The chinese have this phrase "the flames cover the eyes". I think uninterested 3rd parties who're shown a copy of what was originally said, and a copy of this thread would probably not conclude that rms is trying to disparage OpenBSD. Seriously.
Remember, his "I cannot recommend $X" includes most versions of linux as well (in the past, it was all versions, iirc). Now, as for gcc and emacs on windows, he has given his reasons. I know some developers have joined in, but what was disgusting about this whole thread was how some users who jumped in to fan the flames, as if the more militant you get, the more openbsd street creds you have. Remember, if you're not a developer, you're NOT a developer, and any amount of frothing or finding faults and supposed insults from others won't make you a developer. This really is a very small deal. On 12/16/07, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > > -- Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk "This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity." -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. "Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted." -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0&feature=related
