Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #318502 > unrolled thread

Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" bullshit.

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" bullshit. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-09-01 23:44 +0000
    Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" bullshit. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-02 00:08 +0000
      Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" bullshit. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-02 04:50 +0000
        Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" bullshit. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-09-02 08:14 +0000
          Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" bullshit. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 10:20 +0200
            Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" bullshit. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-02 05:04 -0700
              Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 14:28 +0200
                Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-02 05:33 -0700
                Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-02 07:35 -0500
                  Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-02 20:45 -0400
                    Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 08:44 +0200
                      Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-03 10:58 -0500
                        Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-03 11:44 -0500
                      Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit. ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 00:03 +0000
                        Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-04 06:52 -0500
                    Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit. "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-03 09:02 -0400
                      Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit. sbd <sbd.pambu@safe-mail.net> - 2015-09-04 09:57 -0300
                        Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-04 09:16 -0500
                Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-09-02 19:34 +0000
                  Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction"Snit-shit. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 23:09 +0200
                    Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction"Snit-shit. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 01:10 +0200
                      Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction"Snit-shit. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 01:46 +0200
                        Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction"Snit-shit. ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 23:47 +0000
                    Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction"Snit-shit. ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 23:40 +0000
                Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-03 10:56 -0500
                  Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-09-04 00:56 +0000
                    Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-04 11:22 -0500
                      Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction"Snit-shit. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-04 09:46 -0700
            Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" bullshit. ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 12:45 +0000
              Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snitshit. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 16:09 +0200
              Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" bullshit. "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-02 10:33 -0400
                Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" bullshit. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-02 17:26 +0000
                  Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" bullshit. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 10:40 -0700
          Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" bullshit. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-02 06:47 -0500
            Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" bullshit. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-02 05:13 -0700
          Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction"bullshit. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-02 04:54 -0700
    Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" bullshit. deep - 2015-09-01 18:36 -0600
    Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" bullshit. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 08:41 -0700
      Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" bullshit. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-09-02 19:38 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#318502 — Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" bullshit.

"productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction".

What idiot came up with that?

More important are security, reliability, and performance.  "Secure, 
reliable, rapid" is how Linux works -- unlike other operating systems.

For example, let's talk about Security:

http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/09/sneaky-adware-caught-accessing-
users-mac-keychain-without-permission/

Oh, let's look at a quote from the article:

 _ _ _ _ _ _ _
"What they're basically doing is using provided system calls to get the 
location of the [permission] window and the location of the OK button in 
the window," Thomas Reed, Malwarebytes' director of Mac offerings, told 
Ars. "Then they're simulating a mouse click. I'm surprised nobody thought 
of that before."
 _ _ _ _ _ _ _

It just goes to show that "those who don't understand Unix are doomed to 
re-invent it".

In this case, "visgrep" from xautomation can be used to find an "OK" 
button in a dialog so that a mouse click can be synthesized to click on 
the button.

So gee, "nobody ever thought of that before", huh?

# grep Copyright visgrep.c
 *  Copyright (c) 2002 Steve Slaven, All Rights Reserved.

Conclusion:  Apple needs to hire some intelligent, knowledgeable, and 
*devious* people to examine their security -- because if they don't 
figure this out, other people will.  Too many security issues are 
slipping through their QA -- and what is worse, they are sometimes slow 
to patch the problems.

That's it for security -- next up is "reliability", where I'll probably 
outline why my Win7 system won't run updates anymore, despite all the 
corrective actions (including "aggressive") taken from instructions in 
the MSFT KB.

-- 
 -v

Pax.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#318507

vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
> "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction".

> What idiot came up with that?

> More important are security, reliability, and performance.  "Secure, 
> reliable, rapid" is how Linux works -- unlike other operating systems.

My old OpenBSD tshirt from the late 90's says "Free, Functional, Secure
-- Choose Three"  (Dufus gave me the idea for this almost-top-post).

> For example, let's talk about Security:

> http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/09/sneaky-adware-caught-accessing-
> users-mac-keychain-without-permission/

> Oh, let's look at a quote from the article:

>  _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> "What they're basically doing is using provided system calls to get the 
> location of the [permission] window and the location of the OK button in 
> the window," Thomas Reed, Malwarebytes' director of Mac offerings, told 
> Ars. "Then they're simulating a mouse click. I'm surprised nobody thought 
> of that before."
>  _ _ _ _ _ _ _

> It just goes to show that "those who don't understand Unix are doomed to 
> re-invent it".

> In this case, "visgrep" from xautomation can be used to find an "OK" 
> button in a dialog so that a mouse click can be synthesized to click on 
> the button.

How does xautomation compare with xdotool?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#318548

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/1/15, 5:08 PM, in article srmvnc83.dji@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

>> vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
>>> "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction".
>> 
>>> What idiot came up with that?
>> 
>>> More important are security, reliability, and performance.  "Secure,
>>> reliable, rapid" is how Linux works -- unlike other operating systems.
>> 
>> My old OpenBSD tshirt from the late 90's says "Free, Functional, Secure
>> -- Choose Three"  (Dufus gave me the idea for this almost-top-post).

>     Desktop Linux: when you do not care about how productive or efficient
>     you are and your errors mean nothing to you.

> I find that a bit sad that this is the view of the "advocates".

Do you even read a post before responding to it?  It's sad when your
socks are more interesting than you are.  Where *is* Thelma, anyway? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#318563

On Wed, 02 Sep 2015 04:50:57 +0000, owl wrote:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 9/1/15, 5:08 PM, in article srmvnc83.dji@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>> vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
>>>> "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction".
>>> 
>>>> What idiot came up with that?
>>> 
>>>> More important are security, reliability, and performance.  "Secure,
>>>> reliable, rapid" is how Linux works -- unlike other operating
>>>> systems.
>>> 
>>> My old OpenBSD tshirt from the late 90's says "Free, Functional,
>>> Secure -- Choose Three"  (Dufus gave me the idea for this
>>> almost-top-post).
> 
>>     Desktop Linux: when you do not care about how productive or
>>     efficient you are and your errors mean nothing to you.
> 
>> I find that a bit sad that this is the view of the "advocates".
> 
> Do you even read a post before responding to it?  It's sad when your
> socks are more interesting than you are.  Where *is* Thelma, anyway?

I wiggled the bait -- he bit.  Now let's see how he likes his crow:

"Productivity" and "efficiency" are subsets of "performance."

"Error-reduction" is a subset of "reliability".

These terms do not inclusively describe the best way to approach 
computing.  In this order:

Security:  Because if your task isn't secure, then nothing you do is safe 
from being tampered with -- or stolen.

Reliability: Because if your task fails on you, then you fail. (duh).

Performance: Only now do you worry about getting the job done in a timely 
fashion.  That doesn't mean it isn't important (I _said_ it was), but 
Security and Reliability are more important.

Here ends the lesson.

-- 
 -v

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#318566

vallor wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Sep 2015 04:50:57 +0000, owl wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/1/15, 5:08 PM, in article srmvnc83.dji@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>>> vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
>>>>> "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction".
>>>> 
>>>>> What idiot came up with that?
>>>> 
>>>>> More important are security, reliability, and performance.  "Secure,
>>>>> reliable, rapid" is how Linux works -- unlike other operating
>>>>> systems.
>>>> 
>>>> My old OpenBSD tshirt from the late 90's says "Free, Functional,
>>>> Secure -- Choose Three"  (Dufus gave me the idea for this
>>>> almost-top-post).
>> 
>>>     Desktop Linux: when you do not care about how productive or
>>>     efficient you are and your errors mean nothing to you.
>> 
>>> I find that a bit sad that this is the view of the "advocates".
>> 
>> Do you even read a post before responding to it?  It's sad when your
>> socks are more interesting than you are.  Where *is* Thelma, anyway?
> 
> I wiggled the bait -- he bit.  Now let's see how he likes his crow:
> 
> "Productivity" and "efficiency" are subsets of "performance."
> 
> "Error-reduction" is a subset of "reliability".
> 
> These terms do not inclusively describe the best way to approach
> computing.  In this order:
> 
> Security:  Because if your task isn't secure, then nothing you do is safe
> from being tampered with -- or stolen.
> 
> Reliability: Because if your task fails on you, then you fail. (duh).
> 
> Performance: Only now do you worry about getting the job done in a timely
> fashion.  That doesn't mean it isn't important (I _said_ it was), but
> Security and Reliability are more important.
> 
> Here ends the lesson.
> 

Doubtful that Snit Michael Glasser will understand any of it.
After all, he is the most incompetent "IT teacher" of all time

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#318573

On 9/2/15, 1:20 AM, in article ms6bdk$sfm$2@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> vallor wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 02 Sep 2015 04:50:57 +0000, owl wrote:
>> 
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/1/15, 5:08 PM, in article srmvnc83.dji@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
>>>>>> "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction".
>>>>> 
>>>>>> What idiot came up with that?
>>>>> 
>>>>>> More important are security, reliability, and performance.  "Secure,
>>>>>> reliable, rapid" is how Linux works -- unlike other operating
>>>>>> systems.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My old OpenBSD tshirt from the late 90's says "Free, Functional,
>>>>> Secure -- Choose Three"  (Dufus gave me the idea for this
>>>>> almost-top-post).
>>> 
>>>>     Desktop Linux: when you do not care about how productive or
>>>>     efficient you are and your errors mean nothing to you.
>>> 
>>>> I find that a bit sad that this is the view of the "advocates".
>>> 
>>> Do you even read a post before responding to it?  It's sad when your
>>> socks are more interesting than you are.  Where *is* Thelma, anyway?
>> 
>> I wiggled the bait -- he bit.  Now let's see how he likes his crow:
>> 
>> "Productivity" and "efficiency" are subsets of "performance."
>> 
>> "Error-reduction" is a subset of "reliability".
>> 
>> These terms do not inclusively describe the best way to approach
>> computing.  In this order:
>> 
>> Security:  Because if your task isn't secure, then nothing you do is safe
>> from being tampered with -- or stolen.
>> 
>> Reliability: Because if your task fails on you, then you fail. (duh).
>> 
>> Performance: Only now do you worry about getting the job done in a timely
>> fashion.  That doesn't mean it isn't important (I _said_ it was), but
>> Security and Reliability are more important.
>> 
>> Here ends the lesson.
>> 
> 
> Doubtful that Snit Michael Glasser will understand any of it.
> After all, he is the most incompetent "IT teacher" of all time

I understand quite well how he shot himself in the foot.

    Desktop Linux: when you do not care about how productive or
    efficient you are and your errors mean nothing to you.

A motto for desktop Linux based on vallor's words.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#318578 — Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit.

The liyng imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:

> On 9/2/15, 1:20 AM, in article ms6bdk$sfm$2@dont-email.me, "Peter
> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> vallor wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 02 Sep 2015 04:50:57 +0000, owl wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 9/1/15, 5:08 PM, in article srmvnc83.dji@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>> vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction".
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What idiot came up with that?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> More important are security, reliability, and performance.  "Secure,
>>>>>>> reliable, rapid" is how Linux works -- unlike other operating
>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My old OpenBSD tshirt from the late 90's says "Free, Functional,
>>>>>> Secure -- Choose Three"  (Dufus gave me the idea for this
>>>>>> almost-top-post).
>>>> 
>>>>>     Desktop Linux: when you do not care about how productive or
>>>>>     efficient you are and your errors mean nothing to you.
>>>> 
>>>>> I find that a bit sad that this is the view of the "advocates".
>>>> 
>>>> Do you even read a post before responding to it?  It's sad when your
>>>> socks are more interesting than you are.  Where *is* Thelma, anyway?
>>> 
>>> I wiggled the bait -- he bit.  Now let's see how he likes his crow:
>>> 
>>> "Productivity" and "efficiency" are subsets of "performance."
>>> 
>>> "Error-reduction" is a subset of "reliability".
>>> 
>>> These terms do not inclusively describe the best way to approach
>>> computing.  In this order:
>>> 
>>> Security:  Because if your task isn't secure, then nothing you do is
>>> safe from being tampered with -- or stolen.
>>> 
>>> Reliability: Because if your task fails on you, then you fail. (duh).
>>> 
>>> Performance: Only now do you worry about getting the job done in a
>>> timely
>>> fashion.  That doesn't mean it isn't important (I _said_ it was), but
>>> Security and Reliability are more important.
>>> 
>>> Here ends the lesson.
>>> 
>> 
>> Doubtful that Snit Michael Glasser will understand any of it.
>> After all, he is the most incompetent "IT teacher" of all time
> 
> I understand quite well how he shot himself in the foot.

Except he did not

>     Desktop Linux: when you do not care about how productive or
>     efficient you are and your errors mean nothing to you.

Those fruits are hanging really high, yes
Too bad that OSX users don't stand a chance to ever get them

> A motto for desktop Linux based on vallor's words.
> 

Idiotic cretin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#318580 — Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit.

On 9/2/15, 5:28 AM, in article ms6puq$hs6$1@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

>>> Doubtful that Snit Michael Glasser will understand any of it.
>>> After all, he is the most incompetent "IT teacher" of all time
>> 
>> I understand quite well how he shot himself in the foot.
> 
> Except he did not

Not that you understand, sure. Hence part of the reason you fear speaking of
technology so much and just resort to insults to try to hide your
humiliation.

>>     Desktop Linux: when you do not care about how productive or
>>     efficient you are and your errors mean nothing to you.
> 
> Those fruits are hanging really high, yes
> Too bad that OSX users don't stand a chance to ever get them

Ah, you hint at technology. Cool! Now give examples! Show it! Back your
claims.

Oh. You can't... so you will say you will not and will blame me.

I feel bad for you.

>> A motto for desktop Linux based on vallor's words.
> 
> Idiotic cretin

Wow, you decided one word was not enough to describe you!


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#318581 — Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit.

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

>> A motto for desktop Linux based on vallor's words.
>
>Idiotic cretin

I don't know what you hope to accomplish, replying to that shameless,
serially-lying troll.

-- 
"the Ardour dev hypocrite liar claims he writes 'free as in beer'
software, then forces you to pay for it"  -  DumFSck, lying
shamelessly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#318727 — Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit.

On 9/2/2015 8:35 AM, shitv wrote:

> "the Ardour dev hypocrite liar claims he writes 'free as in beer'
> software, then forces you to pay for it"  -  DumFSck, lying
> shamelessly



What's wrong, turd - can't stand the fact that the Ardour dev was a 
lying hypocrite who charged (and still charges) for his "Free" software?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#318753 — Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit.

DFS wrote:

> On 9/2/2015 8:35 AM, shitv wrote:
> 
>> "the Ardour dev hypocrite liar claims he writes 'free as in beer'
>> software, then forces you to pay for it"  -  DumFSck, lying
>> shamelessly
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong, turd - can't stand the fact that the Ardour dev was a
> lying hypocrite who charged (and still charges) for his "Free" software?

Pray tell: What part of "Free software" is too difficult for you?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#318809 — Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit.

On 2015-09-03, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>
>> On 9/2/2015 8:35 AM, shitv wrote:
>> 
>>> "the Ardour dev hypocrite liar claims he writes 'free as in beer'
>>> software, then forces you to pay for it"  -  DumFSck, lying
>>> shamelessly
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> What's wrong, turd - can't stand the fact that the Ardour dev was a
>> lying hypocrite who charged (and still charges) for his "Free" software?
>
> Pray tell: What part of "Free software" is too difficult for you?

   Nothing of course. He's being intentionally obtuse and knows better.

   Nothing stops you from selling Free Software.

   You can't relicense other people's code but that's just standard copyright.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#318815 — Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit.

JEDIDIAH wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>> some dumb fsck wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "the Ardour dev hypocrite liar claims he writes 'free as in beer'
>>>> software, then forces you to pay for it"  -  DumFSck, lying
>>>> shamelessly
>>> 
>>> What's wrong, turd - can't stand the fact that the Ardour dev was a
>>> lying hypocrite who charged (and still charges) for his "Free" software?
>>
>> Pray tell: What part of "Free software" is too difficult for you?
>
> Nothing of course. He's being intentionally obtuse and knows better.

It's an example of how the trolls will "double down" on their lies and
idiocy.

It is indisputable that DumFSck lied.  So, when confronted, the lying
dumb fsck just repeats the lie and later will claim that no one has
shown it lying!

No one is fooled.

-- 
"That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by Linux slopware."  -  DumFSck,
lying shamelessly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#318868 — Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit.

On Thu, 03 Sep 2015 08:44:16 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> DFS wrote:
> 
>> On 9/2/2015 8:35 AM, shitv wrote:
>> 
>>> "the Ardour dev hypocrite liar claims he writes 'free as in beer'
>>> software, then forces you to pay for it"  -  DumFSck, lying
>>> shamelessly
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> What's wrong, turd - can't stand the fact that the Ardour dev was a
>> lying hypocrite who charged (and still charges) for his "Free"
>> software?
> 
> Pray tell: What part of "Free software" is too difficult for you?

Does DooFuS really think he's being "creative" when he repeats the same 
lying shit for the 4 billionth time? Windows and OSX cause brain damage.

-- 
Zero tolerance for LYING WinDrones & iCultists

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#318923 — Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit.

ronb wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> DumFSck wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "the Ardour dev hypocrite liar claims he writes 'free as in beer'
>>>> software, then forces you to pay for it"  -  DumFSck, lying
>>>> shamelessly
>>> 
>>> What's wrong, turd - can't stand the fact that the Ardour dev was a
>>> lying hypocrite who charged (and still charges) for his "Free"
>>> software?
>> 
>> Pray tell: What part of "Free software" is too difficult for you?
>
>Does DooFuS really think he's being "creative" when he repeats the same 
>lying shit for the 4 billionth time? Windows and OSX cause brain damage.

It's the shitty world-view of the DumFSck.  A presumably decent,
honest software developer is a "hypocrite" and a "liar" because
(insert *lie* here).

It's no wonder why the Ezekreep likes and supports the dumb fsck.
Being around other shitty characters allows Kreep to feel "normal", as
he *lies* to attack decent, reasonable people of "hypocrisy".

-- 
'It's easy to hide behind some pedantic argument that "Linux is just a
kernel" or Linux is only an OS and doesn't manufacture anything.'  -
trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel", attacking Free software over the labor
practices of a company that happens to use it

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#318772 — Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit.

On 2015-09-02 8:45 PM, DFS wrote:
> On 9/2/2015 8:35 AM, shitv wrote:
> 
>> "the Ardour dev hypocrite liar claims he writes 'free as in beer'
>> software, then forces you to pay for it"  -  DumFSck, lying
>> shamelessly
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong, turd - can't stand the fact that the Ardour dev was a
> lying hypocrite who charged (and still charges) for his "Free" software?

It's free as long as people don't mind compiling from source. Binaries
require payment though as shown here <https://ardour.org/download.html>
so you are both correct.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#318929 — Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit.

On 09/03/2015 10:02 AM, A.M wrote:
> On 2015-09-02 8:45 PM, DFS wrote:
>> On 9/2/2015 8:35 AM, shitv wrote:
>>
>>> "the Ardour dev hypocrite liar claims he writes 'free as in beer'
>>> software, then forces you to pay for it"  -  DumFSck, lying
>>> shamelessly
>>
>>
>>
>> What's wrong, turd - can't stand the fact that the Ardour dev was a
>> lying hypocrite who charged (and still charges) for his "Free" software?
>
> It's free as long as people don't mind compiling from source. Binaries
> require payment though as shown here <https://ardour.org/download.html>
> so you are both correct.
>

Very wrong! no need to compile from source. It is available free as in 
beer from my distro repository.  I am sure it is available in other 
repositories as well.  Two clicks installs it.

Here is some educational material for the uneducated:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Selling Free Software
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you 
should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you 
should charge as little as possible—just enough to cover the cost. This 
is a misunderstanding.

Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge 
as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make 
copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. If this seems surprising 
to you, please read on.

The word “free” has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either 
to freedom or to price. When we speak of “free software”, we're talking 
about freedom, not price. (Think of “free speech”, not “free beer”.) 
Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, change 
the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes.

Free programs are sometimes distributed gratis, and sometimes for a 
substantial price. Often the same program is available in both ways from 
different places. The program is free regardless of the price, because 
users have freedom in using it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Some ignorant or ill-informed have wrong ideas about free software, this 
is understandable.  Others willfully perpetuate falsehoods against free 
software, the reasons are obvious.  Hint.....rubber room.
.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#318938 — Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit.

sbd wrote:

> Slime wrote:
>>
>> some dumb fsck wrote:
>>>
>>> What's wrong, turd - can't stand the fact that the Ardour dev was a
>>> lying hypocrite who charged (and still charges) for his "Free" software?

No one is "forced" to pay for it, LIAR.  It is legally available for
free, LIAR.  Anyone can freely share the source and/or binaries, LIAR.

>> It's free as long as people don't mind compiling from source. Binaries
>> require payment though as shown here <https://ardour.org/download.html>
>> so you are both correct.

Another ignorant asshole chimes-in, supporting his fellow LIAR.

>Very wrong! no need to compile from source. It is available free as in 
>beer from my distro repository.  I am sure it is available in other 
>repositories as well.  Two clicks installs it.

The trolling dipshits don't seem to realize that the FOSS world is
loaded with people who are willing to compile and organize things for
others, making the result freely available.

How far are their heads stuck up their asses, to not know this?

>Some ignorant or ill-informed have wrong ideas about free software, this 
>is understandable.  Others willfully perpetuate falsehoods against free 
>software, the reasons are obvious.  Hint.....rubber room.

As long as there is REAL CHOICE in a market, there is *nothing* wrong
with *anyone* putting a product or service out there, at *whatever*
price they want, and let the market decide if it's worth it or not.

-- 
'Find this mythological "free market".'  -  some piece of shit that
calls itself "GreyCloud"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#318671 — Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction" Snit-shit.

On Wed, 02 Sep 2015 14:28:55 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> The liyng imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
> 
>> On 9/2/15, 1:20 AM, in article ms6bdk$sfm$2@dont-email.me, "Peter
>> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> vallor wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 02 Sep 2015 04:50:57 +0000, owl wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/1/15, 5:08 PM, in article srmvnc83.dji@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction".
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> What idiot came up with that?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> More important are security, reliability, and performance. 
>>>>>>>> "Secure,
>>>>>>>> reliable, rapid" is how Linux works -- unlike other operating
>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> My old OpenBSD tshirt from the late 90's says "Free, Functional,
>>>>>>> Secure -- Choose Three"  (Dufus gave me the idea for this
>>>>>>> almost-top-post).
>>>>> 
>>>>>>     Desktop Linux: when you do not care about how productive or
>>>>>>     efficient you are and your errors mean nothing to you.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I find that a bit sad that this is the view of the "advocates".
>>>>> 
>>>>> Do you even read a post before responding to it?  It's sad when your
>>>>> socks are more interesting than you are.  Where *is* Thelma, anyway?
>>>> 
>>>> I wiggled the bait -- he bit.  Now let's see how he likes his crow:
>>>> 
>>>> "Productivity" and "efficiency" are subsets of "performance."
>>>> 
>>>> "Error-reduction" is a subset of "reliability".
>>>> 
>>>> These terms do not inclusively describe the best way to approach
>>>> computing.  In this order:
>>>> 
>>>> Security:  Because if your task isn't secure, then nothing you do is
>>>> safe from being tampered with -- or stolen.
>>>> 
>>>> Reliability: Because if your task fails on you, then you fail. (duh).
>>>> 
>>>> Performance: Only now do you worry about getting the job done in a
>>>> timely fashion.  That doesn't mean it isn't important (I _said_ it
>>>> was), but Security and Reliability are more important.
>>>> 
>>>> Here ends the lesson.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> Doubtful that Snit Michael Glasser will understand any of it. After
>>> all, he is the most incompetent "IT teacher" of all time
>> 
>> I understand quite well how he shot himself in the foot.
> 
> Except he did not
> 
>>     Desktop Linux: when you do not care about how productive or
>>     efficient you are and your errors mean nothing to you.
> 
> Those fruits are hanging really high, yes Too bad that OSX users don't
> stand a chance to ever get them
> 
>> A motto for desktop Linux based on vallor's words.
>> 
>> 
> Idiotic cretin

Another example of "Snit Michael Glasser" twisting words -- as predicted!

I can play that game too:

"Apple OS X:  Where security doesn't matter at all."
    -Snit Michael Glasser

(
Thanks to Steve for yet another pointer that illustrates this:

http://www.engadget.com/2015/09/02/mac-keychain-flaw/?
utm_medium=feed&utm_source=Feed_Classic&utm_campaign=Engadget&ncid=rss_semi
)
-- 
 -v
"Apple OS X:  Where security doesn't matter at all."
    -Snit Michael Glasser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#318688 — Re: Enough of this "productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction"Snit-shit.

Snit wrote:

> On 9/2/15, 12:34 PM, in article
> 55e74f42$0$58680$c3e8da3$88b277c5@news.astraweb.com, "vallor"
> <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
> 
> ...
>>> Idiotic cretin
>> 
>> Another example of "Snit Michael Glasser" twisting words -- as predicted!
>> 
>> I can play that game too:
>> 
>> "Apple OS X:  Where security doesn't matter at all."
>>     -Snit Michael Glasser
> 
> This is an outright lie from you. I have never said or suggested this in
> any way... and you are putting it in quotes. You are falsifying
> information.
> 
> In other words you are lying.

OK. Prove that you never said this. Until then, one has to assume you did, 
and that you are lying now

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web