Real men don't attack straw men

[Richard Stallman]

    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.

The people who do searches for me are helpful volunteers.  I can ask
them to look for something, but I try not to impose on them if there
is an easier way.  For a question about OpenBSD policies, it is better
for me to ask this list for the answer, than to ask someone else to
hunt for the answer.

Thanks for stating the policy.

If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
binary-only firmware, which isn't free.  This would be a second reason
why I should not endorse OpenBSD.  The systems I endorse try to
exclude such firmware.

[Richard Stallman]

    > 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

No, that description refers to a different case.

               so there is no ethics violation (whatever that means since
    you refuse to explain it).  It is just like micro code and a circuit.

I think firmware is equivalent to a circuit if it is inside the
hardware and users don't install software there.

Here we are talking about firmware which users always do install.
(That is the reason why anyone would consider distributing it with an
operating system.)  So that is not equivalent to a circuit.

[Richard Stallman]

    >     http://torrent.gnome.org/
    >
    > Would you be so kind as to tell me the precise URLs where you
    > found those quotes?

That is a host; I figured it would have lots of pages.

Your message today hinted that maybe you meant the front page.
So I looked there, and found them there.  Thanks.

I will raise the issue with the Gnome developers, and I hope they
will change it.

[Richard Stallman]

    > In OpenBSD the recommendation for certain non-free programs
    > is in the recipes for installing them.
    >

    Oh, no URL?

I could ask someone to find a specific URL, but why take the trouble?
The OpenBSD developers have acknowledged that contains ports for
non-free programs.  There is no dispute about that question.

    In gNewsense the recommendation for certain non-free programs is in
    the _inclusion_ of such non-free parts in their distribution

You have not presented any evidence that there are non-free programs
in gNewSense.

If you could supply the URL of one, that would really change
something, because the gNewSense developers would get rid of it.

My supplying the URL or name of a non-free program's port in OpenBSD
would do no good, because the developers are happy to have such ports
and would not remove it.

I am not going to spend the time, or ask someone else to do so, just
for an idle request.  If the OpenBSD developers were to undertake to
remove such ports, then I would get you some names.

[Gilles Chehade-6]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:

>     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.
>
> The people who do searches for me are helpful volunteers.  I can ask
> them to look for something, but I try not to impose on them if there
> is an easier way.  For a question about OpenBSD policies, it is better
> for me to ask this list for the answer, than to ask someone else to
> hunt for the answer.
>
> Thanks for stating the policy.
>

Unlike your fellows we are not your helpful volunteers and it is a lack of
respect from you to assume our time is less precious than yours. If you do
want to learn about the policy and stop spreading lies and disinformation,
all you have to do is READ A DAMN PAGE that explains it all. I am not even
giving you that link again, I've done so several times in the last days. I
think that you need to take your fingers out of your ass and learn how you
can use them to type the url of a search engine.

People took time of their own to write pages which explain just the things
you want to know, the least you could do is to read instead of assuming.


> If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
> binary-only firmware, which isn't free.  This would be a second reason
> why I should not endorse OpenBSD.  The systems I endorse try to
> exclude such firmware.

Endorsment from the FSF and you means nothing, Mr Stallman. It's been far
obvious in this thread that you do not even know what you endorse and you
do not even have an opinion of your own.

It is just amazing that people trust your huge and bloated license, while
you don't seem to be able to even read a simple page. It makes one wonder
if you are really behind it or if it's your friends that wrote it and are
using you as their mascot.

Unless you take time to read the existing documentation, I think we don't
need to go further as you are clueless to any matter related to OpenBSD.

Gilles

--
Gilles Chehade

[Johan Beisser]

On Jan 7, 2008, at 3:31 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:

> If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
> binary-only firmware, which isn't free.  This would be a second reason
> why I should not endorse OpenBSD.  The systems I endorse try to
> exclude such firmware.

Then, sir, you're truly shit out of luck in endorsing any Linux kernel  
out there.

[Craig Skinner]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
> binary-only firmware, which isn't free.  This would be a second reason
> why I should not endorse OpenBSD.  The systems I endorse try to
> exclude such firmware.
>

Oh come on now THRUSH!!!!! You really are an irritating cunt.

Can't you read?????

The use of a search engine even by an imbecilic moron, such as yourself,
would have shown this page:

http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39

"OpenBSD remains blob-free"


You sack of lazy commie scum. Do you work for google?

[Marco Peereboom]

Alberto Gonzalez is that you?

On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 11:18:10PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>       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.

[Siju George]

On Jan 7, 2008 5:01 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
>
> If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
> binary-only firmware, which isn't free.  This would be a second reason
> why I should not endorse OpenBSD.  The systems I endorse try to
> exclude such firmware.
>
>

Yes but after your list of recommended OSes and Software please give a
list of Software and OSes you *actually use* for example like debian.

And also tell the people though I don't recommend them I still use
them and state the reson for using those.

That would be truthful.
The other one of just giving your recommended list and deceiving
people is just malice.

[Paul de Weerd]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:16AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
|     > 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
|
| No, that description refers to a different case.
|
|       so there is no ethics violation (whatever that means since
|     you refuse to explain it).  It is just like micro code and a circuit.
|
| I think firmware is equivalent to a circuit if it is inside the
| hardware and users don't install software there.
|
| Here we are talking about firmware which users always do install.
| (That is the reason why anyone would consider distributing it with an
| operating system.)  So that is not equivalent to a circuit.

Richard,

You say your actions are based on ethics. You recommend certain
systems (eg gNewSense) because they are 'ethical' and you do not
recommend others (eg OpenBSD) because they are not (they don't
behave), in your view, ethical.

Initially, you could not recommend OpenBSD because the ports system
"recommends" the use of non-free software. Despite the fact that many
here (on this list) do not consider this to be a "recommendation" I
agree that it is in line with your stated views. And even though your
views are to me (and many others on this list) in sharp contradiction
with your actions (supporting non-free systems in the copyleft
software packages GCC and Emacs), you consider these to be quite
different situations (yet you admit that supporting non-free systems
in free software and grants legitimacy to these non-free systems).

I'll repeat again here that I am not opposing supporting non-free
systems in free software packages.

Now you have found a second reason for not recommending OpenBSD. It
(legally) distributes binary firmwares for certain pieces of hardware.
Again, you make a distinction that many here say does not exist.

There's been a trend in hardware development. First, hardware was just
that : a couple of circuits connected on a pcb. Then, hardware got
"firmware", a small bit of unchangeable software the hardware vendor
integrated with the circuits. An upgrade of this firmware meant
replacing the circuit holding this firmware. We moved from ROMs to
EEPROMs, allowing people with specialized hardware to update this
firmware without replacing actual hardware. Next step was a piece of
non-volatile memory (flash memory of some sort) containing the
firmware, easier to upgrade but not always required (since the
hardware comes with firmware installed by default). Today, we see many
pieces of hardware with a small amount of RAM where the device driver
loads the firmware upon device attachment.

Lets have a close look at the case where firmware is stored in
non-volatile memory. You purchase an Intel EtherExpress PRO/100
network interface card. Firmware is in the hardware on a piece of
flash memory. Yet, this firmware can be upgraded and OpenBSD will
automatically do this if it detects older firmware on your NIC. You
can choose another operating system that does not upgrade the firmware
and the hardware may work fine for your use case. Should the firmware
be free software ? It's inside the hardware and on your other
operating system you are not installing software on it. Should
hardware vendors go back to non-user-upgradeable firmware so you can
recommend their hardware ? Even if the only reason they do it is
because they do not want to distribute the firmware as free software,
with full source under a permissive license yet still want your
endorsement ?

Your stance is that somewhere in this timeline of hardware development
ethics came into play. At first, firmware does not need to be free
software since it is hard for a user to change it (although determined
users can (and in the past have) change(d) the firmware ROMs by
themselves). Now that device drivers load firmware each time the
machine boots you consider it an ethical issue.

I conclude that what you consider ethical or not depends on how easy
something is to accomplish. However, ethics has nothing to do with
ease of action. To you it may be easy to copy software or to look at
the source code and understand what it does, to take it, change it,
and use it in its changed form. Very many computer users do not
consider this easy at all. To them, a computer is still some sort of
"magical device" enabling them to browse the internet, play a game or
use productivity software. Yet, these "computer illiterates" should
(according to your views) use free software because non-free software
is unethical. You want to educate the user about the ethics of free
software, give them freedoms they will not be able to exploit. This, I
think, is what your views are.

However, when people on this mailing list suggest that hardware should
be 'open' or 'free', you claim this is not necessary because it is not
easy to copy hardware. To you it may not be easy, just like "computer
illiterates" can not change source code of a piece of free software to
their liking. That does not change the ethics.

If you really apply your ethics so loosely, I have little respect for
them. You make a distinction between supporting non-free software
based on how easy it is to switch operating systems. You make a
distinction on the requirements for free source for firmwares based on
how easy it is to load this firmware. You make a distinction on whether
or not to use "open hardware" based on how easy it is to copy
hardware. All very convenient for your agenda, but it has very little
to do with ethics.

I consider it unethical to base ethical decisions on how easy
something is. In fact, I do not consider these ethical decisions at
all. It's all politics.

If my webserver is broken into by some mal-intended person, I don't
care if the webserver ran Windows and the break in was very easy or
OpenBSD where the break in was near impossible : I still consider it
unethical to break into my webserver. I may be at fault for using such
an insecure OS for a webserver but that doesn't change the ethics of
the break in.

Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

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

[Marco Peereboom]

dropped misc by accident

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:16AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     > 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
>
> No, that description refers to a different case.

No it does not.  During boot a Linux kernel will check AND UPDATE
microcode to CPUs if necessary.  It is exactly the same case.  You are
twisting the meaning around again.

>
>       so there is no ethics violation (whatever that means since
>     you refuse to explain it).  It is just like micro code and a circuit.
>
> I think firmware is equivalent to a circuit if it is inside the
> hardware and users don't install software there.

What you are saying is that hardware is hardware if it contains the
flash part.  If you have an identical piece of hardware that requires
OS assist to load the SAME firmware onto it it is software.  Which is
these a lot because flash is expensive and therefore you leave the
firmware on disk and load it at boot time.  The user has nothing to do
with this; he/she does not perform any actions.

It is probably time to go check all the FSF infrastructure because I bet
you'll find a lot of parts that require OS assist to load firmware.

>
> Here we are talking about firmware which users always do install.
> (That is the reason why anyone would consider distributing it with an
> operating system.)  So that is not equivalent to a circuit.

Then what is a circuit?

What did you study at MIT (not a mean questions I am honestly curious)?

Man you are hard to talk to.  You keep making stuff up and don't reply
to questions people ask you.  I even tried to ask you politely.

[Brian-79]

--- Stuart Henderson <stu@...> wrote:

> 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?

OpenBSD 4.2-current (GENERIC) #1: Sun Dec 30 18:50:44 MST 2007
    :/usr/src/sys/arch/amd64/compile/GENERIC
real mem = 1073278976 (1023MB)
avail mem = 1030647808 (982MB)
mainbus0 at root
bios0 at mainbus0: SMBIOS rev. 2.2 @ 0xf0000 (39 entries)
bios0: vendor Phoenix Technologies, LTD version "6.00 PG" date 02/17/2005
acpi0 at bios0: rev 0
acpi0: tables DSDT FACP MCFG APIC
acpi0: wakeup devices HUB0(S5) XVR0(S5) XVR1(S5) XVR2(S5) XVR3(S5) USB0(S3)
USB2(S3) MMAC(S5) MMCI(S5) UAR1(S5)
acpitimer0 at acpi0: 3579545 Hz, 24 bits
acpiprt0 at acpi0: bus 0 (PCI0)
acpiprt1 at acpi0: bus 1 (HUB0)
acpicpu0 at acpi0
acpitz0 at acpi0: critical temperature 70 degC
acpibtn0 at acpi0: PWRB
cpu0 at mainbus0: (uniprocessor)
cpu0: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3000+, 1808.54 MHz
cpu0:
FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SSE3,NXE,MMXX,FFXSR,LONG,3DNOW2,3DNOW
cpu0: 64KB 64b/line 2-way I-cache, 64KB 64b/line 2-way D-cache, 512KB 64b/line
16-way L2 cache
cpu0: ITLB 32 4KB entries fully associative, 8 4MB entries fully associative
cpu0: DTLB 32 4KB entries fully associative, 8 4MB entries fully associative
cpu0: AMD erratum 113 detected and fixed
cpu0: AMD erratum 89 present, BIOS upgrade may be required
pci0 at mainbus0 bus 0: configuration mode 1
"NVIDIA nForce4 DDR" rev 0xa3 at pci0 dev 0 function 0 not configured
pcib0 at pci0 dev 1 function 0 "NVIDIA nForce4 ISA" rev 0xa3
nviic0 at pci0 dev 1 function 1 "NVIDIA nForce4 SMBus" rev 0xa2
iic0 at nviic0
adt0 at iic0 addr 0x2e: sch5017 rev 0x89
spdmem0 at iic0 addr 0x50: 512MB DDR SDRAM non-parity PC3200CL2.5
spdmem1 at iic0 addr 0x51: 512MB DDR SDRAM non-parity PC3200CL2.5
iic1 at nviic0
adt1 at iic1 addr 0x2e: sch5017 rev 0x89
spdmem2 at iic1 addr 0x50: 512MB DDR SDRAM non-parity PC3200CL2.5
spdmem3 at iic1 addr 0x51: 512MB DDR SDRAM non-parity PC3200CL2.5
ohci0 at pci0 dev 2 function 0 "NVIDIA nForce4 USB" rev 0xa2: irq 5, version
1.0, legacy support
ehci0 at pci0 dev 2 function 1 "NVIDIA nForce4 USB" rev 0xa3: irq 10
usb0 at ehci0: USB revision 2.0
uhub0 at usb0 "NVIDIA EHCI root hub" rev 2.00/1.00 addr 1
auich0 at pci0 dev 4 function 0 "NVIDIA nForce4 AC97" rev 0xa2: irq 5, nForce4
AC97
ac97: codec id 0x414c4760 (Avance Logic ALC655 rev 0)
audio0 at auich0
pciide0 at pci0 dev 6 function 0 "NVIDIA nForce4 IDE" rev 0xa2: DMA, channel 0
configured to compatibility, channel 1 configured to compatibility
pciide0: channel 0 disabled (no drives)
atapiscsi0 at pciide0 channel 1 drive 0
scsibus0 at atapiscsi0: 2 targets
cd0 at scsibus0 targ 0 lun 0: <HL-DT-ST, DVDRAM GSA-4163B, A103> SCSI0 5/cdrom
removable
cd0(pciide0:1:0): using PIO mode 4, Ultra-DMA mode 2
pciide1 at pci0 dev 7 function 0 "NVIDIA nForce4 SATA" rev 0xa3: DMA
pciide1: using irq 11 for native-PCI interrupt
wd0 at pciide1 channel 0 drive 0: <WDC WD360GD-00FLA2>
wd0: 16-sector PIO, LBA48, 35304MB, 72303840 sectors
wd0(pciide1:0:0): using PIO mode 4, Ultra-DMA mode 5
wd1 at pciide1 channel 1 drive 0: <WDC WD3200KS-00PFB0>
wd1: 16-sector PIO, LBA48, 305245MB, 625142448 sectors
wd1(pciide1:1:0): using PIO mode 4, Ultra-DMA mode 5
pciide2 at pci0 dev 8 function 0 "NVIDIA nForce4 SATA" rev 0xa3: DMA
pciide2: using irq 10 for native-PCI interrupt
ppb0 at pci0 dev 9 function 0 "NVIDIA nForce4 PCI-PCI" rev 0xa2
pci1 at ppb0 bus 1
"ATI Rage XL" rev 0x27 at pci1 dev 5 function 0 not configured
"VIA VT6306 FireWire" rev 0x80 at pci1 dev 6 function 0 not configured
"Creative Labs SoundBlaster Audigy LS" rev 0x00 at pci1 dev 9 function 0 not
configured
skc0 at pci1 dev 10 function 0 "D-Link Systems DGE-530T A1" rev 0x11, Yukon
Lite (0x9): irq 5
sk0 at skc0 port A: address 00:15:e9:2e:28:e6
eephy0 at sk0 phy 0: Marvell 88E1011 Gigabit PHY, rev. 5
nfe0 at pci0 dev 10 function 0 "NVIDIA CK804 LAN" rev 0xa3: irq 11, address
00:e0:81:56:8f:67
eephy1 at nfe0 phy 1: Marvell 88E1111 Gigabit PHY, rev. 1
ppb1 at pci0 dev 11 function 0 "NVIDIA nForce4 PCIE" rev 0xa3
pci2 at ppb1 bus 2
ppb2 at pci0 dev 12 function 0 "NVIDIA nForce4 PCIE" rev 0xa3
pci3 at ppb2 bus 3
ppb3 at pci0 dev 13 function 0 "NVIDIA nForce4 PCIE" rev 0xa3
pci4 at ppb3 bus 4
bge0 at pci4 dev 0 function 0 "Broadcom BCM5721" rev 0x11, BCM5750 B1 (0x4101):
irq 11, address 00:e0:81:56:8f:66
brgphy0 at bge0 phy 1: BCM5750 10/100/1000baseT PHY, rev. 0
ppb4 at pci0 dev 14 function 0 "NVIDIA nForce4 PCIE" rev 0xa3
pci5 at ppb4 bus 5
vga1 at pci5 dev 0 function 0 "NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT" rev 0xa2
wsdisplay0 at vga1 mux 1: console (80x25, vt100 emulation)
wsdisplay0: screen 1-5 added (80x25, vt100 emulation)
pchb0 at pci0 dev 24 function 0 "AMD AMD64 HyperTransport" rev 0x00
pchb1 at pci0 dev 24 function 1 "AMD AMD64 Address Map" rev 0x00
pchb2 at pci0 dev 24 function 2 "AMD AMD64 DRAM Cfg" rev 0x00
pchb3 at pci0 dev 24 function 3 "AMD AMD64 Misc Cfg" rev 0x00
isa0 at pcib0
isadma0 at isa0
com0 at isa0 port 0x3f8/8 irq 4: ns16550a, 16 byte fifo
com1 at isa0 port 0x2f8/8 irq 3: ns16550a, 16 byte fifo
pckbc0 at isa0 port 0x60/5
pckbd0 at pckbc0 (kbd slot)
pckbc0: using irq 1 for kbd slot
wskbd0 at pckbd0: console keyboard, using wsdisplay0
pmsi0 at pckbc0 (aux slot)
pckbc0: using irq 12 for aux slot
wsmouse0 at pmsi0 mux 0
pcppi0 at isa0 port 0x61
midi0 at pcppi0: <PC speaker>
spkr0 at pcppi0
lpt0 at isa0 port 0x378/4 irq 7
fdc0 at isa0 port 0x3f0/6 irq 6 drq 2
usb1 at ohci0: USB revision 1.0
uhub1 at usb1 "NVIDIA OHCI root hub" rev 1.00/1.00 addr 1
softraid0 at root
root on wd0a swap on wd0b dump on wd0b
auich0: measured ac97 link rate at 48005 Hz, will use 48000 Hz


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

On Jan 7, 2008 9:19 PM, Craig Skinner <craig.skinner@...> wrote:

> Oh come on now THRUSH!!!!! You really are an irritating cunt.
>
> Can't you read?????
>
> The use of a search engine even by an imbecilic moron, such as yourself,
> would have shown this page:
>
> http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39
>
> "OpenBSD remains blob-free"
>
>
> You sack of lazy commie scum. Do you work for google?

Name-calling was awesome...when I was 10 years old.
Seriously, can we PLEASE let this fucking thread die? Having the last
word on a mailing list flamewar is meaningless.
You're not going to change RMS opinions on anything and he's not going
to change the opinion of anyone here.
It doesn't matter what I or anyone else here think of his ideas or how
hypocritical they may be or even if he was wrong or right. We're WAY past
the point where that mattered.
For everyones sanity just leave it alone.

---
Lars Hansson

[Andrés Delfino]

On Jan 7, 2008 8:31 AM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
> You have not presented any evidence that there are non-free programs
> in gNewSense.

gNewsSense bugs 31, 100, 103, 108:

31: license problems - cdrecord (no open date)
http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00031

100: Helix Player recommends nonfree software (open since 20070708)
http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00100

103: Xfree86 includes software under non-free licenses (open since
20070718)
http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00103

108: cdrtools package suspected not to be free (open since 20070815)
http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00108

Open, Richard, means that this issues have not been resolved.

Greetings!

[j4nKy]

On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 05:55:52AM -0600, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:

> 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.

maybe, but that's not the point.

the logic of the system is much more closely tied to the logic
of the founder of that system than the logic of a figurehead
that was appointed long after the creation of the system.

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

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

[Dusty-7]

equating firmwares with blobs is an RMS-thing, it enables him to destroy the
good by comparing it to the perfect
Firmware runs on the hardware, not in the kernel.

On Jan 7, 2008 1:31 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:

>    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.
>
> The people who do searches for me are helpful volunteers.  I can ask
> them to look for something, but I try not to impose on them if there
> is an easier way.  For a question about OpenBSD policies, it is better
> for me to ask this list for the answer, than to ask someone else to
> hunt for the answer.
>
> Thanks for stating the policy.
>
> If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
> binary-only firmware, which isn't free.  This would be a second reason
> why I should not endorse OpenBSD.  The systems I endorse try to
> exclude such firmware.

[Oscar Knight]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> My supplying the URL or name of a non-free program's port in OpenBSD
> would do no good, because the developers are happy to have such ports
> and would not remove it.
>
> I am not going to spend the time, or ask someone else to do so, just
> for an idle request.  If the OpenBSD developers were to undertake to
> remove such ports, then I would get you some names.

Please help me understand the issue.

You stated that the research has already been done.  It was done before
the interview, that's why you made the statement.  You must have one or
more examples of non-free program's in OpenBSD's ports.  If you don't
have the list then surely your research assistant has the list.  I would
like to review the license for these non-free programs.  I want to learn
and understand the issues.

Oscar

[Jacob Yocom-Piatt-2]

Marco Peereboom wrote:
> Alberto Gonzalez is that you?
>
>  


at least in this case the excuse is somewhat valid, as richard is
certainly old enough for the claim of "i cannot recall" to hold water.
perhaps he should see a doctor about this?

in the case that richard is not in the initial stages of senility, he
really should be a good boy and do his homework before he posts. if i
were to post such misinformed inflammatory statements as richard has
recently i would expect that my audience would lose confidence in my
ability to lead. this is not leadership-grade behavior or rhetoric and
if you expect to be regarded of any kind of leader you should suck it
up, admit your follies, and, at the very least, exit the discussion
since this is not your list.

the FSF must be very proud to have such a distinguished over-the-hill
habitual error maker and social "genius" among their ranks! talk about
an off-balance-sheet asset :P

> On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 11:18:10PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>  
>>       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.

[Matthew Dempsky-3]

On 1/7/08, Craig Skinner <craig.skinner@...> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:31:11AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >
> > If I understand that correctly, it means that OpenBSD does distribute
> > binary-only firmware, which isn't free.  This would be a second reason
> > why I should not endorse OpenBSD.  The systems I endorse try to
> > exclude such firmware.
> >
>
> Oh come on now THRUSH!!!!! You really are an irritating cunt.
>
> Can't you read?????
>
> The use of a search engine even by an imbecilic moron, such as yourself,
> would have shown this page:
>
> http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39
>
> "OpenBSD remains blob-free"

You're confused.  RMS is commenting on the contents of OpenBSD's
/etc/firmware directory, not on its kernel's device drivers.

[Richard Stallman]

    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".

The evidence of this discussion shows that's not a good description
for what I am saying.  Many of the people on this list were told that
I want OpenBSD to "erect barriers against" installing non-free
programs.  And their words show that they think this means designing
the system so that installing non-free programs is impossible.  (I
have not suggested such a thing.)

My usage of the "recommend" fits in normal usage.  If you include
program FOO in a list of programs that could be installed, implicitly
that recommends installing FOO as an option for people to consider.

Perhaps "implicitly recommend" would be a clearer description of this
particular case.