From: punditster@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/31/2026 7:12 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
   So, I would recommend to you both, to just get yourself a Chrome Book.   
   You probably don't need much in the way of PC power for just texting on   
   the internet. YMMV.   
    >   
   >>>   
   >>>> u can choose to not code, that's fine ... 99.99% of the industry is bull   
   >>>> jobs so the less coders the better   
   >>>>   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)