Mailman's moderation checkbox?! - Why are so many FreeBSD haters on this list? (Troll bait)

[Aryeh Friedman]

On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 4:04 AM Ralf Mardorf via freebsd-questions <
freebsd-questions at freebsd.org> wrote:

> S t o p  spreading misinformation, stop spreading FUD!
>
> It's hard to ignore such replies. On almost all other mailing lists the
> moderation bit already would have been set.
>

Let me correct your complete mischaracterizing of the stuff I said (or you
think I said).  The reason for doing this is what you are reading (in your
head) and what I said are complete night and day differences.

Note, you aren't doing FreeBSD a favour by spreading untruth about
> other operating systems. Subscribers of this list don't hate FreeBSD,
> so even promo based on facts, without bashing other operating systems
> is unneeded.
>

1. I did not post the video or any other "promo".  Apparently you are
confusing me with an other poster in this thread.  (Thus my first comment
on misreading)

2. My quoting of the licensing article on freebsd.org was not a "promo" for
FreeBSD (or anything else) just showing that *MY* thinking is in line with
what is already FreeBSD policy (not that policy was right in all cases or
for all people or that FreeBSD or any other OS needed to modify their
licensing policies).  It just so happens that the article identifies all
the same issues with GPL that I did, but that is not the same as saying I
am promoting FreeBSD or any other OS (it is external evidence I am not
alone in my thinking and that's all it was).

So I will repeat myself please shut up until you actually know what someone
said (read it several times if you must or ask someone who knows English
better to explain it to you).   This also goes for understanding the
background they publicly give for the reason for their thinking (see below
where you completely misread the background of my comments).


> I never claimed that it is evil to make money by programming and
> selling software.


By attempting to say GPL does not severely limit the ability to make a
living (something claimed by *MANY* people not just me) and complaining
about how BSDL limits "freedom of expression" (when it does not) you are
saying that selling software is by implication evil because you are only
willing to recommend a license that is designed to make it impossible (any
loopholes people have found are just that loopholes).   If some other
developer decides to use GPL I can't stop them (nor do I wish to), but it
will also mean I almost certainly can not use their stuff professionally
(in many cases).


> I also never claimed that you need to buy a hardware
> + operating system + user app bundle put together by a dealer. "bundle"
>

By standard American English and standard American business practices (all
name brand computers and phones come completely ready to use) they are sold
as one easily (by non-technical end-users) breakable bundle.  You wording
implied you meant the standard American definitions (you never qualified
the wording).


> is for the right hardware, for the right operating system, for the
> right user application, which results in the right tool. The right tool
> for a landscape artist is a tablet PC with a pencil.


This is making a huge assumption about how landscape artists prefer to
work.   Some would prefer the tablet, others would prefer something else.
These are the same kind of huge assumptions made by every single pre-canned
Linux 3rd party system I have seen (binary or source).    Good example is
Gentoo does allow you to build vim from source rather easily but it comes
with a .vimrc (and default compiler flags) that is highly personalized (and
not at all a reasonable lowest common denominator default) to the person
who made the port with no provisions are made to make it easy to pick other
options (such as the /var/db/port/*/options file in FreeBSD).


> The landscape
> artist needs a tablet PC, an operating system that does run on a tablet
> PC with pencil and a drawing app that does run on the operating system.
> You need a bundle, even if you are the one who put it together.
>
> Thanks to GNU you will hardly find many legal Linux distribution that
> are binary only ;), let alone that the FUD you spread about "largely
> non-standardized methods of build from source with no real way of
> making sure you have all the required packages to compile against" is
>

See above.    I will add if there was a standard way then most programs
would not need a "INSTALL" file in them that explains what other packages
need to be installed first and such.   A good example is the one that comes
with Aegis (devel/aegis here on FreeBSD, which I am the maintainer of)
which lists over a dozen precondition packages for a successful install.
In FreeBSD this is taken care of easily in the port's makefile but due to
the non-standardized installation procedures on different Linux distros it
would be a O(n!) problem to make the same thing work in the Linux world.
(And this with Aegis being written for Linux and requiring a few minor odd
hacks in the makefile to make it FreeBSD friendly).


ridiculous. You are just unqualified. If you dislike split Linux
> packages, just chose a distro that doesn't split software from upstream
> into packages for the binaries, libraries, headers, e.g. Arch Linux. If
>

I never even claimed that splitting is the issue, because the above issues
have nothing to do with splitting it up (Aegis is one complete package for
example).

The primary reason I hate Linux is the opaqueness of all aspects of it from
the core parts of a distro to how almost all of them do 3rd party software.
  In short Linux is made by hackers for hackers whereas FreeBSD is made by
computer professionals for computer professionals.

you don't like Linux at all, don't care about it at all. However, even
> distros that split software from upstream into several packages tend to
> provide a fine user manual, e.g. Debian and Ubuntu.
>

I have tried both manuals and either they are too detail oriented and focus
on the wrong details or they read like the manual for a car that has a
"check engine" light either everything is fine and there is the check
engine light is not on or it is on and gives you 0 clue to what is wrong
until you have a qualified mechanic do a check of it for big $.   I would
rather have a (old) VW Bug where it is fully maintainable and
understandable by any mechanically inclined person.  FreeBSD installs meet
this requirement; Linux ones almost never do.


> A "computers for self purpose" is for a computer that isn't used as a
> useful tool in a special non-computer domain, it's for a computer that
> is just used as computer in a native computer domain. I do not mean
> for "selfish purposes".
>

Due to likely a language barrier your wording was ambiguous at best.   If
you mean something then please clearly state it in non-ambiguous terms.


>
> There's a difference between coders who have got knowledge about
> computers and a special native non-computer domain, such as music,
> drawing art, elementary particle physics, bookkeeping etc. and coders
> who only have knowledge about computers.
>

You're right there is a huge difference and the difference is if you have
an other profession than programming is a hobby or a side job not the main
way you put food on the table.   Please accept the fact that GPL is
designed to make it impossible for people who do programming as their
primary job  to make a living (unless working for a organization whose
primary business/funding source is not software).   I gave all the reasons
in an other post but it comes down to GPL makes the assumption you make
your money from anything *BUT* programmer and/or some large organization is
paying you do GPL programming. None of that is true for a freelancer and
telling freelancers to go F themselves due to not recognizing this the same
as saying making money from programming (and programming alone) is "evil".


> I never met somebody who needs software or who is writing software in a
> domain that is not a computer domain in the first place and who cares
> about all that generalized pros and cons of different operating systems
> and licenses. What _we_ (I'm one of them) usually chose is the
>

Go talk to *ANY* medical software developer in the US and they will tell
you at least on the licensing side it is the biggest and most important
legal question asked due to HIPAA (so if you don't know US, or other
countries, regulations/laws don't make assumptions that are clearly
false).    For more info see
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/index.html and
https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/hipaa/hipaa-violations-enforcement
(Note custom made medical software development is considered a business
associate if done for a covered entity).

-- 
Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org