I sure can.
Code you wont ever get:

http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/no_source/
The binary license restrictions are described at:

http://opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/binary_licensing_faq/

Let me try to recap it for you though.  You can't take a blob from

solaris and use it on linux for example.  Not very free.
More pieces of the os that are licensed "odd" at best:

http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/on/
Not free development environment that is REQUIRED to compile Solaris.
The CDDL has a patent provision that is not GPL compatible.  Sun

reserves the right to call something you do a patent infringement and

revoke your license.  It is quite an interesting read.
They also retain all patent rights so if you write code that makes their

patented code better they get to claim all IP rights.
The license is a mess; kind of like the GPL.  It is full of legal

pitfalls that are you know, not so free.
Have a read:

http://opensolaris.org/os/licensing/cddllicense.txt

Thanks.  Since you didn't answer soon, and since I did get other info

about non-free software needed for OpenSolaris, I already asked for a

correction in the interview.  I made it general so that I won't have

to go into these specifics.  But I would like to know more about the

need for Devpro:
    Not free development environment that is REQUIRED to compile Solaris.
Someone else showed me some text which seems to say that you can

also compile it with GCC.  From http://opensolaris.org/os/downloads/on/:
    You will then need to download the compilers specific to your

    platform . Choose either:
	* The Sun Studio Compilers (Recommended). NOTE: Sun

    Studio 11 is required for building Build 45 and higher....
	-or-
	* The GCC Compiler found in Solaris Express, Community

    Edition build 22 or later. (Please see the gcc tools page for

    more information if choosing this option.) 
However, I don't know precisely what question that is the answer to.

Maybe it doesn't apply to ALL the OpenSolaris software.
Is there text that says that certain components can compile only

with Devpro?

You can compile parts with gcc.  I'd have to see the kernel being build
It does apply to all Solaris software but more so the kernel bits.
Currently there is no such thing as OpenSolaris compiled with gcc or I

have missed it.  In fact you can't even install it without several
Sun has lots of documents out about this.  Don't forget that they sell

devpro so draw your own conclusion.
Here is the real issue, Richard.  You go off and endorse OpenSolaris

without knowing the facts.  You get confronted with them and you change

history.  Sound familiar?
If you want to run your mouth about projects try spending a few minutes

reading information about them and draw your own conclusions.  Hearsay

is starting to become pretty embarrassing to your quest don't you think?
You are 0 - 2 on truth and honesty regarding projects and actual freedom

on this list.  I am wondering if you are basically trying to secure more

funds from the likes of Sun or you have some sort of agenda that is not

obvious to people in the community.  What are you trying to accomplish

with your so called endorsements?

Here is the real issue, Richard.  You go off and endorse OpenSolaris

    without knowing the facts.  You get confronted with them and you change

    history.  Sound familiar?
What sounds familiar is the nasty spin you place on a minor confusion.

But you have added a new false accusation of "changing history".
I asked for my note of clarification to be labeled explicitly as such,

so that it would be clear what was the original answer and what was

the clarification.
Perhaps you should judge your own statements by the standards that

you seek to apply to mine.
    If you want to run your mouth about projects try spending a few minutes

    reading information about them and draw your own conclusions.
I investigated the BSD systems, and I got the accurate information

that the ports system can install non-free software.  Then I stated

that accurate information using words that were subject to

misunderstanding.
You witnessed the words I said in the interview.  However, you

make claims about what I knew, what I thought, and what I intended

which are based on pure speculation.  No wonder yourclaims are mistaken.
Shouldn't you investigate the facts before you make such claims?

MINOR CONFUSION?
With all the spin you are doing with your own words it is quite clear that
1) You don't know the facts
OR
2) You are a compulsive liar
OR
3) You have an agenda.
You are going through all these verbal gymnastics just because your

mail to misc@ was appropriately addressed by the people there.
While you still continue to confuse the masses who do not know the

details but just get excited when they hear FSF and GNU and RMS

the people at misc stated the facts with proof and now you have no

choice but to apologize.
Be a man Richard.

You are making a big fool of yourself in public by beating about the bush.

And the 'nasty spin' you make on your own statements while desperately

accuse other doing the same.
Anybody who followed this thread would have clearly seen what a

hypocrite you are and how you use different standards to judge and

attack and try to destroy the reputation of Open Source projects you

are envious of ( perhaps they don't give a damn to what you say or

think about them ) .
You are not just a hypocrite but a kind of terrorist too with a

deluded feeling that people will all automatically subscribe to your

views and may be get afraid when you attack them in public with your

lies.
In fact many of the people did expect this when you favorite

organization lost the battle publically on Reyk's code that your

friends stole and tried to impose your license on it, and when they

even tried vainly to go legal by the advice of a un-educated american

lawyer but finally foun that they have just embarrassed themselves in

public.
Your organization is slowly turning to a mafia Richard. Do you see that?

You have already crossed the boundaries of decency and you are still

bent on going that way.
It is terrible to see this....
with no regards what so ever
and so you made the "nasty spin" you are accusing theo of now and went

into media and said "OpenBSD CONTAINED non-Free" software.
Great Spin Doctor!

Anybody would expect this mistak...
[ message continues ]

In fact many of the people did expect this when you favorite

    organization lost the battle publically on Reyk's code that your

    friends stole and tried to impose your license on it, and when they

    even tried vainly to go legal by the advice of a un-educated american

    lawyer but finally foun that they have just embarrassed themselves in

    public.
I don't know who or what that refers to.  I do know that my favorite

organization is the Free Softwar Foundation, and I know it has not

been involved in anything that fits that description.
I suspect this is related to the harsh message Theo sent me a few

months ago, which rebuked what "you" (was that me? the FSF?) had done.

He mentioned the name "Reyk" (which I don't recognize) and said it had

something to do with a license.  But he did not go into details.

The FSF was not involved in the matter.
I could have investigated what he was talking about and determined

what conduct he had criticized.  Then, supposing I wanted to give them

some advice, I could have asked someone to find the developers'

addresses, and written to them.  Then they might or might not have

listened to me.
I could have done all that, but I saw no reason to go so far out of my

way for someone who was treating me rather badly.  So I simply told

him that the FSF was not involved in the matter.
I know that one part of your description events is wrong--the part

that says, that my "favorite organization" has "lost the battle

[publicly]".  My favorite organization, the FSF, was not involved.  If

any of "my friends" were involved, they did not inform me.
Those errors make me skeptical of the rest of your claims.  Did

someone lose a battle?  Did anyone really "steal" anything?  I don't

know, but I won't take your word for it.  Did they "try to go legal"?

If so, was it "vainly"?  If they got legal advice, was their lawyer

"un-educated"?  Was the outcome embarrassing for someone?  I don't

know.
Whoever would like to know the answers to these questio...
[ message continues ]

Why don't you tell us about emacs and gcc as Theo said?
If you don't want to answer nothing new here
Don't feed the troll!!

The "wget" he uses is worse.

You can download any non-free software with it and it does not warn

the user at all!!!

The "wget" he uses is worse.

    You can download any non-free software with it and it does not warn

    the user at all!!!
I don't object to general-purpose tools just for being general.

OpenBSD is a general-purpose tool.

How about OpenBSD ports system a general purpose tool given by

developers to the users?

And electricity!  I'm pretty sure (unless I'm misinformed) he uses

electricity provided by plants and distribution systems that are

controlled by non-free software!  And it can be used to run non-free

software!  I don't see how that can be considered anything but a plot

to steal our freedom!
Sorry.  I can't help myself.  I blame my non-free software for

allowing me to read sorry-ass threads like this.

Being Concerned about free software you should recognize him ( unless

you deliberately want to lie or pretend ignorance ) because his

contribution for the **really free software** is not that negligible.
If you really don't please do ask your demon to wget

"http://team.vantronix.net/~reyk/"

and be better informed because you are participating in interviews and

making false statements which a person of your stature should NEVER

have done.
The injustice your friends were trying to do to him was not trivial

and your silence and pretending ignorance at that crucial hour was

"classic" especially when you claimed to be a Free Software Zealot.
Even there the injustice was evident when your folks destroyed the

reputation in public of another developer who made a mistake and did

not deliberately steal code and arbitrarily changed license like
That was your political position.

Do you think the rest of the world believes it?

I happened to go to a FOSS meeting 2yrs back and I heard people

speaking "you can see RMS coming to a mailing list just for politics."
You could have!

You would have if you were not a Hippocrite!

But you DID NOT!!!

You claimed ignorance there too.

Do you think the rest of the world believes you any more though you

try to make politically correct statementsand pretend ignorance when
When people tell the truth it is quite easy to think they are acting

badly to you especially when you have guilt in you.
So you say your Commitment to "Free Software" and respect for

"copyright laws" end the moment you feel somebody is not treating you
Good friends you have then.

Be careful about them.
Yes! a bunch of linux developers with the backup of a lawyer who

either didn't know the copyright law, or thought he could twist it to

his interpretation and get away with it, lost the battle in public.

To tell you the fact they lost even before the game began,

understanding their folly they backed out from their mischief. So they
Don't take my word for it.

Your Demon an...
[ message continues ]

http://directory.fsf.org/project/Windows32API/

    http://directory.fsf.org/project/wxwindows/

    http://wxwindows.org/about/credits.htm
    see the acknowledgment from one of the softwares endorsed by FSF your

    favourite organization.
    ==========================================================================================================

    Thank you to Microsoft for donating a copy of Visual C++ 6.0 to help

    wxWidgets compile on this version of the compiler (for a Virginia Tech

    course).
We do not refuse to list a program merely because it mentions

a non-free platforms on which it runs.  I've explained that already.
I don't like the warm and positive attitude towards Microsoft

expressed by that thank-you.  If wxwindows were a GNU package I would

ask the developers to change that.
But wxwindows is not a GNU package, and I doubt I have veryx much

credit with its developers.  I'd rather not use it on this.

Developing a program ( real software ) for a non-free platform is big

encouragement by loud communication ( actions speak better than words

) to use or continue using that non-free platform.

( Which is exactly what gcc and emacs does by the way )

 And you endorse such software that promotes other non-free platforms

through your FSF website.
But you cannot stand when a Project which has done more than any other

project to :
1) Stand for freedom

2) Take enormous steps to improve quality and security of software

given out freely.

2) Stand against blobs even when Linux and FreeBSD people wimped out.

3) Worked ( some times with the support of their community ) to get

numerous closed hardware documentation freely available for developers

so that they can write free software and maintain it.

4) Taken the pains to reverse engineer and write free drivers for new

hardware support.
has a few free URLs in its ports system which they DONOT recommend as

the primary way to install software but warns the user if they try to

compile non-free software?
And you even go to the extend of spreading a lie that this Operating

system "CONTAINS" free software?
There is some thing terribly wrong with your logic.

That is why I asked to take a "Bipolar Disorder" test in the beginning.
By the way ( Perhaps, I don't know which ) some of the free drivers

that Gnuisance has were made possible only through the efforts of the

OpenBSD project freeing up documentation from the vendors. And even in

those efforts the Linux people had worked against them encouraging

vendors to give out blobs and to keep documentation closed. Have you

investigated about them at any point?
I know this Demon+wget system will not allow you to do much research.

So Switch back to some thing sane.

Do some good reading.

Prepare before an Interview.

Unless you deliberately want to start spreading lies and ruin the

reputation of projects who are sincerely standing and  fighting for
Please remove it ( and all similar software ...
[ message continues ]

Developing a program ( real software ) for a non-free platform is big

    encouragement by loud communication ( actions speak better than words

    ) to use or continue using that non-free platform.
There are two issues here: the practical effects, and the message conveyed.
The practical effects are mixed.  Making free apps run on non-free

systems paves the way for some users to migrate to free systems, and

for some users eliminates a motivation to migrate.  So it has both

good and bad effects.  I don't know which effect is bigger, but I

speculate that the good effect is bigger over all.  The negative

effect is limited to power users, people who might switch systems as

if it were an easy thing to do.  Most users are reluctant to change

operating systems at all.
The part of the practical effect that is negative is something we

cannot prevent.  If we were to delete the Windows support from Emacs

or GCC, that would not stop people from running Emacs or GCC on

Windows.  The sort of people that would choose an operating system on

this basis could easily maintain and redistribute such code.
The other issue is the message we convey.  That is something we can

control, but it also shows the difference between these two cases.

Providing a recipe to install a non-free program is very direct and

clear support for its use.  Making your free program work with

something non-free if that's already installed is not such a direct

message of support.  It makes sense to treat the two cases

differently.

Please review (and correct) my logic deduction:
1. negative effect is power users (you said)

2. power users are able to change OS (you said)

3. all people that use a compiler are power users.. only advanced users

run a compiler

4. all MsWin gcc users are power users because of above point

5. the negative effect is therefore all MsWin GCC users

6. since the negative effect is all MSwin gcc users.. MsWin GCC is negative

7. GCC is to be removed from MSWin, since it is overall negative.
Where did I go wrong?
Or what is the reason for power users being negative?

Power users are advanced users... people that can switch operating

systems. Their bundled OS with their computer can be changed - they are

advanced enough to not fear changing bundled OS. So.... is it negative

for power users to run GCC.. because they should be running a free OS

since they know they can install one? i.e. they are abusing their GCC

since they are using windows even though they know they can run an OS

like gNewSense?
Since RMS you said that the negative effect is power users - I'm saying

that since all MsWin GCC users are power users, then MsWin GCC users are

all affecting FSF negatively. Because the logic deduction is that power

users are affecting GNU negatively.. so if compiler users are power

users.. then the logic is that all GCC windows compiler folks are

negative.. and gcc needs to be removed? Where am I wrong or what am I

not seeing that you see? Why do you think power users are negatively

affecting GNU, for example?

A bad effect is that people still use non-free systems. They should
I see no difference in both cases. When the ideal is the same.

Encourage only free software.
--

Karthik

http://guilt.bafsoft.net

By the way ( Perhaps, I don't know which ) some of the free drivers

    that Gnuisance has were made possible only through the efforts of the

    OpenBSD project freeing up documentation from the vendors.
I appreciate the work that OpenBSD has done in this area.

It is an important contribution to our community.

Curious that it should take this long to obtain that admission from you.

Lies and insults are a strange way of showing appreciation.

> I appreciate the work that OpenBSD has done in this area.

    > It is an important contribution to our community.

    >

    Curious that it should take this long to obtain that admission from you.
Why do you think it took a long time?

I said it a couple of weeks ago too.

I also said it a couple of years ago.

My favorite organization, the FSF, was not involved.  If

    > any of "my friends" were involved, they did not inform me.

    >
    Good friends you have then.
More likely they aren't my friends.  You may have noticed that the

Linux developers disagree with my philosophy.  I know very few of

them, and they wouldn't listen to me about anything.
If you and they have a dispute about some legal issue, I will leave it

to lawyers.

Mr. Stallman, I respect you for what you've managed to achieve as an individual.
But, frankly, this thread has really gotten way out of control.
A few days back everything had kind-a settled down and we got the

impression that the thread had fortunately died, but that's not been

the case, you are struggling hard to lay out your viewpoints which

seem a tad bit twisted from where we look at it.
Nobody out here is going to listen to what you're going to say, and

you are going to go on and on about how you were justified in labeling

OpenBSD as not compliant with your interpretation of the word "free",

which we don't give a farthing for.
No offense, but, please, please go away, we really don't want you

here, and on your way out, please take your minions along with you.
~Mayuresh

Hello Mayuresh,
a possible reason can be that he is thinking "Some of it might stick".
--

Michael Schmidt     MIRRORS:

Watcom              ftp://ftp.fh-koblenz.de/pub/CompilerTools/Watcom/

OpenOffice          ftp://ftp.fh-koblenz.de/pub/OpenOffice/

Not likely.
Go back under your rock, along with RMS and the rest

He only doesn't want to *recommend* OpenBSD because of the ports tree

distributing some (however few exceptions those are) proprietary software.
He's not labelling OpenBSD non-free, just non-free-friendly because some

non-free are distributed in the ports site.
Now, you may disagree with his non-recommendation, but you're

misinterperting what's being said completely, and perhaps giving a worse

judgement of his words than what he "did" (depending on the point of view).
Rui
(ps: if someone wants to answer back with insults just shove it, ok? I'm

a fan of the Free Software operating system called OpenBSD and it's

policy on pro-active security)
--

Fnord.

Today is Pungenday, the 3rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174

+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,

| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi

+ So let's do it...?

Not interesting what he recommends.  I don't know how often I need to

repeat this to you.  You really can stop your pavlov responses (ding
That's dumb and many people have told you so.  It doesn't matter how
We don't care.  We want him and his bs to go away and leave us alone.
Then stop replying.  I am pretty sure people will not let you have the

last word on this.  You are spouting crap and people are tired of

Minor confusion?  This is the second time you make completely false

claims because you didn't bother to research what you are talking about.

You decided to be a public figure and the natural result is that people

will look at your statements with a magnifying glass.  I don't pay

attention to your normal activities as they have no bearing on me

whatsoever.  What shocks me is that the 2nd time in a week that I see you

talk is that you basically make stuff up.  I simply don't believe that
You rectified your answer because the original one was false.  You could

have prevented that by reading up on it.  Unless you have a different
I don't claim the high ground with provocative claims and word altering

tactics.  You do.  I am holding you to your own standards; why is that
When a public figure speaks he/she is supposed to know what they are

talking about.  You for some reason don't seem to think that what you

say needs rooting in truth or reality.  As the figure head for the FSF

you really should behave as you preach.  I've met many of your minions

and they are at least consistent and principled.  I even have seen guys

get fired for refusing to use non GPL software.
I read your words; I researched the CDDL and OpenSolaris and came to the

conclusion that you were again making stuff up.  Who is making any

claims here?
You need to stick to the conversation instead of trying to divert it to

irrelevant drivel.  Also instead of answering the questions I asked, you

decided that it is better to put words in my mouth.

We are not spinning any facts.
Richard, three times now you have have failed to do research -- thus

damaged the reputation of projects that write free software, and three

times you have had your messages annotated.
Because you were wrong.
No.  We've accused you of being a either tremendously careless and

reckless with other people's reputations.  But there is an alternative

that you are purposefuly spreading these things -- ie. lying.
Meanwhile the FSF is doing exactly the same things in distributing

Emacs and GCC with commercial support in their distributions.  That

is hypcrotical.  You have been called on this issue, but you have told

people that it would be too much work to delete that stuff from gcc
You should not have made the same type of mistake three times.
I have said nothing which is hypocritical.  OpenBSD does nothing

wrong, unless emacs and gcc are doing something wrong.
At the same time, OpenBSD developers are not going into the media and

pointing out the falicy of your statements.  Or, we are not doing so
emacs and gcc can be installed on non-free software, because of tens of

thousands of lines of specific code written to suppor those commercial
That's bullshit, Richard.  In your interview you said that OpenBSD

*CONTAINED* non-free software.  Your words were lies.  Later on the

mailing lists you have attempted to change history by saying that your

words were being misunderstood.  That's not true.  You said OpenBSD
I do make claims about what you knew:  You knew nothing because you did

not research before you spoke, and you ended up telling a lie.
Same as when you branded OpenSolaris free: You knew nothing because

you did not research before you spoke, and you ended up telling a lie.
Same as when you attacked the Subversion developers: You knew nothing

because you did not research before you spoke, and you ended up
It's hilarious to see you try to accuse me of your greatest weakness.

You are the one who three times now has said the wrong t...
[ message continues ]

You asked for a correction to an statement interview -- you should not

even have made that statment to begin.  You did not do research into

the OpenSolaris situation, and you spread lies instead of spreading
Richard, since you are a hypocrite who won't read web pages, let

me show you just a few of the Sun non-source bits, pasted below,

straight from Sun's page.
- OpenSolaris 'recommends' that people use the following binary

  drivers from Sun.

- OpenSolaris is missing the source code for hundreds of manual pages

- Not all of the installer is free.  You have to use non-free bits to

  even install the software.

- Sun's X server and libraries are not available in source

- Sun's graphic cards are undocumented and without source
Richard, you are too stupid to go and learn FACTS before you open

your big fat lying mouth.
If you can't or won't do the research, why open your mouth?  Why?

Why?
You'll go out of the way to build arbitrary Richard-rules to attack

various projects like OpenBSD and Subversion, but then you make

yourself look like a FOOL by not researching Sun's situation.  You

really make yourself look really really stupid.
Who will you attack with lies next week?
------
ctsmc driver (B)			System Management controller driver

smbus_ara driver (B)			Daktari platform support

SunFire V240 platmod driver (B)		SunFire platform support

SunFire V250 platmod driver (B)		SunFire platform support

SunFire V440 platmod driver (B)		SunFire platform support

UltraEnterprise platmod driver (B)	UltraEnterprise platform support

amsrc1 driver (B)			Audio Mixer Sample Rater Conversion Routine #1

bmc driver				Baseboard management controller

SunFire V240 ntwdt driver (B)		Netra-based application watchdog timer driver

adpu320 driver (B)			Adaptec Ultra320 SCSI HBA driver

audioens driver				Ensonig 1371/1373 and Creative Labs 5880 driver support

audiovia823x driver (B)			Drives VY823x chipsets for VIA Corporation

bnx driver (B)				Broadcom NetXtreme II Gigabit Ethernet driver

daplt...
[ message continues ]

Richard, you are too stupid to go and learn FACTS before you open

    your big fat lying mouth.
I am sure the readers can judge for themselves whether I am stupid.

They will certainly see I am not perfect.  I had learned the facts

about OpenSolaris, but that was months before.  By the time I did

that interview my memory was incorrect.
In addition, I thought that OpenSolaris was just a kernel, but it

looks like the question had in mind a whole system.  This

miscommunication has the effect of making my statement appear to be an

endorsement of a system.
Partly I had forgotten and partly I fell into a miscommunication.

I am sure the readers can judge for themselves how grave that is.
"Lying" is another matter.  That is a grave accusation which you and

others have made with absolutely no basis.  Shouldn't you make sure of

the facts before you accuse?
As regards the size of my mouth, I got a testimonial from a dentist

that it is rather small.  If you won't take my word for it, I will ask

my mother to send me a copy.

Twice you called free things non-free, and once you called a non-free

things free.
Your memory was incorrect?  I bet you make such a mistake again in a

few weeks.
Huh?  OpenSolaris is just a kernel, and this helps you how?  The

kernel is not free -- it never was.  It has a couple of handful of

required drivers which are not included.  It is not free, in any

sense.  Yet you failed to do any research about this before you went
Someone like you is not allowed to spread mistruths like this in the
Since you did it three times so rapidly, I am calling you a liar.  And

since you refuse to undo your commercial support in Emacs and GCC, I

am going to call you a hypocrite.

I'm going to call him THRUSH, because he is stupid irritating cunt.

[This message was generated by an automated system.]
I am not on vacation, but I am at the end of a long time delay.  I am

located somewhere on Earth, but as far as responding to email is concerned,

I appear to be well outside the solar system.
After your message arrives at gnu.org, I will collect it in my next batch of

incoming mail, some time within the following 24 hours.  I will spend much

of the following day reading that batch of mail and will come across your

message at some point.  If I can write a response for it immediately, the

response will go out in the next outgoing batch--typically around 24 hours

after I collected your message, but occasionally sooner or later than that.

As a result, you should expect a minimum delay of between 24 and 48 hours in

seeing any response to your mail to me.
If you are having a conversation with me, please keep in mind that each

message you receive from me is probably a response to the mail you sent 24

to 48 hours earlier, and any subsequent mail you sent has not yet been seen

by me.
If you are in a hurry to speak with me, try sending mail to

<rms-assist@gnu.org> saying what you would like to talk with me about,

and giving your telephone number.
Another option to reach me urgently is to call the Free Software Foundation

office at 617-542-5942 and ask them to contact me on your behalf.
If you aren't in an immediate hurry, there is no need to contact

rms-assist@gnu.org or the Free Software Foundation office.  I will get

back to you as soon as I possibly can.
If you do not wish to receive this message ever again, please send a message

to rms-autoreply-control@gnu.org with the subject "OFF".

Otherwise, you might receive a reply like this one up to once a month.

Sounds like he is hiding somewhere in Tora Bora.
Regards,

David

Actually I got that message in a private conversation with him as

well, he do reply within 48 hours time frame so I don't think he is

hiding in "Tora Bora".
--

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

> In addition, I thought that OpenSolaris was just a kernel, but it

    > looks like the question had in mind a whole system.  This

    > miscommunication has the effect of making my statement appear to be an

    > endorsement of a system.
    Huh?  OpenSolaris is just a kernel
That's what I thought.  It _is_ free software, what there is of it.

But it isn't a usable solution.  That's what I meant at the time.
    Someone like you is not allowed to spread mistruths like this in the

    media.
"Spread mistruths" is a distorted way to describe a couple of

misunderstandings.  And as far as I know there is no way to forbid

anyone to do that.  If I knew a way, I would do it.
    Since you did it three times so rapidly, I am calling you a liar.
Mistakes are not lies.  And these mistakes were misunderstandings

anyway.
      And

    since you refuse to undo your commercial support in Emacs and GCC, I

    am going to call you a hypocrite.
I'm following the same principles that I apply to others.

I've explained both these principles and my actions; the readers

can judge all aspects for themselves.

I guess I missed the part where you explained how it makes sense to

apply a label like "not recommended because it supports non-free

software" to OpenBSD but not to FSF (emacs, etc.).  You've been asked

repeatedly to address the apparent inconsistencies but I haven't

noticed any candid response from you.  Maybe you can clarify that

logic for us?
Thank you,
gregg

I guess I missed the part where you explained how it makes sense to

    apply a label like "not recommended because it supports non-free

    software" to OpenBSD but not to FSF (emacs, etc.).
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.
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.
Meanwhile, for operating systems, I endorse the ones that don't

recommend, suggest, or offer to install non-free apps.  I apply this

principle to GNU/Linux distros and to BSD distros just the same.
When people discover a recommendation for non-free software in a

distro which is supposed not to have any, my first response is to show

it to the distro developers and ask them to remove it.  Everyone makes

mistakes, so my aim is to get the mistakes corrected, not jump down

their throats.

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
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...
[ message continues ]

ReactOS is a free software operative system with a support database

that indicates which programs it can run.
 It can lists those programs in different ways, including, by vendor.
Here is Adobe:

http://www.reactos.org/support/index.php/comp/vendor/id/4/
And here is Microsoft:

http://www.reactos.org/support/index.php/comp/vendor/id/2/
If I understand you weird meaninig of promotion, then you'll find this

"a bad thing" too, right?
Greetings.

ReactOS is a free software operative system with a support database

    that indicates which programs it can run.
    If I understand you weird meaninig of promotion, then you'll find this

    "a bad thing" too, right?
Yes.  Thank you for showing me those specific problems.

I will discuss them with the developers of ReactOS.

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.

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
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

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

>     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.
When I want research, I ask people to do it.  That is efficient, and

we have not seen any errors in it.
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.
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.  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.
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.

And what about the research that should have made gNewSense up to your

standards?
The intention of good research is enough to prevent any errors in it I

presume?
Once you understand Richard Stallman you are truly in open source heaven!
You want to write good code? No understanding or experience needed,

just intend to do it! At least Richard will believe you and spread the

word about it.
+++chefren

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.
See above.  I will also recommend that you re-read much of this thread
\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
I want you to seriously think about this statement and why it is

horribly wrong.  Consider it homework in critical thinking.  Something
If you're checking wiki sites instead of reading the licenses
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

Your conclusion should that you need to do your own research.

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!

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!!!

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.
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
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!!!

I hope you do realize how much this reminds us of _1984_ ?
Not talking about something is a bit like sticking your head in the sand.
It's really not a healthy attitude.
As far as free software goes, it's a bit like developping everything in

your own corner, completely ignoring whatever goes on in the commercial

corner of the world... or not acknowledging its influences.
I'm sorry, but not talking about something that exists won't make it go

away.

> 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.
    I hope you do realize how much this reminds us of _1984_ ?
Surely you jest.  When I decide what I will say, that is not censoring

you.

No, but when you redefine "free" to mean something specific, you redefine

your own language.  When you refuse to endorse some free OSes because

they allow proprietary software to be installed, you are walking a damn

fine line.

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.

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

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.

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.

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:16:04 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>
They don't need or want your endorsement. They just want an apology

for misrepresenting them. Which you have failed to do.

All you do is twist words to make it look like you did nothing wrong.

STFU and go away.

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

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?

Quite right.  As far as I can tell, they're not interested in your

endorsement; I'm not sure what gave you the idea they are.  However,

they are very interested in FUD prevention, and FUD is what you get

when one party tries to co-opt ordinary language for private ends.  So

we can hardly be surprised when they object to your characterization

of their work as "non-free".  Such a slanderous characterization is a

far cry  from merely declining to endorse.
Old joke:  "Doctor, nobody likes me!  You gotta help me, you big fat slob!"
-gregg

I don't recall seeing any of them claiming that.  Many of them _have_

(quite reasonably) objected to your spreading misinformation about

OpenBSD.  And making statements which are true only if common words are

given non-standard meanings certainly amounts to spreading

misinformation.
	Dave
--

Dave Anderson

<dave@daveanderson.com>

We don't argue that you owe us an endorsement, we set the record straight

so that people get the facts right, something you can't understand.
Please, learn how to read, then we can have an educated talk.
--

Gilles Chehade

We only want an apology Richard.  You said things about our project that

were very unfriendly and not true.  Apologize and admit you were wrong

and I promise I'll leave this alone.  Until then I will not let you have

the last word on a project that I spend a considerable amount of my

personal resources on.  You stop talking/slandering OpenBSD and we'll

stop talking to and about you.  How is that for a deal?

So if Richard sends an email stating "I am sorry for using ambiguous

words when discussing the inclusion of Makefiles for non-free programs

in OpenBSD's ports system", you'll be happy and this series of threads

can die?

Methinks this is an OpenBSD list not a FSF list

Are you always this obnoxious to people you are visiting?
From what I've seen from you on this thread,

an endorsement from you would be a liability.
Best I can tell, nobody is arguing with you

that would require some degree of compos mentis on your part.

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

On Jan 6, 2008, at 22:54, "Roberto J. Dohnert"  
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.

Yes, it does.   It's even WORSE since these projects spent countless

hours modifying their code to support those non-free systems.
Hypocrite!
---

Jason Dixon

DixonGroup Consulting

http://www.dixongroup.net

Oh, forgive me.  Instead, you don't think wrong.  You think

misunderstandings, repeatedly, over and over, repetitively.  Forgive
Three misunderstandings, protested each time instead of apologizing

is a lie.
Ask anyone in law enforcement.
Oh boy, another lie.  Emacs, gcc, OpenDarwin, and ReactOS.
I understand the general rule -- but Richard is except.
Lying Hypocrite.

If a mistake happens once, fine. Second time, fine. Third time,

something is fishy.  Fourth time, the mistake tends towards becoming a

lie. Fifth, sixth, over and over and over and over. It is a lie.
If a leader makes a mistake, people follow suit. Leaders are not

supposed to make mistakes, and if they do, they *must* let go the

leadership position - for they tarnish one and all - the product, the

process, and the people.
And you seem to be sensible enough to understand all that I write

above. And you still insist that you merely make mistakes? RTFM
Well yes, the readers surely can judge - and they do.
-Amarendra

Hello Richard,
After reading this thread, I was interested to see what your list

recommendation really was, because I have never actually seen it!! So

I headed over fsf.org which leads me to this page when trying to find

out your list of recommended OS list:
http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html
Is that the list there?
My guess is that if you were to endorse OpenBSD you would have put a

link under "Other free operating systems"... under which, there were 2

interesting systems: GNU/Darwin, based off Apple's userland and

kernel, and ReactOS, designed specifically to run MS software.
So I have looked into them a bit more...
Your main complaint about among the BSD's are that they have a ports

system that can be used to install non-free software. In the case of

OpenBSD, ports system were not even included, OpenBSD merely includes

instruction to install the ports system and how to use it.
This is the same with your recommended system GNU/Darwin:
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/index.php?page=ports
Who also contains instructions to install the such port system.
Considering that your main concern with ports system is that "it may

lead people to install non-free software", well, what about ReactOS,

whose _design goal_ is to _run_ non-free software?
Before you argue that ReactOS is merely a free implementation of Win32

API, let me clarify: if the purpose of ReactOS isn't to run some

Windows-only software S, then what is the purpose of ReactOS? if S was

free, it wouldn't be Windows-only as it would have ported to free

OS's. Remember that the Windows-only software that people are going to

be interested to run are going to be non-free one.
Cheers,

Sun.

Before you argue that ReactOS is merely a free implementation of Win32

    API, let me clarify: if the purpose of ReactOS isn't to run some

    Windows-only software S, then what is the purpose of ReactOS? if S was

    free, it wouldn't be Windows-only as it would have ported to free

    OS's.
I don't object to implementing free software to support APIs that

users use.
There is a lot of non-free software written for the Lose32 API, but

there is also a lot of private (unreleased) software which runs on

that API.  Thus, its use is not only for running proprietary software.

I would ask the developers of platforms that run the Lose32 API

to tell the users that running proprietary Windows apps is not freedom.

Yet you object a general purpose, free software that implements a

facility that users use? Namely, the port system?
I think we are running in circles here... so if you can, please explain:
How would the ports system encourage the use of non-free software
Well, like I said in my pass message, the main purpose of ReactOS

would be to run software that are only compatible with Win32 (Lose32?)

API, simply because they are non-free (and possibly buried with EULA

and/or NDA) such that they cannot be ported to a free OS.
Whereas ports system on the other hand, is just a general purpose tool

and it supports much much more free software than non-free software...

if you like to put it this way, there are going to be more users

installing non-free software on ReactOS than users installing non-free

software on OpenBSD with ports.
Don't get me wrong, I love to see a stable version of ReactOS someday,

these days I had to run Windows XP in a virtual machine, as a "just in

case" thing for school and work, and I couldn't wait to replace it

with ReactOS.
So I got to ask this... is it the case that you only care if a "url to
I don't know much about 'private/unreleased software'... but the ports

system does support a large number of free software - certainly fits

the criteria of "its use is not only for running proprietary
I haven't actually used the port system for non-free software, but "if

memory serves", the ports system does display a

warning/disclaimer/license/EULA if you do try to install non-free

stuff.
--

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

This is the same with your recommended system GNU/Darwin:
    http://www.gnu-darwin.org/index.php?page=ports
    Who also contains instructions to install the such port system.
Thank you for telling me about this problem.  I will talk with them

about this ASAP.  I expect they will probably remove those.

While you are on it, please point your wget at

http://dynebolic.org/manual/x198.htm which refers to

http://lab.dyne.org/DyneModules, which suggests people to install

Skype, which I believe is non-free. Note that I use your definition of

the word 'suggest' here.
And more relevant to the discussion, I also find it hypocritical to

describe OpenBSD as suggesting non-free things, while the two GNU

flagships gcc and emacs contain code which sweeten the non-free

Windows experience.
And until all major distributions of Linux can be said to be truly

free by your definition, I would suggest that you stop calling them

GNU/Linux since this could certainly be taken as an endorsement or

even as a suggestion to install them.
                                  Jacob

And ReactOS is next?
I am hoping to spend a few hours in a while auditing the other fringe

projects that the Fringe Software Foundation recommends.
Richard, you are a lying hypocritical irrelevant man.

> Thank you for telling me about this problem.  I will talk with them

    > about this ASAP.  I expect they will probably remove those.
    And ReactOS is next?
Does ReactOS recommend non-free software?

If so. please show me what it says, and the URL.

I do not have a lot of influence with them, but I could

at least remove the link to ReactOS if it comes to that.
    I am hoping to spend a few hours in a while auditing the other fringe

    projects that the [Free] Software Foundation recommends.
Thank you.  I very much appreciate the feedback that this list has

provided, showing me things that need to be corrected.  Specific

problems identified in the free software directory, in BLAG, and in

the Ututo web site, have been corrected already.

I have a better idea.  Why don't you do your own fucking homework.

Oh come now.  You can't expect a hypocrite to do homework that

undermines himself, can you?

Free as in yeast infection,  not free as in beer.

Free as in idiotic lunacy.
A yeast infection occurs in brewing, yeasties replicate for free free FREE!
First ten people to call "b u l l s h i t" on GNU get the following sent

to them:

1. A free sealed, new package of special breed champagne yeast for

making cider/soda/beer

2. instructions on how to use a 2 litre pop bottle to make the cider/soda

3. a small copy of the official FREE definition according to my

Webster's Dictionary.
I pay for shipping and all costs. Compliments of Z505 Software. At my

expense, by Air Mail. 
I kid you not.. send your address, country, postal/zip code, etc.

International and P.O. boxes are okay.
If you don't wish to call GNU  b u l l s h i t, or you don't want this

free offer, simply don't reply.
Regards,

L505
p.s. this has nothing to do with women.. a yeast infection AFAIK is the

correct term for brewing. It is not meant to insult anyone except GNU.

And I am 100 percent serious about this offer. First 10 people.

[...]
Hope I am one of the first ten - GNU is pure b u l l s h i t, and it

can't get worse than this. But yes, GNU has the magical power to

impress the newcomers' - I was one of them long time ago. The away you

move from GNU, as time progresses, the wiser you become.
-Amarendra

Still positions left :)
Most people are wussies on this list, that buy their soda and cider from

stores.

Wussies drink coke too.
Real men make their own soda and cider.

I have no problem problem with name calling but what do you hope to

accomplish by you request to call GNU bullshit?

Although my opinion of GNU is not as positive as it was before this

whole RMS vs OpenBSD discussion, I will not insult people just to receive

free gifts
Floor Terra
"Never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance."

--Sam Brown

Well, it is my opinion that GNU/FreeSoftware is bull s h i t and it

should be called Stallmanist software. I know that is not the opinion of

everyone.. and I know some of you do not think GNU is bull s h i t. And

I apologize to those people who do not think a lot of it is bull s h i t.
But...regardless, GNU is bull s h i t.
The whole GNU philosophy goes ON, and ON, and ON, and continues to get

more complicated.
It is like a complicated piece of code that keeps getting more complicated.
The algorithm, must be simplified and minimal.  The license is just an

algorithm in words. And GNU licenses are way too complex of an

algorithm. They cause so many complications it reminds me of those 5

page PROPRIETARY licenses.
When I find a complex algorithm, I call bull s h i t. And you, with a

sense of humor, are to do the same.. or just don't reply and don't get

your gift ;-)