login
Search
Hello, We're all tired of explaining to Richard Stallman about how he's wrong. It somehow isn't registering with him, that, or he's not willing to accept his position of being wrong. Either ways, by replying to his emails we are creating more noise than required and giving him more importance than is due. Could we all please stop responding to his emails as well as emails from trollers like Rui Seabra? Lets just ignore them and focus on our war cry of "Shut-up and Hack". As a special power, let only Theo respond to Stallman's emails, that way there isn't a lot of commotion and only the heavy weights slug it out. And for heaven's sake, please don't respond to this email on the list, if you feel strongly about it, mail me offlist. Best, ~Mayuresh
F.Y. You are the troll. Rui -- Keep the Lasagna flying! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th 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...?
Either I did and you missed it, or it wasn't the answer you'd expect or I found it so irrelevant it didn't even raise any bell. Anyways, most of your emails have been so rude that in afterthought I shouldn't even "honour" you with a reply. Rui -- Fnord. Today is Setting Orange, the 5th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 Celebrate Mungday + 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...?
You have not answered at all, you have answered to other people so that you could dodge my embarassing question instead of explaining why it is different to do the exact same thing when you are from the FSF. 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 ? 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 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. Gilles -- Gilles Chehade
1) ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/ isn't "links" 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 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. 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 No, I am a victim and your (generically, not specifically you) attitude actually makes my relation with OpenBSD very frustrating. Rui -- Wibble. Today is Setting Orange, the 5th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 Celebrate Mungday + 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...?
Using openbsd is using free software.. using MORE free software than Windows Server 2003. Using default openbsd and having an option to run Google search or ports is the same as using GCC and Emacs on windows with having the option to migrate to gnu/linux.. since ea lot of GCC users have never used linux/gnu ever. Same Thing. Hypocrite thoughts are constructed in your mind the way you want to see it.. the same way CULTS want you to see that their cult is right about EVERYTHING and every other religion and church is wrong.
You seem to abuse the word hypocrisy. None of the definitions I find in any dictionary fir your accusations. As such, I can't take your definition or accusations of "cults" seriously, as you seem to be quite an angry convict of some sort of cult too. Rui -- This statement is false. Today is Sweetmorn, the 6th 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...?
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_q8.html "*81 <http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_a8.html#ca_hypocrisy>. Hypocrisy* Cult members, including the leader, project their own sins and crimes onto people outside of the cult:"
I don't take that as a definition of hypocrisy, but as a list of the hypocrisies commonly found in cults. BTW, one would say that the accusations of "cult" did not start from me (or Richard), so I'd say you "accusers" fall straight on the "above all" that's included in that link: "We are not a cult -- all of those other groups are. We work very hard to make sure that our group doesn't turn into a cult like them." Rui -- Grudnuk demand sustenance! Today is Sweetmorn, the 6th 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...?
I can't take stallmans free software as the definition of free software... but rather a list of philosophies that are according to stallman.. on what software should be.. therefore stallmanism rather 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 turned the tables and called GNU/FSF a cult later on, weeks later. I can find the archives for this... and many OpenBSD people and third party people could find evidence showing OpenBSD was called a cult way long ago... But we'll/I'll never convince anything to you since we just keep going back and forth.. trolling. The only difference is that one person is trolling truth, and other person is trolling denial of truth. Both trolls are wasting bandwidth.. some trolls are truer than others. As I said.. if you manage to become unbrainwashed.. you will thank me for my therapy. Until then you are forgiven. If you think I am part of a cult.. prove it... I've given lots of evidence of GNU being a cult... all the descriptions on the pages fit very well. Me? I work a software company.. I work on many operating systems... OpenBSD, Freebsd, ,Windows, Fedora, debian. I am not focused on 'one true way' like a cult is focused... I do not donate all my code to a foundation who keeps my code under their reign... and I do not lock away my code to a figurehead... The one advantage of the GNU cult is that you can escape the cult by just deciding not to participate in GNU any more. But that is true with any cult.. there are ways to get out of any cult if you try and find a way. It may be difficult in some cases to get out of the cult.. but just because you can escape the cult doesn't make it not a cult. i.e. one cannot argue GNU is not a cult since GNU doesn't force you to participate. no, cults can still be cults even if not forced. Also, try the sense of humor too. It can get you out of stressful situations. I ...
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. + outside the mainstream - yep, especially in the 90's + novel belief system - yep, making bad engineering acceptable + perceived benefits to members - yep, better products consistently avoided + headed by single "charismatic" leader - yep, though it's taken years of whitewashing full time by several PR firms to dress up an arrogant, condescending, impatient, know-nothing, rich nerd into the cult figure the press paints for us + isolationism - yep, the embrace, extend and extinguish strategy to defeat standards does succeed in cutting off the world. + dangerous and deceptive practices - yep, perjury, false advertising, the works etc. If you look at all the bizarre politics affecting use of technology going on at the state and national levels (US and EU) in regards to not applying rules of commerce or engineering to just that one "company", it fits well with how cults operate. MSFTers definitely operate quite far outside a fact-based universe. When dealing with technology, facts are more important than marketing dogma. Of the BSD's, OpenBSD and NetBSD seem the most focused on nice, dry technical material. OpenBSD has the further advantage of taking extra precautions with supplementals tools such as licenses. -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)
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>
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 16:58:48 +0800, "Koh Choon Lin" <pppd88@gmail.com> Who cares. OpenBSD just doesn't like misinformation spread about it. I have no connection to the OBSD project, but I hope it never has anything to do with the FSF and from what I've seen I think that is a safe bet.
Found it... Several instances of GNU followers accusing OpenBSD as a cult: "If everyone on the planet outside your own *cult* calls you an ass, you are either the messiah or an ass. My money is on the latter." "Outside the *cult* of OpenBSD no one else sees it that way." http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/openbsd-misc/2007/12/14/507176 This was also the same thread where a GNU follower claimed that a hilarious "did you?" question was an insult. The same hypocrite went on to insult the person who asked the hilarious "did you" question. The person accusing a person of insult, was an insulter himself.. hence the hypocrisy and irony. Irony and hypocrisy are actually closely related. Take note! L505
Hello mini-RMS, Happy New Year greetings from gnu.misc.discuss! :-) On Jan 5, 2008 6:53 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms@1407.org> wrote: Yeah, yeah. You're a kind of Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney of "National Association for Free Software", aren't you? A kind of fsf er.. fsa.pt (National) guy. No? http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=pt_en&trurl=http%3a%... Peace out. regards, alexander.
So GTFO. Oh and lose the sig on a public mailing list. You don't like us we don't like you. You think we rank up there with baby killers. I will NEVER understand how that works so just FOAD and we can all be
I think that "ranking" you mention is 100% your interpretation. :) Rui -- Or is it? Today is Sweetmorn, the 6th 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...?
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 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. If the proprietary application was available, the lost openbsd users would be using *far more* free applications than the ones 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 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. For the convenience of these users, we provide a subsystem that allows them to install the software they need and *that is not shipped with our system*. 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 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 ... Gilles -- Gilles Chehade
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 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 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. 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? 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* Nopes, for what I read they're mostly the same, and these clear cut 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. Rui -- Umlaut Zebra |ber alles! Today is Setting Orange, the 5th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 Celebrate Mungday + 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...?
Now that you mention it, shortly after this idiotic flame I started receiving "tons" of spam. I wonder if they're related... Rui -- Or is it? Today is Sweetmorn, the 6th 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...?
"Recommends?" Where does it "recommend?" Please, show me a single URL where OpenBSD "recommends" software that's not in the base system. If you said "makes available" I'd probably not bothered having Actually, I like OS X just fine. "non-free" and all. As a workstation, it's hard to beat. Especially since fighting to make KDE or GNOME "just work" for me in all aspects I need has proven tiresome and annoying. Darwin, for what it's worth, is just as 'free' as Linux or gNewsense. Due to some licensing by Apple, parts of it are not as "free" as OpenBSD. Then again, I know I don't have a soul. I like stuff that "just works" Explain "soul." As in "be a 'soul' into the decision." I see you whip another four letter word out, and I suspect it may have a different meaning, much like your odd definition of "free." For what it's worth, I've always interpreted OpenBSD's usage of "free" as "Free as in Liberty." You're "free" to take it, change it, make it your own, and do what you want. You're also "free" to not return your contributions to a derivative to OpenBSD. So far, nothing you've said that I've read has related to this definition of "free." It's always "Free as in Costs Nothing," "Free as Actually, I think the "Go Away" was more of a "shut up you silly little wanker." That doesn't stop you from being in the userbase, it's just a nice way to ask you to keep your trap shut until you have something really useful to say.
No this is bullshit. OpenBSD does not recommend proprietary software. We have a repository of software that is legally redistributable and that 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 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 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. 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 Well, I know of people that ...
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.
It makes good sense to establish principles and stick to them. It makes sense that different people have different principles and will criticize one another on the basis of them. But I think it is important to recognize that what furthers adoption of free software over non-free software is complicated and does not seem to follow from any simple rule. For instance, it seems to you that the Wine project is counter-productive. But the Wine project is inseparable from winelib. If you're not already familiar with winelib, check it out--then I'd be curious to know if you still think the Wine project is counterproductive, considering that there are many free applications that are Windows-only for technical reasons arising out of decisions made early in their development. Separately from this, Wine enables people who retain Windows for a few applications to switch over entirely to other operating systems. How do you balance this effect against your suggested effect of discouraging development of free replacements to software? What would you need to know to actually know that Wine was ultimately counterproductive, or ultimately productive? When it comes right down to it, a lot of the arguments about what do and will have what effect don't stand up unless supported with statistical evidence. This is the sort of thing you could publish a paper on, or maybe a book. But there is no reason for anybody to buy any argument about what specific kinds of free software encourage adoption of free software that doesn't provide something approaching hard evidence. It is one thing to say that there is a way for a project to be run that is most ethical. It is another to say that this will have the most ethical effects in the long run. There is no reason to believe that what has the best effects in the long run is necessarily the right thing, but then again, if it turns out that the "ethical" thing usually leads to unethical results in the long run, it is worth examining one's ethics. -Eliah
The world is not made of such extremes, fortunately. It is counterproductive in so far as to promoting the development of Free Software that replaces proprietary programs running on Windows. If this is not clear to you, please help me be more clear. Rui -- Umlaut Zebra |ber alles! Today is Setting Orange, the 5th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 Celebrate Mungday + 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...?
When you say the world is not made of such extremes, do you mean you think the long-term effects of something are always unquantifiable? That these specifically are unquantifiable? Indeed, if you could be more clear, that would be helpful. Suppose someone is unable to use Wine to run a proprietary program on a free operating system. As a result, they never use the free operating system. So they never use all the free programs that are part of that operating system. Well most of those programs fulfill a function that is also fulfilled (or sought to be fulfilled) by proprietary programs. So by enabling them to use their proprietary program in conjunction with a free operating system, they are also using many free alternatives to many other proprietary programs. This seems to promote development of software that replaces proprietary programs. 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. What I'm saying is that the matter of what supports replacing proprietary software with free software is complicated and merits a more textured analysis. In response, you seem to be saying that I hold a black-and-white view. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me (though you have managed to quote me in a way that makes it look like I hold and black-and-white view, I will assume that this was not intentional). -Eliah
The long term effects of anything are always something left to optimism People seldom evolute in harsh steps. Before I learned of free software, I only thought GNU/Linux as useful for college. Windows was invaluable for the games. After some time I noticed I didn't have enough space for my music collection and I hadn't booted on Windows for months in a row... never again. This was... about ten years ago... give or take an year. 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 Hms, you used the "ultimately" this "ultimately" that expression, sorry if I took you for holding that BaW PoV! Rui -- Umlaut Zebra |ber alles! Today is Sweetmorn, the 6th 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...?
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.
I actually prefer that it does continue. I note that Richard also says that AROS is a free operating system. Oh really? Did he not notice the web page where AROS includes software which emulates an Amiga perfectly, and to do this ---- talks about stealing the ROM from a real Amiga machine? Is that not the largest blob stolen, ever? http://aros.sourceforge.net/documentation/users/applications/euae.php And did Richard even check their License page, to notice that it has numerous revocation clauses? You are no Academic. You don't belong anywhere near MIT campus. You just plain don't know how to do research, and then you go around spreading mistruths. Richard, you are such a hypocrite. You don't matter any more in
This http://redfox.redfoxcenter.org/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=15560 is the man who is spreading all these lies about other decent Free Software developers. If you haven't seen him yet!
Don't forget to take a look at the unforgettable "all talk no action" character with GNU horns "behind the curtain" on the paperwork of the OpenBSD 3.7 release CD. http://openbsd.org/lyrics.html#37 or more precise: http://openbsd.org/images/37song.gif +++chefren
OK, I promised myself I wouldn't respond again to this thread or its children, but... The Puffy 'Wizard of OS' sequence is really cute. I hadn't seen that one before. I have to admit that the artwork was one of the things that attracted me to OBSD. -Ken
Yes, as this continues you have to say something Theo, but..... I personally prefer the moto "If you want it right - you have to do it yourself". So please Theo stop wasting your time and continue with your development of OpenBSD. The energy you wasting to reply this flame is taken from OpenBSD project. "So stfu and work!" P.S. The last one should be interpreted as "Do what you suppose to do!" Best regards Maxim Bourmistrov mailto: maxim@unixconn.com tfn.: +46735461332
I note that Richard also says that AROS is a free operating system.
I don't recognize the name AROS, but if it is an operating system, it
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.
Oh really? Did he not notice the web page where AROS includes
software which emulates an Amiga perfectly,
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.
And did Richard even check their License page, to notice that it
has numerous revocation clauses?
I don't know if I ever looked for that page. Perhaps an AROS
developer said it was free and I took his word for it. But since you
say AROS isn't free, I should check it now. You may be right.
What is the URL of that license page?
It is amazing how many corrections you've made here and there since the beginning of this thread. It looks more and more like you barely said a ... -- Gilles Chehade
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 Is that not the list you talked about? 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? -- 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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Richard, you've said some stupid things, mangled peoples' words and totally confused the issue on some things, but this takes the cake. he's talking about the "attack" itself, not the post. further, the "attack" is not an attack at all. your whole post is just yammering about a non-issue, trying to make your detractor look like a bad person. this is a very clear example of how you operate. you pass unfavorable judgement on people you do not like about things you very clearly do not understand, much less have researched yourself. would you please go away now. please? -- jakemsr@sdf.lonestar.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
It said "Use OpenBSD" right on your website... and this was a recommendation of OpenBSD. I'm getting the hint that you didn't even look at the website that I humor hacked. Someone must have looked at it for you, and relayed incorrect information back to you - stating that it was not a recommendation of OpenBSD. This just proves that you are indeed a puppet. Do you know what a puppet is? A puppet is someone that has other people do all their work and research for them.. the puppet then gets held on a string and moves his mouth up and down.. saying things that other people may have made up out of thin air. L505
Thanks Dad, I love you. My message was "use openbsd". Right on your website and on Fox News. Are you sure that you have not encouraged sabotage by starting this thread? Because there seems to be a lot of people who would not have gotten angry if you had not started this thread. By coming on here and implying that OpenBSD is not worthy/ethical, you are encouraging sabotage to OpenBSD. I hope that the other GNU developers will repudiate such conduct.
You said "the other openbsd developers". In this context, it implies that I am an OpenBSD developer. "The other" means that I am one myself and relative to me, they are "the other" developers with me. This is a lie or an error. I am an OpenBSD *user* who has not participated in development. I will in the future be submitting patches and I may become a developer - but by implying that I am an OpenBSD developer, you are lying/erring. The line between lying/erring is very very slim. This factual error problem you are having is a significantly visible pattern. It's not a pattern that is starting just now.. rather it is a pattern that can be seen over the period of several years.
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 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 misc@openbsd.org, 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 ...
Wait, you have someone else do the research, and this persons opinions get reflected in what you say? You don't have someone else factcheck, or double check these facts yourself?
> 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.
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!
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.
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?
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
...Richard, I don't want not make any comment on all this FUD, instead I'll just tell you this. I cannot anything but to appreciate and look how you are able to stay calm and polite when I read some people on this ML talking about crap, fucking duck with tape, shutting up things. That beeing said, I never liked that purple sweat-shirt of yours. Get an OpenBSD t-shirt instead, the benefits will help us making OpenBSD more free than ever ;-) Cheers, nicodache
No no, it's an idiom: "fucking duck", not "fuck a duck". Kinda like "fuckin' A, man", only not. As in "Holy fucking duck, man, did you see that!?" or "You're fucking duck right, I'm pissed!" or "I'm about ready to kick the fuckin' duck out of this goddam computer with a tape, man!" Then again, maybe it was just meant as a plain epithet, as in "Donald? I hate that fucking duck." I admit I'm a bit flummoxed by the tape part, though. Maybe the poster meant "fucking /duct/ tape"?
Oh finally! I never thought the never-ending Stallman threads would produce something of value, but now I need to revise my opinion. While ever so obviously OT, this still beats the hell out of all previous posts. /Alexander
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:30:58 -0500, "Richard Stallman" <rms@gnu.org> You made a mistake in the *way* you said it? OBSD does not contain any non-free software, yet you still maintain that it does. Nowhere have you retracted that statement. Actually, no one gives a rats ass what you say. Just stop spreading misinformation about OBSD. Just STFU and go away.
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 05:46:49 -0500 Perhaps you are placing too much trust in Lawyers? Dhu
