Pardon me for intervening: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq13.html#javaflash tells the user how to get these things into a clean OpenBSD system. I am sure that it doesn't include the words: "Zomg! you have to use it and we highly recommend it" but _every_ OpenBSD user is encouraged to read the FAQ and as a consequence ends up reading these sessions. Maybe they should come with the kind of dubious warning signs we get on cigarette packs: Use of non-free software is highly harmful to your computer and ethics. On a more serious note: everybody who criticizes the other of non-free -- Karthik http://guilt.bafsoft.net
On another hand we are not GNU/GPL and we don't mind our users installing non free software if it is what they want. The FAQ is where this needs to one who criticizes the other should come informed too. -- Gilles Chehade
If you don't mind users using non-free software, you shouldn't be putting the 'Free. ' in 'Free. Functional. Secure.'; You shouldn't be fighting those blob vendors and call them nasty names; Rather, probably document how to use such drivers and firmware 'faster'. Then you shouldn't be making a claim that 'OpenBSD supports openness'. If you can manipulate your reasons for making this ethical, you shouldn't be calling others names. And you shouldn't bring back ethics' dead And the rest who do should avoid red herring arguments and accept what they are doing. In other words, they should say: 'I am wrong. I will fix the problem at my end. Your turn now.' I don't see anybody doing it. Don't you see how you're not doing anything but complaining? It -- Karthik http://guilt.bafsoft.net
again this is good advice RMS should hear so i am ccing to him :-) EXACTLY WHAT RMS DID NOT DO!!! Boy you should be sending this to RMS instead. You talk a little sense in some of the phrases in your replies. But you are talking to the wrong people. Again this is for RMS. He does not fix the problem at his end. those are 1) Apologize for slandering other projects who don't come under his control. 2) Do Research to find out the truth 3) Be practical ( Demon+wget ) And all he does is is complain. 1) I made a minor mistake. 2) Everything He says is OK. 3) rolling in the mud after falling down without trying to get up and be clean. 4) Lament how Linux devs don't listen to him. and more...........
When I said everybody, I meant Everybody. Not one person. Applying the same to OpenBSD, all that the people here do is bitch about and nothing more.
Most of the devs in here are busy coding and not contributing to this thread. Theo and a few others were forced to respond because their project is being slandered and they were forced to let the world know the truth and expose a lying hippocrite.
Are register values preserved between function calls on amd64? I'm pretty sure they are whipped out on i386, but I'm sure about amd64. Do I need to write parameters to %rbp offset, then follow the x86-abi for registers to write to before making the function call? When I disassemble C code, it looks like the parameters are written to %rbp, then to the registers per the x86-84 abi, and then the function is called? Is this the preferred way to write function calls? And I would use the same method to save the return value in %rax, right? Thanks, Brian ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
it should be spilling the old register values to the stack, not the new arguments. arguments after 4 do go on the stack though.
NO! people here are not bitching, May be you are. People here are setting the record straight when there is a liar spreading wrong information about the project when he himself is the one breaking his rules an not OpenBSD. I you really meant everybody why did you not cc to firstname.lastname@example.org? Even now after you were asked to do it?
Yeah, I noticed that too. Why, they haven't provided me with a free upgrade for, what 2, 3 months? It's a disgrace.
You are talking about unrelated matters, and mixing our goals with the ones of your own community. OpenBSD is free software that contains no blob, no closed-source object and that can be *fully* redistributed with no strings attached. You can buy the cd and do whatever you want as long as you retain the copyright on the files in it. You can take any part of OpenBSD and look at source for it, nothing is obfuscated. You can build a full OpenBSD system from the sources on the cvs. That's it. What you do with it is not of our matter and we do not prevent you from installing a proprietary software on top of it. This is your call, what you do with what we provide you is none of our business, as long as you Please, show us what it is that we do and that goes against our goals and license. Hint: carefully read the two following pages. http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html -- Gilles Chehade
I represent neither FSF nor OpenBSD. I probably represent the community which listens to the propagandas put across by both but wants to fight back against false marketing and for the right things Yawn. And it makes the flash installation faster after you've built it My call: all lies and ego. -- Karthik http://guilt.bafsoft.net
Then you are misunderstanding OpenBSD's goals which are clearly stated We do not provide flash, we provide a Makefile which will allow someone to install flash if he wants to. This Makefile is not even part of the system and needs to be fetched manually by the user. This is *NOT* against goals, which you do not want to read. Please stop making uninformed claims, read the goals and policy page which are accessible from the very home page of the project. When you do so, you can freely point us where we are in breach with our claims, until then you You failed to read two pages and to point out where we are going against our own claims. My call: troll. -- Gilles Chehade
I understand the goals that are not written on that page: do what you like and fight for what you believe in. Goals are just text written in I use ports. I am not dumb. :P The goals do not specify "to encourage people to use I am not uninformed. What makes you say that? You, sir are biased towards OpenBSD and you can say what you want but it doesn't make your version of the Your own claims? 1. (Try to be the #1 most secure operating system). Google for adobe flash player vulnerabilities. 2. Do not let serious problems sit unsolved. I see that you people -- Karthik http://guilt.bafsoft.net
Richard, isn't: "Run GNOME in a **VMWare Player** in a Linux virtual machine." Or: "Run GNOME on a virtual machine using QEMU on Linux or **Parallels** for **Mac** or Linux." promoting the use of non-free software? http://torrent.gnome.org/ GNOME _is_ a GNU package. Greetings!
Richard, Linux is not free software, as you have already stated, please change your religion, so users don't get confused. "Emacs was originally a text editor, but it became a way of life and a religion. To join the Church of Emacs, you need only say the Confession of the Faith three times: There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels." http://www.stallman.org/saint.html Greetings!
"Run GNOME in a **VMWare Player** in a Linux virtual machine." Or: "Run GNOME on a virtual machine using QEMU on Linux or **Parallels** for **Mac** or Linux." promoting the use of non-free software? This is a case of running a free program on non-free platforms. Nonetheless, I think it is more of a problem than running on Windows, because those non-free platforms are optional add-ons to the system. Thanks for telling me about this. I have not visited this site myself: http://torrent.gnome.org/ Would you be so kind as to tell me the precise URLs where you found those quotes? If not, I will look for someone else who will do that for me.
> http://torrent.gnome.org/ > > Would you be so kind as to tell me the precise URLs where you > found those quotes? That is a host; I figured it would have lots of pages. Your message today hinted that maybe you meant the front page. So I looked there, and found them there. Thanks. I will raise the issue with the Gnome developers, and I hope they will change it.
You know that saying, "if you want something done right, you do it yourself"? I'd be adhering to that, especially in cases where I put forth such controversial opinion in such a public display. Such an outspoken person should be well informed, lest he keeps choking on his own toe jam. Are you too good for Google? http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Run+GNOME+in+a+VMWare+Player+in+a+Linux+virtual+m... If you'd even bothered to go to the front page already quoted to you, you'd notice that that is where it is.
And so what? I think you were trying to prove that OpenBSD were not living up to their goals. Instead you are repeating what RMS started out with. Try actually showing us one of OpenBSD's goals that the What are you on about? As people have tried to explain again and again, OpenBSD does not ship with adobe flash player. Did you understand the "Secure by Default" mode? Jacob Grydholt
Secure by default. Ship with nothing and call it secure. Wow! Maybe it shouldn't start the network by default, huh? Then that's secure, isn't it? Start no daemons, start no shells: ZOMG!!! it's secure :P OpenBSD got pwned a year ago with another remote hole. I hope they find enough so they can stop bragging about 'Secure by default'. Do you realize that many people just can not live with 'default'? Look: people do "use" OpenBSD for things other than plain old fvwm with xterm. And keeping security as a goal is not just for a stupid -- Karthik http://guilt.bafsoft.net
So which all daemons should be started in your opinion? Apache? NTPD? ( you have an option for that during install ) named? ftp-proxy? or any other? But some one else may have a different list :-( And some one like me may want to use it as desktop and may not want to start any of these daemons so it is just wasting my memory and needlessly causing pain for a new user to find out what to stop and It is said openly in the main page itself http://www.openbsd.org/ "Only two remote holes in the default install, in more than 10 years!" No hiding the truth, Which other OS can brag like that? Please let us know! Do you have any Idea about the auditing of code that takes place in OpenBSD compared to other OSes? Do you know what is the difference between the gcc in OpenBSD and others. http://www.openbsd.org/papers/asiabsdcon07-development/mgp00006.html Please read the full presentation to see how OpenBSD is a better OS as a software development environment than others. And how free it is. http://www.openbsd.org/papers/asiabsdcon07-development/mgp00006.html And all the fault you could find in all these 10 years was one another remote hole ( of a total of only two ) inorder to say that they are yes that is why you are given a website with FAQ, a mailing list like this where developers take time to answer some times in a detailed way on how to handle things. One example is what I can never forget is How Daniel Hartmeir helped me in detail with the tread shown below. http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-pf&m=110690953100933&w=2 And that is also why you are told to read #man man and #man afterboot once you install. Which OS installation does provide all the variety of their users the luxury of start using it in any way they want without any configuration after install? Come on Don't be silly!!! Well If you expect **spoon feeding** then go ...
Unfortunately for you, OpenBSD ships with a lot of things that you don't even have in a Linux minimal install, including a compiler and software that runs the most common services such as ssh, http, smtp, pop3, ... It does not start the daemons because it makes *NO SENSE* starting tons of services just to have users figure out how to disable them. Let's apply your reasonning to real life: when you go shopping at OpenBSD Mall, you take a cart and chose what you put in it from what's in the store. When you go to your own store, someone hands you a cart that's already filled up with everything, and you need to put things you don't want back to the storages. So ? Because people install different things we should have all of it installed and enabled by default ? You live in wonderland. OpenBSD is secure by default, people who run it and install applications that come from elsewhere need to only worry about the security of these applications because we take care of worrying for our own. If we hit a bug, they are made aware of it and it is likely that we will find a bug in OpenBSD before they do as we actively search them. Security may be a final goal, but the immediate goal is to fix things to improve quality of the code. The side effect of this is less bugs and a better quality. You obviously know nothing about programming. -- Gilles Chehade
Hey young man, There was a second remote hole, it's pretty sure nobody in the industry has misused it. Hope... And of course =other= people should find them? You seem from the same church as RMS... OpenBSD is by all standards secure by default, even if the next 10 years another 2 or even 4 remote holes would be found. By the way, you can just start working on it and everyone here would love you. We all realize everyone is different and certainly not a copy of your pope. So only the truly necessary is on and you can add what you need with extremely Without security as a main issue during development software that has to be connected to the internet is not usable. Your pope Richard Stallman =says= gNewSense is to his standards, but you need perhaps 200+ good, experienced, and dedicated developers to get Ubuntu to his prayers within 1 or 2 years. I strongly believe gNewSense has not one such a developer seriously busy with cleaning Ubuntu since it's clearly a waste of time. Not at least since Debian is a better start and OpenBSD is clear since quite some time. gNewSense can be put in the graveyard besides The Hurt and quite a few other old prayers of Richard. You know what? There are people here who started to dig the hole for GCC too, indeed little chance they will succeed but far more chance than gNewSence getting up to Richards prayers. +++chefren
You are spouting non-sense. These are goals we fight for and believe in. It is only from the eyes of a fsf zealot that words are meant to be twisted. Again: show us all where we are doing the opposite of what is The goals do not specify "prevent users from running non-free software". The goals do not mention anything about what people ought to do with our You are misinformed because you keep arguing about things as if they are wrong, yet they are only wrong from an FSF point of view. It is not wrong and unethical to run proprietary software, I do it every day and I do not feel wrong about it. It is only unethical in the eyes of a fsf zealot. OpenBSD does not ship with a flash player. If you have one, you installed Show us a sitting problem that needs to be resolved, until know you have been talking and failed to point out anything I kindly asked you to point. -- Gilles Chehade
You do? What does that make you? You are the one making the decision to install it. If you can use the ports system you probably know at a high level what you are doing. You might or might not care about "free" (your definition) or "non-free" (again your definition) software. You are calling that person retarded and unable to make up his/her own mind. That attitude is repugnant and oppressive. I hope for you that your freedom won't be taken from you and that someone calls you retarded for Which doesn't run on OpenBSD but does run on Linux. Oh oh wait, GNU/Linux because FSF did all the work; oh wait it didn't it is just a It isn't a problem and until you get that through your skull you'll keep
It is the truth though. But, I'll mention that what you just said doesn't make your delusion true. 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
Karthik, My Friend, You are becoming too stupid and childish because you keep whining that OpenBSD does not live up the goals stated on their websites. Please point out specific instances like 1) ....... 2) ........ 3) ............ ok? Otherwise you just sound silly!!! And again you forgot to cc RMS, I have added him. I hope your firmware confusion was over with the explanation given in a mail up in this thread. If only you will study how much OpenBSD project has contributed to freeing up documentation for writing free drivers that let you use free systems ( since you claim you use it ) you would drop your silly generalization and vague accusations. If you want to reply any more to this thread please shoe specific instances where OpenBSD has deviated from its goals. Some body competent enough can always answer you and clear your confusion. may be the competition person will be busy coding and might not even read your mail. But from your part be serious and state clearly where the deviation has taken place
This is your website right? http://guilt.bafsoft.net/links.html If you think OpenBSD is not free then why did you put it under Free OSes in your site? ========================== Free OSes OpenBSD link Debian link Slackware link Minix link OpenSolaris link ========================== By now if you have been carefully studying you should have learned that OpenBSD ans OpenSolaris are as far as east is from the west when it comes to freedom? Or Are you also like RMS who knows nothing but opens his big mouth to Go to sleep and have a good night and come back in the morning with a Yup you are so important and famous that everyone should be discouraged about what you think and say!
It even has Debian and Slackware; Which contain lots of non-free software. It's been a while since I removed links on that page. And for the information I very much use OpenBSD. Maybe I should change the All I see is a set of groups spreading propaganda in their own interests. I take no sides. :-) BSD 4.2 -> 4.4 -> 4.4 Lite -> OpenBSD; 4.2 -> SunOS -> OpenSolaris; Maybe someone might fork OpenBSD in the future and make money. Too I'm not forcing that opinion on anybody. Like it or leave it. -- Karthik http://guilt.bafsoft.net
No. Free is free. Free as in beer is unethical to children who view the website and wonder what beer tastes like and get drunk because they read beer was something that was "good" on the GNU site. Since free as in beer is on the site, it restricts children from knowing what the site means as they have never tried beer. But now they want to drink under the age because of Stallman. Stop playing with phrases. Free as in sex, is what you use. That way, you confuse people even more. The software and hardware involved, makes more sense to everyone when it is explained in terms of sexuality. http://z505.com/gng/
There is no such thing as free as in beer. This is one of the dumbest analogies I have ever heard. Who came up with it anyway? Was it the Wrong. One spreads propaganda and accuses the other of bs. The other calls the bs out and proves conclusively that there is (let me use a FSF word here) FUD. Your arguments are stupid and you have been told repeatedly so. Don't like it? stop replying. I will continue to point Good for them. We, the actual OpenBSD community, encourages others to And you have been told by many that your opinion has no bearing.
Thank you. But, like all good political slogans, it is stupid like a fox: the hucksters who push it know that most people are too stupid to stop and ask themselves whether it really means anything. Kinda like "Mission Accomplished", "Compassionate Conservativsm", "Guns don't kill people, lead poisoning kills people", etc.
You're replying to it. Stop replying if it doesn't have a bearing.
No. Obviously, you are Rui Miguel Silvia Seabree. You can't fool us, Rui. You've had your fun here, now run along and hide under somebody else's bridge, please.
Great. The first step is to inform yourself to that your role evolves from one who listens to one who understands.
The word 'free' is there because OpenBSD is free. It is not there because developers mind or don't mind users doing this Should you wish to inform yourself, there are a number of posts in the list archives explaining various specific reasons why the OpenBSD developers are against blobs. Theo, in particular, wrote at least one rather short and very cogent message explaining the reasons. You should look towards the beginning of the threads, because later on you are more likely to see Theo losing patience with respondents who did not read the original posts (carefully enough, or perhaps not at all).
You're missing the point why somebody is calling OpenBSD non-free. Or Here is one: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2005-March/081313.html Notice how Theo talks about "because their firmware images were not free enough to ship in our releases" I suppose you can now explain the meaning of the term "free" in firmware in this context? Don't assume people don't read before replying in here. -- Karthik http://guilt.bafsoft.net
I don't know about people, but YOU don't read before replying. Please, read before you reply ... you are calling for rudeness. Firmware are not free enough when they have a license that does not allow them to be redistributed with the system. -- Gilles Chehade
The GNG foundation speaks of free as in sex, not cost. Firmware goes into software.
Ah, like playing flipper: If you do it well, you dont have to pay the second time?
Yup! Free SEX can cost you your life some times! Especially now when you have those preventive things with the virus already in it. but it rhymes GnewSex, GnewSense!
What has money to do with this ? You sound like you have issues understanding, so I will make it as simple as I can, please take the time to read a few times, and make sure you get it, before replying to this mail: - vendor A sells hardware that requires a firmware - OpenBSD wants to support that hardware and needs the firmware to be shipped, say in /etc/firmware/, to have the hardware work out of the box - vendor A says "if a customer wants the firmware, he must go to out website and fill a registration form online". - OpenBSD does not ship the firmware because it is not free enough. See ? This is an example, it is unrelated to money, and you still failed to show us ONE point where we don't stick to our goals. -- Gilles Chehade
So registration form = non-free. You failed to prove how it was not free. I asked if it required OpenBSD to pay money to a vendor, or the issue was about something else besides the money. I don't see the registration form being a problem here. Maybe they might simply take down your name and address for contact details or whatever. I don't see why a registration form must be non-free here.
Maybe your information is worthless. Mine isn't.
yes it is in the case. what's your problems is? if i have purchaised hardware of this vendor (and with e.g notebooks WRT wifi there is no much of a choise), why should i have trouble and *find a way* to go to vendor's site to fill some dumb form (what for? i already paid them) and then donwlonad the firmware and get my device running. instead they could allow OpenBSD to redistrubute it in a form as it is, and i could use my device the second kernel initializes the device. that would be freedom for me, user of the hardware. but the vendor wants to restrict my freedom by making me going to the site otherwise i won't be able to use the device. i have no choise. is it so complicated so it needs the one who failed here is you. how old are you? you sound childish. "The answer, as I have found out, to all my previous questions is the notions of god that we have etched into our minds. This is where all my questions end and I walk the path I know." it sounds like you stopped learning and perhaps there is no point to talk to you.
Well like... is it not that freedom number 3 or something as defined by fsf say something like freedom to to distribute to your neighbours, e.g. include such stuff in your OS and share the whole thing with your neighbour? -- 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
NO! You failed to see how it was proved. You are not the world. MAYBE :-))))))) So you yourself are not sure eh? You don't see many things that is why you keep posting silly stuff :-)
It's not me that fails to prove anything, it's you that fails to comprehend simple logic: if OpenBSD wants to provide support for a software, BUT the required firmware requires USER to fill a form, how can OpenBSD ship the firmware ? Think for a just a second. -- Gilles Chehade
Yes it is non-free! Very much so. I will pertinently refuse to fill out ANY webform unless I am paying for something. My personal information is one of my most prized possessions. Company XYZ that sold (past tense) me a piece of hardware does not need to know ANYTHING about me. If I go to a news site and they require me to fill out a form I close the tab. I also refuse to click on any web ad as they can track my information based on my IP address. See the difference is that you don't care about freedom you care about gratis. You are a cheapskate hunting for a bargain I cherish my liberty and protect it as much as I can. You'll happily give away your liberty in change for some gratis stuff. In conclusion you don't know what free means. It is getting old isn't it? How many times do we need to tell you to read a dictionary?
Good luck trying to get him to read something, he is apparently not familiar with this concept. Gilles -- Gilles Chehade
in context: "because their firmware images were not free enough to ship in our releases, and after 6 months of wasting our time and being stalemated, we informed Qlogic and our user community (as well as YOUR user community) that we were removing the support for their controllers. A few days later the firmware was free." Are you complaining because Theo actually accomplished something?
(apologies to Karthik who will receive this mail twice) And you apparently missed the posts where the leading developers of OpenBSD stated that they don't care about your definition of free. As a non-English speaker I am aware of the multifacetted English word 'Free' and its many connotations. So it is not hard for OpenBSD to name itself free. Coming out and saying that OpenBSD should not call itself free because it freely allows users to install non-free I assume that Theo were not referring to firmware supposed to run in the kernel but on some kind of expansion card. Furthermore, I assume that the original firmware license prohibited free distribution. In any case: what is your point? Jacob Grydholt
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 20:14:27 +0100 And my dad is stronger than your dad!
Such a somebody is mistaken. Full stop. The point "why somebody" issues mistaken pronouncements is not A swing and a miss.
Huh? OpenBSD is built from free software and allows users the freedom to do what they please, even if that means running non-free software. You have a strange idea of "free". An OpenBSD user exercising freedom of choice, by choosing to use some non-free software, does not make OpenBSD non or less free. Shane
No shit! They go ahead and redefine what 'free' means and they try to criticise people for still using dictionaries. Kinda says something about the level they're working 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
I couldn't agree more. In fact, I think something like "Stallman-free" or "GNU-free" might be more appropriate. Since, obviously, RMS has declared that "free" means what he said. But it doesn't really scan, does it now. Tell you what, let's make a deal. You try to get them to replace "free" in FSF/GNU literature with "sin-free", or "divinely free"; if you succeed, I'll do my best to get Theo to change the OBSD catch-phrase to "Libertine. Licentious. Diabolically Functional. Secure".
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 09:58:47PM +0530, Karthik Kumar wrote: | > On another hand we are not GNU/GPL and we don't mind our users installing | > non free software if it is what they want. The FAQ is where this needs to | > be documented for users to get their job done faster. | > | | If you don't mind users using non-free software, you shouldn't be | putting the 'Free. ' in 'Free. Functional. Secure.'; You shouldn't be | fighting those blob vendors and call them nasty names; Rather, You really have no clue about what the portstree and the packages do in OpenBSD, do you ? OpenBSD is Free, Functional and Secure. This is not required from software you install from packages or via the ports tree. It's the OS that is free. Try to understand : all of OpenBSD is Free. Everything. Nothing in OpenBSD is not free (barring bugs, but I believe those have been eradicated by now). The kernel is free, binaries and manpages are free, the ports tree is free, software used to install packages (pkg_add) is free, free free free. You can get them at no extra charge (apart from you internet connection fee + storage cost etc.) so the OS is free as in "gratis" or "without charge". You can look at the source of the kernel, binaries, manpages, portstree, pkg_add and change them to your liking so the OS is free as in "freedom" : you have the freedom to use and change it as you like. OpenBSD got to be free because it fights blob vendors and calls them nasty names. This keeps the OS Free (no restricting your freedom) and Functional (it actually works on the hardware) and Secure (no blobs running on your CPU/in your kernel that may do whatever). And another cool part : OpenBSD does not restrict you (aka, gives you the freedom) in what software you wish to install and run on your system, be it free or non-free. That's another point for the 'free' part : freedom to install non-free software (if you chose to do so) (also, it's another point for the 'functional' part, but that goes without saying). ...
Please Ask RMS to put it in the softwares on the FSF software list. He is the one who started it all!! Again this is typically what you must have said to RMS and not to misc@
Please cite a piece of software that can harm my computer merely because it is "non-free" in the FSF/GNU sense. And you should probably Sophistry. If there is problems in logic, etc then one need not be of a certain type (with respect to what you're saying) to realize that nor point it out. To say so is asinine (above as well). On a more general note, I'd (and I imagine a lot of people on misc@ too) would appreciate before any more replies are sent from the religious people, please religious people, read: Pay special attention to the "Fanaticism" type: http://criticalsnips.wordpress.com/category/postman/ Link to full text within: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_bullshit And really really reflect on this before you reply. 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
Eggs are harmful because they do not come with reproductive chickens. Books are harmful because they can be photocopied and we are not allowed to resell them without complicated permission first. The photocopier is the machine that makes copying books virtually free.. similar to CD-ROM drives. The chicken is the machine that makes copying eggs virtually free.. similar to CD-ROM drives. Yet there is no free book license or free egg license, because personal source comments in code are different than personal comments and algorithms on paper in O'Reilly books. Source comments, inside code.. ARE a book. My code always contains plenty of personal comments around my algorithms explaining why I came up with that algorithm and how the person can use the algorithm. L505
|Andrew Morton||Re: [PATCH] lazy freeing of memory through MADV_FREE 2/2|
|Stephen Rothwell||linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the ext4 tree|
|Alexandre Oliva||Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3|
|Bernd Paysan||Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3|
|david||Re: [PATCH 0/2] Kexec jump: The first step to kexec base hibernation|
|Felipe Contreras||Re: [kernel.org users] [RFD] On deprecating "git-foo" for builtins|
|Johannes Schindelin||[PATCH] fetch: refuse to fetch into the current branch in a non-bare repository|
|Johannes Schindelin||Re: [PATCH] Fix install-doc-quick target|
|Nicolas Pitre||Re: About git and the use of SHA-1|
|Alex Riesen||Re: git exclude patterns for directory|
|Linux Kernel Mailing List||sh: Fix compile error by operands(mov.l) in sh3/entry.S|
|Linux Kernel Mailing List||New device ID for sc92031 [1088:2031]|
|Linux Kernel Mailing List||powerpc/kexec: Add support for FSL-BookE|
|Linux Kernel Mailing List||tmpfs: depend on shmem|
|Linux Kernel Mailing List||drivers/acpi: use kasprintf|
|Andi Kleen||Re: RFC: Nagle latency tuning|
|Herbert Xu||Re: Oops in tun: bisected to Limit amount of queued packets per device|
|gregkh||Patch "IPv6: keep route for tentative address" has been added to the 2.6.34-stable...|
|Paul Gortmaker||[PATCH net-next 09/16] tipc: Relocate trivial link status functions to header file|
|Russell King||Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs|
|Andres Salazar||About priorities in /etc/resolv.conf|
|Rob Shepherd||x86 hardware for router system|
|Tonnerre LOMBARD||Re: bge0: watchdog timeout|
|Damien Miller||Re: Patching a SSH 'Weakness'|
|P. Souza||Re: RouterBOARD RB600A support|