NetBeans is still alive, but it's been behind Eclipse for a very long time, and most Java devs now prefer IntelliJ. Smartest ones use NeoVim.

But Java is restrictive, slow, and lame. Learn a modern language like Go, D, Nim, or Rust. Or at least Scala or Kotlin.

As a developer of free and open source software with an interest in seeing my work remain as free for as many people for as long as possible, I really like the GPLv3.

The license doesn't affect your work. It threatens other people whose work happened to come in contact with (or appear similar to) your work.

"Copyleft" takes the position that the existing copyright system is fundamentally broken and uses those copyright tools in a subversive way to try to bring about what copyleft thinks is a better world.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Copyleft is instead the greatest apologist for the existing copyright system. It is an ideological beacon conditioning people to think that the free market is bad and government force is good. If GPLv3 had been more successful, we would have had ever-more restrictive licenses follow.

I happen to agree that the copyright system is fundamentally broken, and while I don't know if copyleft's utopia is exactly the one I would pick, I like it better than the alternatives offered by other mainstream licenses.

What "other mainstream licenses"? Proprietary software isn't even on my radar anymore. If someone decides to sell their soul to Microsoft or Apple, that's on them.

It's between copyLEFT vs copyFREE. The hijacking of the word "freedom" and legitimization of automagical contracts has far-reaching consequences.

Stallman isn't a programmer of software. He's a programmer of human beings!

Boycott communist licenses!

Use genuine free software!

Any other nominations?

Serious app developers care. SQLite is one of the best libraries in the history of free software, bringing great interoperability benefits to desktop and mobile software, and it needs to keep evolving to remain a standard. Go play in traffic.

Fuck off spammer!

If you don't want us to "come and [fuck your wife in front of your kids" [that's our new catchphrase] then you should make yourself scarce!

Only if you're into trannies.

I personally hate Rust's syntax and am rooting for a language like D or especially Nim (with optional GC) to win out. But I can't deny that Rust is the #1 systems language challenging C/C++. Rust leads in programmer satisfaction surveys, module ecosystem growth, Web framework performance, etc...

Lol, "snowflake" ❄️ 😅

M'kay?

True. That's why I prefer Nim or D.

https://archive.ph/mvdgp (that took a few tries due to timeouts)

Posting spam gets you banned.

Posting retarded spam gets you doxed.

Posting retarded spam about a job in Dubai gets you a visit from the Death Squads.

https://vlang.io/

When you spend hours to fix a bug caused by someone deleting a tab and a space that then isn't caught by brace matching by the compiler because the language is interpreted you wont think the off-side rule is so great.

I've been programming Python for 20 years (and now Nim), and this just never happens. Sounds like a made-up rationalization from someone without actual experience.

Your criticisms are valid (except the one about the off-side rule).

But it's still better than most other scripting languages (esp PHP, JavaScript, Perl).

And (although they don't compare directly) it's a good thing that it's becoming more popular than Java.

Finally. Its only makes sense, as compilers become more efficient.

In this case you mean interpreters, esp PyPy.

I'm still a fan of compiled statically-typed native languages like Nim (which comes close to Python's syntax).

Long live native code!

Downvoted by Pythonista trannies upset over lack of CoC.

An old and terrible benchmark. I've posted a much better ones here recently, like: kostya/benchmarks, TechEmpower, etc.

Scripting languages are a joke when it comes to real-world performance. And Go is behind serious C alternatives like Nim, D, and Rust.

This talk will dive into why we should steal static introspection from languages like Nim, and Dlang, state-of-the-art imperative programming languages which can solve all these issues, make type systems much more approachable without losing any expressive power, and offer new design possibilities for functional programs.

Enjoy sucking Microsoft dick, I see.

What happened in the 1990s stays in the 1990s...

You must be a millenial, since you don't care about the Halloween documents.

I'm 38. I've been a diehard open source advocate for 20+ years.

My name is Alex Libman.

"Small memory allocations and the garbage collector are the usual culprits." --def

This measures the standard library JSON implementation, not the language. For example, you can see that C/C++ json libs vary greatly. Nim's default json module does a lot more work for high-level easy access of the records. There are other implementations that are much faster. With other libraries in can be just as fast as D.

Some is definitely better than others.

My exposé worked!!1

The Jew magic has disappeared in the latest result.

The Official Style Guide:

1. You do not use JavaScript!

2. YOU DO NOT USE JAVASCRIPT!

3. Use a decent statically-typed programming language. If WebAssembly isn't good enough, use something that compiles directly to JavaScript, like Nim.

Well, pretty much any other popular scripting language is better than PHP, Python and Ruby being the better options. But best software is written in type-safe languages. I personally recommend Nim or D.

Modern PHP was created by Andi Gutmans and Zeev Suraski in Israel. It even had "Easter Eggs" in Hebrew...

So it's often used in a list of "Great Israeli Inventions" that the world supposedly couldn't live without.

It's such a horrible programming language, I've always joked that it's popularity was some sort of a conspiracy...

Voat didn't let me make the OP link point directly to the JS results visualization.

In the tests completed 2019-10-20 and 2019-10-15, the PHP-based "swoole-no-async" is somehow beating all C/C++, Rust, Java, Go, etc Web Frameworks by a huge margin, especially in "Multiple Queries" and the flagship "Fortunes" benchmark.

Good poetic piece that resonates with our well-founded righteous indignation at that communist hijacker of the temple of Free Software.

Just one major nitpick...

RMS is a genius programmer and posix nerd

False. Anyone who thinks he's a "genius programmer" is an incompetent parrot.

Stallman was hardly a great programmer even in his prime. All he did is rewrite software written by others under a restrictive copyleft license, with a huge army of space-monkeys helping him. All his modifications were terrible. And he didn't write anything in decades since.

He's nowhere close to being even in the same league as Linus Torvalds, Bill Gates, or Theo de Raadt; much less true geniuses like Satoshi Nakamoto (possibly a team of people), Dennis Ritchie, Ken Thompson, Daniel Bernstein, etc. It's like comparing Al Gore to Isaac Newton!

There are many thousands of programmers who contributed genuinely brilliant, genuinely free code, used by billions of people every single day, who deserve a lot more attention than Stallman!

Fuck you, I've been exposing this scumbag for decades!

Well, we do need something to replace C/C++. In most projects it cuts the productivity in half (or worse) for no tangible gain. Rust, D, and Nim are strong contenders.

Python wasn't meant to be a "system language", but a good easy scripting language for the masses.

The GPL does not restrict what a user can do with the software.

That's obviously false. The difference between GPL and copyfree licenses is GPL's restriction.

For example it does not prevent use in Iran, Cuba, or North Korea like (not that I care about them).

Of course not, Stalinman loves those countries. 😏

What they want is "NO CAPITALISTS" / "NO FASCISTS" restrictions (meaning anyone to the right of Karl Marx). See previous two links for examples of smaller licenses trying to push this. GPLv3 could have been more restrictive, and there could have been v4, v5, etc. They always want to add more left-wing political bullshit, as much as they can get away with...

The reason they didn't add more restrictions is because GPL got so much push-back (thanks in part to genuine software freedom activists like me), some projects didn't switch to GPLv3, and copyleft's fraction of the license market share has been dropping ever since.

You can use it to build nuclear missiles if you want. (I recall that Apple has that comical restriction on its software.)

It is a "fallacy of relevance" to list all the things GPL doesn't restrict. I didn't say that GPL restricts everything you can possibly imagine being restricted! I've listed plenty of reasons to hate it.

A user of GPL software does not have to agree to any terms of it to use it, because there aren't any.

A major pillar of FLOSS software is being able to access, audit, and modify the source code of the software you use. I can't do that, because I don't agree with restrictive licenses like GPL.

Any software which shows an "agree to this license to continue" box and shows the user the GPL is doing it wrong.

It's still FUD, which only benefits the lawyers.

Ask a hundred different lawyers about GPL, you'll get a hundred different opinions. And a hundred very large bills.

Remember that commies believe legalese is somehow alive (a "living document") to automagically evolve when it suits them.

It was recently decided that GPL is somehow a "contract". To a libertarian, for whom contracts are sacred, this is a very erroneous, grave, and dangerous precedent! There have to be serious and explicit standards for what constitutes a contract! (Like involving showing up to a notary in person, proving your identity, swearing that you're serious, showing that you're not under duress, paying an enforcement fee, etc.)

If I drop dollar bills form a helicopter that says in fine print "LICENSE: all the money in your wallet now belongs to me", is that now a valid legal contract?!

If you want to distribute GPL software or software derived from it then you can talk about restrictions. I don't care that some dev or company cannot lock it away in their proprietary software preventing me from using it, modifying it, redistributing it. Pay a license to some non-GPL competitor if that's what you want to do. Otherwise, provide the source and any changes you made from it such that I could recreate the binary you have given me.

My objections to copyleft are 99% philosophical / principled, and only 1% practical.

In practice my concern is mainly for genuinely free software like BSD Unix, HaikuOS, PostgreSQL, LLVM/Clang, Mono, etc. GPL is its #1 enemy. Linux, MySQL, GCC, etc can copy that genuinely free code, add their restrictive licenses, and it can't be copied back. What's worse, when genuinely free projects rewrite code under a free license, they can be sued for plagiarism. There are only so many ideal ways to write a particular device driver, etc. Every line of GPL code is damage to the cause of free software!

But concerns about restrictions against proprietary software evolution are relevant as well. Companies like EnterpriseDB do a lot of good.

I know copyleft is copyright. I would have no problem with lacking the means to enforce GPL on others if they had no means to enforce any other license. It is sort of Mutually Assured Destruction but for "intellectual property", except I sort-of want this one.

It's a terrible hypocrisy, and it sets terrible precedents.

I would like a massive overhaul of copyright reducing it from life plus 50/70/90 years to something like a patent, 25 years from first publication, maybe including explicit registration, maybe renewal for a fee. Everything created before 1994 (yes really) would have lapsed into the public domain.

I just remembered that Stalinman had also (cordially) shit on the Pirate Parties - forgot to include that in the original post.

I once promoted a concept called "Time-Limited Hybrid Source" by a member of the Copyfree community (no longer active). (See also: "Towards A Real Business Model For Open-Source Software".) I wanted to apply the "time limited" idea to to GPL as well - no such luck. Stallman doesn't want GPL to expire and become genuinely free software!

We all know why Disney/etc defend copyright, and their arguments are easy to dismiss, but "if even Stallman defends copyright, then it must be good". As far as I'm concerned, at this point this makes him the #1 defender of copyright!

On the public domain, some jurisdictions do not allow one to renounce the copyright one has on their creations, which is why something like CC0 exists.

Yes, the CI site makes it clear. (I used the term "PL/PD" ("permissively licensed or public domain") for years before I discovered someone else had popularized "copyfree".) That's the only reason we need licenses at all.

I personally use the Unlicense, but as far as I'm concerned all copyfree licenses are equivalent in practice.

Avoiding use as user might be difficult, especially if you only use gratis software. For a developer, how do you accidentally include GPL software in what you're distributing? You choose what dependencies you compile into the final binary.

How you "accidentally include GPL software" depends on the programming language. It's the import keyword in my favorite languages (Nim, D, Python). You import one module, it could import ten children, a hundred grandchildren, etc. The "license" field in module manager metadata can also be wrong, you are still liable if there's a legalese file or comment somewhere... But you supposedly agreed to the "contract"!

It's a terrible hypocrisy to call this freedom!

Ew, Emacs... Worse than pedophilia!

I used tabs for about 20 years. But a couple of years ago I realized that that is wrong, and so I switched!. Also switched from rendering tabs as 4 spaces to using 2 literal spaces.

I thank the awesome Nim programming language and its style guide for helping me see the light. It will actually refuse to compile if you use a tab!

My guess is that you wouldn't be surprised at all the amount of people who fall for simple shit like https://moxie.org/software/sslstrip/

The link you presented is a tool for a man-in-the-middle-attack on UNENCRYPTED http connections, to compromise them before an SSL connection is established. (And if no VPN is used.) It'd be a good advertisement for "HTTPS Everywhere" 10 years ago, which is now pretty much the default behavior.

It in no way substantiates your ridiculous claim that "SSL certs are easily bypassed". Much less the implication that your ISP can spy on all VPN traffic. Much less the subject at hand about trusting Mommy Government to protect us from "eevil capitalist ISPs".

That's not even the latest and greatest.

The burden of proof remains on you.

My point that your ISP shouldn't even know what you're doing, much less be able to throttle or filter it in real time, remains 100% untouched.

I have tools that I cannot post here due to NDA.

That's another example of "not a fact". All I know is that you're are an "anonymous coward" with delusions of competence, and you dig yourself in deeper with every post.

Additionally, several rogue SSL vendors were caught years ago duplicating SSL certs

Yes, SSL is just one tool, and any tool can be used incorrectly.

We are talking about crypto in general. I brought up the popularity of SSL approaching 100% because it's the final nail in the coffin of the idea that ISPs would ban VPNs - a VPN connection can be made 100% indistinguishable from common SSL-encrypted video chat.

Several Laptop vendors installed their own certs on machines which allowed snooping, etc.

So boycott those laptop vendors. And support open hardware. If you're so addicted to Mommy Government wiping your butt for you, call for it to punish those vendors for FRAUD (most libertarians won't even object to this). Expanding FCC power to the Internet is the worst solution.

If you've kept up with the industry at all, you know this already.

You'll find my posts about those issues elsewhere.

It's also funny that you list the largest, names in the IT field as hating the GPLv2 - because that's exactly what the GPLv2 was designed to protect against.

You have it backwards.

GPL hurts small programmer start-ups the most, because they can't afford to reinvent the wheel, while larger software companies can. Genuinely free (copyfree) software is a great equalizer that allowed hundreds of small start-ups to provide products on top of BSD, PostgreSQL, Lua, etc that compete with the big boys.

I demonstrated that GPL slowed down the spread of open source software. I bought up only so many examples, because it's more significant than the example of Han Solo the lone-wolf programmer who hates GPL too.

Large companies who slurp up peoples hard work and do not give back in the slightest.

I don't like them, but those large companies do give back. Google, Microsoft, etc have donated huge amounts of genuinely free code, as well as financial support for open source projects.

You literally just made my argument for me.

Intellectually dishonesty overload...

I've thoroughly debunked your ignorant claims, but I cannot fix your delusions. I do not respond to people like you for your sake, but to document what the correct answers are. Reason and evidence only work on minds capable of understanding them...

Comcast is not a government-backed cable monopoly, Comcast is a cable monopoly who has used regulatory capture via government to stifle competition.

That's what in psychology we call a "word salad".

Net Neutrality was in direct opposition to what they've accomplished so far.

False. Putting FCC in charge of making sure Comcast doesn't prioritize VoIP for lower latency over BitTorrent does not increase Comcast's competition. It just sets a power precedent that the government will continue expanding for its own ends.

Government is a tool. Your argument here is that Government is always bad. Just like leftists saying "guns are only used to kill people and thus are always bad and we always need to take them away!"

False analogy. A gun can be used for legitimate self-defense of Life, Liberty, and Property against aggressors. (I prefer specialized high-tech alternatives that are much more difficult to misuse for offensive purposes, but that's a whole nother opera.) FCC regulation of the Internet is not self-defense.

[...] It's called educating yourself, and you should read the Net Neutrality laws as they were written because your arguments all rest on bullshit.

No, my argument rests on skepticism. I present sound technological evidence for why the NN government power-grab is unnecessary, and overwhelming historical examples for why it is dangerous.

Your arguments rest on bullshit, because you interpret government promises as fact. If a legislator writes that "2 + 2 == 5", does that become truth?

And since the bullshit asymmetry principle exists, it's easy for you to shovel out line after line of nonsensical drivel.

You are entitled to your (demonstrably false) opinions.

Net Neutrality doesn't help Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T at all. They all hated it, because it meant they would have to remain neutral in their delivery of data.

They hated it because it gets the thin wedge of the FCC up their butts. The evidence that they've actually benefited from trotting is minuscule.

You've shown yourself to be an uneducated twat who didn't even read the NN bill...so fuck off, good day sir.

You should work as a government priest thumping legislation. You've demonstrated no competence in critical thinking, rational debate, or understanding of the technologies in question.

My guess is that you wouldn't be surprised at all the amount of people who fall for simple shit like https://moxie.org/software/sslstrip/

The link you presented is a tool for a man-in-the-middle-attack on UNENCRYPTED http connections, to compromise them before an SSL connection is established. (And if no VPN is used.) It'd be a good advertisement for "HTTPS Everywhere" 10 years ago, which is now pretty much the default behavior.

It in no way substantiates your ridiculous claim that "SSL certs are easily bypassed". Much less the implication that your ISP can spy on all VPN traffic. Much less the subject at hand about trusting Mommy Government to protect us from "eevil capitalist ISPs".

That's not even the latest and greatest.

The burden of proof remains on you.

My point that your ISP shouldn't even know what you're doing, much less be able to throttle or filter it in real time, remains 100% untouched.

I have tools that I cannot post here due to NDA.

That's another example of "not a fact". All I know is that you're are an "anonymous coward" with delusions of competence, and you dig yourself in deeper with every post.

Additionally, several rogue SSL vendors were caught years ago duplicating SSL certs

Yes, SSL is just one tool, and any tool can be used incorrectly.

We are talking about crypto in general. I brought up the popularity of SSL approaching 100% because it's the final nail in the coffin of the idea that ISPs would ban VPNs - a VPN connection can be made 100% indistinguishable from common SSL-encrypted video chat.

Several Laptop vendors installed their own certs on machines which allowed snooping, etc.

So boycott those laptop vendors. And support open hardware. If you're so addicted to Mommy Government wiping your butt for you, call for it to punish those vendors for FRAUD (most libertarians won't even object to this). Expanding FCC power to the Internet is the worst solution.

If you've kept up with the industry at all, you know this already.

You'll find my posts about those issues elsewhere.

It's also funny that you list the largest, names in the IT field as hating the GPLv2 - because that's exactly what the GPLv2 was designed to protect against.

You have it backwards.

GPL hurts small programmer start-ups the most, because they can't afford to reinvent the wheel, while larger software companies can. Genuinely free (copyfree) software is a great equalizer that allowed hundreds of small start-ups to provide products on top of BSD, PostgreSQL, Lua, etc that compete with the big boys.

I bought up only so many examples, because it's more significant than the example of Han Solo the lone-wolf programmer who hates GPL too.

Large companies who slurp up peoples hard work and do not give back in the slightest. You literally just made my argument for me.

No, I demonstrated that GPL slowed down the spread of open source software.

And large companies do give back. Google, Microsoft, etc have donated huge amounts of genuinely free code, as well as financial support for open source projects.

You literally just made my argument for me.

Intellectually dishonesty overload...

I've thoroughly debunked your ignorant claims, but I cannot fix your delusions. I do not respond to people like you for your sake, but to document what the correct answers are. Reason and evidence only work on minds capable of understanding them...

Comcast is not a government-backed cable monopoly, Comcast is a cable monopoly who has used regulatory capture via government to stifle competition.

That's what in psychology we call a "word salad".

Net Neutrality was in direct opposition to what they've accomplished so far.

False. Putting FCC in charge of making sure Comcast doesn't prioritize VoIP for lower latency over BitTorrent does not increase Comcast's competition. It just sets a power precedent that the government will continue expanding for its own ends.

Government is a tool. Your argument here is that Government is always bad. Just like leftists saying "guns are only used to kill people and thus are always bad and we always need to take them away!"

False analogy. A gun can be used for legitimate self-defense of Life, Liberty, and Property against aggressors. (I prefer specialized high-tech alternatives that are much more difficult to misuse for offensive purposes, but that's a whole nother opera.) FCC regulation of the Internet is not self-defense.

[...] It's called educating yourself, and you should read the Net Neutrality laws as they were written because your arguments all rest on bullshit.

No, my argument rests on skepticism. I present sound technological evidence for why the NN government power-grab is unnecessary, and overwhelming historical examples for why it is dangerous.

Your arguments rest on bullshit, because you interpret government promises as fact. If a legislator writes that "2 + 2 == 5", does that become truth?

And since the bullshit asymmetry principle exists, it's easy for you to shovel out line after line of nonsensical drivel.

You are entitled to your (demonstrably false) opinions.

Net Neutrality doesn't help Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T at all. They all hated it, because it meant they would have to remain neutral in their delivery of data.

They hated it because it gets the thin wedge of the FCC up their butts. The evidence that they've actually benefited from trotting is minuscule.

You've shown yourself to be an uneducated twat who didn't even read the NN bill...so fuck off, good day sir.

You should work as a government priest thumping legislation. You've demonstrated no competence in critical thinking, rational debate, or understanding of the technologies in question.

I wholly support Free Software, the GPL, and Copyleft software.

To a person not brainwashed by communists, this is a clear logical contradiction. GPL and copyleft are restrictions. They limit what you can do with it. Software can't be "free" and restrictive at the same time!

I see it as a means to an end of severely reducing or maybe even eliminating copyright.

The above quote is a strong candidate for the dumbest thing ever said by a human being.

COPYLEFT IS COPYRIGHT!

It's public domain (or copyFREE licensed, which is practically equivalent to public domain) software that is the enemy of copyright. That is what Stalinman's political hijacking of the free software movement has destroyed!

Don't like the license? Don't use the software.

Proprietary software is very easy to avoid. Avoiding restrictively licensed software is a lot harder...

Obviously sarcastic. I can code, but I never learned to "collaborate" very well...

In the beginning we had FTP, and it was good!

I edited source code on a plain file-system. Every once in a while, I'd make a compressed copy of a project to save to floppy disk, and dump it online so my IRC friends could download, something like:

ftp://libman.org/software/My_Cool_RPG_Where_U_Kill_Commies/src/19930101.tgz

And when you'd have something worth showing off you'd link to it on Usenet, etc.

Then a bunch of hipsters came along and invented stupid crap like cvs, www, git, hub... Bah humbug!

I'm on hiatus from coding, meditating under a tree, until my philosophy is 100% perfect...

But it will probably involve self-hosting your code, probably on something based on IPFS...

Thank you for your perspective.

I just have one point I'd like to rant about:

Every individual should be judged by their actions alone.

I agree 100% in principle, but only around 90% in practice.

The problem is that sometimes in practice we don't have the luxury of treating everyone as an individual - hoping they won't stab us in the back, even if statistically the vast majority of people in their group want to.

Strong in-group preference is a weapon. If others have it, while you don't - you are in a losing position...

This is why FDR put Japs in the internment camps. (And why Hitler wanted to do the same thing - except he was losing the war, and was barely able to feed his own soldiers, much less millions of likely enemies in the camps...)

I was hoping that this gap between principle and practice would shrink, but that isn't up to me. Sadly it might be growing instead. There seems to be a definite achievement gap between ethnic groups and genders, and so the vast majority of them now claim that anything merit-based (from open source software leadership to free market capitalism) is "racist", "sexist", etc...

Individuals who don't fit the pattern (like non-socialist non-whites, atheists, and Jews) are morally obligated to explicitly stand out and speak out against the majority opinion of their group. Silence implies consent.

The NOOB ALERT here should be you.

I've been a programmer for 20 years. I made especially good money in the IT Security industry before I became a tax resister...

It's trivial for ISPs to block and outright just simply detect encryption, and disconnect it.

No, it isn't.

This is comedy gold here. Thantik walking into a bank for a business loan:

"You've heard of SSL, right? It's used by zillions of Web-sites, and now increasingly to stream HD video between zillions of people. 87% of global web traffic was encrypted in 2019 Q1, up from 53 percent three years ago. BUT I have a brilliant business idea for 2020! I'll start an ISP that bans all encryption! All your online banking, shopping, email, VoIP, video calls to family, remote server administration - all unencrypted!" 🤣

All sane customers would obviously revolt against an encryption ban. And this will obviously result in very bad publicity, so that even the most technologically challenged grannies will be outraged. The ISP will go out of business in a week, and be replaced by ones that don't block encryption.

Net Neutrality disallows that.

That is not a fact. That is blind faith that a hungry wolf (government) will guard your hen-house for all eternity.

If they detect a VPN, (some countries already do this) they nyx your whole internet connection for a while. They don't HAVE to break it in order to keep you from using it.

They detect "tell-tale signs from packet metadata", if no effort has been made to hide it. But if it's an arms race then the ISPs cannot win, and fighting this war would cost them too much money. They have little gain and everything to lose.

Any encrypted channel can be used to tunnel a VPN. All you need is one httpS site to act as a relay to the rest of the Internet. (Or SSH. Or one of them protocols that look like unencrypted P2P audio or video, but hide the encrypted channel in the noise. Etc.) The "eeevil capitalist ISP" would have to maintain a whitelist of permitted sites, and that is by no means "trivial". Even Communist China hasn't been able to do this, and they can afford to waste a lot more money on anti-user monitoring and violence than any free market ISP.

ISP competition is the key to freedom. There can be a mix of non-profit pro-bono ISPs (I'd donate) along with for-profit ones. The only ones willing and able to pull of censorship is the government.

"Unlimited" 4G isn't actually unlimited. Nowhere close.

Nothing is literally "Unlimited", but I download terabytes of BitTorrents over 4G, and I haven't found a limit yet. The only limit is for WiFi HotSpot, but there are lots of ways around that. Soon all computers will have cellular built-in (you may need a USB adapter for now).

And this is "Walmart Family Mobile" prepaid, not even a high-end carrier. The ISP doesn't even need to know my real name or mailing address. Worst case scenario is I spend $50 early to reset whatever monthly limits.

And 5G is supposed to blow this out of the water. I'm not saying that wireless is always better than wired, but that competition is getting stronger, even despite the government screwing everything up. And of course satellite is ultimately the future. Having many

Not suitable, and competition doesn't exist in many places.

Precisely because of government regulation, which """NN""" cucks like you are seeking to entrench further.

Satellite Internet is ultimately the future. It will be available everywhere. And, combined with other connectivity options (mesh networking, community cell towers / WiFi, owning the Last Mile, etc), only one person in your town would need a satellite dish to route everyone else. The mere possibility of competition makes the prospect of an "evil capitalist ISP" on a suicidal jihad to keep you from accessing Fox News ever-more laughable.

There is no such thing as a "natural monopoly", only defeatist attitudes backed by government force.

Holy shit, you basically just described Net Neutrality right there...

No, I described free market capitalism. """Net Neutrality""" (notice the capitalization, and ideally at least one pair of quotes, better if three) is the very opposite - a government program, with government-backed monopolies, where Mommy Government controls everything. By that logic you probably also think that Pravda is the ultimate source of truth, "hey, it's in the name"...

the cognitive dissonance here is fucking astounding.

Exactly. Coming from you.

Copyleft is a license, you fuck. It has nothing to do with government anything.

Are you now claiming that Stalinman has his own army to enforce GPL? Nope, he will summon you into a government court, and it will be government forces that come after you with physical violence if you don't comply.

I can license my property however I choose. If people don't want to use the license, they're free to not use my property.

Don't confuse real property (like my computer) and "intellectual property" (like your silly claim to the pattern of 1's and 0's on my computer). Read Stephan Kinsella.

Yes, I will avoid your restrictive software, because I want to support genuinely free software instead. But this is even worse than proprietary software, which of course I avoid as well. At least they don't pollute the noosphere with restrictive code, and don't claim that it's "free as in freedom!"

If i start a project and want to release it as GPL v2 then i expect you to only use it in your project if that is also GPL.

If you release your project under a restrictive license (I recommend using copyfree.org's definition on where to draw the line), then some fraction of people will avoid it.

• Genuinely free OS/distro projects (ex. OpenBSD, FreeBSD, etc) won't be able to add it to base (like they had to rewrite rsync, git, and many other things).

• If you write a GPL library in a programming language that has license standards, that means it can't ever be added to the standard library. (For example, all of D's stdlib is Boost license, Nim is MIT, Rust is "Apache2 || MIT", etc.) Instead of helping that language, you just create a copyright threat to someone who'll write a genuinely free variant of that library...

• You are less likely to get a corporate sugar-daddy (like PostgreSQL's EnterpriseDB) - they're more likely to go with a freer competitor that would let them release their innovations on their own terms.

This means you get a less users, code contributions, bug reports, financial donations, employers to hire you as a consultant, book sales, etc.

There are no advantages to copyLEFT. No one (except Stalinman) has ever avoided a project because it was copyFREE.

I agree with most of this except net neutrality bit. You dumb fucks don't fucking get it, honestly. And if you don't get it after all these years, then you deserve what's coming to you on that one.

Yes, us people who understand basic economics and basic telecommunications technology are sooo stupid... Your insults and ignorant claims are certainly very persuasive...

Net Neutrality is about ISPs not being able to stifle YOUR freedom of speech.

That is the cheese in the mousetrap. Notice how nations where the government regulates everything (ex. North Korea) are especially free...

To not be able to block FOX news, for example, because they don't like FOX's political stance.

Noob Alert!

Your primary ISPs (the ones that know who or where you are) shouldn't even know if you're accessing FoxNews.com or YaayCommunism.edu or KittyPron.tv or whatever else!

All they know is that packets go through them between your device and other devices that presumably can be hopped to downstream over the Internet. If those packets are encrypted, they don't know what they contain. If you aren't a total noob, given your stated concerns, you should obviously be using a proxy (a VPN, Tor, etc), so then your ISP don't know where those packets originate. They only need to know the most proximate hop. Adding dozens of hops only adds a few milliseconds of latency.

There are many competing VPNs, proxies, etc all over the world, with prices falling ever-lower and many already offering a "free tier" that anyone can use. (If you're real smart, you run your own VPN network on multiple rented servers all over the world, etc. Heck, these days any $20 phone can relay Internet traffic! But that's a whole nother topic.)

It would take zillions of dollars in computational power for them to break that crypto and find out what you've been doing (only governments may be able to waste that much money), but it's definitely impossible to do that in real time in order to block or selectively throttle content...

And all service providers should also know that if they don't deliver good performance you'll just go to their competition!

This is especially easy with throwing photons over the electromagnetic spectrum. I'm using 4G right now, sitting in the middle of the woods with a laptop, and the connection is awesome. Unlimited 4G costs $50/month, and it will get faster and cheaper. Without government stifling innovation with wired monopolies (which """net neutrality""" entrenches), there'd be a lot more better wireless alternatives, including satellite.

To make sure the internet isn't turned into a "pay-per-channel" shitshow that Cable has turned into.

I wouldn't know, I stopped paying for TV as soon as I was able to download video over the Internet (late 90s)... But maybe some retards want a "'pay-per-channel' shitshow" - who are you to hold a gun to their head and say they can't have it?

What I want is a free market in ISPs and VPS providers, with no one having power. All links in a network must be easily replaceable - that's how the Internet was created in the first place. Trust no one!

No blind faith that "Mommy Government is infinitely trustworthy, incorruptible, and would never hurt or censor anyone..." 🙄

Copyleft, the same thing - The whole point of it is so that corporations cannot just sit greedily on top of software developments made by people slurping up their changes while releasing none of their own back to the project.

Yup, another example of cheese in the mousetrap over which you sell your soul to government power.

"Free market is to scawwy, someone might copy free software and sell their innovations, oh horror!!!1"

If you're against these things, it doesn't make you anti-left. It makes you pro-corporate-nation. I for one, do not wish for corporations to control the nation.

First of all, a government is also a corporation - except with a monopoly on violence, nukes, and trillions in liabilities backed by your future enslavement... And, apparently, your total blind faith...

I want a zillion nations, with many competing for my investment and patronage. (Some of course will be whites-only ethnostates, or just for Orthodox Jews, Zulus, Hungarians, lesbian furies, whatever.) Some will be on land, some will be seasteads, and some will be space-stations (someday). Some nations will provide Mommy Government owned or regulated ISPs, which people who voluntarily choose to live in that nation seem to trust (ex "own the Last Mile"). Some nations will be primitivist, like Tolkin's Shire. But plenty of sane nations will have free market competition between wired and wireless ISPs. And I will obviously choose what is in my own interest.

What I prefer is international non-profit organizations, like the free software projects we're discussing. Capitalism doesn't have to be for-profit.

People can write software for lots of different reasons:

• Getting paid to write code is awesome, obviously!

• Before you can make money you have to spend thousands of hours learning, improving, and proving you are the kind of person people wanna hire to write code. This is where having successful submissions or your own free software projects is very helpful.

• People write software for their own needs and enjoyment. Releasing it with source means free oversight, suggestions, bug-fixes, ideas, etc.

• Participating in free software projects means working and socializing with smart like-minded people, and earning their respect - which is more enjoyable than dealing with less smart less like-minded people elsewhere...

• Contributing to some library projects (ex SQLite) means your code will run on Billions of devices used by Billions of people - how awesome is that! Epic bragging rights!

Experience has proven that the "you MUST give us your code" ideology and government force do far more harm than good.

• 80% of Jews are leftists.

• 19.999995% of Jews are Zionists.

• 0.000005% of Jews are real libertarians (just me). 😵

Are you against copyleft? If so, why?

Yes, very much against! (I see that you didn't read the original post very thoroughly, much less the links therein...)

CopyLEFT is hypocritical (freedom through restriction), dangerous (automagical contracts backed by government force), and destructive (lots of people had to reinvent the wheel to avoid it).

The only ones who benefit from it are leftist hijackers and lawyers!

RMS foresaw that merely releasing software under a Free licence would be insufficient, as it would be "consumed" by proprietary projects, and the Free ecosystem he had in mind would not materialize.

And he was proven 100.000% wrong!

Proprietary software that "consumed" copyfree components didn't destroy any value - they've added value on top of it, which they should be free sell on their own terms. They are selling their own additions, not the parts they've copied, which anyone is still free to copy. This creates a "positive-feedback cycle" between free and proprietary software (which creates faster feature innovation and jobs that paid bills for programmers who later contributed free code).

Many industry standards (ex. TCP/IP, sqlite, icu, zlib, jpg, png, etc) happened mainly because there was a genuinely free implementation that everyone could copy.

The GPL projects that are commonly used are generally old, carried by the momentum of their viral license. Newer and better projects tend to use copyfree licenses instead, including the new BSD license, MIT, Boost, Unlicense, etc. (Also note that, while licenses like Apache, Python, and Zlib fall short of the copyfree standard, they are NOT copyleft either. A lot of software, like Rust, uses Apache in an OR relationship with MIT or equivalent, which makes it copyfree.)

Lack of copyLEFT didn't hurt Apache / Nginx, Python / NodeJS, Bitcoin, libBitTorrent, Redis, Tor, Docker, IPFS, OpenCV, etc, etc, etc. It's now a commonly repeating pattern of a copyFREE project coming from behind and catching up to / leapfrogging an older copyLEFT project: Zsh over Bash, PostgreSQL over MySQL, Vim / VSCode / Nodepad2 over Emacs, Chromiuim-based browsers over Firefox, LLVM / Clang / Rust / Go / etc over GCC, etc, etc, etc. One major exception is the Linux kernel, even though several good BSD kernels are available, because kernels have additional lock-in effects that make it difficult to switch.

Look at what is happening with the "open core" abomination, the phenomenon where Free software projects, such as OSM (Open Street Map), have their work used by parasitical, proprietary software.

Your unfounded criticism of the "open-core model" has nothing to do with this topic, because the majority of those projects actually use (A)GPL(v3) and other restrictive licenses I'm criticizing! OSM's ODbL license is copyLEFT!

You couldn't even provide a single example of copyFREE software (or any business models that Stallman's restrictive legalese supposedly fights against) doing any harm!

"Federal Court Proves GPL Is Tool Of Corporate Hegemony" --SoftwareLiberationFront.org

Essentially, the Free software is left and then desirable features are added to the project as proprietary code.

Free software is COPIED, and the proprietary code is CREATED. If those companies didn't add value, nobody would do business with them - duh!

What is so bad about EnterpriseDB helping businesses switch from Oracle to PostgreSQL? They sell their additions and support, and many of those businesses can eventually transition to pure PostgreSQL. It results in PostgreSQL getting more attention, usage, expertise, market credibility, innovation ideas / add-ons, code donations, financial donations, infrastructure donations, etc.

What's so bad about Apple / Sony / Nintendo / etc basing their products on real Unix that people are familiar with? Reinventing the wheel is bad for standards, security, interoperability, learning curve, etc...

Anyway, to have been involved in this issue for so long, you must once have been an ardent FSF enthusiast. I wonder what it was that turned you elsewhere?

I have been and remain a computer freedom enthusiast for about 25 years. I just hate to see the cause of freedom being hijacked to promote government force (including copyright / copyleft, automagical contracts, """net neutrality""" regulations, """nazi""" censorship, etc, etc, etc).

If you like Delphi's syntax, you'll love Nim. Unlike Delphi, Nim is 100% free open source software, no legal strings attached.

Good code navigation / editing / debugging experience with vscode or vim. Doesn't have a GUI builder yet though, but I think it can leverage things like QML...

I didn't say it was. It's like comparing a kiddie tricycle to a $10,000 racing bike. Everyone using vim will tell you it's a huge productivity boost.

I've seen people who aren't smart enough to use Notepad - that is not an argument in favor of Notepad.

Using Emacs isn't a major intellectual achievement. You can just type without worrying about things like modes. It has a GUI, with menus. That's how a lot of idiots use it, to pretend they're smart.

It takes a lot more brains to use (neo)vim or kakoune.