Real men don't attack straw men

[Dusty-7]

I have had a short term memory problem almost my whole life. I have been on
medication because of it. This means I find it almost impossible to learn to
code and have to re-read any documentation when I have to do even the
simplest task.
I've been using openbsd for about 10 years now. Whenever up upgrade it,
reinstall it, or do any normal maintenance on it I have to re-read the FAQ
and other documentation. I even have a P3 i reinstall every -release just to
keep in the habit.
My point is I would die, or explode, or just cease to exist if I had to rely
on others to do my research.
I live in South Africa where internet services lack like nowhere else on
earth.
I can still google. I'm even pretty good at it.
Richard, you have no excuse. The government are not interested in you, I
promise. If i can do it so can you. I encourage you, try it once. Just try
it one time. You'll love it!! All the pretty pictures and big words!!!
If a big black van rolls up outside your house and people with guns and
sunglasses, in suits, get out .. well .. I'll publicly apologise for being
wrong. But i doubt that'll happen.
http://www.google.com
http://www.google.com/bsd
go on, click it, you know you want to!!!

On Jan 7, 2008 11:40 PM, Marc Balmer <mbalmer@...> wrote:

> Dusty wrote:
>
> > WHY, please really, tell me WHY you do not do your own research.
> Everybody
> > on this list would LOVE to know why you do not do any of your own
> > research?!?!?!?!!?
>
> Honestly I am not interested why this moron does not do any research.
> He seems to be a case for the psychiatrists.

[Tobias Weingartner-3]

In gmane.os.openbsd.misc, you 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.

Try or Do?  So, if we try, and I think the OpenBSD record speaks for
itself on that front, we are ethical?  When we try to get the docs,
and fail, and fall back to a binary blob that happens to be licensed
in such a way that we can redistribute it, and that happens to come
with documentation on how to interface to it, we are ethical?  As long
as we try?  But if the binary blob is licensed appropriately (able to
redistribute/etc), and we don't try to get the source code to the blob,
we're not ethical anymore?  By following the law, we're not ethical?


If I get this right, binary == not free?  Even if a license allows you
to redistribute and/or do anything you want with it?  What exactly does
"free" mean to you?


I'm so lost.

-Toby.
--
 [100~Plax]sb16i0A2172656B63616820636420726568746F6E61207473754A[dZ1!=b]salax

[Tobias Weingartner-3]

In gmane.os.openbsd.misc, you 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.

Please do what all researchers do.  State the origin of where you got
your research.  Please stop plagarising all those people that do this
work for you, and start giving references as to where and from whom
you are using this research from.


>  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.

That is one of the problems wrt using sources and not being able to
reference them.  Anyone worth their salt will make sure that their
research is sound, and that the research they base their conclusions
and their own research on is also sound.  Something about a deck of
cards and building a house out of them...


-Toby.
--
 [100~Plax]sb16i0A2172656B63616820636420726568746F6E61207473754A[dZ1!=b]salax

[William Boshuck]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:14:59PM -0500, Richard Salmon wrote:

>     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.

Once again:  Likewise, the inclusion of platform BAR in a list
of platforms on which a program FOO may be installed, as well
as the availability of binaries for the FOO to run on BAR,
implicitly recommends BAR as a choice of platform on which to
run FOO, for people and/or enterprises to consider.  (Those
who would know have informed us that such a situation for
gcc and emacs has prompted numerous migrations to Windows. So
far nobody has informed us of numerous migrations from free
software to non-free software prompted by the ports tree.)

In each case "recommends" is inaccurate insofar as its content
partakes of encouragement and the like.  It has been pointed
out, some time ago and on at least two occasions, that the most
accurate way to describe the situation is to say that the ports
tree facilitates the installation and maintenance of third party
software, not all of which is free.  It is clear to anybody who
knows what is the ports tree that it is the most accurate
description.

Of course it is a separate matter to want to use an accurate
description (even if it is short, clear and not technical).

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, you did admit
> I should more precisely have said that the OpenBSD ports system
> includes instructions for fetching, building and installing
> specific non-free programs.
(in: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119757178526484).

Then, on Fri, 14 Dec 2007, you did promise
> As a courtesy to the OpenBSD developers, and avoid the risk
> of confusion, I will try from now on to state this in a more
> precise way.
(in: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119767255302887).

[Sunnz]

2008/1/8, Richard Stallman <rms@...>:
>     Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard Stallman and the
>     FSF for OpenBSD?
>
> If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
> should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.
>
>

I don't think _anyone_ have ever argued that you owe them an
endorsement here, and I don't think anyone care at all!!! What
everybody is argue what the things you _said_ about OpenBSD.

0, They don't like OpenBSD to be called non-free.

1, They don't like it when you say OpenBSD { includes, contains,
recommends, suggests} non-free software.

2, They do not agree what the mere inclusion of url and receipt to
build and maintain non-free software is in anyway of  { including,
containing, recommending, suggesting} the actual non-free software
itself.

3, They do not consider that the firmware to be part of their
software, but rather the part of a device that runs by itself
separated from the rest of the system.

You probably have never done #0, but when you are doing #1 people do
think of you doing #0.

You are doing #1 because of #2... but unless you can convince people
about #2 and #3, we will always be endlessly argue on things based on
those 2 disagreement.

You should either accept that people are not going to agree with you
on #2 and #3, or find better ways to convince them... otherwise we are
not going to go anywhere, other than having a flame-fest then go home
and believe whatever you believed before.

--
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

[Steve Shockley]

Jason Dixon wrote:
>> Everybody
>> on this list would LOVE to know why you do not do any of your own
>> research?!?!?!?!!?
>
> Plausible deniability.

More like deniable plausibility.

[Siju George]

On Jan 8, 2008 3:10 AM, Marc Balmer <mbalmer@...> wrote:
> Dusty wrote:
>
> > WHY, please really, tell me WHY you do not do your own research. Everybody
> > on this list would LOVE to know why you do not do any of your own
> > research?!?!?!?!!?
>
> Honestly I am not interested why this moron does not do any research.
> He seems to be a case for the psychiatrists.
>

In my first mail itself I requested him to check for

1) Bipolar Disorder
2) Hypothyroidism

And I was serious!

[Reid Nichol]

--- Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
>     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.
>
> I don't think so -- that is too much to ask.  In any area, the
> meaning of freedom involves filling in details which are not
> obvious in advance.  It seems simple while you stay at the abstract
> level; it becomes hard when you address the details.

You're confusing full understanding with an intuitive meaning.  People
can "get" what's going on at a high level, without having a "wtf" when
looking at the details, because the spirit of "free" is retained.  The
details merely being the implements.

But, with your usage, this is not retained, AGAIN, see below.

>     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.
>
> Under the usual interpretation of the revised BSD license, this is
> straightforward.  You put the revised BSD license on your file, you
> package it with the source of the GPL-covered library, and you
> release it all.  The combination, as a whole, is under the GNU GPL,
> but anyone can use code from your file under the revised BSD license.
>
> This is lawful because the revised BSD license permits users to
> release the combination under the GPL.

Thus the combined work, THE WHOLE POINT OF WRITING IT, is under the
GPL.  That IS what you just said.  Which is forcing me into a license
for my project that I don't want.  How does that equal freedom for me
again?

Are you deliberately missing the point?

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]

--- 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.
>
> There is nothing to reconcile -- you have combined two statements
> about two different things, so the resulting contradiction didn't
> come from me.

You said:
"""
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.
"""

But, we have seen very much inaccuracy from things that you've said was
researched.  I recall OpenSolaris being among them in this thread.
This is something that you've had to go back, check on and change, etc.
 This means that your research methods are inefficient because you have
to do them over and over.

Wow, look at that!  The two statements are actually related!


> When I want research, I ask people to do it.  That is efficient, and
> we have not seen any errors in it.

See above.  I will also recommend that you re-read much of this thread
because there are... many more examples.


> In the case of AROS, it's possible I did not ask anyone to do
> research.  I might have just taken the developers' word that the
> system is free.  It was years ago and I do not know what happened.

\begin{sarcasm}
Taking someone's word for it.  Yah, that's responsible...
\end{sarcasm}

Btw, not keeping an endorsement list up to date is wildly irresponsible
for a person in your position.  If you don't have the time or energy to
maintain a list, then don't have one.


> However, most of these problems had nothing to do with quality of
> research, because they did not arise until after I had decided to
> endorse a program.

I want you to seriously think about this statement and why it is
horribly wrong.  Consider it homework in critical thinking.  Something
which you sorely need.


> Research can only check the present, not the
> future.  For instance, the reference to unrar on BLAG's site was in a
> wiki; it was posted by a user in the recent past.  (It is possible
> that this happened with AROS too.)  Likewise for the GNU/Darwin
> problem.  I think this occurred in several others too.

If you're checking wiki sites instead of reading the licenses
themselves?!?!?  Just stunning.


> My conclusion is that I should do more detailed discussions with the
> developers of the FSF-endorsed systems about these specific possible
> problems and how to avoid them.

What, like actually do research?  Are you sure you're up to it?

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]

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

>     Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard
> Stallman and the
>     FSF for OpenBSD?
>
> If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
> should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.


What planet are you on?

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

[Shane J Pearson-2]

On 06/01/2008, at 9:47 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> 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.

You know that saying, "if you want something done right, you do it  
yourself"?

I'd be adhering to that, especially in cases where I put forth such  
controversial opinion in such a public display. Such an outspoken  
person should be well informed, lest he keeps choking on his own toe  
jam.


Are you too good for Google?

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Run+GNOME+in+a+VMWare+Player+in+a+Linux+virtual+machine.+site%3Atorrent.gnome.org

If you'd even bothered to go to the front page already quoted to you,  
you'd notice that that is where it is.

[Jan Stary]

On Jan 08 00:13:19, Reid Nichol wrote:
> --- Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
> >     Quick question, do we really need an endorsement from Richard
> >     Stallman and the FSF for OpenBSD?
> >
> > If OpenBSD does not need my endorsement, then OpenBSD developers
> > should not need to argue with me that I owe them an endorsement.

Are you deaf or what? NOBODY CARES whether you "endorse" (or
"recommend"? or "suggest"?) OpenBSD, nobody asks for that, and nobody
wants it. OpenBSD's goals and policies are clearly stated on the
project's web page, and whether they are consistent with "being on RMS's
list" is a non-issue on here, at best.

You have made your non-point a THOUSAND TIMES already: OpenBSD
has a ports system, which lets you install non-free software.
(that's true, and nobody has a problem with that; unlike your
medialized statement that obsd contains non-free software).

So having made your non-point, why don't go away now?
No really, WHY?

[Janne Johansson-2]

L wrote:
> 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.  
>
> The GNG foundation speaks of free as in sex,  not cost.

Ah, like playing flipper: If you do it well, you dont have to pay the
second time?

[Siju George]

On Jan 8, 2008 5:09 PM, Janne Johansson <jan.johansson@...> wrote:
> L wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > The GNG foundation speaks of free as in sex,  not cost.
>

Yup! Free SEX can cost you your life some times!
Especially now when you have those preventive things with the virus
already in it.

but it rhymes GnewSex, GnewSense!

[Andrés Delfino]

"Gobuntu also has the problem that its name is so close to Ubuntu that
people would get them confused. Practically speaking it is not
feasible to recommend Gobuntu without recommending Ubuntu."

But you _do_ recommend _Linux_ even when "Torvalds' version of Linux
is not free software"! And let me put this perfectly clear to you:
Linus Torvalds develops _Linux_. Period. GNU/Linux means GNU
(http://gnu.org/ packages, free software) and Linux
(http://kernel.org/, non-free software). GNU promotes itself with a
non-free software kernel, they don't even change one letter of it.
Because _Linux_, is popular.

Richard, in case you didn't know, _almost all_ Linux users (yes, I
don't care if they run GNU or don't) run "Torvald's version" (also
known as "Linux" because it is the official "version"). So you are not
doing any good to them if you use the them "GNU/Linux", you're not
sending a message to stop using Torvald's version which _is_ non-free
software.

I can see you trying to come with some argument to keep Linux (the
registered trademark) as your flag, because you're nothing without it.
Nothing. Face it. Real men don't depend on names nor mascots. Go
promote gNewSense and remove any mention of Linux in stallman.org,
fsf.org and gnu.org, because you, and the Free Software Foundation are
_promoting_ (as in the dictionary entry) non-free software.

So please, ask someone to change the "Free Software Free Society"
message to remove this part:

"Fortunately, people do not have to assent to these restrictions on
their freedom. Instead, they can reject Microsoft Windows Vista in
favor of a free software operating system, now widely used and
available in a form called **GNU/Linux**."

Here is the link:
http://badvista.fsf.org/freesoftwarefreesociety/free-software-free-society/

If you don't have ethics, if you think in numbers, then you will
mostly ignore this message with a childish argument. But if you do,
start again, completely disassociate from the name "Linux", and
clearly state in your Web sites (gnu.org, stallman.org, fsf.org) why
you are doing that.

_That_ would help free software users.

Greetings!

[Eric Furman-3]

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 05:47:10 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <rms@...>
said:

>     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.

It is not a recommendation. This has already been explained to you
many many times. It is only a recommendation in your
deluded twisted mind. Now please shut up and go away.

[Eric Furman-3]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 21:52:18 +0530, "Karthik Kumar"
<karthikkumar@...> said:

> > 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?

Yes, but do you?
It's called *FREEDOM*. Your analogy in no way
encourages or endorses cigarette smoking.
But for a better analogy the cigarette pack is not there.
There is just a URL to a page with the cigarette pack.
Now go away you stupid f***** troll.

[Eric Furman-3]

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 13:09:42 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <rms@...>
said:

> > >         - 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?

You've already had this explained to you you effing moron.
Firmware != part of OS
Now please go away.

[Eric Furman-3]

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:18:10 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <rms@...>
said:
>       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.

You haven't explained anything. You've just twisted words.
Now please STFU and go away. You are irrelevant.

[Siju George]

On Jan 9, 2008 12:36 AM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:

>    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.
>
> I use gNewSense.


Nothing else?
Be Frank.