Slimer wrote:

> some dumb fsck wrote:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> Slimer wrote:
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> CPU-Z is only freeware, CPU-X is Free Software.
>>>>
>>>> For an end user, there is no difference.
>>>
>>> Yes there is. Your freeware comes with a long EULA with a whole lot of
>>> conditions you have to agree to, that most people click through without
>>> even reading,
>>
>> That's their fault.
>
>It is, but even if you do read it, the language used isn't always clear.

Notice that the dumb fsck won't condeed the point that FOSS is better,
in that regard.
>>> only for it to bite them later. Like being able to run hidden telemetry
>>> on your system and harvest your data for their own purposes.
>>
>> If it's in the license it's not hidden.
>>
>> If you agree to it, it's not "spying" (like that worm shitv believes).
>
>You often agree to it because it is often worded in such a way that it
>doesn't sound so bad.

It can honestly be called "spying", even if people do "agree with it".
The dumb fsck is lying, as usual.

>>> Free Software doesn’t try to con you into things you didn’t know you
>>> were agreeing to.
>>
>> What, you never read that stupid, impenetrable, restrictive GuhNoo GPL 3
>> (under which CPU-X is released)?
>>
>> It's twice as long and MUCH more restrictive than the CPU-Z license.
>>
>> It has a SHITLOAD of "you must" or "you may/may not" or other
>> conditional clauses restricting your freedom to use the software, far
>> far far more than the CPU-Z license, and far more than most proprietary
>> licenses I've read.
>
>The GPL license was written in such a way that it basically protects the
>user, but not the developer.

Who is that dumb fsck trying to fool? The restrictions that the GPL
imposes on developers to want to distribute the software, designed to
keep the software Free, are not drawbacks to the end user. He *lies*
about them restricting your freedom to "use the software".

>Wretched Stallman, at the very least, gave
>that impression in his book. 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.

When I help you raise your barn, and you help me raise mine, are
either of us calculating the "profit"?

--
"Only in the brain of [chrisv] does telemetry == spying." - DumFSck,
lying shamelessly

On 2024-05-11, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2024 07:06:48 +0000, RonB wrote:
>
>> On 2024-05-10, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 May 2024 16:04:09 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>
>>>> I mostly gave up on video games after Pong. I guess I have played a
>>>> couple of the kind where you have to figure out puzzles, like Myst.
>>>> And if Mahjong is considered a video game I play that and pinochle
>>>> sometimes.
>>>
>>> I'm not that great at hand-eye coordination which leads to frustration
>>> starting as far back as Centipede. I have an old XBox and enjoyed some
>>> of the titles. I forget which version but I gave GTA to a friend's kid
>>> because I couldn't figure out how it worked. I sure the 12 year old
>>> aced it. I gave up on Assassin's Creed when I got tired of the endless
>>> running over roofs to get back to where you were after you respawned.
>>
>> My kids played Assassin's Creed a few years back. And that's all I ever
>> saw of it. Running on top of roofs. I didn't watch long because it got
>> monotonous.
>>
>> I think that's the one that had some decent music though — or maybe that
>> Skyrim (which I always pronounced "skerim" — even when I found out how
>> it was supposed to be pronounced). My kids played that one a lot also.
>
> There is admittedly a lot of running on roofs in Assassin's Creed games,
> but you mostly do it to stay away from the enemies that might spot you on
> the ground and cause a fight. Additionally, getting to the highest point
> allows you to survey an area and determine where the most important items
> are. It's a fantastic series.

Not my kind of thing, but I know it was (or is?) popular.

--
[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 2024-05-12, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2024 14:35:35 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> On 5/9/2024 8:41 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 May 2024 08:28:23 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-05-08 12:56 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> CPU-Z is only freeware, CPU-X is Free Software.
>>>>
>>>> For an end user, there is no difference.
>>>
>>> Yes there is. Your freeware comes with a long EULA with a whole lot of
>>> conditions you have to agree to, that most people click through without
>>> even reading,
>>
>> That's their fault.
>
> It is, but even if you do read it, the language used isn't always clear.

And most people have lives. Reading through a multi-page, fine print EULA
written in "lawyerize" (over and over again, as they change the "contracts"
incessantly) isn't exactly a skill I want to cultivate. Who takes this crap
seriously? (I guess those who are enthralled with Windows or Mac OS —
definitely not me.)

>>> only for it to bite them later. Like being able to run hidden telemetry
>>> on your system and harvest your data for their own purposes.
>>
>>
>> If it's in the license it's not hidden.
>>
>> If you agree to it, it's not "spying" (like that worm shitv believes).

So you buy software thinking "this is supposed to solve a problem," and then
you're supposed to wade through pages of BS before you use the crap? Thanks
but no thanks.

> You often agree to it because it is often worded in such a way that it
> doesn't sound so bad. I'll be honest though: the telemetry doesn't bother
> me as much as the knowledge that the corporation supports causes that I
> strongly disagree with. On the other hand, most companies behind Linux do
> too.

Lawyers have to make their money somehow. Being deceptive is the name of
their game.

>>> Free Software doesn’t try to con you into things you didn’t know you
>>> were agreeing to.
>>
>> What, you never read that stupid, impenetrable, restrictive GuhNoo GPL 3
>> (under which CPU-X is released)?
>>
>> It's twice as long and MUCH more restrictive than the CPU-Z license.
>>
>> It has a SHITLOAD of "you must" or "you may/may not" or other
>> conditional clauses restricting your freedom to use the software, far
>> far far more than the CPU-Z license, and far more than most proprietary
>> licenses I've read.
>
> The GPL license was written in such a way that it basically protects the
> user, but not the developer. Wretched Stallman, at the very least, gave
> that impression in his book. 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.

So, you should be able to grab all the goodies you want from other
developers while hoarding your own work? That sounds fair. No one forces a
GPL license on anyone. But if you benefit from the open source, you should
pass it on. If you want to create your own application from scratch, EULA
the hell out of it.

As for EULAs on commercial software — only companies and corporations take
this crap seriously. (Well, maybe there are some needle-nosed dinks who care
about it. I'm not one of them.)

--
[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 Mon, 6 May 2024 17:19:55 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Not meant to do what HWiNFO does, though.

They collect so much info about your system, who’s to say they’re not
transmitting it to their servers?

They say they don’t, but can you believe them?

On Mon, 6 May 2024 17:19:55 -0400, DFS wrote:

> * the tty devices in udevinfo are listed like so:
>
> tty49
> tty5
> tty50

In what order are they listed in your wonderful alternative tool on
Windows?

On Sat, 11 May 2024 20:28:55 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> Slimer wrote:
>
>>It is, but even if you do read it, the language used isn't always clear.
>
> Notice that the dumb fsck won't condeed the point that FOSS is better,
> in that regard.

It IS better, especially since the license has been used forever and
hasn't changed at all. In the case of Windows, its license terms
constantly change, and each program within it has a different license. I
know for a fact that the people who signed up for Adobe's monthly charges
were surprised at what they were left with once they decided to stop
paying.

>>You often agree to it because it is often worded in such a way that it
>>doesn't sound so bad.
>
> It can honestly be called "spying", even if people do "agree with it".
> The dumb fsck is lying, as usual.
>
>>The GPL license was written in such a way that it basically protects the
>>user, but not the developer.
>
> Who is that dumb fsck trying to fool? The restrictions that the GPL
> imposes on developers to want to distribute the software, designed to
> keep the software Free, are not drawbacks to the end user. He *lies*
> about them restricting your freedom to "use the software".
>
>>Wretched Stallman, at the very least, gave that impression in his book.
>>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.
>
> When I help you raise your barn, and you help me raise mine, are either
> of us calculating the "profit"?

Stallman more or less predicted that unless free software and the GPL
emerged, the world of tech would be one where users would be renting the
hardware and the software rather than owning anything. It's clearly going
in that direction with Windows and Mac OS, as well as some of the more
popular software within it. You have monthly charges for Office and Adobe,
but other third-parties are now selling yearly licenses for their
software. On the opposite end, not only is the operating system yours to
do what you wish, but you'll never be charged to use any of the software
that is installable within. They might beg for a donation, but that's
entirely up to you.

On Sun, 12 May 2024 07:33:09 +0000, RonB wrote:

> On 2024-05-11, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 May 2024 07:06:48 +0000, RonB wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-05-10, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 May 2024 16:04:09 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I mostly gave up on video games after Pong. I guess I have played a
>>>>> couple of the kind where you have to figure out puzzles, like Myst.
>>>>> And if Mahjong is considered a video game I play that and pinochle
>>>>> sometimes.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not that great at hand-eye coordination which leads to
>>>> frustration starting as far back as Centipede. I have an old XBox and
>>>> enjoyed some of the titles. I forget which version but I gave GTA to
>>>> a friend's kid because I couldn't figure out how it worked. I sure
>>>> the 12 year old aced it. I gave up on Assassin's Creed when I got
>>>> tired of the endless running over roofs to get back to where you were
>>>> after you respawned.
>>>
>>> My kids played Assassin's Creed a few years back. And that's all I
>>> ever saw of it. Running on top of roofs. I didn't watch long because
>>> it got monotonous.
>>>
>>> I think that's the one that had some decent music though — or maybe
>>> that Skyrim (which I always pronounced "skerim" — even when I found
>>> out how it was supposed to be pronounced). My kids played that one a
>>> lot also.
>>
>> There is admittedly a lot of running on roofs in Assassin's Creed
>> games, but you mostly do it to stay away from the enemies that might
>> spot you on the ground and cause a fight. Additionally, getting to the
>> highest point allows you to survey an area and determine where the most
>> important items are. It's a fantastic series.
>
> Not my kind of thing, but I know it was (or is?) popular.

The stories are usually excellent and include historical figures. The
world itself is usually historically accurate. The fact that you can play
however you wish too, from stealth to running in sword first, is rather
fun. The ship battles they added in the 3rd installment were also very
fun.

On Sun, 12 May 2024 08:05:59 +0000, RonB wrote:

> On 2024-05-12, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 May 2024 14:35:35 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/9/2024 8:41 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 May 2024 08:28:23 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-05-08 12:56 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> CPU-Z is only freeware, CPU-X is Free Software.
>>>>>
>>>>> For an end user, there is no difference.
>>>>
>>>> Yes there is. Your freeware comes with a long EULA with a whole lot
>>>> of conditions you have to agree to, that most people click through
>>>> without even reading,
>>>
>>> That's their fault.
>>
>> It is, but even if you do read it, the language used isn't always
>> clear.
>
> And most people have lives. Reading through a multi-page, fine print
> EULA written in "lawyerize" (over and over again, as they change the
> "contracts" incessantly) isn't exactly a skill I want to cultivate. Who
> takes this crap seriously? (I guess those who are enthralled with
> Windows or Mac OS — definitely not me.)

I used to have a class in university with a guy who took it seriously. At
one point, some ISP was going around providing DSL for free. Unlike the
rest of us, he actually read the contract to figure out what the catch
was. I remember he was from Washington, D.C..

>>>> only for it to bite them later. Like being able to run hidden
>>>> telemetry on your system and harvest your data for their own
>>>> purposes.
>>>
>>>
>>> If it's in the license it's not hidden.
>>>
>>> If you agree to it, it's not "spying" (like that worm shitv believes).
>
> So you buy software thinking "this is supposed to solve a problem," and
> then you're supposed to wade through pages of BS before you use the
> crap? Thanks but no thanks.

You're hitting the nail on the head there. If software is going to be
sold, that contract needs to be made available before the sale is made.
Otherwise, you've already paid for a program whose terms you could never
have agreed to.

< snip >

>> The GPL license was written in such a way that it basically protects
>> the user, but not the developer. Wretched Stallman, at the very least,
>> gave that impression in his book. 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.
>
> So, you should be able to grab all the goodies you want from other
> developers while hoarding your own work? That sounds fair. No one forces
> a GPL license on anyone. But if you benefit from the open source, you
> should pass it on. If you want to create your own application from
> scratch, EULA the hell out of it.
>
> As for EULAs on commercial software — only companies and corporations
> take this crap seriously. (Well, maybe there are some needle-nosed dinks
> who care about it. I'm not one of them.)

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.

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.

On 2024-05-12, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2024 07:33:09 +0000, RonB wrote:
>
>> On 2024-05-11, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 May 2024 07:06:48 +0000, RonB wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-05-10, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 10 May 2024 16:04:09 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I mostly gave up on video games after Pong. I guess I have played a
>>>>>> couple of the kind where you have to figure out puzzles, like Myst.
>>>>>> And if Mahjong is considered a video game I play that and pinochle
>>>>>> sometimes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not that great at hand-eye coordination which leads to
>>>>> frustration starting as far back as Centipede. I have an old XBox and
>>>>> enjoyed some of the titles. I forget which version but I gave GTA to
>>>>> a friend's kid because I couldn't figure out how it worked. I sure
>>>>> the 12 year old aced it. I gave up on Assassin's Creed when I got
>>>>> tired of the endless running over roofs to get back to where you were
>>>>> after you respawned.
>>>>
>>>> My kids played Assassin's Creed a few years back. And that's all I
>>>> ever saw of it. Running on top of roofs. I didn't watch long because
>>>> it got monotonous.
>>>>
>>>> I think that's the one that had some decent music though — or maybe
>>>> that Skyrim (which I always pronounced "skerim" — even when I found
>>>> out how it was supposed to be pronounced). My kids played that one a
>>>> lot also.
>>>
>>> There is admittedly a lot of running on roofs in Assassin's Creed
>>> games, but you mostly do it to stay away from the enemies that might
>>> spot you on the ground and cause a fight. Additionally, getting to the
>>> highest point allows you to survey an area and determine where the most
>>> important items are. It's a fantastic series.
>>
>> Not my kind of thing, but I know it was (or is?) popular.
>
> The stories are usually excellent and include historical figures. The
> world itself is usually historically accurate. The fact that you can play
> however you wish too, from stealth to running in sword first, is rather
> fun. The ship battles they added in the 3rd installment were also very
> fun.

I guess I'm not big on battles, or video games in general.

--
[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 2024-05-12, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2024 08:05:59 +0000, RonB wrote:
>
>> On 2024-05-12, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 May 2024 14:35:35 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/9/2024 8:41 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 8 May 2024 08:28:23 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2024-05-08 12:56 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CPU-Z is only freeware, CPU-X is Free Software.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For an end user, there is no difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes there is. Your freeware comes with a long EULA with a whole lot
>>>>> of conditions you have to agree to, that most people click through
>>>>> without even reading,
>>>>
>>>> That's their fault.
>>>
>>> It is, but even if you do read it, the language used isn't always
>>> clear.
>>
>> And most people have lives. Reading through a multi-page, fine print
>> EULA written in "lawyerize" (over and over again, as they change the
>> "contracts" incessantly) isn't exactly a skill I want to cultivate. Who
>> takes this crap seriously? (I guess those who are enthralled with
>> Windows or Mac OS — definitely not me.)
>
> I used to have a class in university with a guy who took it seriously. At
> one point, some ISP was going around providing DSL for free. Unlike the
> rest of us, he actually read the contract to figure out what the catch
> was. I remember he was from Washington, D.C..
>
>>>>> only for it to bite them later. Like being able to run hidden
>>>>> telemetry on your system and harvest your data for their own
>>>>> purposes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If it's in the license it's not hidden.
>>>>
>>>> If you agree to it, it's not "spying" (like that worm shitv believes).
>>
>> So you buy software thinking "this is supposed to solve a problem," and
>> then you're supposed to wade through pages of BS before you use the
>> crap? Thanks but no thanks.
>
> You're hitting the nail on the head there. If software is going to be
> sold, that contract needs to be made available before the sale is made.
> Otherwise, you've already paid for a program whose terms you could never
> have agreed to.
>
>< snip >
>
>>> The GPL license was written in such a way that it basically protects
>>> the user, but not the developer. Wretched Stallman, at the very least,
>>> gave that impression in his book. 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.
>>
>> So, you should be able to grab all the goodies you want from other
>> developers while hoarding your own work? That sounds fair. No one forces
>> a GPL license on anyone. But if you benefit from the open source, you
>> should pass it on. If you want to create your own application from
>> scratch, EULA the hell out of it.
>>
>> As for EULAs on commercial software — only companies and corporations
>> take this crap seriously. (Well, maybe there are some needle-nosed dinks
>> who care about it. I'm not one of them.)
>
> 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 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.

--
[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 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.
>> 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.

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.

On Sat, 11 May 2024 14:35:35 -0400, DFS wrote:

> What, you never read that stupid, impenetrable, restrictive GuhNoo GPL
3
> (under which CPU-X is released)?

I have. I also followed the very public and transparent process under
which the FSF put together that licence, with a lot of public consultation
along the way.

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.

On 5/12/2024 7:37 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2024 14:35:35 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> What, you never read that stupid, impenetrable, restrictive GuhNoo GPL
> 3
>> (under which CPU-X is released)?
>
> I have. I also followed the very public and transparent process under
> which the FSF put together that licence, with a lot of public consultation
> along the way.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the public.

And can the IDIOT lawyer that wrote this part be disbarred for IDIOCY?

"When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid
circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention
is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the
covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or
modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's
users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of
technological measures." - GuhNoo GPL 3

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?

https://www.ibm.com/linux

The enterprise Linux operating system is a solid foundation for your
open-source, hybrid cloud infrastructure. Running Linux on IBM servers
brings a new level of reliability, security and scalability to your
business-critical workloads. Cut complexity and improve performance with
Linux on IBM Z®, IBM® Linux ONE and Linux on IBM Power®.

Dassault Systemes products on Linux:

Abaqus
Draftsight
Simulia Execution Engine
Cameo Systems Modeler (a massive Java app)
Xflow

And there seem to be a few more.

Others:

Oracle
Google
Facebook
Amazon
Intel
HP
Dell
Roku
Tesla

and on and on and on.

--
Alas, how love can trifle with itself!
-- William Shakespeare, "The Two Gentlemen of Verona"

On Mon, 13 May 2024 12:25:50 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On Sun, 12 May 2024 23:36:40 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On 12 May 2024 00:34:11 GMT, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is technically possible to keep ownership of the software and make
>>>> a profit with it, but it is rather difficult the moment you slap the
>>>> GPL on the code.
>>>
>>> Tell that to the companies making a big business of Linux.
>>
>> Name them, and explain how it is the _software_ that is making them
>> money,
>> and not the _support_ for that software.
>
> Red Hat (on wikipedia):
>
> "They produce open-source code so that more programmers can make
> adaptations and improvements. Red Hat sells subscriptions for the
> support,
> training, and integration services that help customers in using
> their open-source software products."
>
> Though frankly, what is the difference if you sell your software or if
> you bundle software and provide support for that bundle?

The latter is a subscription, much like what the zealots are complaining
about Windows software doing. Sure, the software will still be yours, but
you won't get the support you need to figure out how to use it.

< snip Chris proving my point >

On Mon, 13 May 2024 08:25:09 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 5/12/2024 7:37 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 May 2024 14:35:35 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> What, you never read that stupid, impenetrable, restrictive GuhNoo GPL
>>> 3 (under which CPU-X is released)?
>>
>> I have. I also followed the very public and transparent process under
>> which the FSF put together that licence, with a lot of public
>> consultation along the way.
>
> Never underestimate the stupidity of the public.

Hey, you are the ones clicking on proprietary EULAs without even reading
them.

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

> And can the IDIOT lawyer that wrote this part be disbarred for IDIOCY?

Look up “Tivoization”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote at 18:35 this Saturday (GMT):
> On 5/9/2024 8:41 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 May 2024 08:28:23 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-05-08 12:56 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> CPU-Z is only freeware, CPU-X is Free Software.
>>>
>>> For an end user, there is no difference.
>>
>> Yes there is. Your freeware comes with a long EULA with a whole lot of
>> conditions you have to agree to, that most people click through without
>> even reading,
>
> That's their fault.
>
>
>
>> only for it to bite them later. Like being able to run
>> hidden telemetry on your system and harvest your data for their own
>> purposes.
>
>
> If it's in the license it's not hidden.
>
> If you agree to it, it's not "spying" (like that worm shitv believes).

When have you read a license?

>> Free Software doesn’t try to con you into things you didn’t know you were
>> agreeing to.
>
> What, you never read that stupid, impenetrable, restrictive GuhNoo GPL 3
> (under which CPU-X is released)?
>
> It's twice as long and MUCH more restrictive than the CPU-Z license.
>
> It has a SHITLOAD of "you must" or "you may/may not" or other
> conditional clauses restricting your freedom to use the software, far
> far far more than the CPU-Z license, and far more than most proprietary
> licenses I've read.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 08:29 this Sunday (GMT):
> On Mon, 6 May 2024 17:19:55 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> * the tty devices in udevinfo are listed like so:
>>
>> tty49
>> tty5
>> tty50
>
> In what order are they listed in your wonderful alternative tool on
> Windows?

I don't think that Windows uses ttyX files.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 00:42 this Friday (GMT):
> On Wed, 8 May 2024 11:11:29 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> Yep, a better Thunderbird than Thunderbird. Mozilla doesn't seem
>> interested in fixing bugs or even allowing outsiders to fix them for
>> them, so someone forked the project and made his own software.
>
> You think end users don’t know about this?

I didn't.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom