From: muta...@gmail.com   
      
   On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 4:12:03 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.   
      
   You advocated, and continue to advocate, that GPL is   
   just fine, PD doesn't add any value.   
      
   > >The fundamental fact is that you're a commie slimebag trying    
   > >to hide that.   
      
   > Well, I see that you are mature.   
      
   I'd rather be immature than a commie slimebag peddling   
   the GPL.   
      
   > >> >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   
      
   No. Are you every judge in the world? Because you seem   
   awfully sure you can predict what every single one of them   
   is going to rule regarding GPL that there is no value in   
   public domain.   
      
   > >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.   
      
   Talk is cheap.   
      
   > >> >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.   
      
   No, you don't have an actual counter-argument.   
      
   > >> 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.   
      
   My point is that if you are restricted to public domain   
   for some reason, you can develop your "super technical   
   base", 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.   
      
   > What does that have to do with not "needing to write in machine    
   > code"?    
      
   If you are given a S360/67 (which has switches to zap memory),   
   plus whatever public domain code you can find, what's your plan   
   to develop everything you need?   
      
   Repeat for 80386, although I'm not sure what input tools   
   are available for that. You might need to go back to an   
   earlier machine that supports paper tape.   
      
   You will want to move to a higher level language as   
   soon as possible.   
      
   The S360/67 has a card reader too.   
      
   > 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?   
      
   I want to be able to debug my applications by putting debug   
   code into the OS as required. And fixing bugs in the OS as   
   required. For whatever reason I've never had an OS bug that   
   I needed to debug at the BIOS level. But yes, I have bought   
   Chromebooks and given some thought about replacing   
   Seabios. It just hasn't been priority.   
      
   > >> >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.   
      
   It demonstrably is. You can use it to compile C code   
   and develop a replacement OS that you think is better.   
      
   > >I already did. Manage memory, hard disk, provide an API,    
   > >launch applications.   
      
   > So...a program loader is an OS to you?   
      
   If it does all of the above, it's more than a program loader.   
   But if you wish to have a semantic debate where you swap   
   the definitions of "operating system" and "program loader",   
   you can do that on your own.   
      
   > >> 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!   
      
   To find a definition? Sure.   
      
   > >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.   
      
   You'll note that that is a red herring.   
      
   The "OS" in "MSDOS" stands for "operating system". If you   
   wish to write to Microsoft and tell them that their OS is   
   misnamed and should be called "MSPL", go right ahead.   
      
   I don't have a dispute with Microsoft on that.   
      
   > >> 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,   
      
   "appears" based on what? Just more crap you made up?   
      
   No. I started with nothing other than tools (Turbo C)   
   and an 8086 computer and a book with a BIOS reference.   
      
   > moved the deck chairs around a bit, and declared yourself    
   > some kind of visionary.   
      
   Two more bits of crap you made up.   
      
   > 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?   
      
   Because I think POSIX is shit.   
      
   But the I/O primitives are similar anyway.   
      
   But even they should be hidden by the C library. Which   
   they pretty much are.   
      
   > >> >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.    
   > >    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)