It is really disgusting, on each click in this program wxHexEditor I get religious harassment.
How did QA vote passed on this program at its main repository?
$ wxHexEditor
OnMenuEvent: 5052
....
Rahman ve Rahim olan Allah'ın adıyla.
OnMenuEvent: 5051
Rahman ve Rahim olan Allah'ın adıyla.
.....
$ sudo zypper info wxHexEditor
Information for package wxhexeditor:
------------------------------------
Repository : repo-oss
Name : wxhexeditor
Version : 0.23-4.1
Arch : x86_64
Vendor : openSUSE
Installed Size : 1.1 MiB
Installed : Yes
Status : up-to-date
Summary : A free HEX editor / disk editor
Description :
wxHexEditor is an another Hex Editor, created because of there was no
good HEX editor for GNU/Linux, especially for big files. It supports
files up to 2^64 bytes. Written with C++/wxWidgets and can be used
with other operating systems such as Windows and OS X.
Features:
* Ability to work with files up to 2EB (ExaByte);
* Crossplatform;
* Small footprint on RAM;
* Raw Disk Access (on POSIX systems);
* Does not create temporary files.
$ sudo zypper lr -r repo-oss
Alias : repo-oss
Name : repo-oss
URI : http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/leap/42.2/repo/oss/
Enabled : Yes
GPG Check : (r ) Yes
Priority : 99
Auto-refresh : On
Keep Packages : Off
Type : yast2
GPG Key URI :
Path Prefix :
Parent Service :
Keywords : ---
Repo Info Path : /etc/zypp/repos.d/repo-oss.repo
MD Cache Path : /var/cache/zypp/raw/repo-oss
You have all the evidence and know how to create it. You might consider raising a bug report at https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/index.cgi (same username/password as here, when you go there from a loged in forums page, it could even be that you are already loged in there).
The more roads we walk, the sooner it is picked up I hope.
people are allowed to believe in what ever they want, if you really like his work you can stomach some religious propaganda
if not fork it and clean it the gpl is fine with that it’s still in the spirit of free speech, I wouldn’t want the opensuse maintainers to do any type of censorship
that’s a completely different situation. IMHO the GPL allows this, whether we like it or not. Like I_A says, the way to go is fork it and remove the lines. What surprises me is that this has been found to be there years ago.
// Here, code praying to the GOD for protecting our open file from wxHexEditor's bugs and other things.
// This is really crucial step! Be adviced to not remove it, even if you don't believer.
printf("Rahman ve Rahim olan Allah'ın adıyla.
");
But yeah, let me introduce you to the “discordian edition”
--- src/HexEditor.cpp.orig 2014-12-04 11:48:51.414581736 +0100
+++ src/HexEditor.cpp 2017-01-07 13:17:22.424520667 +0100
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@
ComparatorHexEditor=NULL;
// Here, code praying to the GOD for protecting our open file from wxHexEditor's bugs and other things.
// This is really crucial step! Be adviced to not remove it, even if you don't believer.
- printf("Rahman ve Rahim olan Allah'ın adıyla.
");
+ printf("A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing What he Reads. Hail Eris\!
");
myfile = NULL;
if( myfilename_ != NULL ) {
if( !FileOpen( *myfilename_ ) ) {
A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing What he Reads. Hail Eris!
OnMenuEvent: 5039
Looks go(o)d to me.
If you want to use this patch, you’re welcome and if you have an idea for a “flying spaghetti monster”-edition, be my guest.
In opensuse.org.help.applications, you wrote:
> I wouldn’t want the opensuse maintainers to do any type of censorship
I would.
As a GNU/Linux user I want to exercise the right to work in a secular open source environment. While wxhexeditor has
this `feature’ it taints the openSUSE_Leap-42.2-Oss repository and should be removed/moved by the maintainers. I haven’t
checked, but I would be disappointed if I still saw it there following Henk kindly reporting this upstream.
I won’t miss wxhexeditor because I use a real editor (Vim) for which hex representation and editing is trivial. Vim is
also charityware raising money for helping children in a part of south Uganda stricken by AIDS. This is GNU/Linux at its
best and worth fighting for. By contrast, wxhexeditor is not.
On 2017-01-10, Akoellh <Akoellh@no-mx.forums.microfocus.com> wrote:
> And now?
>
> Are we talking about “I don’t want religious content in any way” or are
> we talking about “I don’t want anything related to islam/muslims”?
>
> AK
We are talking about the first. I’m neither Christian nor Muslim. Neither Vim, the Vim website, nor ICCF website make
any attempt or declaration to influence the religious beliefs of GNU/Linux users. If you are seriously claiming that Vim
includes religious content, then I’m more than delighted for the remainder of the forum to comment on this assertion.
I never claimed anything like that and you certainly know.
It was your claim you wanted a “secular” (end quote) environment and I just showed by your own example how silly that statement was and still is.
And just to make things clear, I am rather shocked how “serious” the “discussion” in this thread has become.
If you really don’t want “religious harassment” (end quote, see opening post) by wxHexeditor and still use it, then DON’T start it on the command line but click on the respective .desktop link and you won’t see a thing of it. If you want to get rid of it completely, patch it and recompile it. If you are still annoyed by it, don’t use it but DON’T call for removal!
Talking about “harassment”, did anyone actually translate it (via Google Translate or an alternative) into your native language?
Obviously not, otherwise someone might have disputed the term “harassment” as matching description of that message.
(I did and I encourage you to do the same. Just a little hint, the original language is NOT arabic, look at the author’s name and draw your conclusion.)
But be that as it may, what REALLY annoys me are statements that such messages were not in the spirit of FLOSS/GNU/Linux when it is JUST the other way around.
(Hint: Read the GNU Free Software definition, The Debian Free Software Guidelines and/or The Open Source Definition.)
Calling for removal of any software due to any (religious) content which does not violate any law clearly denies the core principles of FLOSS and Freedom of Speech.
Apology accepted and in addition, let me express my personal appreciation for this type of statement.
This showed good style of discourse, a feature found too rarely today.
I also do have strong opinions especially when it comes to personal freedoms, privacy, free software and the like, but I am more than happy if there are other, smart people with good or even better arguments as they will not only drive the discussion further but also help me in constantly evaluating my position.
That being sad, here is a short summary of why I think this whole idea of removing this software due to “religious harassment” is ridiculous.
The “harassment” would only be visible (at least when I tested this program) when opening a GUI application on the command line and only in that command line. So practically speaking, how many % of users could be “harassed” at all or in other words “how many % of users will not use the program by not clicking on a .desktop file”. I would say “quite a few” but I admit, that is the weakest one of my points.
Do you really characterize a (religious) text, praising some God for being “mercyful” or “charitable” (do the translation or look up the very first sentence of the koran) being a harassment? Even myself, being an atheist, finds it very difficult to come to that conclusion.
and last but not least
The principles of Free Software, Open Source and most importantly Free Speech do not only allow this, but in addition, calling for removal of a software for a message, which is at least harmless or even positive but most importantly not against any law would completely deny exactly those principles.
Therefor any call for rejecting a piece of free and open source software for such a reason is completely bogus and should be denied.
So much for the philosophical side and now to the technical side, a call for rejection would not only be bogus but also completely ridiculous as free and open source software would always allow anybody to patch or simply not use the software (ok the latter also goes for prorietary stuff).
And as a last remark, the word “tolerance” comes from “tolerare” and means “to bear, to suffer, to indure” so no word about “you have to like it, too” in there.
I really don’t think this is an application issue as I doubt any distro sanitizes code and am willing to bet this same message exists in Fedora/Debian etc.
I think that this thread should be moved to the soapbox