Regarding your statement that has the 'advocates' in a tizzy:

"But of course, since with his nickel & dime’ing his system with
upgrades of half-decade old CPUs, he’s also trolling the Linux fanboys
who insist that Linux advocacy is never, ever, about being a cheapskate!"

My Usenet db has 421 posts containing 'cheapskate', covering mid Jun
2004 through a few days ago.

https://easyupload.io/qv9p1z

There might be some supporting evidence in there.

The posts are only from nyms I tracked - which are mostly cola regs. So
it's possible some hit-and-run poster made that exact or almost exact
claim and it's not in the list.

A bunch of them have said variations of "Linux isn't about the money."

On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:19:10 -0400, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote in
<v9oc7r$1i5tb$1@dont-email.me>:

> Regarding your statement that has the 'advocates' in a tizzy:
>
> "But of course, since with his nickel & dime’ing his system with
> upgrades of half-decade old CPUs, he’s also trolling the Linux fanboys
> who insist that Linux advocacy is never, ever, about being a
> cheapskate!"
>
>
> My Usenet db has 421 posts containing 'cheapskate', covering mid Jun
> 2004 through a few days ago.
>
> https://easyupload.io/qv9p1z
>
>
> There might be some supporting evidence in there.
>
> The posts are only from nyms I tracked - which are mostly cola regs. So
> it's possible some hit-and-run poster made that exact or almost exact
> claim and it's not in the list.
>
> A bunch of them have said variations of "Linux isn't about the money."

Maybe. (I haven't looked yet.) But do any say that "Linux advocacy is
_never_ about the money"? I'm not saying you can't find some lost soul
who has said such a thing, but they would be wrong.

Can *you* imagine anyone saying such a thing? Just the licensing costs
alone for servers would disprove such a statement. Of _course_ money
is a factor.

And, so far, the examples hh has given disprove his thesis.

I have found an off-the-cuff use of "never" from chrisv, which
is hyperbolic:

=========================================================================
17 of 421
Subject : Re: 20 Years Of Linux And It Is Still A Box Of Rocks.
Author (Nym): chrisv (chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>)
Reply To : Peter Kozlov
Post Date : Tue, 26 Jun 2018 07:46:48 -0500
Message-ID : <13d4jdhs6kdc058l6rlnb3of6gc0noe473@4ax.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Kozlov wrote:

>I doubt cost is a primary reason.

It never has been, yet virtually every freedom-hating troll that has
stunk-up this newsgroup has claimed that it is. Linux users are just
"cheapskates", you know. They "don't want to pay for anything", you
know.
=========================================================================

I think chrisv knows that there are Linux cheapskates. "Almost never"
would have been more precise.

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.11.0-rc3 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
"URA Redneck if you answer the door with a baseball bat"

vallor wrote:

> some dumb fsck wrote:
>>
>> Regarding your statement that has the 'advocates' in a tizzy:
>>
>> "But of course, since with his nickel & dime’ing his system with
>> upgrades of half-decade old CPUs, he’s also trolling the Linux fanboys
>> who insist that Linux advocacy is never, ever, about being a
>> cheapskate!"
>>
>> My Usenet db has 421 posts containing 'cheapskate', covering mid Jun
>> 2004 through a few days ago.
>>
>> https://easyupload.io/qv9p1z
>>
>> There might be some supporting evidence in there.
>>
>> The posts are only from nyms I tracked - which are mostly cola regs. So
>> it's possible some hit-and-run poster made that exact or almost exact
>> claim and it's not in the list.
>>
>> A bunch of them have said variations of "Linux isn't about the money."

Note the sneaky change from "Linux advocacy" to "Linux".

It's more accurate to say that a bunch of us have said variations of
"Linux advocacy" isn't about the money.

As vallor notes below, Linux is at least partially "about the money"
for Google's server farms, for example. No one has claimed otherwise.

>Maybe. (I haven't looked yet.) But do any say that "Linux advocacy is
>_never_ about the money"? I'm not saying you can't find some lost soul
>who has said such a thing, but they would be wrong.
>
>Can *you* imagine anyone saying such a thing? Just the licensing costs
>alone for servers would disprove such a statement. Of _course_ money
>is a factor.
>
>And, so far, the examples hh has given disprove his thesis.

Exactly, and no one would deny that Linux has been recommended to
those trying to keep and run old computers.

>I have found an off-the-cuff use of "never" from chrisv, which
>is hyperbolic:
>
>=========================================================================
>17 of 421
>Subject : Re: 20 Years Of Linux And It Is Still A Box Of Rocks.
>Author (Nym): chrisv (chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>)
>Reply To : Peter Kozlov
>Post Date : Tue, 26 Jun 2018 07:46:48 -0500
>Message-ID : <13d4jdhs6kdc058l6rlnb3of6gc0noe473@4ax.com>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Peter Kozlov wrote:
>
>>I doubt cost is a primary reason.
>
>It never has been, yet virtually every freedom-hating troll that has
>stunk-up this newsgroup has claimed that it is. Linux users are just
>"cheapskates", you know. They "don't want to pay for anything", you
>know.
>=========================================================================
>
>I think chrisv knows that there are Linux cheapskates. "Almost never"
>would have been more precise.

I don't think my statement was hyperbolic. "Not a primary reason" !=
"not a reason". If it's a reason at all, for Linux advocacy, it's
well down the list.

I've seen a lot of Linux advocacy over the years, here and in other
forums, and I don't think that I've ever seen anyone say anything like
"you should try Linux, you'll save the cost of a Windows license."
It's almost *always* about freedom, flexibility, security, privacy
and/or performance. Even in the "old computer" scenario, Linux is
advocated for it's lighter hardware demands, not because it's free.

In cola we have trolling assholes like -highhorse saying shit like
"Linux is what sloppy cheapskates who cut corners prefer to use,
rather than a quality product" and I'm going to be taken to taken to
task for saying something like "no, it's really not about being a
cheapskate"?

What I said was entirely reasonable and consistent. Denying that
Linux advocacy is primarily about saving money is not saying that
Linux advocacy is "never, ever" about saving money.

On 8/16/24 8:43 PM, vallor wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:19:10 -0400, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote in
> <v9oc7r$1i5tb$1@dont-email.me>:
>
>> Regarding your statement that has the 'advocates' in a tizzy:
>>
>> "But of course, since with his nickel & dime’ing his system with
>> upgrades of half-decade old CPUs, he’s also trolling the Linux fanboys
>> who insist that Linux advocacy is never, ever, about being a
>> cheapskate!"
>>
>>
>> My Usenet db has 421 posts containing 'cheapskate', covering mid Jun
>> 2004 through a few days ago.
>>
>> https://easyupload.io/qv9p1z
>>
>>
>> There might be some supporting evidence in there.
>>
>> The posts are only from nyms I tracked - which are mostly cola regs. So
>> it's possible some hit-and-run poster made that exact or almost exact
>> claim and it's not in the list.
>>
>> A bunch of them have said variations of "Linux isn't about the money."
>
> Maybe. (I haven't looked yet.) But do any say that "Linux advocacy is
> _never_ about the money"? I'm not saying you can't find some lost soul
> who has said such a thing, but they would be wrong.
>
> Can *you* imagine anyone saying such a thing? Just the licensing costs
> alone for servers would disprove such a statement. Of _course_ money
> is a factor.
>
> And, so far, the examples hh has given disprove his thesis.
>
> I have found an off-the-cuff use of "never" from chrisv, which
> is hyperbolic:
>
> =========================================================================
> 17 of 421
> Subject : Re: 20 Years Of Linux And It Is Still A Box Of Rocks.
> Author (Nym): chrisv (chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>)
> Reply To : Peter Kozlov
> Post Date : Tue, 26 Jun 2018 07:46:48 -0500
> Message-ID : <13d4jdhs6kdc058l6rlnb3of6gc0noe473@4ax.com>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Peter Kozlov wrote:
>
>> I doubt cost is a primary reason.
>
> It never has been, yet virtually every freedom-hating troll that has
> stunk-up this newsgroup has claimed that it is. Linux users are just
> "cheapskates", you know. They "don't want to pay for anything", you
> know.
> =========================================================================
>
> I think chrisv knows that there are Linux cheapskates. "Almost never"
> would have been more precise.

That's a pedantic wordsmithing attempt, done while the other side of
your pie hole is trying to give chrisv a buy as "hyperbolic." Noted.

In any event, the point here is that money gets mentioned far too many
times for it to not be playing no role in the choice to use Linux.

How big of a role? This isn't an "always" or a "never", but a
stochastic pattern where its been very typical to see cost invoked. If
want a pedantic summary, its "often/usually", not "occasional/rarely".

Behaviorally, it follows too, being a self-identifying action: the
general frequency of it being mentioned in any form is because it is in
their forefront, even if they claim that it isn't so (eg, denial).

Now sure, there's nothing wrong with being value-oriented or frugal, but
finances are often a sensitive subject, so a word like "cheapskate" is
seen as derogatory, triggering strong defensive reactions such as we've
once again seen here...largely because it has nailed it.

-hh

-hh wrote:

> (snipped, unread)

This loser needs to put up, or shut up.