On Wed, 15 May 2024 23:50:04 +0000, candycanearter07 wrote:

> 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.

That's a good point. The licenses users of proprietary software might have
agreed to on day one will become so different by day three that the terms
might not be so agreeable. We've all received those e-mails from services
telling us that the terms have changed. Many of those terms have, in the
past few years, become increasingly restrictive.

Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote at 01:17 this Thursday (GMT):
> On Wed, 15 May 2024 23:50:04 +0000, candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> That's a good point. The licenses users of proprietary software might have
> agreed to on day one will become so different by day three that the terms
> might not be so agreeable. We've all received those e-mails from services
> telling us that the terms have changed. Many of those terms have, in the
> past few years, become increasingly restrictive.

Yeah.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Wed, 15 May 2024 11:37:18 -0400, Joel wrote:

> 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.

Subject → “who”
Object → “whom”

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/who-vs-whom-its-not-as-complicated-as-you-might-think/
https://www.touro.edu/departments/writing-center/tutorials/who-or-whom/
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/who-vs-whom-grammar-usage

On 5/14/2024 2:32 PM, rbowman wrote:
> 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.

Per netcraft, IIS has a Linux-desktop-like market share of 2% to 3%.

https://www.netcraft.com/blog/april-2024-web-server-survey/

On 5/15/2024 1:38 AM, 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”

'who' is correct.

On 2024-05-15, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> 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.

I understand. I had to change out my Visa debit card a month or so ago
because some moron was using it for Google Pay. I've got a good credit
union, they get this kind of stuff stopped quick. But it is a pain to have
change out my card number for my monthly bills. (First world problems — or
should that be "soon to be former first world problems?")

--
[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 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.

I've got Fedora 39 (Cinnamon spin) on one computer. It's not a whole
different than Linux Mint when you get used to it. Except it's cutting edge
vs stable. But I guess I don't have the cutting edge version now, I think
Fedora has gone to version 40.

I guess I should look into how to update it.

--
[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 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.

I find a lot better support for Linux on the Internet than I do for Windows.
There are a LOT of people who'll tell you how to fix Windows... only problem
is, none of it EVER works. When my wife's old computer BSOD'd (twice during
upgrades) I found (and tried) about 20 "solutions," none of which worked.
The second time I went to what actually worked sooner — using a Linux Live[B
USB to download her data and rebuild the computer from scratch. I could be a
great Windows support expert... I've already memorized the three Rs,
"Reboot. Reboot. Rebuild."

(Again this is from a years back and I will admit that wife has had a lot
less trouble since then. Although I still have to reset her network
something or other when it slows to crawl on the Internet (what is that
crap?). And I still think Windows is the most convoluted crap OS ever made.

> 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.

I understand. I've known people who buy a new Windows computer every time
the old one slows down because that's all they want to know. "Doesn't work
right any more, but a new one."

--
[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 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.

I think Apple is very good at selling fancy goo-gaws in the retail market,
and the server market really wasn't their thing. They've been using UNIX for
years now and, if they really wanted to get into the server market, they
probably could. But that's not their strength. Besides, it's hard to compete
against free OS for servers.

--
[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 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.

But he does put out a good product, that's why he gets the donations. It's
called free enterprise, completely different than monopoly capitalism.

Which reminds me. I need to send a donation to Linux Mint.

--
[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 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>

That's not his salary, that's what goes to expenses, to him and (I think) a
handful of other permanent developers, plus there's the server expenses. I
think Linux Mint just went to a faster server company for updates —
something called "Fastly." Clement was looking for beta testers a month ago.
So I'm sure they're not cheap.

But if Clement is making good money, more power to him. He (and his team)
are providing a great Linux distribution.

--
[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 2024-05-16, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2024 23:50:04 +0000, candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> That's a good point. The licenses users of proprietary software might have
> agreed to on day one will become so different by day three that the terms
> might not be so agreeable. We've all received those e-mails from services
> telling us that the terms have changed. Many of those terms have, in the
> past few years, become increasingly restrictive.

That's why I don't bother reading them, I know they're going to get more
restrictive every time. And it's also why I'm moving most of my mail away
from Yahoo and Gmail and to other providers, like Vivaldi and Yandex — and
maybe Posteo. I don't trust Google (or Yahoo) to NOT shut down my email
account if I don't toe the Woke line. Google was started with grant money
from the NSA and its CEO for several years was an ex-CIA wonk.

No fan of Google or Yahoo anymore (unfortunately I once was). Remember when
Yahoo was the place to go when you wanted to get around the Internet?
Hopefully we'll get that point with Google in the not too distant future.
Moving their Chrome browser to Manifest 3 might be the first chink in their
armor. (We'll see. Probably not, but I can hope.)

--
[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 Fri, 17 May 2024 03:09:43 -0000 (UTC), RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com>
wrote in <v26hpm$20265$6@dont-email.me>:

> On 2024-05-15, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I think Apple is very good at selling fancy goo-gaws in the retail
> market, and the server market really wasn't their thing. They've been
> using UNIX for years now and, if they really wanted to get into the
> server market, they probably could. But that's not their strength.
> Besides, it's hard to compete against free OS for servers.

They gave it the old college try, but it did not work out very well
for them:

https://www.macstories.net/mac/a-history-of-the-xserve-apples-one-rack-wonder/

(Apple rack-mount servers were a thing for a while.)

--
-v

On Thu, 16 May 2024 08:06:32 -0400, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote in
<v24ss7$1i5gp$2@dont-email.me>:

> On 5/14/2024 2:32 PM, rbowman wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
> Per netcraft, IIS has a Linux-desktop-like market share of 2% to 3%.
>
>
> https://www.netcraft.com/blog/april-2024-web-server-survey/

OMG. Apache httpd and nginx are doomed.

--
-v

On Wed, 15 May 2024 10:14:26 -0400, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote in
<6644c341$0$2363136$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> 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?

I don't know "biosdecode" from Adam.

But I do know dmidecode -- let us examine the "well-formatted"
output!

[...]
Handle 0x0010, DMI type 4, 48 bytes
Processor Information
Socket Designation: SP3r2
Type: Central Processor
Family: Zen
Manufacturer: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
ID: 10 0F 83 00 FF FB 8B 17
Signature: Family 23, Model 49, Stepping 0
Flags:
FPU (Floating-point unit on-chip)
VME (Virtual mode extension)
DE (Debugging extension)
PSE (Page size extension)
TSC (Time stamp counter)
MSR (Model specific registers)
PAE (Physical address extension)
MCE (Machine check exception)
CX8 (CMPXCHG8 instruction supported)
APIC (On-chip APIC hardware supported)
SEP (Fast system call)
MTRR (Memory type range registers)
PGE (Page global enable)
MCA (Machine check architecture)
CMOV (Conditional move instruction supported)
PAT (Page attribute table)
PSE-36 (36-bit page size extension)
CLFSH (CLFLUSH instruction supported)
MMX (MMX technology supported)
FXSR (FXSAVE and FXSTOR instructions supported)
SSE (Streaming SIMD extensions)
SSE2 (Streaming SIMD extensions 2)
HTT (Multi-threading)
Version: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X 32-Core Processor
Voltage: 1.1 V
External Clock: 100 MHz
Max Speed: 4550 MHz
Current Speed: 3700 MHz
Status: Populated, Enabled
Upgrade: Socket SP3r2
L1 Cache Handle: 0x000D
L2 Cache Handle: 0x000E
L3 Cache Handle: 0x000F
Serial Number: Unknown
Asset Tag: Unknown
Part Number: Unknown
Core Count: 32
Core Enabled: 32
Thread Count: 64
Characteristics:
64-bit capable
Multi-Core
Hardware Thread
Execute Protection
Enhanced Virtualization
Power/Performance Control
[...]

And as I said, they ported it to Windows -- so run
dmidecode in an admin shell (not WSL -- command.com)
and let's see what that looks like, hmm?

Note that the bare-bones output from Linux itself for
the processor features can be found by just catting
/proc/cpuinfo:

_[/root]_(root@lm)⭕_
# cat /proc/cpuinfo | head -28
processor : 0
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
cpu family : 23
model : 49
model name : AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X 32-Core Processor
stepping : 0
microcode : 0x8301039
cpu MHz : 2200.000
cache size : 512 KB
physical id : 0
siblings : 64
core id : 0
cpu cores : 32
apicid : 0
initial apicid : 0
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 16
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt pdpe1gb rdtscp lm constant_tsc rep_good nopl xtopology nonstop_tsc cpuid extd_apicid aperfmperf rapl pni pclmulqdq monitor ssse3 fma cx16 sse4_1 sse4_2 movbe popcnt aes xsave avx f16c rdrand lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm extapic cr8_legacy abm sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch osvw ibs skinit wdt tce topoext perfctr_core perfctr_nb bpext perfctr_llc mwaitx cpb cat_l3 cdp_l3 hw_pstate ssbd mba ibpb stibp vmmcall fsgsbase bmi1 avx2 smep bmi2 cqm rdt_a rdseed adx smap clflushopt clwb sha_ni xsaveopt xsavec xgetbv1 cqm_llc cqm_occup_llc cqm_mbm_total cqm_mbm_local clzero irperf xsaveerptr rdpru wbnoinvd arat npt lbrv svm_lock nrip_save tsc_scale vmcb_clean flushbyasid decodeassists pausefilter pfthreshold avic v_vmsave_vmload vgif v_spec_ctrl umip rdpid overflow_recov succor smca sev sev_es
bugs : sysret_ss_attrs spectre_v1 spectre_v2 spec_store_bypass retbleed smt_rsb srso
bogomips : 7400.42
TLB size : 3072 4K pages
clflush size : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes : 43 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management: ts ttp tm hwpstate cpb eff_freq_ro [13] [14]
[... repeat 63 more times]

You can't expect the kernel itself to be too flashy with its output.

--
-v

On Fri, 17 May 2024 02:54:37 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> I've got Fedora 39 (Cinnamon spin) on one computer. It's not a whole
> different than Linux Mint when you get used to it. Except it's cutting
> edge vs stable. But I guess I don't have the cutting edge version now, I
> think Fedora has gone to version 40.
>
> I guess I should look into how to update it.

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/upgrading-fedora-new-
release/
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/upgrading-fedora-offline/

I did the dnf version. It took a while and went fairly smoothly. I had a
few random crashes including the plasma shell but it seems to have settled
down. It's still getting a lot of updates almost daily. That's the KDE
spin so you might have fewer.

Re: NetCraft.COM/blog/april-2024-web-server-survey/

"Anonymous" is the most popular server.

On Fri, 17 May 2024 02:50:18 +0000, RonB wrote:

> On 2024-05-15, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I understand. I had to change out my Visa debit card a month or so ago
> because some moron was using it for Google Pay. I've got a good credit
> union, they get this kind of stuff stopped quick. But it is a pain to
> have change out my card number for my monthly bills. (First world
> problems — or should that be "soon to be former first world problems?")

I can't imagine how bad the security of these institutions or our software
is that this continues to be a problem. My card used to get cloned all the
time back in the 2000s when I was using a wallet without RFID blocking and
blindly trusting the machines at convenience stores to be secure. It's
been a lot better since, but it sucks that my card had to yet again be
cloned when I bought this laptop because I dared to make an online
purchase. Luckily, I caught it quick: I was waiting in the dentist's
office and noticed a few charges for Ubers.

On Fri, 17 May 2024 02:54:37 +0000, RonB wrote:

> On 2024-05-15, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I've got Fedora 39 (Cinnamon spin) on one computer. It's not a whole
> different than Linux Mint when you get used to it. Except it's cutting
> edge vs stable. But I guess I don't have the cutting edge version now, I
> think Fedora has gone to version 40.
>
> I guess I should look into how to update it.

From what I read, Fedora pride themselves in the fact that they make
upgrading from one release to another very simple. I've never had to do it
myself since the distribution never stayed installed on my computers long
enough, but I imagine it to be rather painless.

On Fri, 17 May 2024 03:09:43 +0000, RonB wrote:

> On 2024-05-15, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I think Apple is very good at selling fancy goo-gaws in the retail
> market, and the server market really wasn't their thing. They've been
> using UNIX for years now and, if they really wanted to get into the
> server market, they probably could. But that's not their strength.
> Besides, it's hard to compete against free OS for servers.

I think Apple misjudged the customer who would want to buy a server in the
first place. These people don't want anything fancy; they want whatever
hardware they buy to perform as it should. Whether the interface is pretty
or not means nothing to them because they have experts who are just as
comfortable in the command line as they are in a GUI. Given that, there
was truly no reason to pay an Apple premium for a thin server that
performs poorly when you could buy two ugly servers which performed a lot
better at the same price. The only drawback is that these servers would be
running Linux, which is not a drawback at all to whoever is maintaining
them.

On Fri, 17 May 2024 03:04:45 +0000, RonB wrote:

> On 2024-05-15, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I find a lot better support for Linux on the Internet than I do for
> Windows. There are a LOT of people who'll tell you how to fix Windows...
> only problem is, none of it EVER works. When my wife's old computer
> BSOD'd (twice during upgrades) I found (and tried) about 20 "solutions,"
> none of which worked.
> The second time I went to what actually worked sooner — using a Linux
> Live[B USB to download her data and rebuild the computer from scratch. I
> could be a great Windows support expert... I've already memorized the
> three Rs,
> "Reboot. Reboot. Rebuild."
>
> (Again this is from a years back and I will admit that wife has had a
> lot less trouble since then. Although I still have to reset her network
> something or other when it slows to crawl on the Internet (what is that
> crap?). And I still think Windows is the most convoluted crap OS ever
> made.

There are three issues I can imagine for the slow Internet: 1) an IP
mismatch caused by a crappy TP-Link router (I've had this issue), 2)
terrible Wi-Fi hardware such as the chips made by MediaTek, 3) too much
distance and interference between her computer and the router. If you have
a cheap TP-Link router, get rid of that thing. Their more expensive models
are fine, but the one selling for around $30 causes a lot of chaos.

>> 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.
>
> I understand. I've known people who buy a new Windows computer every
> time the old one slows down because that's all they want to know.
> "Doesn't work right any more, but a new one."

Meanwhile, we're dealing with high inflation and a likely recession which
should prompt most people to save as much money as they can by keeping
their hardware for as long as possible. Linux is going to be everyone's
best friend soon.

On Fri, 17 May 2024 03:12:43 +0000, RonB wrote:

> On 2024-05-15, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> But he does put out a good product, that's why he gets the donations.
> It's called free enterprise, completely different than monopoly
> capitalism.
>
> Which reminds me. I need to send a donation to Linux Mint.

You should. Over the years, he's gotten two Ethereums from me and a number
of $10 or $20 donations. I have no regrets, mostly because I imagine that
people who couldn't afford high-end computers benefited tremendously from
being able to install Linux, and do as much as their friends were doing on
their more expensive computers.

On Fri, 17 May 2024 03:28:23 +0000, RonB wrote:

> On 2024-05-16, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 May 2024 23:50:04 +0000, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> That's a good point. The licenses users of proprietary software might
>> have agreed to on day one will become so different by day three that
>> the terms might not be so agreeable. We've all received those e-mails
>> from services telling us that the terms have changed. Many of those
>> terms have, in the past few years, become increasingly restrictive.
>
> That's why I don't bother reading them, I know they're going to get more
> restrictive every time. And it's also why I'm moving most of my mail
> away from Yahoo and Gmail and to other providers, like Vivaldi and
> Yandex — and maybe Posteo. I don't trust Google (or Yahoo) to NOT shut
> down my email account if I don't toe the Woke line. Google was started
> with grant money from the NSA and its CEO for several years was an
> ex-CIA wonk.

I'm not sure how woke Posteo is, but I know that e-mails from Gab and
Rumble are blocked by default by their spam system. I have to change the
settings to make sure they come through. However, since all of my e-mail
is encrypted as are the contacts and address book, I have no reason to
believe they have any kind of useful access to my account. I trust that
whoever maintains their spam filter isn't conservative, but that he, she,
ze, xe or whatever else doesn't mind my circumtventing their decision.
> No fan of Google or Yahoo anymore (unfortunately I once was). Remember
> when Yahoo was the place to go when you wanted to get around the
> Internet? Hopefully we'll get that point with Google in the not too
> distant future. Moving their Chrome browser to Manifest 3 might be the
> first chink in their armor. (We'll see. Probably not, but I can hope.)

I never much liked Yahoo or found their search engine useful. Even when it
was "the best," it was rather awful. I think I used to use altavista back
then which gave me much better results.

On 2024-05-17, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2024 02:54:37 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> I've got Fedora 39 (Cinnamon spin) on one computer. It's not a whole
>> different than Linux Mint when you get used to it. Except it's cutting
>> edge vs stable. But I guess I don't have the cutting edge version now, I
>> think Fedora has gone to version 40.
>>
>> I guess I should look into how to update it.
>
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/upgrading-fedora-new-
> release/
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/upgrading-fedora-offline/
>
> I did the dnf version. It took a while and went fairly smoothly. I had a
> few random crashes including the plasma shell but it seems to have settled
> down. It's still getting a lot of updates almost daily. That's the KDE
> spin so you might have fewer.

I've bookmarked these. Thank you.

--
[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 2024-05-17, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2024 02:54:37 +0000, RonB wrote:
>
>> On 2024-05-15, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> I've got Fedora 39 (Cinnamon spin) on one computer. It's not a whole
>> different than Linux Mint when you get used to it. Except it's cutting
>> edge vs stable. But I guess I don't have the cutting edge version now, I
>> think Fedora has gone to version 40.
>>
>> I guess I should look into how to update it.
>
> From what I read, Fedora pride themselves in the fact that they make
> upgrading from one release to another very simple. I've never had to do it
> myself since the distribution never stayed installed on my computers long
> enough, but I imagine it to be rather painless.

I'll probably try upgrading my Fedora computer this weekend and report on
how it goes.

--
[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