On Wed, 15 May 2024 05:38:35 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:04:48 -0400, Joel wrote:
>
>> ... it's very clear that it's who and what I am.
>
> “Whom”

Actually, he would have needed a preposition there for "whom" to be
applicable. Either way, why is Joel still spending an inordinate amount o
time telling us about his identity? We don't care about him either way,
whether he is a homosexual or he isn't.

On Wed, 15 May 2024 05:45:03 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> 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.)

I am aware of them (I'm 45 years-old). In fact, Delphi Internet was my
first venture onto the Internet.

>> 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.

Not on price, that's for sure. If I recall correctly, those proprietary
services also wanted to make sure that you remained exclusive to that
service. There was no benefit for them to allow you to venture outside of
their walled garden, since that would cause you to eventually look for a
cheaper service which still gave you access to things like Usenet, IRC and
the World Wide Web without needing to pass through their graphical
interface. That might be why their systems were primitive compared to the
Linux ones, based on UNIX, which resisted a user having any sort of
middleman.

On 5/15/2024 1:48 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> 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>

$ sudo biosdecode -d /dev/mem
# biosdecode 3.3
ACPI 2.0 present.
OEM Identifier: VRTUAL
RSD Table 32-bit Address: 0x00100000
XSD Table 64-bit Address: 0x0000000000100000

This is on Ubuntu WSL.

bios-related from HWiNFO (Windows only):

SMBIOS DMI ----------------------------------------------------------------

BIOS ----------------------------------------------------------------------

BIOS Vendor: American Megatrends
International, LLC.
BIOS Version: A.50
BIOS Release Date: 01/15/2021
BIOS Start Segment: F000
BIOS Size: 32 MBytes
System BIOS Version: 5.17
ISA Support: Not Present
MCA Support: Not Present
EISA Support: Not Present
PCI Support: Present
PC Card (PCMCIA) Support: Not Present
Plug-and-Play Support: Not Present
APM Support: Not Present
Flash BIOS: Present
BIOS Shadow: Present
VL-VESA Support: Not Present
ESCD Support: Not Present
Boot from CD: Present
Selectable Boot: Present
BIOS ROM Socketed: Present
Boot from PC Card: Not Present
EDD Support: Present
NEC PC-98 Support: Not Present
ACPI Support: Present
USB Legacy Support: Present
AGP Support: Not Present
I2O Boot Support: Not Present
LS-120 Boot Support: Not Present
ATAPI ZIP Drive Boot Support: Not Present
IEE1394 Boot Support: Not Present
Smart Battery Support: Not Present
BIOS Boot Specification Support: Present
Function key-initiated Network Service Boot Support: Not Present
Targeted Content Distribution Support: Present
UEFI Specification Support: Present
Virtual Machine: Not Present

On 2024-05-12, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2024 18:07:49 +0000, RonB wrote:
>
>>> The agreements are seemingly made in such a way that the corporations
>>> behind them can, whenever they want, come after us whenever they want.
>>> It's unlikely that they will, and that's why most people don't bother
>>> to read them, but the power to do so is still in their hands. That
>>> understanding is one which should push people to use free software
>>> instead, but I think that most people won't bother unless a corporation
>>> does, indeed, eventually come after them.
>>
>> Yep. That's why I don't take it seriously. It's all skewed against the
>> customer. A contract is supposed to be an agreement between two parties,
>> but these corporate wonks change the contract constantly, and it's
>> always "take it or leave it." In other words you buy the software, plan
>> to use it for several years and they pull the rug out from under your
>> feet by demanding you agree to a new contract (not the one that came
>> with the software in the first place). I think I use about two or three
>> proprietary applications (maybe more, but I can't come up with more
>> right now). One of those applications is Fade In. Basically one man.
>> I've mentioned a couple times to him that such and such tweak would be
>> nice — within a couple weeks there's a new version with that tweak
>> implemented. The license agreement is basically, don't give it to anyone
>> else — you can use it on your own computers (as many as you want) and
>> they can be any combination of Linux, Windows or Mac OS. Updates are
>> always free.
>>
>> The other proprietary software (that I can think of now) is office suite
>> that comes with TextMaker. They provide five licenses that can be
>> divided between any combination of Linux, Windows or Mac OS machines.
>> They're a German outfit, and seem to be well liked. But I've never read
>> the fine print in their EULA. Maybe they have the "right" to take one of
>> my kidneys with two hours notice, who knows?
>>
>> I would imagine that a lot of these EULAs could be challenged in court
>> if anyone cared enough to do it.
>
> I imagine that corporations would make the excuse that if their EULAs are
> challenged and they can no longer set whatever conditions they choose on
> the user, they will simply stop producing software. They tend to play with
> that kind of stuff quite a lot, telling whoever is in charge that lots of
> people will lose their jobs, their livelihoods and by extension lots of
> tax income if they don't play ball. The power corporations have with
> governments, by itself, is a good reason to avoid proprietary software if
> you can manage it. Companies aren't all bad, but the bigger the company,
> the worse it gets.

Agreed. If you absolutely need the application there's not much you can do.
But just by using Linux I have very little proprietary software.

>>> I recall one woman refusing to use proprietary software because her
>>> financial information had repeatedly been stolen. The loss came as a
>>> result of bugs in proprietary software and malware, and she swore that
>>> she would never allow herself to be a slave of such easily-compromised
>>> software again. I know that she has a blog, but I don't remember what
>>> it was.
>>
>> I believe that. My wife's credit card has been compromised five or six
>> times. She uses Windows and Windows applications.
>
> Mine was compromised a lot in the 2000s, but it seems to have had a lot to
> do with the machines used at gas stations more than anything else. My
> wallet also did nothing to block RFID signals at the time. The last time
> it was compromised was when I bought this laptop. My wife eventually let
> me know that Best Buy, where I bought it using a credit card, had a number
> of complaints over the years. Whoever purchases there is basically give
> his credit card away to thieves... I don't know if it's BestBuy itself or
> the terrible security on the site, but it was compromised soon after the
> purchase.

It could be a coincidence. And she uses her card a lot more than I use mine.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 5/13/2024 9:50 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote at 18:35 this Saturday (GMT):

> When have you read a license?

I read them every month or so - if they're not GPL and not too long.

Last night I came across what I believe is the longest EULA I've ever
seen: 306 lines (removing all blank lines)

https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula/unreal

By comparison, the GPL3 is 135 lines.

On 2024-05-13, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> 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.

For Linux, corporations can usually find third party support on a per case
basis. When CentOS was a clone of Red Hat instead of whatever it is now,
corporations would use it instead of Red Hat and pay for support when
needed. (I'm guessing the same thing happens now with Rocky Linux and the
other Red Hat clones.) You don't have that third party option with Microsoft
when paying for yearly licensing. And that will especially be the case if
they start renting out their software instead of selling it when Windows 12
comes out.

>< snip Chris proving my point >

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On Wed, 15 May 2024 09:47:02 -0400, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote in
<6644bcd4$1$2363139$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> On 5/15/2024 1:48 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> 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>
>
>
> $ sudo biosdecode -d /dev/mem # biosdecode 3.3 ACPI 2.0 present.
> OEM Identifier: VRTUAL RSD Table 32-bit Address: 0x00100000 XSD
> Table 64-bit Address: 0x0000000000100000
>
>
> This is on Ubuntu WSL.

Now, I know you're not that stupid.

Who do you think you're fooling?

--
-v

On 2024-05-14, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2024 22:54:36 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On 13 May 2024 12:14:27 GMT, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>
>>> ... explain how it is the _software_ that is making them money,
>>> and not the _support_ for that software.
>>
>> It is the support that is making the money. That is the point, after
>> all.
>>
>> Ever heard of “give away the razor, sell the razorblades”? That’s how
>> Free Software works.
>
> 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.
> Gotcha.

Yeah, that would be brilliant, because customers would flock by the droves
to useless, crap software... But you may have something, people keep using
crap Microsoft Windows even though their "customers" are really Microsoft's
unpaid beta testers.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-05-14, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> 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. Linux is chosen because it's good
> enough and free, not because it is necessarily better.

It may not "necessarily" be better — it's just IS better.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-05-15, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2024 05:45:03 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> 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.)
>
> I am aware of them (I'm 45 years-old). In fact, Delphi Internet was my
> first venture onto the Internet.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Not on price, that's for sure. If I recall correctly, those proprietary
> services also wanted to make sure that you remained exclusive to that
> service. There was no benefit for them to allow you to venture outside of
> their walled garden, since that would cause you to eventually look for a
> cheaper service which still gave you access to things like Usenet, IRC and
> the World Wide Web without needing to pass through their graphical
> interface. That might be why their systems were primitive compared to the
> Linux ones, based on UNIX, which resisted a user having any sort of
> middleman.

Microsoft could use their own server software for free on their Cloud. They
don't. They use Linux for their servers. That's all you really need to know
about the superiority of Linux for servers. I think Apple mostly gave up on
the server market a few years back.

If you're using the Internet, you're using Linux.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-05-14, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> 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.

Yep. And if they're selling it commercially it's not a viable marketing
strategy to sell software that craps out on their customers. Makes no sense at
all.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 5/15/2024 10:04 AM, vallor wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2024 09:47:02 -0400, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote in
> <6644bcd4$1$2363139$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>
>> On 5/15/2024 1:48 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> 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>
>>
>>
>> $ sudo biosdecode -d /dev/mem # biosdecode 3.3 ACPI 2.0 present.
>> OEM Identifier: VRTUAL RSD Table 32-bit Address: 0x00100000 XSD
>> Table 64-bit Address: 0x0000000000100000
>>
>>
>> This is on Ubuntu WSL.
>
> Now, I know you're not that stupid.
>
> Who do you think you're fooling?

OPTIONS
-d, --dev-mem FILE
Read memory from device FILE (default: /dev/mem)

What 'not that stupid' results do you get?

On 2024-05-14, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> 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.

I call BS on that claim. Clément Lefèbvre (for one) has been putting out
Linux Mint for over 18 years now. It keeps getting better and Clément shows
no sign of "moving on."

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-05-15, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:04:48 -0400, Joel wrote:
>
>> ... it's very clear that it's who and what I am.
>
> “Whom”

Not clear at all to me. Not that I give a crap.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On Wed, 15 May 2024 03:29:04 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> 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?

For development of applications to be distributed to a third party.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

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

Nope, not how that's used. Your grammar flame failed.

--
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 5/15/2024 9:56 AM, DFS wrote:
> On 5/13/2024 9:50 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote at 18:35 this Saturday (GMT):
>
>> When have you read a license?
>
> I read them every month or so - if they're not GPL and not too long.
>
> Last night I came across what I believe is the longest EULA I've ever
> seen: 306 lines (removing all blank lines)
>
> https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula/unreal
>
>
>
> By comparison, the GPL3 is 135 lines.

license word counts

Win 11 Pro EULA: 6010 C:\Windows\System32\license.rtf
GPL 3 : 5700 www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
Unreal Engine : 8723 www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula/unreal
MS Office 2003 : 5309 Help | About | view EULA
SQLite : 0 public domain
Python 3.12.3 : 392 docs.python.org/3/license.html#psf-license

On Wed, 15 May 2024 13:49:34 +0000, RonB wrote:

> On 2024-05-12, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 May 2024 18:07:49 +0000, RonB wrote:
>>
>>>> The agreements are seemingly made in such a way that the corporations
>>>> behind them can, whenever they want, come after us whenever they
>>>> want. It's unlikely that they will, and that's why most people don't
>>>> bother to read them, but the power to do so is still in their hands.
>>>> That understanding is one which should push people to use free
>>>> software instead, but I think that most people won't bother unless a
>>>> corporation does, indeed, eventually come after them.
>>>
>>> Yep. That's why I don't take it seriously. It's all skewed against the
>>> customer. A contract is supposed to be an agreement between two
>>> parties,
>>> but these corporate wonks change the contract constantly, and it's
>>> always "take it or leave it." In other words you buy the software,
>>> plan to use it for several years and they pull the rug out from under
>>> your feet by demanding you agree to a new contract (not the one that
>>> came with the software in the first place). I think I use about two or
>>> three proprietary applications (maybe more, but I can't come up with
>>> more right now). One of those applications is Fade In. Basically one
>>> man. I've mentioned a couple times to him that such and such tweak
>>> would be nice — within a couple weeks there's a new version with that
>>> tweak implemented. The license agreement is basically, don't give it
>>> to anyone else — you can use it on your own computers (as many as you
>>> want) and they can be any combination of Linux, Windows or Mac OS.
>>> Updates are always free.
>>>
>>> The other proprietary software (that I can think of now) is office
>>> suite that comes with TextMaker. They provide five licenses that can
>>> be divided between any combination of Linux, Windows or Mac OS
>>> machines. They're a German outfit, and seem to be well liked. But I've
>>> never read the fine print in their EULA. Maybe they have the "right"
>>> to take one of my kidneys with two hours notice, who knows?
>>>
>>> I would imagine that a lot of these EULAs could be challenged in court
>>> if anyone cared enough to do it.
>>
>> I imagine that corporations would make the excuse that if their EULAs
>> are challenged and they can no longer set whatever conditions they
>> choose on the user, they will simply stop producing software. They tend
>> to play with that kind of stuff quite a lot, telling whoever is in
>> charge that lots of people will lose their jobs, their livelihoods and
>> by extension lots of tax income if they don't play ball. The power
>> corporations have with governments, by itself, is a good reason to
>> avoid proprietary software if you can manage it. Companies aren't all
>> bad, but the bigger the company, the worse it gets.
>
> Agreed. If you absolutely need the application there's not much you can
> do. But just by using Linux I have very little proprietary software.

Even though I can afford to buy proprietary software, I usually find that
the open-source ones are either better or good enough. As long as they
don't eventually kill themselves as useful applications the way that
Thunderbird just did, I continue using them forever.

>>>> I recall one woman refusing to use proprietary software because her
>>>> financial information had repeatedly been stolen. The loss came as a
>>>> result of bugs in proprietary software and malware, and she swore
>>>> that she would never allow herself to be a slave of such
>>>> easily-compromised software again. I know that she has a blog, but I
>>>> don't remember what it was.
>>>
>>> I believe that. My wife's credit card has been compromised five or six
>>> times. She uses Windows and Windows applications.
>>
>> Mine was compromised a lot in the 2000s, but it seems to have had a lot
>> to do with the machines used at gas stations more than anything else.
>> My wallet also did nothing to block RFID signals at the time. The last
>> time it was compromised was when I bought this laptop. My wife
>> eventually let me know that Best Buy, where I bought it using a credit
>> card, had a number of complaints over the years. Whoever purchases
>> there is basically give his credit card away to thieves... I don't know
>> if it's BestBuy itself or the terrible security on the site, but it was
>> compromised soon after the purchase.
>
> It could be a coincidence. And she uses her card a lot more than I use
> mine.

Yeah, you don't have much of a choice other than PayPal if you're making
online purchases though.

On Wed, 15 May 2024 12:43:43 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 5/15/2024 9:56 AM, DFS wrote:
>> On 5/13/2024 9:50 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote at 18:35 this Saturday (GMT):
>>
>>> When have you read a license?
>>
>> I read them every month or so - if they're not GPL and not too long.
>>
>> Last night I came across what I believe is the longest EULA I've ever
>> seen: 306 lines (removing all blank lines)
>>
>> https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula/unreal
>>
>>
>>
>> By comparison, the GPL3 is 135 lines.
>
>
> license word counts
>
> Win 11 Pro EULA: 6010 C:\Windows\System32\license.rtf GPL 3 :
> 5700 www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html Unreal Engine : 8723
> www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula/unreal MS Office 2003 : 5309 Help |
> About | view EULA SQLite : 0 public domain Python 3.12.3 :
> 392 docs.python.org/3/license.html#psf-license

You're basically making Lawrence's point here. He is correct in saying
that while the people behind those licenses probably won't come after us,
they legally can. It would be to our collective benefit to move away from
proprietary stuff wherever possible, even if we find that the quality is
lacking in one respect or another.

On Wed, 15 May 2024 14:01:54 +0000, RonB wrote:

> On 2024-05-13, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> 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 stilla
>> be yours, but you won't get the support you need to figure out how to
>> use it.
>
> For Linux, corporations can usually find third party support on a per
> case basis. When CentOS was a clone of Red Hat instead of whatever it is
> now, corporations would use it instead of Red Hat and pay for support
> when needed. (I'm guessing the same thing happens now with Rocky Linux
> and the other Red Hat clones.) You don't have that third party option
> with Microsoft when paying for yearly licensing. And that will
> especially be the case if they start renting out their software instead
> of selling it when Windows 12 comes out.

I am not a fan of Microsoft's pay-per-month model for Office, and bought
Office 2021 simply to avoid it. I understand the benefits of paying
monthly and continually getting updates, but I would rather just pay up
front. If that is indeed the way they will go with Winodws, potentially
offering yearly OS subscriptions for people who buy a new computer, I will
gladly move onto Fedora. The mere fact that Fedora would respect my desire
to use S3 sleep rather than S0 (I can change it using a third-party
application), and that I am not forced to update, would be a reason to use
it over any new version of Windows.

On Wed, 15 May 2024 14:04:34 +0000, RonB wrote:

> On 2024-05-14, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2024 22:54:36 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On 13 May 2024 12:14:27 GMT, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... explain how it is the _software_ that is making them money,
>>>> and not the _support_ for that software.
>>>
>>> It is the support that is making the money. That is the point, after
>>> all.
>>>
>>> Ever heard of “give away the razor, sell the razorblades”? That’s how
>>> Free Software works.
>>
>> 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.
>> Gotcha.
>
> Yeah, that would be brilliant, because customers would flock by the
> droves to useless, crap software... But you may have something, people
> keep using crap Microsoft Windows even though their "customers" are
> really Microsoft's unpaid beta testers.

They use Windows because it's what they got on the computer they purchased
which cost less than a similar Mac. Considering how Windows can run on
just about any hardware and support every third-party peripheral they plug
into it, they are not likely to seek out an alternative, even if it
crashes a few times. It also has the largest library of software, and tons
of experts can be found on the web to help them with any technical problem
they have, free of charge. Those are real benefits, no matter how much one
hates Windows.

Linux has much of the above too, but its library of software isn't as
impressive and the software's general quality isn't there either. It works
on anything, that's true, but not anyone is comfortable with the process
of installing it, no matter how easy it is.

On Wed, 15 May 2024 14:10:54 +0000, RonB wrote:

> On 2024-05-15, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 May 2024 05:45:03 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> 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.)
>>
>> I am aware of them (I'm 45 years-old). In fact, Delphi Internet was my
>> first venture onto the Internet.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Not on price, that's for sure. If I recall correctly, those proprietary
>> services also wanted to make sure that you remained exclusive to that
>> service. There was no benefit for them to allow you to venture outside
>> of their walled garden, since that would cause you to eventually look
>> for a cheaper service which still gave you access to things like
>> Usenet, IRC and the World Wide Web without needing to pass through
>> their graphical interface. That might be why their systems were
>> primitive compared to the Linux ones, based on UNIX, which resisted a
>> user having any sort of middleman.
>
> Microsoft could use their own server software for free on their Cloud.
> They don't. They use Linux for their servers. That's all you really need
> to know about the superiority of Linux for servers. I think Apple mostly
> gave up on the server market a few years back.
>
> If you're using the Internet, you're using Linux.

Apple probably gave up because the hardware they were selling when they
were pushing servers was wholly inappropriate, as was the software running
atop it. As impressive as the PowerPC was, combining it with Mac OS at the
time wasn't a great solution for running a server. Whether today or back
then, the mere fact that you can run a server with Linux without even
needing a GUI ensures that performance will be good, and better than the
alternative software on the same hardware. Either way, I am glad that
Linux runs servers well and especially that a license from Microsoft,
Apple or IBM isn't required to create our own web server. I'm just
pointing out that without Linux, one of those would likely be behind most
of the servers.

On Wed, 15 May 2024 14:17:16 +0000, RonB wrote:

> On 2024-05-14, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I call BS on that claim. Clément Lefèbvre (for one) has been putting out
> Linux Mint for over 18 years now. It keeps getting better and Clément
> shows no sign of "moving on."

You can get a great idea of how much money the man makes from releasing
Linux Mint. He gets paid for his work. It's all in donation form, but he
makes a comfortable income providing us with a simple Linux distribution.
If nobody gave him any money, I doubt that he would still be around.

On Wed, 15 May 2024 14:17:16 +0000, RonB wrote:

> On 2024-05-14, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I call BS on that claim. Clément Lefèbvre (for one) has been putting out
> Linux Mint for over 18 years now. It keeps getting better and Clément
> shows no sign of "moving on."

Here is Clément Lefebvre's salary so far this month: $6549 USD. We're only
halfway done with the month of May. <https://www.linuxmint.com/donors.php>

Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote at 12:44 this Wednesday (GMT):
> On Wed, 15 May 2024 03:28:23 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
[snip]
>> 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 >

And aren't updated as often.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom