Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: This FOSS Thang :-)
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 07:19:57 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <1ie0vi945pg3npq5mrb155agts5r92aqmr@4ax.com>
References: <uso2en$184pn$1@solani.org> <17bbfffbc79db17b$324$3037545$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8792a55da4aaff2e81d7bc7fb728e8f7";
	logging-data="283589"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19mzpqi7gQkQ0mfJCi4sfxk0R+E504zDQg="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JrnebMa5gzmXSqfmTJwYz2BGEnI=
OS: Linux Mint 21.3 Cinnamon, with Wine 9.0 for WinAPI
Bytes: 3883

Nuxxie <nuxxie@linux.rocks> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 18:00:37 -0500, Physfitfreak wrote:
>
>> Money in the software business is never an issue for the customer. If
>> they do what they're supposed to do, and nothing more than that, openly
>> or subterraneanly, the money paid is well, well, well worth it. So this
>> "FOSS" thing everybody here is pro or con about, should really be just
>> "OSS". The issue, always, is the _abuse_ that the user experiences in
>> using them.
>
>No.  The issue has always been about QUALITY.
>
>With few exceptions, FOSS products are far superior to any commercial
>offerings, and of those few exceptions most are available as GNU/Linux
>versions.
>
>Anyone who doubts this just does not understand how to effectively
>utilize either computers or software.
>
>I have an in-depth knowledge of digital computation and I use FOSS
>products exclusively, both for my extensive avocational projects and
>for my equally extensive business ($$$$$) purposes (for which I make
>BIG BUCKS).
>
>The superior quality of FOSS has been true since the very beginning
>in 1998 or thereabouts.
>
>But it is also true that commercial software is a complete racket.
>Commercial products do not so much abuse as they gouge the naive
>user at every opportunity.  The subscription model is an excellent
>example of this practice.  I've been to companies that pay $100 per
>month subscription fees for software that isn't even worth $20 to purchase
>outright.  There is no doubt.  Commercial software is a racket and
>it's only going to get worse in the future.
>
>In conclusion:
>
>1) FOSS is far superior to commercial products and anyone who disagrees
>is only revealing his total digital stupidity.
>
>2)Commercial software is basically an extortion racket.  If the user
>cancels his subscription then all his accumulated data will vaporize --
>unless of course he purchases a data extraction service for a hefty
>fee.
>
>P.S.  Since I don't own a smart phone, one of my clients gave me an
>Android (i.e. Google) phone to handle 2-factor authentication.  Holy
>moley!  I could not believe the total garbage that is contained therein!
>The user has absolutely no control of anything.  I always keep it turned
>off except for those few minutes that I need it.  But once again, the
>face of commercialism revels its ugly and exploitive face.


Get some real drugs, fairy.

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.