Yet another FUCK RICHARD STALLMAN rant, because that communist hijacker still isn't getting as much hate as it deserves!
2 30 Sep 2019 20:55 by u/libman
What pisses me off most about the Richard Stallman "pedophilia" story is that it destructs from all the other reasons to hate that lying communist hijacker of genuine software freedom!
Some examples:
-
He shit on Bitcoin as "anti-socialist"!
-
He even attacked Obama for not being far-enough left!
-
He advocates dysgenics / human extinction, and attacks colleagues who have children!
-
He wanted to cripple Unix user security, because Marxism.
-
He of course wants the government to have a total power monopoly, with no individual right to self-defense.
-
He attacks intergovernmental competition (the last remaining engine of freedom), and even wants collusion between US states so there is no escape from the high taxes and growth of government power.
-
He of course wants government regulation of the Internet (sold as """net neutrality""").
-
He of course wants open borders and denying technology to ICE.
-
He shit on LLVM, because it's becoming better than GCC (which he didn't himself write, BTW) and doesn't use a restrictive license.
-
He shit on OpenBSD, the excuse being that it allows installing proprietary software.
-
He shit on Tcl/Tk (and by extension all modern scripting languages) and its creator (and by extension all value-added proprietary additions built on top of genuinely free software).
-
Contrary to popular belief, Stallman is not himself a good programmer (in contrast to some of the aforementioned people he attacked). He is a hijacker, not a coder. He can't even maintain his own incompetently-designed Web-site. He re-implemented some existing software (including BSD Unix) as GPL, which was decades ago, but almost all of the work has been done by others. A genuinely free software stack (based on BSD Unix) would not want a single line of code that he's written.
-
He actually "never installed GNU/Linux" himself - why waste time learning things, pushing left-wing politics is much more important...
Random quote:
Dear Richard Matthew Stallman,
Fuck you for telling people they can't combine GNU and Sun open source software. Fuck you for telling people they can't share something with other people without also getting a fucking webhosting account for several years. Fuck you and your legions of zombie cultists who call me evil for distributing free/libre/open source software. I will not punch you, but I'd consider it a suitable apology if you would go die in a fire.
People who care about software freedom have always preferred genuinely free / "copyFREE" software. "copyLEFT" has been the software industry's dog-whistle for left-wing politics (long before they started using CoCs as well).
Stallmanites believe that businesses are evil, and should be forced to release their source code for free - among many other things. They're very happy to use government regulation for this purpose, and they use their fame to do so at every opportunity, but long ago they've found a shortcut - attaching dirty restrictive licenses to software that they claim to be "free".
Restrictive licenses like GPL have slowed down the acceptance of open source software by businesses in the 90s, and it continues to create legal FUD to this very day. Microsoft called it a "cancer". This slowed down their plans to make for progressively more restrictive GPLv3, GPLv4, etc (with all rights of course denied to """nazis""" like us). Nearly all successful new projects used by businesses have avoided copyLEFT (although this includes the Apache license, which falls a little bit short of the copyFREE standard). Apple switching from Bash to Zsh is just the latest example.
I believe that free software is a natural market phenomenon (competition driving price to zero, where utility and egoboo become sufficient creator incentives), with no need for government force. I was proven right as ever-more businesses contribute to free software, and (despite the viral momentum of old GPL projects) permissive licenses now dominate.
I also consider automagical "contracts" (like GPL is now being sold as) to be a very dangerous thing - did you just sign away your firstborn just by importing a library dependency or copying some bits?!
Further reading, just a few of my forum rants over the years:
- Software Philosophy (2009-11)
- Software Freedom Scale (2009-10)
- Legal Threats In Nimble Packages (2019).
- Libertarian Software Philosophy (2013-17, abandoned FB campaign)
- How does your political philosophy affect your software choices? (Voat)
24 comments
0 u/TheBuddha 30 Sep 2019 21:09
I posted some personal experiences with him, earlier today. They are in v/Linux, somewhere.
0 u/SearchVoatBot 30 Sep 2019 21:20
This submission was linked from this v/Linux comment by @RiverWind.
Posted automatically (#65967) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@libman: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @RiverWind)
0 u/RiverWind 30 Sep 2019 21:25
Are you against copyleft? If so, why? 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.
His concerns were shown to be well founded. 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. Essentially, the Free software is left and then desirable features are added to the project as proprietary code.
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?
0 u/scandalous-goat 30 Sep 2019 21:42
Are you against making money from your skills? Why give the fruit of your labor for free so your replacements (pajeets, womyn) can pretend to be able to do what they're asked? That's technological marxism.
0 u/libman [OP] 01 Oct 2019 00:08
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.
0 u/libman [OP] 30 Sep 2019 22:54
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!
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.
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
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...
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).
0 u/TheCompanionCube 01 Oct 2019 01:38
I agree. 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 i don't care what happens to it then ill use MIT license or public domain.
0 u/libman [OP] 01 Oct 2019 13:53
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.
0 u/thantik 01 Oct 2019 00:33
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.
Net Neutrality is about ISPs not being able to stifle YOUR freedom of speech. To not be able to block FOX news, for example, because they don't like FOX's political stance. To make sure the internet isn't turned into a "pay-per-channel" shitshow that Cable has turned into.
0 u/libman [OP] 01 Oct 2019 13:24
Yes, us people who understand basic economics and basic telecommunications technology are sooo stupid... Your insults and ignorant claims are certainly very persuasive...
That is the cheese in the mousetrap. Notice how nations where the government regulates everything (ex. North Korea) are especially free...
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.
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..." 🙄
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"
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.
0 u/thantik 01 Oct 2019 13:53
The NOOB ALERT here should be you. It's trivial for ISPs to block and outright just simply detect encryption, and disconnect it. Net Neutrality disallows that.
0 u/libman [OP] 01 Oct 2019 15:54
I've been a programmer for 20 years. I made especially good money in the IT Security industry before I became a tax resister...
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.
That is not a fact. That is blind faith that a hungry wolf (government) will guard your hen-house for all eternity.
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.
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
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.
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"...
Exactly. Coming from you.
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.
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!"
0 u/thantik 01 Oct 2019 17:06
SSL certs are easily bypassed, I also work as a programmer in the IT Security industry. Since...age 18 or so, so nearly as long as you. I've gone to DEFCON for the past decade, and also help run the local LUG. I started with Windows NT, and ran somewhere close to 100 domains prior to ditching the entire industry. (Because it's so damn hard to imagine that people could be as dumb as they are when you're the one who has to fix their problems)
The government is an enforcement agency. If you want laws, then you have to have someone with the power to enforce them. You're using a pretty obvious kafka trap as an argument here. If you want "free market capitalism", you have to have laws which keep those companies from just simply killing each other. You have to have rules.
Unfettered capitalism results in a single entity owning everything and becoming your government. Except their primary concern isn't you, it's how they can milk you.
I also work with Ad-hoc networks in the IT field. LoRA is currently the closest thing we have to widespread ad-hoc networks like you explain, and it's limited (severely) in bandwidth. Come on, you can do better than this. You know this shit already.
That's fine. Continue supporting "genuinely free software". I'll continue supporting copyleft licenses, because I've benefited from them in the company that I run. My work has likewise, benefited others.
And I agree with you on regulatory capture. Lots of these large corporations have used the government as a tool to stifle competition. Net neutrality is also a prime protector of that very thing. It says that Comcast, for example, cannot throttle Netflix because Comcast happens to be trying to bring up their own movie-streaming service. It forces corporations to stop violating the rights of others. None of these places would exist without the government and right-of-way laws. Nobody would have been able to build "the internet" in the first place if it weren't for those laws which we granted the government the ability to license.
0 u/J_Darnley 02 Oct 2019 09:03
I wholly support Free Software, the GPL, and Copyleft software. I see it as a means to an end of severely reducing or maybe even eliminating copyright. Don't like the license? Don't use the software.
0 u/libman [OP] 02 Oct 2019 21:42
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!
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!
Proprietary software is very easy to avoid. Avoiding restrictively licensed software is a lot harder...
0 u/J_Darnley 03 Oct 2019 09:57
The GPL does not restrict what a user can do with the software. For example it does not prevent use in Iran, Cuba, or North Korea like (not that I care about them). You can use it to build nuclear missiles if you want. (I recall that Apple has that comical restriction on its software.) A user of GPL software does not have to agree to any terms of it to use it, because there aren't any. Any software which shows an "agree to this license to continue" box and shows the user the GPL is doing it wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
0 u/libman [OP] 04 Oct 2019 23:09
That's obviously false. The difference between GPL and copyfree licenses is GPL's restriction.
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.
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 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.
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?!
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.
It's a terrible hypocrisy, and it sets terrible precedents.
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!
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.
How you "accidentally include GPL software" depends on the programming language. It's the
importkeyword 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!
0 u/libman [OP] 02 Oct 2019 22:50
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
You'll find my posts about those issues elsewhere.
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.
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.
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...
That's what in psychology we call a "word salad".
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.
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.
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?
You are entitled to your (demonstrably false) opinions.
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 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.
0 u/skullfuku 08 Oct 2019 07:44
RMS is an autismcel and (((lisp))) Kaspar Hauser who spent most of his life in MIT's basement. He has a vague understanding that he does not fit in and desperately cosplays as a real human for more cringe. His political stance was molded by MIT, a breeding ground for communism, degeneracy, and a magnet for jewry. RMS is a genius programmer and posix nerd, but he clearly overdosed the MIT kool-aid. RMS never got over the loss of his beloved pdp-10 at an early age, because the platform was abolished by DEC in favor of the vax, which RMS hated.. He is also frustrated by the fact that the bad guys keep winning, like Symbolics in 1984 and Microsoft in 1995. Also note that most people believe RMS is a retarded sidekick of Linus Torvalds, what he actually is, because Torvalds is less of an asspie and thus a better politician, leader and marketer, thereby out-jewing (((RMS))) as a genetic finoswede. So there he is, RMS, at the end of a life sentence without parole and without a bathtub, advocating degeneracy as if he weren't a complete incel while travelling the world dressed like Merkel at a barbeque. Perhaps you guys hate the man less if you understand his tragic past. RMS habitually makes it easy for enemies (most people) to quotemine his public utterances, thereby rendering him more batshit crazy than Noam Chomsky, also in the MIT asylum for the comically insane. (Noam Chomsky does not eat his own foot funghus in public and limits his talks to two hours.)
0 u/libman [OP] 09 Oct 2019 02:04
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...
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!
0 u/8NA5SWF92O 08 Oct 2019 17:38
On the RMS character assassination campaign: https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/
0 u/libman [OP] 09 Oct 2019 01:33
Fuck you, I've been exposing this scumbag for decades!