LonnieOlson

• Catching up on past Tekzilla shows #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

• Watching Star Wars Episode 1. Thank goodness for Tivo. #
• Ubuntu Hardy bug report http://tinyurl.com/5qxy7p #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

• Finally got the bugs squashed after the Hardy upgrade. #
• It seems every new version of the Linux kernel breaks VMware modules ability to actually compile. Is this a failure on Linux or VMware? #
• @mollywood It’s better too look good dead, than to be alive and ugly. #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

There was a very long thread on the misc@openbsd.org mailing list of the last week. It all started with some comments from Richard Stallman responding to complaints to him about his past remarks on BSDTalk. Lots of flaming and other arguments ensued. Including this snippet.

Theo: “Since both emacs and gcc contain code inside them which permit them to compile and run on commercial operating systems which are non-free, you are a slimy hypocrite.”

RMS: “I see you are being your usual friendly self ;-}.”

Much of it was very thought provoking, but the majority was just bickering. The biggest point of the whole war being that RMS had specifically recommended against OpenBSD because it “included” non-free software, referring to the ports system. Theo and others took offense at this because the ports system doesn’t “include” any external software, it is only a framework of Makefiles that make installing lots of software packages, Free and Non-Free, easy. And the entire ports system is 100% Free-Software.

IMHO, the saddest part of this whole debacle is the fact that besides the extremely obscure gNewSense pet project of RMS, there is no other operating system, or distribution of an operating system more Free than OpenBSD. Both RMS and Theo have similar goals with Free Software, but have radically different tactics and personalities.

A recent New York Times article very clearly and rationally explained my stance on marriage. As long as the government recognizes and assigns rights/privileges to those with a marriage licenses, it is an infringement of the civil rights of those denied licenses.

Those opposed to granting marriage licenses to others based on the choice of partner often spew forth ideas based on religion. I have no desire to legislate religion, but the marriage license is not only a religious idea, it is deeply intertwined with government processes, rights, and privileges, making it a civil right.

I can think of two possible solutions to this violation of rights. Remove the marriage license as a government document and tool to determine ones rights. Or the easier alternative to remove the immoral, discriminatory restrictions for getting said marriage license. Religions can continue to decide which marriages they accept or not.