From: fedora@fea.st   
      
   On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 22:12:41 -0800, dart200   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 1/30/26 6:35 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >> On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 16:02:00 -0800, dart200   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 1/30/26 2:10 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >>>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 13:46:19 -0800, dart200   
   >>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 1/30/26 7:27 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 02:11:00 -0800, dart200   
   >>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> we finally invented a type of good that has a zero-cost to copy, and we   
   >>>>>>> still can't seem to figure out how to build a production system where   
   >>>>>>> all the products are freely distributed, cause we're so concerned about   
   >>>>>>> getting payment upfront   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> So there you have it.  This is why commercialism always fails.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> bruh i'm talking about digital goods that are zero-cost to copy   
   >>>>   
   >>>> But not zero cost to produce.  As a programmer myself, I have always   
   >>>   
   >>> i feel u just entire missed the point of why i started this thread   
   >>>   
   >>>> pushed back against the idea that programmers don't need to get paid.   
   >>>   
   >>> only by donation if people feel it's warranted   
   >>   
   >> Remember shareware?  A hodge podge of unfinished somethings, thrown   
   >   
   >remember linux??? oh wait, that runs like most of the internet by now,   
   >it's impossible to forget   
   >   
   >also like *all* programming infrastructure anyone uses to build anything   
   >   
   >> out there to see if there might be any interest.   
   >> 1)  No great rush of interest, so I won't waste my time finishing it   
   >> 2)  It is unfinished, so why would I be interested in it?   
   >   
   >look bro, i'm suggesting we *ban* the sale of close sourced software,   
   >and remove copyrights for it   
   >   
   >this isn't a competition between paradigms, this is changing the   
   >paradigm such that we develop the will to support it   
   >   
   >will some software then not get developed??? sure, but we're drowning in   
   >*way* to much software so that's a good thing. more is not better, even   
   >if most economists are moronically allergic to the notion that making   
   >money =/= societal benefit   
      
   So you want to trash an entire industry and a scholastic discipline.   
   Are you expecting much pushback on that idea?   
      
   I say, for the most part, shareware has been a failed idea.  And   
   linux, to be marginally comprehensible to the average dontnomuch,   
   needed Red Hat to come along and commercialize it.  The last time I   
   tried linux, it was a bitch trying to get drivers for the moderately   
   high end amd radeon graphic card that I tend to run some years behind   
   the market.   
      
   Like I tell wilson, sure the system we have is rotten.  And it is in   
   dire need of improvement, but simply throwing away decades of social   
   evolution and returning to some old failed previous idea is not going   
   to make things better.   
      
   Why do we have the systems we have, what problems were they meant to   
   solve, and how can we actually try again and do better this time?  A   
   little bit better, As we continually go three steps forward and two   
   back.  Let's not make it an entire hike down the mountain back.   
      
   >>   
   >>> u can choose to not code, that's fine ... 99.99% of the industry is bull   
   >>> jobs so the less coders the better   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Damned right we do, exactly like you.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> And yizzit that bridge builders aren't constantly coming out with   
   >>>> bridge v2, v3...   
   >>>> Because once an enterprise has produced the final perfect software,   
   >>>> they have put themselves out of business.  But not bridge builders.   
   >>>   
   >>> which is why we shouldn't have traditional business building and   
   >>> maintaining our software. they need to keep producing software   
   >>> regardless of whether it makes sense or not, and unfortunately software   
   >>> can be made arbitrarily complicated (introducing further problems of   
   >>> integrations and inter-dependencies ... which people can get paid to   
   >>> "sovled"), so ofc business will because it will get them paid more.   
   >>>   
   >>> monetary based economics is broken by modern digital goods, and   
   >>> especially software, not that it was every particularly great in the   
   >>> first place.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Essentially, the cost to produce and distribute is not the real issue.   
   >>>> The issue is that everybody must continue paying everybody for   
   >>>> everything.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Why are we trapped in this endless cycle of sending money back and   
   >>>> forth to each other?  Couldn't there be a better basis for society and   
   >>>> social order?  Maybe, perhaps?  Wynot, woncha, wydoncha?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> real goods aren't the same,   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> tho i might suggest we break out design vs production costs requiring   
   >>>>> that the consumer pay production price upfront ... while the design   
   >>>>> portion can be paid back as the consumer feels warranted   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> this is moving more towards a gifting economy while dealing with the   
   >>>>> reality that production has actual sunk costs   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> i mean in the future maybe we will have the energy availability and   
   >>>>> labor efficiency to totally transcend markets entirely, but i don't feel   
   >>>>> we're ready for such a stage   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Everything must be paid for because we all must pay each other for   
   >>>>>> what others do for us with few exceptions.  The system depends on us   
   >>>>>> all doing that.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> this especially fucks up computing. 99.99% of the industry has devolved   
   >>>>> into bullshit work that is not actually economically beneficial. but   
   >>>>> people need to get paid, and markets just don't have the capability to   
   >>>>> select for universal solutions to problems like we ought to be   
   >>>>> implementing with computing (since they rely on competition and therefor   
   >>>>> competing systems/standards)   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> computing systems are far more like governing systems than real goods   
   >>>>> production and we haven't collectively recognized that reality yet   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The fault that devolves from that is that some of us get more pay than   
   >>>>>> others, have more status than others, live apart from us in mansions,   
   >>>>>> work apart from us in skyscrapers in corner offices, so we have no   
   >>>>>> access to, never even see those people as far as we know.  These are   
   >>>>>> the people who make the decisions in society.  Their separateness from   
   >>>>>> us means that they are never held accountable for bad self serving   
   >>>>>> decisions.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> When shit comes down, the blame goes to the person who enforces those   
   >>>>>> decisions, not to the decider.  The enforcer is thrown under the bus,   
   >>>>>> quietly goes away, is fired or moved elsewhere.  In rare cases, maybe   
   >>>>>> even get some jail time.  But the decision stands.   
   >>>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)