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.
| Adrian Bunk | Re: Linux 2.6.21 |
| Linus Torvalds | Linux 2.6.21-rc2 |
| WANG Cong | [-mm Patch] UML: fix a building error |
| Roland McGrath | Re: [PATCH 0/5] ftrace: to kill a daemon |
git: | |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Patrick McHardy | Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3) |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Theodore Ts'o | Re: cc1 fails silently |
| Michael Nolan | Power routines on notebook cause kernel panic |
| Marc Peters | v 0.11 boot disk problem |
| Dave `geek' Gymer | WARNING (was Re: New afio release) |
