Many GU/Linux Options Remain for Older Machines
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
5 of the best lightweight window managers for Linux
,----[ Quote ]
| If you do a lot of work on a Linux computer, continuously
| switching between many windows, the right window manager can
| make you much faster and more productive than an extra 2GB of RAM.
`----
http://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/5-of-the-best-lightweight-window-managers-for-linux-972570
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4SvKAACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4DCQCghtMeQj+k0ZploFg5yzB14wsf
C5gAoJ0j/tAZJdMP4Ndg5nTHDuBjes44
=SANC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Snit
12:26 AM:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> 5 of the best lightweight window managers for Linux
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | If you do a lot of work on a Linux computer, continuously
> | switching between many windows, the right window manager can
> | make you much faster and more productive than an extra 2GB of RAM.
> `----
A well designed UI can make a *lot* of difference. This is one of the
reasons why having multiple UIs - and many programs which do not follow the
guides well even on the basics - is a detriment to desktop Linux.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Snit on Tuesday 05 Jul 2011 16:59 : \____
Why do you care? If you dislike Linux, why roam here?
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): sches...@ekiga.net (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4TSiQACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6upACZAVNYDzJM8DN9ekSAiWxFMvIT
0KEAn20/2jZ4OpkFpJ3ywmQnjbDWFson
=UKUu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Snit
10:30 AM:
>> Roy Schestowitz stated in post 2023387.P...@schestowitz.com on 7/5/11
>> 12:26 AM:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> 5 of the best lightweight window managers for Linux
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | If you do a lot of work on a Linux computer, continuously
>>> | switching between many windows, the right window manager can
>>> | make you much faster and more productive than an extra 2GB of RAM.
>>> `----
>>
>> A well designed UI can make a *lot* of difference. This is one of the
>> reasons why having multiple UIs - and many programs which do not follow the
>> guides well even on the basics - is a detriment to desktop Linux.
>
> Why do you care?
Because Linux is amazing and many of the projects based on it are
incredible. I would love to see Linux on the desktop gain quality and
growth.
> If you dislike Linux, why roam here?
I do not dislike Linux.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Snit on Tuesday 05 Jul 2011 19:48 : \____
You spell a lot of time discrediting it and its proponents.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): sches...@ekiga.net (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4T52gACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5gnQCgjDe8KxP4/Tw5S/dbsIOcX9Zw
3G4AoLC2QgzVria3KtskAE5dhvdAx5JI
=P5Yi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
JeffM
>http://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/5-of-the-best-lightweight-window-managers-for-linux-972570
>
:we gave precedence to lesser known window managers
:[...]excellent products like Xfce aren't present
:
...so, not THE best. 8-)
Page 1: E16, Openbox, and Window Maker.
Rather extensive article--but you forgot to mention
http://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/5-of-the-best-lightweight-window-managers-for-linux-972570?artc_pg=2
(Fvwm and RatPoison)
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ JeffM on Wednesday 06 Jul 2011 06:26 : \____
Have you posted this as a comment to the author?
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): sches...@ekiga.net (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4T/1IACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7ZeQCgj5Q/UWtA5AnvdO6A0DWCstIz
EPsAoKdQ4QKuUKoBrePNqmfZ45eUpQQs
=mfsA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Snit
9:41 PM:
I discredit the idea that the status quo is ideal and that the low user base
is because of almost exclusively external things. This is not only not
true, it is poor advocacy - it is dishonest. Desktop Linux offers some
amazing things, esp. given its lack of price - but some in COLA pretend it
is in the same league as other more common desktop solutions and would work
as well for the general user - and there is simply no evidence for that.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Snit on Wednesday 06 Jul 2011 13:42 : \____
I think you should find another hobby. What you do here is akin to
infiltrating religious forums to tell people in there that they are
idiots. you're not going to achieve anything.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): sches...@ekiga.net (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4UYJgACgkQU4xAY3RXLo477QCdExaz8imL9CnBIqSLJ3cPG/2v
3EsAn0HQwdIUhFYYm71xTbcUGyeQwySv
=cBMG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Snit
6:18 AM:
>>>>>> A well designed UI can make a *lot* of difference. This is one of the
>>>>>> reasons why having multiple UIs - and many programs which do not follow
>>>>>> the guides well even on the basics - is a detriment to desktop Linux.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you care?
>>>>
>>>> Because Linux is amazing and many of the projects based on it are
>>>> incredible. I would love to see Linux on the desktop gain quality and
>>>> growth.
>>>>
>>>>> If you dislike Linux, why roam here?
>>>>
>>>> I do not dislike Linux.
>>>
>>> You spell a lot of time discrediting it and its proponents.
>>
>> I discredit the idea that the status quo is ideal and that the low user base
>> is because of almost exclusively external things. This is not only not
>> true, it is poor advocacy - it is dishonest. Desktop Linux offers some
>> amazing things, esp. given its lack of price - but some in COLA pretend it
>> is in the same league as other more common desktop solutions and would work
>> as well for the general user - and there is simply no evidence for that.
>
> I think you should find another hobby. What you do here is akin to
> infiltrating religious forums to tell people in there that they are
> idiots. you're not going to achieve anything.
What is it you hope to achieve?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
6:18 AM:
>>>> Because Linux is amazing and many of the projects based on it are
>>>> incredible. I would love to see Linux on the desktop gain quality and
>>>> growth.
>>>>
>>>>> If you dislike Linux, why roam here?
>>>>
>>>> I do not dislike Linux.
>>>
>>> You spell a lot of time discrediting it and its proponents.
>>
>> I discredit the idea that the status quo is ideal and that the low user base
>> is because of almost exclusively external things. This is not only not
>> true, it is poor advocacy - it is dishonest. Desktop Linux offers some
>> amazing things, esp. given its lack of price - but some in COLA pretend it
>> is in the same league as other more common desktop solutions and would work
>> as well for the general user - and there is simply no evidence for that.
>
> I think you should find another hobby. What you do here is akin to
> infiltrating religious forums to tell people in there that they are
> idiots. you're not going to achieve anything.
Interesting you would equate the "advocates" with those who believe things
on religious (faith-based) grounds. Quite apt, I think.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Snit on Wednesday 06 Jul 2011 14:48 : \____
You can reverse the analogy to mean, "religious fanatic coming to atheistic forums
(to be mocked and disrupt)." I instead chose an analogy you can better relate to.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): sches...@ekiga.net (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4UdgIACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7vIwCfb111ahim4fsgi023R/YXiNnE
0roAoJ/JP0zv/4/reWPWaBlA2X2oelNQ
=7/+f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Snit on Wednesday 06 Jul 2011 14:48 : \____
I like a platform and development paradigm. I want it to become more widespread. What
*you* try to achieve seems to be nothing by annoyance to others, in the wrong forum, too.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): sches...@ekiga.net (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4UdmIACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4CeACfSMfZcR9r6pGc3xsEi2HB2guA
7DsAn39seOXceXqPrv1VR/k9dqOzbgsd
=E29b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Snit
7:49 AM:
>>>>>> Because Linux is amazing and many of the projects based on it are
>>>>>> incredible. I would love to see Linux on the desktop gain quality and
>>>>>> growth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you dislike Linux, why roam here?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not dislike Linux.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You spell a lot of time discrediting it and its proponents.
>>>>>
>>>> I discredit the idea that the status quo is ideal and that the low user
>>>> base is because of almost exclusively external things. This is not only
>>>> not true, it is poor advocacy - it is dishonest. Desktop Linux offers some
>>>> amazing things, esp. given its lack of price - but some in COLA pretend it
>>>> is in the same league as other more common desktop solutions and would work
>>>> as well for the general user - and there is simply no evidence for that.
>>>>
>>> I think you should find another hobby. What you do here is akin to
>>> infiltrating religious forums to tell people in there that they are idiots.
>>> you're not going to achieve anything.
>>
>> Interesting you would equate the "advocates" with those who believe things
>> on religious (faith-based) grounds. Quite apt, I think.
>
> You can reverse the analogy to mean, "religious fanatic coming to atheistic
> forums (to be mocked and disrupt)." I instead chose an analogy you can better
> relate to.
I am here, largely, to promote better and more honest Linux advocacy. I see
this as a fine forum for doing so.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
7:51 AM:
>>>>>>> Why do you care?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because Linux is amazing and many of the projects based on it are
>>>>>> incredible. I would love to see Linux on the desktop gain quality and
>>>>>> growth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you dislike Linux, why roam here?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not dislike Linux.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You spell a lot of time discrediting it and its proponents.
>>>>>
>>>> I discredit the idea that the status quo is ideal and that the low user
>>>> base is because of almost exclusively external things. This is not only
>>>> not true, it is poor advocacy - it is dishonest. Desktop Linux offers some
>>>> amazing things, esp. given its lack of price - but some in COLA pretend it
>>>> is in the same league as other more common desktop solutions and would work
>>>> as well for the general user - and there is simply no evidence for that.
>>>>
>>> I think you should find another hobby. What you do here is akin to
>>> infiltrating religious forums to tell people in there that they are idiots.
>>> you're not going to achieve anything.
>>>
>> What is it you hope to achieve?
>>
> I like a platform and development paradigm. I want it to become more
> widespread.
Ditto here.
> What *you* try to achieve seems to be nothing by annoyance to
> others, in the wrong forum, too.
How so? I encourage *honest* advocacy of Linux. I do not walk in lock-step
with those who lie about Linux in a misguided attempt of "advocacy". Few of
the "advocates" are really here to advocate Linux - though some are, such as
An Old Friend. He is likely the best Linux advocate in COLA (and I include
myself in that assessment). And while I am often accused of teaming up with
Hadron, please note the two of them are clearly at odds with one another.
This does not imply I am taking sides with either of them in their debates.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JeffM
>>>http://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/5-of-the-best-lightweight-window-managers-for-linux-972570
>>>
>>:we gave precedence to lesser known window managers
>>:[...]excellent products like Xfce aren't present
>>:
>>...so, not THE best. 8-)
>>
>>Page 1: E16, Openbox, and Window Maker.
>>
>>Rather extensive article--but you forgot to mention
>>http://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/5-of-the-best-lightweight-window-managers-for-linux-972570?artc_pg=2
>>(Fvwm and RatPoison)
>>
>Have you posted this as a comment to the author?
>
who might want to read the article
but who, as I did, deprecated the *of* in the article's title,
giving different expectations to the contents.
As mentioned, the article is pretty extensive
so breaking it over 2 pages--while not my preference--
should, I guess, be expected for these sorts of things.
Consumers beware of erroneous preconceptions.
Homer
> Rather extensive article--but you forgot to mention
> http://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/5-of-the-best-lightweight-window-managers-for-linux-972570?artc_pg=2
> (Fvwm and RatPoison)
They also forgot to mention Awesome, and incorrectly described
Enlightenment as being licensed under the GPL (it's BSD).
http://awesome.naquadah.org
http://sourceforge.net/projects/enlightenment
--
K. | Thy name
http://slated.org | Shalt not
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | Take the vein
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 44 days | Of my root
Snit
> Verily I say unto thee, that JeffM spake thusly:
>
>> Rather extensive article--but you forgot to mention
>> http://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/5-of-the-best-lightweight
>> -window-managers-for-linux-972570?artc_pg=2
>> (Fvwm and RatPoison)
>
> They also forgot to mention Awesome, and incorrectly described
> Enlightenment as being licensed under the GPL (it's BSD).
>
> http://awesome.naquadah.org
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/enlightenment
Can't you relicense a BSD project to the GPL and then release it? I think
so... the BSD license allows users a lot more freedom.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
TomB
> Verily I say unto thee, that JeffM spake thusly:
>
>> Rather extensive article--but you forgot to mention
>> http://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/5-of-the-best-lightweight-window-managers-for-linux-972570?artc_pg=2
>> (Fvwm and RatPoison)
>
> They also forgot to mention Awesome, and incorrectly described
> Enlightenment as being licensed under the GPL (it's BSD).
>
> http://awesome.naquadah.org
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/enlightenment
Didn't read the article, but did they mention dwm and ion? Also two
great tiling window managers. And sure as hell they didn't mention twm
;-)
--
Maurice, potteke pis, potteke kak, almanak.
~ Urbanus
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ JeffM on Wednesday 06 Jul 2011 17:38 : \____
>>>Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>http://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/5-of-the-best-lightweight-window-managers-for-linux-972570
>>>>
>>JeffM wrote:
>>>:we gave precedence to lesser known window managers
>>>:[...]excellent products like Xfce aren't present
>>>:
>>>...so, not THE best. 8-)
>>>
>>>Page 1: E16, Openbox, and Window Maker.
>>>
>>>Rather extensive article--but you forgot to mention
>>>http://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/5-of-the-best-lightweight-window-managers-for-linux-972570?artc_pg=2
>>>(Fvwm and RatPoison)
>>>
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>Have you posted this as a comment to the author?
>>
> It was meant more as a caveat to others here
> who might want to read the article
> but who, as I did, deprecated the *of* in the article's title,
> giving different expectations to the contents.
It's a troll/provocation tacticsfor speaking to the opposition.
> As mentioned, the article is pretty extensive
> so breaking it over 2 pages--while not my preference--
> should, I guess, be expected for these sorts of things.
>
> Consumers beware of erroneous preconceptions.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): sches...@ekiga.net (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4Uu7UACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6PKgCfVUjcmAg7jPHL2IMHy3PicVfT
C+sAoJRlF+rtwn21KyI0O/ohfm+Pn2nE
=S3yJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ TomB on Wednesday 06 Jul 2011 19:56 : \____
What about Aero Glass? Is that still in alpha?
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): sches...@ekiga.net (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4Uu9gACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7KygCfXFyRlk0uEN1lItqVFoYf5wLo
JgcAnRLWgZQVhfAABcUNIcNqAUswAKCL
=hnCw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Snit on Wednesday 06 Jul 2011 19:12 : \____
Of action, not preserving freedom. Freedom of someone else can also be the freedom to suppress you.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): sches...@ekiga.net (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4UvA8ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4aUwCcCjax3ToN+6uYt+4YXuiBBvmj
P4UAoIATMI9LIEerCYFSz6KAb/U7PUeY
=+AFN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Snit on Wednesday 06 Jul 2011 16:24 : \____
Thanks for the concern, but no thanks. What are you, a coach?
> I see
> this as a fine forum for doing so.
It's not. It's about the *benefits* of Linux.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): sches...@ekiga.net (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4UvEMACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5mxgCeOD1Uh9QQsrfgRt24j2Yev5n7
BQ4AnjDYHcVsoMRaKE/23nWQWtazhO5R
=0ZtT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Snit on Wednesday 06 Jul 2011 16:28 : \____
Try spending time encouraging *honest* advocacy of iStuff. Lots more work to do *There*.
> I do not walk in lock-step
> with those who lie about Linux in a misguided attempt of "advocacy". Few of
> the "advocates" are really here to advocate Linux - though some are, such as
> An Old Friend. He is likely the best Linux advocate in COLA (and I include
> myself in that assessment). And while I am often accused of teaming up with
> Hadron, please note the two of them are clearly at odds with one another.
> This does not imply I am taking sides with either of them in their debates.
>
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): sches...@ekiga.net (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4UvHcACgkQU4xAY3RXLo51BgCglCJFjujqjb8HZyzM+nc2L/1p
k0YAnj+BTSkab8GWN78cHWr9sWsee17q
=BM1Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
chrisv
> Shit wrote:
>>
>> I am here, largely, to promote better and more honest Linux advocacy.
HAHAHHAA! Good one, Shit!
>Thanks for the concern, but no thanks. What are you, a coach?
No, he's just a stupid and serially-lying troll.
--
'But it seems you and many of the other "advocates" are against the
GUI.' - Shit
Snit
12:50 PM:
...
Not sure I follow. And why advocate Apple products in COLA? Sure,
sometimes there is a reasoned comparison, but seems this is not the right
forum for that. Still, if you feel the need I am OK with that - as long as
you are honest about it.
Oh, and I point out a lot of BS from the "advocates" in CSMA. Many (most?)
of them are out and out liars. Sandman, for example, is just a lying
scumbag. Carroll is worse. Tim Adams is a moron who cannot figure out the
most simple of things and just gloms onto trolls who will back him. On and
on.
>> I do not walk in lock-step
>> with those who lie about Linux in a misguided attempt of "advocacy". Few of
>> the "advocates" are really here to advocate Linux - though some are, such as
>> An Old Friend. He is likely the best Linux advocate in COLA (and I include
>> myself in that assessment). And while I am often accused of teaming up with
>> Hadron, please note the two of them are clearly at odds with one another.
>> This does not imply I am taking sides with either of them in their debates.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
12:49 PM:
...
>>>>>> I discredit the idea that the status quo is ideal and that the low user
>>>>>> base is because of almost exclusively external things. This is not only
>>>>>> not true, it is poor advocacy - it is dishonest. Desktop Linux offers
>>>>>> some amazing things, esp. given its lack of price - but some in COLA
>>>>>> pretend it is in the same league as other more common desktop solutions
>>>>>> and would work as well for the general user - and there is simply no
>>>>>> evidence for that.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think you should find another hobby. What you do here is akin to
>>>>> infiltrating religious forums to tell people in there that they are
>>>>> idiots.
>>>>> you're not going to achieve anything.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting you would equate the "advocates" with those who believe things
>>>> on religious (faith-based) grounds. Quite apt, I think.
>>>
>>> You can reverse the analogy to mean, "religious fanatic coming to atheistic
>>> forums (to be mocked and disrupt)." I instead chose an analogy you can
>>> better
>>> relate to.
>>
>> I am here, largely, to promote better and more honest Linux advocacy.
>
> Thanks for the concern, but no thanks. What are you, a coach?
A use of the word "coach" I am not familiar with perhaps?
And why would you not want the facts of claims in COLA checked? What do you
have to fear?
>> I see
>> this as a fine forum for doing so.
>
> It's not. It's about the *benefits* of Linux.
And if those claimed "benefits" are dishonest that is OK with you - it is
not a good forum for pointing out dishonest claims?
I disagree.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
12:48 PM:
>> Homer stated in post krkee8-...@sky.matrix on 7/6/11 11:07 AM:
>>
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that JeffM spake thusly:
>>>
>>>> Rather extensive article--but you forgot to mention
>>>> http://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/5-of-the-best-lightweig
>>>> ht
>>>> -window-managers-for-linux-972570?artc_pg=2
>>>> (Fvwm and RatPoison)
>>>
>>> They also forgot to mention Awesome, and incorrectly described
>>> Enlightenment as being licensed under the GPL (it's BSD).
>>>
>>> http://awesome.naquadah.org
>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/enlightenment
>>
>> Can't you relicense a BSD project to the GPL and then release it? I think
>> so... the BSD license allows users a lot more freedom.
>
> Of action, not preserving freedom. Freedom of someone else can also be the
> freedom to suppress you.
The BSD offers nothing that suppresses me! What a weird non sequitur.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
Jack Schofield pointed out that Roy ran off when asked for proof. Roy
and "proof" aren't exactly compatible.
Hadron
> ____/ Snit on Wednesday 06 Jul 2011 19:12 : \____
>
>> Homer stated in post krkee8-...@sky.matrix on 7/6/11 11:07 AM:
>>
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that JeffM spake thusly:
>>>
>>>> Rather extensive article--but you forgot to mention
>>>> http://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/5-of-the-best-lightweight
>>>> -window-managers-for-linux-972570?artc_pg=2
>>>> (Fvwm and RatPoison)
>>>
>>> They also forgot to mention Awesome, and incorrectly described
>>> Enlightenment as being licensed under the GPL (it's BSD).
>>>
>>> http://awesome.naquadah.org
>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/enlightenment
>>
>> Can't you relicense a BSD project to the GPL and then release it? I think
>> so... the BSD license allows users a lot more freedom.
>
> Of action, not preserving freedom. Freedom of someone else can also be the freedom to suppress you.
>
> --
> ~~ Best of wishes
>
> Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
> http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
> Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
> GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
> Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
> Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
> Contact Internet phone (SIP): sches...@ekiga.net (24/7)
>
That makes ZERO sense.
And set your signature delimiter properly you spamming cretin.
Snit
2:46 PM:
> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> writes:
>
>> ____/ Snit on Wednesday 06 Jul 2011 19:12 : \____
>>
>>> Homer stated in post krkee8-...@sky.matrix on 7/6/11 11:07 AM:
>>>
>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that JeffM spake thusly:
>>>>
>>>>> Rather extensive article--but you forgot to mention
>>>>> http://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/5-of-the-best-lightwei
>>>>> ght
>>>>> -window-managers-for-linux-972570?artc_pg=2
>>>>> (Fvwm and RatPoison)
>>>>
>>>> They also forgot to mention Awesome, and incorrectly described
>>>> Enlightenment as being licensed under the GPL (it's BSD).
>>>>
>>>> http://awesome.naquadah.org
>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/enlightenment
>>>
>>> Can't you relicense a BSD project to the GPL and then release it? I think
>>> so... the BSD license allows users a lot more freedom.
>>
>> Of action, not preserving freedom. Freedom of someone else can also be the
>> freedom to suppress you.
>
> That makes ZERO sense.
The BSD gives people more freedom - none of which limits the freedom of
anyone else - and this, in COLA, is seen as a bad thing.
Do not get me wrong, I think people should be able to control their IP in
many ways, and the GPL is a fine way... but to claim that more open licenses
are somehow limiting of freedom is bizarre doubletalk.
> And set your signature delimiter properly you spamming cretin.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2:45 PM:
I note I look to keep things honest in COLA... and this is seen as bad.
It is... odd.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Peter Köhlmann
To you
> And set your signature delimiter properly you spamming cretin.
It is fine, given that flatfish Gary Stewart tries to impersonate him.
He has to chose between signing his posts, which mangles the signature, or
have a signature but no signing.
Guess what is more important.
Your filthy friends would just love to impersonate him
Peter Köhlmann
>
> Jack Schofield pointed out that Roy ran off when asked for proof. Roy
> and "proof" aren't exactly compatible.
Could that be somewhat similar to the hundreds of times you were asked for
links, and you failed each and every time completely?
Snit
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> writes:
>>
>>> ____/ Snit on Wednesday 06 Jul 2011 19:12 : \____
>>>
>>>> Homer stated in post krkee8-...@sky.matrix on 7/6/11 11:07 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that JeffM spake thusly:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rather extensive article--but you forgot to mention
>>>>>> http://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/5-of-the-best-
> lightweight
>>>>>> -window-managers-for-linux-972570?artc_pg=2
>>>>>> (Fvwm and RatPoison)
>>>>>
>>>>> They also forgot to mention Awesome, and incorrectly described
>>>>> Enlightenment as being licensed under the GPL (it's BSD).
>>>>>
>>>>> http://awesome.naquadah.org
>>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/enlightenment
>>>>
>>>> Can't you relicense a BSD project to the GPL and then release it? I
>>>> think so... the BSD license allows users a lot more freedom.
>>>
>>> Of action, not preserving freedom. Freedom of someone else can also be
>>> the freedom to suppress you.
>>
>> That makes ZERO sense.
>
> To you
Here we go... Peter has a chance to explain why a license with *fewer*
restrictions somehow is less free...
... I bet he fails. Well, of course he will.
>> And set your signature delimiter properly you spamming cretin.
>
> It is fine, given that flatfish Gary Stewart tries to impersonate him.
> He has to chose between signing his posts, which mangles the signature, or
> have a signature but no signing.
He cannot figure out how to do both. Lovely.
> Guess what is more important.
> Your filthy friends would just love to impersonate him
What? And why would one have to pick?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
Are you projecting there? Heck, you keep accusing me of lying but *always*
fail to produce links to any message where I have lied.
Always.
You are, at least in that, a 100% failure.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Karl Wojaczyk
use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
use...@gallopinginsanity.com says...
>
> Peter Kï¿œhlmann stated in post iv2ssa$k1s$2...@dont-email.me on 7/6/11 4:59 PM:
This is cola.
Proof is optional.
See Roy Samuel Schestowitz for details.
Snit
7/6/11 6:28 PM:
> In article <CA3A5508.9DFC7%
> use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> use...@gallopinginsanity.com says...
>>
>> Peter K�hlmann stated in post iv2ssa$k1s$2...@dont-email.me on 7/6/11 4:59 PM:
>>
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jack Schofield pointed out that Roy ran off when asked for proof. Roy
>>>> and "proof" aren't exactly compatible.
>>>
>>> Could that be somewhat similar to the hundreds of times you were asked for
>>> links, and you failed each and every time completely?
>>>
>> Are you projecting there? Heck, you keep accusing me of lying but *always*
>> fail to produce links to any message where I have lied.
>>
>> Always.
>>
>> You are, at least in that, a 100% failure.
>
> This is cola.
> Proof is optional.
> See Roy Samuel Schestowitz for details.
>
Well, when I make claims about tech - or accusations against people - I
support them. I have a goal to raise the bar in COLA and see others do the
same thing - though I know this is a losing battle. It can only work if
more people care - and clearly they do not.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Karl Wojaczyk
use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
use...@gallopinginsanity.com says...
>
> Karl Wojaczyk stated in post MPG.287ed5ce7...@news.cnntp.org on
> 7/6/11 6:28 PM:
>
> > In article <CA3A5508.9DFC7%
> > use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > use...@gallopinginsanity.com says...
> >>
> >>
> >>> Hadron wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Jack Schofield pointed out that Roy ran off when asked for proof. Roy
> >>>> and "proof" aren't exactly compatible.
> >>>
> >>> Could that be somewhat similar to the hundreds of times you were asked for
> >>> links, and you failed each and every time completely?
> >>>
> >> Are you projecting there? Heck, you keep accusing me of lying but *always*
> >> fail to produce links to any message where I have lied.
> >>
> >> Always.
> >>
> >> You are, at least in that, a 100% failure.
> >
> > This is cola.
> > Proof is optional.
> > See Roy Samuel Schestowitz for details.
> >
> Well, when I make claims about tech - or accusations against people - I
> support them. I have a goal to raise the bar in COLA and see others do the
> same thing - though I know this is a losing battle. It can only work if
> more people care - and clearly they do not.
So do I.
The problem is when you are dealing with retards like 7,
paranoid freaks like [Homer], ass kissers like Chris
Ahlstrom and bold faced liars like Roy Schestowitz, you
are in the minority, by far.
You nailed Roy Samuel Schestowitz right to the wall and
he responded with something like "oh we have a
frustrated troll" or something like that.
You poked the ant nest and the ants got pissed off.
More people need to poke the ant nest.
It's the only way the obscene and sometimes ludicrous
claims made by people like Roy Samuel Schestowitz get
exposed.
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Peter Köhlmann on Thursday 07 Jul 2011 00:57 : \____
It turns out that PGP can be passed an option (workaround) to keep the delimiter, but
this cannot be set up in KNode (AFAICT). If anyone knows a way, let me know.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): sches...@ekiga.net (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4VTQIACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7fWACfUitvtbpBWpZI1SiN7Fz5i2X+
cUYAnjlY0PhVfafFaKP2OJUlQjzj0r3i
=+IZr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Snit on Wednesday 06 Jul 2011 22:32 : \____
It lets free become proprietary.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): sches...@ekiga.net (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4VTTgACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6n+gCfdcDfnkbLmXvZqkAWS6a7xWrg
tH0An377mhVayUcm0/h1YCYIYcOfniuN
=Qm0F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Snit
11:07 PM:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> ____/ Snit on Wednesday 06 Jul 2011 22:32 : \____
>
>> Roy Schestowitz stated in post 26750532....@schestowitz.com on 7/6/11
>> 12:48 PM:
>>
>>>> Homer stated in post krkee8-...@sky.matrix on 7/6/11 11:07 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that JeffM spake thusly:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rather extensive article--but you forgot to mention
>>>>>> http://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/5-of-the-best-lightwe
>>>>>> ig
>>>>>> ht
>>>>>> -window-managers-for-linux-972570?artc_pg=2
>>>>>> (Fvwm and RatPoison)
>>>>>
>>>>> They also forgot to mention Awesome, and incorrectly described
>>>>> Enlightenment as being licensed under the GPL (it's BSD).
>>>>>
>>>>> http://awesome.naquadah.org
>>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/enlightenment
>>>>
>>>> Can't you relicense a BSD project to the GPL and then release it? I think
>>>> so... the BSD license allows users a lot more freedom.
>>>
>>> Of action, not preserving freedom. Freedom of someone else can also be the
>>> freedom to suppress you.
>>
>> The BSD offers nothing that suppresses me! What a weird non sequitur.
>
> It lets free become proprietary.
You can prevent people from continuing to use the BSD version?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Snit on Wednesday 06 Jul 2011 22:30 : \____
IMHO, you should stay just in CSMA. People generally don't want you here, except
the trolls. And I can't blame them. You need to seriously think what you're
doing here except annoy people.
Think about it.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): sches...@ekiga.net (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4VUTIACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6JGgCfXHc9E+g/hqVh202CINnOo1gn
66oAoJroN6Xu1OfJujxXt9+wqSlar6Pn
=4aok
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Snit on Thursday 07 Jul 2011 07:19 : \____
That's a very silly question.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): sches...@ekiga.net (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4Vbr8ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7JuwCfT1VO3biwdP6+sQ9WrfFSdSLT
ozgAmwQKt4FCcTZ0sSnq+5HN7jAZ1QZA
=wBSi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
chrisv
>
>> Roy Schestowitz writes:
>>
>>> Shit wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can't you relicense a BSD project to the GPL and then release it? I
>>>> think so... the BSD license allows users a lot more freedom.
>>>
>>> Of action, not preserving freedom. Freedom of someone else can also be
>>> the freedom to suppress you.
>>
Claims the anti-GPL, Micro$oft fanboi "Hadron" Quack.
"Hadron" hates the GPL because it allows the sharing of source while
preventing his masters in Redmond from taking it and bastardizing it.
Poor Larry.
Stefan Tojack
stupid asshole "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:o3db17l2klkrejcm5...@4ax.com...
another fine "advocacy" post from the turd that does nothing but talk about
trolls all day.
"chrisv" is a liar. "chrisv" is a piece of shit.
Snit
11:24 PM:
>>>> How so? I encourage *honest* advocacy of Linux.
>>>>
>>> Try spending time encouraging *honest* advocacy of iStuff. Lots more work to
>>> do *There*.
>>>
>> Not sure I follow. And why advocate Apple products in COLA? Sure, sometimes
>> there is a reasoned comparison, but seems this is not the right forum for
>> that. Still, if you feel the need I am OK with that - as long as you are
>> honest about it.
>>
>> Oh, and I point out a lot of BS from the "advocates" in CSMA. Many (most?)
>> of them are out and out liars. Sandman, for example, is just a lying
>> scumbag. Carroll is worse. Tim Adams is a moron who cannot figure out the
>> most simple of things and just gloms onto trolls who will back him. On and
>> on.
>>
> IMHO, you should stay just in CSMA. People generally don't want you here,
> except the trolls. And I can't blame them. You need to seriously think what
> you're doing here except annoy people.
>
> Think about it.
I point out when people are not being honest or when their comments are not
accurate. If people do not like that then they should work toward being
more honest and accurate - and where there is a disagreement they should
work toward being able to support their views, esp. when their views allege
wrong doing on the part of people or groups in or out of COLA.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
1:30 AM:
>>>>>> Homer stated in post krkee8-...@sky.matrix on 7/6/11 11:07 AM:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that JeffM spake thusly:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rather extensive article--but you forgot to mention
>>>>>>>> http://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/5-of-the-best-light
>>>>>>>> we ig ht -window-managers-for-linux-972570?artc_pg=2 (Fvwm and
>>>>>>>> RatPoison)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They also forgot to mention Awesome, and incorrectly described
>>>>>>> Enlightenment as being licensed under the GPL (it's BSD).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://awesome.naquadah.org
>>>>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/enlightenment
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can't you relicense a BSD project to the GPL and then release it? I
>>>>>> think so... the BSD license allows users a lot more freedom.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Of action, not preserving freedom. Freedom of someone else can also be the
>>>>> freedom to suppress you.
>>>>>
>>>> The BSD offers nothing that suppresses me! What a weird non sequitur.
>>>>
>>> It lets free become proprietary.
>>>
>> You can prevent people from continuing to use the BSD version?
>>
> That's a very silly question.
Well, it is one which points out the absurdity of the claim that BSD code
can be turned proprietary, sure. BSD code can be used in proprietary code,
but once you have made licensed code with the BSD license and let it out
into the wild, I do not believe you can revoke that. If I am wrong please
let me know. Assuming I am not, however, the free code cannot "become
proprietary" as Homer claimed.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Snit on Thursday 07 Jul 2011 20:07 : \____
*sigh* *plonk*
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): sches...@ekiga.net (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4WPVgACgkQU4xAY3RXLo74gACfd4aULqD81eXKaU1aNzp6FKN4
KsUAoIfY1NWf/VbXa64uXkHY39s/aATb
=13a7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Karl Wojaczyk
newsg...@schestowitz.com says...
Typical Roy Schestowitz.
He runs and hides when his lying and campaign of
misinformation gets exposed.
Snit drilled you a new one gym bunny.
He used your own words to sink you.
Good work Snit!
Snit
7/7/11 4:33 PM:
>>>>>>>> Of action, not preserving freedom. Freedom of someone else can also be
>>>>>>>> the freedom to suppress you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The BSD offers nothing that suppresses me! What a weird non sequitur.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It lets free become proprietary.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You can prevent people from continuing to use the BSD version?
>>>>>
>>>> That's a very silly question.
>>>
>>> Well, it is one which points out the absurdity of the claim that BSD code
>>> can be turned proprietary, sure. BSD code can be used in proprietary code,
>>> but once you have made licensed code with the BSD license and let it out
>>> into the wild, I do not believe you can revoke that. If I am wrong please
>>> let me know. Assuming I am not, however, the free code cannot "become
>>> proprietary" as Homer claimed.
>>
>> *sigh* *plonk*
>>
>> - --
>> ~~ Best of wishes
>>
>
> Typical Roy Schestowitz.
> He runs and hides when his lying and campaign of
> misinformation gets exposed.
>
> Snit drilled you a new one gym bunny.
> He used your own words to sink you.
>
> Good work Snit!
I pointed out the absurdity of Homer's claim... the fact is he is simply
wrong: and Roy could not deal with that. He caved to his herd.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
4:12 PM:
So you cannot defend Homer's position. He, as you know, is wrong and you
prefer not to call out members of the herd on their BS. Got it!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chris Ahlstrom
> ____/ Snit on Thursday 07 Jul 2011 20:07 : \____
>
>> Well, it is one which points out the absurdity of the claim that BSD code
>> can be turned proprietary, sure. BSD code can be used in proprietary code,
>> but once you have made licensed code with the BSD license and let it out
>> into the wild, I do not believe you can revoke that. If I am wrong please
>> let me know. Assuming I am not, however, the free code cannot "become
>> proprietary" as Homer claimed.
>
> *sigh* *plonk*
No need to sigh. You won't miss his obtuse "arguments" and APPOLogia.
--
What I want to find out is -- do parrots know much about Astro-Turf?
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Chris Ahlstrom on Friday 08 Jul 2011 11:24 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> ____/ Snit on Thursday 07 Jul 2011 20:07 : \____
>>
>>> Well, it is one which points out the absurdity of the claim that BSD code
>>> can be turned proprietary, sure. BSD code can be used in proprietary code,
>>> but once you have made licensed code with the BSD license and let it out
>>> into the wild, I do not believe you can revoke that. If I am wrong please
>>> let me know. Assuming I am not, however, the free code cannot "become
>>> proprietary" as Homer claimed.
>>
>> *sigh* *plonk*
>
> No need to sigh. You won't miss his obtuse "arguments" and APPOLogia.
I think he craves attention for clearly provoking the wrong newsgroup. He should
go to the Apple groups, he has nothing to look for here.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): sches...@ekiga.net (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4W4SUACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6yZACaAsjk9UX1mZzzdKqX28ylzLt6
Td8An2AOn5vyY0nOGcrP9vktk5hJF197
=tr4a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Snit
3:51 AM:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> ____/ Chris Ahlstrom on Friday 08 Jul 2011 11:24 : \____
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> ____/ Snit on Thursday 07 Jul 2011 20:07 : \____
>>>
>>>> Well, it is one which points out the absurdity of the claim that BSD code
>>>> can be turned proprietary, sure. BSD code can be used in proprietary code,
>>>> but once you have made licensed code with the BSD license and let it out
>>>> into the wild, I do not believe you can revoke that. If I am wrong please
>>>> let me know. Assuming I am not, however, the free code cannot "become
>>>> proprietary" as Homer claimed.
>>>
>>> *sigh* *plonk*
>>
>> No need to sigh. You won't miss his obtuse "arguments" and APPOLogia.
>
> I think he craves attention for clearly provoking the wrong newsgroup. He
> should go to the Apple groups, he has nothing to look for here.
I commented on a clear error of Homer's and Roy's... so now you want me to
leave.
It really is that simple.
And, as predicted, because I was clearly right and none of the "advocates"
can show otherwise, the silly insults and accusations against me will
increase for a while.
This is very predictable... the pattern is repeated often and demonstrates
quite well how insecure the "herd" is in their claimed views.
To be specific, Roy claimed, of the BSD license, that its freedoms could be
used to suppress people. I noted that the license offers *nothing* that I
see that would suppress me. Roy then claimed that the BSD license "lets
free become proprietary.", and I noted that I think this is incorrect...
once something is released to the public with a BSD license, you cannot
revoke that and make the code become proprietary... what was free remains
free. At this point Roy freaked out. How dare I state my views of the BSD
license... views I have since done a bit more research on and found I was
correct about.
To be clear:
* There is nothing in the BSD license about suppressing people
* There is nothing in the BSD license that allows it to be revoked;
what is made free stays free.
Roy was wrong to make contrary claims - and when I pointed out his errors he
became angry and started bad mouthing me, saying that since I corrected his
misinformation about free licenses I should not even post to COLA. I should
go to CSMA (maybe because Apple's Darwin project is based on BSD?).
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> Roy Schestowitz wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> ____/ Snit on Thursday 07 Jul 2011 20:07 : \____
>>
>>> Well, it is one which points out the absurdity of the claim that BSD code
>>> can be turned proprietary, sure. BSD code can be used in proprietary code,
>>> but once you have made licensed code with the BSD license and let it out
>>> into the wild, I do not believe you can revoke that. If I am wrong please
>>> let me know. Assuming I am not, however, the free code cannot "become
>>> proprietary" as Homer claimed.
>>
>> *sigh* *plonk*
>
> No need to sigh. You won't miss his obtuse "arguments" and APPOLogia.
Staaaaaaampeeeeeeeed!!!!!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> Roy Schestowitz stated in post 2557710.qk35OSZ...@schestowitz.com on 7/6/11
> 7:49 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> Because Linux is amazing and many of the projects based on it are
> >>>>>> incredible. I would love to see Linux on the desktop gain quality and
> >>>>>> growth.
>
> >>>>>>> If you dislike Linux, why roam here?
>
> >>>>>> I do not dislike Linux.
>
> >>>>> You spell a lot of time discrediting it and its proponents.
>
> >>>> I discredit the idea that the status quo is ideal and that the low user
> >>>> base is because of almost exclusively external things. This is not only
> >>>> not true, it is poor advocacy - it is dishonest. Desktop Linux offers some
> >>>> amazing things, esp. given its lack of price - but some in COLA pretend it
> >>>> is in the same league as other more common desktop solutions and would work
> >>>> as well for the general user - and there is simply no evidence for that.
>
> >>> I think you should find another hobby. What you do here is akin to
> >>> infiltrating religious forums to tell people in there that they are idiots.
> >>> you're not going to achieve anything.
>
> >> on religious (faith-based) grounds. Quite apt, I think.
>
> > You can reverse the analogy to mean, "religious fanatic coming to atheistic
> > forums (to be mocked and disrupt)." I instead chose an analogy you can better
> > relate to.
>
> this as a fine forum for doing so.
Do you think the following people believe this? Somehow, I doubt it:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/50876cf386d234f6
Steve Carroll
> Hadron stated in post 2tiprfxeur....@news.eternal-september.org on 7/6/11
> 2:45 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>
> >> Roy Schestowitz stated in post 26750533.yBJDM9G...@schestowitz.com on 7/6/11
> >> 12:49 PM:
>
> >> ...
> >>>>>>>> I discredit the idea that the status quo is ideal and that the low user
> >>>>>>>> base is because of almost exclusively external things. This is not
> >>>>>>>> only
> >>>>>>>> not true, it is poor advocacy - it is dishonest. Desktop Linux offers
> >>>>>>>> some amazing things, esp. given its lack of price - but some in COLA
> >>>>>>>> pretend it is in the same league as other more common desktop solutions
> >>>>>>>> and would work as well for the general user - and there is simply no
> >>>>>>>> evidence for that.
>
> >>>>>>> I think you should find another hobby. What you do here is akin to
> >>>>>>> infiltrating religious forums to tell people in there that they are
> >>>>>>> idiots.
> >>>>>>> you're not going to achieve anything.
>
> >>>>>> Interesting you would equate the "advocates" with those who believe
> >>>>>> things
> >>>>>> on religious (faith-based) grounds. Quite apt, I think.
>
> >>>>> You can reverse the analogy to mean, "religious fanatic coming to
> >>>>> atheistic
> >>>>> forums (to be mocked and disrupt)." I instead chose an analogy you can
> >>>>> better
> >>>>> relate to.
>
> >>>> I am here, largely, to promote better and more honest Linux advocacy.
>
>
> >> A use of the word "coach" I am not familiar with perhaps?
>
> >> And why would you not want the facts of claims in COLA checked? What do you
> >> have to fear?
>
> >>>> I see
> >>>> this as a fine forum for doing so.
>
>
> >> And if those claimed "benefits" are dishonest that is OK with you - it is
> >> not a good forum for pointing out dishonest claims?
>
> >> I disagree.
>
> > Jack Schofield pointed out that Roy ran off when asked for proof. Roy
> > and "proof" aren't exactly compatible.
>
>
> It is... odd.
Here's what posters have 'noted' about you:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/50876cf386d234f6
Steve Carroll
> Peter K hlmann stated in post iv2sp1$k1...@dont-email.me on 7/6/11 4:57 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hadron wrote:
>
> >> Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> writes:
>
> >>> ____/ Snit on Wednesday 06 Jul 2011 19:12 : \____
>
>
> >>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that JeffM spake thusly:
>
> >>>>>> Rather extensive article--but you forgot to mention
> >>>>>>http://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/5-of-the-best-
> > lightweight
> >>>>>> -window-managers-for-linux-972570?artc_pg=2
> >>>>>> (Fvwm and RatPoison)
>
> >>>>> They also forgot to mention Awesome, and incorrectly described
> >>>>> Enlightenment as being licensed under the GPL (it's BSD).
>
> >>>>>http://awesome.naquadah.org
> >>>>>http://sourceforge.net/projects/enlightenment
>
> >>>> Can't you relicense a BSD project to the GPL and then release it? I
> >>>> think so... the BSD license allows users a lot more freedom.
>
> >>> Of action, not preserving freedom. Freedom of someone else can also be
> >>> the freedom to suppress you.
>
> >> That makes ZERO sense.
>
> > To you
>
> Here we go... Peter has a chance to explain why a license with *fewer*
> restrictions somehow is less free...
Depends on what those "restrictions" are, gluehead. But don't let
little things like facts deter you ;)
Steve Carroll
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> ____/ Snit on Thursday 07 Jul 2011 20:07 : \____
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 1:30 AM:
>
> >>>>>>> Homer stated in post krkee8-4hm....@sky.matrix on 7/6/11 11:07 AM:
>
> >>>>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that JeffM spake thusly:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Rather extensive article--but you forgot to mention
> >>>>>>>>>http://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/5-of-the-best-light
> >>>>>>>>> we ig ht -window-managers-for-linux-972570?artc_pg=2 (Fvwm and
> >>>>>>>>> RatPoison)
>
> >>>>>>>> They also forgot to mention Awesome, and incorrectly described
> >>>>>>>> Enlightenment as being licensed under the GPL (it's BSD).
>
> >>>>>>>>http://awesome.naquadah.org
> >>>>>>>>http://sourceforge.net/projects/enlightenment
>
> >>>>>>> Can't you relicense a BSD project to the GPL and then release it? I
> >>>>>>> think so... the BSD license allows users a lot more freedom.
>
> >>>>>> Of action, not preserving freedom. Freedom of someone else can also be
> >>>>>> the freedom to suppress you.
>
> >>>>> The BSD offers nothing that suppresses me! What a weird non sequitur.
>
> >>>> It lets free become proprietary.
>
> >>> You can prevent people from continuing to use the BSD version?
>
> >> That's a very silly question.
>
> > Well, it is one which points out the absurdity of the claim that BSD code
> > can be turned proprietary, sure. BSD code can be used in proprietary code,
> > but once you have made licensed code with the BSD license and let it out
> > into the wild, I do not believe you can revoke that. If I am wrong please
> > let me know. Assuming I am not, however, the free code cannot "become
> > proprietary" as Homer claimed.
>
> *sigh* *plonk*
You just plonked the cola hall monitor?
LOL!
Steve Carroll
> Karl Wojaczyk stated in post MPG.28800c65fe2de436989...@news.cnntp.org on
Caved? How do you know he doesn't simply believe you're a liar, troll
or worse... like most everyone else does?
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/50876cf386d234f6
TomB
> On Jul 7, 5:40 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Karl Wojaczyk stated in post MPG.28800c65fe2de436989...@news.cnntp.org on
>> 7/7/11 4:33 PM:
>>
>> >>>>>>>> Of action, not preserving freedom. Freedom of someone else
>> >>>>>>>> can also be the freedom to suppress you.
>>
>> >>>>>>> The BSD offers nothing that suppresses me! What a weird
>> >>>>>>> non sequitur.
>>
>> >>>>>> It lets free become proprietary.
>>
>> >>>>> You can prevent people from continuing to use the BSD
>> >>>>> version?
>>
>> >>>> That's a very silly question.
>>
>> >>> Well, it is one which points out the absurdity of the claim
>> >>> that BSD code can be turned proprietary, sure. BSD code can be
>> >>> used in proprietary code, but once you have made licensed code
>> >>> with the BSD license and let it out into the wild, I do not
>> >>> believe you can revoke that. If I am wrong please let me know.
>> >>> Assuming I am not, however, the free code cannot "become
>> >>> proprietary" as Homer claimed.
>>
>> >> *sigh* *plonk*
>>
>> > campaign of misinformation gets exposed.
>>
>> > Snit drilled you a new one gym bunny. He used your own words to
>> > sink you.
>>
>> > Good work Snit!
>>
>> I pointed out the absurdity of Homer's claim... the fact is he is
>> simply wrong: and Roy could not deal with that. He caved to his
>> herd.
>
> Caved? How do you know he doesn't simply believe you're a liar,
> troll or worse... like most everyone else does?
Snit just loves to point out what he calls 'the absurdity of Homer's
claims'. Of course it shows that he doesn't understand Homer's point
at all most of the time, as is shown by the discussion above. Or he
/pretends/ not to understand, in order to gain some trolling
ammunition.
How hard is it to understand that a proprietary spin-off of a Free
BSD-licensed project restricts the user's freedom? The user can't take
the code of the proprietary spin-off to modify it for his own needs.
The user cannot share and redistribute this proprietary spin-off at
will. The GPL protects these freedoms by making sure that all derived
works are GPL'ed too.
Yes, the BSD-license is a more liberal license, but the most notable
additional freedom it gives, is restricting the freedom in derived
products.
--
A Mac is this strange middle ground. It's not nearly as well supported as
Windows and it's not nearly as open as Linux. It's like the worst of both
worlds.
~ JEDIDIAH
Snit
>>> I pointed out the absurdity of Homer's claim... the fact is he is
>>> simply wrong: and Roy could not deal with that. He caved to his
>>> herd.
>>
>> Caved? How do you know he doesn't simply believe you're a liar,
>> troll or worse... like most everyone else does?
>
> Snit just loves to point out what he calls 'the absurdity of Homer's
> claims'. Of course it shows that he doesn't understand Homer's point
> at all most of the time, as is shown by the discussion above. Or he
> /pretends/ not to understand, in order to gain some trolling
> ammunition.
See how you just make accusations. I very much get Homer's doubletalk. He
likes to pretend that the BSD license which allows *more* freedom than the
GPL somehow restricts freedom. It is right out of 1984. And Roy backed
that and then even made some specific and erroneous claims based on that.
Roy, on the BSD license:
-----
Of action, not preserving freedom. Freedom of someone else
can also be the freedom to suppress you.
-----
But, as I told Roy, the BSD license offers nothing that suppresses me (or
anyone else). I even added:
-----
Do not get me wrong, I think people should be able to control
their IP in many ways, and the GPL is a fine way... but to
claim that more open licenses are somehow limiting of freedom
is bizarre doubletalk.
-----
Roy then made a factually incorrect claim:
-----
It lets free become proprietary.
-----
I then noted / asked:
-----
BSD code can be used in proprietary code, but once you have
made licensed code with the BSD license and let it out into
the wild, I do not believe you can revoke that.
-----
Now, first, I see I incorrectly attributed Roy's comment to Homer. I
apologize to both of them for that. My mistake. But my point remains: the
claim that the BSD license "lets free become proprietary" is simply
incorrect. It does no such thing.
> How hard is it to understand that a proprietary spin-off of a Free
> BSD-licensed project restricts the user's freedom?
Here you are pretending I do not understand that BSD code can be used in
proprietary projects. This is not honest of you.
> The user can't take the code of the proprietary spin-off to modify it for his
> own needs.
Hence the term "proprietary". Right.
> The user cannot share and redistribute this proprietary spin-off at
> will.
This is not under contention. Why even bring it up?
> The GPL protects these freedoms by making sure that all derived works
> are GPL'ed too.
This is doubletalk from you: the GPL *limits* the use of the code by
preventing such use. The GPL provides stronger IP protection. And, no, I
have no problem with that - the developer of the IP gets to decide how
others can use it... completely within their rights and I see nothing
immoral or wrong about the GPL.
But when Homer and Roy and, now it seems, you pretend that the BSD which
allows *more* freedom in how people can use the licensed code is somehow
less free, this is absurd and dishonest doubletalk right out of 1984.
> Yes, the BSD-license is a more liberal license, but the most notable
> additional freedom it gives, is restricting the freedom in derived products.
It does *not* restrict *anything* in any derived products. That is just
flat out wrong. It allows developers to use it in ways in which *they* can
protect their own IP as they wish. They cannot remove anyone's freedoms to
anything.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Homer
> Snit just loves to point out what he calls 'the absurdity of Homer's
> claims'.
I have Snit plonked because of his feigned obtuseness (at least I assume
he's feigning), which he uses to mindlessly contradict people without
any semblance of counterargument. I only see his inane gibberish when
somebody else replies to him, and I usually only bother replying when
he's making some patently false accusation against me (if I even see
it), as he is now. I have no interest in responding to people who
persistently claim to not understand even the simplest statements, and
who deliberately misinterpret those statements to mean something
irrelevant or even antithetical. But that is Snit's modus operandi in a
nutshell, a.k.a. the Snit Circus.
> How hard is it to understand that a proprietary spin-off of a Free
> BSD-licensed project restricts the user's freedom?
Too hard for Snit, apparently.
> The user can't take the code of the proprietary spin-off to modify it
> for his own needs. The user cannot share and redistribute this
> proprietary spin-off at will. The GPL protects these freedoms by
> making sure that all derived works are GPL'ed too.
>
> Yes, the BSD-license is a more liberal license, but the most notable
> additional freedom it gives, is restricting the freedom in derived
> products.
Yes, I've never claimed that the BSD portion of any code can be "made
proprietary", merely that derivative works can (and are), as per the
specific intentions of the BSD. That is precisely why I don't like it.
I have no interest in making altruistic contributions towards those who
don't protect that altruism, and allow it to be abused for selfish
purposes.
Take this, for example:
[quote]
Microsoft has invited the open-source community to build plug-ins for
Visual Studio 2010, and has improved database support to help build
partner backing for its planned integrated development environment
(IDE).
The general manager for Microsoft's Visual Studio told The Reg he'd like
to see open-source developers contribute their best ideas to Microsoft's
next IDE.
[/quote]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/visual_studio_open_source/
WTF?
Why on earth would /anyone/ want to freely contribute their time, money,
effort and expertise for the exclusive benefit of somebody /else's/
private enterprise, especially when that "somebody else" is a vicious
anti-freedom monopolists like Microsoft?
AFAIAC contributing to BSD-licensed software is not much different. It
encourages monopolisation, and in that sense is just as non-Free as any
proprietary software. Calling it "more Free" than the GPL is as
disingenuous as claiming society would be "more Free" if we allowed
slavery. Oh yes, it'd be "more Free" for the slave-owners, certainly,
but is that the sort of "freedom" we should be encouraging. AFAICT the
only people inclined to support /that/ sort of "freedom" are those who
support the idea of slavery - a moral and logical contradiction.
The BSD supports and encourages intellectual slavery, the GPL does not,
indeed it very pro-actively guards against it. Simple.
--
K. | Thy name
http://slated.org | Shalt not
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | Take the vein
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 47 days | Of my root
Snit
> Verily I say unto thee, that TomB spake thusly:
>
>> Snit just loves to point out what he calls 'the absurdity of Homer's
>> claims'.
>
> I have Snit plonked because of his feigned obtuseness (at least I assume
> he's feigning), which he uses to mindlessly contradict people without
> any semblance of counterargument.
Roy said the BSD license "lets free become proprietary."
The counterargument is he is wrong. It does no such thing. While people
can use the code in all sorts of ways, they *cannot* make the code become
proprietary. Cannot. Once it is free it remains free.
He is simply wrong.
So the real issue is not that I have no counterargument, the real "problem"
you have is I have corrected misinformation you and he wish to push onto
others.
And notice where you have no counter to my *correct* claims - so you focus
away from the issue and make personal attacks and insults:
> I only see his inane gibberish when somebody else replies to him, and I
> usually only bother replying when he's making some patently false accusation
> against me (if I even see it), as he is now. I have no interest in responding
> to people who persistently claim to not understand even the simplest
> statements, and who deliberately misinterpret those statements to mean
> something irrelevant or even antithetical. But that is Snit's modus operandi
> in a nutshell, a.k.a. the Snit Circus.
See. Just inane BS from you.
>> How hard is it to understand that a proprietary spin-off of a Free
>> BSD-licensed project restricts the user's freedom?
>
> Too hard for Snit, apparently.
Again: just an inane insult. I have never suggested that the BSD license
did not include the *freedom* for people to license their derivative works
in multiple ways. Never.
>> The user can't take the code of the proprietary spin-off to modify it
>> for his own needs. The user cannot share and redistribute this
>> proprietary spin-off at will. The GPL protects these freedoms by
>> making sure that all derived works are GPL'ed too.
>>
>> Yes, the BSD-license is a more liberal license, but the most notable
>> additional freedom it gives, is restricting the freedom in derived
>> products.
>
> Yes, I've never claimed that the BSD portion of any code can be "made
> proprietary",
I misattributed a quote from Roy to you... and for that I have already
apologized to you and to him. It was Roy who made the erroneous claim:
-----
It lets free become proprietary.
-----
Again: my apologies for saying that was you. Good to see you do not agree
with Roy's clearly incorrect claim.
> merely that derivative works can (and are), as per the specific intentions of
> the BSD. That is precisely why I don't like it.
What you like or dislike is not the issue here. I have no problem with the
GPL (nor the BSD license) and have no problem with some people preferring
one or the other. Your off-topic rant on that was snipped.
...
> The BSD supports and encourages intellectual slavery, the GPL does not,
> indeed it very pro-actively guards against it. Simple.
The BSD license does no such thing. You made that up. The BSD license does
what the GPL does: it defines IP rights. Nothing more. Nothing less.
This has nothing to do with "slavery" of any kind. Really, how absurd.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Gary Stewart
> Homer stated in post s28me8-...@sky.matrix on 7/9/11 8:18 AM:
>
>> Verily I say unto thee, that TomB spake thusly:
>>
>>> Snit just loves to point out what he calls 'the absurdity of Homer's
>>> claims'.
>>
>> I have Snit plonked because of his feigned obtuseness (at least I assume
>> he's feigning), which he uses to mindlessly contradict people without
>> any semblance of counterargument.
>
> Roy said the BSD license "lets free become proprietary."
>
> The counterargument is he is wrong. It does no such thing. While people
> can use the code in all sorts of ways, they *cannot* make the code become
> proprietary. Cannot. Once it is free it remains free.
>
> He is simply wrong.
Roy can't accept being wrong.
He will never admit being corrected, especially by what he deems a
"troll", which is anyone who corrects him.
As predicted,he ran away and pretends to hide behind a KF.
Like other Linux "advocates" in COLA, he is weak and he will never,
ever, ever violate the "Linux Freetard Credo" which is never
disagree with your fellow Linux "advocates" no matter how wrong they
may be. Even if you strongly disagree with them, stay silent or use
phrases like "I'm not going to play your game" when confronted by
others concerning your apparent support of a liar.
These are basic tenants of Linux advocacy.
--
7/9/2011 11:40:35 AM
Gary Stewart
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Watching Linux Fail:
http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/
Linux's dismal desktop market share:
http://royal.pingdom.com/2011/05/12/the-top-20-strongholds-for-desktop-linux/
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop
glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html
Desktop Linux on Life Support:
http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/is-linux-on-the-desktop-dead--961508
When I use the term Linux I am speaking of desktop Linux unless
otherwise stated.
Snit
7/9/11 8:44 AM:
> On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 08:33:06 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Homer stated in post s28me8-...@sky.matrix on 7/9/11 8:18 AM:
>>
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that TomB spake thusly:
>>>
>>>> Snit just loves to point out what he calls 'the absurdity of Homer's
>>>> claims'.
>>>
>>> I have Snit plonked because of his feigned obtuseness (at least I assume
>>> he's feigning), which he uses to mindlessly contradict people without
>>> any semblance of counterargument.
>>
>> Roy said the BSD license "lets free become proprietary."
>>
>> The counterargument is he is wrong. It does no such thing. While people
>> can use the code in all sorts of ways, they *cannot* make the code become
>> proprietary. Cannot. Once it is free it remains free.
>>
>> He is simply wrong.
>
> Roy can't accept being wrong.
Well, he was being fairly reasonable until the herd got on his case. He
caved to their demands.
> He will never admit being corrected, especially by what he deems a
> "troll", which is anyone who corrects him.
>
> As predicted,he ran away and pretends to hide behind a KF.
Exactly. In this case there simply is no gray area - he was wrong. The BSD
license does *not* allow free to become proprietary. It does allow free
code to be used in proprietary products - that is not in debate though he
and others are now running around pretending it is.
> Like other Linux "advocates" in COLA, he is weak and he will never,
> ever, ever violate the "Linux Freetard Credo" which is never
> disagree with your fellow Linux "advocates" no matter how wrong they
> may be. Even if you strongly disagree with them, stay silent or use
> phrases like "I'm not going to play your game" when confronted by
> others concerning your apparent support of a liar.
>
> These are basic tenants of Linux advocacy.
Sadly that is pretty much true.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Gary Stewart
> Gary Stewart stated in post lzmc5jj9jz14.1g...@40tude.net on
> 7/9/11 8:44 AM:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 08:33:06 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Homer stated in post s28me8-...@sky.matrix on 7/9/11 8:18 AM:
>>>
>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that TomB spake thusly:
>>>>
>>>>> Snit just loves to point out what he calls 'the absurdity of Homer's
>>>>> claims'.
>>>>
>>>> I have Snit plonked because of his feigned obtuseness (at least I assume
>>>> he's feigning), which he uses to mindlessly contradict people without
>>>> any semblance of counterargument.
>>>
>>> Roy said the BSD license "lets free become proprietary."
>>>
>>> The counterargument is he is wrong. It does no such thing. While people
>>> can use the code in all sorts of ways, they *cannot* make the code become
>>> proprietary. Cannot. Once it is free it remains free.
>>>
>>> He is simply wrong.
>>
>> Roy can't accept being wrong.
>
> Well, he was being fairly reasonable until the herd got on his case. He
> caved to their demands.
I'm fairly confident that Roy is actually a nice person in real
life.
The problem is his ego.
He has allowed himself to get caught up on a runaway train that he
can't step off of because it feeds his need for acceptance.
I just don't get it.
I really don't.
He's obviously an intelligent person, despite his flim flam Linux
advocacy attempts. Within his field he has earned his doctorate and
could probably do something incredible with himself.
Instead he seems to prefer to dwell in the cesspool of Linux
advocacy.
Like I said, I don't get it.
>> He will never admit being corrected, especially by what he deems a
>> "troll", which is anyone who corrects him.
>>
>> As predicted,he ran away and pretends to hide behind a KF.
>
> Exactly. In this case there simply is no gray area - he was wrong. The BSD
> license does *not* allow free to become proprietary. It does allow free
> code to be used in proprietary products - that is not in debate though he
> and others are now running around pretending it is.
Of course he is wrong in that particular case.
And as a side note, have you seen any other advocate correct him?
Agree with you?
Of course not.
It's the same as them supporting 7 and his lies.
>> Like other Linux "advocates" in COLA, he is weak and he will never,
>> ever, ever violate the "Linux Freetard Credo" which is never
>> disagree with your fellow Linux "advocates" no matter how wrong they
>> may be. Even if you strongly disagree with them, stay silent or use
>> phrases like "I'm not going to play your game" when confronted by
>> others concerning your apparent support of a liar.
>>
>> These are basic tenants of Linux advocacy.
>
> Sadly that is pretty much true.
It's obvious by the various threads going on ATM.
--
7/9/2011 12:29:36 PM
Snit
7/9/11 9:33 AM:
> On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 09:21:16 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Gary Stewart stated in post lzmc5jj9jz14.1g...@40tude.net on
>> 7/9/11 8:44 AM:
>>
>>> On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 08:33:06 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> Homer stated in post s28me8-...@sky.matrix on 7/9/11 8:18 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that TomB spake thusly:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Snit just loves to point out what he calls 'the absurdity of Homer's
>>>>>> claims'.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have Snit plonked because of his feigned obtuseness (at least I assume
>>>>> he's feigning), which he uses to mindlessly contradict people without
>>>>> any semblance of counterargument.
>>>>
>>>> Roy said the BSD license "lets free become proprietary."
>>>>
>>>> The counterargument is he is wrong. It does no such thing. While people
>>>> can use the code in all sorts of ways, they *cannot* make the code become
>>>> proprietary. Cannot. Once it is free it remains free.
>>>>
>>>> He is simply wrong.
>>>
>>> Roy can't accept being wrong.
>>
>> Well, he was being fairly reasonable until the herd got on his case. He
>> caved to their demands.
>
> I'm fairly confident that Roy is actually a nice person in real
> life.
He was being quite nice until the herd started getting on his case. They
could not stand it.
> The problem is his ego.
> He has allowed himself to get caught up on a runaway train that he
> can't step off of because it feeds his need for acceptance.
>
> I just don't get it.
> I really don't.
>
> He's obviously an intelligent person, despite his flim flam Linux
> advocacy attempts. Within his field he has earned his doctorate and
> could probably do something incredible with himself.
>
> Instead he seems to prefer to dwell in the cesspool of Linux
> advocacy.
> Like I said, I don't get it.
He, like Homer, is so caught up in their faith they cannot see past it. It
is, to them, a form of religion - where to the rest of us it is "just"
computing. Important, yes, but even with the joking of the "religious wars"
between Mac and Windows folks, neither side really treats it like a
religion.
>>> He will never admit being corrected, especially by what he deems a
>>> "troll", which is anyone who corrects him.
>>>
>>> As predicted,he ran away and pretends to hide behind a KF.
>>
>> Exactly. In this case there simply is no gray area - he was wrong. The BSD
>> license does *not* allow free to become proprietary. It does allow free
>> code to be used in proprietary products - that is not in debate though he
>> and others are now running around pretending it is.
>
> Of course he is wrong in that particular case.
>
> And as a side note, have you seen any other advocate correct him?
> Agree with you?
>
> Of course not.
>
> It's the same as them supporting 7 and his lies.
The herd will not disagree with its own. TomB, who is often one of the more
reasonable "advocates", even came in to side *with* Roy. TomB out and out
lied by claiming I did not get that BSD code can be used in proprietary
projects. Just flat out makes it up. Sad.
>>> Like other Linux "advocates" in COLA, he is weak and he will never,
>>> ever, ever violate the "Linux Freetard Credo" which is never
>>> disagree with your fellow Linux "advocates" no matter how wrong they
>>> may be. Even if you strongly disagree with them, stay silent or use
>>> phrases like "I'm not going to play your game" when confronted by
>>> others concerning your apparent support of a liar.
>>>
>>> These are basic tenants of Linux advocacy.
>>
>> Sadly that is pretty much true.
>
> It's obvious by the various threads going on ATM.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
TomB
> Verily I say unto thee, that TomB spake thusly:
>> Snit just loves to point out what he calls 'the absurdity of
>> Homer's claims'.
>
> I have Snit plonked because of his feigned obtuseness (at least I
> assume he's feigning), which he uses to mindlessly contradict people
> without any semblance of counterargument. I only see his inane
> gibberish when somebody else replies to him, and I usually only
> bother replying when he's making some patently false accusation
> against me (if I even see it), as he is now. I have no interest in
> responding to people who persistently claim to not understand even
> the simplest statements, and who deliberately misinterpret those
> statements to mean something irrelevant or even antithetical. But
> that is Snit's modus operandi in a nutshell, a.k.a. the Snit Circus.
Been there way too many times...
>> How hard is it to understand that a proprietary spin-off of a Free
>> BSD-licensed project restricts the user's freedom?
>
> Too hard for Snit, apparently.
>
>> The user can't take the code of the proprietary spin-off to modify
>> it for his own needs. The user cannot share and redistribute this
>> proprietary spin-off at will. The GPL protects these freedoms by
>> making sure that all derived works are GPL'ed too.
>>
>> Yes, the BSD-license is a more liberal license, but the most
>> notable additional freedom it gives, is restricting the freedom in
>> derived products.
>
> Yes, I've never claimed that the BSD portion of any code can be
> "made proprietary",
Typical Snit sidestep you're falling for here. It is perfectly clear
what Roy meant when he said that. And even then, if I take the exact
code of the FreeBSD 'cp' program and redistribute it under a
proprietary license, I have effectively made that BSD-licensed code
proprietary. If somehome magically the original BSD-licensed copy
disappears from the face of the earth, with no one remembering the
original code, my version would still be proprietary and they couldn't
take it back from me. It would be my own, little precious proprietary
FreeBSD 'cp' program, and the FreeBSD developers would have to rewrite
theirs from scratch, or get a costly license to use my version. Which
actually is theirs, but the nincompoops allowed me to relicense it.
Okay, that's very hypothetical, but that's how it would be.
> merely that derivative works can (and are), as per the specific
> intentions of the BSD. That is precisely why I don't like it. I
> have no interest in making altruistic contributions towards those
> who don't protect that altruism, and allow it to be abused for
> selfish purposes.
I don't hold anything against the BSD license, but it's quite clear
from the success of GNU/Linux and GPL-licensed F/OSS in general that
the GPL allows for a stronger position in the Free software market.
--
There are more love songs than anything else. If songs could make you
do something we'd all love one another.
~ Frank Zappa
Snit
AM:
> On 2011-07-09, the following emerged from the brain of Homer:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that TomB spake thusly:
>>> Snit just loves to point out what he calls 'the absurdity of
>>> Homer's claims'.
>>
>> I have Snit plonked because of his feigned obtuseness (at least I
>> assume he's feigning), which he uses to mindlessly contradict people
>> without any semblance of counterargument. I only see his inane
>> gibberish when somebody else replies to him, and I usually only
>> bother replying when he's making some patently false accusation
>> against me (if I even see it), as he is now. I have no interest in
>> responding to people who persistently claim to not understand even
>> the simplest statements, and who deliberately misinterpret those
>> statements to mean something irrelevant or even antithetical. But
>> that is Snit's modus operandi in a nutshell, a.k.a. the Snit Circus.
>
> Been there way too many times...
Staaaaaaampeeeeeeeed!!!!!
Note how you just bad mouth me... not that you have *any* evidence. None.
Just back your herd.
>>> How hard is it to understand that a proprietary spin-off of a Free
>>> BSD-licensed project restricts the user's freedom?
>>
>> Too hard for Snit, apparently.
>>
>>> The user can't take the code of the proprietary spin-off to modify
>>> it for his own needs. The user cannot share and redistribute this
>>> proprietary spin-off at will. The GPL protects these freedoms by
>>> making sure that all derived works are GPL'ed too.
>>>
>>> Yes, the BSD-license is a more liberal license, but the most
>>> notable additional freedom it gives, is restricting the freedom in
>>> derived products.
>>
>> Yes, I've never claimed that the BSD portion of any code can be
>> "made proprietary",
>
> Typical Snit sidestep you're falling for here.
Actually I made a mistake and attributed a quote from Roy to Homer. It was
my mistake and I am the one who both caught it and brought it to the
attention of COLA.
In other words, when I am wrong I openly admit to it. Even when others have
not caught the mistake
> It is perfectly clear what Roy meant when he said that.
Roy made an incorrect claim: he said the free code can be made proprietary.
This is simply wrong. No free code is removed from being free. None. Not
a line.
> And even then, if I take the exact code of the FreeBSD 'cp' program and
> redistribute it under a proprietary license, I have effectively made that
> BSD-licensed code proprietary.
No, you have not. The code is still available under the original BSD
license. It is still just as free.
> If somehome magically the original BSD-licensed copy disappears from the face
> of the earth, with no one remembering the original code, my version would
> still be proprietary and they couldn't take it back from me.
Ah, so the claim goes from the license allowing the code to be made
proprietary to it not being the license at all but, as you say, *magic*.
Yes: if one magically makes Linux become proprietary, it is no longer free.
And if one magically makes elephants become great tap dancers then Broadway
stages will have to be made more durable.
So what?
> It would be my own, little precious proprietary FreeBSD 'cp' program, and the
> FreeBSD developers would have to rewrite theirs from scratch, or get a costly
> license to use my version. Which actually is theirs, but the nincompoops
> allowed me to relicense it.
>
> Okay, that's very hypothetical, but that's how it would be.
Really: this is your *best* argument... in our universe I am right, but in a
universe where things have *magically* changed, I am wrong. In a universe
with a specific magical change, to be clear.
Wow. How humiliating for me. I am only right on the real universe and not
in your theoretical one where things have magically changed.
For crying out loud...
...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Homer
> On 2011-07-09, the following emerged from the brain of Homer:
>> Yes, I've never claimed that the BSD portion of any code can be "made
>> proprietary",
>
> Typical Snit sidestep you're falling for here. It is perfectly clear
> what Roy meant when he said that. And even then, if I take the exact
> code of the FreeBSD 'cp' program and redistribute it under a
> proprietary license, I have effectively made that BSD-licensed code
> proprietary. If somehome magically the original BSD-licensed copy
> disappears from the face of the earth
The "disappearing source code" theory is highly improbable. Somebody,
somewhere would have a copy, given the number of users, developers,
mirrors and repos out there.
The real problem is that non-reciprocative licenses help those who
refuse to help others. It's a point of principle. Even dedicated BSD
supporters like Theo de Radt complain about the lack of reciprocation.
Another, equally important issue, is that these proprietary opportunists
then invariably hijack developers and users away from the Free branch,
leaving it to stagnate - a practical issue.
It's therefore far, far better to start with strongly copyleft software
that enforces reciprocation. That won't stop individual companies and
users benefiting from Free Software privately (e.g. Google), but it does
mean any derivatives that are published must be shared freely (license,
not cost)... as it should be.
--
K. | Thy name
http://slated.org | Shalt not
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | Take the vein
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 48 days | Of my root
Snit
> Verily I say unto thee, that TomB spake thusly:
>> On 2011-07-09, the following emerged from the brain of Homer:
>
>>> Yes, I've never claimed that the BSD portion of any code can be "made
>>> proprietary",
>>
>> Typical Snit sidestep you're falling for here. It is perfectly clear
>> what Roy meant when he said that. And even then, if I take the exact
>> code of the FreeBSD 'cp' program and redistribute it under a
>> proprietary license, I have effectively made that BSD-licensed code
>> proprietary. If somehome magically the original BSD-licensed copy
>> disappears from the face of the earth
>
> The "disappearing source code" theory is highly improbable.
Right. TomB has acknowledged that I am right in *this universe*, but wants
to still say I am wrong because in an alternate universe where there is such
magic I could be made to be wrong.
It is one of the most pathetic attempts to discredit an idea I have ever
seen.
> Somebody, somewhere would have a copy, given the number of users, developers,
> mirrors and repos out there.
>
> The real problem is that non-reciprocative licenses help those who
> refuse to help others. It's a point of principle. Even dedicated BSD
> supporters like Theo de Radt complain about the lack of reciprocation.
I have no problem with you not liking it. The topic was Roy's silly claim
that the BSD allows the free code to become proprietary. It does not.
Oh, and when IP is protected with the GPL, it *also* can be used by those
who do not help others. There is nothing in the GPL demanding that if you
use such code you act in an altruistic fashion.
> Another, equally important issue, is that these proprietary opportunists
> then invariably hijack developers and users away from the Free branch,
> leaving it to stagnate - a practical issue.
You mean developers and users *chose* to go to proprietary development and
developed code. Oh no! Can't allow for *that* choice! Better call out the
Homer culling committee to make sure there are only the "right" choices.
> It's therefore far, far better to start with strongly copyleft software
> that enforces reciprocation. That won't stop individual companies and
> users benefiting from Free Software privately (e.g. Google), but it does
> mean any derivatives that are published must be shared freely (license,
> not cost)... as it should be.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
TomB
> Verily I say unto thee, that TomB spake thusly:
>> On 2011-07-09, the following emerged from the brain of Homer:
>
>>> Yes, I've never claimed that the BSD portion of any code can be
>>> "made proprietary",
>>
>> Typical Snit sidestep you're falling for here. It is perfectly
>> clear what Roy meant when he said that. And even then, if I take
>> the exact code of the FreeBSD 'cp' program and redistribute it
>> under a proprietary license, I have effectively made that
>> BSD-licensed code proprietary. If somehome magically the original
>> BSD-licensed copy disappears from the face of the earth
>
> The "disappearing source code" theory is highly improbable.
> Somebody, somewhere would have a copy, given the number of users,
> developers, mirrors and repos out there.
Of course it's highly improbable, yes even downright impossible, that
all traces of a particular program would disappear. It was just an
extreme example to show that the relicensed Free code indeed has
become proprietary, even if it still has its Free counterpart.
> The real problem is that non-reciprocative licenses help those who
> refuse to help others. It's a point of principle. Even dedicated BSD
> supporters like Theo de Radt complain about the lack of
> reciprocation.
I personally have nothing against the BSD-type licenses, but if those
who actively use them to license their code complain about the lack of
reciprocation, then that's just silly. If you want modifications fed
back to your project, use a non-permissive license like the GPL.
Simple as that.
> Another, equally important issue, is that these proprietary
> opportunists then invariably hijack developers and users away from
> the Free branch, leaving it to stagnate - a practical issue.
Do you have any concrete examples of that? I briefly looked for some
myself, but I coulnd't find anything significant.
> It's therefore far, far better to start with strongly copyleft
> software that enforces reciprocation.
It certainly is better for the F/OSS community, but in the end it is
all about what you - as a developer - expect. This FreeBSD developer I
know swears by the FreeBSD license (3-clause BSD), and doesn't mind at
all that his work is used in proprietary software without getting
anything back. He even takes pride in the fact that quite a bit of his
code is part of Apple's OSX.
> That won't stop individual companies and users benefiting from Free
> Software privately (e.g. Google), but it does mean any derivatives
> that are published must be shared freely (license, not cost)... as
> it should be.
--
He's got a watch with a minute hand,
Millenium hand and an eon hand.
When they meet it's a happy land.
Powerful man, universe man.
~ They Might Be Giants
Snit
PM:
> On 2011-07-10, the following emerged from the brain of Homer:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that TomB spake thusly:
>>> On 2011-07-09, the following emerged from the brain of Homer:
>>
>>>> Yes, I've never claimed that the BSD portion of any code can be
>>>> "made proprietary",
>>>
>>> Typical Snit sidestep you're falling for here. It is perfectly
>>> clear what Roy meant when he said that. And even then, if I take
>>> the exact code of the FreeBSD 'cp' program and redistribute it
>>> under a proprietary license, I have effectively made that
>>> BSD-licensed code proprietary. If somehome magically the original
>>> BSD-licensed copy disappears from the face of the earth
>>
>> The "disappearing source code" theory is highly improbable.
>> Somebody, somewhere would have a copy, given the number of users,
>> developers, mirrors and repos out there.
>
> Of course it's highly improbable, yes even downright impossible, that
> all traces of a particular program would disappear. It was just an
> extreme example to show that the relicensed Free code indeed has
> become proprietary, even if it still has its Free counterpart.
It was an absurd attempt to "prove" me wrong: in the end you agreed I am
right, but proposed an alternative universe where there was a form of, as
you called it, *magic* that would make me wrong.
Magic.
The only defense you had of Roy's absurd claim is that in an alternate world
with a particular form of magic he would be right.
And I countered with the idea that if elephants could tap dance then
Broadway stages would have to be made stronger. Who cares?
>> The real problem is that non-reciprocative licenses help those who
>> refuse to help others. It's a point of principle. Even dedicated BSD
>> supporters like Theo de Radt complain about the lack of
>> reciprocation.
>
> I personally have nothing against the BSD-type licenses, but if those
> who actively use them to license their code complain about the lack of
> reciprocation, then that's just silly. If you want modifications fed
> back to your project, use a non-permissive license like the GPL.
> Simple as that.
Fine.
>> Another, equally important issue, is that these proprietary
>> opportunists then invariably hijack developers and users away from
>> the Free branch, leaving it to stagnate - a practical issue.
>
> Do you have any concrete examples of that? I briefly looked for some
> myself, but I coulnd't find anything significant.
He likely made it up... but I would love to see him prove me wrong.
Even if he is right, though, he is merely whining about - get this -
*choice*.
Homer: whining that there is choice and that people make a choice he does
not like - so he thinks it is best to limit choice. Hey, I have no problem
with him preferring the more limited choice the GPL provides, compared to
the BSD license, but it is kinda funny.
>> It's therefore far, far better to start with strongly copyleft
>> software that enforces reciprocation.
>
> It certainly is better for the F/OSS community, but in the end it is
> all about what you - as a developer - expect. This FreeBSD developer I
> know swears by the FreeBSD license (3-clause BSD), and doesn't mind at
> all that his work is used in proprietary software without getting
> anything back. He even takes pride in the fact that quite a bit of his
> code is part of Apple's OSX.
Good for him. And for Homer for preferring a difference license that
protects IP in a different way. I prefer choice - unlike Homer who is
against it.
>> That won't stop individual companies and users benefiting from Free
>> Software privately (e.g. Google), but it does mean any derivatives
>> that are published must be shared freely (license, not cost)... as
>> it should be.
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
chrisv
>Typical Snit sidestep you're falling for here. It is perfectly clear
>what Roy meant when he said that.
Of course it is. It's like the trolling pieces of shit not
understanding why there should be any laws at all.
"Well, I thought you were for 'freedom'!"
Ridiculous asshole.
chrisv
>Another, equally important issue, is that these proprietary opportunists
>then invariably hijack developers and users away from the Free branch,
>leaving it to stagnate - a practical issue.
Right. It's possible that the code could be twisted, by someone like
Microshaft, and then the "twisted" version becomes the "standard",
effectively killing the open version.
Snit
Homer
> On 2011-07-10, the following emerged from the brain of Homer:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that TomB spake thusly:
>>> On 2011-07-09, the following emerged from the brain of Homer:
>> The real problem is that non-reciprocative licenses help those who
>> refuse to help others. It's a point of principle. Even dedicated BSD
>> supporters like Theo de Radt complain about the lack of
>> reciprocation.
>
> I personally have nothing against the BSD-type licenses, but if those
> who actively use them to license their code complain about the lack of
> reciprocation, then that's just silly.
Yes, but true nonetheless, which suggests to me that BSD proponents are
deeply ambivalent. Take this for example:
First Theo de Radt complains that Free Software is "not really Free":
[quote]
But it was really a reaction against Stallman calling it the Free
Software Foundation. Like free, but with restrictions, software. And
already at this point there were some of us in the community who were
already kind of insulted by them saying free when it's not really free.
[/quote]
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/07/1097089476287.html
But then he complains about the lack of reciprocation from those who
benefit from BSD licensed software:
[quote]
NF: Lots of hardware vendors use OpenSSH. Have you got anything back
from them?
TdR: If I add up everything we have ever gotten in exchange for our
efforts with OpenSSH, it might amount to $1,000. This all came from
individuals. For our work on OpenSSH, companies using OpenSSH have never
given us a cent. What about companies that incorporate OpenSSH directly
into their products, saving themselves millions of dollars? Companies
such as Cisco, Sun, SGI, HP, IBM, Siemens, a raft of medium-sized
firewall companies -- we have not received a cent. Or from Linux
vendors? Not a cent.
Of course we did not set out to create OpenSSH for the money -- we
purposely made it completely free so that the "telnet infrastructure" of
the 1980s would die. But it sure is sad that none of these companies
return even a fraction of value in kind.
If you want to judge any entity particularly harshly, judge Sun. Yearly
they hold interoperability events, for NFS and other protocols, and they
include SSH implementation tests as well. Twice we asked them to cover
the travel and accommodation costs for a developer to come to their
event, and they refused. Considering that their SunSSH is directly based
on our code, that is just flat out insulting. Shame on you Sun, shame,
shame, shame.
I will say it here -- if an OpenSSH hole is found that applies to
SunSSH, Sun will not be informed. Or maybe that has happened already.
[/quote]
http://www.linux.com/archive/feed/53004
So much for his anarchist ideals.
The fact is we live in an imperfect world, where not all people will do
the right thing unless they are forced to by rules. One can cynically
claim such rules are "restrictions", but all that's really being
"restricted" is wrongdoing.
Theo de Radt starts out by expounding the dubious virtues of anarchy,
but then complains about the inevitable consequences. At best this is
extremely naive, at worst it's rather hypocritical.
And his complaints are not unique either. There's an entire movement of
deeply ambivalent anarchist ideologues out there, both inside and
outside the software community, who constantly berate the "restrictions"
of democratic rule on the one hand, whilst bemoaning the consequences of
lawlessness on the other. They need to stop and think about their own
hypocrisy for a moment.
The GPL only restricts that which should /rightfully/ be restricted.
> If you want modifications fed back to your project, use a
> non-permissive license like the GPL. Simple as that.
I understand completely, but apparently not everybody does.
But I think it's more accurate to call it an "ethical license", unless
one is going to spell out the unethical nature of exactly what is not
being permitted, otherwise it endorses the misconception that such a
restriction is somehow unwarranted.
>> Another, equally important issue, is that these proprietary
>> opportunists then invariably hijack developers and users away from
>> the Free branch, leaving it to stagnate - a practical issue.
>
> Do you have any concrete examples of that? I briefly looked for some
> myself, but I coulnd't find anything significant.
Here's a fairly typical example, and a challenge for you: Try to find a
Free version of OpenSSH server on the Android market.
The only two available are QuickSSHd and SSHDroid, and they're both
proprietary and commercial. Indeed the latter is a blatant rip-off of
the former, as noted by the QuickSSHd developer:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=921801
There's only one way to get a Free version of OpenSSH server onto an
Android, and that's to compile it yourself from the Dropbear GIT repo,
something the vast majority of Android users are highly unlikely to do.
That's half a million new users per day whose first and only point of
contact with this supposedly "Free" software will be a proprietary
version of it. That's half a million potential new developers per day
who will likely never contribute a single line of code to OpenSSH on the
Android platform, because all their focus is on one of two proprietary
versions of it.
And that's just one BSD application. Consider the volume of BSD
components in Mac OS X and Windows, and the number of users and
developers on those platforms.
In essence, the BSD deliberately marginalises Free Software development,
and then (ironically) BSD proponents complain about that fact, bemoaning
the lack of reciprocation, whilst simultaneously criticising
"restrictions" in the GPL specifically designed to ensure that very
thing. It's a development model that discourages cooperation, by
allowing people to exercise their "freedom" to be selfish with somebody
/else's/ altruism.
>> It's therefore far, far better to start with strongly copyleft
>> software that enforces reciprocation.
>
> It certainly is better for the F/OSS community, but in the end it is
> all about what you - as a developer - expect. This FreeBSD developer I
> know swears by the FreeBSD license (3-clause BSD), and doesn't mind at
> all that his work is used in proprietary software without getting
> anything back. He even takes pride in the fact that quite a bit of his
> code is part of Apple's OSX.
Then he's a fool.
How can any rational person take pride in contributing to somebody
else's selfish endeavours?
Money, perhaps ... but /pride/?
Sorry, but I don't see how anyone can take pride in helping to deprive
others of freedom.
--
K. | Thy name
http://slated.org | Shalt not
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | Take the vein
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 49 days | Of my root
Snit
> Verily I say unto thee, that TomB spake thusly:
>> On 2011-07-10, the following emerged from the brain of Homer:
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that TomB spake thusly:
>>>> On 2011-07-09, the following emerged from the brain of Homer:
>
>>> The real problem is that non-reciprocative licenses help those who
>>> refuse to help others. It's a point of principle. Even dedicated BSD
>>> supporters like Theo de Radt complain about the lack of
>>> reciprocation.
>>
>> I personally have nothing against the BSD-type licenses, but if those
>> who actively use them to license their code complain about the lack of
>> reciprocation, then that's just silly.
>
> Yes, but true nonetheless, which suggests to me that BSD proponents are
> deeply ambivalent. Take this for example:
>
> First Theo de Radt complains that Free Software is "not really Free":
>
> [quote]
> But it was really a reaction against Stallman calling it the Free
> Software Foundation. Like free, but with restrictions, software. And
> already at this point there were some of us in the community who were
> already kind of insulted by them saying free when it's not really free.
> [/quote]
>
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/07/1097089476287.html
>
> But then he complains about the lack of reciprocation from those who
> benefit from BSD licensed software:
You hand something to someone and tell them it is free. They accept the
gift.
Seems rather silly to then whine they are not giving you a gift back.