Am 24.06.22 um 13:21 schrieb nospam:
> In article <t93p98$a2b$2@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
> wrote:
>> Open Source should be legally required by public bodies whenever a
>> solution exists.
>
> you definitely don't understand anything about app development (or much
> else). such a requirement would completely destroy the industry.

Not a big deal and you have no clue about anything outside your little
Apple world.

Outside the US where no one feels the slightest responsibility towards
big US tech companies, a huge number of communities and public
organizations have mandated Open Source as requirement.

As taxpayer and free citizen I want my money spent wisely by the elected
government and in my and the community's interest. US companies never
work in the interest of the society but only in the interest of their
shareholders and greedy executives.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 24.06.22 um 13:21 schrieb nospam:
>> In article <t93p98$a2b$2@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
>> wrote:
>>> Open Source should be legally required by public bodies whenever a
>>> solution exists.
>>
>> you definitely don't understand anything about app development (or much
>> else). such a requirement would completely destroy the industry.
>
> Not a big deal and you have no clue about anything outside your little
> Apple world.
>
> Outside the US where no one feels the slightest responsibility towards
> big US tech companies, a huge number of communities and public
> organizations have mandated Open Source as requirement.
>
> As taxpayer and free citizen I want my money spent wisely by the elected
> government and in my and the community's interest. US companies never
> work in the interest of the society but only in the interest of their
> shareholders and greedy executives.
>
Ah yes Milton Friedman’s principle of fiduciary responsibility. Nothing
else matters.

In article <t97b9o$3ivsf$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz
<hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:

> >> Open Source should be legally required by public bodies whenever a
> >> solution exists.
> >
> > you definitely don't understand anything about app development (or much
> > else). such a requirement would completely destroy the industry.
>
> Not a big deal and you have no clue about anything outside your little
> Apple world.

it has nothing to do with apple and your attempt to twist it into
something it's not shows just how untenable your position is.

forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.

In message <t97b9o$3ivsf$1@dont-email.me> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 24.06.22 um 13:21 schrieb nospam:
>> In article <t93p98$a2b$2@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
>> wrote:
>>> Open Source should be legally required by public bodies whenever a
>>> solution exists.
>>
>> you definitely don't understand anything about app development (or much
>> else). such a requirement would completely destroy the industry.

> Not a big deal and you have no clue about anything outside your little
> Apple world.

> Outside the US where no one feels the slightest responsibility towards
> big US tech companies, a huge number of communities and public
> organizations have mandated Open Source as requirement.

Thunderboird is a PERFECT example of open source. It is a product that
mostly works, is very fiddly, dalls down a lot, offers SOME security
features that are trivially circumvented, and is a UI disaster.

See also GIMP.

Now, that is not every open source project, but it fits the vast
majority of them.

> As taxpayer and free citizen I want my money spent wisely by the elected
> government and in my and the community's interest.

Ah, yes, you are under the mistaken delusion that open source software
is FREE. This is of course, not at all true, as there are many costs for
an organization that wants to use open source software.

For one thing, you have to have a person (or a team) who is able to
examine and evaluate new versions and also has to be competent enough to
roll back patches, or even to fork projects that go off the rails. This
costs money for the people to do it, and money for the hardware to
support this. Cost that you do not have when purchasing from a company
that does all that for the customer. The people who can do this are
expensive, so labor costs are higher.

You CAN save money with open source if you are an individual or a small
group that can withstand something like "Ooops, our email doesn't work
this week, Guess we will fall back to some temporary solution like
webmail" but that doesn't work for a enterprise, NGO, School, or
Government agency. Many of these find that open source software ends up
costing them more money in support costs and administrations costs that
software with a vendor.

But, you obviously know nothing beyond your myopic and blinkered view.

--
I could have gone a lifetime without knowing your name

In message <t97b9o$3ivsf$1@dont-email.me> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 24.06.22 um 13:21 schrieb nospam:
>> In article <t93p98$a2b$2@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
>> wrote:
>>> Open Source should be legally required by public bodies whenever a
>>> solution exists.
>>
>> you definitely don't understand anything about app development (or much
>> else). such a requirement would completely destroy the industry.

> Not a big deal and you have no clue about anything outside your little
> Apple world.

> Outside the US where no one feels the slightest responsibility towards
> big US tech companies, a huge number of communities and public
> organizations have mandated Open Source as requirement.

Thunderboird is a PERFECT example of open source. It is a product that
mostly works, is very fiddly, dalls down a lot, offers SOME security
features that are trivially circumvented, and is a UI disaster.

See also GIMP.

Now, that is not every open source project, but it fits the vast
majority of them.

> As taxpayer and free citizen I want my money spent wisely by the elected
> government and in my and the community's interest.

Ah, yes, you are under the mistaken delusion that open source software
is FREE. This is of course, not at all true, as there are many costs for
an organization that wants to use open source software.

For one thing, you have to have a person (or a team) who is able to
examine and evaluate new versions and also has to be competent enough to
roll back patches, or even to fork projects that go off the rails. This
costs money for the people to do it, and money for the hardware to
support this. Cost that you do not have when purchasing from a company
that does all that for the customer. The people who can do this are
expensive, so labor costs are higher.

You CAN save money with open source if you are an individual or a small
group that can withstand something like "Ooops, our email doesn't work
this week, Guess we will fall back to some temporary solution like
webmail" but that doesn't work for a enterprise, NGO, School, or
Government agency. Many of these find that open source software ends up
costing them more money in support costs and administrations costs that
software with a vendor.

But, you obviously know nothing beyond your myopic and blinkered view.

--
I could have gone a lifetime without knowing your name

Am 25.06.22 um 22:04 schrieb nospam:
> forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
> having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.

It certainly will have an effect but a positive one. Blackmailing by
commercial tech companies is considerably reduced.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 25.06.22 um 22:04 schrieb nospam:
> forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
> having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.

It certainly will have an effect but a positive one. Blackmailing by
commercial tech companies is considerably reduced.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 25.06.22 um 22:04 schrieb nospam:
> forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
> having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.

It certainly will have an effect but a positive one. Blackmailing by
commercial tech companies and unjustified profit margins will be
considerably reduced.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 2022-06-25 22:41, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 25.06.22 um 22:04 schrieb nospam:
>> forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
>> having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.
>
> It certainly will have an effect but a positive one. Blackmailing by
> commercial tech companies is considerably reduced.
>

And the incentive to create software to earn one's living is utterly
eliminated.

On 2022-06-25 22:41, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 25.06.22 um 22:04 schrieb nospam:
>> forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
>> having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.
>
> It certainly will have an effect but a positive one. Blackmailing by
> commercial tech companies is considerably reduced.
>

And the incentive to create software to earn one's living is utterly
eliminated.

nospam wrote:

> it has nothing to do with apple and your attempt to twist it into
> something it's not shows just how untenable your position is.

They're careful not to call out Apple in the EU legislation & US
Congressional letter but it's mostly about asking Apple nicely to get with
the program.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t97b9o$3ivsf$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz
> <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>
>>>> Open Source should be legally required by public bodies whenever a
>>>> solution exists.
>>>
>>> you definitely don't understand anything about app development (or much
>>> else). such a requirement would completely destroy the industry.
>>
>> Not a big deal and you have no clue about anything outside your little
>> Apple world.
>
> it has nothing to do with apple and your attempt to twist it into
> something it's not shows just how untenable your position is.
>
> forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
> having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.

LOL. macOS and iOS, I think, are based on an open source OS and many other
open source utilities. Safari's webkit is also open source.

OSS may destroy a few companies, which is probably a good thing, but the
industry will be fine. It would need to adapt, but it would be fine.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t97b9o$3ivsf$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz
> <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>
>>>> Open Source should be legally required by public bodies whenever a
>>>> solution exists.
>>>
>>> you definitely don't understand anything about app development (or much
>>> else). such a requirement would completely destroy the industry.
>>
>> Not a big deal and you have no clue about anything outside your little
>> Apple world.
>
> it has nothing to do with apple and your attempt to twist it into
> something it's not shows just how untenable your position is.
>
> forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
> having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.

LOL. macOS and iOS, I think, are based on an open source OS and many other
open source utilities. Safari's webkit is also open source.

OSS may destroy a few companies, which is probably a good thing, but the
industry will be fine. It would need to adapt, but it would be fine.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2022-06-25 22:41, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 25.06.22 um 22:04 schrieb nospam:
>>> forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
>>> having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.
>>
>> It certainly will have an effect but a positive one. Blackmailing by
>> commercial tech companies is considerably reduced.
>>
>
> And the incentive to create software to earn one's living is utterly
> eliminated.

Not true. OSS can easily be commercialised. Just ask Red Hat and Canonical.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2022-06-25 22:41, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 25.06.22 um 22:04 schrieb nospam:
>>> forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
>>> having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.
>>
>> It certainly will have an effect but a positive one. Blackmailing by
>> commercial tech companies is considerably reduced.
>>
>
> And the incentive to create software to earn one's living is utterly
> eliminated.

Not true. OSS can easily be commercialised. Just ask Red Hat and Canonical.

In article <t9a8q7$3vuu6$1@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> >> forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
> >> having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.
> >
> > It certainly will have an effect but a positive one. Blackmailing by
> > commercial tech companies is considerably reduced.
> >
>
> And the incentive to create software to earn one's living is utterly
> eliminated.

exactly, leaving only the largest 'commercial tech companies', who can
then blackmail everyone else. it's a horrific idea.

In article <t9aalm$3jq59$1@news.mixmin.net>, Gronk
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>
> > it has nothing to do with apple and your attempt to twist it into
> > something it's not shows just how untenable your position is.
>
> They're careful not to call out Apple in the EU legislation & US
> Congressional letter but it's mostly about asking Apple nicely to get with
> the program.

that was in response to a claim that open source should be required,
not the eu's expected usb-c mandate.

In article <t9ab25$7lh$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >
> > forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
> > having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.
>
> LOL. macOS and iOS, I think, are based on an open source OS and many other
> open source utilities. Safari's webkit is also open source.

some parts are open source, but not all of it.

a substantial portion of macos, ios, windows and even android are
*closed* source.

in fact, android phones must be approved by google to use the full
android (and almost nobody would buy an android phone without that).

> OSS may destroy a few companies, which is probably a good thing, but the
> industry will be fine. It would need to adapt, but it would be fine.

rubbish.

it would destroy every company except the largest ones because there is
no longer an incentive for any company to come up with something new
and innovative, only to be copied by the large companies, who know that
the smaller companies don't have the resources to win a legal battle.

In article <t9ab82$8et$2@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >>> forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
> >>> having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.
> >>
> >> It certainly will have an effect but a positive one. Blackmailing by
> >> commercial tech companies is considerably reduced.
> >>
> >
> > And the incentive to create software to earn one's living is utterly
> > eliminated.
>
> Not true. OSS can easily be commercialised. Just ask Red Hat and Canonical.

good point. red hat and canonical are as big as apple, microsoft and
google, with a massive user base, and a plethora of features not found
in any other product.

oh wait...

On 2022-06-26 12:05, Gronk wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> it has nothing to do with apple and your attempt to twist it into
>> something it's not shows just how untenable your position is.
>
> They're careful not to call out Apple in the EU legislation & US
> Congressional letter but it's mostly about asking Apple nicely to get
> with the program.

"Hey Apple, we realize you've created something unique and extremely
popular, but we're going to declare you a monopoly even though there is
another popular alternative".

Andy Burns wrote:

>> For example, I can get my Google Mail using the GMail app on the iPad and
>> it does _not_ create a mothership account, nor does Google Voice on iOS.
>
> So couldn't you use GV to receive the 2SV activation code, thereby allowing
> creation of an app password for K9?

Thanks Andy for being one of the few intelligent people on this newsgroup,
where I openly admit I had not "seriously" thought of "app passwords"
(mostly because I've never turned on 2FA yet and I knew they needed it).

My biggest problem with 2FA is I've never used it and I don't want to fall
into a trap (which Apple sets for you, for example, where you're stuck with
2FV forever after the grace period expires). I know Google allows you to
turn it off (unlike Apple) but I still want to line up my ducks.

Back to your suggestion, I don't know if the phone number for 2SV is _only_
used on Android for K-9 (and not on _any_ other platform accessing the
google email). And that this phone number is only used _once_?

Is it?

The reason I ask is the iPad sits in a drawer gathering dust most of the
time so it won't be with me when I try to access Google mail on Android.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information.

Alan Browne wrote:

> Right - so you should have little problem finding it.

Note to Alan Browne from someone who has been there before...

There are only a single-digit handful of people I've been forced to plonk
in my entire long history of posting daily to Usenet, where Alan Browne is
dealing with one of them (Snit & Dustin & RodSpeed & a few others too).

In case Alan Browne hasn't figured it out,
1. Alan Baker is ignorant of _everything_ that everyone else already knows.
2. Alan Baker will _never_ run a google search on what is already known.
3. Alan Baker will pester you to prove the links that everyone else knows.

And then...
4. Alan Baker will not even _read_ any of those links you provide to him.

Worse...
5. Alan Baker will brazenly _dispute_ every single fact in those links.
6. Forever.

Just watch.
a. Alan Baker has an IQ of about 40
b. And no education
c. He will dispute _everything_ he doesn't know (which is everything).
--
As with Snit, GoodGuy, Dustin, etc., the only way to deal with people like
Alan Baker is to plonk him as he enjoys very much his childish arguments.

nospam wrote:

>>> it has nothing to do with apple and your attempt to twist it into
>>> something it's not shows just how untenable your position is.
>>
>> They're careful not to call out Apple in the EU legislation & US
>> Congressional letter but it's mostly about asking Apple nicely to get with
>> the program.
>
> that was in response to a claim that open source should be required,
> not the eu's expected usb-c mandate.

My mistake.
Even so - I disagree with the EU mandate of a specific single standard.
I better like the American push for a flexible consumer friendly and
environmentally friendly plan that can be changed as technology improves.

Alan wrote:

>>> it has nothing to do with apple and your attempt to twist it into
>>> something it's not shows just how untenable your position is.
>>
>> They're careful not to call out Apple in the EU legislation & US
>> Congressional letter but it's mostly about asking Apple nicely to get
>> with the program.
>
> "Hey Apple, we realize you've created something unique and extremely
> popular, but we're going to declare you a monopoly even though there is
> another popular alternative".

The EU isn't stupid.
The EU & the letter are asking Apple nicely to get with the program.
Nobody is fooled.
Apple knows what comes next if they don't.
They'll think of a way to save face and still make money off the changes.

On 2022-06-26 20:02, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Right - so you should have little problem finding it.
>
> Note to Alan Browne from someone who has been there before...
> There are only a single-digit handful of people I've been forced to plonk
> in my entire long history of posting daily to Usenet, where Alan Browne is
> dealing with one of them (Snit & Dustin & RodSpeed & a few others too).
>
> In case Alan Browne hasn't figured it out, 1. Alan Baker is ignorant of
> _everything_ that everyone else already knows.
> 2. Alan Baker will _never_ run a google search on what is already known.
> 3. Alan Baker will pester you to prove the links that everyone else knows.
>
> And then... 4. Alan Baker will not even _read_ any of those links you
> provide to him.
>
> Worse... 5. Alan Baker will brazenly _dispute_ every single fact in
> those links.
> 6. Forever.
>
> Just watch.
> a. Alan Baker has an IQ of about 40
> b. And no education
> c. He will dispute _everything_ he doesn't know (which is everything).

Why must you lie, Arlen?