Wow this easily is the best troll of the year so far.
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 10:52:32AM +1100, Giridhari wrote:
> Hare Krsna.
>
>
> From: Giridhari
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 7:37 AM
> To: dera...@cvs.openbsd.org ; dera...@openbsd.org
> Subject: Fw: pico and/or nano in the releases and snapshots
>
>
> ATTENTION
>
> Last night I saved a rat from certain death at the hands of a cat whose
> ovaries had been cut out. This is the cutting edge of bhakti in the interests
> of OpenBSD. You have been notified.
>
> Note: The below message has been slightly adjusted to that which was sent to
> dera...@theos.org.
>
>
> From: Giridhari
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 7:28 AM
> To: dera...@theos.com
> Subject: pico and/or nano in the releases and snapshots
>
>
> Hare Krsna Mr. DeRaadt.
>
> I am trying to write a new security implementation for OpenBSD, but find vi to
> be clumsy and hampering.
>
> I was very comfortable with pico, and nano. I am running a new system with
> multiprocessor kernel, and currently have no support for the ZTE MF626 modem I
> connect via cellular network with. I have tried installing the package of pico
> but it failed, so I installed it's dependencies, but pico still would not
> install because it had partially installed, would not pkg_delete (not even
> when forced), and I could not find a way to clean this up.
>
> I would really appreciate if pico or nano, which are simple and elegant,
> perhaps not with the frills vi uses apparently seem to appreciate, but simple
> and natural nonetheless, we part of the distribution. I fly with those. PLEASE
> INCLUDE PICO OR NANO OR BOTH IN A NEW SNAPSHOT, and from now-on, and please
> overlook the apparent justifications for vi-only exclusivity, and help please.
> FOR BHAKTA GIRIDHARI. Krsna is your friend. PLEASE!!! I know its is a
> non-standard request, but honestly, vi is so clumsy, and I have LOTS of coding
> to do, including writing support for umodem for the MF626, and I would like to
> write it as a learning exercise in assembly. The new security mechanism is
> brute force resilient, and it is for particularly nasty weather. Pull a
> Torvaldsesque dictatorship because-I-said-so if you have to.
>
> Hare Bol.
