questions about external images

[nike6]

OK I just wanted to verify it.

about FreeDOS, i have tinkered with 8086 for a few years, upto a point when I had maybe 300k sources, and a graphical desktop, including windows, menu's, item lists, scrollbars etc.

the windows could be dragged, resized, but yet the scrolling/clipping was not fully worked out. on a 386!

at one point of time I recognized that it is no good to have multiple standards.
I do not even have the source anymore.

yet it was never published, or part of FreeDOS, which I have also taken a look at this time.

***

I also do not agree to GPL. I used MySQL/PHP hosting for a while, but then strongly disagreed with GPL.

***

Communication technologies such has printing, typewriters, telephones were only allowed to be owned and used by the Communist party. This was to prevent 'enemies of the people' from distributing 'dangerous propaganda'.

at least in this aspect Stallmann is different, he wants to give free software to everyone. maybe according to his (or her) abilities?
not everyone might be able to make meaningful modifications.

***

We are also hold back by inefficient education system, effective, empty education. it is not "soviet style communism", but if wkipedia can fully creep into the education system, we'd get some strange mix.
think they'd know how to silence any opposition via twitter, and in ten years, the government will start to create wiki's about individuals.

no more school records but wiki's- which in that case, not everyone will be able to edit equally. or even be able to access for reading.

So what i want to say, there is a demonic potential into free software, GFDL, GPL, wiki and all that stuff.

while Microsoft works out solutions commercially. if there is no commercial feedback from a market, they won't put much effort into it.

***

the keyword here is "Junta", and it already exists, yet wikipedia has no legal authority, or powers, against anyone.
even biographies about popular people can be enourmous violations of privacy.

what has one to do with each other, one may ask?
that does not make sense?

in capitalist they do not follow people that way.
if their business is not successful, they will disappear on their own.
yet history knows that in eastern Germany, the state tracked individual people, and followed steps of their private life!

so this is where i draw the line to wikipedia, and the demonic potential, which today not even has been fully realized.

thye do not even spy anymore, but people willingly add the knowledge for no remuneration! what a progress.

it's a little rant, yes.

and here some soviet LEDs
**broken link removed**
**broken link removed**

then a short while after that I started with VC++, MFC, Visual Studio.
this does not make a big fan of C++.
but Visual Studio/Windows is good, I do not see how LINUX could become superior of this technology.

***

again you may ask, what has one to do with the other?

earlier on this year, in Russia, they tried to push LINUX as operating system supported, distributed, and sponsored by the state!
like in Venezuela.

do you think, they allow people to use Windows, once it becomes the mainstream? or once the commercial market stops to exist.

so again free softwares have a demonic potential to install soviet-era controlism, and bureaucracy.
they will say "why re-invent the wheel", and effectively people will not be allowed to write certain softwares, not for 30 years, and not for 50 years.

 

[Torben]

I also do not agree to GPL. I used MySQL/PHP hosting for a while, but then strongly disagreed with GPL.

Umm. . .neither PHP nor MySQL are licensed under the GPL. MySQL's license includes a FOSS clause which can invoke the GPL but that's completely different.

So what i want to say, there is a demonic potential into free software, GFDL, GPL, wiki and all that stuff.

while Microsoft works out solutions commercially. if there is no commercial feedback from a market, they won't put much effort into it.

Um. . .in case you missed it, that's also how OSS works. If the product sucks, no-one uses it, and it disappears. If it's good, or could be good, then people join the effort and make it better.

How is this a bad thing again?

the keyword here is "Junta", and it already exists, yet wikipedia has no legal authority, or powers, against anyone.
even biographies about popular people can be enourmous violations of privacy.

what has one to do with each other, one may ask?
that does not make sense?

in capitalist they do not follow people that way.

You're kidding, right? Have you completely missed how celebrities are followed and their lives are completely exposed to the public by the media? This is in capitalist societies, remember. And corporate decisions are often hidden, which is how the current recession happened--bigwigs at corporate headquarters making dumb-ass calls with no public input.

if their business is not successful, they will disappear on their own.
yet history knows that in eastern Germany, the state tracked individual people, and followed steps of their private life!

And the UK government has cameras all over the place and the Canadian government isn't far behind. What's your point?

It's not a matter of socialism vs. captitalism. It's fascism vs. libertarianism, and it seems that you're very confused about the difference.

so this is where i draw the line to wikipedia, and the demonic potential, which today not even has been fully realized.

thye do not even spy anymore, but people willingly add the knowledge for no remuneration! what a progress.

So you're against the community contributing to the community for free? That makes no sense.

If my neighbour needs a hand with something, should I charge an hourly wage to help? No. I should help. That's life; that's being a good human. Likewise, if I know something which could help something else, should I hold it back? Of course not. That would be selfish and foolish. If it's trade secret information then sure, keep it close. But otherwise, there is no harm in helping.

then a short while after that I started with VC++, MFC, Visual Studio.
this does not make a big fan of C++.
but Visual Studio/Windows is good, I do not see how LINUX could become superior of this technology.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with Linux. It has everything to do with what software someone chooses to contribute.

"Linux" is NOT the same thing as "applications which run on Linux".

earlier on this year, in Russia, they tried to push LINUX as operating system supported, distributed, and sponsored by the state!
like in Venezuela.

OH NOEZ! TEH RUSIANS AND VENEZUEALANS!!!!!1!1!

Of course, if they want to go in a certain direction, it must certainly be wrong!

Duh. That makes no sense.

do you think, they allow people to use Windows, once it becomes the mainstream? or once the commercial market stops to exist.

They'll allow anybody to use anything they want. Russia and Venezuela have stated that they want certain software used by *government*. They have made no effort to restrict what Joe Public uses at home.

so again free softwares have a demonic potential to install soviet-era controlism, and bureaucracy.
they will say "why re-invent the wheel", and effectively people will not be allowed to write certain softwares, not for 30 years, and not for 50 years.

You don't think it's more dangerous to have software which is closed so you can't tell what it's actually doing? You prefer to have the possibility of backdoors and spy holes put into it by the corporation which wrote it--but you can't check because the code is hidden?

At least with OSS you are *always* free to rewrite it, or fork it, or check it for backdoors. With proprietary code you have no such rights or options.


Torben

 

[nike6]

Your reply helps me to understand the whereabouts of the subjects that you mention.

It is however not appreciate to argue about controversial topics.

If at Microsoft someone tells me "you write complete rubbish", I'd think twice to continue support.

Well I don't think they'd put themselves out of business.

But the free software guys get money supplies out of nowhere, and do not have to worry about that.

I appreciate the effort you have put in the reply, though it is all controversial stuff, and does not make sense on this forum.

 

[Torben]

Your reply helps me to understand the whereabouts of the subjects that you mention.

It is however not appreciate to argue about controversial topics.

Then why do you invent them?

If at Microsoft someone tells me "you write complete rubbish", I'd think twice to continue support.

Well I don't think they'd put themselves out of business.

But the free software guys get money supplies out of nowhere, and do not have to worry about that.

So what? You don't like them, you don't use their product. Same deal, except you don't have to pay to find out.

I appreciate the effort you have put in the reply, though it is all controversial stuff, and does not make sense on this forum.

I don't think you're in any position to tell anyone else what is appropriate and not appropriate on this forum.


Torben

 

[nike6]

NO you put words in my speak.
I wanted to express that I do not consider the topics as appreciate.
This does not imply if they are indeed appreciate or not.

they have nothing to do with the topic, so it should be "self-introduction",
that people know my viewpoint, and I can have a small discussion with them.

 

[Hero999]

nike6,
Are you claiming that free software could threaten democracy?

I doubt it.

How could allowing a community collaboration on a project and a license that permits free transfer of information possibly threaten democracy?

If anything, software patents and copyright law are greater threats to democracy than free software. Copyright and patent law is all about restricting the right to distribute information to the original creator. People are being sent to prison and made to pay large fines simply for the act of transferring information from one person to another doesn't sound very democratic does it?

Copyright and patents make being a monopoly easier, if all software were open source then a monopoly would not be possible. Monopolies restrict choice which is inherently undemocratic.

It you use proprietary software you're often bound my a complicated licence agreement which limits what you can do with it. Theoretically MS could add clauses in their licence agreement which limit free speech. They could add clauses such as "You may not use this software for producing material which might be damaging to Microsoft.". That wouldn't be very democratic would it?

Not being able to see the code is also dangerous as the software could do anything, it could be a virus or contain spyware. Open source software should theoretically not have this problem since the code is open, it isn't possible for companies to hide nasty things in there.

I'm not suggesting that copyright or patents should be abolished, there is a valid argument for them both. I do think that they need reforming. There needs to be more protection and clearly defined limits on who the copyright owner can limit your use of thier material. I would also be in favour of drastically reducing the amount of time a copyright can be held for. I think there needs to be more public debate and the government should listen more to the people than big businesses.

It seems like you're just bitter because the free software community have not liked your contributions to their projects.

I don't think there is any need for this because you shouldn't have seen the free software community as stifling your innovation.

So FreeDOS community didn't like your GUI?

You should have started your own source forge project.

So Wikipedia didn't like your edits?

Copy your edited articles to your own blog or Wiki.

Providing you abide by the licensing agreements there's nothing wrong the above. If you don't like the licences then you shouldn't have modified the code/article in the first place.

Just because some authoritarian countries are promoting open source it doesn't make free software undemocratic. The chances are they're promoting it because they deem it to be superior or maybe for political reasons e.g. anti-Americanism.

 

[Krumlink]

What hero999 wrote

Communism + open source = communist linux

**broken link removed**

 

[Hero999]

This is driving me mad.

There used to be a picture advertising Firefox somewhere on Mozilla's site that looked remarkably like a Soviet propaganda poster but I can't find it. I doubt it was intentional, perhaps Mozilla pulled it after been called communists.

 

[Torben]

This is driving me mad.

There used to be a picture advertising Firefox somewhere on Mozilla's site that looked remarkably like a Soviet propaganda poster but I can't find it. I doubt it was intentional, perhaps Mozilla pulled it after been called communists.

Not sure if this is quite what you're after but there is a definite Soviet/constructionist theme to these ones: **broken link removed**


Regards,

Torben

 

[Hero999]

Yes, it doesn't look too unlike some of those.

 

[bigkim100]

How in heavens namendid you get banned?
Ive looked back over your postings, and none seen controversial.

 

[blueroomelectronics]

Who is namendid? Do you mean nike6?

 

[Mickster]

How in heavens name did you get banned?
Ive looked back over your postings, and none seen controversial.

(Edited for clarity) ^^

Maybe something controversial was posted, then got pulled and a ban issued?

Seems you are banned too, bigkim100....

 

[Hero999]

Here's the image I've been looking for.
**broken link removed**