From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net
In article <53016f6b-5bb1-446b-8b5b-878aa7fb44ean@googlegroups.com>,
muta...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 12:54:36 AM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:
>
>> >You're apparently one of those above people I mentioned
>> >who are too stupid to see the problem.
>
>> You should dust off your copy of, "How to Win Friends and
>> Influence People."
>
>Or you can stop being a dickhead.
Physician, heal thyself.
>> >There is now a public domain base to work from instead
>> >of being tied to someone's virus license.
>
>> The ISC license has existed for years and is not "viral" in the
>> way you describe.
>
>Again - while ever they are holding something back, that's
>just more sand.
You seem to not understand the difference between different
software licenses.
>> >Um, yes. Building a solid foundation is important.
>
>> PDOS is not a solid foundation for anything. It's a hobbyist
>> toy.
>
>It is solid in the fact that it is public domain.
So what? It's not useful. It's a toy.
PDOS is like creating "Hello, World!", putting it into
the public domain and then making a bunch of pretentious
claims about how it's saving the world.
>That's the solid foundation that is required.
No.
>Progress on the public domain front is indeed what you
>call a "toy".
Because it is a toy.
>But that's the limit of the actual foundation of the
>computer industry.
Nope.
>The other public domain offerings are impractical for
>reasons I already outlined.
You're placing supreme importance on this "public domain"
thing, but that's not important.
>> >Instead of having the entire world of computers built
>> >on sand.
>
>> Guy who doesn't understand how the x86 stack pointer works says
>> what, now?
>
>Says I have a working operating system that is public domain.
Yes, you have a working toy. Congratulations.
>And that is the required foundation.
It is not a "foundation" for anything important.
>> >Even the mainframe is built on sand. IBM can jack up
>> >the price of z/OS 70-fold tomorrow (like was done with
>> >some medicine some years back), and the entire world
>> >has to just suck it up. There is literally no alternative.
>
>> Yes there is. You aren't aware of them, because you're not
>> very well informed, but they exist.
>
>That support the MVS API? CMS exists, also from IBM.
>
>MUSIC/SP does to some extent. Is that what you are
>referring to?
Nah, just don't use mainframes.
>> >z/PDOS is providing a backstop,
>
>> No it's not.
>
>Yes, it is.
Nope.
>It may never actually be used as that backstop, but it is
>being created regardless.
Because it's useless.
>It is within IBM's power to simply refuse to sell z/OS and
>watch the world burn.
The world wouldn't burn. It'd be annoying, but it would not be
catastrophic.
>They are unlikely to do that, and they are also unlikely to
>suddenly jack the price up 70-fold.
>
>So the backstop will probably not be exercised.
The "backstop" is simply moving off of the mainframe.
>But maybe IBM will decide that some country pisses
>them off (Russia would be one example), and suddenly
>yank the licenses.
Or be prevented by decree, but I don't think you would
understand the difference or the nuances involved, just as you
don't seem to understand anything about licenses.
>It might be difficult to do a country, because the country
>can just change the copyright laws - which I think is
>exactly what Russia did.
>
>But IBM can target a company it doesn't like instead.
Suuuure.
>I don't know exactly what they can or may do.
Well, you got that part right.
>I don't think anyone expected the cost of their medicine
>to go up 70-fold overnight either. But it was always a
>possibility.
You seem to have trouble understanding the differences between
types of licenses. For example, copyleft, permissive, and
commercial licenses all have very different properties, but you
seem to be conflating them and assuming that "public domain" is
the solution to some set of problems that you perceive they all
share. This suggests to me that you don't know very much about
software licensing, or for that matter, how software in the
public domain, works.
>> >so at least that much
>> >is secure, but that's not a lot. But it's not zero like before
>> >either.
>
>> PDOS is a toy.
>
>A toy is the only actual foundation we have.
Nah. Real systems that people use to do real work, your
ignorant protestations notwithstanding, have existed for
decades, under licenses that protect the very rights you
seem to think are in danger.
But my guess is that you're one of those people who wants to
feel "special" and "significant" by doing something that you've
defined as world-saving (but is really just crankery). Kind of
like the flat-earth people, you probably feel that you "know"
some truth that other are either incapable of or unwilling to
recognize, and that that makes you smarter/braver/better than
those around you.
>> >> *Plonk*
>> >
>> >Another person who can't stand the free marketplace of ideas.
>
>> Nah, I'm just at a point where I've realized that life is too
>> short to indulge know-nothing kooks with delusions of grandeur
>> on USENET.
>
>I always make time to put down slimy bastards peddling
>virus licenses and insisting that the computer industry is
>just fine and doesn't need a backstop.
By all means: continue to post along these lines. You don't
seem to have a particularly strong command of the technical
(let along legal or ethical) issues involved, but you've got
strong opinions on the health of the "industry." All your
posts are doing is demonstrating this very clearly, which is
useful since it will serve to ward others away from this
nonsense.
- Dan C.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
