Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Scientists: All Research Should Be Open Source
11 views
Skip to first unread message
Hardon
Apr 22, 2012, 12:41:18 AM4/22/12
to
<http://www.thepowerbase.com/2012/04/scientists-all-research-should-be-open-source/>
<quote>
Phys.org is reporting on a recently published paper that suggests all
scientific journals should require the full disclosure of source code
as a condition of publication. The paper states that only 3 science
journals currently require source code.
Open Source Science
The paper makes some very good points. It makes the argument that, as
computers play an increasingly important role in scientific research,
the code those computers run should be just as open as any other part
of the experiment. For other scientists to be able to reproduce the
results and improve on the work, they need to have access to all of
the materials used. Withholding the source code is akin to censoring
out part of the research: it prevents others from continuing where the
original research left off.
This is, of course, the exact reasoning behind free software licenses
such as the GPL. Work on one project should be easily applied to all
others, and anyone who benefits from that work must give back any
improvements or changes they made. This principle has worked
brilliantly well for web servers, browsers, and operating systems, so
why not for science?
</quote>
--
Blasphemy is a victimless crime
-Unknown
<quote>
Phys.org is reporting on a recently published paper that suggests all
scientific journals should require the full disclosure of source code
as a condition of publication. The paper states that only 3 science
journals currently require source code.
Open Source Science
The paper makes some very good points. It makes the argument that, as
computers play an increasingly important role in scientific research,
the code those computers run should be just as open as any other part
of the experiment. For other scientists to be able to reproduce the
results and improve on the work, they need to have access to all of
the materials used. Withholding the source code is akin to censoring
out part of the research: it prevents others from continuing where the
original research left off.
This is, of course, the exact reasoning behind free software licenses
such as the GPL. Work on one project should be easily applied to all
others, and anyone who benefits from that work must give back any
improvements or changes they made. This principle has worked
brilliantly well for web servers, browsers, and operating systems, so
why not for science?
</quote>
--
Blasphemy is a victimless crime
-Unknown
Hadron
Apr 22, 2012, 2:57:20 AM4/22/12
to
Hardon <hardon...@gmail.com> writes:
> <http://www.thepowerbase.com/2012/04/scientists-all-research-should-be-open-source/>
>
> <quote>
> Phys.org is reporting on a recently published paper that suggests all
> scientific journals should require the full disclosure of source code
> as a condition of publication. The paper states that only 3 science
> journals currently require source code.
>
> Open Source Science
>
> The paper makes some very good points. It makes the argument that, as
> computers play an increasingly important role in scientific research,
> the code those computers run should be just as open as any other part
> of the experiment. For other scientists to be able to reproduce the
> results and improve on the work, they need to have access to all of
> the materials used. Withholding the source code is akin to censoring
> out part of the research: it prevents others from continuing where the
> original research left off.
The down side being of course that the whole reason for redundancy and
> <http://www.thepowerbase.com/2012/04/scientists-all-research-should-be-open-source/>
>
> <quote>
> Phys.org is reporting on a recently published paper that suggests all
> scientific journals should require the full disclosure of source code
> as a condition of publication. The paper states that only 3 science
> journals currently require source code.
>
> Open Source Science
>
> The paper makes some very good points. It makes the argument that, as
> computers play an increasingly important role in scientific research,
> the code those computers run should be just as open as any other part
> of the experiment. For other scientists to be able to reproduce the
> results and improve on the work, they need to have access to all of
> the materials used. Withholding the source code is akin to censoring
> out part of the research: it prevents others from continuing where the
> original research left off.
thought vanishes : using the same SW leads to the same bugs and possible
experiment bad seeding.
No one should be forced to give their own work away : writing SW is
expensive and time consuming - add the need employ the Creepy's of this
world to QA it etc and we have a siutuation where people are going to be
reluctant to use all their budget on SW development to see the freetards
rob it.
Q for those who care : ask Creepy how much of his company's SW he "gives
away" under the GPL. The answer is, of course well known : none.
7
Apr 22, 2012, 6:04:33 AM4/22/12
to
Hadron wrote:
> Hardon <hardon...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> <http://www.thepowerbase.com/2012/04/scientists-all-research-should-be-
The tax payer has full rights over their research and should not
be denied their source code.
GPL is best way. It means big business and other organizations can
benefit from the research without building the code base again and again
through sharing and move research pace faster forward.
The tax payer gets double the benefit for efficient use of R&D funds.
More tax revenues for the government if companies use the GPL'd
software to make products and sell them.
The tax payer gets triple benefit by getting money back through
taxing the resulting commerce.
> Hardon <hardon...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> <http://www.thepowerbase.com/2012/04/scientists-all-research-should-be-
open-source/>
>>
>> <quote>
>> Phys.org is reporting on a recently published paper that suggests all
>> scientific journals should require the full disclosure of source code
>> as a condition of publication. The paper states that only 3 science
>> journals currently require source code.
>>
>> Open Source Science
>>
>> The paper makes some very good points. It makes the argument that, as
>> computers play an increasingly important role in scientific research,
>> the code those computers run should be just as open as any other part
>> of the experiment. For other scientists to be able to reproduce the
>> results and improve on the work, they need to have access to all of
>> the materials used. Withholding the source code is akin to censoring
>> out part of the research: it prevents others from continuing where the
>> original research left off.
>
>
> The down side being of course that the whole reason for redundancy and
> thought vanishes : using the same SW leads to the same bugs and possible
> experiment bad seeding.
>
> No one should be forced to give their own work away
Except that a lot of research is funded by the tax payer.
>>
>> <quote>
>> Phys.org is reporting on a recently published paper that suggests all
>> scientific journals should require the full disclosure of source code
>> as a condition of publication. The paper states that only 3 science
>> journals currently require source code.
>>
>> Open Source Science
>>
>> The paper makes some very good points. It makes the argument that, as
>> computers play an increasingly important role in scientific research,
>> the code those computers run should be just as open as any other part
>> of the experiment. For other scientists to be able to reproduce the
>> results and improve on the work, they need to have access to all of
>> the materials used. Withholding the source code is akin to censoring
>> out part of the research: it prevents others from continuing where the
>> original research left off.
>
>
> The down side being of course that the whole reason for redundancy and
> thought vanishes : using the same SW leads to the same bugs and possible
> experiment bad seeding.
>
> No one should be forced to give their own work away
The tax payer has full rights over their research and should not
be denied their source code.
GPL is best way. It means big business and other organizations can
benefit from the research without building the code base again and again
through sharing and move research pace faster forward.
The tax payer gets double the benefit for efficient use of R&D funds.
More tax revenues for the government if companies use the GPL'd
software to make products and sell them.
The tax payer gets triple benefit by getting money back through
taxing the resulting commerce.
-hh
Apr 22, 2012, 7:04:46 AM4/22/12
to
On Apr 22, 12:41 am, Hardon <hardon.qu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <http://www.thepowerbase.com/2012/04/scientists-all-research-should-be...>
formulas.
> Open Source Science
>
> The paper makes some very good points. It makes the argument that, as
> computers play an increasingly important role in scientific research,
> the code those computers run should be just as open as any other part
> of the experiment. For other scientists to be able to reproduce the
> results and improve on the work, they need to have access to all of
> the materials used.
Bullshit. If the author really wants "all materials", then my
handheld calculator and laboratory facilities & equipment are also on
his "share" list. Hey buddy, go buy your own lab.
And from a scientific research perspective, to not provide the plug-n-
chug software for code means that those who seek to reproduce the
results can't be lazy, but will have to recode it, which means that if
the author's original work contained an error, it is less likely to be
duplicated.
While he might have a point in applied *Development*, these sorts of
steps are necessary in *Research* to prevent another 'Cold Fusion'
fiasco, and at that point, there's also the customer's money ... and
it is the customer who ultimately decides if the work products he paid
for are to be given away for free or not.
-hh
> <http://www.thepowerbase.com/2012/04/scientists-all-research-should-be...>
>
> <quote>
> Phys.org is reporting on a recently published paper that suggests all
> scientific journals should require the full disclosure of source code
> as a condition of publication. The paper states that only 3 science
> journals currently require source code.
Typically, such papers already do "Open Source" the mathematical
> <quote>
> Phys.org is reporting on a recently published paper that suggests all
> scientific journals should require the full disclosure of source code
> as a condition of publication. The paper states that only 3 science
> journals currently require source code.
formulas.
> Open Source Science
>
> The paper makes some very good points. It makes the argument that, as
> computers play an increasingly important role in scientific research,
> the code those computers run should be just as open as any other part
> of the experiment. For other scientists to be able to reproduce the
> results and improve on the work, they need to have access to all of
> the materials used.
handheld calculator and laboratory facilities & equipment are also on
his "share" list. Hey buddy, go buy your own lab.
And from a scientific research perspective, to not provide the plug-n-
chug software for code means that those who seek to reproduce the
results can't be lazy, but will have to recode it, which means that if
the author's original work contained an error, it is less likely to be
duplicated.
While he might have a point in applied *Development*, these sorts of
steps are necessary in *Research* to prevent another 'Cold Fusion'
fiasco, and at that point, there's also the customer's money ... and
it is the customer who ultimately decides if the work products he paid
for are to be given away for free or not.
-hh
Homer
Apr 22, 2012, 8:35:32 AM4/22/12
to
Verily I say unto thee that Hardon spake thusly:
>
><http://www.thepowerbase.com/2012/04/scientists-all-research-should-be-open-source/>
[...]
> Open Source Science
Goes without saying.
As Stewart Brand (happy Earth Day, BTW) once said: "Information wants to
be free", and rightfully so, because the alternative is a return to a
medieval form of elitism, subjugation and tyranny, where mere "peasants"
are not "allowed" to know anything.
Moreover, where knowledge is restricted for commercial monopolistic
purposes (a form of state-aided protectionism called "Intellectual
Property"), the underlying claims used as a pretext to justify that
monopolisation are false and thus fraudulent, since by the very nature
of the way in which knowledge is accreted it cannot possible be any one
individual's exclusive property, in any morally-defensible sense.
Those swept-up in the right-wing's belligerent ravings against "commies"
whom they think want to "steal" their fraudulently claimed "property"
would do well to remember that such "property" didn't even exist prior
to 1624, and that mankind would not have progressed to its present state
of academic enlightenment were it not for the free exchange of
knowledge, thanks in no small part to Gutenberg, who was responsible for
an academic revolution the Intellectual Monopolists would dearly love to
reverse, taking us back into the dark ages.
Making science "open source" is not a case of abolishing some supposedly
inalienable right to fictitious "property", it's a case of liberating
that which was already Free, then kidnapped and held hostage by tyrants.
--
K. | "You see? You cannot kill me. There is no flesh
http://slated.org | and blood within this cloak to kill. There is
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | only an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 74 days | ~ V for Vendetta.
>
><http://www.thepowerbase.com/2012/04/scientists-all-research-should-be-open-source/>
[...]
> Open Source Science
Goes without saying.
As Stewart Brand (happy Earth Day, BTW) once said: "Information wants to
be free", and rightfully so, because the alternative is a return to a
medieval form of elitism, subjugation and tyranny, where mere "peasants"
are not "allowed" to know anything.
Moreover, where knowledge is restricted for commercial monopolistic
purposes (a form of state-aided protectionism called "Intellectual
Property"), the underlying claims used as a pretext to justify that
monopolisation are false and thus fraudulent, since by the very nature
of the way in which knowledge is accreted it cannot possible be any one
individual's exclusive property, in any morally-defensible sense.
Those swept-up in the right-wing's belligerent ravings against "commies"
whom they think want to "steal" their fraudulently claimed "property"
would do well to remember that such "property" didn't even exist prior
to 1624, and that mankind would not have progressed to its present state
of academic enlightenment were it not for the free exchange of
knowledge, thanks in no small part to Gutenberg, who was responsible for
an academic revolution the Intellectual Monopolists would dearly love to
reverse, taking us back into the dark ages.
Making science "open source" is not a case of abolishing some supposedly
inalienable right to fictitious "property", it's a case of liberating
that which was already Free, then kidnapped and held hostage by tyrants.
--
K. | "You see? You cannot kill me. There is no flesh
http://slated.org | and blood within this cloak to kill. There is
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | only an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 74 days | ~ V for Vendetta.
Ezekiel
Apr 22, 2012, 9:14:03 AM4/22/12
to
"Homer" <use...@slated.org> wrote in message
news:khad69-...@sky.matrix...
> Verily I say unto thee that Hardon spake thusly:
>>
>><http://www.thepowerbase.com/2012/04/scientists-all-research-should-be-open-source/>
> [...]
>> Open Source Science
>
> Goes without saying.
Oh really? "The earth is flat" used to go without saying at one time.
>>
>><http://www.thepowerbase.com/2012/04/scientists-all-research-should-be-open-source/>
> [...]
>> Open Source Science
>
> Goes without saying.
> Those swept-up in the right-wing's belligerent ravings against "commies"
> whom they think want to "steal" their fraudulently claimed "property"
> would do well to remember that such "property" didn't even exist prior
> to 1624,
everything in today's world didn't exist prior to 1624.
> an academic revolution the Intellectual Monopolists would dearly love to
> reverse, taking us back into the dark ages.
when a patent system didn't exist?
> Making science "open source" is not a case of abolishing some supposedly
> inalienable right to fictitious "property", it's a case of liberating
> that which was already Free, then kidnapped and held hostage by tyrants.
research or to keep it proprietary.
Their money + their employees + their research = their decision.
Some clueless usenet whiner has zero right to tell any company what they
must to do with the research that they are funding.
--
Share price is a measure of market confidence based on current performance.
The market is apparently twice as confident of ($600) Google as it is of
($320) Apple, and 20 times more confident than it is of Microsoft. So what
Google is doing today is apparently better than what others are doing."
"Homer" once again talking about things he knows absolutely nothing about.
Foster
Apr 22, 2012, 9:23:44 AM4/22/12
to
On 22 Apr 2012 04:41:18 GMT, Hardon wrote:
> <http://www.thepowerbase.com/2012/04/scientists-all-research-should-be-open-source/>
>
> <quote>
> Phys.org is reporting on a recently published paper that suggests all
> scientific journals should require the full disclosure of source code
> as a condition of publication. The paper states that only 3 science
> journals currently require source code.
It will be interesting to see what their employers have to say about
> <http://www.thepowerbase.com/2012/04/scientists-all-research-should-be-open-source/>
>
> <quote>
> Phys.org is reporting on a recently published paper that suggests all
> scientific journals should require the full disclosure of source code
> as a condition of publication. The paper states that only 3 science
> journals currently require source code.
that.
Hadron
Apr 22, 2012, 10:00:45 AM4/22/12
to
Why am I not surprised "Hardon" doesn't even begin to understand the
ramifications of this ridiculous Freetard edit for yet more of other
peoples work.
"Hardon" must be WronG or, and though I dont think even Hardon is stupid
enough to be him, Gortard.
Foster
Apr 22, 2012, 10:12:44 AM4/22/12
to
As for this sharing of data nonsense it's usually mostly supported
by do nothing researchers hiding behind academia and whose biggest
worry is how they can get their next useless project funded.
Chris Ahlstrom
Apr 22, 2012, 2:42:55 PM4/22/12
to
7 wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Hardon <hardon...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> <http://www.thepowerbase.com/2012/04/scientists-all-research-should-be-
> open-source/>
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>> Phys.org is reporting on a recently published paper that suggests all
>>> scientific journals should require the full disclosure of source code
>>> as a condition of publication. The paper states that only 3 science
>>> journals currently require source code.
>>>
>>> Open Source Science
>>>
>>> The paper makes some very good points. It makes the argument that, as
>>> computers play an increasingly important role in scientific research,
>>> the code those computers run should be just as open as any other part
>>> of the experiment. For other scientists to be able to reproduce the
>>> results and improve on the work, they need to have access to all of
>>> the materials used. Withholding the source code is akin to censoring
>>> out part of the research: it prevents others from continuing where the
>>> original research left off.
>>
>> The down side being of course that the whole reason for redundancy and
>> thought vanishes : using the same SW leads to the same bugs and possible
>> experiment bad seeding.
Dumbass. It has nothing to do with using the same software; it has to
do with being able to know/verify exactly what the software does.
Can this raving asshat get *anything* right without borking it with his
crazed world-view?
>> No one should be forced to give their own work away
>
> Except that a lot of research is funded by the tax payer.
> The tax payer has full rights over their research and should not
> be denied their source code.
>
> GPL is best way. It means big business and other organizations can
> benefit from the research without building the code base again and again
> through sharing and move research pace faster forward.
>
> The tax payer gets double the benefit for efficient use of R&D funds.
>
> More tax revenues for the government if companies use the GPL'd
> software to make products and sell them.
>
> The tax payer gets triple benefit by getting money back through
> taxing the resulting commerce.
Far more rightness and intelligent in the paragraphs above than in the
totality of "Hadron"'s oeuvre.
>> : writing SW is
>> expensive and time consuming - add the need employ the Creepy's of this
>> world to QA it etc and we have a siutuation where people are going to be
>> reluctant to use all their budget on SW development to see the freetards
>> rob it.
You demented fool.
>> Q for those who care : ask Creepy how much of his company's SW he "gives
>> away" under the GPL. The answer is, of course well known : none.
Wrong again, "Hadron". We give it *all* away, to the customer. It is
custom code, they get the whole body of it and they determine what to do
with it.
All perfectly fine as documented by Richard Stallman in the first
edition of his compilation of essays, "Free Software: Free Society."
--
It was with some disbelief that I saw Baby Chris Ahlstrom (aka TomB)
claim that Linux is not a Unix clone.
It's laughably stupid.
Did he think Linus made it all up and it just happened to share nearly
all the APIs and characteristics/shells etc?
-- "Hadron" <ijqlce$nda$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Hardon <hardon...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> <http://www.thepowerbase.com/2012/04/scientists-all-research-should-be-
> open-source/>
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>> Phys.org is reporting on a recently published paper that suggests all
>>> scientific journals should require the full disclosure of source code
>>> as a condition of publication. The paper states that only 3 science
>>> journals currently require source code.
>>>
>>> Open Source Science
>>>
>>> The paper makes some very good points. It makes the argument that, as
>>> computers play an increasingly important role in scientific research,
>>> the code those computers run should be just as open as any other part
>>> of the experiment. For other scientists to be able to reproduce the
>>> results and improve on the work, they need to have access to all of
>>> the materials used. Withholding the source code is akin to censoring
>>> out part of the research: it prevents others from continuing where the
>>> original research left off.
>>
>> The down side being of course that the whole reason for redundancy and
>> thought vanishes : using the same SW leads to the same bugs and possible
>> experiment bad seeding.
do with being able to know/verify exactly what the software does.
Can this raving asshat get *anything* right without borking it with his
crazed world-view?
>> No one should be forced to give their own work away
>
> Except that a lot of research is funded by the tax payer.
> The tax payer has full rights over their research and should not
> be denied their source code.
>
> GPL is best way. It means big business and other organizations can
> benefit from the research without building the code base again and again
> through sharing and move research pace faster forward.
>
> The tax payer gets double the benefit for efficient use of R&D funds.
>
> More tax revenues for the government if companies use the GPL'd
> software to make products and sell them.
>
> The tax payer gets triple benefit by getting money back through
> taxing the resulting commerce.
totality of "Hadron"'s oeuvre.
>> : writing SW is
>> expensive and time consuming - add the need employ the Creepy's of this
>> world to QA it etc and we have a siutuation where people are going to be
>> reluctant to use all their budget on SW development to see the freetards
>> rob it.
>> Q for those who care : ask Creepy how much of his company's SW he "gives
>> away" under the GPL. The answer is, of course well known : none.
custom code, they get the whole body of it and they determine what to do
with it.
All perfectly fine as documented by Richard Stallman in the first
edition of his compilation of essays, "Free Software: Free Society."
--
It was with some disbelief that I saw Baby Chris Ahlstrom (aka TomB)
claim that Linux is not a Unix clone.
It's laughably stupid.
Did he think Linus made it all up and it just happened to share nearly
all the APIs and characteristics/shells etc?
-- "Hadron" <ijqlce$nda$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
William Poaster
Apr 22, 2012, 2:58:12 PM4/22/12
to
Here is a facsimile from Chris Ahlstrom who, on 22/4/2012 19:42, wrote:
The raving idiot said this?
It was with some disbelief that I saw Baby Chris Ahlstrom (aka TomB)
claim that Linux is not a Unix clone.
It's laughably stupid.
Did he think Linus made it all up and it just happened to share nearly
all the APIs and characteristics/shells etc?
-- "Hadron" <ijqlce$nda$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
Unfuckingbelievable!
Linux is *not* a UNIX clone, it *is* (however) a clone of UNIX.
(I wonder if the drooling Hadron phuckwit will understand the
difference.....probably not.)
Minix inspired the creation of Linux, but there are key differences,
such as Linux using a monolithic kernel as opposed to the microkernel
of Minix.
Just to confuse the M$ phuckwitted troll evn more:
Linux is not UNIX ... but it is command line compatible.
BSD is a derivative of UNIX.
OSX is a GUI on top of a derivative of BSD.
--
When the universe is divided by zero, black holes occur.
Most people are sheep.
Microsoft is very effective
at fleecing the flockers.
The raving idiot said this?
It was with some disbelief that I saw Baby Chris Ahlstrom (aka TomB)
claim that Linux is not a Unix clone.
It's laughably stupid.
Did he think Linus made it all up and it just happened to share nearly
all the APIs and characteristics/shells etc?
-- "Hadron" <ijqlce$nda$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
Linux is *not* a UNIX clone, it *is* (however) a clone of UNIX.
(I wonder if the drooling Hadron phuckwit will understand the
difference.....probably not.)
Minix inspired the creation of Linux, but there are key differences,
such as Linux using a monolithic kernel as opposed to the microkernel
of Minix.
Just to confuse the M$ phuckwitted troll evn more:
Linux is not UNIX ... but it is command line compatible.
BSD is a derivative of UNIX.
OSX is a GUI on top of a derivative of BSD.
--
When the universe is divided by zero, black holes occur.
Most people are sheep.
Microsoft is very effective
at fleecing the flockers.
Homer
Apr 22, 2012, 5:00:49 PM4/22/12
to
Fuckwit "Hadron" whined:
company, should also get to own all that company's products, just
because he helps build them, and that anything less is tantamount to
"giving his work away"?
Idiot.
People work, they get paid. For their labour. Once. Anything more than
that is just greed. Period.
Funny how this isn't a problem for 99% of the workforce, including Red
Hat's fully paid employees, but it's somehow a problem for intellectual
monopolists and their groupies.
--
K. | "You see? You cannot kill me. There is no flesh
http://slated.org | and blood within this cloak to kill. There is
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | only an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 75 days | ~ V for Vendetta.
>
> No one should be forced to give their own work away
So you think someone who works for a company, and gets paid by that
> No one should be forced to give their own work away
company, should also get to own all that company's products, just
because he helps build them, and that anything less is tantamount to
"giving his work away"?
Idiot.
People work, they get paid. For their labour. Once. Anything more than
that is just greed. Period.
Funny how this isn't a problem for 99% of the workforce, including Red
Hat's fully paid employees, but it's somehow a problem for intellectual
monopolists and their groupies.
--
K. | "You see? You cannot kill me. There is no flesh
http://slated.org | and blood within this cloak to kill. There is
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | only an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
Foster
Apr 22, 2012, 5:13:48 PM4/22/12
to
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:00:49 +0100, Homer wrote:
> Funny how this isn't a problem for 99% of the workforce, including Red
> Hat's fully paid employees, but it's somehow a problem for intellectual
> monopolists and their groupies.
Redhat is actually creating just about nothing.
> Funny how this isn't a problem for 99% of the workforce, including Red
> Hat's fully paid employees, but it's somehow a problem for intellectual
> monopolists and their groupies.
They re-package and tweak a little bit.
They are sponging off the works of the FOSS community.
In addition to selling overpriced support contracts of course, which
is their real bread and butter.
Parasites.
Homer
Apr 22, 2012, 5:30:38 PM4/22/12
to
Verily I say unto thee that William Poaster spake thusly:
A clone is an exact copy, therefore a clone of UNIX would have to /be/
UNIX. Linux is not only not copied from UNIX, but it isn't even copied
from MINIX, the OS which inspired it, as Andrew Tanenbaum stated quite
emphatically. At best they share some common goals and features, while
adhering to what was subsequently defined as the POSIX standards. That
defines Linux as a POSIX-compliant, UNIX-like system, but not a clone.
>
> It was with some disbelief that I saw Baby Chris Ahlstrom (aka TomB)
> claim that Linux is not a Unix clone.
> It's laughably stupid.
> Did he think Linus made it all up and it just happened to share nearly
> all the APIs and characteristics/shells etc?
> -- "Hadron" <ijqlce$nda$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
>
> Unfuckingbelievable!
>
> Linux is *not* a UNIX clone, it *is* (however) a clone of UNIX.
That's still not right.
> It was with some disbelief that I saw Baby Chris Ahlstrom (aka TomB)
> claim that Linux is not a Unix clone.
> It's laughably stupid.
> Did he think Linus made it all up and it just happened to share nearly
> all the APIs and characteristics/shells etc?
> -- "Hadron" <ijqlce$nda$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
>
> Unfuckingbelievable!
>
> Linux is *not* a UNIX clone, it *is* (however) a clone of UNIX.
A clone is an exact copy, therefore a clone of UNIX would have to /be/
UNIX. Linux is not only not copied from UNIX, but it isn't even copied
from MINIX, the OS which inspired it, as Andrew Tanenbaum stated quite
emphatically. At best they share some common goals and features, while
adhering to what was subsequently defined as the POSIX standards. That
defines Linux as a POSIX-compliant, UNIX-like system, but not a clone.
William Poaster
Apr 22, 2012, 6:28:02 PM4/22/12
to
Here is a facsimile from Homer who, on 22/4/2012 22:30, wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee that William Poaster spake thusly:
>>
>> It was with some disbelief that I saw Baby Chris Ahlstrom (aka TomB)
>> claim that Linux is not a Unix clone.
>> It's laughably stupid.
>> Did he think Linus made it all up and it just happened to share nearly
>> all the APIs and characteristics/shells etc?
>> -- "Hadron" <ijqlce$nda$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
>>
>> Unfuckingbelievable!
>>
>> Linux is *not* a UNIX clone, it *is* (however) a clone of UNIX.
>
> That's still not right.
>
> A clone is an exact copy, therefore a clone of UNIX would have to /be/
> UNIX. Linux is not only not copied from UNIX, but it isn't even copied
> from MINIX, the OS which inspired it, as Andrew Tanenbaum stated quite
> emphatically. At best they share some common goals and features, while
> adhering to what was subsequently defined as the POSIX standards. That
> defines Linux as a POSIX-compliant, UNIX-like system, but not a clone.
I stand corrected. :-)
> Verily I say unto thee that William Poaster spake thusly:
>>
>> It was with some disbelief that I saw Baby Chris Ahlstrom (aka TomB)
>> claim that Linux is not a Unix clone.
>> It's laughably stupid.
>> Did he think Linus made it all up and it just happened to share nearly
>> all the APIs and characteristics/shells etc?
>> -- "Hadron" <ijqlce$nda$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
>>
>> Unfuckingbelievable!
>>
>> Linux is *not* a UNIX clone, it *is* (however) a clone of UNIX.
>
> That's still not right.
>
> A clone is an exact copy, therefore a clone of UNIX would have to /be/
> UNIX. Linux is not only not copied from UNIX, but it isn't even copied
> from MINIX, the OS which inspired it, as Andrew Tanenbaum stated quite
> emphatically. At best they share some common goals and features, while
> adhering to what was subsequently defined as the POSIX standards. That
> defines Linux as a POSIX-compliant, UNIX-like system, but not a clone.
--
Linux - for IQs greater than 2000
Foster
Apr 22, 2012, 7:00:41 PM4/22/12
to
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 23:28:02 +0100, William Poaster wrote:
> Here is a facsimile from Homer who, on 22/4/2012 22:30, wrote:
>
>> Verily I say unto thee that William Poaster spake thusly:
>>>
>>> It was with some disbelief that I saw Baby Chris Ahlstrom (aka TomB)
>>> claim that Linux is not a Unix clone.
>>> It's laughably stupid.
>>> Did he think Linus made it all up and it just happened to share nearly
>>> all the APIs and characteristics/shells etc?
>>> -- "Hadron" <ijqlce$nda$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
>>>
>>> Unfuckingbelievable!
>>>
>>> Linux is *not* a UNIX clone, it *is* (however) a clone of UNIX.
>>
>> That's still not right.
>>
>> A clone is an exact copy, therefore a clone of UNIX would have to /be/
>> UNIX. Linux is not only not copied from UNIX, but it isn't even copied
>> from MINIX, the OS which inspired it, as Andrew Tanenbaum stated quite
>> emphatically. At best they share some common goals and features, while
>> adhering to what was subsequently defined as the POSIX standards. That
>> defines Linux as a POSIX-compliant, UNIX-like system, but not a clone.
>
> I stand corrected. :-)
You might to continue being corrected.
> Here is a facsimile from Homer who, on 22/4/2012 22:30, wrote:
>
>> Verily I say unto thee that William Poaster spake thusly:
>>>
>>> It was with some disbelief that I saw Baby Chris Ahlstrom (aka TomB)
>>> claim that Linux is not a Unix clone.
>>> It's laughably stupid.
>>> Did he think Linus made it all up and it just happened to share nearly
>>> all the APIs and characteristics/shells etc?
>>> -- "Hadron" <ijqlce$nda$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
>>>
>>> Unfuckingbelievable!
>>>
>>> Linux is *not* a UNIX clone, it *is* (however) a clone of UNIX.
>>
>> That's still not right.
>>
>> A clone is an exact copy, therefore a clone of UNIX would have to /be/
>> UNIX. Linux is not only not copied from UNIX, but it isn't even copied
>> from MINIX, the OS which inspired it, as Andrew Tanenbaum stated quite
>> emphatically. At best they share some common goals and features, while
>> adhering to what was subsequently defined as the POSIX standards. That
>> defines Linux as a POSIX-compliant, UNIX-like system, but not a clone.
>
> I stand corrected. :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix
"The Open Group, an industry standards consortium, owns the UNIX
trademark. Only systems fully compliant with and certified according
to the Single UNIX Specification are qualified to use the trademark;
others might be called Unix system-like or Unix-like, although the
Open Group disapproves[1] of this term."
Peter Köhlmann
Apr 22, 2012, 7:12:21 PM4/22/12
to
Foster wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:00:49 +0100, Homer wrote:
>
>
>> Funny how this isn't a problem for 99% of the workforce, including Red
>> Hat's fully paid employees, but it's somehow a problem for intellectual
>> monopolists and their groupies.
>
> Redhat is actually creating just about nothing.
> They re-package and tweak a little bit.
> They are sponging off the works of the FOSS community.
>
That is by far the dumbest bullshit you have posted in years.
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:00:49 +0100, Homer wrote:
>
>
>> Funny how this isn't a problem for 99% of the workforce, including Red
>> Hat's fully paid employees, but it's somehow a problem for intellectual
>> monopolists and their groupies.
>
> Redhat is actually creating just about nothing.
> They re-package and tweak a little bit.
> They are sponging off the works of the FOSS community.
>
Only Hadron Larry and Snit Michael Glasser managed to post even sillier
claims
Foster
Apr 22, 2012, 7:21:38 PM4/22/12
to
In the scheme of things, IOW the number of packages, versions of
Linux RH ships, how much of the work has RH done COMPARED to what
others have done and RH just repackaged and massaged.
Note, I'm not saying they don't do anything, I'm just saying when it
comes down to programs shipped vs contribution, RH is a parasite,
just like the other vendors.
I will grant them that they at least contribute to the upstream
kernel a decent amount, unlike Canonical.
Still.....
Snit
Apr 22, 2012, 9:00:44 PM4/22/12
to
Foster stated in post 1i5dfuzr1rgcr.15siqax0nzzia$.d...@40tude.net on 4/22/12
4:21 PM:
This is how OSS is used: people use it to "scratch their own itch", as Linus
Torvalds has said. When this is done by an OSS distro the herd thinks it is
good and speaks highly of it. When the exact same thing is done by MS or
Apple or others then it is a sign of greed and selfishness.
They simply are not honest.
--
🙈🙉🙊
4:21 PM:
Torvalds has said. When this is done by an OSS distro the herd thinks it is
good and speaks highly of it. When the exact same thing is done by MS or
Apple or others then it is a sign of greed and selfishness.
They simply are not honest.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Snit
Apr 22, 2012, 9:11:42 PM4/22/12
to
Homer stated in post 158e69-...@sky.matrix on 4/22/12 2:00 PM:
> Fuckwit "Hadron" whined:
>>
>> No one should be forced to give their own work away
>
> So you think someone who works for a company, and gets paid by that
> company, should also get to own all that company's products, just
> because he helps build them, and that anything less is tantamount to
> "giving his work away"?
You made that up. Complete fabrication on your part. Utterly unlike
anything anyone said. A sign of your complete lack of understanding.
> Idiot.
>
> People work, they get paid. For their labour. Once. Anything more than
> that is just greed. Period.
So movie tickets should not be sold? The movie viewing experience should be
sold once? What? That is idiotic. Really, your claim is just so far
outside the realm of common sense and reasoned economics as to prove you are
lost on the topic.
> Funny how this isn't a problem for 99% of the workforce, including Red
> Hat's fully paid employees, but it's somehow a problem for intellectual
> monopolists and their groupies.
What are you even babbling about? Ever been to a bookstore? I mean,
really, the concepts here are not complex.
--
🙈🙉🙊
> Fuckwit "Hadron" whined:
>>
>> No one should be forced to give their own work away
>
> So you think someone who works for a company, and gets paid by that
> company, should also get to own all that company's products, just
> because he helps build them, and that anything less is tantamount to
> "giving his work away"?
anything anyone said. A sign of your complete lack of understanding.
> Idiot.
>
> People work, they get paid. For their labour. Once. Anything more than
> that is just greed. Period.
sold once? What? That is idiotic. Really, your claim is just so far
outside the realm of common sense and reasoned economics as to prove you are
lost on the topic.
> Funny how this isn't a problem for 99% of the workforce, including Red
> Hat's fully paid employees, but it's somehow a problem for intellectual
> monopolists and their groupies.
really, the concepts here are not complex.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Snit
Apr 22, 2012, 9:15:45 PM4/22/12
to
Hardon stated in post OZLkr.118190$fv4....@news.usenetserver.com on
4/21/12 9:41 PM:
> <http://www.thepowerbase.com/2012/04/scientists-all-research-should-be-open-so
For any program required to repeat the experiment, I can see where the
program should be made available. Now if they used a commercial program,
demanding that they somehow get the code and provide it is idiotic, of
course, but if they are showing something based on code it should be a part
of the paper submission. I can see that.
--
🙈🙉🙊
4/21/12 9:41 PM:
> <http://www.thepowerbase.com/2012/04/scientists-all-research-should-be-open-so
program should be made available. Now if they used a commercial program,
demanding that they somehow get the code and provide it is idiotic, of
course, but if they are showing something based on code it should be a part
of the paper submission. I can see that.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Homer
Apr 23, 2012, 5:19:41 AM4/23/12
to
Verily I say unto thee that Peter Köhlmann spake thusly:
Yes, not only do Red Hat's employees produce a vast amount of software
for Red Hat, but they're also directly involved with many upstream
projects, including Linux itself. For this work they get paid very
well, and Red Hat makes a lot of money, and yet not a single line of
code is monopolised.
So maybe the frothing anti-freedom nuts would care to explain how being
/paid/ to write Free Software is "giving your work away", exactly, and
"Hadron" in particular should explain how this amounts to being "forced"
to do so.
for Red Hat, but they're also directly involved with many upstream
projects, including Linux itself. For this work they get paid very
well, and Red Hat makes a lot of money, and yet not a single line of
code is monopolised.
So maybe the frothing anti-freedom nuts would care to explain how being
/paid/ to write Free Software is "giving your work away", exactly, and
"Hadron" in particular should explain how this amounts to being "forced"
to do so.
Chris Ahlstrom
Apr 23, 2012, 5:47:19 AM4/23/12
to
Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> Foster wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:00:49 +0100, Homer wrote:
>>
>>> Funny how this isn't a problem for 99% of the workforce, including Red
>>> Hat's fully paid employees, but it's somehow a problem for intellectual
>>> monopolists and their groupies.
>>
>> Redhat is actually creating just about nothing.
>> They re-package and tweak a little bit.
>> They are sponging off the works of the FOSS community.
Then why do others bother to pay Red Hat to the tune of a billion $?
Why not just do what Red Hat does for them themselves?
> That is by far the dumbest bullshit you have posted in years.
> Only Hadron Larry and Snit Michael Glasser managed to post even sillier
> claims
Flounder's a couple chipsets short of a motherboard.
--
"I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And
in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the
additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true.
- Carl Sagan, The Burden Of Skepticism, The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 12, Fall 87
> Foster wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:00:49 +0100, Homer wrote:
>>
>>> Funny how this isn't a problem for 99% of the workforce, including Red
>>> Hat's fully paid employees, but it's somehow a problem for intellectual
>>> monopolists and their groupies.
>>
>> Redhat is actually creating just about nothing.
>> They re-package and tweak a little bit.
>> They are sponging off the works of the FOSS community.
Why not just do what Red Hat does for them themselves?
> That is by far the dumbest bullshit you have posted in years.
> Only Hadron Larry and Snit Michael Glasser managed to post even sillier
> claims
--
"I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And
in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the
additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true.
- Carl Sagan, The Burden Of Skepticism, The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 12, Fall 87
William Poaster
Apr 23, 2012, 5:45:11 AM4/23/12
to
Here is a facsimile from Homer who, on 23/4/2012 10:19, wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee that Peter Köhlmann spake thusly:
>> Foster wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:00:49 +0100, Homer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Funny how this isn't a problem for 99% of the workforce, including
>>>> Red Hat's fully paid employees, but it's somehow a problem for
>>>> intellectual monopolists and their groupies.
>>>
>>> Redhat is actually creating just about nothing.
>>> They re-package and tweak a little bit.
>>> They are sponging off the works of the FOSS community.
>>
>> That is by far the dumbest bullshit you have posted in years.
>> Only Hadron Larry and Snit Michael Glasser managed to post even
>> sillier claims
>
> Yes, not only do Red Hat's employees produce a vast amount of software
> for Red Hat, but they're also directly involved with many upstream
> projects, including Linux itself. For this work they get paid very
> well, and Red Hat makes a lot of money, and yet not a single line of
> code is monopolised.
>
> So maybe the frothing anti-freedom nuts would care to explain how being
> /paid/ to write Free Software is "giving your work away", exactly, and
> "Hadron" in particular should explain how this amounts to being "forced"
> to do so.
It's amusing how the trolling pHuckwit Hadron manages to tie himself in
> Verily I say unto thee that Peter Köhlmann spake thusly:
>> Foster wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:00:49 +0100, Homer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Funny how this isn't a problem for 99% of the workforce, including
>>>> Red Hat's fully paid employees, but it's somehow a problem for
>>>> intellectual monopolists and their groupies.
>>>
>>> Redhat is actually creating just about nothing.
>>> They re-package and tweak a little bit.
>>> They are sponging off the works of the FOSS community.
>>
>> That is by far the dumbest bullshit you have posted in years.
>> Only Hadron Larry and Snit Michael Glasser managed to post even
>> sillier claims
>
> Yes, not only do Red Hat's employees produce a vast amount of software
> for Red Hat, but they're also directly involved with many upstream
> projects, including Linux itself. For this work they get paid very
> well, and Red Hat makes a lot of money, and yet not a single line of
> code is monopolised.
>
> So maybe the frothing anti-freedom nuts would care to explain how being
> /paid/ to write Free Software is "giving your work away", exactly, and
> "Hadron" in particular should explain how this amounts to being "forced"
> to do so.
knots, for didn't he once say that he "used Linux, & contributes to OSS"
& was "an active contributor to OSS projects"?
Message-ID:<8ir525-...@news.individual.net>
So obviously it wasn't code the troll supposedly 'contributed', because
*that* would be giving his work away!
Which would explain why, when asked on numerous occasions to show what
code he'd "contributed", he frothed & made excuses as to why he
wouldn't.
--
Klingon Prime Directive: Shoot it!
Hadron
Apr 23, 2012, 6:02:56 AM4/23/12
to
Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> writes:
> Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Foster wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:00:49 +0100, Homer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Funny how this isn't a problem for 99% of the workforce, including Red
>>>> Hat's fully paid employees, but it's somehow a problem for intellectual
>>>> monopolists and their groupies.
>>>
>>> Redhat is actually creating just about nothing.
>>> They re-package and tweak a little bit.
>>> They are sponging off the works of the FOSS community.
>
> Then why do others bother to pay Red Hat to the tune of a billion $?
If you dont know that you're an idiot. Because most people cant and wont
> Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Foster wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:00:49 +0100, Homer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Funny how this isn't a problem for 99% of the workforce, including Red
>>>> Hat's fully paid employees, but it's somehow a problem for intellectual
>>>> monopolists and their groupies.
>>>
>>> Redhat is actually creating just about nothing.
>>> They re-package and tweak a little bit.
>>> They are sponging off the works of the FOSS community.
>
> Then why do others bother to pay Red Hat to the tune of a billion $?
make their own distro. Why would they? They want PROFESSIONAL support
and not some stuttering fan boy telling them to RTFM.
Tell me, why do YOUR customers pay you to prepare Windows SW for them?
Duh.
>
> Why not just do what Red Hat does for them themselves?
>
>> That is by far the dumbest bullshit you have posted in years.
>> Only Hadron Larry and Snit Michael Glasser managed to post even sillier
>> claims
>
> Flounder's a couple chipsets short of a motherboard.
Homer
Apr 23, 2012, 6:24:06 AM4/23/12
to
Verily I say unto thee that Homer spake thusly:
precisely /nothing/. Its entire portfolio is merely assimilated from
others, many of whom didn't even /want/ to "give their work away" ... to
Microsoft or anyone else (e.g. Stac Electronics, i4i and countless other
victims). Even the Hyper-V drivers Microsoft spun into a PR exercise
were only "contributed" because they were caught red-handed violating
the GPL, and even /that/ code was merely harvested from Citrix ("Project
Encore").
"Usually Microsoft doesn't develop products, we buy products" ~ Arno
Edelmann, Microsoft's European business security product manager.
http://tinyurl.com/34lqcf (ZDNet).
At least Red Hat does in fact develop software, and those parts of RHEL
that Red Hat didn't create itself were /willingly/ donated to the Free
Software community, just as Red Hat does with /its/ Free Software.
And yet somehow everyone still gets /paid/, just as they would in any
other industry.
> Verily I say unto thee that Peter Köhlmann spake thusly:
>> Foster wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:00:49 +0100, Homer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Funny how this isn't a problem for 99% of the workforce, including
>>>> Red Hat's fully paid employees, but it's somehow a problem for
>>>> intellectual monopolists and their groupies.
>>>
>>> Redhat is actually creating just about nothing.
>>> They re-package and tweak a little bit.
>>> They are sponging off the works of the FOSS community.
>>
>> That is by far the dumbest bullshit you have posted in years.
>> Only Hadron Larry and Snit Michael Glasser managed to post even
>> sillier claims
>
> Yes, not only do Red Hat's employees produce a vast amount of software
> for Red Hat, but they're also directly involved with many upstream
> projects, including Linux itself. For this work they get paid very
> well, and Red Hat makes a lot of money, and yet not a single line of
> code is monopolised.
>
> So maybe the frothing anti-freedom nuts would care to explain how
> being /paid/ to write Free Software is "giving your work away",
> exactly, and "Hadron" in particular should explain how this amounts to
> being "forced" to do so.
I meant to add: meanwhile Microsoft innovates, creates and contributes
>> Foster wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:00:49 +0100, Homer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Funny how this isn't a problem for 99% of the workforce, including
>>>> Red Hat's fully paid employees, but it's somehow a problem for
>>>> intellectual monopolists and their groupies.
>>>
>>> Redhat is actually creating just about nothing.
>>> They re-package and tweak a little bit.
>>> They are sponging off the works of the FOSS community.
>>
>> That is by far the dumbest bullshit you have posted in years.
>> Only Hadron Larry and Snit Michael Glasser managed to post even
>> sillier claims
>
> Yes, not only do Red Hat's employees produce a vast amount of software
> for Red Hat, but they're also directly involved with many upstream
> projects, including Linux itself. For this work they get paid very
> well, and Red Hat makes a lot of money, and yet not a single line of
> code is monopolised.
>
> So maybe the frothing anti-freedom nuts would care to explain how
> being /paid/ to write Free Software is "giving your work away",
> exactly, and "Hadron" in particular should explain how this amounts to
> being "forced" to do so.
precisely /nothing/. Its entire portfolio is merely assimilated from
others, many of whom didn't even /want/ to "give their work away" ... to
Microsoft or anyone else (e.g. Stac Electronics, i4i and countless other
victims). Even the Hyper-V drivers Microsoft spun into a PR exercise
were only "contributed" because they were caught red-handed violating
the GPL, and even /that/ code was merely harvested from Citrix ("Project
Encore").
"Usually Microsoft doesn't develop products, we buy products" ~ Arno
Edelmann, Microsoft's European business security product manager.
http://tinyurl.com/34lqcf (ZDNet).
At least Red Hat does in fact develop software, and those parts of RHEL
that Red Hat didn't create itself were /willingly/ donated to the Free
Software community, just as Red Hat does with /its/ Free Software.
And yet somehow everyone still gets /paid/, just as they would in any
other industry.
Homer
Apr 23, 2012, 7:16:17 AM4/23/12
to
Verily I say unto thee that William Poaster spake thusly:
Good catch.
So come on then "Hadron", let's see the "work" you were "forced to give
away".
The lying, spineless git will now slither away and hope we all develop
amnesia.
> Here is a facsimile from Homer who, on 23/4/2012 10:19, wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee that Peter Köhlmann spake thusly:
>>> Foster wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:00:49 +0100, Homer wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee that Peter Köhlmann spake thusly:
>>> Foster wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:00:49 +0100, Homer wrote:
>>>>> Fuckwit "Hadron" whined:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one should be forced to give their own work away
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one should be forced to give their own work away
>>>>>
So come on then "Hadron", let's see the "work" you were "forced to give
away".
The lying, spineless git will now slither away and hope we all develop
amnesia.
William Poaster
Apr 23, 2012, 7:30:14 AM4/23/12
to
he came.
--
Dr. Who has been struck off due to unprofessional conduct with a
Darlek.
chrisv
Apr 23, 2012, 8:46:11 AM4/23/12
to
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> mentally-ill troll wrote:
>>
>> Redhat is actually creating just about nothing.
>> They re-package and tweak a little bit.
>> They are sponging off the works of the FOSS community.
>
>That is by far the dumbest bullshit you have posted in years.
>Only Hadron Larry and Snit Michael Glasser managed to post even sillier
>claims
It's just amazing how shamelessly the troll (and all the troll's pals)
lie.
"Ezekiel" likes him, though.
--
"I wonder what this hypocrite thinks of Ubuntu or Red Hat or ....
<insert hundreds of companies who make money from others peoples
work>" - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark, implying that it's
immoral for a company to use FOSS in its products
> mentally-ill troll wrote:
>>
>> Redhat is actually creating just about nothing.
>> They re-package and tweak a little bit.
>> They are sponging off the works of the FOSS community.
>
>That is by far the dumbest bullshit you have posted in years.
>Only Hadron Larry and Snit Michael Glasser managed to post even sillier
>claims
lie.
"Ezekiel" likes him, though.
--
"I wonder what this hypocrite thinks of Ubuntu or Red Hat or ....
<insert hundreds of companies who make money from others peoples
work>" - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark, implying that it's
immoral for a company to use FOSS in its products
Snit
Apr 23, 2012, 9:39:24 AM4/23/12
to
Homer stated in post dejf69-...@sky.matrix on 4/23/12 2:19 AM:
> Verily I say unto thee that Peter Köhlmann spake thusly:
>> Foster wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:00:49 +0100, Homer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Funny how this isn't a problem for 99% of the workforce, including
>>>> Red Hat's fully paid employees, but it's somehow a problem for
>>>> intellectual monopolists and their groupies.
>>>
>>> Redhat is actually creating just about nothing.
>>> They re-package and tweak a little bit.
>>> They are sponging off the works of the FOSS community.
>>
>> That is by far the dumbest bullshit you have posted in years.
>> Only Hadron Larry and Snit Michael Glasser managed to post even
>> sillier claims
>
> Yes, not only do Red Hat's employees produce a vast amount of software
> for Red Hat, but they're also directly involved with many upstream
> projects, including Linux itself. For this work they get paid very
> well, and Red Hat makes a lot of money, and yet not a single line of
> code is monopolised.
Is anyone arguing they are doing wrong by doing this?
Not that I know of.
But you go a step further - into being completely irrational - and say that
since they do this others *should*, that other choices are wrong.
It would be like someone noting how Apple is amazingly successful, far more
than RedHat, so this means all other companies should do what Apple does.
You want to eliminate choice. You want to eliminate freedom. And then you
twist that around and claim to be *for* freedom and say that those of us who
want people and companies to be able to make choices for themselves are
somehow "anti-freedom", a complete 1984-style double talk BS that is taught
by your cult-like leader Stallman.
🙈🙉🙊
> Verily I say unto thee that Peter Köhlmann spake thusly:
>> Foster wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:00:49 +0100, Homer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Funny how this isn't a problem for 99% of the workforce, including
>>>> Red Hat's fully paid employees, but it's somehow a problem for
>>>> intellectual monopolists and their groupies.
>>>
>>> Redhat is actually creating just about nothing.
>>> They re-package and tweak a little bit.
>>> They are sponging off the works of the FOSS community.
>>
>> That is by far the dumbest bullshit you have posted in years.
>> Only Hadron Larry and Snit Michael Glasser managed to post even
>> sillier claims
>
> Yes, not only do Red Hat's employees produce a vast amount of software
> for Red Hat, but they're also directly involved with many upstream
> projects, including Linux itself. For this work they get paid very
> well, and Red Hat makes a lot of money, and yet not a single line of
> code is monopolised.
Not that I know of.
But you go a step further - into being completely irrational - and say that
since they do this others *should*, that other choices are wrong.
It would be like someone noting how Apple is amazingly successful, far more
than RedHat, so this means all other companies should do what Apple does.
You want to eliminate choice. You want to eliminate freedom. And then you
twist that around and claim to be *for* freedom and say that those of us who
want people and companies to be able to make choices for themselves are
somehow "anti-freedom", a complete 1984-style double talk BS that is taught
by your cult-like leader Stallman.
Snit
Apr 23, 2012, 9:41:00 AM4/23/12
to
Homer stated in post 67nf69-...@sky.matrix on 4/23/12 3:24 AM:
> Verily I say unto thee that Homer spake thusly:
>> Verily I say unto thee that Peter Köhlmann spake thusly:
>>> Foster wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:00:49 +0100, Homer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Funny how this isn't a problem for 99% of the workforce, including
>>>>> Red Hat's fully paid employees, but it's somehow a problem for
>>>>> intellectual monopolists and their groupies.
>>>>
>>>> Redhat is actually creating just about nothing.
>>>> They re-package and tweak a little bit.
>>>> They are sponging off the works of the FOSS community.
>>>
>>> That is by far the dumbest bullshit you have posted in years.
>>> Only Hadron Larry and Snit Michael Glasser managed to post even
>>> sillier claims
>>
>> Yes, not only do Red Hat's employees produce a vast amount of software
>> for Red Hat, but they're also directly involved with many upstream
>> projects, including Linux itself. For this work they get paid very
>> well, and Red Hat makes a lot of money, and yet not a single line of
>> code is monopolised.
>>
>> So maybe the frothing anti-freedom nuts would care to explain how
>> being /paid/ to write Free Software is "giving your work away",
>> exactly, and "Hadron" in particular should explain how this amounts to
>> being "forced" to do so.
>
> I meant to add: meanwhile Microsoft innovates, creates and contributes
> precisely /nothing/.
See: DFs used to claim that I was wrong to note how often the herd portrays
itself as being technically ignorant. I keep noting examples, such as yours
above, which prove otherwise.
I notice not even DFS defends you guys any more. Yeah, you present yourself
as being completely lost in terms of understanding the world of technology.
...
--
🙈🙉🙊
> Verily I say unto thee that Homer spake thusly:
>> Verily I say unto thee that Peter Köhlmann spake thusly:
>>> Foster wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:00:49 +0100, Homer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Funny how this isn't a problem for 99% of the workforce, including
>>>>> Red Hat's fully paid employees, but it's somehow a problem for
>>>>> intellectual monopolists and their groupies.
>>>>
>>>> Redhat is actually creating just about nothing.
>>>> They re-package and tweak a little bit.
>>>> They are sponging off the works of the FOSS community.
>>>
>>> That is by far the dumbest bullshit you have posted in years.
>>> Only Hadron Larry and Snit Michael Glasser managed to post even
>>> sillier claims
>>
>> Yes, not only do Red Hat's employees produce a vast amount of software
>> for Red Hat, but they're also directly involved with many upstream
>> projects, including Linux itself. For this work they get paid very
>> well, and Red Hat makes a lot of money, and yet not a single line of
>> code is monopolised.
>>
>> So maybe the frothing anti-freedom nuts would care to explain how
>> being /paid/ to write Free Software is "giving your work away",
>> exactly, and "Hadron" in particular should explain how this amounts to
>> being "forced" to do so.
>
> I meant to add: meanwhile Microsoft innovates, creates and contributes
> precisely /nothing/.
itself as being technically ignorant. I keep noting examples, such as yours
above, which prove otherwise.
I notice not even DFS defends you guys any more. Yeah, you present yourself
as being completely lost in terms of understanding the world of technology.
...
--
🙈🙉🙊
GreyCloud
Apr 23, 2012, 1:05:38 PM4/23/12
to
chrisv wrote:
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> mentally-ill troll wrote:
>>>
>>> Redhat is actually creating just about nothing.
>>> They re-package and tweak a little bit.
>>> They are sponging off the works of the FOSS community.
>>
>>That is by far the dumbest bullshit you have posted in years.
>>Only Hadron Larry and Snit Michael Glasser managed to post even sillier
>>claims
>
> It's just amazing how shamelessly the troll (and all the troll's pals)
> lie.
>
> "Ezekiel" likes him, though.
>
Like you do, eh?
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> mentally-ill troll wrote:
>>>
>>> Redhat is actually creating just about nothing.
>>> They re-package and tweak a little bit.
>>> They are sponging off the works of the FOSS community.
>>
>>That is by far the dumbest bullshit you have posted in years.
>>Only Hadron Larry and Snit Michael Glasser managed to post even sillier
>>claims
>
> It's just amazing how shamelessly the troll (and all the troll's pals)
> lie.
>
> "Ezekiel" likes him, though.
>
DFS
Apr 23, 2012, 10:09:19 PM4/23/12
to
On 4/22/2012 2:42 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> Q for those who care : ask Creepy how much of his company's SW he "gives
>>> away" under the GPL. The answer is, of course well known : none.
>
> Wrong again, "Hadron". We give it *all* away, to the customer.
Lying bozo. Your company gives NOTHING away.
>>> Q for those who care : ask Creepy how much of his company's SW he "gives
>>> away" under the GPL. The answer is, of course well known : none.
>
> Wrong again, "Hadron". We give it *all* away, to the customer.
Hadron
Apr 24, 2012, 3:14:56 AM4/24/12
to
Creepy is telling lies again.
Notice the little weenine putting my nym in quotes while calling turd
"chris" and Dumb Willy "William". Is he REALLY as stupid as he seems?
Ezekiel
Apr 24, 2012, 10:00:07 AM4/24/12
to
"DFS" <nos...@dfs.com> wrote in message news:jn520j$6q1$4...@dont-email.me...
LOL! - Delivering product to a paying customer is *not* giving the software
away. Ahlstrom is a complete moron.
--
"It just boggles the mind that shills like "Hadron" and "Ezekiel" actually
claim that all the world's desktop Windows users have freely chosen it"
Documented lie from the chrisv turd
Date: Apr 12, 2012
Message-ID: <tn3eo7pbnai0ntee2...@4ax.com>
away. Ahlstrom is a complete moron.
--
"It just boggles the mind that shills like "Hadron" and "Ezekiel" actually
claim that all the world's desktop Windows users have freely chosen it"
Documented lie from the chrisv turd
Date: Apr 12, 2012
Message-ID: <tn3eo7pbnai0ntee2...@4ax.com>
Foster
Apr 24, 2012, 12:22:20 PM4/24/12
to
documents to work under Libraoffice and so forth and they catch him,
they may be giving HIM away.
GreyCloud
Apr 24, 2012, 1:16:25 PM4/24/12
to
That greasy looking spaz in that photo you post on occasion?
Foster
Apr 24, 2012, 3:45:27 PM4/24/12
to
Ahlstrom for all of his faults ain't bad looking.
Just puny and a little 70's looking.
http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/27354_100000738165977_3023_n.jpg
DFS
Apr 24, 2012, 5:51:17 PM4/24/12
to
On 4/24/2012 3:14 AM, Hadron wrote:
> DFS<nos...@dfs.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/22/2012 2:42 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>>>> Q for those who care : ask Creepy how much of his company's SW he "gives
>>>>> away" under the GPL. The answer is, of course well known : none.
>>>
>>> Wrong again, "Hadron". We give it *all* away, to the customer.
>>
>> Lying bozo. Your company gives NOTHING away.
>
> Exactly. They license it.
Or they include the source code when they deliver the product. Either
> DFS<nos...@dfs.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/22/2012 2:42 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>>>> Q for those who care : ask Creepy how much of his company's SW he "gives
>>>>> away" under the GPL. The answer is, of course well known : none.
>>>
>>> Wrong again, "Hadron". We give it *all* away, to the customer.
>>
>> Lying bozo. Your company gives NOTHING away.
>
> Exactly. They license it.
way, NOTHING is being given away for free, as the creep lies.
> Creepy is telling lies again.
>
> Notice the little weenine putting my nym in quotes while calling turd
> "chris" and Dumb Willy "William". Is he REALLY as stupid as he seems?
DFS
Apr 24, 2012, 5:51:48 PM4/24/12
to
Besides Jayne Ahlstrom of course.
Torre Starnes
Apr 24, 2012, 6:31:11 PM4/24/12
to
the day she ever met him.
Peter Köhlmann
Apr 24, 2012, 6:29:44 PM4/24/12
to
DFS wrote:
> On 4/24/2012 3:14 AM, Hadron wrote:
>> DFS<nos...@dfs.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/22/2012 2:42 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Q for those who care : ask Creepy how much of his company's SW he
>>>>>> "gives away" under the GPL. The answer is, of course well known :
>>>>>> none.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong again, "Hadron". We give it *all* away, to the customer.
>>>
>>> Lying bozo. Your company gives NOTHING away.
>>
>> Exactly. They license it.
>
> Or they include the source code when they deliver the product. Either
> way, NOTHING is being given away for free, as the creep lies.
The GPL does not mandate giving away *anything* for free (as in beer).
> On 4/24/2012 3:14 AM, Hadron wrote:
>> DFS<nos...@dfs.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/22/2012 2:42 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Q for those who care : ask Creepy how much of his company's SW he
>>>>>> "gives away" under the GPL. The answer is, of course well known :
>>>>>> none.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong again, "Hadron". We give it *all* away, to the customer.
>>>
>>> Lying bozo. Your company gives NOTHING away.
>>
>> Exactly. They license it.
>
> Or they include the source code when they deliver the product. Either
> way, NOTHING is being given away for free, as the creep lies.
Actually, you can charge as much as you want for GPLed software. You have to
provide the source, naturally.
Now ask yourself: If a company pays you (eventually lots of money) for
writing/providing software, and you do it under the GPL license which means
you *must* provide them with the source, why would that company afterwards
just give anyone else access to the source? They paid for the privilege, why
invite anyone else to the party?
They don't have to. And they should not. Nobody has the right to ask the
programmer of the source code, except the receiving company. They are the
only ones you as the programmer "distribute" to. Only those have the right
to demand source code.
That company eventually never plans to distribute the executeables to anyone
else outside of the company. Meaning: Nobody else, even if they know that
the package exists, has the right to demand anything at all. It was not
distributed to them, so they have no rights to the source
If someone gets hold to the executeables by some other means, he still has
*no* rights to demand source code. It was not distributed to him
You should read the GPL for a change, instead of repeating the nonsense
propagated by bullshit artists like Hadron Larry or flatfish Gary Stewart
GPL means something entirely different than you think it does, DFS.
DFS
Apr 24, 2012, 7:07:08 PM4/24/12
to
If the program is written entirely from scratch - no GPL code at all was
used - and you release it to your client under the GPL, anyone who asks
must be provided the source code.
See the end, 'How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs'
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
> You should read the GPL for a change, instead of repeating the nonsense
> propagated by bullshit artists like Hadron Larry or flatfish Gary Stewart
> GPL means something entirely different than you think it does, DFS.
You should read Section 2b: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole
or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof,
to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the
terms of this License.
That means if you do any mods to existing GPL code, all third parties
(not just your client) have free license to your mods. Not sure if the
'license' requires source code to be made available.
Not sure how GPL v3 reads.
Peter Köhlmann
Apr 24, 2012, 7:29:12 PM4/24/12
to
> See the end, 'How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs'
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
>
>> You should read the GPL for a change, instead of repeating the nonsense
>> propagated by bullshit artists like Hadron Larry or flatfish Gary Stewart
>
> I have read it, several times.
Now try to understand it
>> You should read the GPL for a change, instead of repeating the nonsense
>> propagated by bullshit artists like Hadron Larry or flatfish Gary Stewart
>
> I have read it, several times.
>
>> GPL means something entirely different than you think it does, DFS.
>
> I didn't say one word about the GPL. You're pulling a Snit here.
>
> You should read Section 2b: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
>
> b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole
> or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof,
> to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the
> terms of this License.
>
> That means if you do any mods to existing GPL code, all third parties
> (not just your client) have free license to your mods. Not sure if the
> 'license' requires source code to be made available.
>
>
> Not sure how GPL v3 reads.
Take, for example, a company which is writing its own applications using
GPled software. Whenever they provide the executeable binaries to the
affiliates/people inside the company, they are *not* distributing the
software, hence they have no obligation to provide anyone else with anything
at all.
If you are hired by that company to do that work, the exact same rules
apply. Nothing needs to be opened.
Chris Ahlstrom
Apr 24, 2012, 8:51:10 PM4/24/12
to
Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> DFS wrote:
>
>> On 4/24/2012 3:14 AM, Hadron wrote:
>>> DFS<nos...@dfs.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/22/2012 2:42 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Q for those who care : ask Creepy how much of his company's SW he
>>>>>>> "gives away" under the GPL. The answer is, of course well known :
>>>>>>> none.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong again, "Hadron". We give it *all* away, to the customer.
>>>>
>>>> Lying bozo. Your company gives NOTHING away.
Yes, we do. As per contract.
>
>> On 4/24/2012 3:14 AM, Hadron wrote:
>>> DFS<nos...@dfs.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/22/2012 2:42 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Q for those who care : ask Creepy how much of his company's SW he
>>>>>>> "gives away" under the GPL. The answer is, of course well known :
>>>>>>> none.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong again, "Hadron". We give it *all* away, to the customer.
>>>>
>>>> Lying bozo. Your company gives NOTHING away.
>>> Exactly. They license it.
No, we do not. The customer is in control of the license.
>> Or they include the source code when they deliver the product. Either
>> way, NOTHING is being given away for free, as the creep lies.
source code to the customer.
> The GPL does not mandate giving away *anything* for free (as in beer).
> Actually, you can charge as much as you want for GPLed software. You have to
> provide the source, naturally.
>
> Now ask yourself: If a company pays you (eventually lots of money) for
> writing/providing software, and you do it under the GPL license which means
> you *must* provide them with the source, why would that company afterwards
> just give anyone else access to the source? They paid for the privilege, why
> invite anyone else to the party?
>
> They don't have to. And they should not. Nobody has the right to ask the
> programmer of the source code, except the receiving company. They are the
> only ones you as the programmer "distribute" to. Only those have the right
> to demand source code.
> That company eventually never plans to distribute the executeables to anyone
> else outside of the company. Meaning: Nobody else, even if they know that
> the package exists, has the right to demand anything at all. It was not
> distributed to them, so they have no rights to the source
> If someone gets hold to the executeables by some other means, he still has
> *no* rights to demand source code. It was not distributed to him
>
> You should read the GPL for a change, instead of repeating the nonsense
> propagated by bullshit artists like Hadron Larry or flatfish Gary Stewart
>
> GPL means something entirely different than you think it does, DFS.
Society". A book that he wrote, perhaps with the support of FSF funds,
but, even so, *given* away to the public. In this book, Stallman
explains why custom code normally does not have to be made public to
anyone other than its users... the customer.
Of course, I suspect their eyes would turn red with blood at reading
Stallman's philosophy, especially where it is quite pragmatic about
money and rights.
--
And its KDE - nothing there for the Gnome purist. "Choice" diluting
the useful applications once again.
-- "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark
Foster
Apr 24, 2012, 8:54:09 PM4/24/12
to
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:51:10 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Of course, I suspect their eyes would turn red with blood at reading
> Stallman's philosophy, especially where it is quite pragmatic about
> money and rights.
Actually it sickens most of us.
> Of course, I suspect their eyes would turn red with blood at reading
> Stallman's philosophy, especially where it is quite pragmatic about
> money and rights.
Especially Stallman's views on sex.....
Care to discuss?
I thought not.
BTW Stallman takes a hefty salary from FSF, not including th perks
of jetting around the country on and expense account telling you
idiots how smart you are for giving IBM, Google and others your
software for free.
**SUCKERS**
Hadron
Apr 24, 2012, 9:00:44 PM4/24/12
to
Erm, you're talking to Creepy Chris Ahlstrom. He gives nothing
away. Indeed, he actively boasts about his Windows related income here.
Neother does 7, Koehlmann, Dumb Willy, Homer at al.
Snit
Apr 24, 2012, 9:09:06 PM4/24/12
to
DFS stated in post jn7bn2$ia4$1...@dont-email.me on 4/24/12 4:07 PM:
...
tossing my name in to get attention and be derogatory. My guess: I have
challenged you to back your claims... and, with some of your accusations,
taken the time to prove you wrong (such as when you claimed I was
misrepresenting Stallman and I provided the exact quotes which proved I was
not).
...
--
🙈🙉🙊
...
>> GPL means something entirely different than you think it does, DFS.
>
> I didn't say one word about the GPL. You're pulling a Snit here.
Why are you joining the herd in building an obsession about me... just
>
> I didn't say one word about the GPL. You're pulling a Snit here.
tossing my name in to get attention and be derogatory. My guess: I have
challenged you to back your claims... and, with some of your accusations,
taken the time to prove you wrong (such as when you claimed I was
misrepresenting Stallman and I provided the exact quotes which proved I was
not).
...
--
🙈🙉🙊
Foster
Apr 24, 2012, 9:23:24 PM4/24/12
to
You are of course correct.
I meant the hard working people writing FOSS software.
I admire and respect them however I still look at them as suckers.
People like Stallman have bamboozled them.
Sadly.
GreyCloud
Apr 24, 2012, 9:38:47 PM4/24/12
to
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/24/2012 3:14 AM, Hadron wrote:
>>>> DFS<nos...@dfs.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/22/2012 2:42 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Q for those who care : ask Creepy how much of his company's SW he
>>>>>>>> "gives away" under the GPL. The answer is, of course well known :
>>>>>>>> none.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong again, "Hadron". We give it *all* away, to the customer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lying bozo. Your company gives NOTHING away.
>
> Yes, we do. As per contract.
>
I don't suppose you can provide a website for this contract?
> Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/24/2012 3:14 AM, Hadron wrote:
>>>> DFS<nos...@dfs.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/22/2012 2:42 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Q for those who care : ask Creepy how much of his company's SW he
>>>>>>>> "gives away" under the GPL. The answer is, of course well known :
>>>>>>>> none.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong again, "Hadron". We give it *all* away, to the customer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lying bozo. Your company gives NOTHING away.
>
> Yes, we do. As per contract.
>
>>>> Exactly. They license it.
>
> No, we do not. The customer is in control of the license.
>
> Of course, I suspect their eyes would turn red with blood at reading
> Stallman's philosophy, especially where it is quite pragmatic about
> money and rights.
>
GreyCloud
Apr 24, 2012, 9:39:58 PM4/24/12
to
corporation.
They need the recognition.
Torre Starnes
Apr 24, 2012, 10:18:07 PM4/24/12
to
The key to the bosses toilet means nothing.
When you get to the end of the check out line at Krogers, it's all
about green backs.
Suckers who give away their work have none.
DFS
Apr 24, 2012, 10:54:59 PM4/24/12
to
On 4/24/2012 9:38 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
weeks/months and give it away so it can be included in a Red Hat distro
they can charge $300+ per server per year for "support", so their top 5
executives can take home in excess of $22 million per year.
You'd have to be a real moron... cough Homer cough.
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Of course, I suspect their eyes would turn red with blood at
>> reading Stallman's philosophy, especially where it is quite
>> pragmatic about money and rights.
>>
>
> No, just in disbelief of how crazy the nut job is.
Like you or I or any rational person is going to work on something for
>> Of course, I suspect their eyes would turn red with blood at
>> reading Stallman's philosophy, especially where it is quite
>> pragmatic about money and rights.
>>
>
> No, just in disbelief of how crazy the nut job is.
weeks/months and give it away so it can be included in a Red Hat distro
they can charge $300+ per server per year for "support", so their top 5
executives can take home in excess of $22 million per year.
You'd have to be a real moron... cough Homer cough.
Torre Starnes
Apr 24, 2012, 11:32:38 PM4/24/12
to
Sure the FOSS idea looks great on paper.
So does the barter system.
Both collapse however when one single person figures out how to make
a buck off the others.
OldGoat
Apr 25, 2012, 2:00:23 AM4/25/12
to
Homer
Apr 25, 2012, 9:48:43 AM4/25/12
to
Verily I say unto thee that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
labour.
If you pay a mechanic to fix your car, does that mean the mechanic now
/owns/ your car?
Software development is no different, unless you're a Rent-A-Code chop
shop like Microsoft, who sees software as some sort of tangible "goods"
that must be "licensed" (leased) in their own right, in addition to
labour costs, otherwise you've essentially "given away" your "work",
despite the obvious fact that you were indeed /paid/ for your labour.
Just like the mechanic, you didn't "give away" anything, because there
was nothing tangible to "give away". What you did was render labour in
exchange for payment. Anything else is a "work" of pure fiction.
In simple terms, you "gave" someone "advice", then charged them for your
labour. The "advice" in this case is something called "software", but it
amounts to the same thing. One typically doesn't need to pay a "license"
fee for advice given by a marriage guidance councillor, for example, but
one /does/ pay for their /services/. Your right to benefit from that
advice is not restricted by conditions mandated by the advisor, it isn't
time-limited, it can't be revoked, and you don't have to give it back.
It's yours forever.
DooFy's and Hadron's definition of "gave away" seems to be "failed to
monopolise" or "sold not rented" or "failed to commoditise the
intangible component".
Apparently selling physical goods and charging for labour isn't enough
for some people, they have to ream their victims for some fictitious
thing called "Intellectual Property" too, like a bunch of carpetbaggers
selling snake oil.
--
K. | "You see? You cannot kill me. There is no flesh
http://slated.org | and blood within this cloak to kill. There is
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | only an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 77 days | ~ V for Vendetta.
>>>> DFS<nos...@dfs.com> writes:
>>>>> On 4/22/2012 2:42 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong again, "Hadron". We give it *all* away, to the customer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lying bozo. Your company gives NOTHING away.
>
> Yes, we do. As per contract.
DooFy and Hadron still don't understand the difference between goods and
>>>>> On 4/22/2012 2:42 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong again, "Hadron". We give it *all* away, to the customer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lying bozo. Your company gives NOTHING away.
>
> Yes, we do. As per contract.
labour.
If you pay a mechanic to fix your car, does that mean the mechanic now
/owns/ your car?
Software development is no different, unless you're a Rent-A-Code chop
shop like Microsoft, who sees software as some sort of tangible "goods"
that must be "licensed" (leased) in their own right, in addition to
labour costs, otherwise you've essentially "given away" your "work",
despite the obvious fact that you were indeed /paid/ for your labour.
Just like the mechanic, you didn't "give away" anything, because there
was nothing tangible to "give away". What you did was render labour in
exchange for payment. Anything else is a "work" of pure fiction.
In simple terms, you "gave" someone "advice", then charged them for your
labour. The "advice" in this case is something called "software", but it
amounts to the same thing. One typically doesn't need to pay a "license"
fee for advice given by a marriage guidance councillor, for example, but
one /does/ pay for their /services/. Your right to benefit from that
advice is not restricted by conditions mandated by the advisor, it isn't
time-limited, it can't be revoked, and you don't have to give it back.
It's yours forever.
DooFy's and Hadron's definition of "gave away" seems to be "failed to
monopolise" or "sold not rented" or "failed to commoditise the
intangible component".
Apparently selling physical goods and charging for labour isn't enough
for some people, they have to ream their victims for some fictitious
thing called "Intellectual Property" too, like a bunch of carpetbaggers
selling snake oil.
--
K. | "You see? You cannot kill me. There is no flesh
http://slated.org | and blood within this cloak to kill. There is
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | only an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 77 days | ~ V for Vendetta.
Foster
Apr 25, 2012, 9:58:16 AM4/25/12
to
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:48:43 +0100, Homer wrote:
> DooFy and Hadron still don't understand the difference between good and
> labour.
Sure they do.
Good is the experience the user gets when running Windows or OSX.
Labour is what the end user will do while trying to make Linux work.
> DooFy and Hadron still don't understand the difference between good and
> labour.
Sure they do.
Good is the experience the user gets when running Windows or OSX.
Labour is what the end user will do while trying to make Linux work.
DFS
Apr 25, 2012, 10:00:23 AM4/25/12
to
(well, I understand it - Hadron needs education)
Foster
Apr 25, 2012, 10:04:51 AM4/25/12
to
DFS
Apr 25, 2012, 10:08:03 AM4/25/12
to
bada boom...
Foster
Apr 25, 2012, 10:53:51 AM4/25/12
to
Guess I walked right into that one :)
Snit
Apr 25, 2012, 8:31:11 PM4/25/12
to
Peter Köhlmann stated in post jn79kj$77t$1...@dont-email.me on 4/24/12 3:29 PM:
> DFS wrote:
>
>> On 4/24/2012 3:14 AM, Hadron wrote:
>>> DFS<nos...@dfs.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/22/2012 2:42 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Q for those who care : ask Creepy how much of his company's SW he
>>>>>>> "gives away" under the GPL. The answer is, of course well known :
>>>>>>> none.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong again, "Hadron". We give it *all* away, to the customer.
>>>>
>>>> Lying bozo. Your company gives NOTHING away.
>>>
>>> Exactly. They license it.
>>
>> Or they include the source code when they deliver the product. Either
>> way, NOTHING is being given away for free, as the creep lies.
>
> The GPL does not mandate giving away *anything* for free (as in beer).
> Actually, you can charge as much as you want for GPLed software. You have to
> provide the source, naturally.
Yes, you *can* charge for it but you must give it away.
What a great business model. :)
Seriously, I have nothing against OSS or the GPL, but let us not pretend
that the way to make money from IP protected with the GPL is, generally, to
sell services around the software. It is not to sell what you are also
giving away.
> Now ask yourself: If a company pays you (eventually lots of money) for
> writing/providing software, and you do it under the GPL license which means
> you *must* provide them with the source, why would that company afterwards
> just give anyone else access to the source? They paid for the privilege, why
> invite anyone else to the party?
Right: they can keep it proprietary. The GPL allows for that form of IP
protection as well.
> They don't have to. And they should not. Nobody has the right to ask the
> programmer of the source code, except the receiving company. They are the
> only ones you as the programmer "distribute" to. Only those have the right
> to demand source code.
And even then they have no right to demand such code unless you have a
license that grants it to them.
> That company eventually never plans to distribute the executeables to anyone
> else outside of the company. Meaning: Nobody else, even if they know that
> the package exists, has the right to demand anything at all. It was not
> distributed to them, so they have no rights to the source
> If someone gets hold to the executeables by some other means, he still has
> *no* rights to demand source code. It was not distributed to him
>
> You should read the GPL for a change, instead of repeating the nonsense
> propagated by bullshit artists like Hadron Larry or flatfish Gary Stewart
>
> GPL means something entirely different than you think it does, DFS.
--
🙈🙉🙊
> DFS wrote:
>
>> On 4/24/2012 3:14 AM, Hadron wrote:
>>> DFS<nos...@dfs.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/22/2012 2:42 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Q for those who care : ask Creepy how much of his company's SW he
>>>>>>> "gives away" under the GPL. The answer is, of course well known :
>>>>>>> none.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong again, "Hadron". We give it *all* away, to the customer.
>>>>
>>>> Lying bozo. Your company gives NOTHING away.
>>>
>>> Exactly. They license it.
>>
>> Or they include the source code when they deliver the product. Either
>> way, NOTHING is being given away for free, as the creep lies.
>
> The GPL does not mandate giving away *anything* for free (as in beer).
> Actually, you can charge as much as you want for GPLed software. You have to
> provide the source, naturally.
What a great business model. :)
Seriously, I have nothing against OSS or the GPL, but let us not pretend
that the way to make money from IP protected with the GPL is, generally, to
sell services around the software. It is not to sell what you are also
giving away.
> Now ask yourself: If a company pays you (eventually lots of money) for
> writing/providing software, and you do it under the GPL license which means
> you *must* provide them with the source, why would that company afterwards
> just give anyone else access to the source? They paid for the privilege, why
> invite anyone else to the party?
protection as well.
> They don't have to. And they should not. Nobody has the right to ask the
> programmer of the source code, except the receiving company. They are the
> only ones you as the programmer "distribute" to. Only those have the right
> to demand source code.
license that grants it to them.
> That company eventually never plans to distribute the executeables to anyone
> else outside of the company. Meaning: Nobody else, even if they know that
> the package exists, has the right to demand anything at all. It was not
> distributed to them, so they have no rights to the source
> If someone gets hold to the executeables by some other means, he still has
> *no* rights to demand source code. It was not distributed to him
>
> You should read the GPL for a change, instead of repeating the nonsense
> propagated by bullshit artists like Hadron Larry or flatfish Gary Stewart
>
> GPL means something entirely different than you think it does, DFS.
🙈🙉🙊
Snit
Apr 25, 2012, 10:02:14 PM4/25/12
to
Homer stated in post rubl69-...@sky.matrix on 4/25/12 6:48 AM:
> Verily I say unto thee that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>>>>> DFS<nos...@dfs.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 4/22/2012 2:42 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong again, "Hadron". We give it *all* away, to the customer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lying bozo. Your company gives NOTHING away.
>>
>> Yes, we do. As per contract.
>
> DooFy and Hadron still don't understand the difference between goods and
> labour.
This is a complete fabrication on your part. You made it up.
But DFS thinks you and your herd are technically competent... but here you
present yourself as being completely lost about a huge part of the technical
world.
...
--
🙈🙉🙊
> Verily I say unto thee that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>>>>> DFS<nos...@dfs.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 4/22/2012 2:42 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong again, "Hadron". We give it *all* away, to the customer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lying bozo. Your company gives NOTHING away.
>>
>> Yes, we do. As per contract.
>
> DooFy and Hadron still don't understand the difference between goods and
> labour.
But DFS thinks you and your herd are technically competent... but here you
present yourself as being completely lost about a huge part of the technical
world.
...
--
🙈🙉🙊
0 new messages