Richard Stallman...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
72 messages Options
1234
L-9
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Richard Stallman...

L-9
Lars NoodC)n wrote:

> L wrote:
>  
>> ...
>> The first time I heard cult mentioned was when people were complaining
>> about open bsd being a cult of open bsd followers, or mean rude cult
>> members...
>>    
>
> I assume you are talking about this dreadful thread.
>
>  
...
> Outside this thread the first time I heard cults mentioned was back in
> the late 1990's in the context of the M$ boosters.
>
>
> -Lars
>
>
>  
Sorry.. yes I meant the first time I heard the 'cult' mentioned relating
to openbsd...

The first time outside this thread I heard of the word cult was when I
was in Religion class in school. I didn't like religion class... but I
have to admit the warnings they gave me about cults in religion class
were very helpful... because it is coming in handy when I study GNU. It
was hilarious in class to watch videos of what type of cults were out
there.. but now that I look at GNU I laugh every time I see it.

By the way.. you stole my name!
That's why I have 505 tacked on to the end.. so people can differentiate
me from all the fraudulent Lars' out there like yourself!

Regards,
Lars (L505)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Richard Stallman...

Koh Choon Lin-3
Is the FSF preparing to treat OBSD as one of the free OS they recommend?


--
Regards
Koh Choon Lin
<a href="http://profiles.friendster.com/42928535">"Best Teacher in
Singapore"</a>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Richard Stallman...

Richard Stallman
In reply to this post by Johan Beisser
    > I doubt I would have looked at the AROS web site myself.  To find out
    > the status of the BSD systems, recently, I asked the FSF staff to
    > check for me.

    Wait, you have someone else do the research, and this persons opinions  
    get reflected in what you say?

Absolutely.  FSF staff checked the BSD versions and told me what
found.  I do not redo their work after they do it; I trust that they
did it well.

Their report about OpenBSD was accurate.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Richard Stallman...

Richard Stallman
In reply to this post by Sunnz
    Dude... it is on the "endorsement list" on gnu.org you talked about in
    the beginning how you cannot include OpenBSD in it...

    http://gnu.org/links/links.html

Thank you.  Now I know where to remove the link if it comes to that.

    I have a feeling that list is maintained by your 'FSF staff' and you
    don't have much of an idea of what's included in it?

I don't personally do most of our web site maintenance, of course.
But I take responsibility for removing this link if it should not be
there.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Richard Stallman...

Gilles Chehade-6
In reply to this post by Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 12:56:08AM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 12:34:45PM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote:
> > > > According to YOU, it is okay to have emacs and gcc run on a proprietary
> > > > system as it allows more people to run free software. How is it that it
> > > > is wrong to allow more people to run a free system by giving them links
> > > > to proprietary software if it encourages them to keep their free system
> > > > instead of switching to a proprietary one ?
> > >
> > > 1) ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/ isn't "links"
> > ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/ only contains software that can legally
> > be redistributed, not to mention that it is a repository for
> > software that a user *explicitely* installs, not something that
> > is part of the OS.
>
> Yes. But even if it's legally redistributable, the question remains
> wether it's free software or not.
>
> Fortunately OpenBSD is Free Software. Unfortunately it recommends and
> distributes proprietary software on it's servers (and it wasn't because
> some user wrote some text on a wiki page).
>

No this is bullshit. OpenBSD does not recommend proprietary software. We
have a repository of software that is legally redistributable and that
users can install from, but it is a convenience and not a recommandation.


> > > 2) using more free software is better than not running it at all
> > > 3) incentivating usage of non-free software on free software operating
> > >    systems doesn't incentivate the creation of free software replacements
> >
> > this is a word play. I know people who used OpenBSD for a while
> > and stopped using it because a proprietary application they
> > depended on was not available; and i know people who would use
> > Linux/OpenBSD/whatever if emacs/gcc were not available and made
> > so easy to use on Windows, because gcc is centric to their
> > business and emacs integrates it so well.
>
> Now THIS is wordplay and pure speculation.
> If GCC wasn't available or made so easy to use, they'd merely use another
> one. The reason they don't use a Free Software operating system as nothing
> to do with the availability of GCC.
>

No it is not, it is based on my and other people experiences.

There are many businesses that rely on gcc because it is the only good
compiler for the architecture they need to cross compile to. Switching
to another compiler is hard because it either isn't good enough, does
not cross compile to that arch, or costs lots of money.

If they have to chose between keeping Windows, which is not centric to
their business, or keeping gcc, upon each they heavily rely, they will
have their developers switch to linux or any other system JUST to keep
their compiler. Most people need their work done prior to any other
consideration.


> Mostly its some stupid reason like managemente dictates usage of tool X
> which only works on Windows, for instance.
>

No, it can range from money reasons to features reasons. gcc is probably
the only compiler that *every* coder knows about and it has features
that are not easily found in other compilers if you leave the road of
regular-every-user usage.


> > If the proprietary application was available, the lost openbsd
> > users would be using *far more* free applications than the ones
> > that are currently using emacs/gcc on Windows.
>
> Only if they were using it like those sissy pseudo-fans of Free Software
> which changed to Apple MacOS X just because it's "unix" (erms...) and
> pretty, and works and has the apps.
>

It looks like you never had a job ...
Most people need their work done and use a computer to help them doing it,
if they use a system that prevents them from doing their job, they switch
to another system that lets them do so. If you were my employee and you'd
come to me saying that you can't finish the work because OpenBSD does not
have a feature that Linux has, yet you refuse to use Linux, I'd sack you.
And i'm not a Linux fan .. at all.


> > > 4) FYI I think the wine project is counter-productive as it enables
> > >    running non-free software on free software operating systems, and as
> > >    such de-incentivates the creation of replacements.
> > > 4.1) but it's free software and its authors have their own independence.
> >
> > I don't follow the wine project and I don't know how well it works,
> > but getting Windows applications to run under a free system looks
> > very productive to me. It means that I can remove Windows from my
> > workstation without preventing my girlfriend from doing her work
> > or changing her habits. And as a strange side-effect, she would be
> > using a free system and many other free utilities.
>
> There needs to be "soul" into the decision, or else it's just like
> choosing clothing. Does she use OpenBSD because she wants to use a Free
> Software operating system? If so, what have you done to help her get rid
> of her dependency on proprietary software?
>

I did not do anything to help her get rid of her dependency on proprietary
software, this is not my goal. My goal is that I can run OpenBSD on my
desktop as the main system without preventing her from doing her account
balances, refilling her proprietary ipod, checking her mail on hotmail and
chatting with her friend on proprietary msn. It turns out that most of this
works but her flash experience is awful, that's why I add a dual boot so
that if she needs to do something that isn't working properly under OpenBSD
she can use a tool that's better fitted. I have my computer usage and goals
while she doesn't care and just wants things to work.


> Will she keep using it if (let's hope not) you ever break up?
>

Hopefully not. OpenBSD/Linux is not the right tool for her.


> > > > By providing emacs and gcc for windows you encourage people to run just
> > > > a few free applications with proprietary system and (many) tools, while
> > > > we just give people the freedom to install a proprietary application on
> > > > top of a free system with free tools.
> > >
> > > Look, OpenBSD is aggressive enough that people who "need" such non-free
> > > software likely won't even run it on OpenBSD, so what you're saying is
> > > that to the convenience of a few people who don't care for freedom of
> > > all users, you distribute non-free software.
> >
> > I have not said such a thing and you are playing words again to prove
> > some point. If an OpenBSD user needs a package for work and does not
> > find it, he will switch to another system because he needs his work done.
>
> Maybe for the desktop case, but then you have a whole sleuth of problems
> which users have a harder time dealing with than some software (like
> hardware support which in part because of NDA development *puah*
> supports a few more hardware).
>

Well, I know of people that will switch system because they want their
hardware fully supported, and others that don't. This is a personnal
call. I am writing this from a desktop that has two wide screens, two
graphical cards, yet I don't dual screen because it would require me
to use a blob under Linux. I accept to not use my second screen for
now until there's a solution to this.


> > The packages in our ftp are packages we are legally allowed to distribute
> > and are not part of the system. Users need to explicitely install them if
> > they want so.
> >
> > Now, please, I suggest you get familiar with the goals and policy pages
> > because you tend to mix OpenBSD goals with the ones from the FSF.
>
> Nopes, for what I read they're mostly the same, and these clear cut
> proprietary cases are hysterically extreme points of view.
>

Nope, they are not the same. We do not care our users using proprietary
software if it helps them do their work, we don't care if a company takes
our code, modifies it, and does not gives us back the changes. We do what
we do because we love what we do, not to change the world, not because we
believe that code has to be ethical (I still don't get what that means).


> > > > > Anyways, most of your emails have been so rude that in afterthought I
> > > > > shouldn't even "honour" you with a reply.
> > > >
> > > > I try hard to keep my emails insult-free, saying that they are rude for
> > > > helping you avoid embarassing questions is what makes you a troll. Just
> > > > like your friend Stallman, you play on words and act like a victim if a
> > > > person points at the flaws in your reasonning, grow up.
> > >
> > > No, I am a victim and your (generically, not specifically you) attitude
> > > actually makes my relation with OpenBSD very frustrating.
> >
> > It saddens me, but your (that's you and mr Stallman) attitude is very
> > irritating. I would suggest, for the benefit of all, that you both leave
> > as it would lessen your frustration and my irritation ...
>
> All I can speak for, is for myself: if I use OpenBSD because I like its
> feature set, and if I deploy it as I can... that's the kind of user you
> want to go away? I'd say you're better off cancelling the project, if it
> depended on you.
>

Most users aren't irritating :-)

--
Gilles Chehade

L-9
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Richard Stallman...

L-9
In reply to this post by Richard Stallman
Richard Stallman wrote:
> I don't personally do most of our web site maintenance, of course.
> But I take responsibility for removing this link if it should not be
> there.
>  
Can you tell the FSF web programmers to do more checking for HTML/SQL
injection vulnerabilities?
I have found a vulnerability with your FSF search engine.

http://z505.com/gng/fsf-gnu-site-easy-to-hack.htm

Your programmers should check POST/GET variables and in many cases only
allow alpha numeric characters in by default. Not through javascript but
at the server side during processing. Your search engine allows bad
characters in.. ones that can damage the site or cause malicious theft
of logins or other data through cross site scripting.. by embedding
forms/input boxes into the site that post to another domain.

In the framework I develop, this problem is secured by default...
The functions I use for getting a post/get variables, trim malicious
attempts..  while the programmer can choose to use the insecure non
default raw function if he really needs to:
http://z505.com/cgi-bin/powtils/docs/1.6/idx.cgi?file=getcgivar&unit=pwumain
http://z505.com/cgi-bin/powtils/docs/1.6/idx.cgi?file=getcgivar_s&unit=pwumain

I suggest your web programmers read up on how to secure web programs by
reading about what my GetCgiVar functions do, or by finding articles on
the net that explain how you have to filter/check each incoming POST/GET
request carefully each time.

I would have sent this privately to you, but many people will find this
security info useful and  humorous. It is my duty to teach people about
web security, and only privately mailing you would mean thousands of
people that read this list would miss out on learning about HTML
injection. Plenty of large popular websites I visit are insecure in this
very manner.

Since this vulnerability is unfortunately exposed publicly.. fixing it
before too many people notice it would be good.

Regards,
L505

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Richard Stallman...

Dusty
In reply to this post by Richard Stallman
So the FSF told you "OpenBSD contains non-free software" and you said
EXACTLY what they told you on the talk?
So the FSF are hypocrites and liars!

On Jan 6, 2008 12:46 PM, Richard Stallman <[hidden email]> wrote:

>    > I doubt I would have looked at the AROS web site myself.  To find out
>    > the status of the BSD systems, recently, I asked the FSF staff to
>    > check for me.
>
>    Wait, you have someone else do the research, and this persons opinions
>    get reflected in what you say?
>
> Absolutely.  FSF staff checked the BSD versions and told me what
> found.  I do not redo their work after they do it; I trust that they
> did it well.
>
> Their report about OpenBSD was accurate.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Richard Stallman...

Johan Beisser
In reply to this post by Richard Stallman
On Jan 6, 2008, at 2:46 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:

> Absolutely.  FSF staff checked the BSD versions and told me what
> found.  I do not redo their work after they do it; I trust that they
> did it well.
>
> Their report about OpenBSD was accurate.

Except, sir, at some point, someone made a mistake. And this mistake  
has blown up in to this thread with this ongoing argument. Their  
report was either not as accurate as you seem to think, or you're very  
badly expressing the contents of the report (which has not been made  
available to the OpenBSD community).

Yes, the port system allows easy installation of "non-free" and "non-
opensource" software. It does so no less easily than Debians Apt,  
Redhat's RPM, and other package repositories built for any Linux based  
distribution that distributes on the Internet.

Packages ARE free for distribution, or they wouldn't be available on  
the FTP site, the CDROM, or distributed at all. If they are not,  
they're no included. Period.

Someone on your staff is a lazy little punk and permitted their own  
bias to be reflected in your words. In the end, what you said is still  
what's on record.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Richard Stallman...

Richard Stallman
In reply to this post by L-9
    Can you tell the FSF web programmers to do more checking for HTML/SQL
    injection vulnerabilities?

I know nothing about that issue, but I will forward your message.
Teaching the public about this issue is a good thing to.
However, the way you did it was predictably bad.

By publishing it, and telling only me--not anyone who could fix
it--you made sure a day would go by when others know about the problem
but our sysadmins did not.  It would have been better practice to tell
our sysadmins privately first, and give them a couple of days to do
something before educating the public.

I hope that you have not arranged in effect to cause our web site
to be attacked.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Richard Stallman...

Johan Beisser
On Jan 6, 2008, at 8:18 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> By publishing it, and telling only me--not anyone who could fix
> it--you made sure a day would go by when others know about the problem
> but our sysadmins did not.  It would have been better practice to tell
> our sysadmins privately first, and give them a couple of days to do
> something before educating the public.
>
> I hope that you have not arranged in effect to cause our web site
> to be attacked.
>

Most likely, attacks are automated and already have scanned and  
compromised the systems vulnerable. In this case, prevention is a  
matter of using good cgi coding practices.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Puffy 'Wizard of OS' (Was: Re: Richard Stallman...)

Kenneth Ismert
In reply to this post by Kenneth Ismert
Eric Furman wrote:

> Yea, it was the artwork that attracted me to OpenBSD,
> not all the hard work that was put in creating good,
> clean, secure code. :-)  (no offense Ken).
> Thanks again Theo and all the other devs.


None taken. The quality of the OpenBSD effort goes without saying,
although thanks are appropriate and needed from time to time -- thanks!

Beyond the practical criteria, I also looked at the ideals and culture
of the BSD projects before settling on OpenBSD.

Any voluntary choice of an OS is done for emotional reasons, above and
beyond the logical ones we like cloak our choices in. If you need proof
of this, witness the flame war raging around us!

-Ken

L-9
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Richard Stallman...

L-9
In reply to this post by Johan Beisser
> On Jan 6, 2008, at 8:18 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
>> By publishing it, and telling only me--not anyone who could fix
>> it--you made sure a day would go by when others know about the problem
>> but our sysadmins did not.  It would have been better practice to tell
>> our sysadmins privately first, and give them a couple of days to do
>> something before educating the public.
>>
>> I hope that you have not arranged in effect to cause our web site
>> to be attacked.
>>
>

It was a recommendation of OpenBSD rather than an attack.

Now see who is playing with words.

Irony bar hits me on the head.

L505

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Richard Stallman...

Craig Skinner
In reply to this post by Richard Stallman
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 09:31:10AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> is possible I said something about it at some point.  Could you tell
> me where that statement appears?  If I need to correct it, I need to
> know where it is.
>

Time to back track again, eh???? Moron.

>
> What is the URL of that license page?
>

What a lazy wanker..........

Or maybe you are TOO STUPID to use a search engine.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Richard Stallman...

Duncan Patton a Campbell
In reply to this post by Richard Stallman
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 05:46:49 -0500
Richard Stallman <[hidden email]> wrote:

>     > I doubt I would have looked at the AROS web site myself.  To find out
>     > the status of the BSD systems, recently, I asked the FSF staff to
>     > check for me.
>
>     Wait, you have someone else do the research, and this persons opinions  
>     get reflected in what you say?
>
> Absolutely.  FSF staff checked the BSD versions and told me what
> found.  I do not redo their work after they do it; I trust that they
> did it well.
>
> Their report about OpenBSD was accurate.
>
>

Perhaps you are placing too much trust in Lawyers?

Dhu

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Richard Stallman...

Richard Stallman
In reply to this post by Johan Beisser
    Except, sir, at some point, someone made a mistake. And this mistake  
    has blown up in to this thread with this ongoing argument. Their  
    report was either not as accurate as you seem to think, or you're very  
    badly expressing the contents of the report (which has not been made  
    available to the OpenBSD community).

Their report was that OpenBSD contains ports for non-free programs,
and that is what I tried to say in the interview.

I made a mistake in the way I said it: I used words which were subject
to misunderstanding.  I have acknowledged this mistake here, and had
it corrected, and said so here.

Did you miss those messages?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Richard Stallman...

j4nKy
In reply to this post by Richard Stallman
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 11:18:17PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     Can you tell the FSF web programmers to do more checking for HTML/SQL
>     injection vulnerabilities?
>
> I know nothing about that issue, but I will forward your message.
> Teaching the public about this issue is a good thing to.
> However, the way you did it was predictably bad.

just as you should not have talked without knowing what you were
saying, the people who wrote that should not have done so until
they knew what they were programming.

the only thing consistent in your posts here is that it's ok to
spew crap ...

> By publishing it, and telling only me--not anyone who could fix
> it--you made sure a day would go by when others know about the problem
> but our sysadmins did not.  It would have been better practice to tell
> our sysadmins privately first, and give them a couple of days to do
> something before educating the public.

and then complain when the crap is discovered ...

> I hope that you have not arranged in effect to cause our web site
> to be attacked.

and then accuse the people who find the crap of victimizing the
crap spewer.

hey, I know, why don't you tell people it's unethical to spew crap?
it would lead to less security problems in the computer world, and
less misinformation in general can only lead to more freedoms.
I think many people, both in the computer world and outside, would
agree.  I'd say you'd even have a larger following than you currentlty
do.  well, except that you're one of the biggest crap spewers, ever.

so, you have to have some other soap box to stand on, since it
is far too obvious that you can't run on the "no crap spewing"
platform, because you are a liar and a hypocrit.

and here's an example of how I think your general "ethics" stinks.
you are not subscribed to [hidden email], even though you have
stated yourself that you started this thread.  I consider it
unethical - no I'm not going to use your words.  I consider it
inhumane to post to a list without subscribing.  why?  to make
sure I get all responses.  it's very easy to subscribe and
unsubscribe to any list I have ever posted to.  I'm the one
posting, and I am responsible for that post.  had you been
subscribed here, you would have seen the URL above long ago.
instead, you are _now_ harshly accusing someone of releasing this
"vulnerability", _after_ it could have already been fixed, were
you not so inhumane - well, that's a little harsh - lazy
and arrogant that you didn't bother to subscribe before posting.

do you really think we are suposed to believe you, a lazy,
arrogant, lying hypocrit, because you accuse people discovering
facts of being in the wrong?

and are we supposed to not believe that you are a lazy, arrogant,
lying hypocrit because you have your own definitions, are too busy,
rely on other peoples' information, and can't use a normal web
browser?

--
[hidden email]
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Richard Stallman...

Gary Baluha
In reply to this post by Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> > > 2) using more free software is better than not running it at all
> > > 3) incentivating usage of non-free software on free software operating
> > >    systems doesn't incentivate the creation of free software
> replacements
> >
> >       this is a word play. I know people who used OpenBSD for a while
> >       and stopped using it because a proprietary application they
> >       depended on was not available; and i know people who would use
> >       Linux/OpenBSD/whatever if emacs/gcc were not available and made
> >       so easy to use on Windows, because gcc is centric to their
> >       business and emacs integrates it so well.
>
> Now THIS is wordplay and pure speculation.
> If GCC wasn't available or made so easy to use, they'd merely use another
> one. The reason they don't use a Free Software operating system as nothing
> to do with the availability of GCC.
>
> Mostly its some stupid reason like managemente dictates usage of tool X
> which only works on Windows, for instance.


How is it that stating a fact (that this person knows someone who had made a
decision) a play on words and speculation?  If it helps to make it clear
that it is not speculation, I too know people who have made a conscious
decision not to use OpenBSD simply because a program that was absolutely
essential to getting something done (be it a personal need or a managerial
directive), and only X OS supported that, but not OpenBSD.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Richard Stallman...

Gary Baluha
In reply to this post by Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> > There are also quite a few free programs that run only on Windows.
> > (Being able to redistribute a program and its source and modify and
> > redistribute the source doesn't somehow cause it to be instantly
> > ported to other platforms by the grace of God.) These programs can be
> > run on other operating systems with Wine. They can be ported to run on
> > other operating systems with winelib.
>
> I didn't say Wine is evil, just counter-productive. And it's totally my
> own opinion. Its fortunate success, as Free Software, may have enabled
> some users to use more Free Software, but it may also have enabled some
> users to continue using non-free software, even when replacements exist.
>

Wine isn't counter-productive if it allows me to run a certain nameless
browser on the OS I choose to use as my desktop.  Why do I use this browser
instead of an alternative?  Simply because I have a business _need_ to
access a website that does _not_ run on the alternative browsers.  When I am
not accessing this website, I do indeed use the alternative browsers.  If it
weren't for wine, I would be forced to use windows simply because I need to
access _one_ website that doesn't run in anything other than the nameless
browser.

Sometimes, just because a free alternative exists to a non-free (or non-open
source) application, doesn't mean that it can completely replace said
non-free application.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Richard Stallman...

Jan Stary
In reply to this post by Richard Stallman
No, Richard. No. This is really getting tired.

> Their report was that OpenBSD contains ports for non-free programs,
> and that is what I tried to say in the interview.

No, you didnt't.

> I made a mistake in the way I said it: I used words which were subject
> to misunderstanding.

No, you used words which were lies.

> I have acknowledged this mistake here, and had
> it corrected, and said so here.

No you didn't, people only called you on your bullshit.

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

Jesus Christ already ...

> 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.

Yes. So WHAT?

>     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.

Listen, you lying, hypocrytic asshole: OpenBSD does contain ports that
let you install non-free software. That does not make OpenBSD non-free
in any sensible sense of the word. In your eyes, it does, right? And
that's why you don't "recommend" OpenBSD (which nobody gives a flying
fuck about). Yet you do recommend gNewsense and whatnot, which too
contains ports to install non-free software; because in _this_ case, it
doesn't make the system non-free. Right? That makes your whole criteria
irrelevant, because they are self-contracictory. PERIOD.

I don't believe that you are so stupid to not understand that.

Pretty fucking please, realize the following:

0. Nobody in the OpenBSD project gives a fuck about whether you
   "recommend" OpenBSD (whatever that word means to you today),
   because it doesn't make any difference. Heck, it doesn't change
   anything if you DO recommend OpenBSD.

1. OTOH, the OpenBSD people do care a lot whether you spread lies
   about OpenBSD in interviews.

2. Nobody on this list is gonna buy your double standard of meassuring
   the "freeness" of a given system. Your posts to this list lack any
   point since long ago.

3. Not even reading the few pages of a given system's policies
   and then repeating your lying propaganda on the very system's mailing
   list is total lack of respect to people who make that system (which
   is not me, btw).

4. Not even launching a browser when people ask you to just read a damn
   webpage (please do not elaborate, nobody cares why) makes you look like
   a fucking moron.

5. There are people who need to actually read this mailing list, and you
   drown it in bullshit.
   
Please read the above point over and over until you finally understand
that there is not point whatsoever sending any more posts to this list.
After you get it, please do the following:

(a) Send your last message, with a subject of "RMS - apology" (so that
    I can filter out any other message from you), saying, "I was
    a fucking moron. Plese forgive me, I will shut up now and not bother
    this list again".

(b) Read all the documentation you can find on http://openbsd.org
    (if it's impossible for you to use a browser, have the whole thing
    printed out and read it on paper).

(c) Please kindly consider shutting the fuck up already
    and never comming back.

        sincerely yours

                jan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Richard Stallman...

Richard Stallman
In reply to this post by L-9
I wrote:

    >> I hope that you have not arranged in effect to cause our web site
    >> to be attacked.

You responded:

    It was a recommendation of OpenBSD rather than an attack.

It was neither a recommendation of OpenBSD nor an attack.

Your message did not talk about OpenBSD, but if it had, that would not
be an excuse.  If you post information about an exploit through which
someone's site can be attacked, you can't evade the responsibility by
including some opinions in the message.

I would not call your message "an attack", because encouraging attacks
is not the same thing as making an attack.  It is not the same, but it
goes in the same direction.  I hope that the other OpenBSD developers
will repudiate such conduct.  Surely we can disagree without resorting
to encouraging sabotage.

1234