Proprietary software on GNU/Linux: good or bad?

[TomB]

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/opensource/open-source-community-up-in-arms-over-proprietary-software-for-ubuntu/3998

"Always remember, everything has its place. Now, it turns out, closed
source software has its place on Linux. And, of course, there will
always be those that refuse to allow closed source software on their
desktop. There is nothing wrong with that — so long as they are
getting their needs filled. But for those that long for a broader
acceptance of Linux and understand that small to mid-sized business is
the one market that must be conquered, know this: Proprietary software
appearing in the Ubuntu Software Center is just one step closer to
that dream of mass deployment coming true!"

Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
it or not. How about the rest of you?

--
You ever notice how all the prices end in nine?
Damn, that's eerie...
~ Dante Hicks

[chrisv]

TomB wrote:

>Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
>into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
>it or not. How about the rest of you?

I've made my position clear many times. As long as there is no
devious attempt to deny choice to users, I see nothing wrong with
writing, selling, or using closed-source software. Indeed, for
certain cutting-edge applications, the closed-source model works
better. In other words, both open-source and closed-source are
needed, to optimally serve the market.

--
"And there in a nutshell we see how Desktop linux is going nowhere
fast. People who need income are terrified a freetard will simply
steal all their hard work and give it away." - "True Linux advocate"
Hadron Quark

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:

How could one stop it, anyway? It already exists.

If Canonical works out an Android-like ecosystem that includes closed
sourced apps, cool.

I wouldn't migrate to Ubuntu because of that feature. Others might.

I hope Canonical doesn't start including ads in some of the software.

I hope Canonical is prepared for lawsuits.

--
According to Arkansas law, Section 4761, Pope's Digest: "No person
shall be permitted under any pretext whatever, to come nearer than
fifty feet of any door or window of any polling room, from the opening
of the polls until the completion of the count and the certification of
the returns."

[Crabbit Bampot]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:48:44 +0100, TomB wrote:

> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to
> use it or not. How about the rest of you?

I agree. I have bought proprietary SW for Linux frequently over the
years. There has been proprietary SW available for Linux from very
early on and often it was appreciated. Take Matrox who were I believe
the first major graphics card maker to support Linux in the early
days. There were a couple of proprietary non-free X servers that at
the time were better than Xfree86 if you had special needs.
Accelerated-X enabled running 8 bit apps on 16 & 24 bit displays.

If the SW does what I want then I'll pay for it (within reason of
course). Linux is a far superior OS than Windows and has been since
before W95.

--
Man created God in his image : intolerant, sexist, homophobic and
violent.
-Marie

[Peter Köhlmann]

TomB wrote:

> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
> it or not. How about the rest of you?

I write Closed Source software myself, and it is available with identical
functionality on windows, OSX and linux. On linux I provide both RPM and
Debian-type installs. It runs on all current linux versions which support
either of those install types, and on windows from WinXP upwards, on OSX
from Tiger and up. Just yesterday I made a personalized version for a french
company, running (in french naturally, as well as about a dozen other
languages) on OSX

The software /could/ be Open Source for about 90% of its source code without
harm, but the rest has cost hundreds of thousands and several manyears to
write and debug. It contains the mathematical/statistical rules to analyze
several different psychological tests, and the competition would just love
to put their hands on that.

[Snit]

On 11/28/12 10:48 AM, in article 201211281...@usenet.drumscum.be,
"TomB" <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/opensource/open-source-community-up-in-arms-o

> ver-proprietary-software-for-ubuntu/3998
>
> "Always remember, everything has its place. Now, it turns out, closed
> source software has its place on Linux. And, of course, there will
> always be those that refuse to allow closed source software on their
> desktop. There is nothing wrong with that � so long as they are
> getting their needs filled. But for those that long for a broader
> acceptance of Linux and understand that small to mid-sized business is
> the one market that must be conquered, know this: Proprietary software
> appearing in the Ubuntu Software Center is just one step closer to
> that dream of mass deployment coming true!"
>
> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
> it or not. How about the rest of you?

I think it is fine. One nit: software can be open source *and* proprietary.
It is not an either / or.

Also: I will say that I find it completely OK when people want to use only
open source software... no problem with that at all. I do not support those,
though, who do so then *also* claim that by excluding so much software they
are certainly getting the most productive environment. They *might* be, but
it is not likely.

I tend to be more pragmatic and use what works.


--
"Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first place. I mean, I
have never, ever cared about really anything but the Linux desktop."
-- Linus Torvalds

[Snit]

On 11/28/12 12:46 PM, in article k95pnr$7jd$1...@dont-email.me, "Peter

There is good reason to keep software closes source. No doubt.


--
"90% of computers use Microsoft's Windows ... Macs account for 9% of the
market while the open source system Linux accounts for 0.8%."
-- Linus Torvalds

[Snit]

On 11/28/12 11:06 AM, in article rckcb898gu9gebgv6...@4ax.com,

"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> TomB wrote:
>
>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
>> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
>> it or not. How about the rest of you?
>
> I've made my position clear many times. As long as there is no
> devious attempt to deny choice to users, I see nothing wrong with
> writing, selling, or using closed-source software. Indeed, for
> certain cutting-edge applications, the closed-source model works
> better. In other words, both open-source and closed-source are
> needed, to optimally serve the market.

Absolutely agreed.


--

"Maybe it wouldn't be quite as good, but we would all be okay."
- Richard Stallman, speaking about if his ideas were followed

[Snit]

On 11/28/12 11:27 AM, in article k95l28$8je$1...@dont-email.me, "Chris

Ahlstrom" <ad...@cyberbully.com> wrote:

> After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/opensource/open-source-community-up-in-arms-
>> over-proprietary-software-for-ubuntu/3998
>>
>> "Always remember, everything has its place. Now, it turns out, closed
>> source software has its place on Linux. And, of course, there will
>> always be those that refuse to allow closed source software on their
>> desktop. There is nothing wrong with that � so long as they are
>> getting their needs filled. But for those that long for a broader
>> acceptance of Linux and understand that small to mid-sized business is
>> the one market that must be conquered, know this: Proprietary software
>> appearing in the Ubuntu Software Center is just one step closer to
>> that dream of mass deployment coming true!"
>>
>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
>> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
>> it or not. How about the rest of you?
>
> How could one stop it, anyway? It already exists.

I do not believe TomB was asking about stopping it - but if enough people
did not want it they could boycott Ubuntu and Ubuntu would change or wither.

> If Canonical works out an Android-like ecosystem that includes closed
> sourced apps, cool.
>
> I wouldn't migrate to Ubuntu because of that feature. Others might.
>
> I hope Canonical doesn't start including ads in some of the software.
>
> I hope Canonical is prepared for lawsuits.

What type lawsuits?

--
"But I have never, ever even run a Linux server and I don't even want
to; it's not what I'm interested in. I'm more of a desktop guy."
-- Linus Torvalds

[-hh]

On Nov 28, 1:06 pm, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> TomB wrote:
> >Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
> >into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
> >it or not. How about the rest of you?
>
> I've made my position clear many times.

"Unless there's a damn good reason to restrict people's freedoms
(and
some corporation's claims of benevolence doesn't cut it) you
*don't do it*."
- chrisv, on 26 January 2011

>  As long as there is no
> devious attempt to deny choice to users, I see nothing wrong with
> writing, selling, or using closed-source software.  Indeed, for
> certain cutting-edge applications, the closed-source model works
> better.  In other words, both open-source and closed-source are
> needed, to optimally serve the market.

Well, that's a wee bit of a change! :-)


-hh

[George Ronkowski]

"Peter Köhlmann" <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:k95pnr$7jd$1...@dont-email.me...

> TomB wrote:
>
>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
>> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
>> it or not. How about the rest of you?
>
> I write Closed Source software myself,

/ / /



Yeah, sure you do.

Most here have missed the point: The purpose of Linux is to be open source.

Sheesh, it's just turning into Windows otherwise.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Snit]

On 11/28/12 1:08 PM, in article
9728a4f6-eafe-46d7...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com, "-hh"

As much as the herd claims I am wrong, this thread shows they are agreeing
with me (and others) more and more. Before this type of thinking would have
been deemed anti-Linux.

They are learning. It is good to see.

[bbgruff]

TomB wrote:

> http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/opensource/open-source-community-up-in-

arms-over-proprietary-software-for-ubuntu/3998
>
> "Always remember, everything has its place. Now, it turns out, closed
> source software has its place on Linux. And, of course, there will
> always be those that refuse to allow closed source software on their
> desktop. There is nothing wrong with that — so long as they are
> getting their needs filled. But for those that long for a broader
> acceptance of Linux and understand that small to mid-sized business is
> the one market that must be conquered, know this: Proprietary software
> appearing in the Ubuntu Software Center is just one step closer to
> that dream of mass deployment coming true!"
>
> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
> it or not. How about the rest of you?

I don't see the problem.

I've become very wary of non-standards, be they as I.E.6 or MS Office, but
beyond that, no problem at all.

For example, why would *anyone* find fault with using closed source on a
game, and charging for the game?

As for selling in the Ubuntu store, I've seen no complaints in Google about
charging for Android apps.

[Justin]

I think it depends.
On one hand opening up the souorcecode for everyone to see can lead to
development. However what about trade secrets?
It is a paradox and double edged sword rolled into one.
I don't want the Chinese taking my program and using it as a guide to
build something better and then undercut me on the next year's product.

One has to look at each distro, see how much proprietary stuff is in it,
and make a decision based on that.
In other words, different strokes for different folks.
Kinda crazy if you think about it.

[Marti Van Lin]

On 28-11-12 18:48, TomB wrote:

> http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/opensource/open-source-community-up-in-arms-over-proprietary-software-for-ubuntu/3998

[snip]

> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
> it or not. How about the rest of you?

I prefer as much *Free Software* as possible.

Non-Free Software should not be part of any GNU/Linux distribution by
default IMHO. Nothing wrong with additional repositories, providing
Non-Free add-ons though.

But *please* NOT in the core system.

--
|_|0|_| Marti T. Van Lin, alias ML2MST
|_|_|0| https://linuxcounter.net/user/513040.html
|0|0|0| http://osg33x.blogspot.com

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, Peter Köhlmann belched this bit o' wisdom:

I'd love you to try the software out on the trolls! :-D

--
The first time? Wow. This is getting like Spamowitz's "whoops posts"
which show up Chris Arsekisser and Koehlmann for the liars and frauds
that they are. You know, posts like "Linux is really coming along now that
Flash was fixed last month"
-- "Hadron" in comp.os.linux.advocacy

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, George Ronkowski belched this bit o' wisdom:

>
> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:k95pnr$7jd$1...@dont-email.me...
>> TomB wrote:
>>
>>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
>>> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
>>> it or not. How about the rest of you?
>>
>> I write Closed Source software myself,
>

> Yeah, sure you do.
>
> Most here have missed the point: The purpose of Linux is to be open source.

Not quite. The purpose of "Linux" is to be a platform for applications.

> Sheesh, it's just turning into Windows otherwise.

<shudder>

--
Tim kindly broke it down to the assembler level to help Peter "Brian
Kernighan is not fit to lick my jack boots" Koehlmann.
We can but hope.
So much for Liarnut's claims about the two of them "crafting" the finest
C code known to man. Littered with UB and dangerous casts. Yuck.
-- "Hadron" <h4ar0k$ba5$3...@news.eternal-september.org>

[Marti Van Lin]

On 28-11-12 21:56, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> After swilling some grog, George Ronkowski belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>
>> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote in message
>> news:k95pnr$7jd$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> TomB wrote:
>>>
>>>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
>>>> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
>>>> it or not. How about the rest of you?
>>>
>>> I write Closed Source software myself,
>>
>> Yeah, sure you do.
>>
>> Most here have missed the point: The purpose of Linux is to be open source.
>
> Not quite. The purpose of "Linux" is to be a platform for applications.
>
>> Sheesh, it's just turning into Windows otherwise.
>
> <shudder>

X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109

Windows XP ;-)

[7]

Snit wrote:

> http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/opensource/open-source-community-up-in-

arms-over-proprietary-software-for-ubuntu/3998
>
> "Always remember, everything has its place. Now, it turns out, closed
> source software has its place on Linux. And, of course, there will
> always be those that refuse to allow closed source software on their
> desktop. There is nothing wrong with that — so long as they are
> getting their needs filled. But for those that long for a broader
> acceptance of Linux and understand that small to mid-sized business is
> the one market that must be conquered, know this: Proprietary software
> appearing in the Ubuntu Software Center is just one step closer to
> that dream of mass deployment coming true!"
>
> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
> it or not. How about the rest of you?

I can't think of one must have software that is proprietary.
Open source is now so powerful and voluminous, every day
I must spend hours learning new open source packages just to keep still.

And when you are doing something important, closed source just gets in the
way all of the time.

Take video for example. Every time you want to put video into a gadget,
proprietary gets in the way. Youtube looses money, Google looses money
and revenue whenever that happens. If video was as open sourced as X11,
there would be no problem.

[Snit]

On 11/28/12 2:55 PM, in article iLvts.815157$Ol2.8...@fx25.am4, "7"

<email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/opensource/open-source-community-up-in-
> arms-over-proprietary-software-for-ubuntu/3998
>>
>> "Always remember, everything has its place. Now, it turns out, closed
>> source software has its place on Linux. And, of course, there will
>> always be those that refuse to allow closed source software on their
>> desktop. There is nothing wrong with that ‹ so long as they are
>> getting their needs filled. But for those that long for a broader
>> acceptance of Linux and understand that small to mid-sized business is
>> the one market that must be conquered, know this: Proprietary software
>> appearing in the Ubuntu Software Center is just one step closer to
>> that dream of mass deployment coming true!"
>>
>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
>> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
>> it or not. How about the rest of you?
>
> I can't think of one must have software that is proprietary.

I have no doubt you cannot! But is this a weakness of *all* non-opensource
software or a weakness of you?

That is the rub: clearly it is you.

> Open source is now so powerful and voluminous, every day
> I must spend hours learning new open source packages just to keep still.

Oh, there are many open source programs. No doubt. But nothing in the open
source world would work for me to replace:

* Photoshop
* Dreamweaver
* OS X (and the programs it comes with)
* MS Office
* iWork
* ScreenFlow
* Tofu
* DreamCatcher

And I am sure more. Do not get me wrong - it is not as though I could not
get by with some of the open source tools. Currently, for what I do,
LibreOffice might suffice for my office needs - but it would not serve me as
well as MS Office and iWork; GIMP would do - but not as well or as
efficiently... it simply lacks too much. In other cases trying to even come
close would be very hard. What in the open source world even comes close to
ScreenFlow?

> And when you are doing something important, closed source just gets in the
> way all of the time.

Nope.

> Take video for example. Every time you want to put video into a gadget,
> proprietary gets in the way.

Nope. I do a lot of video work with ScreenFlow.

> Youtube looses money, Google looses money and revenue whenever that happens.
> If video was as open sourced as X11, there would be no problem.

I can share my videos on YouTube or WebM or many, many other options (not
that I have *ever* had a need for WebM... but I could if I wanted to).



--
"I started Linux as a desktop operating system. And it's the only area
where Linux hasn't completely taken over. That just annoys the hell out
of me." -- Linus Torvalds

[7]

Roy Shesterwitz wrote:


>>> http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/opensource/open-source-community-up-in-
>> arms-over-proprietary-software-for-ubuntu/3998
>>>
>>> "Always remember, everything has its place. Now, it turns out, closed
>>> source software has its place on Linux. And, of course, there will
>>> always be those that refuse to allow closed source software on their
>>> desktop. There is nothing wrong with that ‹ so long as they are
>>> getting their needs filled. But for those that long for a broader
>>> acceptance of Linux and understand that small to mid-sized business is
>>> the one market that must be conquered, know this: Proprietary software
>>> appearing in the Ubuntu Software Center is just one step closer to
>>> that dream of mass deployment coming true!"
>>>
>>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
>>> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
>>> it or not. How about the rest of you?
>>
>> I can't think of one must have software that is proprietary.
>
> I have no doubt you cannot! But is this a weakness of *all* non-opensource
> software or a weakness of you?
>
> That is the rub: clearly it is you.
>
>> Open source is now so powerful and voluminous, every day
>> I must spend hours learning new open source packages just to keep still.
>
> Oh, there are many open source programs. No doubt. But nothing in the open
> source world would work for me to replace:
>
> * Photoshop

Gimp better

> * Dreamweaver
> * OS X (and the programs it comes with)

Linux cheaper and better

> * MS Office

Prone to virus - you need Libreoffice

> * iWork
> * ScreenFlow
> * Tofu
> * DreamCatcher

All crap that I don't use.

I doubt any of these crapware can compile a gambas program
or compile as well as gcc or run apache, sqlite, evolution and match
many other open source programs.

The only things that work well seems to be Linux and open source.
No surprises there.

[William Poaster]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:33:33 +0100, Marti Van Lin wrote:

> On 28-11-12 21:56, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> After swilling some grog, George Ronkowski belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>

>>> "Peter K�hlmann" <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote in message

>>> news:k95pnr$7jd$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> TomB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
>>>>> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to
>>>>> use it or not. How about the rest of you?
>>>>
>>>> I write Closed Source software myself,
>>>
>>> Yeah, sure you do.
>>>
>>> Most here have missed the point: The purpose of Linux is to be open
>>> source.
>>
>> Not quite. The purpose of "Linux" is to be a platform for applications.
>>
>>> Sheesh, it's just turning into Windows otherwise.
>>
>> <shudder>
>
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646:
> Format=Flowed; Original
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
>
> Windows XP ;-)

Probably "George Henry Petroeschevsky Ronkowski"
HTH :-)

[William Poaster]

References: <201211281...@usenet.drumscum.be>
<iLvts.815157$Ol2.8...@fx25.am4>
<CCDBE028.FE40%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>

"Roy Shesterwitz" another Michael Snit Glasser nymshift?

--
This is Linux country. On a quiet night, you can hear NT re-boot.


Scientific-Linux 6.3 64-bit.

[7]

The similarities of the words used give it away.

Still no telling in trolllard land whats what and whos who.

[Snit]

On 11/28/12 4:04 PM, in article RLwts.624261$vW7.1...@fx19.am4, "7"

<email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:

> Roy Shesterwitz wrote:
>
>
>>>> http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/opensource/open-source-community-up-in-
>>> arms-over-proprietary-software-for-ubuntu/3998
>>>>
>>>> "Always remember, everything has its place. Now, it turns out, closed
>>>> source software has its place on Linux. And, of course, there will
>>>> always be those that refuse to allow closed source software on their

>>>> desktop. There is nothing wrong with that ? so long as they are

>>>> getting their needs filled. But for those that long for a broader
>>>> acceptance of Linux and understand that small to mid-sized business is
>>>> the one market that must be conquered, know this: Proprietary software
>>>> appearing in the Ubuntu Software Center is just one step closer to
>>>> that dream of mass deployment coming true!"
>>>>
>>>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
>>>> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
>>>> it or not. How about the rest of you?
>>>
>>> I can't think of one must have software that is proprietary.
>>
>> I have no doubt you cannot! But is this a weakness of *all* non-opensource
>> software or a weakness of you?
>>
>> That is the rub: clearly it is you.
>>
>>> Open source is now so powerful and voluminous, every day
>>> I must spend hours learning new open source packages just to keep still.
>>
>> Oh, there are many open source programs. No doubt. But nothing in the open
>> source world would work for me to replace:
>>
>> * Photoshop
>
> Gimp better

For some small set of things, sure - such as favicons. Absolutely absurd
that Photoshop handles these so poorly considering it is a part of a web
development suite. But GIMP lacks *so* much... so many very powerful tools.
Just some: layer sets (more than one level deep - GIMP has added that
*finally*, adjustment layers, smart objects / layers, 3D tools, quick
select, better CMYK support, multiple mask types, multiple masks on an
image, etc. The only ones which I personally do not use on a fairly regular
basis are CMYK support (which I have needed only a couple of times) and 3D
tools, which I have used a bit more but certainly not often.

>> * Dreamweaver
>> * OS X (and the programs it comes with)
>
> Linux cheaper and better

Desktop Linux is, by nature, a mish-mash of inconsistent and competing
UIs... much more so than OS X (or even Windows, which is pretty bad there).
This leads to a lack of focus so you have no tools such as proxy icons,
media browsers, PDF Services, application services, renaming and moving and
duplicating from the title bar, QuickLook, saved status indicators, a visual
versioning system - which allows easy copying and pasting from earlier
versions, a visual backup system that allows for using the metaphors
inherent in many programs to "dig back", etc.

In what way, other than being cheaper, is desktop Linux better than OS X?
You can have some different window management which some like... and there
are other niche areas where desktop Linux might serve some better. But
overall... it is *clearly* far, far behind. If it was not there would be a
*much* bigger demand for it.

>> * MS Office
>
> Prone to virus - you need Libreoffice

As I said, LibreOffice would do... but not as well.

>> * iWork
>> * ScreenFlow
>> * Tofu
>> * DreamCatcher
>
> All crap that I don't use.

You do not use it and you know nothing of it. That is sorta the point.

> I doubt any of these crapware can compile a gambas program
> or compile as well as gcc or run apache, sqlite, evolution and match
> many other open source programs.

None of those are compilers! You really are lost.

> The only things that work well seems to be Linux and open source.
> No surprises there.

See: you are lost.

[onion knight]

> References: <20121128184214....@usenet.drumscum.be>
> <iLvts.815157$Ol2.805...@fx25.am4>

> <CCDBE028.FE40%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
>
> "Roy Shesterwitz" another Michael Snit Glasser nymshift?
>
> --
> This is Linux country. On a quiet night, you can hear NT re-boot.
>
> Scientific-Linux 6.3 64-bit.

You made that up.
Why do you lie so much?

[Snit]

On 11/28/12 4:14 PM, in article 1Vwts.1020196$it2.4...@fx22.am4, "7"

<email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:

> William Poaster wrote:
>
>> 7 wrote:
>>
>>> Roy Shesterwitz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/opensource/open-source-community-up-
> in-
>>>>> arms-over-proprietary-software-for-ubuntu/3998
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Always remember, everything has its place. Now, it turns out, closed
>>>>>> source software has its place on Linux. And, of course, there will
>>>>>> always be those that refuse to allow closed source software on their

>>>>>> desktop. There is nothing wrong with that ? so long as they are

I post as "Snit". Is that really too hard for you to keep track of?

In any case, now that I have discussed where Linux and open source does not
compare well with other choices (at least in some ways) I do expect the name
calling, accusations, etc. to begin. You cannot support your views with
reason and logic so accusations are what you are left with. Debate 101: when
you do that you are acknowledging defeat.

[Snit]

On 11/28/12 4:09 PM, in article 67iio9-...@alpha-one.wpnetwork.org,

Snit posts as Snit. Is this too hard for you to figure out? Likely not: but
you see where 7 is being ripped apart so you are trying to change the topic.

[onion knight]

On Nov 28, 6:09 pm, William Poaster <w...@induh-vidual.net> wrote:

> References: <20121128184214....@usenet.drumscum.be>
> <iLvts.815157$Ol2.805...@fx25.am4>

> <CCDBE028.FE40%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
>
> "Roy Shesterwitz" another Michael Snit Glasser nymshift?

Snit posts as Snit except when I post as Joel Crump. Is this too hard

[Hadron]

Peter Köhlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> writes:

> TomB wrote:
>
>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
>> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
>> it or not. How about the rest of you?
>
> I write Closed Source software myself, and it is available with
> identical

Of course you do. Thats how you make your money.

> functionality on windows, OSX and linux. On linux I provide both RPM and
> Debian-type installs. It runs on all current linux versions which support
> either of those install types, and on windows from WinXP upwards, on OSX
> from Tiger and up. Just yesterday I made a personalized version for a french
> company, running (in french naturally, as well as about a dozen other
> languages) on OSX

All closed source and securing your income.

Why isnt it open source Kohlkopf?

>
> The software /could/ be Open Source for about 90% of its source code without
> harm, but the rest has cost hundreds of thousands and several manyears to
> write and debug. It contains the mathematical/statistical rules to analyze
> several different psychological tests, and the competition would just love
> to put their hands on that.
>

What bullshit.

All of it cost money. Money paid to YOU.

No one here despises open source for its idealogy. I have contributed a
fair bit myself. But dont pretend to be a " Free and open" man when YOU
make MOST of your money from closed source Windows SW.


--
A certain COLA "advocate" faking his user-agent in order to pretend to be a Linux
user: User-Agent: Outlook 5.5 (WinNT 5.0), User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0
(Linux), Message-ID: <wPGdnd3NnOM...@comcast.com>

[Hadron]

Chris Ahlstrom <ad...@cyberbully.com> writes:

> After swilling some grog, Peter Köhlmann belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> TomB wrote:
>>
>>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
>>> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
>>> it or not. How about the rest of you?
>>
>> I write Closed Source software myself, and it is available with identical
>> functionality on windows, OSX and linux. On linux I provide both RPM and
>> Debian-type installs. It runs on all current linux versions which support
>> either of those install types, and on windows from WinXP upwards, on OSX
>> from Tiger and up. Just yesterday I made a personalized version for a french
>> company, running (in french naturally, as well as about a dozen other
>> languages) on OSX
>>
>> The software /could/ be Open Source for about 90% of its source code without
>> harm, but the rest has cost hundreds of thousands and several manyears to
>> write and debug. It contains the mathematical/statistical rules to analyze
>> several different psychological tests, and the competition would just love
>> to put their hands on that.
>
> I'd love you to try the software out on the trolls! :-D

So would we all Creepy. BUt, uh, like yours its, uh, closed source
proprietary code... Are you really as stupid as you seem here?

[Hadron]

Chris Ahlstrom <ad...@cyberbully.com> writes:

> After swilling some grog, George Ronkowski belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>
>> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote in message
>> news:k95pnr$7jd$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> TomB wrote:
>>>
>>>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
>>>> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
>>>> it or not. How about the rest of you?
>>>
>>> I write Closed Source software myself,
>>
>> Yeah, sure you do.
>>
>> Most here have missed the point: The purpose of Linux is to be open source.
>
> Not quite. The purpose of "Linux" is to be a platform for
> applications.

Huh? What? Makes ZERO sense.

>
>> Sheesh, it's just turning into Windows otherwise.
>
> <shudder>

You mean "quiver with delight". MORE sw for you to QA and make money
from, eh Creepy?

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, Snit belched this bit o' wisdom:

>

We don't care what software you can't live without, Snit.

Get over it.

--
If people are willing to read your retarded tripe then Linux-sux is an
absolute genious compared to an idiot like you KKKoalman.
How's that "Windows developer" job working out for ya?
-- Larry Qualig, http://help.lockergnome.com/linux/SEMI-official-COLA-BLOCK-LIST-04-28-2007--ftopict424850.html

[Snit]

On 11/28/12 6:36 PM, in article k96e72$3fa$1...@dont-email.me, "Chris Ahlstrom"

<ad...@cyberbully.com> wrote:

> After swilling some grog, Snit belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>
>
> We don't care what software you can't live without, Snit.
>
> Get over it.

I was responding to silly comments by 7. He - and you - cannot find
significant flaw with my comments so you are now snipping them and being
derogatory. Debate 101: you just lost.

[Tattoo Vampire]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> We don't care what software you can't live without, Snit.
>
> Get over it.

On a related note, we could definitely live without Snit.

--
Life is sexually transmitted and terminal

[tv]

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-11-28, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> TomB wrote:
>
>>Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
>>into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
>>it or not. How about the rest of you?
>

> I've made my position clear many times. As long as there is no

> devious attempt to deny choice to users, I see nothing wrong with
> writing, selling, or using closed-source software. Indeed, for
> certain cutting-edge applications, the closed-source model works
> better. In other words, both open-source and closed-source are
> needed, to optimally serve the market.
>

How easy is it to dump the product and choose something else?

If the product is engineered to trap you, then that is bad.

Proprietary software doesn't have to keep your personal data hostage.

However, that is a very common business model.

--
It's a great paradox. |||
/ | \
Mac users aren't supposed to be capable of organizing their
own files with the Finder or browse the storage on a digital
camera yet they can be expected to track down their own QT
extensions with no real help from Apple.

[Snit]

On 11/28/12 7:22 PM, in article 173dt317ybqri$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer,

"Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> We don't care what software you can't live without, Snit.
>>
>> Get over it.
>
> On a related note, we could definitely live without Snit.

And now Tattoo wants to show he, too, can lose debates.

Bottom line: you and the others who are running around belittling me are
making it clear you know you cannot find significant flaw with my comments.


--

[Snit]

On 11/28/12 4:04 PM, in article RLwts.624261$vW7.1...@fx19.am4, "7"
<email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:

> Roy Shesterwitz wrote:
>
>
>>>> http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/opensource/open-source-community-up-in-
>>> arms-over-proprietary-software-for-ubuntu/3998
>>>>
>>>> "Always remember, everything has its place. Now, it turns out, closed
>>>> source software has its place on Linux. And, of course, there will
>>>> always be those that refuse to allow closed source software on their

>>>> desktop. There is nothing wrong with that ? so long as they are

>>>> getting their needs filled. But for those that long for a broader
>>>> acceptance of Linux and understand that small to mid-sized business is
>>>> the one market that must be conquered, know this: Proprietary software
>>>> appearing in the Ubuntu Software Center is just one step closer to
>>>> that dream of mass deployment coming true!"
>>>>
>>>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
>>>> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
>>>> it or not. How about the rest of you?
>>>
>>> I can't think of one must have software that is proprietary.
>>
>> I have no doubt you cannot! But is this a weakness of *all* non-opensource
>> software or a weakness of you?
>>
>> That is the rub: clearly it is you.
>>
>>> Open source is now so powerful and voluminous, every day
>>> I must spend hours learning new open source packages just to keep still.
>>
>> Oh, there are many open source programs. No doubt. But nothing in the open
>> source world would work for me to replace:
>>
>> * Photoshop
>
> Gimp better

For some small set of things, sure - such as favicons. Absolutely absurd
that Photoshop handles these so poorly considering it is a part of a web
development suite. But GIMP lacks *so* much... so many very powerful tools.
Just some: layer sets (more than one level deep - GIMP has added that
*finally*, adjustment layers, smart objects / layers, 3D tools, quick
select, better CMYK support, multiple mask types, multiple masks on an
image, etc. The only ones which I personally do not use on a fairly regular
basis are CMYK support (which I have needed only a couple of times) and 3D
tools, which I have used a bit more but certainly not often.

>> * Dreamweaver
>> * OS X (and the programs it comes with)
>
> Linux cheaper and better

Desktop Linux is, by nature, a mish-mash of inconsistent and competing
UIs... much more so than OS X (or even Windows, which is pretty bad there).
This leads to a lack of focus so you have no tools such as proxy icons,
media browsers, PDF Services, application services, renaming and moving and
duplicating from the title bar, QuickLook, saved status indicators, a visual
versioning system - which allows easy copying and pasting from earlier
versions, a visual backup system that allows for using the metaphors
inherent in many programs to "dig back", etc.

In what way, other than being cheaper, is desktop Linux better than OS X?
You can have some different window management which some like... and there
are other niche areas where desktop Linux might serve some better. But
overall... it is *clearly* far, far behind. If it was not there would be a
*much* bigger demand for it.

>> * MS Office
>
> Prone to virus - you need Libreoffice

As I said, LibreOffice would do... but not as well.

>> * iWork
>> * ScreenFlow
>> * Tofu
>> * DreamCatcher
>
> All crap that I don't use.

You do not use it and you know nothing of it. That is sorta the point.

> I doubt any of these crapware can compile a gambas program
> or compile as well as gcc or run apache, sqlite, evolution and match
> many other open source programs.

None of those are compilers! You really are lost.

> The only things that work well seems to be Linux and open source.
> No surprises there.

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-11-28, George Ronkowski <George@not_valid.com> wrote:
>
> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:k95pnr$7jd$1...@dont-email.me...
>> TomB wrote:
>>

>>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
>>> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
>>> it or not. How about the rest of you?
>>

>> I write Closed Source software myself,
>
>

> / / /

>
>
>
> Yeah, sure you do.
>
> Most here have missed the point: The purpose of Linux is to be open source.

The purpose of Linux is to read Linus' Usenet groups.

Any higher moral purpose ascribed to it is a projection from the observer.

[deletia]

[Gregory Shearman]

On 2012-11-28, Marti Van Lin <ml2...@dontevenbother.invalid> wrote:
> On 28-11-12 18:48, TomB wrote:
>
>> http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/opensource/open-source-community-up-in-arms-over-proprietary-software-for-ubuntu/3998
>
> [snip]
>
>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
>> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
>> it or not. How about the rest of you?
>
> I prefer as much *Free Software* as possible.
>
> Non-Free Software should not be part of any GNU/Linux distribution by
> default IMHO. Nothing wrong with additional repositories, providing
> Non-Free add-ons though.
>
> But *please* NOT in the core system.

But we use proprietary driver software to run graphics and sometimes
networking hardware. Look at the Raspberry PI.

Unfortunately, proprietary software seems to be *already* in the core
system.

Personally, I use as little proprietary software as I can get away with.
I'm still a fan of the "many eyeballs" principle.

--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

[Gregory Shearman]

On 2012-11-28, 7 <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>
> Take video for example. Every time you want to put video into a gadget,
> proprietary gets in the way. Youtube looses money, Google looses money
> and revenue whenever that happens. If video was as open sourced as X11,
> there would be no problem.
>

I agree. I can't stand all the different codecs and the job of the video
software to empty the container and forensically examine the contents to
determine the codec.

[TomB]

On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Gregory
Shearman:

> On 2012-11-28, Marti Van Lin <ml2...@dontevenbother.invalid> wrote:
>> On 28-11-12 18:48, TomB wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/opensource/open-source-community-up-in-arms-over-proprietary-software-for-ubuntu/3998
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
>>> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to
>>> use it or not. How about the rest of you?
>>
>> I prefer as much *Free Software* as possible.
>>
>> Non-Free Software should not be part of any GNU/Linux distribution
>> by default IMHO. Nothing wrong with additional repositories,
>> providing Non-Free add-ons though.
>>
>> But *please* NOT in the core system.
>
> But we use proprietary driver software to run graphics and sometimes
> networking hardware. Look at the Raspberry PI.

Actually look at anyone using the nvidia or fglrx drivers. Adobe's
flashplayer is another example of proprietary software found on many
GNU/Linux desktop machines. And then there's also the various firmware
images needed for some hardware.

My guess is that there are very few GNU/Linux desktop machines out
there that are running 100% F/OSS.

> Unfortunately, proprietary software seems to be *already* in the
> core system.

Depends on what you call "the core system". If I do a basic Debian
netinstall, the result will be a 100% F/OSS system. In fact it will
remain that way as long as I don't enable the 'non-free' and 'contrib'
repos. Most of my Debian servers are installed like that. Desktop
machines is another story though (drivers, firmware, flash...).

> Personally, I use as little proprietary software as I can get away
> with. I'm still a fan of the "many eyeballs" principle.

Same here. But that's a choice everyone should make for themselves.

--
There is no 'ctrl' button on Chuck Norris's computer. Chuck Norris
is always in control.

[William Poaster]

Tattoo Vampire wrote:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> We don't care what software you can't live without, Snit.
>>
>> Get over it.
>
> On a related note, we could definitely live without Snit.

+1

--
Windows supports real multitasking - it can boot and crash
simultaneously.


Scientific-Linux 6.3 64-bit.

[TomB]

On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
> Chris Ahlstrom <ad...@cyberbully.com> writes:

8<

>> Not quite. The purpose of "Linux" is to be a platform for
>> applications.
>
> Huh? What? Makes ZERO sense.

What the... ?

How on earth does it make "ZERO sense" to say that the purpose of an
OS is to be a platform for applications? I would really like to hear
the reasoning behind that, if there is any.

Disclaimer: yes, above "Linux" was used in the context of an OS rather
than only the kernel.

--
An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest.
~ Benjamin Franklin

[chrisv]

TomB wrote:

> Hadron quacked:

>>
>> Chris Ahlstrom writes:
>>>
>>> Not quite. The purpose of "Linux" is to be a platform for
>>> applications.
>>
>> Huh? What? Makes ZERO sense.
>
>What the... ?
>
>How on earth does it make "ZERO sense" to say that the purpose of an
>OS is to be a platform for applications? I would really like to hear
>the reasoning behind that, if there is any.

"Hadron" is an amazingly shameless jackass and liar.

It simply boggles the mind!

>Disclaimer: yes, above "Linux" was used in the context of an OS rather
>than only the kernel.

--

"Witness TomB recently making a right tool of himself by claiming
aptitude and apt-get used exactly the same back end when I warned
against mixing them up." - "Hadron", lying shamelessly to attack,
after getting spanked in the debate (TomB, who did the spanking,
actually wrote that aptitude is a front-end to APT.)

[chrisv]

> George Ronkowski belched:
>>
>> Most here have missed the point: The purpose of Linux is to be open source.

Nonsense. Being open source is a great strength of Linux, not its
"purpose".

What is really required is choice in the market. Viable, available,
alternatives.

>> Sheesh, it's just turning into Windows otherwise.

No, it would not be "turning into Windows". But even being
closed-source, as Windows is, would not be so terrible.

However, if it was closed-source, the monopolists would have been able
to either buy it or destroy it.

This is why Micro$oft fanbois like Hadron Quark *hate* Free software
so much - it's immune to their master's monopolizing machinations.

--
"As Snit said, it's astonishing how little the COLA freetards actually
know and understand about the GPL." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron
Quark

[chrisv]

Tattoo Vampire wrote:

>Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> We don't care what software you can't live without, Snit.
>>
>> Get over it.

Indeed, we're glad that the troll has the choices it has.

Conversely, trolls ridicule us for wanting the choices that we want.

>On a related note, we could definitely live without Snit.

Why you guys don't plonk it is a mystery...

--
"You still don't understand the drawbacks and realities of a fractured
user base then?" - "Hadron", attacking Android

[Snit]

On 11/29/12 6:58 AM, in article 1qpeb81aa1biepsq7...@4ax.com,

"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> George Ronkowski belched:
>>>
>>> Most here have missed the point: The purpose of Linux is to be open source.
>
> Nonsense. Being open source is a great strength of Linux, not its
> "purpose".
>
> What is really required is choice in the market. Viable, available,
> alternatives.

Agreed. I hope desktop Linux offers that at some point. Right now, in most
cases, it does not. In some cases, though, it does - and that is great.

>>> Sheesh, it's just turning into Windows otherwise.
>
> No, it would not be "turning into Windows". But even being
> closed-source, as Windows is, would not be so terrible.
>
> However, if it was closed-source, the monopolists would have been able
> to either buy it or destroy it.
>
> This is why Micro$oft fanbois like Hadron Quark *hate* Free software
> so much - it's immune to their master's monopolizing machinations.

You made that up. A complete cult-based fabrication.

[Snit]

On 11/29/12 4:56 AM, in article 20121129...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"

<tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>> Chris Ahlstrom <ad...@cyberbully.com> writes:
>
> 8<
>
>>> Not quite. The purpose of "Linux" is to be a platform for
>>> applications.
>>
>> Huh? What? Makes ZERO sense.
>
> What the... ?
>
> How on earth does it make "ZERO sense" to say that the purpose of an
> OS is to be a platform for applications? I would really like to hear
> the reasoning behind that, if there is any.
>
> Disclaimer: yes, above "Linux" was used in the context of an OS rather
> than only the kernel.

I thought it was your view that Linux *was* the OS, hence why all distros
are, in your view, the same OS. Are you now saying the distro sites are
right to refer to each of their products as their own OS?

[Snit]

On 11/29/12 7:02 AM, in article giqeb81oc116mlg50...@4ax.com,

"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> We don't care what software you can't live without, Snit.
>>>
>>> Get over it.
>
> Indeed, we're glad that the troll has the choices it has.
>
> Conversely, trolls ridicule us for wanting the choices that we want.

If you are implying *I* do then you are completely wrong. I am the one who
is *pro-choice* and tells people they should use what works for them.

>> On a related note, we could definitely live without Snit.
>
> Why you guys don't plonk it is a mystery...

Unlike you they are not ruled by fear of ideas they disagree with.

[Homer]

Verily I say unto thee that TomB spake thusly:

>
> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
> it or not. How about the rest of you?

I don't believe anyone has the right to dictate what software others
use.

Advocacy is another matter, of course, and I would certainly never
advocate the use of proprietary software, especially proprietary
drivers, as the latter is just a means of manipulating customers into
renewing hardware on a regular basis (planned obsolescence), and also
has the effect of locking those customers into certain platforms and
architectures, which is anticompetitive and thus limits choice.

Even proprietary applications tend to lock customers into proprietary
data formats, although happily this is becoming a less significant
problem. They also tend to force customers into the upgrade treadmill,
and are ultimately abandoned, leaving customers to switch to what may be
unsuitable alternatives. This is especially annoying when there's no
possibility of an alternative, due to the uniqueness of the product
(typically games), and customers are left with software that no longer
works on current OS and/or driver releases, and will never work again,
due to the one and only entity with access to the sources permanently
withdrawing support.

That can't happen with Free Software, because /anyone/ can be "the
vendor", and /anyone/ can provide that support, in perpetuity.

But if people want to pay for this fleeting software that only works on
a limited range of platforms and architectures, then forces them to pay
to renew that software (and corresponding hardware) on a regular basis,
until it's ultimately abandoned at the vendor's whim, leaving them to
start all over again from scratch ... then that's their choice.

I wouldn't recommend it, though.

As for myself, I avoid proprietary software like the plague, even to the
extent of "deblobing" the kernel. I don't even accept licenses like the
CDDL, even though it's supposedly "open", much less proprietary "EULAs".
I regularly audit the licenses of every package on my systems to ensure
there's nothing offensive lurking in there, which sadly there is all too
often, although not all of that is about copyrights. That was my primary
reason for moving to Gentoo, because it's a trivial matter to ensure
unwanted components are completely eradicated, with a very fine-grained
degree of control. Sadly one completely loses that control with
proprietary software.

Any GNU/Linux distro that ships proprietary software has legal hurdles
to overcome, including the possibility of GPL violations, depending on
what is linked where, and of course the whole endeavour is profoundly
antithetical to the goals that motivated GNU, Linux and all the other
Free Software packages in the first place, but if there are people who
really want such a thing then it isn't for me or anyone else to prohibit
them. I will of course try to dissuade them.

My main argument would be: if you want proprietary software, then why
use GNU/Linux at all? Of course one obvious counterargument to that is
there are more benefits to GNU/Linux than just freedom, it's also a
technically superior system that's more efficient, secure and stable
than its proprietary counterparts.

Unfortunately the introduction of proprietary components brings with it
all the inefficiency, insecurity and instability that plagues
proprietary systems, and which ironically motivated those people to
switch to GNU/Linux in the first place, so I question the logic of
making that move only to drag all those proprietary problems along.

--
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 36 days | ~ V for Vendetta.

[Hadron]

chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:

> TomB wrote:
>
>> Hadron quacked:
>>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom writes:
>>>>
>>>> Not quite. The purpose of "Linux" is to be a platform for
>>>> applications.
>>>
>>> Huh? What? Makes ZERO sense.
>>
>>What the... ?
>>
>>How on earth does it make "ZERO sense" to say that the purpose of an
>>OS is to be a platform for applications? I would really like to hear
>>the reasoning behind that, if there is any.

In context. Compared to Windows. Do TRY and read the bullshit from
Creepy before commenting.

>
> "Hadron" is an amazingly shameless jackass and liar.
>
> It simply boggles the mind!

Your mind is boggled turd.

>
>>Disclaimer: yes, above "Linux" was used in the context of an OS rather
>>than only the kernel.

--

[Hadron]

chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:

>> George Ronkowski belched:
>>>
>>> Most here have missed the point: The purpose of Linux is to be open source.
>
> Nonsense. Being open source is a great strength of Linux, not its
> "purpose".
>
> What is really required is choice in the market. Viable, available,
> alternatives.
>
>>> Sheesh, it's just turning into Windows otherwise.
>
> No, it would not be "turning into Windows". But even being
> closed-source, as Windows is, would not be so terrible.
>
> However, if it was closed-source, the monopolists would have been able
> to either buy it or destroy it.
>
> This is why Micro$oft fanbois like Hadron Quark *hate* Free software
> so much - it's immune to their master's monopolizing machinations.

I dont hate FOSS turd. I dont even use Windows at all except for iPhone
backup. You on the other hand make your money from it.

You need flushing.

[Hadron]

chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:

> Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>
>>Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> We don't care what software you can't live without, Snit.
>>>
>>> Get over it.
>
> Indeed, we're glad that the troll has the choices it has.
>
> Conversely, trolls ridicule us for wanting the choices that we want.

What choices dont you have turd?

>
>>On a related note, we could definitely live without Snit.
>
> Why you guys don't plonk it is a mystery...

Creepy had "choice" when he bought a Windows laptop. As do you when you
buy Windows machines.

turd : you're an idiot.

[Justin]

On 11/28/2012 12:48 PM, TomB wrote:
> http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/opensource/open-source-community-up-in-arms-over-proprietary-software-for-ubuntu/3998


I think we have to understand and take into account the fact that

What was the question?

[philo]

On 11/29/2012 08:29 AM, Homer wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee that TomB spake thusly:
>>
>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
>> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
>> it or not. How about the rest of you?

> X


<snipped for brevity>

Sadly one completely loses that control with
> proprietary software.
>
> Any GNU/Linux distro that ships proprietary software has legal hurdles
> to overcome, including the possibility of GPL violations, depending on
> what is linked where, and of course the whole endeavour is profoundly
> antithetical to the goals that motivated GNU, Linux and all the other
> Free Software packages in the first place, but if there are people who
> really want such a thing then it isn't for me or anyone else to prohibit
> them. I will of course try to dissuade them.
>
> My main argument would be: if you want proprietary software, then why
> use GNU/Linux at all? Of course one obvious counterargument to that is
> there are more benefits to GNU/Linux than just freedom, it's also a
> technically superior system that's more efficient, secure and stable
> than its proprietary counterparts.
>
> Unfortunately the introduction of proprietary components brings with it
> all the inefficiency, insecurity and instability that plagues
> proprietary systems, and which ironically motivated those people to
> switch to GNU/Linux in the first place, so I question the logic of
> making that move only to drag all those proprietary problems along.
>

Maybe I'm stupid but I agree with Torvalds

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/06/torvalds-nvidia-linux/

Of course if he posted to this group he'd probably get labeled as a troll.

--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:

> On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>> Chris Ahlstrom <ad...@cyberbully.com> writes:
>
> 8<
>
>>> Not quite. The purpose of "Linux" is to be a platform for
>>> applications.
>>
>> Huh? What? Makes ZERO sense.
>
> What the... ?
>
> How on earth does it make "ZERO sense" to say that the purpose of an
> OS is to be a platform for applications? I would really like to hear
> the reasoning behind that, if there is any.
>
> Disclaimer: yes, above "Linux" was used in the context of an OS rather
> than only the kernel.

Doesn't matter.

Say, did "Hadron" happen to mention "cream" and "panties" in his
nonsense reply to my post?

--
Certainly Office is an order better than Open Office.
All new products have issues. The PS3 had oodles.
What HAS amazed me (and I was anti x-box before) was how well it has
scaled.
As for MS : they dont make HW. They stick their logo on it. Or do they?
They fabricate nylon/plastic shells and the like? I dont know 100% for
sure.
The fact is their SW works for people. Over 90% of the PC users in the
world use it. And it works for them. Yes there are idiots like WronG who
claim they spend 90% of their day fighting malware. But I also believe
it takes him 4 hours to open the fridge door.
-- "Hadron" <if2ffi$si3$1...@news.eternal-september.org>

[chrisv]

>--

>The fact is their SW works for people. Over 90% of the PC users in the
>world use it. And it works for them.

> -- "Hadron" <if2ffi$si3$1...@news.eternal-september.org>

The filthy monopolist supporter expects everyone to forget that your
product "working" does not get you 90 fscking percent of a market, as
looking-around at *every* market in the world demonstrates.

Even being what many feel is "the best" product does not get you 90
fscking percent of the market, as looking-around at *every* market in
the world demonstrates.

There's simply too many different wants, needs, tastes, skill-levels,
budgets, etc, for one product to retain *anything near* that kind of
market-share, *if* the market is fair and healthy.

[Snit]

On 11/29/12 7:29 AM, in article 838ko9-...@sky.matrix, "Homer"

<use...@slated.org> wrote:

> Verily I say unto thee that TomB spake thusly:
>>
>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
>> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
>> it or not. How about the rest of you?
>
> I don't believe anyone has the right to dictate what software others
> use.

What a turn around! In the past you have said you wanted people to use only
open source software.

...



--
"90% of computers use Microsoft's Windows ... Macs account for 9% of the
market while the open source system Linux accounts for 0.8%."
-- Linus Torvalds

[bbgruff]

Oh, I don't know about that.
Another of his points, from that very article:-

"Then he took a bit of shot at Microsoft — the historical rival of Linux. He
said that Linux is the only operating system that uses the same kernel
across all devices — and that this includes Microsoft Windows. “Nobody has
ever done that before,” he said. “[Microsoft] claims they’re trying to
[create a single kernel with] Windows 8. They’re lying. They’re not. They’re
full of shit.”"

[onion knight]

The herd would attack him mercilessly and you know it.
You'll never admit it though.

[philo]

On 11/29/2012 10:57 AM, bbgruff wrote:
> philo wrote:
>
>> On 11/29/2012 08:29 AM, Homer wrote:
>>> Verily I say unto thee that TomB spake thusly:
>>>>
>>>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
>>>> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
>>>> it or not. How about the rest of you?
>>> X
>>
>>
>> <snipped for brevity>

>>
>>
>>

>> Maybe I'm stupid but I agree with Torvalds
>>
>> http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/06/torvalds-nvidia-linux/
>>
>> Of course if he posted to this group he'd probably get labeled as a troll.
>
> Oh, I don't know about that.
> Another of his points, from that very article:-
>
> "Then he took a bit of shot at Microsoft — the historical rival of Linux. He
> said that Linux is the only operating system that uses the same kernel
> across all devices — and that this includes Microsoft Windows. “Nobody has
> ever done that before,” he said. “[Microsoft] claims they’re trying to
> [create a single kernel with] Windows 8. They’re lying. They’re not. They’re
> full of shit.”"
>
>

I think that what too many here seem to be missing is that Linux is a
philosophy (as long as an operating system).

The whole idea is to be open-source and community developed. As soon as
Linux becomes "closed source" the entire philosophy behind it collapses.



Whether one likes Linux or hates it...I think all can agree that
Torvalds put a lot of work into it and I admire him for that.
He opened Linux to "the community" as he knew he could not do it all
alone...and the effort has been hugely successful.

Closed source kills that and is not part of Torvald's philosophy.



That said: Windows is a philosophy as well as an operating system too.
I admire Bill Gate's vision . I have nothing against people making money
and am all for it. I also think that Bill Gates was bright enough to
have written a decent version of DOS himself...but heck,
if he found a way to buy it cheaply and sell it at a huge profit...
good for him...that's how business works.

However Linux and Windows are two entirely separate philosophies.


Those who write software for a living certainly have the right to expect
to be payed for their work. That's the whole point of Windows (and Mac).
I liked the Linux community a lot better back in the old days when the
philosophy of being "opened source" was more fully understood.

--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686

[Marti Van Lin]

You know very well, what I'm trying to say good Chap, don't you?

I use the Nvidia blob my self. What I'm trying to say is that Non-Free
software should be optional.

The treat was started by TomB, not quite an idiot if you ask me, and
thus I don't think he was writing about non-free modules in the Linux
kernel, yet about "commercial proprietary" software, which is provided
in Canonical's "Ubuntu" App Store®

If I understood TomB's question well, then my answer is clearly *NO*
Non-Free proprietary applications should not be included in *any*
GNU/Linux distribution by default. They should be optionally.

Take good care, Love you!

--
|_|0|_| Marti T. Van Lin, alias ML2MST
|_|_|0| https://linuxcounter.net/user/513040.html
|0|0|0| http://osg33x.blogspot.com

[Hadron]

Marti Van Lin <ml2...@dontevenbother.invalid> writes:

> On 29-11-12 06:06, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>> On 2012-11-28, Marti Van Lin <ml2...@dontevenbother.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 28-11-12 18:48, TomB wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/opensource/open-source-community-up-in-arms-over-proprietary-software-for-ubuntu/3998
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
>>>> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to use
>>>> it or not. How about the rest of you?
>>>
>>> I prefer as much *Free Software* as possible.
>>>
>>> Non-Free Software should not be part of any GNU/Linux distribution by
>>> default IMHO. Nothing wrong with additional repositories, providing
>>> Non-Free add-ons though.
>>>
>>> But *please* NOT in the core system.
>>
>> But we use proprietary driver software to run graphics and sometimes
>> networking hardware. Look at the Raspberry PI.
>>
>> Unfortunately, proprietary software seems to be *already* in the core
>> system.
>>
>> Personally, I use as little proprietary software as I can get away with.
>> I'm still a fan of the "many eyeballs" principle.
>
> You know very well, what I'm trying to say good Chap, don't you?
>
> I use the Nvidia blob my self. What I'm trying to say is that Non-Free software
> should be optional.

It is. NOTHING is stopping you from not using it.

>
> The treat was started by TomB, not quite an idiot if you ask me, and thus I
> don't think he was writing about non-free modules in the Linux kernel, yet about
> "commercial proprietary" software, which is provided in Canonical's "Ubuntu" App
> Store®

You dont want to give people the chance to BUY SW? Idiot.

>
> If I understood TomB's question well, then my answer is clearly *NO* Non-Free
> proprietary applications should not be included in *any* GNU/Linux distribution
> by default. They should be optionally.

It's ALL optional. Dont want it? Use another distro or , err, dont use
it. There is NO closed source proprietary commercial SW in the kernel
afaik.

>
> Take good care, Love you!

Ugh.

[Marti Van Lin]

On 29-11-12 15:02, chrisv wrote:

> Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> We don't care what software you can't live without, Snit.
>>>
>>> Get over it.
>
> Indeed, we're glad that the troll has the choices it has.
>
> Conversely, trolls ridicule us for wanting the choices that we want.
>
>> On a related note, we could definitely live without Snit.
>
> Why you guys don't plonk it is a mystery...

Probably some Macho Man thing, they obviously get some sort of "kick"
out of turning down and humiliating that insane sissy called Michael
"Snit" Glasser.

I for one am still devastated that "Goblin" still responds to "Snit".

Oh well, who am I to judge ;-)

[Snit]

On 11/29/12 11:53 AM, in article k98avi$ks8$1...@news.albasani.net, "Marti Van

Lin" <ml2...@dontevenbother.invalid> wrote:

> On 29-11-12 15:02, chrisv wrote:
>
>> Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> We don't care what software you can't live without, Snit.
>>>>
>>>> Get over it.
>>
>> Indeed, we're glad that the troll has the choices it has.
>>
>> Conversely, trolls ridicule us for wanting the choices that we want.
>>
>>> On a related note, we could definitely live without Snit.
>>
>> Why you guys don't plonk it is a mystery...
>
> Probably some Macho Man thing, they obviously get some sort of "kick"
> out of turning down and humiliating that insane sissy called Michael
> "Snit" Glasser.
>
> I for one am still devastated that "Goblin" still responds to "Snit".
>
> Oh well, who am I to judge ;-)

Some people are not like chrisv - they do not run from arguments and facts
that contradict their world views. It is amazing how cult-like the herd is
in their doing so.


--
"Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first place. I mean, I

[chrisv]

chrisv wrote:

>But even being
>closed-source, as Windows is, would not be so terrible.
>
>However, if it was closed-source, the monopolists would have been able
>to either buy it or destroy it.
>
>This is why Micro$oft fanbois like Hadron Quark *hate* Free software
>so much - it's immune to their master's monopolizing machinations.

What I mean by "immune" is that Free software cannot be bought or
killed-off.

Obviously, FOSS can be held to a small niche, if there are enough
factors against it. Factors such as being late to enter a market and
then competing with an entrenched monopoly.

When FOSS is given a fair chance, we have seen how successful it can
be.

[Snit]

On 11/29/12 12:58 PM, in article r5ffb8l2m4e8i3db9...@4ax.com,

It can be very, very successful - and is in many markets: servers, embedded
devices, and more. But it has yet to crack the desktop / laptop market...
that is a very hard market to earn your way into. Still, it seems there is
good new in that area: <http://ars.to/TrC43n>. If it does well I will be
happy. If it does not, your herd will blame the boggieman.

[Hadron]

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

> On 11/29/12 12:58 PM, in article r5ffb8l2m4e8i3db9...@4ax.com,
> "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> But even being
>>> closed-source, as Windows is, would not be so terrible.
>>>
>>> However, if it was closed-source, the monopolists would have been able
>>> to either buy it or destroy it.
>>>
>>> This is why Micro$oft fanbois like Hadron Quark *hate* Free software
>>> so much - it's immune to their master's monopolizing machinations.
>>
>> What I mean by "immune" is that Free software cannot be bought or
>> killed-off.
>>
>> Obviously, FOSS can be held to a small niche, if there are enough
>> factors against it. Factors such as being late to enter a market and
>> then competing with an entrenched monopoly.
>>
>> When FOSS is given a fair chance, we have seen how successful it can
>> be.
>>
> It can be very, very successful - and is in many markets: servers, embedded
> devices, and more. But it has yet to crack the desktop / laptop market...
> that is a very hard market to earn your way into. Still, it seems there is
> good new in that area: <http://ars.to/TrC43n>. If it does well I will be
> happy. If it does not, your herd will blame the boggieman.

Very good. Thig I dont understand is that turd and co claim that Dell
and co arent allowed to sell Linux based SW or MS will shoot them
down. Now someone is a liar. Dell or turd and co?

[Snit]

On 11/29/12 2:08 PM, in article xna9u0q...@news.eternal-september.org,

The herd is clueless and makes up stories about the boogieman to try to
explain away why Dell and others have not been able to successfully sell
Linux systems to *people who do not want them*.

[TomB]

On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:

> On 11/29/12 7:29 AM, in article 838ko9-...@sky.matrix, "Homer"
><use...@slated.org> wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee that TomB spake thusly:
>>>
>>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
>>> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to
>>> use it or not. How about the rest of you?
>>
>> I don't believe anyone has the right to dictate what software
>> others use.
>
> What a turn around! In the past you have said you wanted people to
> use only open source software.

So where's this turn around then?

--
Mijnen deem, mijnen deem
Stoeng heelmaal vol exeem
~ Katastroof

[TomB]

On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:

Serious question: don't you get sick and tired of discussing the same
thing over and over again? I mean, I've explained my position on this
matter about a thousand times, and /still/ you want to hear about it?

Another question: what exactly in what I wrote triggered the
uncontrollable urge to dig up this topic again?

--
No! Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try.
~ Yoda

[TomB]

On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:

> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>> TomB wrote:
>>> Hadron quacked:
>>>> Chris Ahlstrom writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> Not quite. The purpose of "Linux" is to be a platform for
>>>>> applications.
>>>>
>>>> Huh? What? Makes ZERO sense.
>>>
>>>What the... ?
>>>
>>>How on earth does it make "ZERO sense" to say that the purpose of
>>>an OS is to be a platform for applications? I would really like to
>>>hear the reasoning behind that, if there is any.
>
> In context. Compared to Windows. Do TRY and read the bullshit from
> Creepy before commenting.

Now /that/ makes zero sense...

--
There are more love songs than anything else. If songs could make you
do something we'd all love one another.
~ Frank Zappa

[chrisv]

TomB wrote:

>I've explained my position on this matter about a thousand times

Thus the troll figures you'll do it again.

[Snit]

On 11/29/12 2:57 PM, in article 201211292...@usenet.drumscum.be,

Good that you see you are being inconsistent. What changed your mind?


--
"I started Linux as a desktop operating system. And it's the only area
where Linux hasn't completely taken over. That just annoys the hell out
of me." -- Linus Torvalds

[Snit]

On 11/29/12 2:51 PM, in article 201211292...@usenet.drumscum.be,

"TomB" <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> On 11/29/12 7:29 AM, in article 838ko9-...@sky.matrix, "Homer"
>> <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>> Verily I say unto thee that TomB spake thusly:
>>>>
>>>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its way
>>>> into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's choice to
>>>> use it or not. How about the rest of you?
>>>
>>> I don't believe anyone has the right to dictate what software
>>> others use.
>>
>> What a turn around! In the past you have said you wanted people to
>> use only open source software.
>
> So where's this turn around then?

In Homer's comments.


--
"In fact, the main goal of Linux might be called usability... the most
important thing is that it works well and people ... want to use it."
-- Linus Torvalds

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:

> On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>>> TomB wrote:
>>>> Hadron quacked:
>>>>> Chris Ahlstrom writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not quite. The purpose of "Linux" is to be a platform for
>>>>>> applications.
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh? What? Makes ZERO sense.
>>>>
>>>>What the... ?
>>>>
>>>>How on earth does it make "ZERO sense" to say that the purpose of
>>>>an OS is to be a platform for applications? I would really like to
>>>>hear the reasoning behind that, if there is any.
>>
>> In context. Compared to Windows. Do TRY and read the bullshit from
>> Creepy before commenting.
>
> Now /that/ makes zero sense...

"Hadron", to put it bluntly, is a wackjob. He can't even put a coherent
thought down on "paper".

In any case, "Linux" is just as much a platform for applications as
"Windows". If the troll thinks that the "volume" of desktop software
on Windows changes that fact, he is even more fscked in the head than we
thought.

Oh, one more note. I'm not the Creepy one here.

--
An optimist is a man who looks forward to marriage.
A pessimist is a married optimist.

[TomB]

On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Homer:

8<

> My main argument would be: if you want proprietary software, then
> why use GNU/Linux at all? Of course one obvious counterargument to
> that is there are more benefits to GNU/Linux than just freedom, it's
> also a technically superior system that's more efficient, secure and
> stable than its proprietary counterparts.

Those are my main reasons to use GNU/Linux anyway, but I'm well aware
that GNU/Linux wouldn't be what it is today if it wasn't Free. So
there you have your counter-counterargument ;-)

> Unfortunately the introduction of proprietary components brings with
> it all the inefficiency, insecurity and instability that plagues
> proprietary systems, and which ironically motivated those people to
> switch to GNU/Linux in the first place, so I question the logic of
> making that move only to drag all those proprietary problems along.

The only problem I see myself is that a closed source "sub-ecosystem"
might hurt further development and growth of the current open source
and Free ecosystem. But then again, lots of open source software is
available from Windows too, even after 20+ years of being proprietary.

--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1

[Snit]

On 11/29/12 3:15 PM, in article bjnfb810v776bck3l...@4ax.com,

See how the herd acts as a group. TomB made a comment that clearly
contradicts his past position. Instead of TomB discussing why he changed his
mind, which actually might be interesting, the herd jumps up and down and
calls people names. Debate 101: chrisv has just shown he knows his "team"
has an unsupportable position.


--

[TomB]

Another serious question: are you medicated right now?

--
Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and intimidates the
neighbour is henceforth called evil; and the fair, modest, submissive and
conforming mentality, the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and
honors.
~ Nietzsche

[TomB]

On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> On 11/29/12 2:51 PM, in article
> 201211292...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
> <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> On 11/29/12 7:29 AM, in article 838ko9-...@sky.matrix, "Homer"
>>> <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>>> Verily I say unto thee that TomB spake thusly:
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its
>>>>> way into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's
>>>>> choice to use it or not. How about the rest of you?
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe anyone has the right to dictate what software
>>>> others use.
>>>
>>> What a turn around! In the past you have said you wanted people to
>>> use only open source software.
>>
>> So where's this turn around then?
>
> In Homer's comments.

I don't see it!

--
My love life is terrible. The last time I was inside a woman was when I
visited the Statue of Liberty.
~ Woody Allen

[Snit]

On 11/29/12 3:36 PM, in article 201211292...@usenet.drumscum.be,

"TomB" <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Homer:
>
> 8<
>
>> My main argument would be: if you want proprietary software, then
>> why use GNU/Linux at all? Of course one obvious counterargument to
>> that is there are more benefits to GNU/Linux than just freedom, it's
>> also a technically superior system that's more efficient, secure and
>> stable than its proprietary counterparts.
>
> Those are my main reasons to use GNU/Linux anyway, but I'm well aware
> that GNU/Linux wouldn't be what it is today if it wasn't Free. So
> there you have your counter-counterargument ;-)

I use whatever serves me best - open source or not... with a preference for
open source if there is no difference. Also, of course, I look at factors
such as price, how well a tool integrates with other tools, etc.

>> Unfortunately the introduction of proprietary components brings with
>> it all the inefficiency, insecurity and instability that plagues
>> proprietary systems, and which ironically motivated those people to
>> switch to GNU/Linux in the first place, so I question the logic of
>> making that move only to drag all those proprietary problems along.
>
> The only problem I see myself is that a closed source "sub-ecosystem"
> might hurt further development and growth of the current open source
> and Free ecosystem. But then again, lots of open source software is
> available from Windows too, even after 20+ years of being proprietary.

Exactly. Non-open-source code is no threat to open source code. In fact,
these other packages give open source developers all sorts of ideas to copy,
as with LibreOffice copying MS Office and GIMP copying Photoshop. A closed
source "sub-ecosystem" would likely help spur on open source developers to
do more, not less.

MS and Apple, for example, do nothing to reduce open source. Apple,
specifically, is a huge supporter of open source.

[Snit]

On 11/29/12 3:38 PM, in article 201211292...@usenet.drumscum.be,

"TomB" <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> On 11/29/12 2:51 PM, in article
>> 201211292...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
>> <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>> On 11/29/12 7:29 AM, in article 838ko9-...@sky.matrix, "Homer"
>>>> <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>>>> Verily I say unto thee that TomB spake thusly:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its
>>>>>> way into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's
>>>>>> choice to use it or not. How about the rest of you?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe anyone has the right to dictate what software
>>>>> others use.
>>>>
>>>> What a turn around! In the past you have said you wanted people to
>>>> use only open source software.
>>>
>>> So where's this turn around then?
>>
>> In Homer's comments.
>
> I don't see it!

Before he has written about wanting to *force* people to use only open
source software. Now he is saying he is against the type of *force* he used
to advocate for.

Do not get me wrong - the fact his position has matured is not a bad thing.
But it is worth noting and pointing out - it would be interesting to hear
his ideas on this, much as it would be interesting to hear about the changes
in your thoughts of the distro-as-OS.

[Snit]

On 11/29/12 3:38 PM, in article 201211292...@usenet.drumscum.be,

It is OK that you do not want to talk about how your position has changed
and matured. Note, though, I never spoke a bad word about you in this
exchange.

[William Poaster]

TomB wrote:

> On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>>> TomB wrote:
>>>> Hadron quacked:
>>>>> Chris Ahlstrom writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not quite. The purpose of "Linux" is to be a platform for
>>>>>> applications.
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh? What? Makes ZERO sense.
>>>>
>>>>What the... ?
>>>>
>>>>How on earth does it make "ZERO sense" to say that the purpose of
>>>>an OS is to be a platform for applications? I would really like to
>>>>hear the reasoning behind that, if there is any.
>>
>> In context. Compared to Windows. Do TRY and read the bullshit from
>> Creepy before commenting.
>
> Now /that/ makes zero sense...

Man, the trolling Hadron fuckwit really *is* an idiot.
"Hadron" makes about as much sense as an English translation of
a Japanese VCR instruction manual.

--
A Windows user spends 1/3 of his life sleeping, 1/3 working, 1/3
waiting.


Scientific-Linux 6.3 64-bit.

[William Poaster]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>>>> TomB wrote:
>>>>> Hadron quacked:
>>>>>> Chris Ahlstrom writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not quite. The purpose of "Linux" is to be a platform for
>>>>>>> applications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huh? What? Makes ZERO sense.
>>>>>
>>>>>What the... ?
>>>>>
>>>>>How on earth does it make "ZERO sense" to say that the purpose of
>>>>>an OS is to be a platform for applications? I would really like to
>>>>>hear the reasoning behind that, if there is any.
>>>
>>> In context. Compared to Windows. Do TRY and read the bullshit from
>>> Creepy before commenting.
>>
>> Now /that/ makes zero sense...
>
> "Hadron", to put it bluntly, is a wackjob. He can't even put a coherent
> thought down on "paper".

Well how the hell can he, when he hasn't got a coherent thought in his
head?

> In any case, "Linux" is just as much a platform for applications as
> "Windows". If the troll thinks that the "volume" of desktop software
> on Windows changes that fact, he is even more fscked in the head than we
> thought.
>
> Oh, one more note. I'm not the Creepy one here.

Not by a long chalk.

--
The Mac user really puts the 'stupid' in 'Keep It Simple, Stupid


Scientific-Linux 6.3 64-bit.

[William Poaster]

TomB wrote:

> On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> On 11/29/12 2:51 PM, in article
>> 201211292...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
>> <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>> On 11/29/12 7:29 AM, in article 838ko9-...@sky.matrix, "Homer"
>>>> <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>>>> Verily I say unto thee that TomB spake thusly:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its
>>>>>> way into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's
>>>>>> choice to use it or not. How about the rest of you?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe anyone has the right to dictate what software
>>>>> others use.
>>>>
>>>> What a turn around! In the past you have said you wanted people to
>>>> use only open source software.
>>>
>>> So where's this turn around then?
>>
>> In Homer's comments.
>
> I don't see it!

It seems Snit doesn't understand English.

--
Windows supports real multitasking - it can boot and crash
simultaneously.


Scientific-Linux 6.3 64-bit.

[TomB]

Nothing has changed. What exactly make you think it did?

> changed and matured. Note, though, I never spoke a bad word about
> you in this exchange.

--

Let there be Rock!
~ Bon Scott

[Snit]

On 11/29/12 4:09 PM, in article gi6lo9-...@alpha-one.wpnetwork.org,

"William Poaster" <w...@induh-vidual.net> wrote:

> TomB wrote:
>
>> On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> On 11/29/12 2:51 PM, in article
>>> 201211292...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
>>> <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>>> On 11/29/12 7:29 AM, in article 838ko9-...@sky.matrix, "Homer"
>>>>> <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Verily I say unto thee that TomB spake thusly:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its
>>>>>>> way into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's
>>>>>>> choice to use it or not. How about the rest of you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't believe anyone has the right to dictate what software
>>>>>> others use.
>>>>>
>>>>> What a turn around! In the past you have said you wanted people to
>>>>> use only open source software.
>>>>
>>>> So where's this turn around then?
>>>
>>> In Homer's comments.
>>
>> I don't see it!
>
> It seems Snit doesn't understand English.

Again: you cannot refute my claims so you belittle me.

Debate 101: you are showing you know you can neither back your claims nor
refute mine.


--

"Maybe it wouldn't be quite as good, but we would all be okay."
- Richard Stallman, speaking about if his ideas were followed

[Snit]

On 11/29/12 4:10 PM, in article 201211300...@usenet.drumscum.be,

"TomB" <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>> I thought it was your view that Linux *was* the OS, hence why
>>>>>> all distros are, in your view, the same OS. Are you now saying
>>>>>> the distro sites are right to refer to each of their products as
>>>>>> their own OS?
>>>>>
>>>>> Serious question: don't you get sick and tired of discussing the
>>>>> same thing over and over again? I mean, I've explained my
>>>>> position on this matter about a thousand times, and /still/ you
>>>>> want to hear about it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Another question: what exactly in what I wrote triggered the
>>>>> uncontrollable urge to dig up this topic again?
>>>>
>>>> Good that you see you are being inconsistent. What changed your
>>>> mind?
>>>
>>> Another serious question: are you medicated right now?
>>
>> It is OK that you do not want to talk about how your position has
>
> Nothing has changed. What exactly make you think it did?
>
>> changed and matured. Note, though, I never spoke a bad word about
>> you in this exchange.

As I said: I understand you do not want to talk about your change of view of
if distros are their own OSs are if they are all the same OS. I have no
problem with that... though I wish you were comfortable enough to open up a
bit more.

[onion knight]

On Nov 29, 5:38 pm, TomB <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On 11/29/12 2:51 PM, in article

> > 20121129225050....@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"

> > <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:

> >>> On 11/29/12 7:29 AM, in article 838ko9-npm....@sky.matrix, "Homer"

> >>> <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> >>>> Verily I say unto thee that TomB spake thusly:
>
> >>>>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its
> >>>>> way into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's
> >>>>> choice to use it or not. How about the rest of you?
>
> >>>> I don't believe anyone has the right to dictate what software
> >>>> others use.
>
> >>> What a turn around! In the past you have said you wanted people to
> >>> use only open source software.
>
> >> So where's this turn around then?
>
> > In Homer's comments.
>
> I don't see it!
>
> --
> My love life is terrible. The last time I was inside a woman was when I
> visited the Statue of Liberty.
>         ~ Woody Allen

Why do you attack me?
Why do you lie?

[Hadron]

Chris Ahlstrom <ad...@cyberbully.com> writes:

> After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>>>> TomB wrote:
>>>>> Hadron quacked:
>>>>>> Chris Ahlstrom writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not quite. The purpose of "Linux" is to be a platform for
>>>>>>> applications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huh? What? Makes ZERO sense.
>>>>>
>>>>>What the... ?
>>>>>
>>>>>How on earth does it make "ZERO sense" to say that the purpose of
>>>>>an OS is to be a platform for applications? I would really like to
>>>>>hear the reasoning behind that, if there is any.
>>>
>>> In context. Compared to Windows. Do TRY and read the bullshit from
>>> Creepy before commenting.
>>
>> Now /that/ makes zero sense...

>

> Oh, one more note. I'm not the Creepy one here.

Yes you are.

You're the one who made the point that the purpose of Linux is to be a
platform for applications. Well, fucking well done Creepy. Whats your
point. SO is Windows and the plethora of other OSen out there.

And Windows, like Linux, ALSO runs FOSS.

Youre a posturing nitwit.

[Homer]

Verily I say unto thee that TomB spake thusly:
> On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> On 11/29/12 2:51 PM, in article
>> 201211292...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
>> <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>> On 11/29/12 7:29 AM, in article 838ko9-...@sky.matrix, "Homer"
>>>> <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>>>> Verily I say unto thee that TomB spake thusly:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I don't mind that proprietary content is making its
>>>>>> way into the GNU/Linux ecosystem. After all, it's the user's
>>>>>> choice to use it or not. How about the rest of you?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe anyone has the right to dictate what software
>>>>> others use.
>>>>
>>>> What a turn around! In the past you have said you wanted people to
>>>> use only open source software.
>>>
>>> So where's this turn around then?
>>
>> In Homer's comments.
>
> I don't see it!

That's because Snit's an idiot who equates advocacy with dictatorship.

Wanting something, rallying support for it, then successfully achieving
that support, is not dictatorship, since those supporters pledged their
support voluntarily, and now want the same thing of their own free will.

But apparently Snit has an objection to that. Presumably that's why he's
in COLA: to stop us. So who's the real dictator in this scenario?

--
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 37 days | ~ V for Vendetta.

[Gregory Shearman]

On 2012-11-29, Marti Van Lin <ml2...@dontevenbother.invalid> wrote:
>
> You know very well, what I'm trying to say good Chap, don't you?

I do indeed.

> I use the Nvidia blob my self. What I'm trying to say is that Non-Free
> software should be optional.

I agree 100%.

> The treat was started by TomB, not quite an idiot if you ask me, and
> thus I don't think he was writing about non-free modules in the Linux
> kernel, yet about "commercial proprietary" software, which is provided
> in Canonical's "Ubuntu" App Store®

> If I understood TomB's question well, then my answer is clearly *NO*
> Non-Free proprietary applications should not be included in *any*
> GNU/Linux distribution by default. They should be optionally.

Yes. TomB's example of a Debian server using totally free software is
what you'd want for a machine safely serving many others on the network.
Desktop machines can be a little more proprietary without compromising
security *that* much.

--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

[Gregory Shearman]

On 2012-11-29, Marti Van Lin <ml2...@dontevenbother.invalid> wrote:
>

> Probably some Macho Man thing, they obviously get some sort of "kick"
> out of turning down and humiliating that insane sissy called Michael
> "Snit" Glasser.
>
> I for one am still devastated that "Goblin" still responds to "Snit".
>
> Oh well, who am I to judge ;-)

I gave up the Snit drug years ago. I don't need it.

[TomB]

On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:

> TomB made a comment that clearly contradicts his past position.

I demand proof and support for this!

--
There's nothing more exhilarating than pointing out the
shortcomings of others, is there?
~ Randal Graves

[TomB]

On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of philo :

8<

> I think that what too many here seem to be missing is that Linux is
> a philosophy (as long as an operating system).
>
> The whole idea is to be open-source and community developed. As soon
> as Linux becomes "closed source" the entire philosophy behind it
> collapses.

This is not about GNU/Linux becoming closed source; this is about
closed source applications being available on GNU/Linux.

--
Maurice, potteke pis, potteke kak, almanak.
~ Urbanus

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:

> On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>
>> TomB made a comment that clearly contradicts his past position.
>
> I demand proof and support for this!

Wouldn't a nice round of Sudoku be more fulfilling than this
roundy-go-round with a bot-like troll?

(Been there, done that with the terminal fsckwit known as "Hadron", of
course).

--
Huh? "advocates" keep telling us that's not possible. TomB, one of the
weirder advocates, continues to tell us that as he cant find a Linux
only PC Shop in some backwater Belgium farming village and hence MS has
a monopoly ! Oh the hassle! Still Tom, I'm sure the post comes once a
year along with the latest round up of orphans ..
-- "Hadron" <id636o$6k2$2...@news.eternal-september.org>

[William Poaster]

TomB wrote:

> On 2012-11-29, the following emerged from the brain of philo�:
>
> 8<
>
>> I think that what too many here seem to be missing is that Linux is
>> a philosophy (as long as an operating system).
>>
>> The whole idea is to be open-source and community developed. As soon
>> as Linux becomes "closed source" the entire philosophy behind it
>> collapses.
>
> This is not about GNU/Linux becoming closed source; this is about
> closed source applications being available on GNU/Linux.

Indeed.
But for those who don't want any closed source 'tainting' their Linux
installation, there's Trisquel:

"Trisquel is a fully free (as in "free speech", not merely as in "free of charge")
GNU/Linux based operating system. It is derived from Ubuntu, but
includes only free software that does not compromise on user freedom."

http://trisquel.info/