Please unsubscribe
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 10:00 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Send cypherpunks mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://cpunks.org/mailman/listinfo/cypherpunks > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cypherpunks digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Please stop top posting [was: TrueCrupt...] (Cathal Garvey) > 2. Re: Please stop top posting [was: TrueCrupt...] (Mark Steward) > 3. Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] (grarpamp) > 4. Re: Please stop top posting [was: TrueCrupt...] (Cathal Garvey) > 5. Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] > (Georgi Guninski) > 6. Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] (Cathal Garvey) > 7. Re: Please stop top posting [was: TrueCrupt...] (Griffin Boyce) > 8. Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] (grarpamp) > 9. What is offtopic and what should be avoided on this list? > (Georgi Guninski) > 10. Re: Re: Please stop top posting [was: TrueCrupt...] (stef) > 11. Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] > (Georgi Guninski) > 12. Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] > (Georgi Guninski) > 13. Re: Please stop top posting [was: TrueCrupt...] (grarpamp) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 10:21:42 +0000 > From: Cathal Garvey <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Please stop top posting [was: TrueCrupt...] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > You know the history and reasons the internet has against top > > posting, especially on newgroups and mailing lists. > > I know the reasons but they don't apply to me, nor to a growing majority > of users who don't use text-only clients. Most clients these days are > pre-configured to hide replied-to text unless directly quoted, making > pre-quoted text actually more irritating than sub-quoted. > > Despite this, I *do* use text-only mode, and nevertheless find scrolling > down to find replies inline irksome. > > So, as I mentioned previously, this is a cultural difference; I find > your preferred mode annoying, and you find mine annoying. Tough; you > don't own the internet, and neither do I. I won't waste my time > conforming to your expectations, and you won't to mine. So we get over > it and move on. > > ..did you really call top-posting "abuse of other people"? Dude, get > some perspective! > > On 07/01/15 10:07, grarpamp wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Cathal Garvey < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> However, sorry, but I'll continue emailing as I always have done; if I > >> come from a different internet culture to you, and if top-posting is > >> anathema to you but not I, that's just > > > > ... lazy. > > > > You know the history and reasons the internet has against top > > posting, especially on newgroups and mailing lists. You and everyone > > else top posting are just lazy culture at the expense/abuse of other > > people, in particular the brain power needed to decipher your > > messages in both direction and context. Stop wasting hundreds of > > other people's cycles and invest some of your own. Learn trimming > > and interleaving replies, google it, make your mail art, not dog shit. > > > > (: shitter a as but > > asses lazy your > > to cost no it's > > all After. off else > > everyone pissing on > > keep, want all you > > what that's if But. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 10:37:43 +0000 > From: Mark Steward <[email protected]> > To: grarpamp <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Please stop top posting [was: TrueCrupt...] > Message-ID: > < > capyx2ncw3jdrw43tvk8oa5+fe43tx8orpqg3wnksczro07d...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > UNSUBSCRIBE > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 10:07 AM, grarpamp <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Cathal Garvey < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > However, sorry, but I'll continue emailing as I always have done; if I > > > come from a different internet culture to you, and if top-posting is > > > anathema to you but not I, that's just > > > > ... lazy. > > > > You know the history and reasons the internet has against top > > posting, especially on newgroups and mailing lists. You and everyone > > else top posting are just lazy culture at the expense/abuse of other > > people, in particular the brain power needed to decipher your > > messages in both direction and context. Stop wasting hundreds of > > other people's cycles and invest some of your own. Learn trimming > > and interleaving replies, google it, make your mail art, not dog shit. > > > > (: shitter a as but > > asses lazy your > > to cost no it's > > all After. off else > > everyone pissing on > > keep, want all you > > what that's if But. > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20150107/8faaa793/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 06:04:15 -0500 > From: grarpamp <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] > Message-ID: > < > cad2ti28cjfjavrrn_5vvtfo2-cpjkj+mbroh+0s+l0bdpax...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:48 AM, Cathal Garvey > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Patents and profiting > > from patents is an unrelated discussion to copyright-based licensing. > > Patents came about a bit before copyright. Today patents > talk about licensing, and copyright talks about patent. They're > not exactly inseparable. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent > > > But there are plenty of people out there willing to Embrace Extend > > Extinguish, which GPL protects against (patent clauses and copyleft) and > BSD > > does not. > > You cannot extinguish BSD software. You may close your > copy. However the original branch unaffected by that. Nor can > you patent your copy of BSD code, the code itself exists as prior art. > Copyleft or not is of no concern to actual extinguishment. > Patenting your subsequent mods to code may yes block > others from moving in that same direction. That's really a > question of patent reform, not license. Restricting patents > in license like GPL is interesting and useful (presuming > tested as enforceable) if you're worried about direction. > Don't mistake patent restrictions as freedom though. > > As Juan may tell you, both patents and license are bullshit, > at least to some people. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 11:16:17 +0000 > From: Cathal Garvey <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Please stop top posting [was: TrueCrupt...] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > AFAIC there's nothing left to say, so you'll hear no more from me. > Sorry, not something I especially like discussing nor seen discussing. I > did enjoy writing the one-liner though. > > On 07/01/15 10:37, Mark Steward wrote: > > UNSUBSCRIBE > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 10:07 AM, grarpamp <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Cathal Garvey > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > wrote: > > > > > > However, sorry, but I'll continue emailing as I always have done; > > if I > > > come from a different internet culture to you, and if top-posting > is > > > anathema to you but not I, that's just > > > > ... lazy. > > > > You know the history and reasons the internet has against top > > posting, especially on newgroups and mailing lists. You and everyone > > else top posting are just lazy culture at the expense/abuse of other > > people, in particular the brain power needed to decipher your > > messages in both direction and context. Stop wasting hundreds of > > other people's cycles and invest some of your own. Learn trimming > > and interleaving replies, google it, make your mail art, not dog > shit. > > > > (: shitter a as but > > asses lazy your > > to cost no it's > > all After. off else > > everyone pissing on > > keep, want all you > > what that's if But. > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 13:25:18 +0200 > From: Georgi Guninski <[email protected]> > To: grarpamp <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] > Message-ID: <[email protected]$> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 01:57:25AM -0500, grarpamp wrote: > > > Georgi write: > > > Dudes, you still using GPL GCC? > > > > Actually, no. > > > > OK, this might have finally happened and I have been > trolling bsd fanatics about gcc since at least 4 years > (maybe more). > > Not an expert on compilers, but gcc has some extensions like > __gnu*, some of which are widely used. Not sure how clang > currently deals with them. > > Building just the kernel with clang is likely possibly, but > bare kernel is not a distro. > > Till recently, I believe one couldn't build desktop > environment only with clang, might be wrong on this. > > Unrelated: I am wondering why bigcorps like google/linksys > use linux, when they could have used *bsd like > apple/juniper. > > > > > > https://bitrig.org/10.html > > http://wiki.netbsd.org/tutorials/pkgsrc/clang/ > > https://wiki.freebsd.org/BuildingFreeBSDWithClang > > > http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/49906/why-is-freebsd-deprecating-gcc-in-favor-of-clang-llvm > > http://www.dragonflydigest.com/2014/10/22/14942.html > > http://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/developer/clang/ > > http://www.thejemreport.com/more-on-openbsds-new-compiler/ > > http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20091228231142 > > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=137530560232232&w=2 > > > > http://clang.debian.net/ > > http://llvm.linuxfoundation.org/ > > > > https://wiki.debian.org/Debian_GNU/kFreeBSD > > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/bsd/fbsd/ > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Lodewijk andré de la porte <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > GPL when something is everyone's property, > > > > Unless you're not "in", then suddenly they get ugly like you > > broke their communal bong hit or something. They used to cry > > if you didn't pass the code around, now they sic their lawyers > > on you. That's not very free. > > > > > BSD when you ... just don't care. > > > > Exactly, everyone is in, do whatever you want. And it's almost > > as unlimited as you can get under today's mandatory law for > > those who say copyright is fiction. These days BSD says > > basically two things: > > 1) Do what you want. > > 2) Author disclaims liability. > > > > It's hard to be more free than that under current law, yet... > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 11:33:37 +0000 > From: Cathal Garvey <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > You cannot extinguish BSD software. You may close your > > copy. However the original branch unaffected by that. Nor can > > you patent your copy of BSD code, the code itself exists as prior art. > > Embrace/Extend/Extinguish works by taking a codebase that can be > improved (all codebases can be), making those improvements, and > patenting the *improvements*. You can often successfully patent the > original work, too, because the patent system is trash and open > developers rarely have the resources to fight you. > > The original code remains open ("Yay!"), but now the open developers are > not technically entitled according to patent law to make the obvious > improvements they were probably planning to make, because they've been > patented by an extinguisher (whether MS, Apple, Yahoo, Google, FB, or > merely the competitor-next-door). > > Don't tell me that the obviousness of the obvious-next-steps will > prevent patenting, because that's hogwash. This is the reality, it's > what happens out there in the world. > > The GPL acknowledges this by forbidding suits within the scope of the > work (I think: GPL experts on-list?), preventing E3 from occurring. > Other licenses often take steps in this direction, but the ultra-short > "friendly and permissive" licenses usually don't, or do so in such a > terse and legally unenforceable way that they might as well not be. > > > Don't mistake patent restrictions as freedom though. > > Freedoms can be implicitly restricted merely by the act of withholding > essential things. Food, water can be restricted by "private ownership" > of a well to the degree that others in an area starve to death or > subjugate themselves to slavery: this is "freedom" to own something > exclusively becoming the instrument of enslaving others. > > In a less dramatic but still important way, the "freedom" to proprietise > a code-base can starve others of their freedoms by withholding what they > need to exercise them, and potentially making them "slaves" to the code > that has all the obvious improvements while forbidding free alternatives > (patents). > > So, patent restrictions are freedom; they prevent the limitation of > others' freedoms (being attacked with patents) by restricting the > freedom of the licensor/licensee (to create or enforce patents). > Preserving the rights of the few to patent and attack others opens the > door to the abrogation of others' rights. Where, in this case, "others" > can include the original developers whose work is co-opted, > patent-encumbered, and proprietised. > > Freedom is not merely defined in law but in experience, and simply > removing explicit limitations on freedom (copyleft licenses) does not > mean that the total freedom in the world has increased. > > On 07/01/15 11:04, grarpamp wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:48 AM, Cathal Garvey > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Patents and profiting > >> from patents is an unrelated discussion to copyright-based licensing. > > > > Patents came about a bit before copyright. Today patents > > talk about licensing, and copyright talks about patent. They're > > not exactly inseparable. > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent > > > >> But there are plenty of people out there willing to Embrace Extend > >> Extinguish, which GPL protects against (patent clauses and copyleft) > and BSD > >> does not. > > > > You cannot extinguish BSD software. You may close your > > copy. However the original branch unaffected by that. Nor can > > you patent your copy of BSD code, the code itself exists as prior art. > > Copyleft or not is of no concern to actual extinguishment. > > Patenting your subsequent mods to code may yes block > > others from moving in that same direction. That's really a > > question of patent reform, not license. Restricting patents > > in license like GPL is interesting and useful (presuming > > tested as enforceable) if you're worried about direction. > > Don't mistake patent restrictions as freedom though. > > > > As Juan may tell you, both patents and license are bullshit, > > at least to some people. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 06:59:19 -0500 > From: Griffin Boyce <[email protected]> > To: Cypherpunks <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Please stop top posting [was: TrueCrupt...] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > > "Cypherpunks write code, not flamewars." > ~Jurre van Bergen > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 07:00:24 -0500 > From: grarpamp <[email protected]> > To: Georgi Guninski <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] > Message-ID: > <CAD2Ti28S1tihe3xJqmaBbwsfZme= > [email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Georgi Guninski <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Building just the kernel with clang is likely possibly, but > > bare kernel is not a distro. > > > > Till recently, I believe one couldn't build desktop > > environment only with clang, might be wrong on this. > > As in the links, the entire FreeBSD kernel, base, > and most of it's ~25,000 ports build with clang. X, > browsers, whatever. The others are not as far along. > Not bad considering clang itself is a "till recently". > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 14:05:53 +0200 > From: Georgi Guninski <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: What is offtopic and what should be avoided on this list? > Message-ID: <[email protected]$> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > What is offtopic and what should be avoided on this list? > > I would like to know what is offtopic and what should be > avoided on this list. > > Looking for an answer from authoritative source, not a > subscriber of doubtful quality. > > Appears to me wide variety of topics are discussed. > > Though the list is unmoderated, I suspect the dudes in > charge of the list might take action against flooding with > gross nonsense or commercial spam. > > Just trying to avoid being banned from unmoderated list ;), > the way the heavily censored (in theory small moderated) > Fyodor's full disclosure blocked me at SMTP level. > > Best of luck, > -- > georgi > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 13:45:29 +0100 > From: stef <[email protected]> > To: Cathal Garvey <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Re: Please stop top posting [was: TrueCrupt...] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 10:21:42AM +0000, Cathal Garvey wrote: > > > You know the history and reasons the internet has against top > > > posting, especially on newgroups and mailing lists. > > > > I know the reasons but they don't apply to me, nor to a growing majority > of > > how embarrasing, how ignorant. gtfo pls. > > -- > otr fp: https://www.ctrlc.hu/~stef/otr.txt > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 14:47:14 +0200 > From: Georgi Guninski <[email protected]> > To: grarpamp <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] > Message-ID: <[email protected]$> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 07:00:24AM -0500, grarpamp wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Georgi Guninski <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Building just the kernel with clang is likely possibly, but > > > bare kernel is not a distro. > > > > > > Till recently, I believe one couldn't build desktop > > > environment only with clang, might be wrong on this. > > > > As in the links, the entire FreeBSD kernel, base, > > and most of it's ~25,000 ports build with clang. X, > > browsers, whatever. The others are not as far along. > > Not bad considering clang itself is a "till recently". > > Thanks, probably i should stop trolling bsd for gcc so far, > except for historical reasons that RMS & co gave them the > toolchain to get started and be alive. > > I suppose _some_ of the ~25,000 ports _don't build_ with clang, > giving me a short opportunity of trolling -- you still need > gcc for _all_ ports? > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:25:25 +0200 > From: Georgi Guninski <[email protected]> > To: Lodewijk andré de la porte <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL] > Message-ID: <[email protected]$> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 02:45:16PM -0600, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote: > > 2015-01-06 18:51 GMT+01:00 Georgi Guninski <[email protected]>: > > > > > Haskell language shit depending on GCC and claiming they "compile with > > > portable > > > assembler" don't make sense to me too, fuck Haskelli and its monads, > > > sorry. > > > > > > > Not really sure how this factors into it. There's more than one Haskell > > compiler, you know? Haskell and monads are languages, and do not depend > > > I suppose I trolled about GHC: https://www.haskell.org/ghc/license > > Since I am in a trolling mood, let me give you the following > benchmark to check your favorite language for speed: > > The fibonacci numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number > are defined by the linear recurrence: > F(0)=0,F(1)=1,F(n)=F(n-1)+F(n-2) [1]. > > Using numerology, you can compute F(n) in O(log(n)). > > Compute F(n) via the slow recurrence [1]. > > Question: In haskell (or in your favourite language), how > long does it take to compute F(2^32) modulo 2^32? > > Modulo 2^32 means working with C int's. > > The haskell fanatic called this "micro-benchmark". > If you work in excel, you don't care if the popup shows in > 0.1 or in 0.9 seconds. > If you work with loops to 2^34, you might care if you use C > or haskell IMHO. > > Best, > -- > Georgi > > > > upon compilation to have meaning. Monads are like, kinda inevitable. You > > have them in your code, you just don't know. > > > > As for the rest, GPL when something is everyone's property, BSD when > you're > > actually just a company pushing a product or just don't care. There's not > > much between GPL and BSD. I'd like a structure where you have to pay to > get > > in, but once you're in it's like GPL (but only with others who are "in"), > > instead of every closed source license out there. > > > > Meanwhile we must not depend upon the bullshit copyright system to > provide > > us with compensation. Distribution is no longer a challenge and no profit > > can be extracted from it anymore. Stop it already. Please stop ruining > > reality to create artificial scarcity, I want it not. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 13 > Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 10:32:08 -0500 > From: grarpamp <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Please stop top posting [was: TrueCrupt...] > Message-ID: > <CAD2Ti2939Q7WUqyZ+BAZ4eR1Ti31XZLOPo7K3= > [email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 5:21 AM, Cathal Garvey > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Despite this, I *do* use text-only mode > > That's wise and perhaps even generous of you, thanks. > > > scrolling [...] irksome > > Someday they'll get tired of costly context "huh's", reading > backwards, and wasted mail space... and realize scrolling with > trim and interleave is a naturally elegant pairing. > > > pre-configured > > They might even get so irked as to raise a finger to configure that. > > > cultural > > I hear configuring a lamp and turning pages in books is irksome > these days too, what with swiping on backlit screens being so > superior. Sad this culture. > > > I know the reasons > > [...] > > ..did you really call top-posting "abuse of other people"? > > Yes, and I called them lazy too. My post stands. > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > cypherpunks mailing list > [email protected] > https://cpunks.org/mailman/listinfo/cypherpunks > > > ------------------------------ > > End of cypherpunks Digest, Vol 19, Issue 9 > ****************************************** >
