A true believer and sage once wrote, "we wish to include everyone, and trying
to get
rid of people isn't something that is beneficial to our cuase [sic]."
TK> I guess this is a final attempt
I've noticed you suck at guessing.
The farm-to-table iphone trope is certainly well-trod, but more
importantly betrays a complete ignorance of economies of scale.
You'd need to go back at least two centuries before forward
markets remade the business of agriculture for the better.
> i'm fairly competent with php
This checks all the boxes for gnu propaganda: a long, self-absorbed,
out-of-touch, thinly-veiled job solicitation that
proudly proclaims free software zealotry even as it accepts
closed-source systems handling the important things like his paycheck
and his health
f> If Free Software is not anti-capitalist, it is not capitalist
f> either.
This thousand-word rambling checks all the boxes for semanticist
niggling:
. Verbose
. Sententious
. Vacillatory
. Unactionable
Avoid moralizing from 10,000 feet. Go after something specific that you
don't like, e.g.,
RS> Linux is a kernel, but many people think that it is an operating
RS> system.
I can tell everyone here has never taken undergraduate-level operating
systems.
Let me tell you, it's hard (Nachos, anyone?).
On a general note, we should focus less on word taxonomy, and more on
ridding the world
AU>I fear lack of gratitude... will have consequences.
And I assure you it won't. We're all here because no one will hire us
for our programming skill, and no one will converse with us at parties.
For such a lot as we, the knowledge that anyone finds our unsalable
works useful is reward enough.
AU>I fear lack of gratitude... will have consequences.
And I assure you it won't. We're all here because no one will hire us
for our programming skill, and no one will converse with us at parties.
For such a lot as we, the knowledge that anyone finds our unsalable
works useful is reward enough.
> I think you should further elaborate how you came to the
> conclusion of [discontinuing support for macOS and Windows].
Pretty simple actually. A wise man, quite recently, clarified that "the
goal is ending the existence of proprietary software," and that "there
si still a long way to go." So
i> Last time I checked, the vast majority of personal computing devices
i> are still running a fully proprietary operating system
I investigated this claim, and *mein gott*, you're right. There appear
to be at least two such systems macOS and Windows. The first thing we
ought to do is
> Free software without rms is like the theory of relativity without
> Einstein.
Your rambling is void of coherence and insight.
There was a time when the FSF, and its choice of chief executive, was
relevant. That time roughly overlapped with Microsoft's heyday in the
1990s. Now that the war's
JL> Let people choose if they wish to pay or they wish to download it free
JL> of charge.
Well, any Anglophone would call this a donation. Judging from your
written command of English, I suspect "donation" means something
different in your native tongue, possibly an exchange in the "Indian
JL> Many Free OS websites do not have clear way to pay. They have
JL> donations.
To be clear, you're saying a "donation" is optional and "payment" is
non-optional. That is, under "payment", one is legally bound to remit
payment to the author before use notwithstanding the fact that his
software
Thanks in large part to the readers of this list, the time is past when
people bought shrink-wrapped software off store shelves. Indie
programmers must now give away their work to gain any market presence.
So let's not pretend it's altruism.
Ballmer's invocation of the cancer analogy, while
Happy new year, followers of the faith.
Does GNU proffer an official statement regarding "best efforts" adoption
of its "live free or die" moral stance? Something along the lines of,
"We denounce and eschew proprietary software until it becomes too
impractical."
I'll apply the benefit of the
> There are so many other documented examples of abuses...
Again, "freedom" is the wrong word. Your ability to disengage and revert to
agrarian asceticism is orthogonal to the perfidy of nonfree software providers.
Got it. Companies aren't upfront about their motives.
Got it. Companies maneuver to eliminate competitors, free or otherwise.
Heaven forbid capitalist entities should resort to that kind of unconscionable
gamesmanship. Dale Carnegie, you've been put on notice. In the meantime,
I'll continue
> There is nothing insidious with such a paint
And yet, free software rhetoric emphatically characterizes nonfree as "causing
harm in a way that is gradual or not easily noticed," which is Merriam-Webster's
definition of "insidious."
Your response continues a long, and truly comical, tradition
> Can nonfree refrain from failing to respect user's freedoms?
I sell magic paint with the insidious feature that if you try mixing it with
another color, it turns black. But otherwise the paint performs great.
Under most interpretations of consumer commonlaw, so long as I make it clear
before
Ah, looking at the sparse and indelicate correspondence here, I guess this is
where all the crazies go to shout into the ether.
*Gratis* and *libre* are the best things to have happened to software since
Multics. But why emplace them to the exclusion of non-gratis and non-libre
software?
Can
20 matches
Mail list logo
