On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 11:32:14PM -0500, Brian Bruns wrote: > >Remember, alot of these have been in the fortunes package for god > >knows how long, and Cygwin isn't the only one thats going to have > >them. I'm betting that any distro that has the Fortunes package has > >them too. > > Right. The README of the package says this: > > The potentially offensive fortunes are installed by default on FreeBSD > systems. If you're absolutely, *positively*, > without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt sure that your user community goes > berzerk/sues your pants off/drops dead upon reading one of them, edit > the Makefile in the subdirectory datfiles, and do "make all install". > > So, we do undoubtedly have the default version and I am undoubtedly > getting more prudish about this type of thing. > > Maybe we need a vote. I would really like to know how people feel about > this. We haven't had a vote in a long time so: > > How do you feel about the off-color content in the cygwin fortune files? > > [ ] Offended. Think about the children! > [X] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values. > [ ] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is > now? > Offensive fortunes should probably be accessible only through -o optiona but they definitely _must_ stay there. I would not even bother encoding them with rot13.
VH. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
