.


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

[Ray Percival-2]

On Jan 6, 2008, at 22:54, "Roberto J. Dohnert"  
<robertdohnert@...> wrote:

> Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard  
> Stallman and the
> FSF for OpenBSD?

Nobody involved in this thread wants this endorsement and it is not  
about getting him to change his mind. The point is, simply, to call  
him on his bullshit.

[Reid Nichol]

--- Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:

>     No, but when you redefine "free" to mean something specific, you
> redefine
>     your own language.
>
> It's normal to develop criteria for what "free" means in specific
> activities.  Consider, for instance, "free elections".  Human rights
> organizations and election monitors have worked out specific criteria
> for what that should mean in practice.

But, when people use the word "free," even within a particular context,
anyone would be able to understand what that person was talking about
within an acceptable level of error.  The problem with your definition
is that this is not so.  Your definition does not stay true to the
spirit of the word (as used in reality).

But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can
statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain
my freedom to BSD license my code.


best regards,
Reid Nichol

President Bush says:

War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 

[Tony Aberenthy]

Ray Percival wrote:

> On Jan 6, 2008, at 22:54, "Roberto J. Dohnert"  
> <robertdohnert@...> wrote:
>
> > Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard  
> > Stallman and the
> > FSF for OpenBSD?
>
> Nobody involved in this thread wants this endorsement and it is not  
> about getting him to change his mind. The point is, simply, to call  
> him on his bullshit.
>

Precisely.

[Reid Nichol]

--- "Roberto J. Dohnert" <robertdohnert@...> wrote:

> Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard
> Stallman and the
> FSF for OpenBSD?  When I choose an OS I don't go to Richard and the
> FSF, I
> choose the OS I want to use whether its Kubuntu or PCLinuxOS for the
> desktop
> (with all the non-free software that makes my heart sing), OpenBSD
> for my
> server and NetBSD for my Firewall.  I never consulted anyone on my
> two
> Windows machines either,  Richard Stallman and the FSF have NEVER
> endorsed a
> BSD or UNIX system, so why should that change now?  I'm sure some of
> you care
> what Richard and the FSF think but in the long run.  Does it really
> matter?  
> To me this thread has spiraled out of control with no give or take
> from
> either side and its equatable to trying to convince Bill and Steve to
> open
> source Windows.
>
>

I definitely care what RMS thinks.  I most certainly care that his
nutter values, etc NOT be associated with OpenBSD.

I would request the devs make not one move to satiate his extremist
desires.  But, to spend that time doing what they have always done;
make OpenBSD better and better and...

best regards,
Reid Nichol

President Bush says:

War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Reid Nichol]

Stay on list or stay out of my inbox.


--- Karthik Kumar <karthikkumar@...> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2008 7:23 AM, Reid Nichol <rnichol_rrc@...> wrote:
> >
> > Which OpenBSD does.  You have failed to show otherwise.
> >
>
> To show that OpenBSD follows them as goals? Ah, perhaps. :-)

And you've continued to try... and failed utterly.

> > > 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.
> >
> > Where?  Are you refering to the FAQ?  Are you aware of what FAQ
> means?
> >
>
> Yes, I do. You can join a channel like: freenode #openbsd. When
> something goes wrong and you ask questions, the first thing you're
> told is to read the FAQ and the man page.

What's your point?


> Besides, I'm not anti campaigining for OpenBSD. Remember, I want both
> sides to clear off this bs. This thread could possibly be the end, as
> we know it. I hope you understand. Read my earlier posts: they were
> neutral; I cry FUD where I see it.

The end?  What?

I read them and the ones since... I won't reply further on that because
others have said what I would have (and more) much better.



best regards,
Reid Nichol

President Bush says:

War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Reid Nichol]

Stay on list or stay out of my inbox.


--- Karthik Kumar <karthikkumar@...> wrote:

> > > > > 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).
> > > >
>
> I already poiinted out that both sides need to do something than
> accuse the other of non-free. Didn't my first reply say 'everybody'.
> Then someone made it 'somebody' apparently biasing that statement.
> Which is why I fought back against that argument. Does that answer
> your question?

Well, I didn't actually ask a question.

But, (we'll call them) the OpenBSD people have supported there
arguments (which I'd say is more than just accusing).  Whereas "the
other side" has not.  You'd know this if you would have read at least
some of the thread before you put in your (non) two cents.

For the record, somebody is within everybody.  So, when you say
everybody, one can reply with a counter example of somebody to such a
sweeping statement.

You also didn't reply to what I wrote.  You made something up and
replied to that.

In all honesty, I really believe that you really *really* need to read
those links that I sent.  Please, go do that now or at your earliest convenience.

best regards,
Reid Nichol

President Bush says:

War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Paul de Weerd]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 08:56:33AM +0530, V. Karthik Kumar wrote:
| @Paul: No matter how many fucking emails you send, you will never be
| able to reason it out, you moron.

I'm glad you've resorted to namecalling. That'll surely help you find
the non-free files in OpenBSD. Please remember to send them to this
list when you do find 'em. Until then, YOU ARE WRONG.

Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

PS: I just *LOVE* your reasoning ! Makes you look all smart and stuff.

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

[Gilles Chehade-6]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 08:56:33AM +0530, V. Karthik Kumar wrote:
> -----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.

most of us found out you were a troll since your very first mail,
no assumption, you looked like an idiot and turned out to be one.


> 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.

hilarious. For each mail I replied to you, you replied to several
other peoples to troll, logic tells me that you spent far more
time trolling than I spent setting the record straight. You need
to get a life, really.

> f. Are just the biggest b******* to the core ever
>
> You were right for all the right reasons.
>
> [...]
>
> @Gilles: Maybe if your current employers saw your current emails they
> would wonder what they are paying you for.
>
> [...]
>

My employers don't care about what I do on evening and week-ends.
... and this kind of comments doesn't make you less of an idiot you know ;-)

Gilles

--
Gilles Chehade

[Siju George]

On Jan 7, 2008 12:44 PM, Reid Nichol <rnichol_rrc@...> wrote:
> --- Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
> >     Why do you use (obviously flawed) research methods?
> >
> > My method is to ask other people to do it for me.  I use that method
> > because it is efficient.  Its results are accurate, too.
> >
> > However, when a person tells me his OS is free, I have not always
> > checked.  Sometimes I just took his word for it.
>>

That is why People here called on you to do some research before
resorting to slandering genuine free projects and condoning non-free
ones thus making yourself look stupid before those who really think.

If you did really check the facts for yourself you would have cause
less confusion.

So the things you need to do immediately are

1) Develop a habit of researching and learning before you comment on anything.
2) Choose the appropriate words during Interviews.

As it is said "Evil thrives on ambiguity"!!


>>The problems that
> > have been reported here in various free systems (and, mostly,
> > corrected) show I need to discuss the criteria more carefully with
> > them.
>

Who is the them?
The FSF Folks who give you wrong information?
Well You should take a clear consistent stand first.
The your followers have at least a little chance for doing same.

Out here the most craziest people I have seen are those who
cry/flame/fight with Zeal for FSF and Stallman who know nothing about
what FSF and Stallman stands for.

But it is clear now.
When even Stallman does not know what he stands for or what the FSF
stands for in a consistent light and have to resort to word play and
word spin I can only pity the followers.


> You contradict yourself.  You say it's efficient and accurate and then
> point out its inefficiency inaccuracy.  I find it stunning that you can
> reconcile this.
>

I am sure he will have an excuse for this contradiction too.
Like.

"A Straight Line is an *arc*, An arc of a circle with infinite radius"

But the problem is when it comes to practicality nobody has seen a
circle like that yet fully!!!

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2008/01/06 17:50, Brian wrote:
> --- 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.  

Sounds like it may be missing interrupts. I would start by using
ACPI ("boot -c" at the boot loader prompt, then at UKC "disable apm"
and "enable acpi").

Where's the dmesg?

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

Let traffic out, let new incoming connections through to the port/s
you configured your bittorrent software to use. This is unrelated to
the watchdog timeouts.