On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 08:16:39 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 02:17:38 -0000 (UTC)
>Arschraub Bosartig <schliessmuskel@einbrecher.invalid> wrote:
>
>> If you don't have a free software repository online you will not have an
>> easy time finding a job in the stack monkey market. You are forced
>> create free software if you want to be considered for jobs.
>
> This is not true, I have been continuously employed as a software
>developer since 1982, always moving upwards, never having trouble getting
>employment and at 63 I regularly get messages from recruiters (I've been
>turning down Google, Amazon and Facebook/Meta for years). I have never
>published any free software other than small contribution to existing
>projects, I certainly don't have a github repo.

I think he is just a troll you are replying to.
--
Jim

On 2023-03-28, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 08:16:39 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
><steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 02:17:38 -0000 (UTC)
>>Arschraub Bosartig <schliessmuskel@einbrecher.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> If you don't have a free software repository online you will not have an
>>> easy time finding a job in the stack monkey market. You are forced
>>> create free software if you want to be considered for jobs.
>>
>> This is not true, I have been continuously employed as a software
>>developer since 1982, always moving upwards, never having trouble getting
>>employment and at 63 I regularly get messages from recruiters (I've been
>>turning down Google, Amazon and Facebook/Meta for years). I have never
>>published any free software other than small contribution to existing
>>projects, I certainly don't have a github repo.
>
> I think he is just a troll you are replying to.

++++

--
greymausg@mail.com
where is our money gone, Dude?

Am 28.03.2023 um 02:17:38 Uhr schrieb Arschraub Bosartig:

> "RMS wants all software to be GPL, which not only requires source
> code and permits modification but also permits redistribution. So
> basically it allows others "pirate your product", at least compared
> to commercial licenses. So you're gonna be dependent on donations,
> which (if anything) keep you at the bare minimum for the project to
> survive, 99% of the time. De facto, he is against making money from
> software (as well as online services, btw)." --k0defix (reddit)

That is BS - GPL does not restrict users to sell it.
Many companies like RedHat do that and give additional support for
money.

On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 11:17:06 AM UTC-6, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 28.03.2023 um 02:17:38 Uhr schrieb Arschraub Bosartig:

> > "RMS wants all software to be GPL, which not only requires source
> > code and permits modification but also permits redistribution. So
> > basically it allows others "pirate your product", at least compared
> > to commercial licenses. So you're gonna be dependent on donations,
> > which (if anything) keep you at the bare minimum for the project to
> > survive, 99% of the time. De facto, he is against making money from
> > software (as well as online services, btw)." --k0defix (reddit)

> That is BS - GPL does not restrict users to sell it.
> Many companies like RedHat do that and give additional support for
> money.

But the point is that while they can charge money for the additional
services, they're limited in what they can charge for copies of the
software because the GPL lets others give away the _same_ software,
*including any new contributions by the seller* for free.

It's the BSD license that could be criticized as a welfare program for
Microsoft and Apple, not the GPL.

John Savard

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 5:51:11 AM UTC-6, Jim Jackson wrote:

> Wow that's communism is it. When is it time for your meds?

While a lot of what he was saying was nonsense - BSD, not GPL, is
what lets companies get rich off of free software - Communism,
although it *pretended* to be on the side of workers, really exploited
and enslaved them once it tricked them into putting the Communists
in power.

John Savard

Am 08.04.2023 um 00:10:38 Uhr schrieb Quadibloc:

> On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 11:17:06 AM UTC-6, Marco Moock wrote:
> > Am 28.03.2023 um 02:17:38 Uhr schrieb Arschraub Bosartig:
>
> > > "RMS wants all software to be GPL, which not only requires source
> > > code and permits modification but also permits redistribution. So
> > > basically it allows others "pirate your product", at least
> > > compared to commercial licenses. So you're gonna be dependent on
> > > donations, which (if anything) keep you at the bare minimum for
> > > the project to survive, 99% of the time. De facto, he is against
> > > making money from software (as well as online services, btw)."
> > > --k0defix (reddit)
>
> > That is BS - GPL does not restrict users to sell it.
> > Many companies like RedHat do that and give additional support for
> > money.
>
> But the point is that while they can charge money for the additional
> services, they're limited in what they can charge for copies of the
> software because the GPL lets others give away the _same_ software,
> *including any new contributions by the seller* for free.

True, but that is intended by the publisher. If the publisher does not
want this, he shouldn't release it under such a license.

On the other hand, why should people be paid over and over again for the
same piece of work? Most people get paid by the hour for their
work. Copyright laws allow people to be paid even when they are
dead. Where is the sense in that?

And imagine if you had to pay for every bit of knowledge you ever
acquired because there was a copyright on it?

On 2023-04-08, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 5:51:11???AM UTC-6, Jim Jackson wrote:
>
>> Wow that's communism is it. When is it time for your meds?
>
> While a lot of what he was saying was nonsense - BSD, not GPL, is
> what lets companies get rich off of free software - Communism,

I simply fail to see what all this has to do with communism.

.....irrelevance snipped....

On 2023-04-08, Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> wrote:
> On 2023-04-08, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 5:51:11???AM UTC-6, Jim Jackson wrote:
>>
>>> Wow that's communism is it. When is it time for your meds?
>>
>> While a lot of what he was saying was nonsense - BSD, not GPL, is
>> what lets companies get rich off of free software - Communism,
>
> I simply fail to see what all this has to do with communism.
>
> ....irrelevance snipped....

++

--
greymausg@mail.com

Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum, I smell the stench of an Influencer.
Where is our money gone, Dude?

On 2/16/2023 6:13 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2023-02-16, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>
>> According to Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>>> On 16/02/2023 02:33, John Levine wrote:
>>>
>>>> As anyone familiar
>>>> with the history of computing knows, nobody even attempted to
>>>> copyright software until the mid 1960s, and the computer business
>>>> did just fine in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s.
>>> Back in those days there was no portable software.
>> Um, the entire point of COBOL was to be portable, and people were
>> certainly moving Fortran programs from one kind of machine to another
>> by 1960. You might want to brush up on your history.
>>
>> Hint: the CO stands for COmmon.
> Still, as with everything else, IBM did its best to add proprietary
> extensions to lock people in. (Yes, that's one more "innovation"
> that Microsoft didn't invent.) But if you were careful you could
> write in a fairly portable dialect.
>

Portability, like autism, has historically been on a scale. Many years
ago, I helped convert a bunch of programs from Burroughs B5500 COBOL to
Burroughs B6700 COBOL. One system used 6-bit BCL ("Burroughs Common
Language") characters, and the other EBCDIC. Both had 48-bit words, but
one packed eight characters per word, and the other only six. One batch
of B5500 programs used a B5500 intrinsic called "COMMUNICATE" to
implement coroutines; fortunately, B6700 COBOL had extensions for
interprocess communication, so that conversion was easy. Everything else
was slow and tedious.

Then there was a FORTRAN plotter program called PUREJOY that ran on CDC
machines. It was basically portable, but some of the output was weird
because the program stored flags in the low-order bits of floating point
numbers. The CDC always normalized these, so the low-order bits didn't
matter, but the target machine (a Burroughs B6700) sometimes had to be
told to normalize numbers (I think B6700 FORTRAN had a proprietary
intrinsic equivalent to "NORMALIZE" in Unisys ALGOL). With that solved,
everything was OK.

Louis

On Sat, 2023-04-08, Quadibloc wrote:

> It's the BSD license that could be criticized as a welfare program for
> Microsoft and Apple, not the GPL.

Or Apache, MIT or Mozilla, or whatever is trendy these days. I don't
see straight BSD licenses that often nowadays. (I agree with you,
though: these licenses all share some properties and the GPL family
doesn't.)

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 00:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> While a lot of what he was saying was nonsense - BSD, not GPL, is
> what lets companies get rich off of free software

This is oversimplified.

It is certainly true that the BSD style licenses allow you to
incorporate code freely without making any requirements on how you license
your own code while the GPL style requires any code integrated with it to
be licensed under the same license.

This has allowed companies to base products on a BSD licensed OS
and choose how much to share - there are very profitable products that
would not exist without this Isilon OneFS (now Dell PowerScale) for example
because of their tight integration with the OS code. The FreeBSD netgraph
system was once proprietary code built on a customised version of FreeBSD
for a commercial product (in the mid 1990s) and later contributed back,
without the commercial incentive it would probably never have existed.
There are many more examples to show how beneficial to business the BSD
license style can be.

However companies are also getting rich using GPL based products,
Kubernetes/Docker/Linux runs most of the scalable web but even ignoring
that it usually isn't hard to achieve the required degree of separation
between proprietary code and a GPL OS and toolchain. There are lawyers
specialising in this area and mostly employed by companies making their
fortune with products based GPL software.

My finger in the air guess is that (ignoring outliers at the top
of which there are too few for statistics) for every business making a
fortune out of BSD style licensed software there are ten making similar
fortunes from GPL style licensed software (despite spending vastly more on
lawyers).

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 2/15/23 13:25, Citadel BBS History wrote:
> "This document makes reference to the terms "Linux" and "open source"
> without hesitation. Our official position is that the phrase "GNU/Linux"
> is only used by communists like Richard Stallman who contribute little
> more than noise and friction to the open source community."
>
> Citadel: a storied history
> https://www.citadel.org/citadel_past_present_and_future.html
>
> TLDR; Richard Stallman is a dishwatery pinko commie neanderthal.
>

Why don't you say "Linux" when you are talking about Android?

On 2023-03-28, Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.folklore.computers.]
> On 2023-03-28, Arschraub Bosartig <schliessmuskel@einbrecher.invalid> wrote:
>> His "free software" movement has myriads of programmers writing software
>> for free that the corporations use to make money. Free software ideology
>> is basically a free-of-charge labor racket dressed up in slogans. That's
>> communism.
>
> Wow that's communism is it. When is it time for your meds?
>
>> "No, because if he was a Communist, he would not insist that people can
>> package free software and sell it." --johncate73 (reddit)
>>
>> But he insists that the original author must permit anyone else to
>> package and sell his creation, without compensation. That's communism.
>
> He doesn't _insist_ . As a writer of software you can choose
> any license you fancy - from propriety ones to a miriad of open source
> ones.
>
> I assume you are equally down on all other open source licenses????
>
> Jeeze you are brain dead.

Long ago I paid 20 euro (~$20) for 3 DVD release of Debian plus a
quick manual.
Yes, very "communist" that...

Seriously, I tought the BBS guys were more cultured...

On 2/15/23 12:25, Citadel BBS History wrote:
> TLDR; Richard Stallman is a dishwatery pinko commie neanderthal.

Hey buster, go easy on the hamburgers and coca cola. You're going to
have a heart attack.

Wouldn't it be cool if, just once, someone who said "That's communism"
know what the hell communism was?

--
~rdh

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 16:01:12 -0500
rdh <rdh@tilde.institute> wrote:

> Wouldn't it be cool if, just once, someone who said "That's
> communism" know what the hell communism was?

Is communism what communists claim it to be? Or is communism defined by
what we have experienced and witnessed it to be? What communists claim,
and then what communists do, are polar opposites. All of history is
laid before us proving this--that communism is pretty drapes on slavery.

The people who define communism contrary to how communists define it,
are defining communism based on their experience of communism in action
rather than the claims of communist ideologues. "Your actions speak so
loudly that I can not hear what you are saying."

It's like religious cult leaders and Roman inquisitors who ran around
shouting about the love of Jesus while mass-murdering anyone who they
consider "unloving." Is Roman Catholicism defined by what the Roman
Catholics say it is, or is it defined by the trail of bloodstained
countries and millions of mutilated and immolated bodies they left
behind?

If we look at actual historical experience, communism is defined quite
differently from its actions and produce, than how its apparatchiks
define it in word. Communism in deed, is very differently defined from
communism in word.

In fine, communism was a new label slapped on ancient Roman
imperialism. Marx did not have any new ideas. He just re-packaged the
hermetecism of the ancient nobility to help it compete against the
rising ideas of liberty born from the American revolution. The two
world wars were instigated to reverse what Americanism had done for
human progress and secure power to the same old black nobility as
before.

Now the communists are devouring America from inside her guts.

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 16:01:12 -0500
rdh <rdh@tilde.institute> wrote:

> Wouldn't it be cool if, just once, someone who said "That's communism"
> know what the hell communism was?

Would that be Communism as defined by Marx or communism as was
practised in kibbutzim ?

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Host: Beautiful Theory meet Inconvenient Fact
Obit: Beautiful Theory died today of factual inconsistency

pinky <pinky@brain.example> writes:
>On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 16:01:12 -0500
>rdh <rdh@tilde.institute> wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't it be cool if, just once, someone who said "That's
>> communism" know what the hell communism was?
>
>Is communism what communists claim it to be? Or is communism defined by
>what we have experienced and witnessed it to be?

Clearly the former. One author once wrote that Russia was communist
for only about 30 days in 1917.

On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 14:42:40 +0100
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 16:01:12 -0500
> rdh <rdh@tilde.institute> wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't it be cool if, just once, someone who said "That's
> > communism" know what the hell communism was?
>
> Would that be Communism as defined by Marx or communism as was
> practised in kibbutzim ?

communism := transarchy

transarchy := rapist pedo thieves owning all property and humans

:= basically the way the world was ruled from 3500 B.C. onward until
the American revolution.

Interestingly Richard Stallman is a long-time apologist for pedophilia.
Is this mere coincidence?

"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms
children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases
which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are
horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing." [RMS]

This abhorrent statement is proof of extreme mental derangement.
Minimizing child rape, and insulting a parent for being outraged over
their child being raped by a predator, is the sign of a very sick mind.

I knew how wrong pedophilia was by the time I was ten years old. No
middle-aged man can claim ignorance of such predatory behavior being
harmful to youths. It would be like claiming you didn't know that
murdering someone was really harmful to them and their family.

But this is how communists think. Modern communists think it is just
dandy and "gender-affirming" to castrate pre-pubescent boys. This
"gender-affirming" "care" is a vicious and violent crime against
humanity. As with the pinko monsters of a century past, every monstrous
crime of the modern communist is dressed up in Orwellian newspeak.

Cutting a boy's dick off is no longer criminal mutilation. It is "care"
that is "gender-affirming." You have to be sick to believe and agree
with such criminal insanity.

Moral degenerates gravitate toward communist ideology because of the
promise of "equality" which means free reign to rape and plunder
without resistance from the victims.

On 2023-08-31, pinky <pinky@brain.example> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 14:42:40 +0100
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 16:01:12 -0500
>> rdh <rdh@tilde.institute> wrote:
>>
>> > Wouldn't it be cool if, just once, someone who said "That's
>> > communism" know what the hell communism was?
>>
>> Would that be Communism as defined by Marx or communism as was
>> practised in kibbutzim ?
>
> communism := transarchy
>
> transarchy := rapist pedo thieves owning all property and humans
>
>:= basically the way the world was ruled from 3500 B.C. onward until
> the American revolution.
>
> Interestingly Richard Stallman is a long-time apologist for pedophilia.
> Is this mere coincidence?
>
> "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms
> children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases
> which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are
> horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing." [RMS]
>
> This abhorrent statement is proof of extreme mental derangement.
> Minimizing child rape, and insulting a parent for being outraged over
> their child being raped by a predator, is the sign of a very sick mind.
>
> I knew how wrong pedophilia was by the time I was ten years old. No
> middle-aged man can claim ignorance of such predatory behavior being
> harmful to youths. It would be like claiming you didn't know that
> murdering someone was really harmful to them and their family.
>
> But this is how communists think. Modern communists think it is just
> dandy and "gender-affirming" to castrate pre-pubescent boys. This
> "gender-affirming" "care" is a vicious and violent crime against
> humanity. As with the pinko monsters of a century past, every monstrous
> crime of the modern communist is dressed up in Orwellian newspeak.
>
> Cutting a boy's dick off is no longer criminal mutilation. It is "care"
> that is "gender-affirming." You have to be sick to believe and agree
> with such criminal insanity.
>
> Moral degenerates gravitate toward communist ideology because of the
> promise of "equality" which means free reign to rape and plunder
> without resistance from the victims.
>
>
>
>

This is a troll; ignore

--
greymausg@mail.com
Where is our money gone:?.
Death to all Influencers, Dude!

On 31/08/2023 17:36, Scott Lurndal wrote:

>>
>> Is communism what communists claim it to be? Or is communism defined by
>> what we have experienced and witnessed it to be?
>
> Clearly the former. One author once wrote that Russia was communist
> for only about 30 days in 1917.

Which is very - how shall I say - curious, since laws that nationalized
the means of production were only passed in 1918.

Certainly doesn't add to the credibility of the author.

On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 11:47:36 +0300
Ilya Dubinsky <dubinsky.ilya@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 31/08/2023 17:36, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Is communism what communists claim it to be? Or is communism
> >> defined by what we have experienced and witnessed it to be?
> >
> > Clearly the former. One author once wrote that Russia was communist
> > for only about 30 days in 1917.

Statements like this are how the pinko tards in our midst try to
justify communism, an ideology that killed roughly 160 million people
in the last century.
> Which is very - how shall I say - curious, since laws that
> nationalized the means of production were only passed in 1918.
>
> Certainly doesn't add to the credibility of the author.

Communism never had any credibility. Whatever name you call it, whether
woke, or social justice, or equity, or anti-racism, it is the same
ideology of mass murdering Christians and establishing a feudal system
with the party as the aristocracy, ruled by a bunch of kabbalist
perverts. That is all communism ever was or will be until we finally
stamp it out.

Nazism was a sister ideology to communism, from the Roman school, using
the same kabbalist formulas as Marx, but based around declarations of
racial justice instead of economic justice. Under the hood both worked
the same way, and the main target of both movements was the elimination
of independent Christians.

It's called a ruse. If you want to mass-murder Christians, call them
kulaks or call them Jews. Then kill some real kulaks and real Jews in
the mix so people don't realize your aims. Meanwhile kill ten or twenty
Christians for each Jew or Kulak you murder--Christians by the tens of
millions. Later make up a story about how Jews were the main
target (they weren't). That was the ruse. Many times more Christians
were killed by the Nazis and Communists as were Jews. They thought so
little of the Jews that they used them as a convenient scapegoat and
smokescreen, depending on which propaganda outlet you consult. The
Zionists fell for the trap, and even to this day talk constantly about
the holocaust of six million while never saying a word about the 114
million Christians and 40+ million Asians (many also Christian) mass
murdered at the same time period.

Western dolts need to get their heads unstuck from their rectums and
see what has really been behind all the evil in the world.

On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 05:36:50 -0700, Communism is Feudalism
<communism@example.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 11:47:36 +0300
>Ilya Dubinsky <dubinsky.ilya@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 31/08/2023 17:36, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> Is communism what communists claim it to be? Or is communism
>> >> defined by what we have experienced and witnessed it to be?
>> >
>> > Clearly the former. One author once wrote that Russia was communist
>> > for only about 30 days in 1917.
>
>Statements like this are how the pinko tards in our midst try to
>justify communism, an ideology that killed roughly 160 million people
>in the last century.

So did nazism.
>> Which is very - how shall I say - curious, since laws that
>> nationalized the means of production were only passed in 1918.
>>
>> Certainly doesn't add to the credibility of the author.
>
>Communism never had any credibility. Whatever name you call it, whether
>woke, or social justice, or equity, or anti-racism, it is the same
>ideology of mass murdering Christians and establishing a feudal system
>with the party as the aristocracy, ruled by a bunch of kabbalist
>perverts. That is all communism ever was or will be until we finally
>stamp it out.

You are a troll. Woke means recognize that racism and slavery existed.

>Western dolts need to get their heads unstuck from their rectums and
>see what has really been behind all the evil in the world.

Your lies don't help.
--
Jim