Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 13:56:32 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Cc: FreeBSD@shaneware.biz, Andy Farkas <andyf@andyit.com.au> Subject: Re: BETA4: fortune -o gone? Message-ID: <201312131356.32490.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <52A2CC9F.7040306@andyit.com.au> References: <20131205090208.4cdba36b@X220.ovitrap.com> <52A2AF39.7090006@ShaneWare.Biz> <52A2CC9F.7040306@andyit.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday, December 07, 2013 2:22:07 am Andy Farkas wrote: > On 07/12/13 15:16, Shane Ambler wrote: > > > > so fortunes-o contained inappropriate material that was worth arguing > > about but murphy-o isn't - guess it's too short to argue over? > > > > Now limerick and gerrold.limerick contains material that some would find > > offensive, yet they are just fine where they are.... > > > > SHHHHHH!!!! > > Don't give people who are easily offended, yet continuously > use the -o option, any more reason to complain!! > > At this rate the -o option will be removed altogether! > > Actually, they might even remove fortune(6) entirely: > > > fortune -m "dove of peace" > > fortune -m "Democratic Committee" > > fortune -m "people and the pigeons" > > -andyf > > ps. Bad move core. If you must know: I would rather that fortunes-o had remained as-is. The problem is some developers started purging it of items they felt were personally too offensive. (Not all people have the same standards regarding freedom of speech and all that.) Rather than having long debates about what freedom of speech is or isn't and what things are "too" offensive for fortunes-o (irony in that statement is intentional), we elected to remove the file instead. I certainly hoped that someone would pick up the file and place it in ports. I would recommend the fortunes-o.real file from rev 228909. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201312131356.32490.jhb>