Some people really cannot let go of the idea that Free Software
projects might be controlled by big corporates out to push their
agenda on the poor, defenceless users (and developers, no doubt).
Here’s one case I encountered -- can you spot all the ways he has
mixed up his arguments?
<https://community.asterisk.org/t/cmake-for-a-modern-build-system/108944/7>
Conspiracy theorists are never strong on consistency, anyway ...
You sound a bit like those who have perfect faith in the market, a
sentiment I don't subscribe to.
However, "Conspiracy Theorists" aren't always wrong, and it pays to
be ahead of the game.
Theoretic freedom is different to practical freedom.
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 11:37:54 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
You sound a bit like those who have perfect faith in the market, a
sentiment I don't subscribe to.
I don’t have to have “perfect faith” in anything, least of all the laws of
economics. The neat thing about science is, it works whether you believe
in it or not.
However, "Conspiracy Theorists" aren't always wrong, and it pays to
be ahead of the game.
The number-one rule of any good conspiracy theory is to ask the question: “Cui bono?” aka “Whose benefit?” In other words, “follow the money”.
So tell us, how does it benefit some mighty amoral megacorp (e.g. Red Hat, for the sake of argument) to force competitors to use, copy and
redistribute its Free software without paying the company a dime? What
kind of business model is that?
Theoretic freedom is different to practical freedom.
Free Software licences are legally binding, and this has been proven in countless court cases already. The “Free as in freedom” part of Free software is an established fact.
Like I said, conspiracy theorists tend not to have the strongest grasp on simple logic.
"Cui bono?" presumes that other people are motivated by the same things
you are. Not everythign is about money, not when ideology is involved.
The software licence only covers the distribution and modification of
the software.
But freedom has more levels than simply the freedom to
copy. It is also what the software allows you to do, how it
inter-operates with ther software.
The software licence says nothing though, about how much agency it gives
the user, when they are using the software. Developers rarely look past
the code, and look at the software itself.
Does this software give the user agency in their ability to configure
it?
It link it with other pieces of software?
To use it with other software to make their own workflows?
A piece of software can be GPL licenced, but offer no
configuration, no real means of placing it in a pipeline, no
extensibility, whereas another, which could be proprietary could offer
vast configuratin options, allow extensions.
On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 11:35:21 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
"Cui bono?" presumes that other people are motivated by the same things
you are. Not everythign is about money, not when ideology is involved.
You really think amoral megacorporates are motivated by anything other
than money? What agenda do you think they have? Are they just secretly wishing for the ordinary public to set up fan clubs in their honour? Run screaming after their executives, demanding their autographs? Maybe they
just want to appear in fashion-magazine spreads alongside the beautiful people? What?
The software licence only covers the distribution and modification of
the software.
Free software explicitly spells out the Four Freedoms:
0) The freedom to use the software as you wish
1) The freedom to look at the source, figure it out and make changes
2) The freedom to redistribute copies
3) The freedom to redistribute your changes.
<https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html>
But freedom has more levels than simply the freedom to
copy. It is also what the software allows you to do, how it
inter-operates with ther software.
Yup. All covered.
The software licence says nothing though, about how much agency it gives
the user, when they are using the software. Developers rarely look past
the code, and look at the software itself.
Not sure I understand this. You are saying “code” is not “software”?? What
is it, then?
Does this software give the user agency in their ability to configure
it?
A core part of the *nix philosophy is “mechanism, not policy”. Free software is not supposed to impose particular ways of doing things on you, instead it provides a toolkit you can use to do a whole range of things in whatever ways you find best.
It link it with other pieces of software?
Open interoperability standards are a key feature of Free software, yes. There is a strong preference for open and interoperable protocols/
standards over proprietary ones.
To use it with other software to make their own workflows?
This is one area where command-line/scriptability-based tools often have
an edge over GUI-centric ones.
A piece of software can be GPL licenced, but offer no
configuration, no real means of placing it in a pipeline, no
extensibility, whereas another, which could be proprietary could offer
vast configuratin options, allow extensions.
I would be curious where you can find examples of both of these things. Do tell.
This is not guaranteed by the licence. IT exist in the free software
world because the free software audience consisted of people who wanted *BOTH* the ability to custmise and shape their computing experience AND
the ability to freely modify the source, hack at it. Free Software was
in the past the purview of people who specifically wanted to take the not-so-beaten path.
The four freedoms ONLY concern themselves with the source/binary, not
with the mode of operation of the software.
Nothing stops GPL or "Free" software imposing a very string method of >operation. Especially if that software is a core component (i.e, GTK)
This is exactly
why these fascist distros like RedHat and Debian can so easily reduce choice >and introduce hegemony with systemd and wayland.
Yes, I do believe there are people within large organisations, who
are motivated by things other than money. They also want a sense of
moral supremacy, of power, of discerning themselves as the elite.
You don't just do this by being rich, but by being influential.
Why do you think companies push DEI? It is a way to signal yourself
as a thought leader.
The four freedoms ONLY concern themselves with the source/binary, not
with the mode of operation of the software.
Nothing stops GPL or "Free" software imposing a very string method
of operation. Especially if that software is a core component (i.e,
GTK)
Open interoperability standards are a key feature of Free software,This is not guaranteed by the licence.
yes. There is a strong preference for open and interoperable
protocols/ standards over proprietary ones.
IT exist in the free software world because the free software
audience consisted of people who wanted *BOTH* the ability to
custmise and shape their computing experience AND the ability to
freely modify the source, hack at it. Free Software was in the past
the purview of people who specifically wanted to take the
not-so-beaten path.
There is no guarantee these two will overlap in the next generation
of users. In which case, you may see people who value one, or not
the other, or perhaps people who use free software, who value
NEITHER.
On the other hand, GNOME project specifically sought to limit user customisation.
Chrome has significant sway, and Google can, and do, shape how
people use the web.
I would like to ask you to watch your language, young man.
The trolls do it just to trigger reactions like that. It’s a great way to throw a smokescreen over the original point of the argument. Don’t fall
for it!
it does its job and I do mine.
Why do you think companies push DEI? It is a way to signal yourself as
a thought leader.
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 07:32:49 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
The trolls do it just to trigger reactions like that. It’s a great wayShaddup, you Kiwi Kook.
to throw a smokescreen over the original point of the argument. Don’t
fall for it!
We have here yet another know-nothing know-it-all polluting the waters
of Usenet with his pseudo-intellectual excrement.
I'm glad you admit to it.
On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 11:31:45 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
<boraxman@geidiprime.nospam> wrote in ><slrn106cqh1.8k4.boraxman@geidiprime.bvh>:
Why do you think companies push DEI? It is a way to signal yourself as
a thought leader.
"DEI" used to be called "equal-opportunity employer".
MAGAs hated it, so when the new term came up, they immediately
went on the "hate parade".
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
On 2025-07-04, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 11:31:45 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man >>><boraxman@geidiprime.nospam> wrote in >>><slrn106cqh1.8k4.boraxman@geidiprime.bvh>:Actually it was called "affirmative action" and it was a miserable
Why do you think companies push DEI? It is a way to signal yourself as >>>> a thought leader.
"DEI" used to be called "equal-opportunity employer".
MAGAs hated it, so when the new term came up, they immediately
went on the "hate parade".
failure as is DEI.
Hire the most qualified person for the position.
Simple.
In that case, who the fuck would hire your nutty ass? Heh.
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
I'm not looking for a job.Actually it was called "affirmative action" and it was a miserable >>>>failure as is DEI.
Hire the most qualified person for the position.
Simple.
In that case, who the fuck would hire your nutty ass? Heh.
Been there and done that.
As for nutty, I don't believe that a male with his junk suddenly
becomes a female just because he/she/it feels like a female and likes >>playing dress up.
That would be you Joel.
My GF "felt like a female" from an early age. It's not "dress up",
she literally goes to work everyday in women's clothes, makeup, etc.
Sane people accept her the way she is, and some of us even like how
she has a cock to put in our asses.
Lester Thorpe <lt@gnu.rocks> wrote:
On 4 Jul 2025 15:36:52 GMT, vallor wrote:
I'm glad you admit to it.
What's this? Another smart-ass contributes his meager mental currency?
Oh yeah! Like his Kiwi Kompatriot he's one smart dumb-fuck.
Shouldn't you be wasting your time and effort building Linux >>6.16-rc-28-sub-rc-32 rather than showing off your abysmal ignorance?
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
These distro lackeys never disappoint me.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
You're talking to yourself, dude, no one takes your idiocy seriously.
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
I'm not looking for a job.Actually it was called "affirmative action" and it was a miserable >>>>failure as is DEI.
Hire the most qualified person for the position.
Simple.
In that case, who the fuck would hire your nutty ass? Heh.
Been there and done that.
As for nutty, I don't believe that a male with his junk suddenly becomes
a female just because he/she/it feels like a female and likes playing
dress up.
That would be you Joel.
My GF "felt like a female" from an early age. It's not "dress up", she literally goes to work everyday in women's clothes, makeup, etc.
Sane people accept her the way she is [...snip]
vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2025 16:48:15 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in >><0efg6k12kopg4gmsit00oafcso1867havp@4ax.com>:
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
I'm not looking for a job.Actually it was called "affirmative action" and it was a miserable >>>>>>failure as is DEI.
Hire the most qualified person for the position.
Simple.
In that case, who the fuck would hire your nutty ass? Heh.
Been there and done that.
As for nutty, I don't believe that a male with his junk suddenly >>>>becomes a female just because he/she/it feels like a female and likes >>>>playing dress up.
That would be you Joel.
My GF "felt like a female" from an early age. It's not "dress up",
she literally goes to work everyday in women's clothes, makeup, etc.
Sane people accept her the way she is [...snip]
That's all you had to say, the rest was definitely TMI.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S_vclBlGZo
You seem to perceive it as a personal gathering rather than a public
medium.
In that case, who the fuck would hire your nutty ass? Heh.
On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 11:31:45 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
<boraxman@geidiprime.nospam> wrote in ><slrn106cqh1.8k4.boraxman@geidiprime.bvh>:
Why do you think companies push DEI? It is a way to signal yourself as
a thought leader.
"DEI" used to be called "equal-opportunity employer".
MAGAs hated it, so when the new term came up, they immediately
went on the "hate parade".
On 2025-07-07, Borax Man <boraxman@geidiprime.nospam> wrote:
On 2025-07-04, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 11:31:45 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man >>><boraxman@geidiprime.nospam> wrote in >>><slrn106cqh1.8k4.boraxman@geidiprime.bvh>:
Why do you think companies push DEI? It is a way to signal yourself as >>>> a thought leader.
"DEI" used to be called "equal-opportunity employer".
MAGAs hated it, so when the new term came up, they immediately
went on the "hate parade".
DEI is nothing to do with "equal-opportunity". It has to do with virtue
signalling, and meeting arbitrary quotas and requirements put in place
by people who are flummoxed that white countries have white people.
It CAN'T be equal opportunity and color-blind if you have quotas and
race targets to hit.
Weaponised "Codes of Conduct" can be used to eject people who point this
out.
Exactly. When I was a kid in school we were taught to be "color blind." And
I buy into that. The best qualified person for the job, no matter what race or sex. But that's not what DEI is about. It's about granting special privileges to anyone is who is not white and/or male. The "E" in DEI doesn't stand for "equality" it stands for "equity." So-called "equity" means anti-white (and/or male) exclusion. The "I" is supposed to stand for "inclusion," but that's also a lie. It also means (again) anyone who isn't white (or a white male) is "included." Just look at the colleges where
whites are told to stay away from certain events because they're not "included."
DEI is toxic. It's definitely NOT equal opportunity. That's a BS lie.
It CAN'T be equal opportunity and color-blind if you have quotas and
race targets to hit.
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 11:30:12 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
It CAN'T be equal opportunity and color-blind if you have quotas and
race targets to hit.
Says the one complaining about how the entire Free Software ecosystem is somehow biased against “conservative” viewpoints ...
On 2025-07-08, Borax Man <boraxman@geidiprime.nospam> wrote:
On 2025-07-08, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-07-07, Borax Man <boraxman@geidiprime.nospam> wrote:
On 2025-07-04, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 11:31:45 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man >>>>><boraxman@geidiprime.nospam> wrote in >>>>><slrn106cqh1.8k4.boraxman@geidiprime.bvh>:
Why do you think companies push DEI? It is a way to signal yourself as >>>>>> a thought leader.
"DEI" used to be called "equal-opportunity employer".
MAGAs hated it, so when the new term came up, they immediately
went on the "hate parade".
DEI is nothing to do with "equal-opportunity". It has to do with virtue >>>> signalling, and meeting arbitrary quotas and requirements put in place >>>> by people who are flummoxed that white countries have white people.
It CAN'T be equal opportunity and color-blind if you have quotas and
race targets to hit.
Weaponised "Codes of Conduct" can be used to eject people who point this >>>> out.
Exactly. When I was a kid in school we were taught to be "color blind." And >>> I buy into that. The best qualified person for the job, no matter what race >>> or sex. But that's not what DEI is about. It's about granting special
privileges to anyone is who is not white and/or male. The "E" in DEI doesn't
stand for "equality" it stands for "equity." So-called "equity" means
anti-white (and/or male) exclusion. The "I" is supposed to stand for
"inclusion," but that's also a lie. It also means (again) anyone who isn't >>> white (or a white male) is "included." Just look at the colleges where
whites are told to stay away from certain events because they're not
"included."
DEI is toxic. It's definitely NOT equal opportunity. That's a BS lie.
I don't think "Colourblindness" could have ever worked long term. It is
basically "Political Correctnes", pretending not to notice the obvious.
Multicultural societies cannot stay free, something was to happen.
I don't object to identity politics per-se, but I do have issue with the
fact that there is no identity political force which protects my
identity.
People can only afford to be ambivalent about identity, when society is
homogeneous.
I look at it a little differently. There is a lot more that is the same
about humans than what is different. I've always gotten along fine with people I worked with, no matter what race.
I think Morgan Freeman made a good point about race when Mike Wallace was trying to get him to endorse black history month. Mike Wallace asked something like, "how are we going to solve the race issue if we don't deal with it?" Morgan Freeman said, "Just quit talking about it."
Frank Robinson was once asked how it felt to be a black manager. He told the interviewer, I would rather be known as just be a manager.
So I'm not really "color blind," I just don't think race should be all that big of a deal. As my grandmother said, "there's good and bad in all of us." By "all of us" she meant all races.
On 2025-07-09, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 11:30:12 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
It CAN'T be equal opportunity and color-blind if you have quotas and
race targets to hit.
Says the one complaining about how the entire Free Software ecosystem
is somehow biased against “conservative” viewpoints ...
Do you actually have a point here?
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 11:37:20 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-07-09, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 11:30:12 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
It CAN'T be equal opportunity and color-blind if you have quotas and
race targets to hit.
Says the one complaining about how the entire Free Software ecosystem
is somehow biased against “conservative” viewpoints ...
Do you actually have a point here?
Hey, you were the one making those complaints, you tell us what “point” you were trying to make with them, if not some kind of hope for special treatment ...
On 2025-07-12, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
The whole point of DEI is to ensure you can treat someone different to someone else.
Yeah, but this really started with Obama's second term. It wasn't
accidental. It was done on purpose to divide us by exaggerating
differences race and playing the race card. I have a lot more in common
with working black and Latino men than I have with the slimeball, sold
out, whites in Congress or on Wall Street.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 163:56:31 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,513 |