login
Search
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 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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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 ;-)
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
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
> 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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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>
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
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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!!!
> 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.
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.
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!!!
In my first mail itself I requested him to check for 1) Bipolar Disorder 2) Hypothyroidism And I was serious!
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
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
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
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 ...
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
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?
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 ...
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.
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 ...
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 ...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
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
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/
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 ...
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.
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 ...
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.
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.
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
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?
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!!!
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.
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.
How about OpenBSD ports system a general purpose tool given by developers to the users?
OpenBSD is a general-purpose tool.
