Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 17th Dec 2007 16:32 UTC, submitted by lmvaz
Thread beginning with comment 292350
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: de Raddt is an idiot
by archiesteel on Thu 20th Dec 2007 20:36
in reply to "RE[5]: de Raddt is an idiot"
Insults will get you nowhere, btw.
I didn't say that RMS was *right* in his assertion. I don't know if he is, and frankly I don't really care. That said, he did *not* say that OpenBSD "contained" non-free software, but still those who'll jump at any chance they get of attacking him have claimed otherwise. In the interest of a truthful, enlightened debate, I joined my voices to others who pointed out that blatant use of a the strawman logical fallacy.
The rest of your post is just barely-coherent, off-topic drivel.
RE[7]: de Raddt is an idiot
by tomcat on Fri 21st Dec 2007 18:07
in reply to "RE[6]: de Raddt is an idiot"






Member since:
2005-07-20
Are you daft man?
There is nothing in the ports tree that "suggests" anything, there is no pop-up window, there is no "try this if you need a browser!" advice, no little blurbs like "You know, this software is just super!"
Stallman is either a liar or incompetent. There is no way around it. Either he is lying in an attempt to make people convert to the church of GPL (look at his e-mail where he suggests people read his pointless ramblings on software "freedoms") or he is a bumbling idiot.
Suggesting something and allowing it are completely different things. The software he suggests go beyond either and actually deny software. gnewsense has issue with Debian providing the option of proprietary software?
"Firefox
This package has been rebranded to"BurningDog" and references, and options to install, to non-free software removed."
The fact that the sentence is a broken attempt at communicating an idea aside, are they willfully restricting what I can install on my own computer? Yes, I know, I could find a way around it easily, but they are purposely making a pain in the arse of themselves? Great, that's wonderfully free software. Bravo
Jerks
Suggesting something is really synonymous with recommending it. I don't suggest that it would be a good idea to visit my personal web site, but I do allow it if someone figures out how to do so. If I put the link in my profile, people could find it, but I would not be suggesting they visit it by putting the link someplace easily found by those who choose to visit. See how that works?
Same idea. No poppups, no "please install this" or "installing this would be super!" The only thing you'll find is an easily located link (makefile) which offers the possibility of non-free software.
It's really an incredibly simple distinction, one that Stallman willfully remains ignorant of, willingly ignores, or does not understand.
See kids, this is why grammar is important. People who can't write an idea like "This package has been rebranded. All references and options relating to non-free software have been removed." can't be trusted. People who can't write coherently tend to be unable to think very well either.
Of further importance, people who write things like "All references and options relating to some idea we don't agree with have been removed" also tend to be one of the following: bigots, racists, fascists, idiots, or any combination of the previous four.
Removing catcher in the rye from libraries sound familiar to anyone?