From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net   
      
   In article <95975514-e196-470b-b06c-3382de948fb1n@googlegroups.com>,   
   muta...@gmail.com  wrote:   
   >On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 2:44:00 AM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:   
   >> >Communists are very good at the "to each according to   
   >> >their need" (and they always "need" a lot), but when it   
   >> >comes to "from each according to their ability", they all   
   >> >suddenly have sore backs.   
   >> >   
   >> >Now that PDOS exists I can point them to it and say "ok,   
   >> >you love communism - what can you contribute according   
   >> >to your ability - documentation? testing?".   
   >> >   
   >> >Of course they're not going to contribute anything.   
   >> >   
   >> >I just want to show them up for being slimebag commies.   
   >   
   >> Have you considered that people may not want to contribute to   
   >> your project because they don't want to work with you, or find   
   >> it technically substandard, or aren't interested in spending   
   >> time on an eighth-baked toy?   
   >   
   >It's just an example. They can write their own public   
   >domain OS, or do something else to benefit the world.   
   >They don't need a communist government to force   
   >them to do that.   
      
   Except your "example" doesn't follow; it's specious.  Your   
   statement amounted to suggesting that people who don't   
   contribute to your hobby project should be "called out" because   
   they're communists, while failing to consider that maybe they   
   just don't want to work with you because you behave like a   
   petulent child.   
      
   >[snip]   
   >> >And the commies can improve PDOS for free. Or rather,   
   >> >be called out for not doing that.   
   >   
   >> So you're suggesting that anyone who's not interested in working   
   >> on your little toy hobby project should be "called out"?   
   >   
   >No. Commies should be called out for insisting that they   
   >need a communist government, because Marx's ideals   
   >can't be satisfied under a capitalist system.   
      
   No, what you said is that, "the commies can ... be called out   
   for not doing that [improving PDOS]."  Well, I'm not a "commie"   
   but I'm not going to work on your thing, because it's garbage   
   and you're an asshole.   
      
   >So I point out one of Marx's ideals.   
   >   
   >And then I point them to PDOS and say "for example,   
   >improve this, or write a better version".   
      
   ...but you fail to recognize that maybe no one cares because you   
   cannot understand that there's no actual (not your imagined)   
   need to build such a thing.   
      
   >> >Both things sound great to me.   
   >> >   
   >> >Being extorted by monopolies is not great. Monopolies   
   >> >naturally arise in capitalism and are a known problem.   
   >> >Normally the government steps in. But in the case of   
   >> >IBM and Microsoft that is apparently too difficult.   
   >> >   
   >> >So - I made a reasonable attempt to challenge them   
   >> >myself. Both of those major APIs have a PDOS flavor.   
   >   
   >> The delusion is strong with this one.   
   >   
   >The denial of PDOS's existence and API isn't going to fly.   
      
   Oh, it exists, it's just that no one is going to take it   
   seriously as any kind of "challenge" to, well, anything.   
      
   Because it's not.  Because it is a toy.   
      
   	- Dan C.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)