Hi Matti, hi Dave,
I've adjusted my procmail filters now, still people using web archives
suffer from Richard's ignorance of the technical charta, his bad
trolling and offending everyone on the list. As his previous posts
have been of a similar "quality" I'd like to request blacklisting him
from the vger list.
Thanks in advance,
Christoph
On Mon, 2002-10-21 at 18:27, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi Matti, hi Dave,
>
> I've adjusted my procmail filters now, still people using web archives
> suffer from Richard's ignorance of the technical charta, his bad
> trolling and offending everyone on the list. As his previous posts
> have been of a similar "quality" I'd like to request blacklisting him
> from the vger list.
Do you have the right to make that decision for them ? Is that any
different from a government deciding what you don't need to hear or a
corrupt police state dictator trying to hide things[1] 8). If you think
rms should be blacklisted I'd like to propose you are blacklisted too
for being dangerously naiive 8)
Alan
[1] say for example
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/09/1034061258269.html
Offending everyone? That's interesting, I found his points perfectly
valid.
If he's no longer bothering you, why do you feel a need to shut everyone
else out from a valid argument, too? Other people who don't like it are
just as capable of using procmail.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi Matti, hi Dave,
>
> I've adjusted my procmail filters now, still people using web archives
> suffer from Richard's ignorance of the technical charta, his bad
> trolling and offending everyone on the list. As his previous posts
> have been of a similar "quality" I'd like to request blacklisting him
> from the vger list.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Christoph
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 07:02:06PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-10-21 at 18:27, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Hi Matti, hi Dave,
> >
> > I've adjusted my procmail filters now, still people using web archives
> > suffer from Richard's ignorance of the technical charta, his bad
> > trolling and offending everyone on the list. As his previous posts
> > have been of a similar "quality" I'd like to request blacklisting him
> > from the vger list.
>
> Do you have the right to make that decision for them ? Is that any
> different from a government deciding what you don't need to hear or a
> corrupt police state dictator trying to hide things[1] 8). If you think
> rms should be blacklisted I'd like to propose you are blacklisted too
> for being dangerously naiive 8)
I want to blacklist for a histroy of 100% oftopic posts. I don't want
him to shutup at all, just post to a list where his rants are ontopic,
say gnu-ethics.
Hi,
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I've adjusted my procmail filters now, still people using web archives
> suffer from Richard's ignorance of the technical charta, his bad
> trolling and offending everyone on the list. As his previous posts
> have been of a similar "quality" I'd like to request blacklisting him
> from the vger list.
That's of course also a way to deal with different opinions. :-(
The whole thread was offtopic from the very beginning, but only RMS is
disallowed to state his opinion.
Requesting censorship like this is highly disgusting.
bye, Roman
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 07:57:21PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > I've adjusted my procmail filters now, still people using web archives
> > suffer from Richard's ignorance of the technical charta, his bad
> > trolling and offending everyone on the list. As his previous posts
> > have been of a similar "quality" I'd like to request blacklisting him
> > from the vger list.
>
> That's of course also a way to deal with different opinions. :-(
> The whole thread was offtopic from the very beginning, but only RMS is
> disallowed to state his opinion.
> Requesting censorship like this is highly disgusting.
Well, _he_ started that thread, and the only posts to his list ever
where to start such threads. People need to get the difference between
a technical list and a gnu discussion list. If he ever wants to post
a useful patch instead of just rants I'm sure everyone will welcome
him here.
Hi,
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Well, _he_ started that thread, and the only posts to his list ever
> where to start such threads.
No, he didn't. He just made the mistake to choose another subject.
bye, Roman
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 06:27:37PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi Matti, hi Dave,
>
> I've adjusted my procmail filters now, still people using web archives
> suffer from Richard's ignorance of the technical charta, his bad
> trolling and offending everyone on the list. As his previous posts
> have been of a similar "quality" I'd like to request blacklisting him
> from the vger list.
I am occasionally sorely tempted to put in a subject filter that cuts
a thread carrying active flamewars.
If a flame-war continues for more than 3 days, such blockage might be
worthwhile for next couple weeks. After that the thread should have
died...
> Thanks in advance,
> Christoph
/Matti Aarnio
On Mon, 2002-10-21 at 13:27, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi Matti, hi Dave,
>
> I've adjusted my procmail filters now, still people using web archives
> suffer from Richard's ignorance of the technical charta, his bad
> trolling and offending everyone on the list. As his previous posts
> have been of a similar "quality" I'd like to request blacklisting him
> from the vger list.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Christoph
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
<rant on>
Not for nothing, lists are for discussion. PERIOD. I didn't see a label
that said, "This is a *technical* discussion list only. Only post
*technical* discussions here." If that were the case, you would be
blocking THIS post and all of the people posting to it as well. This
discussion is HIGHLY not of the technical nature, and *YOU* started it.
So getting back to what Alan said, "If you think
rms should be blacklisted I'd like to propose you are blacklisted too
for being dangerously naiive" And IMO, also for being so very
illogical. Also you would be blocking half of the people posting to
this list because a good deal of the posts to this list could be
considered "not technical" or "not related to the linux kernel." The
email client gods made filters for a reason, to block things *YOU* don't
like, and honestly it seems that *YOU* are the only person complaining.
<rant off>
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 08:16:15PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > Well, _he_ started that thread, and the only posts to his list ever
> > where to start such threads.
>
> No, he didn't. He just made the mistake to choose another subject.
HE started the original thread, and he changed the subject to get
out of the blocking.
Hi,
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> HE started the original thread, and he changed the subject to get
> out of the blocking.
The original thread was started by Tom Gall and went through several
incarnations:
Subject: New BK License Problem?
Subject: BK MetaData License Problem?
Subject: BK is *evil* corporate software
Subject: Off topic, bandwidth wasting, waffle about Bit Keeper
Subject: BK license questions and answers
Subject: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new
So everyone else who changed the subject will be blacklisted too?
bye, Roman
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 08:58:55PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> So everyone else who changed the subject will be blacklisted too?
Well, he didn't just change the subject but started a new thread (*).
But this discussion starts to get more offtopic than the original one,
so this will be my last reply.
(*) aka didn't quote anything from ealier mails, different subject
Hi,
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Well, he didn't just change the subject but started a new thread (*).
Let me summarize to see if I understand this correctly: Offtopic posts are
allowed if they include quotes of previous mails and/or reuse an existing
subject. Not following these rules is punished by the thought police and
can only be avoided by offering a sacrifice to the net gods. About right?
> But this discussion starts to get more offtopic than the original one,
> so this will be my last reply.
Which discussion? :-)
bye, Roman
On Monday, October 21, 2002 at 10:28 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> I've adjusted my procmail filters now, still people using web archives
> suffer from Richard's ignorance of the technical charta, his bad
> trolling and offending everyone on the list. As his previous posts
> have been of a similar "quality" I'd like to request blacklisting him
> from the vger list.
We are missing the win - win solution! Think outside of the (mail)box.
Convince RMS to run for Congress.
Qualified:
Already knows how to deal with attorneys and crooks.
Lifelong zealot, incorruptible.
Good for him:
Wider audience, greater influence on new IP law.
Good for us:
Way too busy with the IP law issues to post to the kernel list.
-Ed
On Mon, 2002-10-21 at 15:02, John Levon wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 02:33:30PM -0400, Jason Williams wrote:
>
> > Not for nothing, lists are for discussion. PERIOD. I didn't see a label
> > that said, "This is a *technical* discussion list only. Only post
> > *technical* discussions here."
>
> Maybe you should read the FAQ before ranting. In fact, it explicitly
> states exactly that. I quote :
>
> "* Stick to the subject. This is a Linux kernel list, mainly for
> developers."
Nice quote John, to bad it doesn't say "This is a *technical* discussion
list only. Only post *technical* discussions here." And it says "Stick
to the subject" which, unfortunately, can be interpreted many different
ways. I'm not saying I like ranting, but if it is subject related,
something should be said. I'll be honest I haven't gone back and read
all of RMS's posts to see exactly how off topic they are, but I just
don't want to see this list going the way of censorship. I get enough
of that crap living in the US.
>
> and
>
> "Don't post post any religious or political material,"
>
> > like, and honestly it seems that *YOU* are the only person complaining.
>
> The rest of us are just waiting for this stupid "discussion" to end (and
> ideally for Larry to stop spamming the list too).
I'll agree there that I'd like to see this end, so I promise no further
posts from me. Oh and in the future, you might want to respond to the
list so everyone can enjoy the fun of a conversation.
(BTW, Nice sig.)
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 12:21:51PM -0700, Ed Vance wrote:
> On Monday, October 21, 2002 at 10:28 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> > I've adjusted my procmail filters now, still people using web archives
> > suffer from Richard's ignorance of the technical charta, his bad
> > trolling and offending everyone on the list. As his previous posts
> > have been of a similar "quality" I'd like to request blacklisting him
> > from the vger list.
>
> We are missing the win - win solution! Think outside of the (mail)box.
>
> Convince RMS to run for Congress.
>
> Qualified:
> Already knows how to deal with attorneys and crooks.
> Lifelong zealot, incorruptible.
>
> Good for him:
> Wider audience, greater influence on new IP law.
>
> Good for us:
> Way too busy with the IP law issues to post to the kernel list.
Ed, you're my hero! :) I'm all for it although I unfortunately
couldn't vote for him as I'm not US citizen (well, unfortunately
only in this particular case..)
>I've adjusted my procmail filters now, still people using web archives
>suffer from Richard's ignorance of the technical charta, his bad
>trolling and offending everyone on the list. As his previous posts
>have been of a similar "quality" I'd like to request blacklisting him
>from the vger list.
>
>Thanks in advance,
> Christoph
If Christoph Hellwig is referring to procmail filters that
just filter his personal incoming mail, fine. If he wants to create
a modified linux-kernel-without-whatever-Christoph-dislikes feed, that
people can switch to, I have no problem with that either.
If Christoph Hellwig controls and is referring to procmail
filters that the public e-mail distribution of the linux-kernel
mailing list, then I think he is doing far more to demotivate Linux
development.
Far more off-topic and what I consider unfair flamage has come
from those arguing against Richard Stallman (for example, the most
recent posting in that thread begins "Now please just understand that
people are not entitled to agree with you or follow your advice.").
If I have searched marc.theaimslist.com correctly, Stallman has made
four of the 74 posts in the "Bitkeeper outrage{,m}, old and new"
thread, and they've been been pretty short and concise.
In comparison, we've gotten more and longer posts advocating a
proprietary business model and various copyright restrictions from a
person whose software is much less important to Linux development
(many people contribute to Linux without Bitkeeper, virtually
contribute without gcc).
I can abide by using filtering linux-kernel in some cases, but
I think this proposal is one-sided in a way that will harm the future
development directions of Linux. What will be banned next? Other
people expressing agreement with Richard Stallman (but statements of
agreement with Larry McVoy will be more tolerated of course)?
Discussion of EXPORT_GPLONLY? Notifications of GPL violations? I
think this kind of one-sidedness would be in the back of people's
minds and would influence future Linux devlopment in a negative way.
In the real world, censorship generally does not come about by
some plot that the Dr. Doom and his evil henchmen developed in their
headquarters embedded into the side of a volcano. It comes about by
people well intentioned people making bad trade-offs.
I don't think censorship of one author is the right trade-off
for this discussion at this point. If it continues at high volume for
another weeks, then, maybe maybe maybe filtering might be in order,
but in a much more even handed manner. For example, announce that the
discussion has moved to a specific other mailing list, initially just
filter the subject lines (which should include the bitkeeper advocacy
posts as well) regardless of author, announce that people trying to
get around it by just changing the subject line will banned during the
filtering period, and make the entire filtering period only be for a
couple of weeks.
Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 575 Oroville Road
[email protected] \ / Milpitas, California 95035
+1 408 309-6081 | g g d r a s i l United States of America
"Free Software For The Rest Of Us."
Hi Adam,
There is a reason why I set the Mail-Followup-To header, so please include me
when replying to my mails.
> If Christoph Hellwig is referring to procmail filters that
> just filter his personal incoming mail, fine. If he wants to create
> a modified linux-kernel-without-whatever-Christoph-dislikes feed, that
> people can switch to, I have no problem with that either.
>
> If Christoph Hellwig controls and is referring to procmail
> filters that the public e-mail distribution of the linux-kernel
> mailing list, then I think he is doing far more to demotivate Linux
> development.
That particular procmail filter is mine, and not public. The request
for blcklisting is for exactly that one, public lkml as was written
rather clearly in my mail that you full-quoted in your response.
> Far more off-topic and what I consider unfair flamage has come
> from those arguing against Richard Stallman (for example, the most
> recent posting in that thread begins "Now please just understand that
> people are not entitled to agree with you or follow your advice.").
> If I have searched marc.theaimslist.com correctly, Stallman has made
> four of the 74 posts in the "Bitkeeper outrage{,m}, old and new"
> thread, and they've been been pretty short and concise.
Sorry, Adam - if it was just that one thread I couldn;t care less, but
please check your inboxes for posts from Richard to lkml that actually
were technical instead of forcing his questionable ideas of "freedom"
to the linux devlopers. He has so far posted only offtopic to this
list, and that's what pisses me off. He doesn't try to contribute
to the fursther development of the kernel but instead tries to abuse
it as forum for his political opinion.
> In comparison, we've gotten more and longer posts advocating a
> proprietary business model and various copyright restrictions from a
> person whose software is much less important to Linux development
I don't like those flames either - but there's a small difference:
LArry actually takes part in technical discussions (although BK
advert^H^H^H^H^Hexplnation has taken a little overhand lately), he
has never started a thread just to tell anyone about his business
modell, and he doesn't try to force us into his nbusiness modell
(Or have you ever heard him complaining about RHJ not following
his oftware license?)
> I can abide by using filtering linux-kernel in some cases, but
> I think this proposal is one-sided in a way that will harm the future
> development directions of Linux. What will be banned next? Other
> people expressing agreement with Richard Stallman (but statements of
> agreement with Larry McVoy will be more tolerated of course)?
> Discussion of EXPORT_GPLONLY? Notifications of GPL violations? I
> think this kind of one-sidedness would be in the back of people's
> minds and would influence future Linux devlopment in a negative way.
GPL violation only make sense if they affect code in the mainline kernel,
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is certainbly ontopic here as it's a part of the kernel
- FSF propaganda is not.
> In the real world, censorship generally does not come about by
> some plot that the Dr. Doom and his evil henchmen developed in their
> headquarters embedded into the side of a volcano. It comes about by
> people well intentioned people making bad trade-offs.
I explained it a few times, but people still don't want to get it.
This is fsckin' not about censorship but about banning people who
aren't capable by themselves to find the appropinquate forum. No one
tries to hinder him posting his opinion to gnu-ethics, linuxtoday (*)
or slashdot. I just think such a request is the last thing we can do
about people ignoring the technical list spirit again and again.
Christoph
(*) not sure whether he wouldn't only post to gnulinuxtoday, though..
>> = Adam Richter
> = Christoph Hellwig
>> If I have searched marc.theaimslist.com correctly, Stallman has made
>> four of the 74 posts in the "Bitkeeper outrage{,m}, old and new"
>> thread, and they've been been pretty short and concise.
>Sorry, Adam - if it was just that one thread I couldn;t care less, but
>please check your inboxes for posts from Richard to lkml that actually
>were technical instead of forcing his questionable ideas of "freedom"
>to the linux devlopers.
On marc.theaimslist.com, the last posting before the four that
I find by searching for "Richard Stallman" in the author search back
on June 9th.
If we were to apply as stringent a standard of germainness,
many other people would fail it long before Richard Stallman. Even in
the very thread with which you request this filtering, you saw fit to
post a response soley to participate in joking with someone about
Richard Stallman running for office.
By the way, I chanced on a purely technical lkml article from
Richard on September 5, 2000, about suspending notebook computers at
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=96819134426068&w=2, so
even if we were to accept your standard of "on topic", your
statement that Richard has "so far posted only offtopic to this list,
and that's what pisses me off" would still apparently be incorrect.
I think the standard for filtering that you advocate at this
point is too one-sided and arbitrary. It will do more to undermine
than to support the various reasons that people develop Linux.
Side note:
>> In the real world, censorship generally does not come about by
>> some plot that the Dr. Doom and his evil henchmen developed in their
>> headquarters embedded into the side of a volcano. It comes about by
>> people well intentioned people making bad trade-offs.
>I explained it a few times, but people still don't want to get it.
>This is fsckin' not about censorship but about banning people who
>aren't capable by themselves to find the appropinquate forum. No one
>tries to hinder him posting his opinion to gnu-ethics, linuxtoday (*)
>or slashdot. I just think such a request is the last thing we can do
>about people ignoring the technical list spirit again and again.
At the risk of being off topic, especially by your standards,
you are proving my point. In the real world, censorship takes hold
for reasons that are "not about censorship", for reasons as noble as
you think yours are, by people as nice and well intentioned as you
might be. It is also usually incremental (e.g., you can advocate a
change in the politburo's policies in theoretical academic journals
about public policy, but broadcasting such things on the news is
disruptive to the country and not within the purpose of a proper news
program). When people implement censorship, they often claim that
what they're doing isn't censorship, that it's the last thing they can
do about people ignoring the forum's spirit again and again, etc.
Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 575 Oroville Road
[email protected] \ / Milpitas, California 95035
+1 408 309-6081 | g g d r a s i l United States of America
"Free Software For The Rest Of Us."
> I've adjusted my procmail filters now, still people using web archives
> suffer from Richard's ignorance of the technical charta, his bad
> trolling and offending everyone on the list. As his previous posts
> have been of a similar "quality" I'd like to request blacklisting him
> from the vger list.
Oh, yes, get the reason through censorship :))) That's a very
ethic way of doing things. Hey, how about blacklisting all people you
don't like from vger? If you don't like RMS posts, you have ALL right
to blacklist him from YOUR system. Censorship on vger will do no good
to Linux. Freedom doesn't get its way through censorship. Fascism do.
Ra?l
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 06:27:37PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi Matti, hi Dave,
>
> I've adjusted my procmail filters now, still people using web archives
> suffer from Richard's ignorance of the technical charta, his bad
> trolling and offending everyone on the list. As his previous posts
> have been of a similar "quality" I'd like to request blacklisting him
> from the vger list.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Christoph
Much as I disagree with Stallman about nearly everything, and much as I agree
that his posts recently have been way off-topic, I cannot agree with such a
disgusting and unethical solution. Silencing one viewpoint simply because you
disagree with it is just ... well, I don't use that kind of language.
Many people have started offtopic threads here without anyone suggesting they
be blacklisted, so I can only assume the suggestion here is based on the content
and not just the general off-topic nature. Most free-speech advocates would
find such a thing disgusting at best.
--
Murray J. Root
------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
------------------------------------------------
Mandrake on irc.freenode.net:
#mandrake & #mandrake-linux = help for newbies
#mdk-cooker = Mandrake Cooker
> Much as I disagree with Stallman about nearly everything, and much as I agree
> that his posts recently have been way off-topic, I cannot agree with such a
> disgusting and unethical solution. Silencing one viewpoint simply because you
> disagree with it is just ...
Feel free to disregard my viewpoint since I'm involved in the debate,
but if the only thing I ever did on this list was to post about how BK
is great, the license is great, and you are all nuts unless you use BK,
I'd expect to get blacklisted pretty darn fast.
It's not a free speech issue, it's a question of whether this is the place
for that sort of discussion. We could discuss pro-choice vs pro-life here
as well but we don't, this isn't the place for it.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
I think Richard Stallman and Larry McVoy, bitkeeper, the fsf, and just
about everything else that could have been dragged into this former
Yugoslavia of software development has been beaten to death and beyond.
Break out the wet/dry vac, clean it up, and lets move on to the next
flame-fest, shall we?
--
-- John E. Jasen ([email protected])
-- User Error #2361: Please insert coffee and try again.
On Monday 21 October 2002 13:32, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 08:16:15PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Well, _he_ started that thread, and the only posts to his list ever
> > > where to start such threads.
> >
> > No, he didn't. He just made the mistake to choose another subject.
>
> HE started the original thread, and he changed the subject to get
> out of the blocking.
"Maaaa! He started it!"
:P
And here I thought that particular flamewar started back on October 4:
http://lists.insecure.org/lists/linux-kernel/2002/Oct/1518.html
Rob