Stop using harmful software

Stop using harmful software

Other urls found in this thread:

harmful.cat-v.org
brain-dump.org/projects/dvtm/
wiki.c2.com/?WhatIsNotInPlanNine
utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/unix/BSDExtendedDevelopment
gopherproxy.meulie.net/sdf.org/0/users/kickmule/unix/unix_haters_ml_2.txt
bellard.org/tcc/
gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

What does "harmful software" mean in this case?

(((Bloat)))

stop having harmful mental illnesses

/thread

Stop telling me what to do!
MY COMPUTER, MY CHOICE

no wonder he killed himself

C'mon lad

I still use Emacs to work, mostly because TRAMP and SQL mode helps a lot.
Simplicity, not only in technology, but in life itself is a worth goal.

Now, my doubt about OP's picture is how a file system hierarchy can be an alternative to SQL? You mean directories as tables and file as columns? Sure that can work, but the management would be hard when shared.
Also, I looked through cat-v, but they don't mention it too much. What's the opinion about Lisp, Scheme to be precise, it's my favorite language and I'm doing some small stuff with Chicken Scheme lately.

You know I always thought it was weird that they didn't talk about scheme it being very (((bloat))) free but I think they generally fall in line behind rob pike. I know he's mentioned it before, I can't find it now though.

...

Good points user. Tk is awesome though.
I'd like UTF-8 but with a charset of only the necessities, that'd be nice.

Uriel considered himself harmful.

Nah. These people were UTF-8 fanboys before emoji were even a thing. It's an invention from the Bell Labs-sphere.
They don't use any emoji or cute symbols. They have a different brand of autism.

Unicode is still harmful. The proper solution is either
1) going back to ASCII, then using HTML for fancy characters, foreign letters are not plain text just like colored ones aren't
or
2) remove RTL and everything except BMP from unicode (Arabic is saved as LTR and the text editor gets to handle conversion), then use UTF-16 like it was originally designed
or
3) fuck the japs and arabs, fit everything else (latin+cyrillic+european) into 8 bits
or
4) Big5, the white man's encoding (but with cyrillic and euro in SBCS, moving punctuation out to DBCS)

I've considered issue this a lot, because Unicode and the disgusting communists behind it makes me feel physically ill. I would rank them in order as 4>2>3>1.

Attention-Hungry Games 21 nominations has started:
>>>/sudo/64490

What's wrong with SVN?

...

Way to restrict the flow of information. If there was ever a way to implement Newspeak, these ways are the way to do it.

Unicode is not harmful.
People implementing optional symbols you don't like != Harmful software or standard

half the stuff there is just as shit

This guy.

sounds like FUD and not understanding APIs

Internal implementation, not API.

This is all Unix-centric, so it's kinda lame from the start. Not even a mention of Forth. Nothing about TempleOS/HolyC, or whatever it was called, Sparrow OS or something.
Just give me a Commodore 64 fam, or at least a CP/M box.

My bad I was mistaken. I don't know why I had in mind liblzma from XZ Utils, which leak on purpose for performance reasons. *pls no bully*

Well said, Aryan
t. Chinese

You can still run CP/M-86 on modern PC hardware.

Opinions discarded. Nobody who recommends ed as a text editor can be taken seriously.

For a limited time, until Intel gets rid of BIOS entirely. They already said it's going to happen soon. Then you won't be able to run DOS natively either.

The BIOS would not be a problem. You could get around it with a bootloader that maps a BIOS into RAM. The real problem is Intel's plans to get rid of protected mode and other legacy x86 features.

If he was such a græt philosopher shouldn't he have explained why such and such is harmful instead of screeching "I don't like this! REEEEEEE!!!"? What charachterizes a descent philospher is not being right but helping you think. Uriel just shouted HARMFUL at everything that didn't follow the suckless philosophy, it should exactly be considered a guide to choosing and developing software.

tl;dr: Advocating software minimalism is good, but good arguments should be made instead of insults and quote mining.

(Merry Christmas Eve to everyone and have a non-botnet new year!)

...

He did, though. You're looking at the deliberately memey inflammatory tabular version. harmful.cat-v.org has more if you click through.
I still don't agree with him.

Nothing like a vulcan canon to make them think!

I'm not a native English speaker either, but man could you at least look up words you're not sure how to spell.


two totally different beasts.

He wants software that requires super experts to use them. I personally believe that the computer exists to serve the user and not the other way around.

The exact opposite was the case. He wanted software that humans could understand fully. The more complexity you add to single parts, the more difficult it becomes to understand the whole system. He wanted to be in full control of his computer and not leave most of it to experts who each only understand a single part of it.

All software is harmful, all hardware is harmful as well, there is no escape

You ended a question with a period. To make that sentence grammatically correct, you'd have to remove the period & add a question mark or change it to "But man you could at least look up words you're not sure how to spell.".

Do you guys think Uriel would have liked Rust?

This is what I mean by a super expert. To have this level of control inherently means you want to know every part of the system. I believe that users should achieve their computing outcomes without the need to become such a super expert.

I have no idea how Uriel thought about it, but I think people who lack the ability to control their computer should not be in control of a networked general purpose computer. In the same way that we do not give cars or firearms or heavy equipment to retards. Let them have purpose built appliances that require no maintenance. And let us have sane and simple systems to do our work, and build their toys, and keep the world from falling apart.

If I was stuck using C, Go, awk, and rc, I would kill myself too.

No. Great Rust is always worse code than good C (presuming the C is well-written, obviously).

Posted from iPhone X.

You DO know Big5 is the worst encoding scheme ever invented, written by a bunch of DOS faggots, don't you? Due to some really brain-dead design decisions, Big5 has quite a few characters starting with the same code as special ASCII symbols used on Unix-like systems, such as "\" in escape sequences, "|" in shell pipes, and "%" in printf(), and it was a complete nightmare for Unix (a.k.a, real) webservers.

Even the outdated Shift-JIS is better. Ken Thompson designed UTF-8 to solve this exact problem.

False. The communists are behind GB2312, it didn't even include the character of their prime minister back in the 90s, and these cucks still refused to adopt proper UTF-8 as standard, even what they are doing now is to port more and more symbols from Unicode to this stupid encoding scheme instead, because they think UTF-8 is a foreign conspiracy to take over the control of the Chinese writing system. The latest GB18030 contains almost the entire Unified-Han CJK characters, copied and pasted from UTF-8.


This. Through all these history of insanity…

chicks, japs, and kimchi all made their epoch attempts, more than one time (more than 1 shitty encoding scheme for each of them), and their clever tricks all broke loose, just to say, today most Asians still believed the currency symbol, ¥, is separator of file path on Windows and the escape character for C programmers, for stupid reasons similar to Big5’s design, in comparison even the Euro-symbol issue becomes just a slight annoyance.

TL;DR, in the end, UTF-8 is the only standard encoding with the least number of problems to deal with (besides RTL and compound characters, which are not needed for most use cases.) if you want your program to work for every languages/symbols on proper systems. The point is you DON'T have to test them or even know them, if the program is in correct UTF-8, but chicks or japs complaint, it's now their problem.

"on proper systems", means it's not BOM, not UTF-16 or other counterfeits, like the so-called fake "utf8" encoding in MySQL that fooled so many web developers 'til today.


The shiity emoji comes only as a by-product because of this easy of supporting more symbols enabled by UTF-8.

In addition, if you explicitly don't want to make your program to work for all types of symbols (even if you don't have it test and implement it in a UTF-8 manner), perfectly fine, you are still free to use the plain-old ASCII (which is still a valid subset of UTF-8 ), or for your master race, you can use Latin-1 (aka ISO/IEC 8859-1), I think it's still a useful non-Unicode encoding.

>What does "harmful software" mean in this case?
Basically they are Unix Puritans who think HTTP/1.0, POSIX multi-lingual support, or even the early 4.2BSD ("cat -v"), is a divert from the True Unix Path. They are The Philosophers (TM), and they do make plenty of insightful comments about the history and current state of Unix, modern programs and software throughout cat-v.org, and surprisingly, some of them are correct. Such as bloat issue in general, programs that scream and die when they run out of memory regardless of the scenario, or the recommendation of UTF-8 or tmux (I don't mind returning to GNU/Screen if the development can be active again).

Good place to find obscure and good lightweight solutions, and to listen about the complaints of software development by these minimalists. But overall don't take them too seriously.

You have that world today! Plan 9 OS was made for people exactly like you! The rest of us have software that works without being experts. That's why I use Gnome.

Due to some really brain-dead design decisions, Unix has quite a few """special""" characters, such as "\" in escape sequences, "|" in shell pipes, "%" in printf(), "/" in paths, and "\0" as a string terminator.

The problem is with Unicode itself, not how the bits are converted into bytes. "Bit twiddling" encodings like UTF-8 don't fix it. It doesn't matter if it's UTF-128 or UTF-36.

Bullshit. Sage negated.

rustc includes the whole stdlib in the binary of a basic hello world program by default, so, no, Uriel would have probably considered Rust harmful.

It is, though.

He is not always consistent as I show with examples from his site. On his page "Words Can be Harmful"[1] he writes:

>

But XML is plaintext.

Just simply saying that these words are harmful doesn't achieve anything. It'd be better if he just said "Be careful when somebody says these words and be consistent when you use them. Always define them before using them." Using the shortcut "harmful" is just as ambigous. "Bloated", " unsafe", "not needed", " overly complex", "badly-designed", etc. He is a hypocrite with some legitimate concerns.

O(n) indexing is. Unicode contains harmful symbols. It also supports degenerate RTL and zero-width characters.

Big5 is a fantastic concept. Either single-width (ASCII) or double-width (foreign). Always O(1) indexing. The only issue is the structure. SBCS should have cyrillic latin and numbers, and punctuation in DBCS. But that's a minor problem. It still fares better than UTF16 for dumb monospace rendering.
Big5's wide characters have the high bit set, not sure what you're on about.
Shift-JIS is bad, doesn't have high bits for all in DBCS and yen symbol issue was a giant mistake.

wew lad

Then use an encoding with O(1) indexing.

Never, normalfag.

Agree. Unicode is cancer.

U R I E L W A S R I G H T
R
I
E
L
W
A
S
R
I
G
H
T


Mental illness breaks me free from normie faggotry you fucking nigger.

Yes.

Why do we need anything other than ASCII? The internet was an oppurtunity to unify language and we fucked it up.

Chinks and their fucktarded writing system. basically.

Chinese is literally the most retarded writing system in current use. Literally fucking HIEROGLYPHS.

...

Suckless > cat-v
These memers did some good software, at least. Ranting without doing anything won't give you any credibility.

...

It's really hard to tell if this is a failure of the writing system or the speaking system. It's such a horrific clusterfuck of the basic concepts of language itself: the communication of ideas from one person to another.

If chinese is the future i'm gonna kill myself right now.

You are arguing for Newspeak. Please don't do this.

yfw

I'm arguing against having 2 trillion different fucking characters because chinks can't learn english. Having just ASCII would prevent all the emoji cancer too.

You're lying my friend.

How am i lying?

Even if you are not lying, you are too stupid to use clear and precise language or you're intentionally being unclear. This means you are good level troll without even trying. Bravo my friend 8/10 you've got me good.

who's trolling whom in this thread?

Stop using harmful hardware

yes

whom's trolling who*

I think suckless.org runs on software cat-v wrote.

He lists Tmux > screen so no.
It seems the software he lists tend to be very flexible, accept input via simple pipes (no API or User input required, and tend to have atomic functionality that can be assembled into whatever the user wants in a robust way.

Vim's use of plugins and hard-coded user-input-only disqualifies it for example.

stop using laptops, notebooks, smartphones and everything else that isn't a powerful PC that weighs at least 10kg.

what are you homeless?

In that case, dvtm is better.
brain-dump.org/projects/dvtm/

Also web browser like Lynx shouldn't do networking itself, but instead use curl or wget, and only render the page and handle user input.

What the fuck? Do you even know what wget is? Do a line count of its man page. Read through its capabilities. Realize that it understands HTML.
Why would you want lynx to delegate webpage fetching to another web browser?

Well that's news to me. How exactly does wget render webpage on screen and manage user input? As far as I can tell, all it does is transfer data.
Now you're right that it's kind of bloated, and personally I'd go with OpenBSD's ftp client instead, but those (wget, curl) were just examples everyone is familiar with.

I guess calling it a web browser is exaggerating, but it can parse the data it retrieves and fetch additional files based on it, or rewrite it to make URLs point to local files, for example. It does a lot more than just transfer data.
It's not just kind of bloated, it shits all over the Unix philosophy (which is the way I like it). The kind of purism that says a web browser shouldn't fetch its own data doesn't belong near wget.

And gets you straight into low functioning autism faggotry, nigger.

I only have autism cause my parents wanted autismbux you niggerfaggot.

Perhaps it's a reference to the use of BLOBs to store files in SQL RDBMS, when convention holds that's what filesystems were made for, and the proper way is to store a pointer to the file.

I'm not sure how this compares in reality. I suspect that under the hood, the RDBMS is actually doing the file & pointer thing anyway.

Wget2 is in line with the unix philosophy. It splits out libwget, so in theory someone could build a web browser using its http functions.

UNIX is the most harmful thing ever to happen to computers.

I don't know if Minow is committing the hagiolatry oneassociates with the typical weenix unie, but I really feelthat any further mention of the reputed tear-inspiringbeauty, simplicity, symmetry, economy, etc of "V7" (orwhatever) Unix should be cause for immediate and permanentexpulsion from present company. I've seen quite a number of allusions to some downwardfall of unix even in this forum. Let's get this straightonce an for all: Unix was flawed from conception. Itsentire New-Jerseyist philosophy is flawed. In fact, itsentire "philosophy" is a Source of Evil in the Modern World. THERE WAS AND IS NO FALLING-OFF FROM A WORLD OFUNDIVIDED LIGHT. THERE WAS NO GREAT PURE, PRIMORDIAL,PRELAPSARIAN UNIX. The Unix you see, with which youstruggle, which you curse, is not a diseased and reducedremnant, but is itself the agent of disease and reduction. How can one lose sight of that?

That's not an argument.

..then we have this winner, because I'm sick and tired ofreading the same damned man page eight times in a row everytime I have to do the same operation (and, of course,because the _obvious_ command to do this doesn't work insome lurid way that I recall being discussed hererecently)... # Yecch on CP for the fact that I can't use it to copy # things! First arg is fromdir, second arg is todir. # You must specify both pretty carefully, especially the # todir, since we cd to the fromdir before expanding the # todir. Leaves you in the todir. Expect to see # "tar: Warning: The 'p' option will only restore the # modes of files you own" # emitted as a "harmless" diagnostic at the very start. alias copy_tree 'cd \!:1; tar cf - . | (cd \!:2; tar xvpf -); cd \!:2'Of course, most of the entries in my .aliases file are thereto modify the syntax of commands so I can remember how touse them (or to insulate myself from the common screwups I'dotherwise make), since there's no such thing as interactiveprompting, noise words, argument checking, or any of thoseother wimp things that mere lispheads like myself have beentaking for granted since... oh, when did Twenex firstbecome popular? Before most of the current crop of weenixunies were born, you say?Who knows? Maybe there's some tricky way to do what I wantin all the above mess, and I'm sure that asking the localTwinkie & Jolt addicts would probably get me some plausibleanswer. Or maybe I could spend another five hours or sopoking & prodding at things, staring it these tremendouslyuseful error messages that the various shells emit. Ofcourse, I could always read the twenty-five THOUSAND wordsof nonetheless peculiarly useless description that make upthe man pages for sh, csh, and tcsh, in the vain hopes offinding something usable in the zillions of ridiculouslittle special-case rules about how each little piece of acommand line gets teased apart, in what order, with whatspecial-case syntax for each part, with the exceptionslisted in the most obscure and offhanded way possible, farfrom the actual point at which they'd be useful... (All thewhile, of course, beating myself on the head with a mace,screaming, "It's _not_ a waste of my time to spend hourslearning this stuff! _Really_ I'll use this arcaneknowledge again in some _other_ little shell tool. Who_cares_ if it took me ten hours to do a task that it wouldhave taken me about five minutes to write in Lisp?")

wiki.c2.com/?WhatIsNotInPlanNine
cp -r Recursive copy isn't built into the cp command in PlanNine. Imagine how many separate Unix commands have the TreeWalking built into them... RefactorMercilessly. Instead, this shell script, dircp refactors that functionality for the cp command into two invocations of tar: #!/bin/rc switch ($#*) { case 2 @{ cd $1 && tar c . } | @{ cd $2 && tar x } case * echo usage: dircp from to >[1=2] }

kys google shill

No that would be Intel architecture, GUIs, and inviting all the plebs in with MS Windows and iphones.

Hahaha, what a crank.

Pretty much this.

WE NEED RISC-V FUCKING NOW

Uriel considered himself harmful.

Look, those guys at berkeley decided to optimise theirchip for C and Unix programs. It says so right in theirpaper. They looked at how C programs tended to behave, and(later) how Unix behaved, and made a chip that worked thatway. So what if it's hard to make downward lexical funargswhen you have register windows? It's a special-purposechip, remember? Only then companies like Sun push their snazzy RISCmachines. To make their machines more attractive theyproudly point out "and of course it uses the greatgeneral-purpose RISC. Why it's so general purpose that itruns Unix and C just great!" This, I suppose, is a variation on the usual "the wayit's done in unix is by definition the general case"disease.

Well he'll never harm anyone ever again now.

what is this autism?

...

pajeet nigs discovered this book and are using it for propaganda purposes

When did Uriel die anyways? 2013 or something. His ghost has been haunting message boards since then.

You guys joke but deep inside you know it's all true, you know that all software is harmful and you know that life itself is harmful too.

His soul has transcended the flesh. Physical existence is harmful.

...

If you use Plan 9, you think everything sucks. You would think "How can death be any worse?" AT&T must have been funding how to put depression and suffering on a CD and they came up with Plan 9.

You got it.

It's all relative. That meme list that gets posted constantly should be taken with a grain of salt, instead of a definitive, static, final solution. You can actually do things to make software simpler and better without jumping to the extreme and unpractical. But then again, you have to use actual applied intelligence, and not just forsake your task of thinking critically to any ideology. It's actually hard work and that's why people don't even try and just spread stupid memes and then attack those same strawmen. Terry Davis explained it pretty clearly in one of his video: any idiot can make it more complicated, but it takes a super-genius to make it simpler. That's because the intelligent guy can actually distinguish between what's needed and what's not, and he does the hard work of separating the seeds from the chaff, which requires a different approach in many cases.

The super-genius figures out a way that does all the work of the existing software in a simpler way. It's more general and encompasses the existing software. It does not take away what the user can already do. That's another reason why I hate UNIX/suckless. UNIX infected the rest of the world with the philosophy that we can't or shouldn't solve problems (which were usually already solved by real operating systems in the 60s and 70s). Suckless preaches that inferior software (worse) is better.

These people are seemingly -incapable- of even believingthat not only is better possible, but that better could haveonce existed in the world before driven out by worse. Well,perhaps they acknowledge that there might be room for someincidental clean-ups, but nothing that the boys at Bell Labsor Sun aren't about to deal with using C++ or Plan-9, or,alternately, that the sacred Founding Fathers hadn'texpressed more perfectly in the original V7 writ (if only wepaid more heed to the true, original strains of the unixcreed!)

File locking? Not seeing output files in "ordinary"directory listings until their output is finalized? Versionnumbers? Common sense in coding? Gee, these concepts areonly 30 years old (some are older). Any one of the abovewould have prevented this problem. It's a real pity thatUNIX still hasn't managed to grasp these concepts.(I know that the deficiencies of UNIX aren't your folks'problem per se. You've got to deal with what the ironvendor dishes out, as do we all. I just figured that, as amember of the Learning and Common Sense group, it suredoesn't bode very well that our computational environmentshow no evidence of either.)

Raise your hand if you remember when file systems had version numbers. Don't. The paranoiac weenies in charge of Unix proselytizing will shoot you dead. They don't like people who know the truth.Heck, I remember when the filesystem was mapped into theaddress space! I even re

Good thing you didn't CC this apologistic aside toUnix-Haters, else we would have had to chastise you... (Andplease pardon me for CCing this reply to Unix-Haters -- itinspired a flame.)Of -course- mail to Unix-Haters fails to blame anyparticular responsible individual. -Every- little bug orproblem is actually the responsibility of some individual,if you could only figure out who. The problem is thatdealing with Unix seems like a grand game of finger pointingand pass-the-buck (without Harry Truman). Is the realproblem that the programmer didn't check the array bounds?Or is it ultimately the fault of the designers of C fordesigning a language in which programmers must error checkarray indices manually?Eventually, you stop caring about the details that would letyou sort out who was responsible. Recently I was unable touse FTP on a PC to send a file to my directory on a Unixmachine because on the Unix box I use the `bash' shell.Heaven help me, I even understand why this restrictionplugged yet another security hole in Unix, and I was able toremove the restriction as soon as I understood what washappening, but after enough absurdities like that, youraverage user has no energy left to assign blame. What doall these bad experiences have in common? Unix! Thus, Unixis the problem.Hell, Unix even -encourages- this phenomenon. Contrast whathappens on ITS or a Lisp Machine or Multics when a programerror happens, with what happens on Unix. On ITS, LispMachines or Multics your program suspends and you are giventhe opportunity to debug the problem and perhaps fix it andproceed. You are given the chance to assign some blame. OnUnix -- *blam* -- core dumped. -Maybe- you can debug it,but you certainly can't proceed, so why bother? Ignore that(huge) core dump file and move on to your next task.Note that users -like- this behavior. No kidding. Ask halfthe graduate students at MIT these days -- they -hate- theLisp Machine debugger. All those blasted -choices-. Allthose explainations and questions. They don't want to knowwho to blame -- all they want to know is that it what theywere doing didn't work so they can try something else.So if I want to -think- about who to blame for my problems,I'll go use a Lisp Machine (or an ITS or a Multics). Butthese days I use Unix, where I don't have to think.

Ancient butt-hurt whining about the m68k from Lisp grognards. The funny thing about the Unix Hater's Handbook is that most of the gripes don't even fucking apply to Linux and the BSDs anymore.

I'm all for simplicity in software. Simpler software has less bugs, it's easier to understand and we should avoid as much as possible to pile up features on top a working software that could be implemented as a independent unit.
The term "simplicity", though, is relative. Simple in relation to what. The editor vi is simpler than Eclipse and ed is simpler than vi. But in using ed it's easy to get lost in any text file with more than ~50 lines, easy to make mistakes (and the undo only lasts for one command) and takes a lot of time to do basic editing. ed is not truly recommended, but it was a great editor back in the time when Unix had a limit of 20 file descriptors opened at the same time [1].
In short, there's a need to strike a balance between simplicity and features and that's when inter process communication comes at hand. If it's efficient and easy to connect programs, you can focus on writing small ones that do one thing, you chain them together. This is often associated with the Unix way, but I say it's more common sense. If you write Lisp, specially Scheme, you start off writing small functions and build up large and useful structures, the input is transformed like in a factory line that can take many routes.
I think the problem we face today is the lack of standard way of making process work together. Plan 9 solved this with 9p, the file system itself and namespaces. But it's a damn shame it was never adopted in mass.

[1]utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/unix/BSDExtendedDevelopment

How do you feel about GNU, the "not Unix" OS? I can tell you for a fact that the GNU team are not concerned about minimalism and are more interested in features i.e. bloat in the eyes of Suckless.

It must feel great to be a UNIX-hating contrarian, but consider this: if all those other operating systems were so great and sophisticated, why are they dead and almost no one even remembers their names anymore?

They were proprietary OS that also commanded a high price to license. Microsoft got its marketshare by undercutting the price of the OS of old.

And? UNIX was proprietary too. The source license (primary distribution channel in 70s) was around $10k which was pretty expensive. Pricing was never a clear advantage of UNIX.
Unless you're comparing it with IBM mainframes, but that doesn't make sense because that's an entirely different class of computer systems.

In the case of Unix, GNU and the BSD systems supported the Unix platform of OSs. This is why the idea of Unix continues on long after the rise of Microsoft and their tactics to dominate people into Windows.

Everything that makes UNIX suck is still there in GNU. I don't want a better awk, I want no awk because awk is a waste of space. I think ls and a lot of other commands suck, but they can't fix them. The linker sucks. They don't want to replace them with something that works better, they just want to add more options. Some of that is necessary because the UNIX tools don't work right, but if there wasn't the UNIX compatibility, they could make much simpler programs that work better. Everyone has a right to complain about it being bloated, and I also think that without the UNIX foundation, they wouldn't need a lot of these workarounds like D-Bus and Systemd. UNIX compatibility is preventing the OS from being good.


Hating UNIX is not contrarian, it's the right thing to do, and it feels great to do the right thing.

The hardware is no longer made. Adding POSIX ruined a lot of better operating systems.

People who care about the facts remember their names.

[code]What I find disgusting about UNIX is that it has *never*grown any operating system extensions of its own, all thecreative work is derived from VMS, Multics and theoperating systems it killed.

Yesterday Rob Pike from Bell Labs gave a talk on the latestand greatest successor to unix, called Plan 9. Basically hedescribed ITS's mechanism for using file channels to controlresources as if it were the greatest new idea since thewheel.There may have been more; I took off after he credited Unixwith the invention of the hierarchial file system!

Actually, the GNU project has much higher coding standards than the UNIX kernel. For example: no fixed constants. Everything must dynamically expand. UNIX is terrible. GNU is trying to make a UNIX that isn't terrible, just bad.Not a good excuse. Shite painted pink is just pink shite.Why didn't FSF try to invent a free operating system thatwas good? Answer: their political agenda is 10^6 times moreimportant to them than good engineering.

This has indeed puzzled me about FSF. Here is anorganization with incredibly lofty (IMHO misguided, butlofty) political ideals, and apparently no technological orengineering ideals whatsoever.It's as if there were a shite cartel charging high prices forshite, and a counter-culture grassroots movement agitatingthat shite should be free.For those who want shite, I guess it matters.

Paste the source of these quotes. I would like to read more about the ITS one.

BIOS is the most fundamental software interface of the PC platform. Complete removal of BIOS is the end of the PC. End of story. Period.

MBR disks won't function. BIOS-reliant software like bootloaders (IO.SYS, NTLDR, LILO, GRUB, SYSLINUX) and everything that relies on them in turn (all variants of DOS, Windows9x, and NT-based systems older than Vista, as well as all kinds of bootable system tools such as those featured on the Ultimate Boot CD etc.) will become entirely disfunctional. The original developers won't give a damn and won't write UEFI replacements, and neither will soyboy javascript artisans.

c'mon user, for all we know it could have been a very complex ruse from (((them)))

obviously this list its a joke

gopherproxy.meulie.net/sdf.org/0/users/kickmule/unix/unix_haters_ml_2.txt

Can you stop spamming this shit in every thread, or get a tripcode so I can filter you? If ITS is so fucking great, we have emulators up to PDP-11 now, go fucking use it. Write an implementation of a LISP machine for an FPGA and use that as your daily fucking driver (try and see how "simple" the mess becomes, asshole). Just stop spamming your shitty unix-haters post in every thread, because nothing good has ever come of LISP and nobody except you fucking cares.

GNU Emacs?

I really hope you're not the guy I'm responding to

I'm not.

~>> cat /usr/src/gnu/README$OpenBSD: README,v 1.2 2016/09/03 22:32:04 benno Exp $This directory contains software that is Gigantic and Nasty butUnavoidable....~>> ls /usr/src/gnu/...llvm...
Clang is the same gigantic tumor of C++ cancer as gcc. The version of gcc that doesn't require c++ to compile is actually much less shit then clang.

This thread, Cat-v, and Plan 9 have opened my eyes. It feels like I'm a kid again, there's a whole world to explore. Jesus christ, what have I been doing with my life for the past fifty years?

How can you call C++ and Java, and then recommend C? This is a troll attempt.

There's a camp of people who use Clang for much the same reason that people use GNU stuffs: "muh principles". It's honestly confusing, open source--at least compared to the free software camp. At least I know where the free software camp is coming from. When people say "libre", they have the four freedoms in mind, right? So you would infer that everyone who totes copycenter appreciates freedom zero but just not the other parts of the four freedoms that define strong copyleft. But it's not.

There's a party of people like OpenBSD who are denizens of "open source" who genuinely do think like that, who think Stallman is a slimeball hypocrite for the other freedoms he appends onto freedom zero and that their interpretation is simply better, more ethical; e.g. "Copyleft uses the same tools and imposes the same restrictions as copyright, and although we ourselves don't care for proprietary software, we have to stick to Our Principles".

And then there's the suckless/cat-v people, who are in part reactionaries that see Stallman as an authority figure (due to GNU/Linux's dominating the market), someone whom they can project they can project their unresolved daddy issues onto. And then there's the side that's not even interested in the ethical issue but just technical ones; e.g. "Fuck GNU bloat".

And there's no distinction between the two. There's no real category that separates the two, so when you think of open source, you might think of someone like Bryan "I worked at Microsoft once" Lunduke who doesn't want to acknowledge the ethical issues for fear of being ostracized (which he will be), but gets angry at the (unproven) fact that a Linux Foundation talking head uses MacOS (probably because of practical issues). And then you also get Randall Schwartz who says, "Yay open source" but then shamelessly states that he "only uses BSD" like MacOS (which any idiot knows is even less BSD than even most East Coast Unices) and would rather use proprietary software than use the GPL Virus.

The copycenter people believe that people ought to be allowed to fork free software into proprietary software. They call this capability as a form of freedom. The copyleft people believe people shouldn't be allowed to fork people into proprietary software. They believe that the restriction of forbidding the fork into proprietary software preserves the users' freedom.

I personally believe in copyleft. I don't think permissive free software is inherently wrong but I wouldn't invest my time into developing these projects. The reason is that I don't want to support the capability to fork free software into proprietary software.

BSD / public domain = cucked developers
GPL / proprietary = cucked users

I actually forgot about the license nonsense when I made that post, I guess I assumed that since the topic was suckless/cat-v that licensing was not a priority.
Speaking of which I just tried tcc[1], and its actually pretty great. If it supported PIE and SSP I might have been tempted to use it as a system compiler. I will however use it to for testing programs because it is so fast.
[1] bellard.org/tcc/


Thats honestly how I see that whole argument. It boils down to cucks calling each other cucks.

In one case the users are cucks in the other the developers are cucks.

How are users cucked by GPL? It is more that corporations that want to fuck over users that are cucked by GPL licence.

hmm really makes you think

Sorry please explain because I may be retarded.
My reasoning: corporation wants to enforce users pay money by hiding source code from them, so a permissive licence allows them to close the source and users are fucked because they have to eat whatever shit that corporations puts out (ads, tracking etc). If it is GPL the source must remain open so users win in the end because they can still after modify that code.

User cant do what they want with GPL code.

If I modify a GPL program and then give a copy to a friend I now have to distribute it to everyone

Obviously they can't close the source code, because it would infringe on other's freedoms. Seems fair to me.

We're all cucks in a sense. I got cucked by nature when I was born into this life I didn't choose. I was cucked by my dog when I caught him fucking my girlfriend. Life is one big cuckfest. The question becomes: who is getting cucked by whom?

No you don't, you're not obliged to do anything for anyone you're not distributng software to under the GPL.
However, your friend is able to distribute your modfied version if he so desires.

Source code is a symptom of free software, not freedom in itself. This site that you're downloading and executing on your computer is open source; that doesn't mean you necessarily have the right to modify and redistribute it--although in this case you do have that right. But that's certainly not the precedent.

I will give him a copy of the source but he has to sign a contract saying he want distribute it.

*wont

That would be violating the terms of the GPL.

...

Which part of the GPL would that violate?

I don't understand your logic. When you redistribute the code then it starts to impact others. Nobody cares if you chance the GPL code locally and don't share it.

change

The only "impact" on others is that they asked my webserver for a download of the proprietary code I so graciously provided for their web browser.

Can the cuck(license) posters please leave this thread. How many threads have you fuckers killed in the last week? It is contributing zero to this board.

...

This is a service. You just getting data and displaying locally, the code runs on another computer. Running code locally is different story.

To cuck or not to cuck--that is the question.

I wasn't talking about either license you fucking autist.
You two retards have killed a number of semi-decent threads lately and need to go and stay go.

You're right, I am sorry. But the threads on this board die at ~30 posts anyway. Too much noise in general.

gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
Sections 4 through 6.

Be the change that you want to happen; just ignore them. Geez.

If I host a proprietary program on my webserver and a user decides to download it and run it on their computer I am not infringing on any of their rights.

Intellectual property is a spook I am going to ignore the license on your GPL just like I ignore copyright on movies.

That's fine, but it'd be hard to run a business that way.

Not when you accept monero / zcash

Here the fascist shows himself using the states militarized police to enforce his intellectual property

lol

On the contrary, a committed Libertarian would argue that the state has no purpose except to enforce property rights.

No, I'm not saying that I'd abuse the draconian American IP laws for violating my hypothetical proprietary license, I'm saying that I would be the one being fucked in the ass were I to violate said laws. If not by the copyright owners themselves, then by patent trolls and the like. Either way, it's still the truth, isn't it? American IP laws are enforced internationally, and we've seen how sovereign citizens who haven't ever done business in the US have been attacked and arrested by the FBI with the same kind of prejudice reserved for terrorists.

Property is exchangeable. If I give you a car its yours now. Intellectual "property" only exists as a license. If I did not sign a contract to use a piece of software I am not beholden to the license. Modern IP laws apply to everyone even those that did not accept the contract. No information is property.

GPL software is based on American intellectual property laws.

It's also made to combat the abuses said laws in terms that are legally enforceable.

I cant support licensing based on draconian IP laws that got Kim Dot com fucked.

Funnily enough you'll find many sympathisers in the FSF, including RMS himself. However, the fact of the matter is that these laws do exist, unethical as they are. Copyleft is a way of subverting copyright law using copyright law.

There is no subversion going on. You are mandating restrictions on what a user can do with sequences of bits at the threat of the American police forces gun point.

Yeah, yeah, I know that good ol' Uncle Kimmy is basically Lex Luthor, but it's a good example of why the debate over piracy isn't a Capitalist/Communist thing. It's more like a Material/Digital commodity issue, and the former is terrified of the latter. At the very worst, Dotcom is an anarchocommunist and an easy target.

What's your alternative? You've seen what happens when you release code into public domain.

When software distributors distribute proprietary software, they are also mandating restrictions on what their recipients can do with a sequence of bits at the thread of the Amercian polices force's gun point. The difference with the GPL is that the users' essential freedom is enforced with all the users of the software.

haha you already got to the freedom is slavery argument.
Such a classic thread.

Proprietary software using the legal system is just as evil as the GPL using it. All software software should be delivered with extreme layers of DRM not legal demands.

It's your fault for clinging to that naive, shortsighted, anarchist definition of freedom and then playing abusing semantics.

Really you cant be trusted to have freedom so how about you just like me run your life. You will be more free that way.

Some degree of slavery in service of a higher freedom. Being able to do absolutely anything one wants without restriction leads only to destruction of both the individual and his society.

You are free to do whatever you want with your own property. You are not allowed to do anything to others property.

There is a major problem with proprietary software in that the users are not allowed to control the software. When users choose to enter that situation, that's their own problem but the software distributors should never call that freedom.

And now you're resorting to strawmans when you know fully well that's not my point.

The users have full power to redistribute and modify the binary of proprietary software that exists outside of intellectual property laws.

And so to the extent that software is property one should be able to do whatever one desires with it, which must include modification and distribution.

Its the point you are avoiding that is implicit in it

The hard drive is property the bits are not. You can distribute and modify the binary I give you.

I am going to include a shit ton of DRM in the binary though

Okay. You're absolutely right. Now what? Does this revelation change American IP laws? Are they no longer enforced? What should I do as a programmer if I want to share my work and neither want to oppress people by imposing restrictions but don't want a patent troll to lock me out of my own project and sue me for distributing my own software?

You patent the algorithm then release the code as public domain

That's an absurd reductionist argument. People don't interact with data as etchings on a platter, rather as distinct files within a computer system.

I might as well say that there is no such thing as property in the physical world because on some level everything is just an arrangement of atomic particles, or that murder is entirely imaginary because a singlular human being cannot exist by a simmilar argument.

And when Google simply patents that same code in every other country making it impossible to commercialize?

Those atoms cannot be duplicated. Information can be copied. If I look at your atoms across the street that form a car, and I build a car with my own atoms, its not theft. Not the same as me stealing your car.

Giving away something for free does not save you from a patent violation. No license will save you if you are violating someone else s patent.

It is not possible to claim something that was put in the public domain. It is possible a derivative work could be patented though.

Good advice. I'll combat the oppressive, draconian patent laws by relying on the authority of oppressive, draconian patent laws.

Na the advice is patent it then release it as public domain. Only thing you are doing there is noting with that draconian law that X code is exempt. No one will have any of their freedom restricted for anything they do with the code.

Good job. Now you understand the point of the GPL.

No the point of the GPL is to restrict the freedom of people who have a copy of GPL code.

b-but his absence it's more harmful for me

...

Just because they have that capability to operate outside the boundary of law doesn't change the fact that they still don't have freedom. This is not how a free user lives in freedom.

Read Plan 9's man pages before calling anything else harmful.

No. I want a to abolish the evil of "intellectual" property. DRM > law.

If his dead, who's updating his blog? Or did he kill himself very recently?

Cron job

He always seemed like a mega ass faggot. Like the beliefs he has are not his own.

Yea the photos are totally not good proof

BSD is harmful software

u wot m8

BSD developers are cucks, BSD users are not.
GPL users are cucks, GPL developers are not

yes
depends if the software in question was made proprietary since the BSD license, being cucked, allows this.
So all Linux users are cucked, mm no.
yes

GPL restricts the users freedom

If its proprietary its not BSD

Still more cucked than proprietary developers though

bloat is a meme, nobody gives a flying fuck about an extra 20mb of storage space used

No not at all.

...

Oh whew, what a surprise

That's like saying "nobody gives a fuck about a few closets of useless junk in the house". Some don't give a fuck, some are ocd about it and won't sleep well util they got rid of it or cleaned it out in whatever way they deem appropriate.

If anyone cared about bloat they would not be posting on Holla Forums a shitty html site

Unless you're a wimpy boipussy to be anal-retentive about small forgotten issues. I bet these fags like COBOL or some shit but still use botnet outside like a voting machine or let themselves get recorded by having conversation with other people carrying updated botnet machine.

I'd be caring more about the OBVIOUS software backdoors and hardware the fact that your VGA cable leaks data for the *???* to snoop on your screen remotely and again intercept all of your keyboard strokes because the ferrite beads weren't put at the final end of your monitor cable and weren't shielded enough (this also includes your external drives) and your keyboard doesn't contain any ferrite bead at all WHILE your whole meme computer system or laptop assuming it is post 2013 doesn't have a ferrite bead over the DC and it fucking broadcasts all your shit for at least 10 spy agencies.

You shill niggers try this every time there is a thread related to security and minimalism.