From: muta...@gmail.com   
      
   On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 2:38:39 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.   
      
   Advocating. Whatever.   
      
   The fundamental fact is that you're a commie slimebag trying   
   to hide that.   
      
   > >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.   
      
   > >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.   
      
   > >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.   
      
   > >> >> >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.   
      
   All serious work can be developed, in C, using PDOS.   
      
   > >You can develop software without needing to write in machine code.   
      
   > What? I can do that without your toy.   
      
   Only with copyrighted software.   
      
   > >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.   
      
   > >> 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.   
      
   > You don't even have memory    
   > protection or a process abstraction.   
      
   Nor did MSDOS.   
      
   Again, if you use a different definition of OS to Microsoft,   
   that's fine, you can have a semantic debate on your own.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   > >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.   
      
   > >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.   
      
   > >> >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.   
      
   What you have is a slimebag commie ulterior motive.   
      
   > >> >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.   
      
   Sure. You've been exposed.   
      
   > >> >> >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.   
      
   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.   
      
   > >> >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.   
      
   No-one cared about budgeting for a 70-fold increase in   
   the cost of medicine.   
      
   Their funeral. Literally.   
      
   > >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.   
      
   Or - I can see what the state of public domain code is, so that   
   I don't have to rely on lawyers and the whim of judges.   
      
   > >> >> >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    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)