Can you share some of them drugs you are on? This is some good shit.
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 02:13:24AM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: > Theo de Raadt wrote: > >> Theo de Raadt wrote: > >> > >>> Richard seperated us out. Jack, don't go telling me that we may not > >>> rail against Richard being a prick. > >>> > >>> > >> Well, no, you may. The problem is when two people sling poop on each other, > >> sooner or later it ends, and then all you've got is two guys standing > >> there looking > >> sheepish, all covered with poop. > >> > > > > How is this my fault? > > > Because you love OpenBSD soo much that you see threats and insults > even when they are not there. > > > Richard slagged our efforts. In the public space. > > > Go back and listen the the actual BSDTalk interview that started > this mess. > > OpenBSD never comes up by name. All the BSD's are discused > generically, There is one sentence about ports. Not the OpenBSD > ports systems, but ports generically across all BSD's. Even so the > remarks are qualifed. > > The most negative statement Richard made is "I can not recommend > them". By standards he has applied consistently to the other BSD's, and > Linux Distro's, > that is true. > > The whole trying to parse the meaning of the word "include" and > exactly how does ports work is just a red herring. Yes, Richard could > have more chosen a more precise word for a single sentence in a 30minute > interview with thousands of words during which the whole topic of BSD's > gets at base a minute or two, and OpenBSD is never mentioned. He also > could have become more educated about exactly how ports works, except > that he did not have to. There is software that is non-free that can be > installed through ports. I do not beleive you have ever argues that was > not true. > > Richard's exploring ports further would not have changed his > inability to recommend OpenBSD. But your looking into the published > criteria that he uses to assess whether he can recommend and OS would > have made it clear that no argument about how ports works would have > altered his inability to recommend OpenBSD without violating his own > standards. > > Of course Richard has ulterior motives - I suspect he would really > like to see one or all of the BSD's clear out all the non-free software > etc. OpenBSD is by far the closest to being able to receive his > recommendation. I am sure he would love to add a link to OpenBSD on the > GNU/FSF web sites. I suspect he would like to use OpenBSD as a club to > bring other Linux Distro's into line. None of thaat causes you or > OpenBSD any harm. > > Personally, I think both you and most of the OpenBSD community > actually want his recommendation, but you view making any change as a > result of an outside influence - and particularly Richard, the FSF and > GNU as an unacceptable sign of weakness. > > So fine, let this thread die, sit on your thumbs for a month, > re-read your own policies and goals. think about whether having non-free > software even linked to in ports is really consistent with them, decide > to remove non-free software - because it is a good idea and the right > thing to do, because it is inconsistent with atleast the implicit if not > explicit principles of OpenBSD. There are no binary blobs in the kernel, > you claim there is no non-free software in base or packages. If you feel > strongly enough to keep it out of those, why not ports? If it makes you > feel better sacrifice a couple more GNU tools, yank a few more GPL > packages. Whatever it takes to feel self righteous. Do it because it is > the right thing, because you really want to. Then sit back on your > thumbs and ignore Richard and the FSF/GNU some more, wait for Richard to > claim he can not endorse any BSD again, and then beat him to death. > You want to beat him up over his hypocracy - actually catch him in a > real act of hypocracy first. > > > Richard is a hyprcrite, since he does exactly the same thing. > > > All of us are hypocrits. I aspire to diminish my own hypocracy to > Richard's leevel. > > > Richard walked onto this mailin list, telling lies. > > > Each of us should judge Richard according to his own standards, > words and acts. > Nothing Richard says or does can diminish you. What effects your > stature or that of OpenBSD is your standards, words, and acts. > Take a couple of valium and reread Richard's original post. You have > to want to be insulted to perceive insult. > He asserted that under appropriate circumstances he is willing to > RECOMMEND OpenBSD privately. > If that is what you need to make you happy snip everything but the > last paragraph and post the email to the openbsd website.
