Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 30th Apr 2006 16:13 UTC, submitted by Soulbender
Permalink for comment 120097
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-03-12
Well, OpenBSD disagrees with your definitions. Closed source software is fine, but you're including the operating system in that definition - drivers are a part of the system. If the system cannot be properly maintained it may as well not be used, that's why NetBSD, FreeBSD and Linux distributions are being scolded.
By voiding the entire purpose of the operating system ndis users void the benifit of their operating system.
If you don't have a spine from the get go, you're only going to get a userbase of spineless punks, so you will never get away with removing something these punks find useful or important.
By having an actual backbone, morals and character, OpenBSD builds a userbase with those traits. Which I think is better than having a large one.