From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net   
      
   In article ,   
   muta...@gmail.com  wrote:   
   >On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 2:38:39 AM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >Advocating. Whatever.   
      
   I'm not advocating, either.  Like I've said multiple times, if   
   you want to release your little toy into the public domain, have   
   fun.  I could honestly not care less.   
      
   >The fundamental fact is that you're a commie slimebag trying   
   >to hide that.   
      
   Well, I see that you are mature.   
      
   >> >You are fighting to keep critical software copyrighted.   
   >   
   >> Nah. I just don't like misinformation.   
   >   
   >Then stop peddling lies about "rights" being "protected"   
   >by a copyright.   
      
   Are you a lawyer?  Because you seem awfully sure of yourself   
   when it comes to   
      
   >> >I am doing the opposite.   
   >   
   >> Nah. You're just misinformed and deliberately ignorant.   
   >   
   >No. We're both informed. You're just peddling a communist utopia   
   >but trying to hide that fact.   
      
   Well, one of us is informed, and it's not you.   
      
   >> >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.   
   >   
   >Present an actual counter-argument and I'm all ears.   
      
   Nah, you aren't.   
      
   >> Nah. It's not at all suitable for serious work.   
   >   
   >All serious work can be developed, in C, using PDOS.   
      
   Nah.  You already started from an inferior technical base.  Not   
   worth it.   
      
   >> >You can develop software without needing to write in machine code.   
   >   
   >> What? I can do that without your toy.   
   >   
   >Only with copyrighted software.   
      
   What does that have to do with not "needing to write in machine   
   code"?   
      
   And if that's what you're concerned about, what about that   
   copyright BIOS or UEFI you want to do the heavy lifting for you   
   so you don't have to think about it?  How about the copyright   
   firmware?  Are you doing your own DRAM training?   
      
   >> >That's a very good foundation.   
   >   
   >> Nope. I looked at the code; it's really not very good.   
   >   
   >You don't need to read the code. You can write something   
   >better using it, if you believe you have the skills.   
      
   That's irrelevant.  You're the one claiming that your "PDOS" is   
   a suitable "foundation" for building real systems.  It's   
   demonstrably not.   
      
   >> >> 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."   
   >   
   >I already did. Manage memory, hard disk, provide an API,   
   >launch applications.   
      
   So...a program loader is an OS to you?   
      
   >> You don't even have memory   
   >> protection or a process abstraction.   
   >   
   >Nor did MSDOS.   
      
   Yeah, let's go back to the state of the art circa 1981.  That's   
   a great idea!   
      
   >Again, if you use a different definition of OS to Microsoft,   
   >that's fine, you can have a semantic debate on your own.   
      
   You'll note that Microsoft hasn't shipped MS-DOS in 20+ years.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >What's clear is that there is very little choice when it   
   >comes to public domain. Almost everything else has an   
   >owner who refuses to relinquish that.   
      
   It appears that you started with a bunch of code other people   
   wrote, moved the deck chairs around a bit, and declared yourself   
   some kind of visionary.  If you're so hell-bent on a "public   
   domain operating system", why don't you figure out how to do   
   something like implement a POSIX-compatible API with PD code?   
   You know, something that'd actually be useful?   
      
   >> >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.   
   >   
   >Again, we both understand, but you are hiding the fact that   
   >you are deliberately trying to pretend that public domain   
   >has no extra value. While refusing to make code public   
   >domain because you know damned well it does.   
      
   Nah, it really doesn't.  As for "understanding" I'm quite   
   confident that you do not understand the issues involved.   
      
   >> >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.   
   >   
   >Ask the ISC folks why they don't make their code public   
   >domain, and you'll see the issue.   
      
   Irrelevant.  You're the one claiming that I'm "peddling viral   
   licenses and don't want that challenged."  As I've said   
   repeatedly, you can put your code in the public domain if want;   
   I don't care, I'm certainly not going to use it (because it   
   looks like a dumpster fire of bad design and implementation, not   
   because I have some moral objection to software in the public   
   domain, mind you).   
      
   But in mentioning ISC is that you seem incapable of   
   understanding that there exist licenses that are not viral.   
      
   ISC is not viral.   
      
   >> >> >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.   
   >   
   >Talk is cheap.   
   >   
   >I have an OS.   
   >   
   >I have S/380 as well.   
      
   Your commits all look like you're modifying hercules   
   configurations and doing some minor JCL startup stuff.  Nothing   
   particularly interesting.   
      
   >What you have is a slimebag commie ulterior motive.   
      
   Yeah, ok, bud.  You got me.   
      
   >[snip some drivel]   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >If you insist that your question is relevant when you're talking   
   >to someone who has written an x86 OS from scratch, you are   
   >clearly a commie scumbag trying to hide the advance in   
   >public domain software.   
      
   You didn't write your operating system from scratch.  Unless you   
   are also Alica Okano, Durand Miller, NECDET COKYAZICI, Paul   
   Edwards, and a other names that show up in various source files.   
   In fact, it looks like most of the non-trivial code was written   
   by other people.  Further, some things look like they're lifted   
   directly from other sources.  For instance, the ELF headers are   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)