From: fedora@fea.st
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 09:57:40 -0800, Dude wrote:
>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.
If that were all I need, that is all I would have.
>>>>
>>>>> u can choose to not code, that's fine ... 99.99% of the industry is bull
>>>>> jobs so the less coders the better
>>>>>
--
Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
Don't get political with me young man
or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
<<>> to <<>>
Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
dares: Ned
does not dare: Julian shrinks in horror and warns others away
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
