On Tue, 14 May 2024 01:50:08 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

> I didn't.

The thing with Open Source is, you need to take an active role to find out
what’s there. Unlike proprietary software companies, Open Source projects
can’t afford 6-7-figure advertising budgets to tell everybody how
wonderful they are. All they’ve got is word of mouth.

On Tue, 14 May 2024 09:03:04 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Tue, 14 May 2024 01:50:08 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>> I didn't.
>
> The thing with Open Source is, you need to take an active role to find
> out what’s there. Unlike proprietary software companies, Open Source
> projects can’t afford 6-7-figure advertising budgets to tell everybody
> how wonderful they are. All they’ve got is word of mouth.

That is correct. The fact that they can't afford much is partly why big
corporations eventually swoop in and corrupt the entirety of it in
exchange for money. Look at what happened with Mozilla, for example.
Lunduke did a good job demonstrating how corrupt the organization has
become. The story is no different with the Linux Foundation.

Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Mon, 13 May 2024 12:25:50 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On Sun, 12 May 2024 23:36:40 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12 May 2024 00:34:11 GMT, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is technically possible to keep ownership of the software and make
>>>>> a profit with it, but it is rather difficult the moment you slap the
>>>>> GPL on the code.
>>>>
>>>> Tell that to the companies making a big business of Linux.
>>>
>>> Name them, and explain how it is the _software_ that is making them
>>> money,
>>> and not the _support_ for that software.
>>
>> Red Hat (on wikipedia):
>>
>> "They produce open-source code so that more programmers can make
>> adaptations and improvements. Red Hat sells subscriptions for the
>> support,
>> training, and integration services that help customers in using
>> their open-source software products."
>>
>> Though frankly, what is the difference if you sell your software or if
>> you bundle software and provide support for that bundle?
>
> The latter is a subscription, much like what the zealots are complaining
> about Windows software doing. Sure, the software will still be yours, but
> you won't get the support you need to figure out how to use it.
>
> < snip Chris proving my point >

:-D Strange concept of "proof"!

You don't seem to understand that the needs of a user are different from
the needs of a server team.

--
You had some happiness once, but your parents moved away, and you had to
leave it behind.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 14 May 2024 00:11:11 GMT, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> So, it would be beneficial to open-source developers to make sure that
>> their software breaks easily and crashes, so as to sell the support.

Uh, projects with a reputation for breakage will stop being used at all.

> Clearly you have never used the stuff.
>
> No, actually, you are depending crucially on it right now, without
> realizing it. Without Open Source, there would be no Internet.

One thing people don't seem to understand is that most programmers, especially
"open-source" programmers, have pride! They don't want to be ridiculed for
writing garbage. They want to please their uses and respond quickly to issue
reports. Many of them are even OCD about their code.

--
"Life, loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it."
-- Marvin, "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Tue, 14 May 2024 00:42:29 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On 14 May 2024 00:11:11 GMT, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>
>>> So, it would be beneficial to open-source developers to make sure that
>>> their software breaks easily and crashes, so as to sell the support.
>>
>> Clearly you have never used the stuff.
>>
>> No, actually, you are depending crucially on it right now, without
>> realizing it. Without Open Source, there would be no Internet.
>
> We both know that's not true. Without open-source, there would have been
> an alternative based on UNIX or Windows. Linux is chosen because it's good
> enough and free, not because it is necessarily better.

Wrongo pallbreath.

https://fullscale.io/blog/top-5-tech-stacks/

1. LAMP

LAMP is an industry-standard when it comes to tech stack models. In web
development, it delivers the best cost efficiency, flexibility, and
performance. It is an acronym that stands for:

Linux (operating system)
Apache (HTTP server)
MySQL (relational database management)
PHP (programming language, it can also be Perl or Python)

All these stack layers are free and open source. Since this tech stack can
run on any operating system, you can interchange or modify other components
in the same stack. Use WAMP for Microsoft Windows or MAMP for MacOS.

Heh heh about that last cover-your-ass sentence.

--
You attempt things that you do not even plan because of your extreme stupidity.

On Tue, 14 May 2024 08:30:08 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this copyrighted missive and expects
> royalties:
>
>> On 14 May 2024 00:11:11 GMT, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>
>>> So, it would be beneficial to open-source developers to make sure that
>>> their software breaks easily and crashes, so as to sell the support.
>
> Uh, projects with a reputation for breakage will stop being used at all.
>
>> Clearly you have never used the stuff.
>>
>> No, actually, you are depending crucially on it right now, without
>> realizing it. Without Open Source, there would be no Internet.
>
> One thing people don't seem to understand is that most programmers,
> especially "open-source" programmers, have pride! They don't want to be
> ridiculed for writing garbage. They want to please their uses and
> respond quickly to issue reports. Many of them are even OCD about their
> code.

Only until they realize that they've made no money from it whatsoever.
Whether you want to admit it or not, those programmers who were most
insistent about supporting open-source eventually move on to greener
pastures, and produce quality code in proprietary form.

On 5/13/2024 6:53 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2024 08:25:09 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> On 5/12/2024 7:37 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 11 May 2024 14:35:35 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> What, you never read that stupid, impenetrable, restrictive GuhNoo GPL
>>>> 3 (under which CPU-X is released)?
>>>
>>> I have. I also followed the very public and transparent process under
>>> which the FSF put together that licence, with a lot of public
>>> consultation along the way.
>>
>> Never underestimate the stupidity of the public.
>
> Hey, you are the ones clicking on proprietary EULAs without even reading
> them.

And your kind accepts FOSS EULAs without reading them.

> We in the Open Source world actually get to choose our licences.

What are you babbling about?

FOSS and proprietary devs can choose any license they want, or write one.

>> And can the IDIOT lawyer that wrote this part be disbarred for IDIOCY?
>
> Look up “Tivoization”.

Why?

Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Tue, 14 May 2024 08:30:08 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this copyrighted missive and expects
>> royalties:
>>
>>> On 14 May 2024 00:11:11 GMT, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, it would be beneficial to open-source developers to make sure that
>>>> their software breaks easily and crashes, so as to sell the support.
>>
>> Uh, projects with a reputation for breakage will stop being used at all.
>>
>>> Clearly you have never used the stuff.
>>>
>>> No, actually, you are depending crucially on it right now, without
>>> realizing it. Without Open Source, there would be no Internet.
>>
>> One thing people don't seem to understand is that most programmers,
>> especially "open-source" programmers, have pride! They don't want to be
>> ridiculed for writing garbage. They want to please their uses and
>> respond quickly to issue reports. Many of them are even OCD about their
>> code.
>
> Only until they realize that they've made no money from it whatsoever.
> Whether you want to admit it or not, those programmers who were most
> insistent about supporting open-source eventually move on to greener
> pastures, and produce quality code in proprietary form.

That can happen, of course. A guy's got to eat!

I've gone in the opposite direction. Now that I'm not tied to a job,
I have plenty more time to indulge my OCD (obsessive coding disorder).

--
It usually takes more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu speech.
-- Mark Twain

On Tue, 14 May 2024 11:05:14 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On Tue, 14 May 2024 08:30:08 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this copyrighted missive and expects
>>> royalties:
>>>
>>>> On 14 May 2024 00:11:11 GMT, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, it would be beneficial to open-source developers to make sure
>>>>> that their software breaks easily and crashes, so as to sell the
>>>>> support.
>>>
>>> Uh, projects with a reputation for breakage will stop being used at
>>> all.
>>>
>>>> Clearly you have never used the stuff.
>>>>
>>>> No, actually, you are depending crucially on it right now, without
>>>> realizing it. Without Open Source, there would be no Internet.
>>>
>>> One thing people don't seem to understand is that most programmers,
>>> especially "open-source" programmers, have pride! They don't want to
>>> be ridiculed for writing garbage. They want to please their uses and
>>> respond quickly to issue reports. Many of them are even OCD about
>>> their code.
>>
>> Only until they realize that they've made no money from it whatsoever.
>> Whether you want to admit it or not, those programmers who were most
>> insistent about supporting open-source eventually move on to greener
>> pastures, and produce quality code in proprietary form.
>
> That can happen, of course. A guy's got to eat!
>
> I've gone in the opposite direction. Now that I'm not tied to a job, I
> have plenty more time to indulge my OCD (obsessive coding disorder).

That's actually how most of open-source works. People work on things in
their spare time, but do something else during the day. Considering the
quality of Linux's code, especially when running on lower-end hardware,
this is commendable. It's quite possible that the people behind the code
take pride in what they release and that they are very active in fixing
bugs, but I wouldn't expect them to be. After all, they're producing
something at no charge for people who probably won't even donate.

That said, I'm getting to a point where I want to not only use the product
and donate to it. Gnome, in particular, seems to be dying from a lack of
funding. While I am not comfortable saying that Gnome is better than
Windows or Mac OS, it definitely deserves to be supported.

On Tue, 14 May 2024 08:33:29 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> 1. LAMP
>
> LAMP is an industry-standard when it comes to tech stack models. In
> web development, it delivers the best cost efficiency, flexibility,
> and performance. It is an acronym that stands for:

Well, sort of... LAMP is over 20 years old when O'Reilly popularized the
term. The components are even older. It still hangs on particularly with
CMSs like WordPress. After all PHP was originally called Personal Home
Page.

Depending on which survey you read Nginx is pulling ahead of Apache, MySQL
is being replaced by MariaDB because of Oracle games, and PHP staggers on.

The real gluttons for punishment use WIMP:

Windows
IIS
MySQL
PHP

Even DFS can't argue about IIS; its usage has declined faster than Joe
Biden's popularity. The last time I looked it was under 5% of the web
server market. Microsoft may do some things well but IIS isn't one of
them.

On Tue, 14 May 2024 10:08:31 -0400, DFS wrote:

> And your kind accepts FOSS EULAs without reading them.

https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/2865/does-open-source-
software-need-an-eula-to-protect-the-developer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-
user_license_agreement#Comparison_with_free_software_licenses

Developers read and are familiar with free software licenses. As I have
mentioned several times, unless it's for my own use I don't touch GPL
software. Fortunately most of the interesting stuff uses MIT, Apache, 0
Clause BSD, Poetic, and other non-restrictive licenses.

On Tue, 14 May 2024 11:05:14 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> ndrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

>> Only until they realize that they've made no money from it whatsoever.
>> Whether you want to admit it or not, those programmers who were most
>> insistent about supporting open-source eventually move on to greener
>> pastures, and produce quality code in proprietary form.
>
> That can happen, of course. A guy's got to eat!
>
> I've gone in the opposite direction. Now that I'm not tied to a job, I
> have plenty more time to indulge my OCD (obsessive coding disorder).

Yup. After a long career as a whore I'm enjoying myself. Actually I always
did enjoy what I was doing but ultimately it was oriented toward producing
a salable product to keep the money rolling in.

On Tue, 14 May 2024 11:05:14 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>
> That can happen, of course. A guy's got to eat!
>
> I've gone in the opposite direction. Now that I'm not tied to a job,
> I have plenty more time to indulge my OCD (obsessive coding disorder).
>

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Only fools do not realize that 99% of engineering jobs and 99%
of programming jobs are oriented to the production of cheap junk.

Walk into any Walmart, Home Depot, or Harbor Freight. What do you
find? Junk. Total Junk.

But Amazon is the biggest purveyor with page after page after page
of total junk merchandise across all departments.

Where does that junk originate? It requires humongous numbers
of engineers and designers across the globe to produce that
junk. The brain-dead MBAs hire the talent and then give orders
to design and engineer products that are the cheapest possible.

There's your 99%.

The exact same obtains for computer programming. (Check your
average web developer or Microshit/Apphole itself.)

The only place where engineering/programming quality rules
the day is public-supported science. Large particle accelerators
or satellite observatories demand the absolute best practices.

There's your 1%.

Also, FOSS is not ruled by money grubbers and we can therefore
expect more quality than junk.

In conclusion:

Unless you are oriented to cutting-edge science/programming,
or FOSS, your career will be devoted to the design of total junk.

On 5/14/2024 3:43 PM, Lameass Larry wrote:

> Unless you are oriented to cutting-edge science/programming,
> or FOSS, your career will be devoted to the design of total junk.

What a gibbering idiot.

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>On 5/14/2024 3:43 PM, Lameass Larry wrote:
>
>> Unless you are oriented to cutting-edge science/programming,
>> or FOSS, your career will be devoted to the design of total junk.
>
>What a gibbering idiot.

It's like he thinks he's God, or something. I actually am and I don't
have the oversized ego, he does. Weird.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 5/14/2024 8:19 PM, Joel wrote:
> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 5/14/2024 3:43 PM, Lameass Larry wrote:
>>
>>> Unless you are oriented to cutting-edge science/programming,
>>> or FOSS, your career will be devoted to the design of total junk.
>>
>> What a gibbering idiot.
>
>
> It's like he thinks he's God, or something. I actually am and I don't
> have the oversized ego, he does. Weird.

Another .sigworthy Joel fantasy, along with

"I will replace what is now the presidency of the U.S."

Remember to replace your head-injury bandage.

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>On 5/14/2024 8:19 PM, Joel wrote:
>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2024 3:43 PM, Lameass Larry wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unless you are oriented to cutting-edge science/programming,
>>>> or FOSS, your career will be devoted to the design of total junk.
>>>
>>> What a gibbering idiot.
>>
>> It's like he thinks he's God, or something. I actually am and I don't
>> have the oversized ego, he does. Weird.
>
>Another .sigworthy Joel fantasy, along with
>
>"I will replace what is now the presidency of the U.S."
>
>Remember to replace your head-injury bandage.

Lighten up, I didn't mean it quite so literally, as if I'm Yahweh in
the flesh, it's not that, but my soul is his soul. It's hard to
explain or understand, but it's very clear that it's who and what I
am.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Tue, 14 May 2024 10:08:31 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 5/13/2024 6:53 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 13 May 2024 08:25:09 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/12/2024 7:37 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 11 May 2024 14:35:35 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What, you never read that stupid, impenetrable, restrictive GuhNoo
>>>>> GPL 3 (under which CPU-X is released)?
>>>>
>>>> I have. I also followed the very public and transparent process under
>>>> which the FSF put together that licence, with a lot of public
>>>> consultation along the way.
>>>
>>> Never underestimate the stupidity of the public.
>>
>> Hey, you are the ones clicking on proprietary EULAs without even
>> reading them.
>
> And your kind accepts FOSS EULAs without reading them.

We do read open-source licences and understand them. They are designed to
be read and understood. Unlike proprietary EULAs.

Case in point: the question you were asking about below.

>> We in the Open Source world actually get to choose our licences.
>
> What are you babbling about?
>
> FOSS and proprietary devs can choose any license they want, or write
> one.

Proprietary devs, yes. FOSS devs need to choose something that fits the
definition of “FOSS”. Otherwise it won’t be, you know, “FOSS”.

>>> And can the IDIOT lawyer that wrote this part be disbarred for IDIOCY?
>>
>> Look up “Tivoization”.
>
> Why?

So you can understand the answer to your own question.

On 14 May 2024 18:46:47 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> ... unless it's for my own use I don't touch GPL software.

So, no Linux, then?

On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:04:48 -0400, Joel wrote:

> Lighten up, I didn't mean it quite so literally, as if I'm Yahweh in the
> flesh, it's not that, but my soul is his soul. It's hard to explain or
> understand, but it's very clear that it's who and what I am.

Ain't nothing but atoms* and the void, grasshopper.

Democritus

* The old Greek died before he got around to discovering subatomic
particles and possibly dead cats.

On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:04:48 -0400, Joel wrote:

> ... it's very clear that it's who and what I am.

“Whom”

On 14 May 2024 01:02:56 GMT, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> On Tue, 14 May 2024 00:42:29 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On 14 May 2024 00:11:11 GMT, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>
>>> So, it would be beneficial to open-source developers to make sure that
>>> their software breaks easily and crashes, so as to sell the support.
>>
>> Clearly you have never used the stuff.
>>
>> No, actually, you are depending crucially on it right now, without
>> realizing it. Without Open Source, there would be no Internet.
>
> We both know that's not true. Without open-source, there would have been
> an alternative based on UNIX or Windows.

Those alternatives existed, way back when. Before the Internet, there were
“online services” such as Compuserve, AOL, Prodigy and others. Before the
World-Wide Web came to dominate, and in competition with it, there was
Microsoft’s “Project Blackbird”, Quark’s “Immedia” and no doubt something
from Adobe as well.

(Are these names unfamiliar to you? Go look them up in the usual places.
There will be a test--if you want to continue this thread.)

> Linux is chosen because it's
> good enough and free, not because it is necessarily better.

Open Source was better than all of those put together. That’s why it wiped
them out. Those proprietary products had the backing (financial,
marketing, technical) of some of the world’s biggest megacorporations of
the time, but they could not compete with Open Source and open standards.

On Wed, 8 May 2024 10:08:21 -0400, DFS wrote:

> But HWiNFO is a serious hardware info app, with extreme detail about
> every component, including the BIOS.

<https://manpages.debian.org/8/biosdecode.en.html>

rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:04:48 -0400, Joel wrote:
>
>> Lighten up, I didn't mean it quite so literally, as if I'm Yahweh in the
>> flesh, it's not that, but my soul is his soul. It's hard to explain or
>> understand, but it's very clear that it's who and what I am.
>
> Ain't nothing but atoms* and the void, grasshopper.
>
> Democritus
>
> * The old Greek died before he got around to discovering subatomic
> particles and possibly dead cats.

Carl Sagan: "We are all star-stuff..."

--
Q: Why did the WASP cross the road?
A: To get to the middle.

On Wed, 15 May 2024 03:28:23 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Tue, 14 May 2024 10:08:31 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/2024 6:53 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 13 May 2024 08:25:09 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/12/2024 7:37 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 11 May 2024 14:35:35 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What, you never read that stupid, impenetrable, restrictive GuhNoo
>>>>>> GPL 3 (under which CPU-X is released)?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have. I also followed the very public and transparent process
>>>>> under which the FSF put together that licence, with a lot of public
>>>>> consultation along the way.
>>>>
>>>> Never underestimate the stupidity of the public.
>>>
>>> Hey, you are the ones clicking on proprietary EULAs without even
>>> reading them.
>>
>> And your kind accepts FOSS EULAs without reading them.
>
> We do read open-source licences and understand them. They are designed
> to be read and understood. Unlike proprietary EULAs.
>
> Case in point: the question you were asking about below.

That's definitely a good thing. The licenses are also shorter, so even if
it were difficult to understand, reading it wouldn't take that much time.

< snip >