On 2/22/23 16:55, Peter Flass wrote:
> You seem a tad misogynistic, among other things.

Simpin' for the female predos ...

On 3/1/23 03:19, Simp Busters wrote:
> On 2/22/23 16:55, Peter Flass wrote:
>> You seem a tad misogynistic, among other things.
>
> Simpin' for the female predos ...
What?
--
⚗︎ | /blu.mɛin.dʰak/ | shortens to "Hawk" | he/him/his/himself/Mr.
bluemanedhawk.github.io
Bitches stole my whole ass ␔🭖᷿᪳𝼗᷍⏧𒒫𐻾ࣛ↉�⃣ quoted-printable, can't
have shit in Thunderbird 😩

In <ttoeef$22hj$1@bluemanedhawk.eternal-september.org> Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> writes:

[snip... of a umbassday Base 64 posting which included
earlier material, a stupid sig, and... one word of
new stuff, namely]:

"What?"

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:

>So in this case I think it's "communist" in the sense of "poopyhead".

I had a face to face confrontation with Stallman on the
'GNU/Linux' issue. I told him that if and when Linus, Bob Young,
and Marc Ewing called it that, I would as well. He stomped off.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast...............wb8foz@panix.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Am 15.02.2023 um 05:25:22 Uhr schrieb Citadel BBS History:

> 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."

This is BS - RMS stands for freedom in software development and usage -
communism isn't freedom at all.

Nobody is forced to use or develop free software.

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.folklore.computers.]
On 2023-03-27, Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:
> Am 15.02.2023 um 05:25:22 Uhr schrieb Citadel BBS History:
>
>> 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."
>
> This is BS - RMS stands for freedom in software development and usage -
> communism isn't freedom at all.
>
> Nobody is forced to use or develop free software.
>

well said, that man

On 3/27/23 03:04, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 15.02.2023 um 05:25:22 Uhr schrieb Citadel BBS History:
>
>> 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."
>
> This is BS - RMS stands for freedom in software development and usage -
> communism isn't freedom at all.

Nein. RMS is a pinko. RMS stands for the freedom of big companies and
his pinko hacker friends to use your free software, make mountains of
money, and pay you nothing for it. That's what the GPL is really about.
It is about their freedom to use you, not your freedom as a creator.

> Nobody is forced to use or develop free software.

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. Most
employers I know of want to see your public github repo. So RMS and his
GPL have millions of programmers donating free code to Microsoft's
GitHub, the biggest proprietary, non-free software maker in the world.

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.

Others with a brain realize this as well:

"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)

Then others without a brain blurt insanity like this:

"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.

--
Arschraub Bosartig

!furzen!tuten!hupen!poopen!kacke!kinderficker

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.

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

["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.

On 2023-03-28, 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.
>

Like everything else he says - it doesn't make sense.

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.