Both OpenBSD and NetBSD come with XFCE, OpenBox, Firefox, mplayer (or equivalent). NetBSD pkgsrc may be a bit closer to Gentoo than OpenBSD ports/packages, but both are excellent package systems. You may get more games with NetBSD, including Minecraft and others but I haven't checked, so don't quote me on this.
If you are used to Gentoo, picking one or the other should not be too difficult, but OpenBSD, while a bit picky when it comes to hardware, is also a bit easier to use: if a piece of harware is supported, it is supported. Period. NetBSD often requires compiling a specific kernel to add this or that peripheral. OpenBSD usually supports everything out of the box, as long as it is in its harware compatibility list. Plus, there is this schweet schweet security goodness, now with LibreSSL gooey core!
Here is a quick example: I have had a motherboard die on me. I just ripped off the main HDD out, put it into a slightly different machine, and OpenBSD just picked up the harware changes, reconfigured, checked the filesystems and worked without making a fuss. I have used OpenBSD for many years in a second-hand laptop, where everything was supported, and it was a pleasure to use as my main machine. The update procedure is quick and easy, and a new version of the OS comes out every 6 months like clockwork.
Repeals the Patriot Act and shuts down Homeland Security. How many redundant players do we need to keep us safe?
As many as it takes to give tons of money to all the little cogs in the militaro-industrial complex.
Seriously, the USA were already spending more than everyone else in the world on its military (and its security apparatus, including the NSA), before 9/11.
Was this able to prevent the WTC/Pentagon attacks? No. And not just that, but Osama bin Laden was able to hide practically in plain sight for years, communicating all the time with his organization through written and recorded messages (meaning: outside the reach of the NSA).
Will the NSA be able to prevent the next 9/11? Let me go out on a limb and say "No" again. If the hard-core terrorists haven't got it by now, every single telecommunication in the world is being spied upon. The safest way is to organize the next attack by courier and letters, and not through electronic communications at all.
The Iraq war was all about oil, Halliburton and Exxon bottom line. Today's enless wars, conflicts and spying is all about keeping the money machine going strong, and the US Government doling mountains of cash to contractors and sub-contractors.
I am using OpenSUSE 13.1 right now with ext4 partitions and I am pondering migrating to OpenSUSE 13.2 with btrfs or simply updating the distro with ''zypper dup'' and keeping my ext4 fs.
If you are using btrfs, what has been your experience? Better performance? As stable as ext4?
... And I will say it again: if the FBI can arrest these people and bring down these ''black'' markets, who are supposed to be on Tor and protected by iron-clad crypto, it means only two things:
1. Tor is not as secure as everybody says it is (because _____ insert your favourite conspiracy theory/security failure here).
2. NSA/GCHQ, etc... justification for snooping on everyone (terrorists! drugs! guns!) is just complete and utter bull****. Hard detective work pays every time, and is probably more cost-effective than the massive surveillance and privacy violations we have right now.
Please note that 1 and 2 are not necessarily opposed to each other. We may well have 1 AND 2 at the same time..
As an avid OpenBSD user and fan, this puzzle me because it would seem like a giant step backwards. Yes, loadable kernel modules do weaken the security some but it makes adding hardware drivers difficult.
Again: compiling the OpenBSD kernel is an emergency measure only. Most of the time, patches distributed by the project require you to compile the userland only.
As for adding device drivers, you usually do not need to: the standard kernel works very well with most hardware configurations.
I have motherboards burn on me, restarting the OpenBSD server usually was a question of taking the drive out of the machine, connecting it into a new machine and powering the system. The kernel just picked up and accepted whatever new hardware was in the replacement machine. Much, much easier than Linux.
See my answer above: OpenBSD dev also use git. LibreSSL - portable is maintained on Github, for instance.
Then again, you probably don't know a lot about OpenBSD... Do you? A simple Google search could have given you the links I included in my previous answer.
Well, I was surprised by the bitbucket link as well, but a lot of developpers (OpenBSD or not) use git these days. The repo linked to seems to be a copy of the official OpenBSD CVS.
The interesting thing is that the diff just before Ted Unangst is more than 11 years old -- which means LKMs really haven't been used for a long time in OpenBSD...
Sure, sure, it's just a conspiracy theory BUT... Isn't it surprising (for instance) that Apple and Google both announced full-phone encryption recently, while Microsoft announced exactly... Nothing?
Oh, and one other thing: companies do not exist in a vacuum and have to respect the laws of the different jurisdictions they operate in. Microsoft has been condemned by the US Government in the past for anti-competitive behaviour. Think about this for a second.
Let's not forget the Russians were the first to send a satellite around the Earth, the first to send an animal into space, the first to send a man into space, the first to send a woman into space, the first to have a space mission that lasted more than a day, the first to have a spacewalk, the fist to send a satellite to orbit the Moon, the first to have fully automated rendez-vous between two satellites, etc., etc., etc.
Sure, their spacecraft may look "ugly" (or at least, "uglier") than western or American ones, but they get the job done and they are reliable workhorses.
I believe the differences between the two is mostly to the "no nonsense" approach to the Russians, and the fact that they like re-using designs and equipment that work instead of constantly re-inventing the wheel.
Think about it this way: the USA created the space shuttle and sank billions of dollars into it. The Russians kept improving the Soyuz rockets and capsules. These days, the space shuttle has been retired, while both Soyuz still fly regularly. Which approach is better? I don't know, but you certainly can't blame the Russians for creating "ugly" machines, as long as they are functional and good at what they do.
Recommended viewing: "The Red Stuff" about the very first Cosmonaut class of the USSR. You can view it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If people who have serious security preoccupations (drug dealers, pedophiles, etc...) are dumb enough to get caught due to human error (and probably not doing their homework), why exactly do the NSA, FBI, CIA, MI6, GCHQ, DGSE, FSB, BND, etc... etc... have to trace everything we do or say online?
In other words, what, on earth, is the purpose of these gigantic spying programs for, if all that is needed is good old fashioned gumshoe work? You know, like, waiting for the bank robbers to brag of their exploits to a police informants, painstakingly tracing money flows from dodgy businesses, or gathering evidence and finger prints on a crime scene?
Sure, security is hard, everyone makes a mistake once in a while, yadda yadda yadda, but what about the rights of the innocent average citizen? We are all being spied on, while police forces are perfectly able to catch the criminals, even if they use Tor! There is simply no justification, none whatsoever, for these agencies to spy on everyone. Think about that for a second.
Excellent password manager. Syncs an AES-encrypted file to all your devices. It also has plug-ins for most web browsers (Firefox, Chrome, Safari) that allow you to login automatically on a web site. I personnally don't use the plugins, but it's really good on both Android and Mac OS X.
No, I'm afraid you don't understand a few things. Firstly, Scotland's oil is small beer on the global stage. The North Sea produces ~1.5m bpd, OPEC alone is something like 30m. Scotland could turn off the taps and the planet wouldn't even blink.
Bzzzt! Sorry Wrong Answer! Try again.
And I quote: "The largest field discovered in the past 25 years is Buzzard also located off Scotland, found in June 2001 with producible reserves of almost 64×106 m (400m bbl) and an average output of 28 600 m to 30 200 m (180,000-190,000 bbl) per day." (Source here).
It's not just the production that counts - it's also the size of the reserves, the fact that Scotland is very close to its primary market (the EU) and its own stability.
And, if you happen to believe that Peak Oil is almost upon us (and there is no reason to believe otherwise) then that Oil is going to be more and more valuable as time passes...
No, adopting the Euro is a requirement for new entrants. Countries that were previously part of the EU and did not adopt were grandfathered in and don't have to change, but for new entrants it's not optional.
It's actually the reverse: you have to be an EU member before you can adopt the Euro as your local currency.
Again, there are countries (Poland comes to mind) that are EU members, but retain their local currency. The zloty, in the case of Poland.
As far as I know, membership in the Eurozone is optional.
I personally believe Scotland would be best served by gaining its independence, ditching the Queen, proclaiming the Scottish Republic, ditching the british pound (replacing it with, let's say, the Scottish pound), kicking the British banks out, creating its own (strongly regulated) scottish banking system and applying for EU membership. But that's just me.
I commend you on your mastery of French, my dear "Jez"! I am impressed that you can use Google Translate!
I'll let you know that Brittany has never been an independent Kingdom, unlike the Kingdom of Scotland, but rather a "Dukedom". Its claim to independence are therefore very much in doubt. And don't get me started on Corsica, OK?
The EU has a bunch of sad laws that discriminate against non-EU countries for trade.
Oh really? Care to back that assertion with facts and links?
Oh right, you can't, because the EU is one of the most open market in the world.
This has hurt the UK quite badly when it came to trade with other common wealth countries that weren't part of the EU.
The UK has been nothing but a pain in the arse since day one of its membership. Screw them. Read this if you dare.
The way Australia got screwed was pretty bad and I think people that remember still hold it against the UK to this day.
Oh, you mean Australia? The country that is one of the biggest trade partner of the EU? Gosh darn, those poor Aussies sure got screwed in those deals. Which deals, by the way? Again, lots of innuendo, but not too many facts and figures, if I dare say so myself.
The yes campaign is telling people they can keep the pound and join Europe. Not gonna happen, it isn't for Scotland to decide.
It is for Scotland to decide! They can apply for membership any time, just like Turkey, for instance.
28 countries have to decide they are totally cool with a bit of the UK splitting off and joining Europe. That means 28 countries have to want to set a precident for bits of themselves splitting off, declaring independence and joining Europe.
Errr... Ever heard of the Czech and the Slovaks?
Czechoslovakia split in two (peacefully) and both halves joined the EU right away, and were welcome with open arms, if memory serves well.
I don't see why Scotland would be rejected, especially since the UK has been a pain in the arse ever since it joined the EU. As a matter of fact, many countries in the EU would welcome Scotland just to piss off the Brits. And even more so since the UK is set to vote on leaving the EU in a couple of years!
They have to also decide that they are totally cool on Scotland having an opt out on the Euro that nobody else apart from the UK has and nobody else likes.
The rest of the UK doesn't particularly want a currency union with Scotland, and it wouldn't be popular with the Eurozone countries to have a more formal sterling zone (they don't care about the small overseas territories, but a second full size country in a currency union would be a big deal).
You are not making any sense - again, the currency you use is totally independent from EU membership itself.
First of all, Scotland would be one of two EU nations to produce its own oil and gaz (the other is Norway). That gives it A LOT of leverage, especially since they can't possibly burn all that fuel in Scotland itself.
After the initial shock, you can bet dozens of countries (China? Japan? others?) would send delegations to Scotland to finance pretty much everything they want, provided they get a piece of the North Sea action (so to speak).
Second, there is a very common doctrine in newly-formed nations to refuse to honor all debts contracted in their names before independence. Hence, whatever debt the UK had, Scotland can now refuse, since it is now independent. That would blow the whole of the City of London to smithereens (which is a very good reason to vote Yes if you happen to be a Scot).
Combine the two, and you have a newly independent country, with zero debts and very interesting natural resources. Give it a little time, and investors from all over the world would beat a path to Scotland's door, checkbooks in hand.
Sure, the economic transition would be quite difficult, especially if the SNP persists in its own silly plan of keeping the Queen, keeping the pound (soooo stupid this one!) and applying for EU membership, but Scotland has a lot going for it.
Whether it can avoid the natural ressource trap is something else again, of course...
Even now, Putin is hovering over the list of first strike cities, ready and waiting to strike Glasgow and Edinburgh from the list. Let me save you, he whispers gently. Expel those weapons. You'll be so much safer.
Putin does not give a flying fuck about Scotland, he is got his hands full in the Ukraine.
Plus, an independent Scotland could sell Whisky to Russia, and I have never met a russian who turned down a glass of (good) booze.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Both OpenBSD and NetBSD come with XFCE, OpenBox, Firefox, mplayer (or equivalent). NetBSD pkgsrc may be a bit closer to Gentoo than OpenBSD ports/packages, but both are excellent package systems. You may get more games with NetBSD, including Minecraft and others but I haven't checked, so don't quote me on this.
If you are used to Gentoo, picking one or the other should not be too difficult, but OpenBSD, while a bit picky when it comes to hardware, is also a bit easier to use: if a piece of harware is supported, it is supported. Period. NetBSD often requires compiling a specific kernel to add this or that peripheral. OpenBSD usually supports everything out of the box, as long as it is in its harware compatibility list. Plus, there is this schweet schweet security goodness, now with LibreSSL gooey core!
Here is a quick example: I have had a motherboard die on me. I just ripped off the main HDD out, put it into a slightly different machine, and OpenBSD just picked up the harware changes, reconfigured, checked the filesystems and worked without making a fuss. I have used OpenBSD for many years in a second-hand laptop, where everything was supported, and it was a pleasure to use as my main machine. The update procedure is quick and easy, and a new version of the OS comes out every 6 months like clockwork.
So there you go, hope this helps.
Repeals the Patriot Act and shuts down Homeland Security. How many redundant players do we need to keep us safe?
As many as it takes to give tons of money to all the little cogs in the militaro-industrial complex.
Seriously, the USA were already spending more than everyone else in the world on its military (and its security apparatus, including the NSA), before 9/11.
Was this able to prevent the WTC/Pentagon attacks? No. And not just that, but Osama bin Laden was able to hide practically in plain sight for years, communicating all the time with his organization through written and recorded messages (meaning: outside the reach of the NSA).
Will the NSA be able to prevent the next 9/11? Let me go out on a limb and say "No" again. If the hard-core terrorists haven't got it by now, every single telecommunication in the world is being spied upon. The safest way is to organize the next attack by courier and letters, and not through electronic communications at all.
The Iraq war was all about oil, Halliburton and Exxon bottom line. Today's enless wars, conflicts and spying is all about keeping the money machine going strong, and the US Government doling mountains of cash to contractors and sub-contractors.
The whole thing will end very badly.
I am using OpenSUSE 13.1 right now with ext4 partitions and I am pondering migrating to OpenSUSE 13.2 with btrfs or simply updating the distro with ''zypper dup'' and keeping my ext4 fs.
If you are using btrfs, what has been your experience? Better performance? As stable as ext4?
1. Tor is not as secure as everybody says it is (because _____ insert your favourite conspiracy theory/security failure here).
2. NSA/GCHQ, etc... justification for snooping on everyone (terrorists! drugs! guns!) is just complete and utter bull****. Hard detective work pays every time, and is probably more cost-effective than the massive surveillance and privacy violations we have right now.
Please note that 1 and 2 are not necessarily opposed to each other. We may well have 1 AND 2 at the same time..
Slashdot IS social media, which is why NSA and GCHQ created a fake Slashdot to hack into a Belgian Telecom company.
You dirty terrorists, you! Bad Slashdot! BAD!
Seriously, though, this is beyond belief and beyond the pale. Where do they get these morons? Most of these people are guilty of perjury (at best) and outright conflict of interests and gross violations of basic human rights at worst.
When is this going to stop and when are we going to get rid of these idiots? Where is Senator Franck Church when we need him?
As an avid OpenBSD user and fan, this puzzle me because it would seem like a giant step backwards. Yes, loadable kernel modules do weaken the security some but it makes adding hardware drivers difficult.
Again: compiling the OpenBSD kernel is an emergency measure only. Most of the time, patches distributed by the project require you to compile the userland only.
As for adding device drivers, you usually do not need to: the standard kernel works very well with most hardware configurations.
I have motherboards burn on me, restarting the OpenBSD server usually was a question of taking the drive out of the machine, connecting it into a new machine and powering the system. The kernel just picked up and accepted whatever new hardware was in the replacement machine. Much, much easier than Linux.
Yes, yes, little troll, you just demonstrated your total lack of knowledge when it comes to OpenBSD.
Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq...
And I quote the aforementioned:
Why do I need a custom kernel?
Actually, you probably don't.
The only time you need to recompile OpenBSD kernel is when a major security issue has been found and your system is vulnerable.
I am afraid your intelligence has also been compressed.
Besides, OpenBSD uses BSD libc, which is a lot less bloated than GNU libc.
See my answer above: OpenBSD dev also use git. LibreSSL - portable is maintained on Github, for instance.
Then again, you probably don't know a lot about OpenBSD... Do you? A simple Google search could have given you the links I included in my previous answer.
Well, I was surprised by the bitbucket link as well, but a lot of developpers (OpenBSD or not) use git these days. The repo linked to seems to be a copy of the official OpenBSD CVS.
A better link could be, for instance:
http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-...
Or:
http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-...
The interesting thing is that the diff just before Ted Unangst is more than 11 years old -- which means LKMs really haven't been used for a long time in OpenBSD...
Hmmm... NSA_KEY anyone?
Sure, sure, it's just a conspiracy theory BUT... Isn't it surprising (for instance) that Apple and Google both announced full-phone encryption recently, while Microsoft announced exactly... Nothing?
Oh, and one other thing: companies do not exist in a vacuum and have to respect the laws of the different jurisdictions they operate in. Microsoft has been condemned by the US Government in the past for anti-competitive behaviour. Think about this for a second.
Your comment seems very condescending.
Let's not forget the Russians were the first to send a satellite around the Earth, the first to send an animal into space, the first to send a man into space, the first to send a woman into space, the first to have a space mission that lasted more than a day, the first to have a spacewalk, the fist to send a satellite to orbit the Moon, the first to have fully automated rendez-vous between two satellites, etc., etc., etc.
Sure, their spacecraft may look "ugly" (or at least, "uglier") than western or American ones, but they get the job done and they are reliable workhorses.
I believe the differences between the two is mostly to the "no nonsense" approach to the Russians, and the fact that they like re-using designs and equipment that work instead of constantly re-inventing the wheel.
Think about it this way: the USA created the space shuttle and sank billions of dollars into it. The Russians kept improving the Soyuz rockets and capsules. These days, the space shuttle has been retired, while both Soyuz still fly regularly. Which approach is better? I don't know, but you certainly can't blame the Russians for creating "ugly" machines, as long as they are functional and good at what they do.
Recommended viewing: "The Red Stuff" about the very first Cosmonaut class of the USSR. You can view it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Medical devices"?? On a wifi network???!!!
What could possibly go wrong?
It will be there soon. I estimate it at around end of Q1 2015. Just wait.
Well that's news to me, and I work in (the IT department of) one of those agencies... Which shall remain nameless because work.
Are you going to tell us next that the NSA really is respecting the law and protecting us from dangerous terrorists?!?
I don't know what you are smoking, but I definitely want some of it...
If people who have serious security preoccupations (drug dealers, pedophiles, etc...) are dumb enough to get caught due to human error (and probably not doing their homework), why exactly do the NSA, FBI, CIA, MI6, GCHQ, DGSE, FSB, BND, etc... etc... have to trace everything we do or say online?
In other words, what, on earth, is the purpose of these gigantic spying programs for, if all that is needed is good old fashioned gumshoe work? You know, like, waiting for the bank robbers to brag of their exploits to a police informants, painstakingly tracing money flows from dodgy businesses, or gathering evidence and finger prints on a crime scene?
Sure, security is hard, everyone makes a mistake once in a while, yadda yadda yadda, but what about the rights of the innocent average citizen? We are all being spied on, while police forces are perfectly able to catch the criminals, even if they use Tor! There is simply no justification, none whatsoever, for these agencies to spy on everyone. Think about that for a second.
Excellent password manager. Syncs an AES-encrypted file to all your devices. It also has plug-ins for most web browsers (Firefox, Chrome, Safari) that allow you to login automatically on a web site. I personnally don't use the plugins, but it's really good on both Android and Mac OS X.
No, I'm afraid you don't understand a few things. Firstly, Scotland's oil is small beer on the global stage. The North Sea produces ~1.5m bpd, OPEC alone is something like 30m. Scotland could turn off the taps and the planet wouldn't even blink.
Bzzzt! Sorry Wrong Answer! Try again.
And I quote: "The largest field discovered in the past 25 years is Buzzard also located off Scotland, found in June 2001 with producible reserves of almost 64×106 m (400m bbl) and an average output of 28 600 m to 30 200 m (180,000-190,000 bbl) per day." (Source here).
It's not just the production that counts - it's also the size of the reserves, the fact that Scotland is very close to its primary market (the EU) and its own stability.
And, if you happen to believe that Peak Oil is almost upon us (and there is no reason to believe otherwise) then that Oil is going to be more and more valuable as time passes...
Think Venezuela, not Norway.
No, adopting the Euro is a requirement for new entrants. Countries that were previously part of the EU and did not adopt were grandfathered in and don't have to change, but for new entrants it's not optional.
It's actually the reverse: you have to be an EU member before you can adopt the Euro as your local currency.
Again, there are countries (Poland comes to mind) that are EU members, but retain their local currency. The zloty, in the case of Poland.
As far as I know, membership in the Eurozone is optional.
I personally believe Scotland would be best served by gaining its independence, ditching the Queen, proclaiming the Scottish Republic, ditching the british pound (replacing it with, let's say, the Scottish pound), kicking the British banks out, creating its own (strongly regulated) scottish banking system and applying for EU membership. But that's just me.
I commend you on your mastery of French, my dear "Jez"! I am impressed that you can use Google Translate!
I'll let you know that Brittany has never been an independent Kingdom, unlike the Kingdom of Scotland, but rather a "Dukedom". Its claim to independence are therefore very much in doubt. And don't get me started on Corsica, OK?
The EU has a bunch of sad laws that discriminate against non-EU countries for trade.
Oh really? Care to back that assertion with facts and links?
Oh right, you can't, because the EU is one of the most open market in the world.
This has hurt the UK quite badly when it came to trade with other common wealth countries that weren't part of the EU.
The UK has been nothing but a pain in the arse since day one of its membership. Screw them. Read this if you dare.
The way Australia got screwed was pretty bad and I think people that remember still hold it against the UK to this day.
Oh, you mean Australia? The country that is one of the biggest trade partner of the EU? Gosh darn, those poor Aussies sure got screwed in those deals. Which deals, by the way? Again, lots of innuendo, but not too many facts and figures, if I dare say so myself.
The yes campaign is telling people they can keep the pound and join Europe. Not gonna happen, it isn't for Scotland to decide.
It is for Scotland to decide! They can apply for membership any time, just like Turkey, for instance.
28 countries have to decide they are totally cool with a bit of the UK splitting off and joining Europe. That means 28 countries have to want to set a precident for bits of themselves splitting off, declaring independence and joining Europe.
Errr... Ever heard of the Czech and the Slovaks?
Czechoslovakia split in two (peacefully) and both halves joined the EU right away, and were welcome with open arms, if memory serves well.
I don't see why Scotland would be rejected, especially since the UK has been a pain in the arse ever since it joined the EU. As a matter of fact, many countries in the EU would welcome Scotland just to piss off the Brits. And even more so since the UK is set to vote on leaving the EU in a couple of years!
They have to also decide that they are totally cool on Scotland having an opt out on the Euro that nobody else apart from the UK has and nobody else likes.
The Euro is not the EU, and vice-versa. There is a ton of countries that are EU members, but still have their national currencies. But don't take my word for it, click here instead
The rest of the UK doesn't particularly want a currency union with Scotland, and it wouldn't be popular with the Eurozone countries to have a more formal sterling zone (they don't care about the small overseas territories, but a second full size country in a currency union would be a big deal).
You are not making any sense - again, the currency you use is totally independent from EU membership itself.
Ah yes, but you forget a couple of things here...
First of all, Scotland would be one of two EU nations to produce its own oil and gaz (the other is Norway). That gives it A LOT of leverage, especially since they can't possibly burn all that fuel in Scotland itself.
After the initial shock, you can bet dozens of countries (China? Japan? others?) would send delegations to Scotland to finance pretty much everything they want, provided they get a piece of the North Sea action (so to speak).
Second, there is a very common doctrine in newly-formed nations to refuse to honor all debts contracted in their names before independence. Hence, whatever debt the UK had, Scotland can now refuse, since it is now independent. That would blow the whole of the City of London to smithereens (which is a very good reason to vote Yes if you happen to be a Scot).
Combine the two, and you have a newly independent country, with zero debts and very interesting natural resources. Give it a little time, and investors from all over the world would beat a path to Scotland's door, checkbooks in hand.
Sure, the economic transition would be quite difficult, especially if the SNP persists in its own silly plan of keeping the Queen, keeping the pound (soooo stupid this one!) and applying for EU membership, but Scotland has a lot going for it.
Whether it can avoid the natural ressource trap is something else again, of course...
Even now, Putin is hovering over the list of first strike cities, ready and waiting to strike Glasgow and Edinburgh from the list. Let me save you, he whispers gently. Expel those weapons. You'll be so much safer.
Putin does not give a flying fuck about Scotland, he is got his hands full in the Ukraine.
Plus, an independent Scotland could sell Whisky to Russia, and I have never met a russian who turned down a glass of (good) booze. ;-)
Plus, you can be sure that large numbers of the English buying public will boycott your products, just because. #scotfree
Fine, if Scotland becomes independent again, the French will buy all the Scotch whisky they can get their hand on!
On a more personal note: "Votez 'Oui', amis écossais ! Juste pour emmerder les Anglais !". The Auld Alliance shall rise again! ;-)