Happy GNU/Linux Thanksgiving!

[Farley Flud]

It is Thanksgiving USA and it is time to heartily appreciate
all those who have made GNU/Linux, the greatest OS in human
technical history, possible.

Thanks Linus Torvalds!

Thanks to the great Dr. Richard M. Stallman!

Thanks to the countless, and usually nameless, others who
contribute to the excellent and unparalleled FOSS software!

The world is yours -- or it very soon will be!

We thank you and thank you and thank you all!


But now we must also consider the loathsome GNU/Linux detractors
who dare to castigate the wondrous GNU/Linux.

To these supporters of Microslop/Apphole we wish FOOD
POISONING with concomitant VOMITING and BLOODY DIARRHEA.

Choke on your own fetid bullshit, you motherfucking
imbecilic assholes!


Farley Flud

Registered black Linux user #4464

[DFS]

On 11/22/2023 4:31 PM, Larry "Farley Flud" Pietraskiewicz wrote:


> To these supporters of Microslop/Apphole we wish FOOD
> POISONING with concomitant VOMITING and BLOODY DIARRHEA.

"I​ ​g​o​t​s​ ​m​e​ ​t​h​e​ ​v​e​r​y​ ​l​a​t​e​s​t​ ​W​i​n​d​o​w​s​ ​1​1
​​E​n​t​e​r​p​r​i​s​e​ ​a​n​d​ ​P​r​o​ ​O​f​f​i​c​e​ ​2​0​2​1​.​ I
​ne​e​d​s​ ​t​h​i​s​ ​c​u​z​ ​I​ ​w​o​r​k​s​ ​f​o​r​ ​t​h​e​ ​U​S​
​A​r​m​e​e ​a​n​d​ ​I​ ​g​o​t​ ​t​o​ ​r​u​n​ ​S​o​l​i​d​w​o​r​k​s​.​"
- Feeb, very happy to have great Windows software. Linux can't compete.

> Choke on your own fetid bullshit, you motherfucking
> imbecilic assholes!

Was this posted from your Windows job?

[Joel Crump]

On 11/22/23 17:35, DFS wrote:
> On 11/22/2023 4:31 PM, Larry "Farley Flud" Pietraskiewicz wrote:
>
>> To these supporters of Microslop/Apphole we wish FOOD
>> POISONING with concomitant VOMITING and BLOODY DIARRHEA.
>
> "I​ ​g​o​t​s​ ​m​e​ ​t​h​e​ ​v​e​r​y​ ​l​a​t​e​s​t​ ​W​i​n​d​o​w​s​ ​1​1
> ​​E​n​t​e​r​p​r​i​s​e​ ​a​n​d​ ​P​r​o​ ​O​f​f​i​c​e​ ​2​0​2​1​.​  I ​ne
> ​e​d​s​ ​t​h​i​s​ ​c​u​z​ ​I​ ​w​o​r​k​s​ ​f​o​r​ ​t​h​e​ ​U​S​ ​A​r​m​e
> ​e ​a​n​d​ ​I​ ​g​o​t​ ​t​o​ ​r​u​n​ ​S​o​l​i​d​w​o​r​k​s​.​"
> - Feeb, very happy to have great Windows software.  Linux can't compete.

You're missing the punch line of what Russell said, he pirated them.
He's proud of it. Meanwhile, he supposedly promotes software
freedom - you can't have that both ways, you either use Linux and/or LO
and GIMP because you believe in freedom, and it might not hurt that
they're available free, or you are doing it because you think there's
something inherently wrong with capitalism (which Russell says he
actually admires). Microsoft, Apple, Google, Adobe are providing
essential products in a diverse industry, I honor that, I've paid for
their products, but I still value the free as in freedom dimension of FOSS.

That having been said, I don't really care about individual use piracy
of software, but it's just funny when it's such a raging hypocrite doing it.

>> Choke on your own fetid bullshit, you motherfucking
>> imbecilic assholes!
>
> Was this posted from your Windows job?

We'd be so shocked, wouldn't we.

--
Joel W. Crump

[%]

i'm using windows 214 it comes with an update

[Joel]

% <purse...@gmail.com> wrote:

>i'm using windows 214 it comes with an update

You're definitely using Win10 or Win11, your Firefox-based NNTP client
shows that definitively.

--
Joel W. Crump

[chrisv]

Joel Crump wrote:

> some dumb fsck wrote:
>>
>> Linux can't compete.

Neither could Windwoes Phone, when trying to come from behind. At
least Linux survives (and prospers).

>You're missing the punch line of what Russell said, he pirated them.
>He's proud of it.
>

>That having been said, I don't really care about individual use piracy
>of software, but it's just funny when it's such a raging hypocrite doing it.

Fabian is a kook, like yourself. The dumb fsck you're siding with is
a genuine POS.

Oh, and that dumb fsck has no problem with software piracy.

"So? I can find Photoshop free all over the Internet." - DumFSck

>>> Choke on your own fetid bullshit, you motherfucking
>>> imbecilic assholes!
>>
>> Was this posted from your Windows job?
>
> We'd be so shocked, wouldn't we.

Do you think it's "hypocritical" for a FOSS advocate to use Windows on
the job?

I'll read the response, if it's not too snotty.

[Joel]

chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>Joel Crump wrote:
>> some dumb fsck wrote:
>>>
>>> Linux can't compete.
>
>Neither could Windwoes Phone, when trying to come from behind. At
>least Linux survives (and prospers).

Windows Phone was actually fine, I was considering buying one as my
second smartphone, but the guy at the AT&T store was very honest that
I was wasting my time with it, it never got developers like iOS and
Android, and I got another Samsung phone.

>>You're missing the punch line of what Russell said, he pirated them.
>>He's proud of it.
>>
>>That having been said, I don't really care about individual use piracy
>>of software, but it's just funny when it's such a raging hypocrite doing it.
>
>Fabian is a kook, like yourself.

Whatever, "chrisv", you're a kid to me.

> The dumb fsck you're siding with is
>a genuine POS.

Siding with? I think it's funny what Russell wrote, that doesn't mean
I admire DFS. I think he's reasonably experienced in the subject
matter of the group, but to the end of having poor opinions.

>Oh, and that dumb fsck has no problem with software piracy.
>
>"So? I can find Photoshop free all over the Internet." - DumFSck

I would consider that hypocritical of him, as well.

>>>> Choke on your own fetid bullshit, you motherfucking
>>>> imbecilic assholes!
>>>
>>> Was this posted from your Windows job?
>>
>> We'd be so shocked, wouldn't we.
>
>Do you think it's "hypocritical" for a FOSS advocate to use Windows on
>the job?

No, I think it's just amusing that Russell like everyone has used more
than one system, it's absurd to think most around here wouldn't have.

>I'll read the response, if it's not too snotty.

You're a lot more of that than I am, around here, but you tell me what
you think.

--
Joel W. Crump

[Physfitfreak]

On 11/22/2023 3:31 PM, Farley Flud wrote:
> It is Thanksgiving USA
>
>
>


My cats are "truly American." I bought lots of turkey canned cat food to
give them tomorrow.

[Joel]

Tyrone <no...@none.none> wrote:

>User-Agent: Usenapp for MacOS
>
>On Nov 22, 2023 at 4:31:00?PM EST, "Farley Flud" <f...@linux.rocks> wrote:
>
>...his usual drivel.
>
>Meanwhile, thank you AT&T for creating Unix, which is the ACTUAL "greatest OS
>in human
>technical history". Every computer on the planet - from mainframes to watches
>- is now running some form of Unix.
>
>Except, of course, for the poor lost souls who are forced to use Windows at
>work.


So because macOS is "some form of Unix", you think you're advocating
Unix while posting with a Mac GUI app?

--
Joel W. Crump

[Joel]

Tyrone <no...@none.none> wrote:

>>> Meanwhile, thank you AT&T for creating Unix, which is the ACTUAL "greatest OS
>>> in human
>>> technical history". Every computer on the planet - from mainframes to watches
>>> - is now running some form of Unix.
>>>
>>> Except, of course, for the poor lost souls who are forced to use Windows at
>>> work.
>>
>> So because macOS is "some form of Unix", you think you're advocating
>> Unix while posting with a Mac GUI app?
>

>No, I am merely stating facts.
>
>MacOS IS Unix. A "GUI app" has nothing to do with anything. Unix is Unix. I
>am posting from Unix.


The *core* of macOS is essentially Unix, I agree, but not the GUI,
that's 100% Apple.


>I used to post with Bhinderturd, which is also a "GUI app". So? I was still
>using Unix.


I don't even get a result for that in a Google Web search.


>Meanwhile, you are posting from Windows using ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272. Which
>is also a "GUI app". What version of Unix are you "advocating"?


It's running under Wine, genius, that's one of the benefits to Unix
flavors running on ostensibly Windows hardware, you don't even need
Winblows to use a lot of stuff, including Agent.

--
Joel W. Crump

[DFS]

On 11/22/2023 7:32 PM, Joel wrote:

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


>> Oh, and that dumb fsck has no problem with software piracy.
>>
>> "So? I can find Photoshop free all over the Internet." - DumFSck
>
>
> I would consider that hypocritical of him, as well.

I never once pirated Photoshop. That's just shitv spewing his lies and
idiocy.

I don't have a single bit of pirated music, movies or software anywhere
in my possession, but I do have a lot of .pdf book files downloaded from
libgen. Unfortunately, they're extremely tedious to read on the computer.

[Physfitfreak]

A better repository of pdf's (and other formats) is Anna's Archive
(Архив Анны). They claim to be the world's largest open-source library.

They have most of the stuff that are illegal to download in the USA and
Europe, but since Russians are behind it, publishers only get the middle
finger from them, if complain :)

They host a collection of content that is typically considered illegal
to download in the USA and Europe. But given that Russians are in
charge, publishers only receive a dismissive response (read that "the
middle finger!") if they raise any complaints :-))

But as soon as dispute between Russia and USA dwindles down, it probably
goes away. So enjoy it while it lasts!

[Physfitfreak]

There we go again... Thunderbird posted an unedited version of my post
all by itself! The following is the final edit:

On 11/24/2023 2:21 PM, DFS wrote:

A better repository of pdf's (and other formats) is Anna's Archive
(Архив Анны). They claim to be the world's largest open-source library.

[DFS]

On 11/24/2023 3:44 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:

> There we go again... Thunderbird posted an unedited version of my post
> all by itself! The following is the final edit:

delirium tremens

I think you know TBird didn't auto-post anything.

> On 11/24/2023 2:21 PM, DFS wrote:
>> On 11/22/2023 7:32 PM, Joel wrote:
>>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  I do have a lot of .pdf book files downloaded from libgen.
>> Unfortunately, they're extremely tedious to read on the computer.
>
>
> A better repository of pdf's (and other formats) is Anna's Archive
> (Архив Анны). They claim to be the world's largest open-source library.

"Mirrors Sci-Hub, LibGen, Z-Lib, and more." Thanks for the link.


I've looked at Sci-Hub before. The founder lady is funny:

"Sci-Hub has been hit by many lawsuits from academic publishing
companies. They insist that Sci-Hub is not legal and accuse Sci-Hub of
copyright violation or piracy...

The position of Sci-Hub is: the project is legal, while restricting
access to information and knowledge is not. The current operation of
academic publishing industry is massive violation of human rights."



As I recall, she's on the hook for pretty big money if Russia were to
extradite her here. Which they won't.

But I think she's wrong about a couple things:

"All this was made possible by the fundamentally wrong concept of
intellectual property."

and

"The central idea of Sci-Hub is that Knowledge belongs to all people."


I disagree on both points. If I discover or invent something new,
whether by luck or dedication, it belongs to me, even if my discovery or
invention was helped by 'standing on the shoulders of giants'. Most
people aren't gonna dedicate their lives to the advancement of things or
ideas if their work product is taken and given away to everyone else for
free. Financial reward is a far better motivator than altruism - which
is why, for example, the best software is almost always proprietary.

Likewise, if my writing elucidates a topic better than yours, and mine
becomes a popular book, it's my IP to copyright and do with as I wish.

> They host a collection of content that is typically considered illegal
> to download in the USA and Europe. But given that Russians are in
> charge, publishers only receive a dismissive response (read that "the
> middle finger!") if they raise any complaints :-))
>
> But as soon as dispute between Russia and USA dwindles down, it probably
> goes away. So enjoy it while it lasts!

My ebook collection: https://imgur.com/a/i6eh7Yx

Windows from left to right:
* 52 top-level classifications of ebooks
* computing is split into 32 topics
(computing is about 1/3 of all my ebooks)
* within computing/database there are 10 topics
* I have 14 ebooks dedicated to the SQL language

If I were to ever benefit financially from a specific ebook, I would buy
the book (or the ebook) from the publisher. Until then, I just peruse
them for a few minutes every now and then.

A few of these ebooks I already own in hard copy, and some are available
for free (ie https://pbr-book.org) and the author doesn't care if you
download the .pdf.

[Stéphane CARPENTIER]

Le 23-11-2023, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> The *core* of macOS is essentially Unix, I agree,

Good.

> but not the GUI, that's 100% Apple.

What defines a UNIX GUI? A UNIX system is defined by POSIX, but the GUI?
What does it means it's UNIX or not?

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

[Joel]

Stéphane CARPENTIER <s...@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:

>> The *core* of macOS is essentially Unix, I agree,
>
>Good.
>
>> but not the GUI, that's 100% Apple.
>
>What defines a UNIX GUI? A UNIX system is defined by POSIX, but the GUI?
>What does it means it's UNIX or not?

I mean, it can run the Unix GUI alongside itself, which is actually a
strong feature of macOS, to me, because its own GUI is so useless.
Even if Usenapp were one I liked, which is possible, I'd feel goofy
posting with it. But running Agent under WinforARM would suffice, I'd
just make sure I had a Mac with enough RAM to run that. Between
macOS's Unix/Darwin, and a couple small Windows apps (like I have now
under Wine), I'd have essentially the same thing as a Linux or other
Unix flavor system.

--
Joel W. Crump

[Physfitfreak]

On 11/24/2023 4:25 PM, DFS wrote:
> On 11/24/2023 3:44 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>
>> There we go again... Thunderbird posted an unedited version of my post
>> all by itself! The following is the final edit:
>
>
> delirium tremens
>
> I think you know TBird didn't auto-post anything.
>
>

No! I go make a cup of hot tea and come back and it's sent! Right in the
middle of editing. Could be that one of the keyboard keys means "send"
to TB and a cat steps on it. Cats often walk on this desk.

Or it is possible that the culprit key is in a state of half-stuck down
by dirt (old cat urine underneath) and every now and then gets invoked
by itself, ordinarily doing nothing, but in the middle of editing in TB,
sending the message.

There are weird other things about this keyboard as well, which I
described here some time back (and didn't get any useful response). One
is, while I'm typing, in a split second, so fast that my eyes cannot
catch it, part of my text disappears without my knowing. I have
suspected that since I type very fast, again a key combination or
something highlights a part of text and on subsequent typing it is
replaced.

I don't know how to turn off "typing replaces the highlighted text". In
MS Word (if I remember correctly) it can be done. But on the general
editors on a Windows OS I have no idea how this can be stopped.

Back to subject. What they claim as principles is just extremist
bullshit excuses, and as I said will disappear into thin air as soon as
relations with Russians normalizes. I download (sometimes) ebooks
illegally because I consider my time spent on reading and understanding
them worth way more than the price of the book. So I don't feel guilty
doing that.

A not-read book, no matter how useful and money-making or even full of
vital information, is worth nothing until read. So a great deal of
commitment from the reader is also involved in this author-reader
business relationship. Yes I've gladly bought $400 books before because
what they taught me was worth thousands of dollars more than the price
of my time reading and learning them. But when I want to read a book by,
say, "Bill Browder", I don't feel like I need to pay that son of a bitch
a dime. In fact I feel he must pay me for reading and looking into his
picture of events that he describes. He should be more than glad that I
or anybody else read it for free.

[Physfitfreak]

So I guess it boils down to, in reading a book, the matter of price paid
depends on whether it is you who are using it for your gains, or it is
you who are being used for the author's gain.

[Physfitfreak]

On 11/24/2023 4:25 PM, DFS wrote:
> Financial reward is a far better motivator than altruism - which is why,
> for example, the best software is almost always proprietary.

It's got nothing to do with altruism. I don't know how long they've been
around, but I think they began doing it as revenge for imposed
sanctions. So you're benefiting from sanctions' side effects.

Medvedev openly encouraged distribution of every American and European
copyrighted material to the world, free of charge, after sanctions were
placed on Russia.

[Physfitfreak]

On 11/24/2023 8:09 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> Medvedev openly encouraged distribution of every American and European
> copyrighted material to the world, free of charge, after sanctions were
> placed on Russia.

I haven't checked, but similar sites might by now up by Russians to do
the same with other forms of copyrighted material, like precious sweet
computer applications, design secrets, pharmaceutical proprietary
information, anything that is of great value and the owners are
Americans and Europeans, and Russians could get a hand on.

[chrisv]

> some dumb fsck wrote:
>>
>> Financial reward is a far better motivator than altruism - which is why,
>> for example, the best software is almost always proprietary.

There is a financial reward to being part of a community that is
working for the common good, you dumb fsck. This is why, for example,
many for-profit companies contribute.

--
"And this is what Stallman's real problem with Jobs and Apple are. He
loathes that they have success in ways he cannot even imagine." -
some thing, lying shamelessly

[RabidPedagog]

On 2023-11-25 9:37 a.m., chrisv wrote:
>> some dumb fsck wrote:
>>>
>>> Financial reward is a far better motivator than altruism - which is why,
>>> for example, the best software is almost always proprietary.
>
> There is a financial reward to being part of a community that is
> working for the common good, you dumb fsck. This is why, for example,
> many for-profit companies contribute.

There is no doubt that free software is for the common good. However, I
don't trust that companies contribute to it out of the goodness of their
hearts. I get the impression that they get lots more out of free
software and feel that contributing is a small price to pay for the
benefits. For example, without the Linux kernel, I don't believe that
Google would have been able to conquer the smartphone market with Android.

The problem I have is that DFS is actually correct here: the best
software is almost always proprietary, even in the case of Linux. People
who can't take the chance that their computer will go down must rely on
Redhat or other commercial products. Even in the unlikely event that it
does, they know that they can call experts on the other line who won't
blame them for the problem as "advocates" often do but actually help
them. With regular distributions, not only is there no one to help you,
but the people distributing the software warn you that things can go
wrong and that you're on your own if it does.

Honestly, it breaks my heart that Linux has been so unkind to me. I
imagine that the way Linux treats me is similar to how professional
wrestling treated Aron Stevens who never found the kind of success he
deserved. I love everything about it, but it never ceases to disappoint
me. I truly wanted to convert my mother to it because she is the exact
target for something like Linux Mint. However, even on a routine install
where a user does little more than send e-mails and browse did it have
to decide that sound wouldn't be straightforward. I applaud the
advocates for being to tolerate such garbage for as long as they have,
but my own energy is completely depleted.


--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Only you can prevent Linux installs

[Stéphane CARPENTIER]

Le 25-11-2023, RabidPedagog <ra...@pedag.og> a écrit :
> On 2023-11-25 9:37 a.m., chrisv wrote:
>>
>> There is a financial reward to being part of a community that is
>> working for the common good, you dumb fsck. This is why, for example,
>> many for-profit companies contribute.
>
> There is no doubt that free software is for the common good. However, I
> don't trust that companies contribute to it out of the goodness of their
> hearts.

That's the great part with FOSS. You don't need to trust the companies
motives, you just have to read the code they send. Unlike Windows,
Google, Apple or what close code company you want, you don't need trust,
you just can see by yourself. If they give you something that's great,
it's enough. If they give you something that looks great, you have to
trust them to know if it's really great or if something is hidden.

> For example, without the Linux kernel, I don't believe that
> Google would have been able to conquer the smartphone market with Android.

I don't understand your point. Android isn't FOSS, and of course without
FOSS it wouldn't have been able to conquer the world. So what? FOSS is a
great tool, with it you can do good or bad things. Nothing new.

> The problem I have is that DFS is actually correct here: the best
> software is almost always proprietary, even in the case of Linux.

No. He's wrong. Linux is everywhere when people can choose. The 500
biggest computers in the world run Linux since years. It's for a reason.
On the desktop Windows is prevalent but it isn't because it's better,
it's for legal reasons. On companies, Linux is far more deployed on
servers than Windows for a reason. If WSL has been installed on Windows,
it's for a reason. If Azure runs more Linux servers than Windows
servers, it's for a reason. I mean Azure is managed by Microsoft and
they trust more Linux than there own Windows products to run their
servers. You can fool yourself believing they do it for other reasons
than Linux is far better than what they can provide.

> I truly wanted to convert my mother to it because she is the exact
> target for something like Linux Mint. However, even on a routine install
> where a user does little more than send e-mails and browse did it have
> to decide that sound wouldn't be straightforward.

Maybe the issue is with Mint more than Linux. Linux is just a kernel. To
be useful, you need an OS: the kernel with a lot of tools, a way to
install them and a way to upgrade them. I started with slackware almost
thirty years ago because there was no choice at that time. It was way
more difficult than any actual distro. It took me days to be able to run
fvwm on it. The years later I discovered ubuntu which was easier to
instal and managed. Except when anything went bad, I didn't knew what
choices ubuntu did for me (unlike slackware which didn't do any choice).

Now, I'm using Arch because I know how Linux works and I don't like a
distro choosing for me without my knowledge. Maybe it's the same for
you. You believe Mint is the best distro when it might not be. maybe
it's not Mint but the Desktop environment, too. I'm against KDE and
Gnome for a reason. The purpose of a Windows Manager is to manage
Widows, not to manage sound and USB sticks. When they do it, they mess
up with the system.

> I applaud the advocates for being to tolerate such garbage for as long
> as they have, but my own energy is completely depleted.

I don't tolerate garbage. I have no issue with my computer because I
know what I put on it and I know how to use it.

[chrisv]

RabidPedagog wrote:

>The problem I have is that DFS is actually correct here: the best
>software is almost always proprietary, even in the case of Linux. People
>who can't take the chance that their computer will go down must rely on
>Redhat or other commercial products.

Things that are more expensive are usually better. In all markets.

But many people don't need the expensive product, and get a far better
value with the "good enough" product. Again, in all markets.

FOSS is good enough to be the better value for large segments of the
market, especially considering that it has some clear advantages (e.g.
privacy and security) over proprietary software.

[chrisv]

RabidPedagog wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> some dumb fsck wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Financial reward is a far better motivator than altruism - which is why,
>>>> for example, the best software is almost always proprietary.
>>
>> There is a financial reward to being part of a community that is
>> working for the common good, you dumb fsck. This is why, for example,
>> many for-profit companies contribute.
>
>There is no doubt that free software is for the common good. However, I
>don't trust that companies contribute to it out of the goodness of their
>hearts.

"Common good" does not mean "goodness of our hearts". A rising tide
lifts all boats.

Companies contribute because there is a financial reward.

>I get the impression that they get lots more out of free
>software and feel that contributing is a small price to pay for the
>benefits.

Of course. It's the same for individuals.

--
"Time costs money - lots of money. Linux lusers don't understand
this." - DumFSck, lying shamelessly

[Stéphane CARPENTIER]

Le 25-11-2023, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> a écrit :
> RabidPedagog wrote:
>
>>The problem I have is that DFS is actually correct here: the best
>>software is almost always proprietary, even in the case of Linux. People
>>who can't take the chance that their computer will go down must rely on
>>Redhat or other commercial products.
>
> Things that are more expensive are usually better. In all markets.

Yes, Mac OS is better than Windows, which is better than Linux. That's
why on the TOP 500 of the biggest computers in the world, there's only
Mac OS. And that's why Mac OS i dominant in the servers running the
cloud, closely followed by Windows and Linux is nowhere to be seen.

The quality has a price, right. The absence of quality has a cost,
difficult to estimate. Linux is free, but it didn't means it costs
nothing. Its costs aren't paid by the end-users but they exist anymore.
Either someone has to pay Linus Torvalds for example. Others (thousands
of them) give their time to improve it.

[chrisv]

Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> RabidPedagog wrote:
>>>
>>>The problem I have is that DFS is actually correct here: the best
>>>software is almost always proprietary, even in the case of Linux. People
>>>who can't take the chance that their computer will go down must rely on
>>>Redhat or other commercial products.
>>
>> Things that are more expensive are usually better. In all markets.
>
>Yes, Mac OS is better than Windows, which is better than Linux. That's
>why on the TOP 500 of the biggest computers in the world, there's only
>Mac OS. And that's why Mac OS i dominant in the servers running the
>cloud, closely followed by Windows and Linux is nowhere to be seen.

Obviously, you are being sarcastic. Your point is correct, but so is
Slime's point about importance of paid support in many circumstances.

>The quality has a price, right. The absence of quality has a cost,
>difficult to estimate. Linux is free, but it didn't means it costs
>nothing. Its costs aren't paid by the end-users but they exist anymore.
>Either someone has to pay Linus Torvalds for example. Others (thousands
>of them) give their time to improve it.

Your points are correct, but the application software is usually a
different story. For cutting-edge or specialty applications, the
closed-source model often provides the best solutions.

--
"At one point, a Windows supercomputer was #58 on the Top 500, leaving
442 Linux supercomputers in the dust." - some dumb fsck

[Stéphane CARPENTIER]

Le 25-11-2023, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> a écrit :

> Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> RabidPedagog wrote:
>>>>
>>>>The problem I have is that DFS is actually correct here: the best
>>>>software is almost always proprietary, even in the case of Linux. People
>>>>who can't take the chance that their computer will go down must rely on
>>>>Redhat or other commercial products.
>>>
>>> Things that are more expensive are usually better. In all markets.
>>
>>Yes, Mac OS is better than Windows, which is better than Linux. That's
>>why on the TOP 500 of the biggest computers in the world, there's only
>>Mac OS. And that's why Mac OS i dominant in the servers running the
>>cloud, closely followed by Windows and Linux is nowhere to be seen.
>
> Obviously, you are being sarcastic.

Of course I was ironic.

> Your point is correct, but so is Slime's point about importance of
> paid support in many circumstances.

The fact that a system can be free doesn't mean it can runs by itself.
So someone must be paid to run it. Either you do it yourself, or you
have someone on your team to do it or you pay some external support to
do the job. The last way is the way Red Hat get money for it's work.

At home, you pay Windows and if you ask Microsoft they tell you to go
see your reseller. So buying something doesn't mean you have some
support. And having something for free doesn't mean you can't have
support for it.

So when he says that the best software is almost always proprietary is
just plain wrong. It's unrelated with the paid support, it's related
with the acquisition cost, which is different.

If you want to play game, yes the proprietary games are almost always
better than free games. But it's not general in the software.

>>The quality has a price, right. The absence of quality has a cost,
>>difficult to estimate. Linux is free, but it didn't means it costs
>>nothing. Its costs aren't paid by the end-users but they exist anymore.
>>Either someone has to pay Linus Torvalds for example. Others (thousands
>>of them) give their time to improve it.
>
> Your points are correct, but the application software is usually a
> different story.

Why? When you spend your time on FOSS, you don't spend it on things
which can grant you money. So when you spend your time on FOSS projects,
you really care about what you do. When you are paid to do it, you don't
care as much.

> For cutting-edge or specialty applications, the closed-source model
> often provides the best solutions.

What do you call cutting edge applications? Kubernetes? Docker? ChatGPT?
It's like science, they have benefited by being released to the public.

[Borax Man]

Things that are more expensive may be better in areas where there is
an open playing field and healthy competition. The OS market for
Personal Computers is NOT such a market. It was a monopoly, you have
a second player, and thats it. In such markets, where there is
capture, and the customer is not able to easily switch to a
competitor, these standard market tropes like 'higher cost = higher
quality' fall apart.


--

[Borax Man]

I find it weird how some people seem to have bad luck. I've been
using RedHat now Fedora for over 20 years, and the worst problem I've
had has been having to update the NVIDIA driver during an OS update,
and a malformed /etc/environment causing the particular Display
Manager I use from starting on the latest update. It was, admittedly
a little difficult to troubleshoot but deleting a single undeeded
invalid line from /etc/environment fixed it. Apart from that, this OS
on my desktop has been running since about 2013, just upgraded over
and over. My laptop has had no issues at all.

I moved my wife to Linux when she needed a new laptop. It was
difficult to justify spending the $$$$'s on a Mac when all she uses is
Firefox, so I got a refurbished Thinkpad and put Linux on it. No
issues.

It seems that there can be people where a particular bit of software
just hates you. Its like filesystems, someone can use somthing like
EXT4 and swear it just falls aparts, whereas others find it rock
solid.




--

[RabidPedagog]

On 2023-11-25 11:05 a.m., Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> Le 25-11-2023, RabidPedagog <ra...@pedag.og> a écrit :
>> On 2023-11-25 9:37 a.m., chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> There is a financial reward to being part of a community that is
>>> working for the common good, you dumb fsck. This is why, for example,
>>> many for-profit companies contribute.
>>
>> There is no doubt that free software is for the common good. However, I
>> don't trust that companies contribute to it out of the goodness of their
>> hearts.
>
> That's the great part with FOSS. You don't need to trust the companies
> motives, you just have to read the code they send. Unlike Windows,
> Google, Apple or what close code company you want, you don't need trust,
> you just can see by yourself. If they give you something that's great,
> it's enough. If they give you something that looks great, you have to
> trust them to know if it's really great or if something is hidden.

Except that most free software advocates never look at the code even if
they can. If they did, they wouldn't know what they were looking at
anyway since they can't put themselves in the mind of the programmer and
figure out what their code is meant to do. Additionally, I don't need to
look at a program's code to know if it's any good or not; I need to use
it and see whether it does what I want it to do properly, reliably and
speedily. Contrary to nerd belief, you don't need to be a programmer to
recognize decent software.

>> For example, without the Linux kernel, I don't believe that
>> Google would have been able to conquer the smartphone market with Android.
>
> I don't understand your point. Android isn't FOSS, and of course without
> FOSS it wouldn't have been able to conquer the world. So what? FOSS is a
> great tool, with it you can do good or bad things. Nothing new.

The point is simple: the Linux kernel allowed Google to support a
variety of hardware across a large number of manufacturers without
needing to program the drivers themselves. They were able to concentrate
on the top layer. Had the Linux kernel not been available to them, they
would have been forced to release a smaller number of handsets under
their own umbrella rather than allow any manufacturer who was interested
in doing so to release their own using their operating system. The
result was that many manufacturers released Android devices and allowed
Google to take control of the mobile market through those manufacturers
rather than win one war at a time as a mere competitor in the market the
way that Apple or Blackberry did.

>> The problem I have is that DFS is actually correct here: the best
>> software is almost always proprietary, even in the case of Linux.
>
> No. He's wrong. Linux is everywhere when people can choose. The 500
> biggest computers in the world run Linux since years.

This fact is constantly brought up by Linux advocates and yet _nobody_
gives a shit. Supercomputers don't decide what the public will want or
care about using.

> It's for a reason.
> On the desktop Windows is prevalent but it isn't because it's better,
> it's for legal reasons.

No, it's better in every respect. There's a reason why people who try
Linux run back to Windows rather quickly and why the Linux market share
hasn't grown in decades.

< snip "muh servers!" propaganda >

>> I truly wanted to convert my mother to it because she is the exact
>> target for something like Linux Mint. However, even on a routine install
>> where a user does little more than send e-mails and browse did it have
>> to decide that sound wouldn't be straightforward.
>
> Maybe the issue is with Mint more than Linux. Linux is just a kernel. To
> be useful, you need an OS: the kernel with a lot of tools, a way to
> install them and a way to upgrade them. I started with slackware almost
> thirty years ago because there was no choice at that time. It was way
> more difficult than any actual distro. It took me days to be able to run
> fvwm on it. The years later I discovered ubuntu which was easier to
> instal and managed. Except when anything went bad, I didn't knew what
> choices ubuntu did for me (unlike slackware which didn't do any choice).
>
> Now, I'm using Arch because I know how Linux works and I don't like a
> distro choosing for me without my knowledge. Maybe it's the same for
> you. You believe Mint is the best distro when it might not be. maybe
> it's not Mint but the Desktop environment, too. I'm against KDE and
> Gnome for a reason. The purpose of a Windows Manager is to manage
> Widows, not to manage sound and USB sticks. When they do it, they mess
> up with the system.

"You tried the wrong distribution!"

Gotcha.

>> I applaud the advocates for being to tolerate such garbage for as long
>> as they have, but my own energy is completely depleted.
>
> I don't tolerate garbage. I have no issue with my computer because I
> know what I put on it and I know how to use it.

"The problem is the user!"

Gotcha.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Winners don't run Linux

[RabidPedagog]

There is no doubt that Windows and Mac OS don't provide the same kind of
security advantage as Linux does. Nevertheless, Apple is getting much
better at this, especially with the "Ask app not to track" feature on
its phones. Apparently, it's very effective.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Your points are correct, but the application software is usually a
> different story. For cutting-edge or specialty applications, the
> closed-source model often provides the best solutions.

How does that explain the charlie-foxtrot that is Microsoft Teams? :-)

--
Good day to let down old friends who need help.

[Borax Man]

Suitability for desktop and servers are different things. Most
transport companies use trucks, but I'm not considering one for the
family car.

The trajectory an OS takes, or any product, is related to what it is
used for. Linux is good on servers because people who want to use it
on servers make it that way. MacOS is made that way, because of its
intended audience, hipsters. It's rating depends on how it does the
job its meant to do. So pointing out an OS is popular on servers
means little to people who aren't wanting to use it to run a server.

I consider myself a 'power user' who wants extensibility, flexibility
and the means to create custom workflows and be free of some corporate
"vision", and Linux does that. Its better *for me*.

[vallor]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 11:18:37 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom <OFee...@teleworm.us>
wrote in <ujvr4t$3aorq$2...@dont-email.me>:

> chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Your points are correct, but the application software is usually a
>> different story. For cutting-edge or specialty applications, the
>> closed-source model often provides the best solutions.
>
> How does that explain the charlie-foxtrot that is Microsoft Teams? :-)

(so happy I can run Teams from Linux, where I can keep my eye
on it...)

--
-v

[RonB]

On 2023-11-25, RabidPedagog <ra...@pedag.og> wrote:
> On 2023-11-25 9:37 a.m., chrisv wrote:
>>> some dumb fsck wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Financial reward is a far better motivator than altruism - which is why,
>>>> for example, the best software is almost always proprietary.
>>
>> There is a financial reward to being part of a community that is
>> working for the common good, you dumb fsck. This is why, for example,
>> many for-profit companies contribute.
>
> There is no doubt that free software is for the common good. However, I
> don't trust that companies contribute to it out of the goodness of their
> hearts. I get the impression that they get lots more out of free
> software and feel that contributing is a small price to pay for the
> benefits. For example, without the Linux kernel, I don't believe that
> Google would have been able to conquer the smartphone market with Android.
>
> The problem I have is that DFS is actually correct here: the best
> software is almost always proprietary, even in the case of Linux. People
> who can't take the chance that their computer will go down must rely on
> Redhat or other commercial products. Even in the unlikely event that it
> does, they know that they can call experts on the other line who won't
> blame them for the problem as "advocates" often do but actually help
> them. With regular distributions, not only is there no one to help you,
> but the people distributing the software warn you that things can go
> wrong and that you're on your own if it does.

There are companies that provide support for "non-proprietary" Linux
distributions. According to one site, Ubuntu runs on over 33% of web
servers. Debian is second with 16%. CentOS is third with a little over 9%.
Red Hat is less than 1% (it's big in corporate markets though, I guess).
CentOS used to have a much bigger share of the server market until they
became part of Red Hat.

> Honestly, it breaks my heart that Linux has been so unkind to me. I
> imagine that the way Linux treats me is similar to how professional
> wrestling treated Aron Stevens who never found the kind of success he
> deserved. I love everything about it, but it never ceases to disappoint
> me. I truly wanted to convert my mother to it because she is the exact
> target for something like Linux Mint. However, even on a routine install
> where a user does little more than send e-mails and browse did it have
> to decide that sound wouldn't be straightforward. I applaud the
> advocates for being to tolerate such garbage for as long as they have,
> but my own energy is completely depleted.

A couple comments. Your mother is not the "exact target" for Linux.
Apparently familiarity is key for someone like your mother as she doesn't
seem particularly flexible (just going by what you've written). I even
suggested you reinstall her Windows on an SSD instead of installing Linux
for her.

Secondly, I don't "tolerate" Linux Mint. I've used it for years because I
can't tolerate Windows or the proprietary crap people want to install on it.
I never liked Microsoft Office (even when I used Windows). I don't like an
OS reporting home, or trying to control how I use it. Linux is vastly
superior for my usage.

So save your crocodile tears for someone who needs them. It's not me – nor
(I'm sure) most Linux advocates.

--
"Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good."
-- Archbishop Charles J. Chaput

[RonB]

Linux also runs 93% of the web servers – including most of Microsoft's web
servers. People DO care about the Internet.

[RonB]

Before I finally settled on Linux, I jumped from one distribution to another
to another – never settling down with one long enough to really learn the
OS. Then I finally decided I was going to stick with Linux and figure out
how to make it do what I wanted it to do. Until you commit to doing that
you're never going to like Linux because it ISN'T Windows and you tend think
it should be. And, I'm guessing, it helps that I use "trailing edge"
hardware. Always have. It took a couple years for me to stop dreading
updates, poor Windows' users still have to worry about them (often putting
them off for months).

[DFS]

On 11/28/2023 6:11 AM, RonB wrote:

> It took a couple years for me to stop dreading
> updates, poor Windows' users still have to worry about them (often putting
> them off for months).

Recently did Windows 7 updates on a 10-year-old Dell Inspiron 660 (from
2012).

It found 112 updates. I'd say it took 2 frickin' hours for the entire
'Check for updates' and download and install process. It was a decrepit
old HDD, but still ridiculous. An SSD would've cut that time in half
I'm sure.

Aside: except for the update process, I was reminded why I liked Win7.
It's fast to boot and run, and is stable. May even reinstall it and see
how it works out for a daily driver nowadays. Will have to revert to an
earlier release of python and some other apps.

Note: you're way wrong about putting off updates nowadays. Most of them
are installed in the middle of the night, or when you go to power off
the system. They're as unobtrusive as can be.

[chrisv]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> Your points are correct, but the application software is usually a
>> different story. For cutting-edge or specialty applications, the
>> closed-source model often provides the best solutions.
>
> How does that explain the charlie-foxtrot that is Microsoft Teams? :-)

Rules can have exceptions...

--
"Windows Phone is far more successful in its market than Linux desktop
is in its market." - some dumb fsck

[Chris Ahlstrom]

RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Secondly, I don't "tolerate" Linux Mint. I've used it for years because I
> can't tolerate Windows or the proprietary crap people want to install on it.
> I never liked Microsoft Office (even when I used Windows). I don't like an
> OS reporting home, or trying to control how I use it. Linux is vastly
> superior for my usage.

Amen!

--
Artistic ventures highlighted. Rob a museum.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Before I finally settled on Linux, I jumped from one distribution to another
> to another – never settling down with one long enough to really learn the
> OS. Then I finally decided I was going to stick with Linux and figure out
> how to make it do what I wanted it to do. Until you commit to doing that
> you're never going to like Linux because it ISN'T Windows and you tend think
> it should be. And, I'm guessing, it helps that I use "trailing edge"
> hardware. Always have. It took a couple years for me to stop dreading
> updates, poor Windows' users still have to worry about them (often putting
> them off for months).

I've got this Asus laptop thats about 11 years old, running Linux.

At work, I'm on my second laptop. The first went belly up after maybe three
years. Windows tends to tear 'em up :-D

--
If you can read this, you're too close.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

vallor wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

Does that prevent Teams from nagging you about things like "Rate your
experience?", "Check out this new feechure!", and emails like "Your coworkers
are trying to contact you in Teams"?

--
Better hope the life-inspector doesn't come around while you have your
life in such a mess.

[RabidPedagog]

On 2023-11-28 5:57 a.m., RonB wrote:

< snip >

>> Honestly, it breaks my heart that Linux has been so unkind to me. I
>> imagine that the way Linux treats me is similar to how professional
>> wrestling treated Aron Stevens who never found the kind of success he
>> deserved. I love everything about it, but it never ceases to disappoint
>> me. I truly wanted to convert my mother to it because she is the exact
>> target for something like Linux Mint. However, even on a routine install
>> where a user does little more than send e-mails and browse did it have
>> to decide that sound wouldn't be straightforward. I applaud the
>> advocates for being to tolerate such garbage for as long as they have,
>> but my own energy is completely depleted.
>
> A couple comments. Your mother is not the "exact target" for Linux.
> Apparently familiarity is key for someone like your mother as she doesn't
> seem particularly flexible (just going by what you've written). I even
> suggested you reinstall her Windows on an SSD instead of installing Linux
> for her.

She's the perfect target for Linux in that she doesn't do much with the
hardware and holds onto any computer she owns until it becomes much too
slow or breaks. She would still be using that 2012 Mac Mini if Apple
were still supporting it and the same tasks she had always been doing
didn't suddenly become unbearably slow. With Linux Mint, she could have
held onto her 8th generation i7 for a decade had it worked out.

< snip >

[RabidPedagog]

On 2023-11-28 8:27 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> vallor wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 11:18:37 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom <OFee...@teleworm.us>
>> wrote in <ujvr4t$3aorq$2...@dont-email.me>:
>>
>>> chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> Your points are correct, but the application software is usually a
>>>> different story. For cutting-edge or specialty applications, the
>>>> closed-source model often provides the best solutions.
>>>
>>> How does that explain the charlie-foxtrot that is Microsoft Teams? :-)
>>
>> (so happy I can run Teams from Linux, where I can keep my eye
>> on it...)
>
> Does that prevent Teams from nagging you about things like "Rate your
> experience?", "Check out this new feechure!", and emails like "Your coworkers
> are trying to contact you in Teams"?

I seriously hate that last one. If I wanted to see what people were
telling me in Teams, I'd load it and see for myself. I refuse to install
it on my personal machine and only tolerate it being open while I'm at
work on the computer I've set up for work purposes. The moment my work
day is over, it's closed and doesn't get opened again until the next.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
3 out of 4 Communists agree: using Linux is preferable to being murdered

[DFS]

On 11/24/2023 7:42 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 11/24/2023 4:25 PM, DFS wrote:
>> On 11/24/2023 3:44 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>>> There we go again... Thunderbird posted an unedited version of my
>>> post all by itself! The following is the final edit:
>>
>>
>> delirium tremens
>>
>> I think you know TBird didn't auto-post anything.
>>
>>
>
>
> No! I go make a cup of hot tea and come back and it's sent! Right in the
> middle of editing. Could be that one of the keyboard keys means "send"
> to TB and a cat steps on it. Cats often walk on this desk.

Those cats are teaching you how to code. Pay attention.





> Back to subject. What they claim as principles is just extremist
> bullshit excuses, and as I said will disappear into thin air as soon as
> relations with Russians normalizes. I download (sometimes) ebooks
> illegally because I consider my time spent on reading and understanding
> them worth way more than the price of the book. So I don't feel guilty
> doing that.
>
> A not-read book, no matter how useful and money-making or even full of
> vital information, is worth nothing until read. So a great deal of
> commitment from the reader is also involved in this author-reader
> business relationship. Yes I've gladly bought $400 books before because
> what they taught me was worth thousands of dollars more than the price
> of my time reading and learning them. But when I want to read a book by,
> say, "Bill Browder", I don't feel like I need to pay that son of a bitch
> a dime. In fact I feel he must pay me for reading and looking into his
> picture of events that he describes. He should be more than glad that I
> or anybody else read it for free.


I don't try to make up a convoluted rationalization for why I download a
copyrighted book - I do it to have a well-written and organized
reference document for free. 95% of them I just skim through, looking
for topics that interest me (mostly science and computing) and that I
can understand without studying for a day. The amt of human knowledge
contained in them is astounding.

[%]

they're looking for kitty porn