From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net
In article <3fd7629e-38f3-4542-a8e7-caf45f19487dn@googlegroups.com>,
muta...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:33:30 AM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:
>
>> >Again - while ever they are holding something back, that's
>> >just more sand.
>
>> You seem to not understand the difference between different
>> software licenses.
>
>No. We both understand exactly what we are fighting for.
I'm not "fighting" for anything here. Well, I suppose I'm
"fighting" against delusion and ignoranc,e but that's obviously
a lost cause.
>You are fighting to keep critical software copyrighted.
Nah. I just don't like misinformation.
>I am doing the opposite.
Nah. You're just misinformed and deliberately ignorant.
>You pretend that there's no significant difference, but
>that's just a bluff, and everyone knows it's a bluff, which
>is why they insist on slapping on a copyright notice.
Oh no, there's a difference. That's obvious. But you don't
seen to understand what the difference is, and moreover, you
seem to have fallen into the trap of assuming that your
"argument" (if one can call it that) is the only correct one.
>> >> >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.
>
>It is useful.
Nah. It's not at all suitable for serious work.
>You can develop software without needing to write in machine code.
What? I can do that without your toy.
>That's a very good foundation.
Nope. I looked at the code; it's really not very good.
>> 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.
>
>Nice try.
>
>There is a difference between a "hello world" and an
>operating system.
Define "operating system." You don't even have memory
protection or a process abstraction. What you have written is
much closer to a program loader with a minimal API based on
antiquated standards. It's clear, looking at the implementation
that you don't have a good handle on any of the issues involved.
>You know it. I know it.
What I know is that you've got a toy you keep claiming is some
kind of weird "backstop" against something that'll never happen,
because you neither understand operating systems nor how
software licensing works.
>But you pretend that there isn't because you're peddling
>virus licenses and don't want that challenged.
If you don't like "viral" licenses, try ISC.
>> >But that's the limit of the actual foundation of the
>> >computer industry.
>
>> Nope.
>
>Yep.
Says you, but you've demonstrated you have minimal technical
expertise, and no legal understanding.
>> >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.
>
>Nice try, again. :-)
>
>You'll convince various dickheads, if that's your goal.
No need. You're doing just fine on your own with that.
>> >> >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 the relevance of the x86 stack pointer when I have
>a working operating system?
If you have to ask this, then clearly you're not aware of the
technical issues involved in writing an operating system that is
not a toy.
>> >And that is the required foundation.
>
>> It is not a "foundation" for anything important.
>
>Yes it is.
Nah. It's a toy. No one cares about it.
>People slap on copyright notices for a good reason, and
>that reason is being challenged. Finally.
Yes, you are correct: people "slap on copyright notices for a
good reason."
Whether that was what you intended to write or not, that's just
a fact. If you think you have a good reason to "challenge"
that, then by all means, consult a lawyer.
>> >> >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.
>
>A stupid suggestion. They're the only professional environment.
A stupid assertion.
If you think that mainframes are "the only professional
environment" then you are obviously ignorant.
Moreover, if you really believe that, why are you bothering with
x86 and EFI?
Do you understand what a "mainframe" even is?
>[snip a bunch of nonsensical drivel]
>What they should be doing though is making sure their code
>is written in C or some similar solution so that they're in with
>a shot of moving off.
Wow, you really don't understand how any of this works, do you?
>But even if they can quickly move off, they would still be
>moving off a professional system and onto a clown factory.
>
>Until another commercial enterprise creates their own MVS.
I know it's just punching down at this point, but I confess I am
morbidly curious. Can you explain _why_ you think that MVS is
the "only professional system" and everything else is a "clown
factory"?
>> >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.
>
>As before. We both understand, and you are attempting
>to bluff.
Bluff about what? I don't have a dog in your flea circus.
I just think blatant misinformation shouldn't go completely
unchallenged.
>> >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.
>
>They have refused to sell z/OS licenses in the past.
>
>> >I don't know exactly what they can or may do.
>
>> Well, you got that part right.
>
>You don't either. I'm just honest.
>
>> >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
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
