rjcz

While I fully agree with you, there are several issues here:

- the word "free" has several meanings in English, i.e. "free" as in "no charge" and "free" as in "freedom" (free access, free software, etc.) - the answer given there does not indicate which one of those is meant.

- patents have most likely been granted in countries that recognise them - this does not prevent from the patent being put into public domain. However, the second sentence in question 17 seems to indicate that the license bears a fee, which also contradicts one of the meanings of "free above.

Either way, the Q&A/FAQ is full of marketing mumble.

Disable all window decorations (i.e. adjust for best performance) and it's back - not a big deal.

Finally!

Keep it, please!

+1 # I'm not a fan of "plus ones"

Flash!? It's 2015!

I take it you own one and would like your objective opinion. What exactly was wrong with it?

OpenBSD grows and changes, and its rc.d(8) is no exception!

man 8 rcctl

If something did not exist prior to our action then it is an invention, otherwise it's a discovery.

> If you'd like to know what that does, you can just look up the bash source of `/etc/rc.d/rc.subr`, another bash script.

Ouch... Shell (or Bourne Shell to be exact), not bash.

Bash is a type of Shell and it's not* even available (thank goodness) on either of the BSDs in their base system (only as a port and/or package).

On OpenBSD, the actual command line interpreter is actually Korn, not the Bourne, Shell.

I meant the whole thing - subkeys, their very purpose (even CAs use subkeys to sign certificats!) or usage, etc.

Seems a bit strange for security researcher - that's all.

How is this personal?

I'm not trying to insult anyone, it's a mere statement of a fact - the OP hasn't a slightest clue about web of trust, subkeys, key-signing, etc. and he clearly demonstrated it in several comments. In those he spreads misinformation and FUD - and those are signs of a troll. So if I say "you haven't a slightest clue" to such an individual, I'm being polite.

Good day.

I've noticed it several months ago by going through my server logs - hadn't included 'favicon.ico' in the HTML and yet, the browser - Chrom(e|ium) - tried downloading it every time.

Thanks for reminding me to report it ;^)

The same with "UNIX", "Unix" and "unix" (sic!).

OpenBSD != FreeBSD

This[0] is a good place to start. Other than than, just read the code.

[0] http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man9/...

Why would they? It's not needed - '-F', '--retry' and the like are redundant. IMVHO, OpenBSD's '-f' behaviour should have been the default elsewhere, too. How many times in the past have you deliberately followed the file descriptor (coreutils' default '-f' behaviour) instead of its name? Every single time I used it in the past on Linux, this is what I thought:

    "For f***** sake! I should have used '-F'! Arghhh...!"

Obviously, I'm paraphrasing ;^)

No, this will remove 'var_is_not_set_so_please_fix_this_script' file if one exists.

If you're suggesting using parameter expansion, at least suggest the correct one (i.e. one that will give a meaningful error message):

    ${parameter:?word}

http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3...

> 3. This is where it smells fishy. "Revolution R Enterprise Workstation is licensed for a single named user, and available in two editions:". But is it a modified R version. They mention no change to core for open, but not for this. If they use R which is licensed under GPL how can they sell it ? Else if it is proprietary why call it "R"?

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

No wonder F(L)OSS has such a bad PR in some business circles.

How are they, or regular folk for that matter, to ever understanding it, if even some of us don't!?

It would be nice to link to an article anybody can read.

I can only suspect it's Google Maps vs. Bing Maps - the latter are simply from OpenStreetMap project in which case it's nothing new.

That is what I mean, basically :^)

Has anyone noticed that the usage restriction:

"This software(OpenNote) cannot be sold as a product, as a component, as a service, or in any other way unless a distribution license is purchased from the author(J. Liscom)"

is incompatible with its (OpenNote) license (GPLv3)?