Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 12:02:21AM +0100, Martin Hanson wrote: > On policy page it clearly says: "OpenBSD strives to provide code that can > be freely used, copied, modified, and distributed by anyone and for any > purpose." > > This is MISGUIDING! Where is this secret firmware code which was

Re: Tor no longer works on -current ?

On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 03:26:01PM +1100, Joel Sing wrote: > On Saturday 07 January 2017 21:14:29 Olivier Antoine wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Is it only me or Tor no longer works on -current ? > > I believe this should already be rectified in -current (via a partial > reversion > of

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

08.01.2017, 02:53, "Peter Rippe" : > I think it absolutely is a language issue: > >>  On policy page it clearly says: "OpenBSD strives to provide code that can > > be freely used, copied, modified, and distributed by anyone and for any > purpose." > > Operative word being

Re: Tor no longer works on -current ?

On Saturday 07 January 2017 21:14:29 Olivier Antoine wrote: > Hi all, > > Is it only me or Tor no longer works on -current ? I believe this should already be rectified in -current (via a partial reversion of src/lib/libcrypto/x509/x509_vfy.c r1.54). Thanks for the report. > Every port or

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

Lol...wow, okclearly its not a language issue, its a 'you' issue... you seem to think that "making an effort", or "trying", or "trying against difficulties" (your quote) is somehow synonymous with "guarantee", "success"... And as Theo so plainly put it, >If you don't want such firmwares

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

On 08/01/17 12:28, Martin Hanson wrote: >> Nothing is going to change. Go try tugging on emotions elsewhere. > Actually, Theo I'm quite sure you need to change *something*: Perhaps a small alteration to the subscribers on this list… namely removing greencopperm...@yandex.com from it. -- Stuart

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

08.01.2017, 01:29, "Mike Burns" : > On 2017-01-08 00.02.21 +0100, Martin Hanson wrote: >>  The issue is a misguiding policy statement. > > It could be a language issue. I'm a native speaker and everything Theo, > et al., are saying matches perfectly with the policy

Re: Funding for Skylake support

...and my axe... On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 9:09 PM Jordon wrote: > > On Jan 7, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Peter Membrey wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I've gotten OpenBSD up and running on a new Intel NUC, but unfortunately > > Skylake isn't supported. I was

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

ludovic coues said: > You are free to use OpenBSD code. > You are free to copy OpenBSD code. > You are free to modify OpenBSD code. > You are free to distribute you fork. > > So unless your dictionary is twisted, shipping non-free firmware isn't > an exception to these freedom. You're wrong.

Re: Funding for Skylake support

> On Jan 7, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Peter Membrey wrote: > > Hi all, > > I've gotten OpenBSD up and running on a new Intel NUC, but unfortunately Skylake isn't supported. I was able to get X working in software accelerated mode, but it would be great to see true support for the

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

I think it absolutely is a language issue: > On policy page it clearly says: "OpenBSD strives to provide code that can be freely used, copied, modified, and distributed by anyone and for any purpose." Operative word being **strives** - might want to look it up. It does not say 'guaranteed',

computer users.

Thanks for all your work. There is a learning curve involved in this, and I'm glad to be with OpenBSD operating system. Its a far cry from stumbling into phrack, 2600, and cdc, and all the other horrible shit on the internet on a pentium 100 and win95(highschool). I'm glad for OpenBSD and people

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

> 08.01.2017, 01:29, "Mike Burns" : > > On 2017-01-08 00.02.21 +0100, Martin Hanson wrote: > >>  The issue is a misguiding policy statement. > > > > It could be a language issue. I'm a native speaker and everything Theo, > > et al., are saying matches perfectly with

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

On 08/01/17 09:02, Martin Hanson wrote: > OpenBSD ALSO provides software that cannot freely be modified in any way and > it DOES THIS WITHOUT EVEN ASKING THE USER! 5 seconds with a hex-editor says otherwise. My Windows 95 desktop used to report "Starting Winblows 97.." on boot-up due to a

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

On 2017-01-08 00.02.21 +0100, Martin Hanson wrote: > The issue is a misguiding policy statement. It could be a language issue. I'm a native speaker and everything Theo, et al., are saying matches perfectly with the policy statement, to me. Perhaps you can suggest improved wording. Patches go to

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

at the risk of feeding a troll... see below On 8 Jan 2017 at 0:02, Martin Hanson wrote: > ludovic coues said: > > > You are free to use OpenBSD code. > > You are free to copy OpenBSD code. > > You are free to modify OpenBSD code. > > You are free to distribute you fork. > > > > So unless your

Re: KERNEL PANIC: HP 250 G5 Notebook PC (W4M67EA)

On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 03:32:22PM -0800, Mike Larkin wrote: > On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 06:55:28AM +0900, Kyoung Jae Seo wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 02:00:44PM +0300, Özgür Kazancci wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > Mike, just wanted to ask if you've had any chance of committing anything > >

Re: KERNEL PANIC: HP 250 G5 Notebook PC (W4M67EA)

On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 06:55:28AM +0900, Kyoung Jae Seo wrote: > On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 02:00:44PM +0300, Özgür Kazancci wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Mike, just wanted to ask if you've had any chance of committing anything > > regarding the issue? Few months have passed and I'm just curious about

OpenBSD kernel L1 to L4 transmission and Qemu debug problem

Hello everyone, I've just started investigating OpenBSD kernel and I'm interested in networking stuff. Actually I'm not sure this mail group is a correct place or not but I've to need some information about L1 to L4 packet transmission (incoming/outgoing). I've created debug environment for

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 10:16:39AM -0500, Kenneth Gober wrote: >> The difference is, closed source firmware runs on the device itself >> and if it's buggy, generally the most it will do is make the device >> appear to be

Funding for Skylake support

Hi all, I've gotten OpenBSD up and running on a new Intel NUC, but unfortunately Skylake isn't supported. I was able to get X working in software accelerated mode, but it would be great to see true support for the chipset. Unfortunately I don't have the necessary skills to work on this myself,

Tor no longer works on -current ?

Hi all, Is it only me or Tor no longer works on -current ? Every port or compiled version of stable or unstable branch of Tor on a fresh OpenBSD snapshot fail at the same bootstrap stage… Don't know since when exactly, but the last snapshot working for me was : OpenBSD 6.0-current

6.0 sppp does not answer PPPoE-Discovery code offer

Hi, while trying to switch my Vigor130 to pppoe pass through and let my OpenBSD firewall handle the pppoe stuff, I get: 1:31:42.085747 00:0f:c9:04:db:87 ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff 8100 36: 802.1Q vid 7 pri 3 PPPoE-Discovery code Initiation, version 1, type 1, id 0x, length 12 tag

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 10:16:39AM -0500, Kenneth Gober wrote: > The difference is, closed source firmware runs on the device itself > and if it's buggy, generally the most it will do is make the device > appear to be non-functional or unreliable. If a PCI device has unrestricted DMA access, as

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Martin Hanson wrote: > Yes, it can be argued that since we cannot get any open hardware at all it doesn't matter whether the firmware is located on a ROM or if it's installed by the kernel, but if we use that logic we might as well just

Re: Non-free firmware without asking the user

On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 12:22:55AM +0100, Martin Hanson wrote: > I have misunderstood the purpose and use of the term "free" of OpenBSD > then. > > "OpenBSD strives to provide code that can be freely used, copied, modified, > and distributed by anyone and for any purpose", apparently there exists