Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Jan 2013 01:41 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y "A senior OpenBSD developer has complained on a mailing list that upstream vendors of free and open source software are adding in changes without any thought of whether downstream users could adapt to the change. Marc Espie said this would hurt smaller players by not allowing them to keep up with the changes. Basically what is happening is that numerous changes are being made to Linux and smaller projects like OpenBSD cannot keep up with the changes. And, according to Espie, not all these changes are strictly necessary."
Thread beginning with comment 548379
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: He's totally right
by kwan_e on Fri 11th Jan 2013 13:57 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: He's totally right"
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

"
Nope. The person you were responding merely stated their preference. They're not boycotting. They're prefering GPL over BSD if the GPL exist.

That's essentially the same thing. I will grant you that the term 'boycott' can be quite emotive, but the crux is the same: refusing to use one product as a personal protect (in this case, against non-GPL copyleft licences)
"

I know you don't like my nitpicking, but I don't care:

A preference is NOT the same, whether essentially or otherwise, as a refusal.

You maybe talking about the "vocal few", but by definition, they're not "many" and thus is neither here nor there in almost any discussion.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[9]: He's totally right
by Laurence on Fri 11th Jan 2013 14:09 in reply to "RE[8]: He's totally right"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


I know you don't like my nitpicking, but I don't care:

A preference is NOT the same, whether essentially or otherwise, as a refusal.

Indeed, but like I said, the previous poster was more pragmatic. Not everyone is.


You maybe talking about the "vocal few", but by definition, they're not "many" and thus is neither here nor there in almost any discussion.

with the greatest of respect, you were the one that joined this debate mid way through, so I couldn't give a fly f--k what you consider relevant. Where as the person I was actually discussing this with raised the topic about users who choose not to run BSD because of the licence, and thus my point was very relevant within the context of that discussion.

This obsession you have of constantly having to belittle and disprove everyone is just retarded. I mean, you were arguing with a pen tester about pen testing, and that after admitting you know nothing about security. Surely even you can see how backwards that kind of behaviour is? You're truly beyond the capability of a friendly discussion.

Edited 2013-01-11 14:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: He's totally right
by kwan_e on Fri 11th Jan 2013 14:45 in reply to "RE[9]: He's totally right"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

This obsession you have of constantly having to belittle and disprove everyone is just retarded. I mean, you were arguing with a pen tester about pen testing, and that after admitting you know nothing about security. Surely even you can see how backwards that kind of behaviour is? You're truly beyond the capability of a friendly discussion.


I don't belittle or disprove people. I only do it to ideas or statements. The trick is not to get so attached to ideas or statements such that non-agreement does not appear to be directed personally. Having said that, I don't even try to belittle or disprove ideas and statements. I point out what I think is wrong with them and people are allowed to rebut my observations. Prolonged questioning is not an argument.

I wasn't arguing with a pen tester. I was questioning the pen tester to try and understand the subject I didn't know much about. Little did I know that said pen tester was seeing my attempts to learn as trying to argue and possibly as trying to override his [self attested] authority on the subject. The pen tester tried to belittle my honest questioning with ad hominems, throwing the first figurative punch.

Then said pen tester tried to continue the argument he was having on his own in another unrelated article at no provocation at all.

You sure love your high horses, Mr Reeve.

Reply Parent Score: 2