Re: [OT] Selling beer (was: Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names])
On Thu Jul 15 12:42:45 2021 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Mi, 14 iul 21, 08:02:19, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> On Tue Jul 13 16:50:38 2021 Michael Lange >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 21:25:17 +0100 >>> Joe wrote: >>> >>> (...) >>> Back when we had TV advertisements for beer, it was always the rubbish beers that got the publicity. >>> >>> here (Germany) we still have those TV ads for beer, and I can assure >>> you that the advertised brands (its not up to me to decide whether >>> they are rubbish or not) are the ones that are available virtually >>> everywhere, so I believe that it is safe to assume that they are >>> also the brands that sell. >>> So yes, unfortunately at least in some cases advertisements >>> apparently pay. >> >> If they didn't pay, companies would have stopped sinking vast amounts >> of effort and expense into them a century ago. > > You're giving (big) companies a lot of credit, possibly unwarranted: > > Does Advertising Actually Work? (Part 1: TV) (Ep. 440) > https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-1/ > > Does Advertising Actually Work? (Part 2: Digital) (Ep. 441) > https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-2/ > > (the links contain the transcripts as well, for those who prefer > reading) Thanks for the links (extra points for them being available as text). Money might reign supreme, but there's nothing like a good management fantasy to push profits into second place. I particularly like the part where the interviewee tried to pretend he couldn't hear the interviewer when he got backed into a corner. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship. \ /| Apple is a cult. X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy. / \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Re: [OT] Selling beer (was: Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names])
Hi, On 2021-07-14 11:29 a.m., Christian Groessler wrote: > Here in Germany, near Munich, we have a beer brand (from Munich) which > doesn't advertise but is the "standard beer" all around :-) > WoW That's pretty cool, a "standard beer". Everyone get used to the same beer and you don't risk being offered one of those bad tasting beer when you go to a friend's house ! You go to a club and ask "the standard beer please". That will be good for myself so I don't too much like a tourist. > regards, > chris > -- Polyna-Maude R.-Summerside -Be smart, Be wise, Support opensource development OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [OT] Selling beer (was: Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names])
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 09:55:50AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Mi, 14 iul 21, 08:02:19, Charlie Gibbs wrote: [...] > > If they didn't pay [for ads], companies would have stopped sinking vast > > amounts > > of effort and expense into them a century ago. > > You're giving (big) companies a lot of credit, possibly unwarranted: > > > Does Advertising Actually Work? (Part 1: TV) (Ep. 440) > https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-1/ > > Does Advertising Actually Work? (Part 2: Digital) (Ep. 441) > https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-2/ Thanks for the links :) I always say (somewhat with tongue-in-cheek, I don't have the time or stamina to come up with anything even resembling a proof) that ad industry is like the rain dance [1]. Probably many doubt it helps at all, but you allocate resources for it... just in case. I have the hunch that much of modern economics works at this level (heck, even their "Nobel Prize" is fake). Cheers [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_dance - t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Selling beer (was: Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names])
On Mi, 14 iul 21, 08:02:19, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On Tue Jul 13 16:50:38 2021 Michael Lange wrote: > > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 21:25:17 +0100 > > Joe wrote: > > > > (...) > > > >> Back when we had TV advertisements > >> for beer, it was always the rubbish beers that got the publicity. > > > > here (Germany) we still have those TV ads for beer, and I can assure > > you that the advertised brands (its not up to me to decide whether > > they are rubbish or not) are the ones that are available virtually > > everywhere, so I believe that it is safe to assume that they are > > also the brands that sell. > > So yes, unfortunately at least in some cases advertisements apparently > > pay. > > If they didn't pay, companies would have stopped sinking vast amounts > of effort and expense into them a century ago. You're giving (big) companies a lot of credit, possibly unwarranted: Does Advertising Actually Work? (Part 1: TV) (Ep. 440) https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-1/ Does Advertising Actually Work? (Part 2: Digital) (Ep. 441) https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-2/ (the links contain the transcripts as well, for those who prefer reading) Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
Jeremy Ardley [2021-07-14 12:52:10] wrote: > On 14/7/21 12:09 pm, Andrei POPESCU wrote: >> On Ma, 13 iul 21, 20:54:22, Brian wrote: >>> On Tue 13 Jul 2021 at 15:38:26 -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 11:27:03 AM Stefan Monnier wrote: > BTW, for those who don't want to run their own server, there are still > other reasons to avoid Github: my rule is to try and opt for the > underdog so as to foster competition. +1 >>> You are apparently well up in this field. Is there a particular >>> udderdog you would recommend? >> As far as I understand Gitlab is the only comparable alternative, >> preferably self-hosted (like Debian's Salsa). > AWS has a permanently free GIT repository for small projects (under > 5 developers) and limited storage requirements > https://aws.amazon.com/codecommit/ Then again, I'm not sure that Amazon qualifies as an "underdog". Stefan PS: Your reply's text was oddly "hidden" inside your signature (as defined by the old convention that "\n-- \n" separates the main body from the signature).
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On Wed 14 Jul 2021 at 12:53:00 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 02:59:27PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 07:32:19PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > > May I suggest we get back on-topic. > > > > There's a topic? I think we're so far from the topic that we can't > > even get back to it with a compass. > > > > > Greg Wooledge (he who has > > > disappeared) could just sensitively edit the wiki page he has > > > an interest in, That's what I would do. > > > > I "disappeared" because I had nothing more to say. Also apparently > > any time I say anything, I'm perceived as a jerk. Or maybe it's just > > when I stand up for myself, who knows. > > > > I've restored the sources.list entries in the FAQ sections of the wiki > > pages for stretch and buster. We'll see what happens next, I guess. > > > > For what it's worth - I had a check on IRC in debian-www That's worth a lot. > The wiki isn't as tightly policed and is more of a free for all: if you see > something that's wrong, you can change it. There's a creative tension between > what should sit on the wiki / what should be on www.debian.org. As far as "free for all" is concerned, the contrast is between the wiki and www.debian.org. If one contrasts our wiki guidance wuth that given for Ubuntu and Arch Linux, there are significant differences. Given that, the editors who work on our wiki are remarkably self-disciplined and the quality of pages is good. (The translation effort should be noted and applauded here). AFAICT, there isn't any formal central authority for wiki management in Debian. That's not a complainte, but it does raise the question of where an editor turns to for discussion of an issue. I am glad this issue has been resolved to the benefit of users and editors. -- Brian.
Re: [OT] Selling beer (was: Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names])
On 7/14/21 5:02 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: On Tue Jul 13 16:50:38 2021 Michael Lange wrote: > here (Germany) we still have those TV ads for beer, and I can assure > you that the advertised brands (its not up to me to decide whether > they are rubbish or not) are the ones that are available virtually > everywhere, so I believe that it is safe to assume that they are > also the brands that sell. > So yes, unfortunately at least in some cases advertisements apparently > pay. If they didn't pay, companies would have stopped sinking vast amounts of effort and expense into them a century ago. In the football EM there was some advertising for some beer. They seem to be OK-ish. But I've tasted them just once I think. Here in Germany, near Munich, we have a beer brand (from Munich) which doesn't advertise but is the "standard beer" all around :-) regards, chris
[OT] Selling beer (was: Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names])
On Tue Jul 13 16:50:38 2021 Michael Lange wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 21:25:17 +0100 > Joe wrote: > > (...) > >> Back when we had TV advertisements >> for beer, it was always the rubbish beers that got the publicity. > > here (Germany) we still have those TV ads for beer, and I can assure > you that the advertised brands (its not up to me to decide whether > they are rubbish or not) are the ones that are available virtually > everywhere, so I believe that it is safe to assume that they are > also the brands that sell. > So yes, unfortunately at least in some cases advertisements apparently > pay. If they didn't pay, companies would have stopped sinking vast amounts of effort and expense into them a century ago. >> As for 'targetted advertising', I've never seen any. When I notice >> the ads around the sides of web pages, none of them are aimed at me > > The same here. So maybe I have developed some skills obscuring my > "profile" to "them", or (maybe more likely) I am just too dumb to > realize that those ads *are* in fact targeted at me :-) If they're targeted at me, I try to make sure they miss. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ "Alexa, define 'bugging'."
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On 2021-07-14 at 10:17, Stefan Monnier wrote: > PS: Your reply's text was oddly "hidden" inside your signature (as > defined by the old convention that "\n-- \n" separates the main body > from the signature). Looking back at the preceding mails, I suspect that what may have happened is not that the reply text was inserted after the new mail's signature separator, but that when quoting Andrei's mail in order to reply, Andrei's signature separator (from the previous mail) was left outside of the quote. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 12:53:00PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > For what it's worth - I had a check on IRC in debian-www > > The wiki isn't as tightly policed and is more of a free for all: if you see > something that's wrong, you can change it. There's a creative tension between > what should sit on the wiki / what should be on www.debian.org. > > I also had a quick chat with Paul on IRC > > He'd forgotten about the change: it was that long ago. He did make the point > that it seemed sensible to centre it on SourcesList for him: it's no huge > matter since anything can be changed. OK. Thank you for all of that. I don't know how others approach it, but for me, the wiki is the place where end users like myself can contribute with our own knowledge and experience. www.debian.org is the "official" information source, centrally controlled, curated, and off limits for the end users. The two sites borrow from each other as needed. This is fine. There's no need to prevent duplication of content. In a worst case scenario, if one of the two sites is unavailable for some reason, the other one is a backup. In more ordinary situations, the two sites have different organizational structures and different focuses, so specific pieces of information may be easier to find on one site than on the other. That's also fine. > Each set of release notes also has the sources.list stanzas in it, I think, Not that I can find. And I just looked. > and if you're coming from updating older releases, you'd be looking to the > next set of release notes anyway to see what's changed, ideally. As a regular on the #debian IRC channel, I can assure you that "what do I put in sources.list for ___ release" really *is* one of the most frequently asked questions. There are several reasons for this, and I don't claim to know all of them, but one of the biggest reasons is that a large number of Debian installations do not provide a working Internet sources.list file. Perhaps because the network interface(s) were not working during installation, perhaps because of missing wifi firmware, yadda yadda yadda. The point is, people *need* this information. Having multiple redundant copies of it is helpful. Another big reason only applies to the older releases. "I have an old server running ___ and its sources.list doesn't work any more. What do I use?" This is unbelievably common, and it obviously isn't going to be covered by reading the wheezy (or whatever version's) release notes. > There Is No Cabal - this isn't quite Wikipedia with policies, edit wars > and badged issues police, at least as far as the wiki's concerned. > www.d.o is a bit tighter - not least because well-intentioned edits cause > havoc with the good folk who do translations and there's a defined process > so that they don't end up having to re-edit tens of pages for a tiny fix > on a URL, for example. [Been there, caused that, got the T shirt] OK. I'll admit that I may have been over-sensitive, because I have been on the receiving end of an extremely vicious wiki cabal in the past, with a different community and a different wiki. So I may have extrapolated patterns that don't exist, here, from a single incident.
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
Hi. On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 08:00:20AM -0400, Celejar wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 07:45:08 +0100 > Joe wrote: > > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 19:17:37 -0400 > > Celejar wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 21:09:32 +0200 > > > Alexandre Garreau wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, they’re not submitted to network effect, Debian is not a social > > > > network. Moreover, Debian is non-lucrative. Currently nobody can > > > > get *power* from it. > > > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by non-lucrative, but even though > > > there's no money involved, that does not mean that there's no power. > > > The power to decide what software to include in the distribution and > > > what to exclude is certainly power. Debian has an elaborate > > > constitution, with all kinds of rules, and the organization has > > > considerable power over the distribution. This is similar, in my mind, > > > to the power that an organization like Facebook has over its network. > > > > > > > I think in this context that 'power' means power over the real world, > > not just within a medium. It is unlikely that Debian can swing an > > election result. Debian has rules, but not over what people are > > permitted to discuss. > > I concur completely with your distinction, and I agree that it's an > important one. The original topic of the conversation, however, was > Github and friends, and I doubt that Github can swing an election > result, either. Github gathers personal information, Bing uses it to influence an election via search results manipulation. It's real easy if you have the same owner of both services. Reco
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 02:59:27PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 07:32:19PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > May I suggest we get back on-topic. > > There's a topic? I think we're so far from the topic that we can't > even get back to it with a compass. > > > Greg Wooledge (he who has > > disappeared) could just sensitively edit the wiki page he has > > an interest in, That's what I would do. > > I "disappeared" because I had nothing more to say. Also apparently > any time I say anything, I'm perceived as a jerk. Or maybe it's just > when I stand up for myself, who knows. > > I've restored the sources.list entries in the FAQ sections of the wiki > pages for stretch and buster. We'll see what happens next, I guess. > For what it's worth - I had a check on IRC in debian-www The wiki isn't as tightly policed and is more of a free for all: if you see something that's wrong, you can change it. There's a creative tension between what should sit on the wiki / what should be on www.debian.org. I also had a quick chat with Paul on IRC He'd forgotten about the change: it was that long ago. He did make the point that it seemed sensible to centre it on SourcesList for him: it's no huge matter since anything can be changed. Each set of release notes also has the sources.list stanzas in it, I think, and if you're coming from updating older releases, you'd be looking to the next set of release notes anyway to see what's changed, ideally. There Is No Cabal - this isn't quite Wikipedia with policies, edit wars and badged issues police, at least as far as the wiki's concerned. www.d.o is a bit tighter - not least because well-intentioned edits cause havoc with the good folk who do translations and there's a defined process so that they don't end up having to re-edit tens of pages for a tiny fix on a URL, for example. [Been there, caused that, got the T shirt] This list has a bunch of varying experience and expertise - all of it is valuable and valued. All the very best, as ever, to all Andy Cater
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 07:45:08 +0100 Joe wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 19:17:37 -0400 > Celejar wrote: > > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 21:09:32 +0200 > > Alexandre Garreau wrote: > > > > > > > > > No, they’re not submitted to network effect, Debian is not a social > > > network. Moreover, Debian is non-lucrative. Currently nobody can > > > get *power* from it. > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by non-lucrative, but even though > > there's no money involved, that does not mean that there's no power. > > The power to decide what software to include in the distribution and > > what to exclude is certainly power. Debian has an elaborate > > constitution, with all kinds of rules, and the organization has > > considerable power over the distribution. This is similar, in my mind, > > to the power that an organization like Facebook has over its network. > > > > I think in this context that 'power' means power over the real world, > not just within a medium. It is unlikely that Debian can swing an > election result. Debian has rules, but not over what people are > permitted to discuss. I concur completely with your distinction, and I agree that it's an important one. The original topic of the conversation, however, was Github and friends, and I doubt that Github can swing an election result, either. Celejar
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
Hi, On 2021-07-13 2:59 p.m., Greg Wooledge wrote: > I "disappeared" because I had nothing more to say. Also apparently > any time I say anything, I'm perceived as a jerk. Or maybe it's just > when I stand up for myself, who knows. Are you in need to be nurtured ? -- Polyna-Maude R.-Summerside -Be smart, Be wise, Support opensource development OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 19:17:37 -0400 Celejar wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 21:09:32 +0200 > Alexandre Garreau wrote: > > > > > No, they’re not submitted to network effect, Debian is not a social > > network. Moreover, Debian is non-lucrative. Currently nobody can > > get *power* from it. > > I'm not sure what you mean by non-lucrative, but even though > there's no money involved, that does not mean that there's no power. > The power to decide what software to include in the distribution and > what to exclude is certainly power. Debian has an elaborate > constitution, with all kinds of rules, and the organization has > considerable power over the distribution. This is similar, in my mind, > to the power that an organization like Facebook has over its network. > I think in this context that 'power' means power over the real world, not just within a medium. It is unlikely that Debian can swing an election result. Debian has rules, but not over what people are permitted to discuss. -- Joe
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On 14/7/21 12:09 pm, Andrei POPESCU wrote: On Ma, 13 iul 21, 20:54:22, Brian wrote: On Tue 13 Jul 2021 at 15:38:26 -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 11:27:03 AM Stefan Monnier wrote: BTW, for those who don't want to run their own server, there are still other reasons to avoid Github: my rule is to try and opt for the underdog so as to foster competition. +1 You are apparently well up in this field. Is there a particular udderdog you would recommend? As far as I understand Gitlab is the only comparable alternative, preferably self-hosted (like Debian's Salsa). Kind regards, Andrei -- AWS has a permanently free GIT repository for small projects (under 5 developers) and limited storage requirements https://aws.amazon.com/codecommit/ Jeremy OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On Ma, 13 iul 21, 20:54:22, Brian wrote: > On Tue 13 Jul 2021 at 15:38:26 -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 11:27:03 AM Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > BTW, for those who don't want to run their own server, there are still > > > other reasons to avoid Github: my rule is to try and opt for the > > > underdog so as to foster competition. > > > > +1 > > You are apparently well up in this field. Is there a particular > udderdog you would recommend? As far as I understand Gitlab is the only comparable alternative, preferably self-hosted (like Debian's Salsa). Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 21:31:33 +0200 Alexandre Garreau wrote: > Le mardi 13 juillet 2021, 16:09:50 CEST Celejar a écrit : > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 16:08:53 +0300 > > > > Reco wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 08:01:58AM -0400, Celejar wrote: > > > > > Github (Gitlab, Sourceforge, etc) were and are non-free (as in - > > > > > non-gratis) services, so it's only reasonable to stay away from > > > > > them > > > > > regardless of whom is controlling them. > > > > > > > > What do you mean by calling them non-gratis services? I know that > > > > some > > > > of their services are non-gratis, but basic code hosting certainly > > > > is > > > > gratis. > > > > > > You do not pay for these services, yet they provide them to you and > > > everyone else (with certain exclusions). > > > Guess who is the product here? The answer is - you are the product. > > > Payment involving money is not the only kind of payment that you can > > > make today. > > > > I think that's an unreasonable definition of gratis and non-gratis. If > > a FLOSS dev gets an ego boost, or even some sort of spiritual > > satisfaction, from people using his software, does that mean it's > > non-gratis? > > An ego-boost doesn’t grant power, that is, possibility of action of your > will on the actions of others. Payment is not the same thing as power. > But github as a platform provides a great deal of power to microsoft. > They litterally own your data. Maybe not your programs, but maybe all > your metadata + what was listed later (bugreports, etc.). As does Signal, etc. > The mail you answer to sadly didn’t explain concretely what is the > payement, and how you can make money from it. The answer is: selling > personal data. Both what you output, what comes from you, and what is > inputted to you, what to see. Knowing what you say, what you see, what > you like to see, and deciding it sells very profitably nowadays, agueably > more than oil. Celejar
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 21:09:32 +0200 Alexandre Garreau wrote: > Le mardi 13 juillet 2021, 20:00:44 CEST Celejar a écrit : > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 19:28:39 +0200 > > Alexandre Garreau wrote: > > > Le mardi 13 juillet 2021, 14:01:58 CEST Celejar a écrit : > > > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 11:54:43 +0300 > > > > Reco wrote: > > > > > Github (Gitlab, Sourceforge, etc) were and are non-free (as in - > > > > > non-gratis) services, so it's only reasonable to stay away from > > > > > them > > > > > regardless of whom is controlling them. > > > > > > > > What do you mean by calling them non-gratis services? I know that > > > > some > > > > of their services are non-gratis, but basic code hosting certainly > > > > is > > > > gratis. > > > > > > Maybe we could say that you pay with your personal data, or with the, > > > per network effect, power you give to microsoft to organize a social > > > networking platform that’s very important for finding work, a lot > > > more than their shitty linkedin > > > > Fair enough. But by the same logic, things like Matrix and Signal are > > not gratis, since by using them, you empower their controlling > > foundations via the network effect. > > Signal is not a lucrative company (yet… who knows, looking at their bad > faith), but you’re right there, because since they’re centralized and > depending on proprietary OSes, you indeed grant power by using them. But > Signal is not so powerful, so it’s not a so big problem, it’s only sad > given their stated goal, and its ideological proximity with software > freedom and net decentralization… > > Matrix is meant to be decentralized, so network effect shouldn’t apply. Network effect applies since the more people use it, the more valuable and useful the network becomes, and the more difficult and inconvenient it is for everyone to move to another network. Please note that none of this is a criticism of Signal or Matrix - I'm just making a reductio ad absurdum argument against the idea that systems that involve a network effect should not be considered "gratis." > But maybe your message is a critic of good faith of matrix people and > their network, because of instability (hence unstandardness) of their > protocol, asymetry in their gateways (remembering a bit discord…), big > asymetries in development of their clients, official non-free client, and > total (wilingful?) blindness about existing implementations such as xmpp > u.u As above, I am making no criticism of Matrix or Signal (here, although I've criticized Signal elsewhere, on other grounds). > Same can be argued about Twitter, Facebook, etc. One one hand, they’re > gratis of charges, no money is required to enter, on the other hand “if > it’s gratis, you are the product”, and indeed these are companies that > make actual money. Big money, GAFAM are among the richest in the world u.u > And Twitter is pretty powerful (even and especially politically) after > all. > > > Hey, for that matter, Debian is not gratis, since by using it, we grant > > considerable power to the DDs, their committees, and the DPL! > > No, they’re not submitted to network effect, Debian is not a social > network. Moreover, Debian is non-lucrative. Currently nobody can get > *power* from it. I'm not sure what you mean by non-lucrative, but even though there's no money involved, that does not mean that there's no power. The power to decide what software to include in the distribution and what to exclude is certainly power. Debian has an elaborate constitution, with all kinds of rules, and the organization has considerable power over the distribution. This is similar, in my mind, to the power that an organization like Facebook has over its network. In theory Facebook users can go somewhere else, but in practice, this can be quite difficult. Similarly, if I don't like decisions Debian takes, I'm free to find a different distribution. In practice, this is a non-trivial step. Of course, the power of Debian concerns me much less than Facebook's power, since I am much (vastly) happier with the ideals and transparency of Debian than that of Facebook. Again, I am certainly not claiming that Debian and Facebook (for example) are remotely equivalent institutions. I am merely making the reductio ad absurdum argument that defining terms like "gratis" as broadly as some in this thread seem to do implies that Debian's offerings aren't gratis. Celejar
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
Hi, On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 14:59:27 -0400 Greg Wooledge wrote: > Also apparently > any time I say anything, I'm perceived as a jerk. be asssured, that is not the case. Best regards Michael .-.. .. ...- . .-.. --- -. --. .- -. -.. .--. .-. --- ... .--. . .-. Vulcans never bluff. -- Spock, "The Doomsday Machine", stardate 4202.1
[OT] Selling beer (was: Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names])
Hi, On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 21:25:17 +0100 Joe wrote: (...) > Back when we had TV advertisements > for beer, it was always the rubbish beers that got the publicity. here (Germany) we still have those TV ads for beer, and I can assure you that the advertised brands (its not up to me to decide whether they are rubbish or not) are the ones that are available virtually everywhere, so I believe that it is safe to assume that they are also the brands that sell. So yes, unfortunately at least in some cases advertisements apparently pay. > As for 'targetted advertising', I've never seen any. When I notice the > ads around the sides of web pages, none of them are aimed at me The same here. So maybe I have developed some skills obscuring my "profile" to "them", or (maybe more likely) I am just too dumb to realize that those ads *are* in fact targeted at me :-) Regards Michael .-.. .. ...- . .-.. --- -. --. .- -. -.. .--. .-. --- ... .--. . .-. Vulcans believe peace should not depend on force. -- Amanda, "Journey to Babel", stardate 3842.3
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 03:54:22 PM Brian wrote: > On Tue 13 Jul 2021 at 15:38:26 -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 11:27:03 AM Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > BTW, for those who don't want to run their own server, there are still > > > other reasons to avoid Github: my rule is to try and opt for the > > > underdog so as to foster competition. > > > > +1 > > You are apparently well up in this field. Is there a particular > udderdog you would recommend? No, sorry. I was speaking more in generalities, I almost always try to support the underdog. (The last time I was somewhat actively involved in development (~2018), the developer I was working with chose to use github and I did not argue about it, and am not sure I would have at that time -- not sure who owned it then.)
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On 2021-07-13 20:47, Brian wrote: On Tue 13 Jul 2021 at 14:59:27 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 07:32:19PM +0100, Brian wrote: > May I suggest we get back on-topic. There's a topic? I think we're so far from the topic that we can't even get back to it with a compass. Your OP was important and interesting. > Greg Wooledge (he who has > disappeared) could just sensitively edit the wiki page he has > an interest in, That's what I would do. I "disappeared" because I had nothing more to say. Fair enough. Also apparently any time I say anything, I'm perceived as a jerk. That's not correct. And it is not my view. I would have gone about the issue in a different way, but that is just me. It is of legitimate concern. Or maybe it's just when I stand up for myself, who knows. I think your reaction does point to a difficiency in wiki management. I've restored the sources.list entries in the FAQ sections of the wiki pages for stretch and buster. We'll see what happens next, I guess I have not looked yet but that is what I would do. I understand that there are people spend their entire days going through wiki pages to "correct" things. my original comment was in no way directed at any person. Centralized control of thoughts is definitely a bad thing. Free open software is a good thing mick -- Key ID4BFEBB31
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 21:31:33 +0200 Alexandre Garreau wrote: > > The mail you answer to sadly didn’t explain concretely what is the > payement, and how you can make money from it. The answer is: selling > personal data. Both what you output, what comes from you, and what > is inputted to you, what to see. Knowing what you say, what you see, > what you like to see, and deciding it sells very profitably nowadays, > agueably more than oil. > > But is it all a fraud? OK, I know I'm not typical, but I don't notice advertisements. I use various means to block most, but even the ones I see simply don't register. I don't generally buy things advertised, partly because I don't want to subsidise the whole advertising thing, but partly because what gets advertised is what the manufacturers find hardest to shift in adequate numbers. Good products are bought repeatedly, and people tell each other about them. They don't need advertising. Back when we had TV advertisements for beer, it was always the rubbish beers that got the publicity. Courage would advertise John Courage, their poorest beer. They never advertised Directors', or the bottled Russian Stout, or Bulldog ale. As for 'targetted advertising', I've never seen any. When I notice the ads around the sides of web pages, none of them are aimed at me, and very few are aimed at anyone outside the US. So is this obsession with collecting personal data on people actually paying off? -- Joe
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On Tue 13 Jul 2021 at 15:38:26 -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 11:27:03 AM Stefan Monnier wrote: > > BTW, for those who don't want to run their own server, there are still > > other reasons to avoid Github: my rule is to try and opt for the > > underdog so as to foster competition. > > +1 You are apparently well up in this field. Is there a particular udderdog you would recommend? -- Brian.
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On Tue 13 Jul 2021 at 14:59:27 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 07:32:19PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > May I suggest we get back on-topic. > > There's a topic? I think we're so far from the topic that we can't > even get back to it with a compass. Your OP was important and interesting. > > Greg Wooledge (he who has > > disappeared) could just sensitively edit the wiki page he has > > an interest in, That's what I would do. > > I "disappeared" because I had nothing more to say. Fair enough. > Also apparently > any time I say anything, I'm perceived as a jerk. That's not correct. And it is not my view. I would have gone about the issue in a different way, but that is just me. It is of legitimate concern. > Or maybe it's just > when I stand up for myself, who knows. I think your reaction does point to a difficiency in wiki management. > I've restored the sources.list entries in the FAQ sections of the wiki > pages for stretch and buster. We'll see what happens next, I guess I have not looked yet but that is what I would do. -- Brian. >
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 11:27:03 AM Stefan Monnier wrote: > BTW, for those who don't want to run their own server, there are still > other reasons to avoid Github: my rule is to try and opt for the > underdog so as to foster competition. +1
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
Le mardi 13 juillet 2021, 16:09:50 CEST Celejar a écrit : > On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 16:08:53 +0300 > > Reco wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 08:01:58AM -0400, Celejar wrote: > > > > Github (Gitlab, Sourceforge, etc) were and are non-free (as in - > > > > non-gratis) services, so it's only reasonable to stay away from > > > > them > > > > regardless of whom is controlling them. > > > > > > What do you mean by calling them non-gratis services? I know that > > > some > > > of their services are non-gratis, but basic code hosting certainly > > > is > > > gratis. > > > > You do not pay for these services, yet they provide them to you and > > everyone else (with certain exclusions). > > Guess who is the product here? The answer is - you are the product. > > Payment involving money is not the only kind of payment that you can > > make today. > > I think that's an unreasonable definition of gratis and non-gratis. If > a FLOSS dev gets an ego boost, or even some sort of spiritual > satisfaction, from people using his software, does that mean it's > non-gratis? An ego-boost doesn’t grant power, that is, possibility of action of your will on the actions of others. But github as a platform provides a great deal of power to microsoft. They litterally own your data. Maybe not your programs, but maybe all your metadata + what was listed later (bugreports, etc.). The mail you answer to sadly didn’t explain concretely what is the payement, and how you can make money from it. The answer is: selling personal data. Both what you output, what comes from you, and what is inputted to you, what to see. Knowing what you say, what you see, what you like to see, and deciding it sells very profitably nowadays, agueably more than oil.
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
> We are in basic agreement. I'm not really a "developer" - I just host > some relatively simple projects on Github. I agree that a deeper use of > something like Github is something I'd have to carefully consider. BTW, for those who don't want to run their own server, there are still other reasons to avoid Github: my rule is to try and opt for the underdog so as to foster competition. Stefan
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
Le mardi 13 juillet 2021, 20:00:44 CEST Celejar a écrit : > On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 19:28:39 +0200 > Alexandre Garreau wrote: > > Le mardi 13 juillet 2021, 14:01:58 CEST Celejar a écrit : > > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 11:54:43 +0300 > > > Reco wrote: > > > > Github (Gitlab, Sourceforge, etc) were and are non-free (as in - > > > > non-gratis) services, so it's only reasonable to stay away from > > > > them > > > > regardless of whom is controlling them. > > > > > > What do you mean by calling them non-gratis services? I know that > > > some > > > of their services are non-gratis, but basic code hosting certainly > > > is > > > gratis. > > > > Maybe we could say that you pay with your personal data, or with the, > > per network effect, power you give to microsoft to organize a social > > networking platform that’s very important for finding work, a lot > > more than their shitty linkedin > > Fair enough. But by the same logic, things like Matrix and Signal are > not gratis, since by using them, you empower their controlling > foundations via the network effect. Signal is not a lucrative company (yet… who knows, looking at their bad faith), but you’re right there, because since they’re centralized and depending on proprietary OSes, you indeed grant power by using them. But Signal is not so powerful, so it’s not a so big problem, it’s only sad given their stated goal, and its ideological proximity with software freedom and net decentralization… Matrix is meant to be decentralized, so network effect shouldn’t apply. But maybe your message is a critic of good faith of matrix people and their network, because of instability (hence unstandardness) of their protocol, asymetry in their gateways (remembering a bit discord…), big asymetries in development of their clients, official non-free client, and total (wilingful?) blindness about existing implementations such as xmpp u.u Same can be argued about Twitter, Facebook, etc. One one hand, they’re gratis of charges, no money is required to enter, on the other hand “if it’s gratis, you are the product”, and indeed these are companies that make actual money. Big money, GAFAM are among the richest in the world u.u And Twitter is pretty powerful (even and especially politically) after all. > Hey, for that matter, Debian is not gratis, since by using it, we grant > considerable power to the DDs, their committees, and the DPL! No, they’re not submitted to network effect, Debian is not a social network. Moreover, Debian is non-lucrative. Currently nobody can get *power* from it.
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 07:32:19PM +0100, Brian wrote: > May I suggest we get back on-topic. There's a topic? I think we're so far from the topic that we can't even get back to it with a compass. > Greg Wooledge (he who has > disappeared) could just sensitively edit the wiki page he has > an interest in, That's what I would do. I "disappeared" because I had nothing more to say. Also apparently any time I say anything, I'm perceived as a jerk. Or maybe it's just when I stand up for myself, who knows. I've restored the sources.list entries in the FAQ sections of the wiki pages for stretch and buster. We'll see what happens next, I guess.
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On Tue 13 Jul 2021 at 14:00:44 -0400, Celejar wrote: [...] > Hey, for that matter, Debian is not gratis, since by using it, we grant > considerable power to the DDs, their committees, and the DPL! That's stirring it even more! May I suggest we get back on-topic. Greg Wooledge (he who has disappeared) could just sensitively edit the wiki page he has an interest in, That's what I would do. -- Brian.
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 19:28:39 +0200 Alexandre Garreau wrote: > Le mardi 13 juillet 2021, 14:01:58 CEST Celejar a écrit : > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 11:54:43 +0300 > > > > Reco wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 09:20:12AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > > > Working for free. > > > > > > > > > > Yes. This aspect was always annoying to Microsoft and alike. > > > > > > > > Times have changed. Now Microsoft *loves* free work... done for > > > > them [1]. > > > > > > Nothing had changed in this regard. Every software corporation always > > > adored enthusiasts doing their job for them. No exceptions. > > > > > > > Not that this enhances my love for Microsoft, mind you. It rather > > > > confirms my initial gut feeling to stay out of Githubs way wherever > > > > I can. > > > > > > Github (Gitlab, Sourceforge, etc) were and are non-free (as in - > > > non-gratis) services, so it's only reasonable to stay away from them > > > regardless of whom is controlling them. > > > > What do you mean by calling them non-gratis services? I know that some > > of their services are non-gratis, but basic code hosting certainly is > > gratis. > > Maybe we could say that you pay with your personal data, or with the, per > network effect, power you give to microsoft to organize a social networking > platform that’s very important for finding work, a lot more than their > shitty linkedin Fair enough. But by the same logic, things like Matrix and Signal are not gratis, since by using them, you empower their controlling foundations via the network effect. Hey, for that matter, Debian is not gratis, since by using it, we grant considerable power to the DDs, their committees, and the DPL! Celejar
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
Le mardi 13 juillet 2021, 14:01:58 CEST Celejar a écrit : > On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 11:54:43 +0300 > > Reco wrote: > > Hi. > > > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 09:20:12AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > > Working for free. > > > > > > > > Yes. This aspect was always annoying to Microsoft and alike. > > > > > > Times have changed. Now Microsoft *loves* free work... done for > > > them [1]. > > > > Nothing had changed in this regard. Every software corporation always > > adored enthusiasts doing their job for them. No exceptions. > > > > > Not that this enhances my love for Microsoft, mind you. It rather > > > confirms my initial gut feeling to stay out of Githubs way wherever > > > I can. > > > > Github (Gitlab, Sourceforge, etc) were and are non-free (as in - > > non-gratis) services, so it's only reasonable to stay away from them > > regardless of whom is controlling them. > > What do you mean by calling them non-gratis services? I know that some > of their services are non-gratis, but basic code hosting certainly is > gratis. Maybe we could say that you pay with your personal data, or with the, per network effect, power you give to microsoft to organize a social networking platform that’s very important for finding work, a lot more than their shitty linkedin
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 11:27:03 -0400 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > We are in basic agreement. I'm not really a "developer" - I just host > > some relatively simple projects on Github. I agree that a deeper use of > > something like Github is something I'd have to carefully consider. > > BTW, for those who don't want to run their own server, there are still > other reasons to avoid Github: my rule is to try and opt for the > underdog so as to foster competition. I agree. I may reconsider using Github going forward. Celejar
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 16:08:53 +0300 Reco wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 08:01:58AM -0400, Celejar wrote: > > > Github (Gitlab, Sourceforge, etc) were and are non-free (as in - > > > non-gratis) services, so it's only reasonable to stay away from them > > > regardless of whom is controlling them. > > > > What do you mean by calling them non-gratis services? I know that some > > of their services are non-gratis, but basic code hosting certainly is > > gratis. > > You do not pay for these services, yet they provide them to you and > everyone else (with certain exclusions). > Guess who is the product here? The answer is - you are the product. > Payment involving money is not the only kind of payment that you can > make today. I think that's an unreasonable definition of gratis and non-gratis. If a FLOSS dev gets an ego boost, or even some sort of spiritual satisfaction, from people using his software, does that mean it's non-gratis? > > > You need to be in control of your code - *you* host it. Always was, > > > always is. It's not that hard anyway. > > > > If you maintain a local copy of your code and just push it to Github > > for serving it publicly (which is what I do, and what I assume most > > developers do), you haven't lost control of your code > > And then you take out your Github repository in compliance with DMCA > claim (bonus points for false DMCA claim). > Whoops - suddenly you've lost a chunk of your userbase, possibly > - some of your contributors, bug reports, CI/CD pipeline, and that's a > non-exhaustive list. Those are certainly legitimate concerns, although none of that really means that you're "not in control of your code." I see that you yourself acknowledge this below. > > - if / when the host does anything you don't like, you take the > > existing code and make it available elsewhere, and stop posting future > > code to the offending service. (It'll still have a copy of any > > existing code, of course - but that's inevitable with FLOSS software > > regardless of where you host it.) > > But the "code" aka git repository is not the only thing that's provided > by such companies, and the temptation to use these other services (that > are also provided "free" of charge) is way too great for the most. > > You've kept your code in the scenario above, but what good did it gave > you? > > > I don't argue that there are "safe" ways of using these services > (aforementioned "code dump" is one of them). Problem is - if the risks > of using these services need to be explained to the participants of > debian-user - it's not possible to explain the same to the happy GitHub > crowd. We are in basic agreement. I'm not really a "developer" - I just host some relatively simple projects on Github. I agree that a deeper use of something like Github is something I'd have to carefully consider. Celejar
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 08:01:58AM -0400, Celejar wrote: > > Github (Gitlab, Sourceforge, etc) were and are non-free (as in - > > non-gratis) services, so it's only reasonable to stay away from them > > regardless of whom is controlling them. > > What do you mean by calling them non-gratis services? I know that some > of their services are non-gratis, but basic code hosting certainly is > gratis. You do not pay for these services, yet they provide them to you and everyone else (with certain exclusions). Guess who is the product here? The answer is - you are the product. Payment involving money is not the only kind of payment that you can make today. > > You need to be in control of your code - *you* host it. Always was, > > always is. It's not that hard anyway. > > If you maintain a local copy of your code and just push it to Github > for serving it publicly (which is what I do, and what I assume most > developers do), you haven't lost control of your code And then you take out your Github repository in compliance with DMCA claim (bonus points for false DMCA claim). Whoops - suddenly you've lost a chunk of your userbase, possibly - some of your contributors, bug reports, CI/CD pipeline, and that's a non-exhaustive list. > - if / when the host does anything you don't like, you take the > existing code and make it available elsewhere, and stop posting future > code to the offending service. (It'll still have a copy of any > existing code, of course - but that's inevitable with FLOSS software > regardless of where you host it.) But the "code" aka git repository is not the only thing that's provided by such companies, and the temptation to use these other services (that are also provided "free" of charge) is way too great for the most. You've kept your code in the scenario above, but what good did it gave you? I don't argue that there are "safe" ways of using these services (aforementioned "code dump" is one of them). Problem is - if the risks of using these services need to be explained to the participants of debian-user - it's not possible to explain the same to the happy GitHub crowd. Reco
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 08:01:58AM -0400, Celejar wrote: >If you maintain a local copy of your code and just push it to Github >for serving it publicly (which is what I do, and what I assume most >developers do), you haven't lost control of your code - if / when the >host does anything you don't like, you take the existing code and make >it available elsewhere, and stop posting future code to the offending >service. (It'll still have a copy of any existing code, of course - but >that's inevitable with FLOSS software regardless of where you host it.) Agreed. Plus, as long as you have a proper license, like GPLv3, then you should be good to host your code on a provider like GitHub, or at least use that host as a mirror. -- Best regards, Brian T Coronavirus is a scam. 9/11 was an inside job. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 11:54:43 +0300 Reco wrote: > Hi. > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 09:20:12AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > Working for free. > > > > > > Yes. This aspect was always annoying to Microsoft and alike. > > > > Times have changed. Now Microsoft *loves* free work... done for > > them [1]. > > Nothing had changed in this regard. Every software corporation always > adored enthusiasts doing their job for them. No exceptions. > > > > Not that this enhances my love for Microsoft, mind you. It rather > > confirms my initial gut feeling to stay out of Githubs way wherever > > I can. > > Github (Gitlab, Sourceforge, etc) were and are non-free (as in - > non-gratis) services, so it's only reasonable to stay away from them > regardless of whom is controlling them. What do you mean by calling them non-gratis services? I know that some of their services are non-gratis, but basic code hosting certainly is gratis. > You need to be in control of your code - *you* host it. Always was, > always is. It's not that hard anyway. If you maintain a local copy of your code and just push it to Github for serving it publicly (which is what I do, and what I assume most developers do), you haven't lost control of your code - if / when the host does anything you don't like, you take the existing code and make it available elsewhere, and stop posting future code to the offending service. (It'll still have a copy of any existing code, of course - but that's inevitable with FLOSS software regardless of where you host it.) Celejar
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
Hi. On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 11:22:48AM +0200, john doe wrote: > On 7/13/2021 10:54 AM, Reco wrote: > > Github (Gitlab, Sourceforge, etc) were and are non-free (as in - > > non-gratis) services, so it's only reasonable to stay away from them > > regardless of whom is controlling them. > > > > You need to be in control of your code - *you* host it. Always was, > > always is. It's not that hard anyway. > > So the bottom line is that you need to have a server to host this > yourself but what do you suggest if you don't have the gears/capacity to > do it yourself (VPS ...)? I suggest them to learn it and deal with it. Quitting software development is also an option (and in the case of certain programming languages it's a preferred one), though, there's much more so called "software developers" that the world really needs anyway. Relinquishing control is also an option, but there will be consequences. For instance, that link that tomas had provided. Or all those recent stories about Github and complying with DMCA. I'm not saying that the consequences will be there immediately (because it's never *that* easy), but certainly they will be hard (or impossible) to anticipate. Reco
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 11:22:48AM +0200, john doe wrote: > On 7/13/2021 10:54 AM, Reco wrote: > > > >Github (Gitlab, Sourceforge, etc) were and are non-free (as in - > >non-gratis) services, so it's only reasonable to stay away from them > >regardless of whom is controlling them. > > > >You need to be in control of your code - *you* host it. Always was, > >always is. It's not that hard anyway. > > > > So the bottom line is that you need to have a server to host this > yourself but what do you suggest if you don't have the gears/capacity to > do it yourself (VPS ...)? (1) There /are/ alternatives to github (a couple of them) (2) My post was more targeting at github running advanced machine learning (GPT3) over all the free code hosted by it. To offer a service telling people how to code (talk funny feedback loop). Point (2) was for me the "aaah, that's why Microsoft threw 7B on the table to buy GH". Cheers - t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On 7/13/2021 10:54 AM, Reco wrote: Github (Gitlab, Sourceforge, etc) were and are non-free (as in - non-gratis) services, so it's only reasonable to stay away from them regardless of whom is controlling them. You need to be in control of your code - *you* host it. Always was, always is. It's not that hard anyway. So the bottom line is that you need to have a server to host this yourself but what do you suggest if you don't have the gears/capacity to do it yourself (VPS ...)? For the sake of clarity, I'm talking here about the logistical aspect(s) of not relying on GB/SF/... -- John Doe
Re: Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
Hi. On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 09:20:12AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > Working for free. > > > > Yes. This aspect was always annoying to Microsoft and alike. > > Times have changed. Now Microsoft *loves* free work... done for > them [1]. Nothing had changed in this regard. Every software corporation always adored enthusiasts doing their job for them. No exceptions. > Not that this enhances my love for Microsoft, mind you. It rather > confirms my initial gut feeling to stay out of Githubs way wherever > I can. Github (Gitlab, Sourceforge, etc) were and are non-free (as in - non-gratis) services, so it's only reasonable to stay away from them regardless of whom is controlling them. You need to be in control of your code - *you* host it. Always was, always is. It's not that hard anyway. Reco
Working for free [was: Offensive variable names]
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 09:01:20AM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > Gregory Smith wrote to me: > > You're a bunch of fa*gots. > > I think this asterisk is an insufficient surrogate for a classical "bleep". > But thank you for the plural. This enhances my self-esteem. > > > > Working for free. > > Yes. This aspect was always annoying to Microsoft and alike. Times have changed. Now Microsoft *loves* free work... done for them [1]. Not that this enhances my love for Microsoft, mind you. It rather confirms my initial gut feeling to stay out of Githubs way wherever I can. Cheers [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitHub_Copilot - t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
