On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 05:53:40PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 08:47:16AM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:53:30AM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 05:49:42PM -0600, Gilles Chehade wrote: > > > > Why didn't you answer my mail Rui ? > > > > You are a troll. > > > > > > Either I did and you missed it, or it wasn't the answer you'd expect or > > > I found it so irrelevant it didn't even raise any bell. > > > > > > > You have not answered at all, you have answered to other people so that > > you could dodge my embarassing question instead of explaining why it is > > different to do the exact same thing when you are from the FSF. > > I'm not from the FSF. >
I was making a generic statement. > > According to YOU, it is okay to have emacs and gcc run on a proprietary > > system as it allows more people to run free software. How is it that it > > is wrong to allow more people to run a free system by giving them links > > to proprietary software if it encourages them to keep their free system > > instead of switching to a proprietary one ? > > 1) ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/ isn't "links" ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/ only contains software that can legally be redistributed, not to mention that it is a repository for software that a user *explicitely* installs, not something that is part of the OS. > 2) using more free software is better than not running it at all > 3) incentivating usage of non-free software on free software operating > systems doesn't incentivate the creation of free software replacements this is a word play. I know people who used OpenBSD for a while and stopped using it because a proprietary application they depended on was not available; and i know people who would use Linux/OpenBSD/whatever if emacs/gcc were not available and made so easy to use on Windows, because gcc is centric to their business and emacs integrates it so well. If the proprietary application was available, the lost openbsd users would be using *far more* free applications than the ones that are currently using emacs/gcc on Windows. > 4) FYI I think the wine project is counter-productive as it enables > running non-free software on free software operating systems, and as > such de-incentivates the creation of replacements. > 4.1) but it's free software and its authors have their own independence. > I don't follow the wine project and I don't know how well it works, but getting Windows applications to run under a free system looks very productive to me. It means that I can remove Windows from my workstation without preventing my girlfriend from doing her work or changing her habits. And as a strange side-effect, she would be using a free system and many other free utilities. > > By providing emacs and gcc for windows you encourage people to run just > > a few free applications with proprietary system and (many) tools, while > > we just give people the freedom to install a proprietary application on > > top of a free system with free tools. > > Look, OpenBSD is aggressive enough that people who "need" such non-free > software likely won't even run it on OpenBSD, so what you're saying is > that to the convenience of a few people who don't care for freedom of > all users, you distribute non-free software. > I have not said such a thing and you are playing words again to prove some point. If an OpenBSD user needs a package for work and does not find it, he will switch to another system because he needs his work done. For the convenience of these users, we provide a subsystem that allows them to install the software they need and *that is not shipped with our system*. The packages in our ftp are packages we are legally allowed to distribute and are not part of the system. Users need to explicitely install them if they want so. Now, please, I suggest you get familiar with the goals and policy pages because you tend to mix OpenBSD goals with the ones from the FSF. > > > Anyways, most of your emails have been so rude that in afterthought I > > > shouldn't even "honour" you with a reply. > > > > I try hard to keep my emails insult-free, saying that they are rude for > > helping you avoid embarassing questions is what makes you a troll. Just > > like your friend Stallman, you play on words and act like a victim if a > > person points at the flaws in your reasonning, grow up. > > No, I am a victim and your (generically, not specifically you) attitude > actually makes my relation with OpenBSD very frustrating. > It saddens me, but your (that's you and mr Stallman) attitude is very irritating. I would suggest, for the benefit of all, that you both leave as it would lessen your frustration and my irritation ... Gilles -- Gilles Chehade
