What Linux means to me.

[Incubus]

No viruses.
No trojans.
No malware.
No re-install every week.
No slowdowns over time.
No hacks.
memory being used up by virus scanners.
No cost.
No headaches.

I love Linux.
Linux loves me.

[Snit]

Incubus stated in post h8x46sjd2mcb.d...@40tude.net on 12/12/11
9:02 PM:

I get all of that with OS X *plus* an environment that focuses on
productivity and error reduction *and* a whole host of applications not
available on desktop Linux. But it is more expensive.

--
"It's legal. What more advocating need be done?" -cc

[candt$]

On 13/12/11 06:12, Snit wrote:
> Incubus stated in post h8x46sjd2mcb.d...@40tude.net on 12/12/11
> 9:02 PM:
>
>> No viruses.
>> No trojans.
>> No malware.
>> No re-install every week.
>> No slowdowns over time.
>> No hacks.
>> memory being used up by virus scanners.
>> No cost.
>> No headaches.
>>
>> I love Linux.
>> Linux loves me.
>
> I get all of that with OS X *plus* an environment that focuses on
> productivity and error reduction *and* a whole host of applications not
> available on desktop Linux. But it is more expensive.

and OS X is non-free software (Free as in 'freedom')

--
ac

[Chris Ahlstrom]

candt$ wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

Pretty funny. I can install as many copies of Linux as I want to, on
workstations, servers, laptops, even small embedded computers.

I can do most anything I want with Linux, without becoming a money-slave
to a Market.

I still remember the old days, when the landscape was fraught with
"shareware", mostly without source code, and how much time it took to
track down a decent piece of software that wouldn't cost you $200+.

Linux, when I finally got into it, was a breath of fresh air.
From what I have heard, the OSX landscape is even more locked down
than Windows.

Not interested. Not in the least, especially since OSX went x86.

--
In love, she who gives her portrait promises the original.
-- Bruton

[Homer]

Verily I say unto thee that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:

> candt$ wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>> On 13/12/11 06:12, Snit wrote:
>>> Incubus stated in post h8x46sjd2mcb.d...@40tude.net on
>>> 12/12/11 9:02 PM:
>>>
>>>> No viruses.
>>>> No trojans.
>>>> No malware.
>>>> No re-install every week.
>>>> No slowdowns over time.
>>>> No hacks.
>>>> memory being used up by virus scanners.
>>>> No cost.
>>>> No headaches.
>>>>
>>>> I love Linux.
>>>> Linux loves me.
>>>
>>> I get all of that with OS X *plus* an environment that focuses on
>>> productivity

No, it "focuses" (i.e. forces without option) /Apple's/ concept of
"productivity" on its users who, having wasted a ridiculous amount of
money on this junk, then resort to making excuses for it (buyer's
remorse).

>>> and error reduction *and* a whole host of applications not available
>>> on desktop Linux.

Actually they are, they just have different "brand" names, but Apple
cultists are a collection of the most gullible, impressionable consumers
in society, and they've been utterly indoctrinated into the "brand"
religion.

>> But it is more expensive.
>>
>> and OS X is non-free software (Free as in 'freedom')

I could live with the cost, if there was anything there actually worth
paying for. I couldn't live with Apple's draconian restrictions, though.

> Pretty funny. I can install as many copies of Linux as I want to, on
> workstations, servers, laptops, even small embedded computers.

You can also access them from as many clients as you like, without
paying for weird and exploitative things like "Client Access Licenses"
(a la Microsoft). AFAICT that's the only thing MacOSX has going for it.

> I can do most anything I want with Linux, without becoming a
> money-slave to a Market.

It gives people autonomy and choice, something the "IP" industry finds
appalling, because they depend on a form of subjugation for revenue.

> I still remember the old days, when the landscape was fraught with
> "shareware", mostly without source code, and how much time it took to
> track down a decent piece of software that wouldn't cost you $200+.

In the academic, industrial and business communities it was mostly
bespoke software, much of which was never licensed because it was never
intended to be published. Later, in the emerging home computer market,
it was a mixture of explicitly licensed proprietary software and
something called "Public Domain", although the latter was a misnomer
because there were rarely any sources (it was basically just freeware,
not "public domain" in the truest sense). One of the better-known
examples of this "public domain" software was the Fred Fish PD
collection - a vast collection of freeware that grew for many years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Fish

Fred Fish is also notable for his work on the GNU Debugger, and his
somewhat eccentric lifestyle.

> Linux, when I finally got into it, was a breath of fresh air. From
> what I have heard, the OSX landscape is even more locked down than
> Windows.
>
> Not interested. Not in the least, especially since OSX went x86.

Yes, at least the classic Macs weren't part of the Intel problem - a
bloated and grossly inelegant architecture, that became dominant through
the same sort of dirty tricks and shady dealing that Microsoft practised
for decades. Now Apple's products are just part of the monopoly culture:
part of the problem, not the solution.

--
K. | "UNIX is basically a simple operating
http://slated.org | system, but you have to be a genius
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | to understand the simplicity"
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 204 days | ~ Dennis Ritchie

[William Poaster]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 06:22:41 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> candt$ wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 13/12/11 06:12, Snit wrote:
>>> Incubus stated in post h8x46sjd2mcb.d...@40tude.net on 12/12/11
>>> 9:02 PM:
>>>
>>>> No viruses.
>>>> No trojans.
>>>> No malware.
>>>> No re-install every week.
>>>> No slowdowns over time.
>>>> No hacks.
>>>> memory being used up by virus scanners.
>>>> No cost.
>>>> No headaches.
>>>>
>>>> I love Linux.
>>>> Linux loves me.
>>>
>>> I get all of that with OS X *plus* an environment that focuses on
>>> productivity and error reduction *and* a whole host of applications not
>>> available on desktop Linux. But it is more expensive.
>>
>> and OS X is non-free software (Free as in 'freedom')
>
> Pretty funny. I can install as many copies of Linux as I want to, on
> workstations, servers, laptops, even small embedded computers.

Yup, & you can't do that with OS X without having to pay more license fees.

> I can do most anything I want with Linux, without becoming a money-slave
> to a Market.
>
> I still remember the old days, when the landscape was fraught with
> "shareware", mostly without source code, and how much time it took to
> track down a decent piece of software that wouldn't cost you $200+.
>
> Linux, when I finally got into it, was a breath of fresh air.
> From what I have heard, the OSX landscape is even more locked down
> than Windows.
>
> Not interested. Not in the least, especially since OSX went x86.

And OS X *does* get malware:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/new-mac-os-x-malware-disables-apples-malware-protection/9665

[Snit]

candt$ stated in post 9kod7h...@mid.individual.net on 12/13/11 12:29 AM:

Well, it is partly free and partly not. But for most users this is
irrelevant.

--
"Spain thinks it's okay to have sex with 13 year olds, so they're advocating
child abuse." - cc

[Snit]

Chris Ahlstrom stated in post jc7chc$nne$3...@dont-email.me on 12/13/11 4:22
AM:

> candt$ wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 13/12/11 06:12, Snit wrote:
>>> Incubus stated in post h8x46sjd2mcb.d...@40tude.net on 12/12/11
>>> 9:02 PM:
>>>
>>>> No viruses.
>>>> No trojans.
>>>> No malware.
>>>> No re-install every week.
>>>> No slowdowns over time.
>>>> No hacks.
>>>> memory being used up by virus scanners.
>>>> No cost.
>>>> No headaches.
>>>>
>>>> I love Linux.
>>>> Linux loves me.
>>>
>>> I get all of that with OS X *plus* an environment that focuses on
>>> productivity and error reduction *and* a whole host of applications not
>>> available on desktop Linux. But it is more expensive.
>>
>> and OS X is non-free software (Free as in 'freedom')
>
> Pretty funny. I can install as many copies of Linux as I want to, on
> workstations, servers, laptops, even small embedded computers.
>
> I can do most anything I want with Linux, without becoming a money-slave
> to a Market.

So it is down to money. Right.

And there Apple gives OS X a very open license to install it on all of your
own machines for one price... a pretty darn low price.

> I still remember the old days, when the landscape was fraught with
> "shareware", mostly without source code, and how much time it took to
> track down a decent piece of software that wouldn't cost you $200+.
>
> Linux, when I finally got into it, was a breath of fresh air.
> From what I have heard, the OSX landscape is even more locked down
> than Windows.
>
> Not interested. Not in the least, especially since OSX went x86.

As I have noted: if your focus is cost and licensing and not productivity or
error reduction then Linux is appealing.

--
"I find prostitution repulsive, therefore I think it should be illegal." -cc

[Snit]

Homer stated in post frtjr8-...@sky.matrix on 12/13/11 5:42 AM:

> Verily I say unto thee that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>> candt$ wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>> On 13/12/11 06:12, Snit wrote:
>>>> Incubus stated in post h8x46sjd2mcb.d...@40tude.net on
>>>> 12/12/11 9:02 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> No viruses.
>>>>> No trojans.
>>>>> No malware.
>>>>> No re-install every week.
>>>>> No slowdowns over time.
>>>>> No hacks.
>>>>> memory being used up by virus scanners.
>>>>> No cost.
>>>>> No headaches.
>>>>>
>>>>> I love Linux.
>>>>> Linux loves me.
>>>>
>>>> I get all of that with OS X *plus* an environment that focuses on
>>>> productivity
>
> No, it "focuses" (i.e. forces without option) /Apple's/ concept of
> "productivity" on its users who, having wasted a ridiculous amount of
> money on this junk, then resort to making excuses for it (buyer's
> remorse).

Good attempt to refute a point you clearly have no understanding of!

But, still, you show no understanding. Oh well.

>>>> and error reduction *and* a whole host of applications not available
>>>> on desktop Linux.
>
> Actually they are, they just have different "brand" names, but Apple
> cultists are a collection of the most gullible, impressionable consumers
> in society, and they've been utterly indoctrinated into the "brand"
> religion.

And here we have Homer, one of the most cult-influenced people I have ever
seen, thinking others are like him. Oh well.

>>> But it is more expensive.
>>>
>>> and OS X is non-free software (Free as in 'freedom')
>
> I could live with the cost, if there was anything there actually worth
> paying for. I couldn't live with Apple's draconian restrictions, though.

Such as...???

And, of course, if you do not like OS X do not use it. No problem to me!

But you know nothing about it... it shows as you write about it. For
example, while I can understand not likely OS X's lack of options (in
comparison to desktop Linux), you show no understanding of the focus on
productivity and error reduction. None. You are completely clueless about
the competition.

>> Pretty funny. I can install as many copies of Linux as I want to, on
>> workstations, servers, laptops, even small embedded computers.
>
> You can also access them from as many clients as you like, without
> paying for weird and exploitative things like "Client Access Licenses"
> (a la Microsoft). AFAICT that's the only thing MacOSX has going for it.

Price and license... the reasons you like desktop Linux. I have no problem
with that.

I focus on productivity and error reduction. Different focuses and they
lead to different ideas of what is "best". Makes complete sense to me.

>> I can do most anything I want with Linux, without becoming a
>> money-slave to a Market.
>
> It gives people autonomy and choice, something the "IP" industry finds
> appalling, because they depend on a form of subjugation for revenue.

Most of the software on desktop Linux, and Linux itself, are protected by an
IP license: the GPL. It does *nothing* other than define how IP can be
used. Nothing.

>> I still remember the old days, when the landscape was fraught with
>> "shareware", mostly without source code, and how much time it took to
>> track down a decent piece of software that wouldn't cost you $200+.
>
> In the academic, industrial and business communities it was mostly
> bespoke software, much of which was never licensed because it was never
> intended to be published. Later, in the emerging home computer market,
> it was a mixture of explicitly licensed proprietary software and
> something called "Public Domain", although the latter was a misnomer
> because there were rarely any sources (it was basically just freeware,
> not "public domain" in the truest sense). One of the better-known
> examples of this "public domain" software was the Fred Fish PD
> collection - a vast collection of freeware that grew for many years.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Fish
>
> Fred Fish is also notable for his work on the GNU Debugger, and his
> somewhat eccentric lifestyle.
>
>> Linux, when I finally got into it, was a breath of fresh air. From
>> what I have heard, the OSX landscape is even more locked down than
>> Windows.
>>
>> Not interested. Not in the least, especially since OSX went x86.
>
> Yes, at least the classic Macs weren't part of the Intel problem - a
> bloated and grossly inelegant architecture, that became dominant through
> the same sort of dirty tricks and shady dealing that Microsoft practised
> for decades. Now Apple's products are just part of the monopoly culture:
> part of the problem, not the solution.

Most desktop Linux machines run on hardware with Intel CPUs. Amazingly how
lost you are.

Hey, any news on the great clipboard manager, VIM? LOL!

[Snit]

William Poaster stated in post
pan.2011.12.13....@devnull.home.org on 12/13/11 5:03 AM:

> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 06:22:41 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> candt$ wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On 13/12/11 06:12, Snit wrote:
>>>> Incubus stated in post h8x46sjd2mcb.d...@40tude.net on 12/12/11
>>>> 9:02 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> No viruses.
>>>>> No trojans.
>>>>> No malware.
>>>>> No re-install every week.
>>>>> No slowdowns over time.
>>>>> No hacks.
>>>>> memory being used up by virus scanners.
>>>>> No cost.
>>>>> No headaches.
>>>>>
>>>>> I love Linux.
>>>>> Linux loves me.
>>>>
>>>> I get all of that with OS X *plus* an environment that focuses on
>>>> productivity and error reduction *and* a whole host of applications not
>>>> available on desktop Linux. But it is more expensive.
>>>
>>> and OS X is non-free software (Free as in 'freedom')
>>
>> Pretty funny. I can install as many copies of Linux as I want to, on
>> workstations, servers, laptops, even small embedded computers.
>
> Yup, & you can't do that with OS X without having to pay more license fees.

I installed Lion on multiple machines without having to pay more license
fees.

In any case: if your focus is on cost and license, then desktop Linux is
very appealing. I get that. My focus is on productivity and
error-reduction... where the desktop Linux environment is still pretty far
behind.

>> I can do most anything I want with Linux, without becoming a money-slave
>> to a Market.
>>
>> I still remember the old days, when the landscape was fraught with
>> "shareware", mostly without source code, and how much time it took to
>> track down a decent piece of software that wouldn't cost you $200+.
>>
>> Linux, when I finally got into it, was a breath of fresh air.
>> From what I have heard, the OSX landscape is even more locked down
>> than Windows.
>>
>> Not interested. Not in the least, especially since OSX went x86.
>
> And OS X *does* get malware:
> http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/new-mac-os-x-malware-disables-apples-malwar
> e-protection/9665

Any OS *can*. The risk on OS X is very, very low... much like on desktop
Linux.

[Frank The Wank]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 06:22:41 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Pretty funny. I can install as many copies of Linux as I want to, on
> workstations, servers, laptops, even small embedded computers.

The real question is why?

> I can do most anything I want with Linux, without becoming a money-slave
> to a Market.

Yea you become a slave to wasted time instead.
Linux is only free when your time has no value.

> I still remember the old days, when the landscape was fraught with
> "shareware", mostly without source code, and how much time it took to
> track down a decent piece of software that wouldn't cost you $200+.

So?
Now you get to do the same with Linux.
Track down decent software that works as well as Windows or OSX
programs do.

> Linux, when I finally got into it, was a breath of fresh air.

Yet you earn your living with Windows.
How did you let that happen?

> From what I have heard, the OSX landscape is even more locked down
> than Windows.

Probably.
Who cares?
Obviously the average user doesn't give a hoot.

> Not interested. Not in the least, especially since OSX went x86.

Of course not.
You would rather tinker with Linux.
If you ran OSX you might have to actually use applications instead
of tinkering with the CLI, scripts to make keyboards work and so
forth.
You would be bored.

[Hadron]

Frank The Wank <ricke...@hotmail.org> writes:

> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 06:22:41 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Pretty funny. I can install as many copies of Linux as I want to, on
>> workstations, servers, laptops, even small embedded computers.
>
> The real question is why?
>
>> I can do most anything I want with Linux, without becoming a money-slave
>> to a Market.
>
> Yea you become a slave to wasted time instead.
> Linux is only free when your time has no value.
>
>> I still remember the old days, when the landscape was fraught with
>> "shareware", mostly without source code, and how much time it took to
>> track down a decent piece of software that wouldn't cost you $200+.
>
> So?
> Now you get to do the same with Linux.
> Track down decent software that works as well as Windows or OSX
> programs do.

Ask Creepy Chris what his company charges their customers for their
Windows programs.

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2011-12-13, Frank The Wank <ricke...@hotmail.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 06:22:41 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>
>> Pretty funny. I can install as many copies of Linux as I want to, on
>> workstations, servers, laptops, even small embedded computers.
>
> The real question is why?

A better way to install and maintain software.
No need to download something called "Shark007" from a website that is
a minefield of spam and links to stuff I don't want.
Better flexibility built in.
No nonsense limitations when dealing with other OSes or versions.
Fewer strange requirements when getting my data from point A to point B

Not needing to pay for stupid little things that should be built in.
Not being stuck with bogus limitations that eventually mean running
"Linux software" anyways.
Having more visibility and transparency in the system and more control.

I don't want to replace every machine and peripheral in my house just to
deal with the current flavor of the month. (Win7, iPad, whatever)

>
>> I can do most anything I want with Linux, without becoming a money-slave
>> to a Market.
>
> Yea you become a slave to wasted time instead.

You really need to come up with something less lame and tired that.

[deletia]

--
vi isn't easy to use. |||
/ | \
vi is easy to REPLACE.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

JEDIDIAH wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2011-12-13, Frank The Wank <ricke...@hotmail.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 06:22:41 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Pretty funny. I can install as many copies of Linux as I want to, on
>>> workstations, servers, laptops, even small embedded computers.
>>
>> The real question is why?
>
> A better way to install and maintain software.
> No need to download something called "Shark007" from a website that is
> a minefield of spam and links to stuff I don't want.
> Better flexibility built in.
> No nonsense limitations when dealing with other OSes or versions.
> Fewer strange requirements when getting my data from point A to point B
> Not needing to pay for stupid little things that should be built in.
> Not being stuck with bogus limitations that eventually mean running
> "Linux software" anyways.
> Having more visibility and transparency in the system and more control.
> I don't want to replace every machine and peripheral in my house just to
> deal with the current flavor of the month. (Win7, iPad, whatever)

And, of course, because I need more than one computer.

>>> I can do most anything I want with Linux, without becoming a money-slave
>>> to a Market.
>>
>> Yea you become a slave to wasted time instead.
>
> You really need to come up with something less lame and tired that.

Yup. As if Windows did not make you become a slave to wasted time!

--
Nice try Gobbler.
But he isn't "defensive" - he has merely pointed out that you're a lying
hypocritical sack of shit when you claim you dont hate MS. You
constantly post anti-ms bullshit regardless of the source credibility.
How's Linphone coming along? Figured out that IPs in the range
192.168.0 etc are local LAN? *chuckle*.
--
Simon
-- "Hadron" <vmpqnhc...@news.eternal-september.org>

[Norlad Dieport]

We all know that OSX for for idiots who cant figure out computers.

[Norlad Dieport]

On Tuesday, December 13, 2011 9:38:13 AM UTC-5, Snit wrote:

I'm sure most users want a secure computer

[Norlad Dieport]

You forgot:

No mental retardation
No damned capitalism
No idiots using IE

[Snit]

Norlad Dieport stated in post
18302011.189.1323798808301.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqiv14 on 12/13/11
10:53 AM:

Not in contention.

[Snit]

Norlad Dieport stated in post

10951900.3.1323798762030.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqfm20 on 12/13/11
10:52 AM:

I love the twist there - an acknowledgement that OS X makes it easier for
users - easier to be productive and get work done... it provides an
environment where you can better focus on the work - and you twist that to
be a *bad* thing.

Too funny!

--
"Stallman thinks it's okay to have sex with 15 year olds (even
though there's no evidence he's done so himself), so he's

[GreyCloud]

It is really odd that these guys haven't followed what Apple had done
for them in regards to helping the open source people in paying to
improve things like gcc and the likes. Now there is llvm as a front end
to gcc that speeds things up even more and have paid these same people
to develop it and pass it on to linux. That's what you call biting the
hand that feeds you. :-))


--
"If they can make you believe absurdities they can make you commit
atrocities."
by Voltaire

[Snit]

GreyCloud stated in post EYadnYmh2K1PrHTT...@bresnan.com on
12/14/11 4:31 PM:

Apple has spread open source more than all desktop Linux distros *combined*.
And still the herd whines.


--
🙈🙉🙊

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2011-12-14, GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
> On 12/13/11 7:45 AM, Snit wrote:
>> Homer stated in post frtjr8-...@sky.matrix on 12/13/11 5:42 AM:
>>
>>> Verily I say unto thee that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>>>> candt$ wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>> On 13/12/11 06:12, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> Incubus stated in post h8x46sjd2mcb.d...@40tude.net on
>>>>>> 12/12/11 9:02 PM:

[deletia]

>>
>> Most desktop Linux machines run on hardware with Intel CPUs. Amazingly how
>> lost you are.
>>
>> Hey, any news on the great clipboard manager, VIM? LOL!
>>
>
> It is really odd that these guys haven't followed what Apple had done
> for them in regards to helping the open source people in paying to
> improve things like gcc and the likes. Now there is llvm as a front end
> to gcc that speeds things up even more and have paid these same people
> to develop it and pass it on to linux. That's what you call biting the
> hand that feeds you. :-))

I thought LLVM was more of a BSDl "alternative" to gcc that avoids
needing something with the GPL at the core of the Apple toolchain.



--
Unfortunately, the universe will not conform itself to
your fantasies. You have to manage based on what really happens |||
rather than what you would like to happen. This is true of personal / | \
affairs, government and business.

[Homer]

Verily I say unto thee that JEDIDIAH spake thusly:

> On 2011-12-14, GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>> On 12/13/11 7:45 AM, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey, any news on the great clipboard manager, VIM? LOL!

Idiot.

I said I could /also/ use vim in the capacity of a clipboard manager,
and indeed do so with far greater flexibility than any of the supposed
"killa appz" clipboard managers you tried to sell me. I didn't say it
/was/ a clipboard manager. You were the one who claimed Mac OSX could do
something that, upon closer scrutiny, it turns out it can't, but Vim
can. I need function, not "brands". I need tools, not toys. I don't care
if it's called "clipboard manager" or Mary, as long as it actually
provides me with the capabilities I need. Mac OS X doesn't. Period.

Now please go back to school and learn basic English comprehension.

>> It is really odd that these guys haven't followed what Apple had done
>> for them in regards to helping the open source people in paying to
>> improve things like gcc and the likes. Now there is llvm as a front end
>> to gcc that speeds things up even more and have paid these same people
>> to develop it and pass it on to linux. That's what you call biting the
>> hand that feeds you. :-))
>
> I thought LLVM was more of a BSDl "alternative" to gcc that avoids
> needing something with the GPL at the core of the Apple toolchain.

[quote]
Why are the LLVM source code and the front-end distributed under
different licenses?

The C/C++ front-ends are based on GCC and must be distributed under the
GPL. Our aim is to distribute LLVM source code under a much less
restrictive license, in particular one that does not compel users who
distribute tools based on modifying the source to redistribute the
modified source code as well.
[/quote]

"Less restrictive" than the GPL?

LOL! Since when did freedom become a "restriction"?

Translation: "we want to be able to impose greater restrictions than the
GPL allows".

And yet they had no qualms leeching from Free Software, without which
they'd have nothing.

Hypocrites.

--
K. | "UNIX is basically a simple operating
http://slated.org | system, but you have to be a genius
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | to understand the simplicity"

kernel 2.6.31.5, up 206 days | ~ Dennis Ritchie

[Homer]

Verily I say unto thee that Homer spake thusly:

> Verily I say unto thee that JEDIDIAH spake thusly:
>>

>> I thought LLVM was more of a BSDl "alternative" to gcc that avoids
>> needing something with the GPL at the core of the Apple toolchain.
>
> [quote]
> Why are the LLVM source code and the front-end distributed under
> different licenses?
>
> The C/C++ front-ends are based on GCC and must be distributed under the
> GPL. Our aim is to distribute LLVM source code under a much less
> restrictive license, in particular one that does not compel users who
> distribute tools based on modifying the source to redistribute the
> modified source code as well.
> [/quote]

http://llvm.org/docs/FAQ.html#license

[chrisv]

GreyCloud wrote:

>It is really odd that these guys haven't followed what Apple had done
>for them in regards to helping the open source people in paying to
>improve things like gcc and the likes.

They have given no more than they must, and have taken as much as they
can.

That's OK, as long as they respect the license(s), but don't pretend
that they have been particularly benevolent.

>Now there is llvm as a front end
>to gcc that speeds things up even more and have paid these same people
>to develop it and pass it on to linux. That's what you call biting the
>hand that feeds you. :-))

"Biting the hand that feeds us" is a very poor characterization of
what is happening.

Apple is no friend of Freedom, by a *long* shot.

[Snit]

Homer stated in post t4ipr8-...@sky.matrix on 12/15/11 8:59 AM:

> Verily I say unto thee that JEDIDIAH spake thusly:
>> On 2011-12-14, GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/13/11 7:45 AM, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hey, any news on the great clipboard manager, VIM? LOL!
>
> Idiot.
>
> I said I could /also/ use vim in the capacity of a clipboard manager,
> and indeed do so with far greater flexibility than any of the supposed
> "killa appz" clipboard managers you tried to sell me.

VIM is *not* a clipboard manager and cannot do what *any* of the clipboard
managers I showed you can do.

> I didn't say it /was/ a clipboard manager.

In a conversation about clipboard managers you talked about VIM and how it
was a great one. You showed how amazingly ignorant you are about clipboard
managers and VIM.

Snit:
-----
Perhaps when you want to collect a bunch of clips at once,
and then redistribute them to other applications.
-----
Homer:
-----
Meh, I'd rather use Vim viewports. That way I can not only
see all the junk I'm collecting, but edit, save and
spell-check it too, if I want to. What clipboard manager can
do that?
-----

But VIM does not do what was being discussed - share the clipboard
management with other applications. I, like MS Office and other
applications, has its own internal clipboard management, but it is *not* a
system clipboard manager (or a network one, which many are).

Then you went on about how you want to be able to see, edit, and spell check
and asked what clipboard manager does that. I let you know many do. And
you kept running back to VIM. In a discussion on clipboard managers.

> You were the one who claimed Mac OSX could do something that, upon closer
> scrutiny, it turns out it can't, but Vim can.

Quote.

Oh. You have none.

> I need function, not "brands". I need tools, not toys. I don't care if it's
> called "clipboard manager" or Mary, as long as it actually provides me with
> the capabilities I need. Mac OS X doesn't. Period.
>
> Now please go back to school and learn basic English comprehension.

The only one who focused on a specific tool was you: and that tool was VIM,
and it is *not* a clipboard manager and does not offer the capabilities of a
clipboard manager.

VIM does, however, run on OS X. You claim VIM does things OS X does not,
but VIM is *also* not an OS. VIM is an application... and it runs on Linux
and OS X.

But you are just lost. You have no idea what you are talking about so you
babble about "brands" and "tools" and "toys" to dodge the fact that as far
as you know, at least, Linux has nothing to compare with the OS X clipboard
managers I pointed you to.

Note: this does not mean Linux does not - I am just pointing out your
ignorance.

>>> It is really odd that these guys haven't followed what Apple had done
>>> for them in regards to helping the open source people in paying to
>>> improve things like gcc and the likes. Now there is llvm as a front end
>>> to gcc that speeds things up even more and have paid these same people
>>> to develop it and pass it on to linux. That's what you call biting the
>>> hand that feeds you. :-))
>>
>> I thought LLVM was more of a BSDl "alternative" to gcc that avoids
>> needing something with the GPL at the core of the Apple toolchain.
>
> [quote]
> Why are the LLVM source code and the front-end distributed under
> different licenses?
>
> The C/C++ front-ends are based on GCC and must be distributed under the
> GPL. Our aim is to distribute LLVM source code under a much less
> restrictive license, in particular one that does not compel users who
> distribute tools based on modifying the source to redistribute the
> modified source code as well.
> [/quote]
>
> "Less restrictive" than the GPL?
>
> LOL! Since when did freedom become a "restriction"?
>
> Translation: "we want to be able to impose greater restrictions than the
> GPL allows".
>
> And yet they had no qualms leeching from Free Software, without which
> they'd have nothing.
>
> Hypocrites.

Linus Torvalds:
-----
So complaining about the fact that Microsoft picked a selfish area
to work on is just silly. Of course they picked an area that helps
them. That’s the point of open source – the ability to make the code
better for your particular needs, whoever the ‘your’ in question
happens to be.
-----

The idea of being a "leecher" is a part of the open source community.
Really, Homer, do you know *anything* about the open source ecosystem?

--
🙈🙉🙊

[GreyCloud]

On 12/15/11 8:22 AM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2011-12-14, GreyCloud<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>> On 12/13/11 7:45 AM, Snit wrote:
>>> Homer stated in post frtjr8-...@sky.matrix on 12/13/11 5:42 AM:
>>>
>>>> Verily I say unto thee that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>>>>> candt$ wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>> On 13/12/11 06:12, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>> Incubus stated in post h8x46sjd2mcb.d...@40tude.net on
>>>>>>> 12/12/11 9:02 PM:
> [deletia]
>>>
>>> Most desktop Linux machines run on hardware with Intel CPUs. Amazingly how
>>> lost you are.
>>>
>>> Hey, any news on the great clipboard manager, VIM? LOL!
>>>
>>
>> It is really odd that these guys haven't followed what Apple had done
>> for them in regards to helping the open source people in paying to
>> improve things like gcc and the likes. Now there is llvm as a front end
>> to gcc that speeds things up even more and have paid these same people
>> to develop it and pass it on to linux. That's what you call biting the
>> hand that feeds you. :-))
>
> I thought LLVM was more of a BSDl "alternative" to gcc that avoids
> needing something with the GPL at the core of the Apple toolchain.
>
>
>

Nope. It is just a front-end for gcc. But Apple paid for its further
development... and it still has a few bugs in it, according to the Xcode
mailing list I get. Some developers have stayed with Xcode 3 and won't
move to Lion till enough problems have been removed. One developer
actually complained that it has moved his project back by 6 months due
to the problems.

The thing is, open source groups benefit by this paid research.

[GreyCloud]

Then maybe they should make llvm a licensed product.
But for me, I have already tried llvm and it is still too buggy yet.
I won't even move to Lion or Xcode 4. Too many problems. But I will
soon be leaving this iMac to my wife and get a custom built PC. I
really don't like Objective-C or Cocoa Apis.