From: muta...@gmail.com   
      
   On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 10:19:13 PM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:   
   > In article <88894e43-6c97-4ee0...@googlegroups.com>,   
   > muta...@gmail.com  wrote:    
   > >On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 9:00:17 PM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:    
   > >    
   > >> >No-one is going to own something so fundamentally    
   > >> >important as the operating system.    
   > >    
   > >> With all due respect, I suggest you double check    
   > >> your priors.    
   > >    
   > >Pardon?    
      
   > >What's the equivalent of PDOS? The other one I know of    
   > >is Temple OS. Is that what you're referring to?   
      
   > I'm not particularly interested in pursuing this matter, but    
   > since you asked, what I mean is that this, as a goal, seems    
   > mostly uninformed and very uninteresting.    
      
   You asked me to check something.   
      
   If the thing to check is "are most people so stupid that   
   they are happy to let some asshole control something as   
   important as OSes that the world runs on?" then I already   
   knew the answer to that.   
      
   > I don't think most people much care about whether their OS is    
   > "public domain" if it is available under some reasonable    
   > license, which many operating systems are. A lot of lawyers    
   > have spent a lot of hours going over these issues and have    
   > come to the conclusion that copyleft licenses, permissive    
   > licenses, and the ones in the middle are pretty reasonable and    
   > fine.    
      
   I have a different opinion. While ever people insist on   
   copyrighting it, they're holding something back that   
   they couldn't restrict if it was public domain.   
      
   > So apparently someone does own the "fundamentally important"    
   > operating system, and I don't see a problem with that. Linux,    
   > for example, runs on literally billions of devices, and the GPL    
   > has been tested in court. TempleOS and PDOS, on the other hand,    
   > are toys. PDOS doesn't even appear to have a process    
   > abstraction, let alone memory protection, both of which are    
   > requisite for any sort of serious work these days.    
      
   There is no serious work these days except on the mainframe.   
      
   Everyone else is a clown factory.   
      
   > On the other hand, people _do_ care about being able to use    
   > their computers to solve real problems. Neither TempleOS nor    
   > PDOS appear to be particularly useful for that. Consider the    
   > context of this thread, for example; PDOS apparently can't    
   > exist without making use of a BIOS or something similar. Well,    
   > who owns that?    
      
   I'm not solving every problem simultaneously.   
      
   > So the premise, that "No-one [sic] is going to own something    
   > so fundamentally important as the operating system" seems both    
   > meaningless and untrue.    
      
   If you don't see a meaning to it, I do.   
      
   > Moreover, the world has moved on from 32-bit operating systems.    
      
   No, clowns have.   
      
   > I can't imagine why anyone would feel compelled to use PDOS for    
   > serious work, let alone TempleOS. Goof around with that stuff    
   > to learn how simple program loaders and the machine works?    
   > Sure, why not. But as a basis for serious work? Delusions of    
   > grandeur notwithstanding, that's not going to happen.    
      
   This is the serious work.   
      
   BFN. Paul.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)