(((Diversity))) in Zig Forums Funny Thread

Just what we needed. More Go programmers.

SAGE. Niggers can't use a command line!

i love you Zig Forums Zig Forums

Less people being exploited by proprietary software is a good thing you dumb fag.

Came here for this.

This. (pic)

Attached: 8471ccb21b20bffa009cf3f62f2e5e71d03e8dccf57324ab0e5d84ec3657cd0b.png (620x582, 269.85K)

Zig Forums, it has actual diversity of opinion, as opposed to the cultist "diversity" of demanding everyone be at least one of faggot, nigger, woman or trap but think exactly the same or they're fired.

What? I doubt it's possible for a nigger country to be better than any White country, except with some revolution going too far or a war. On kikepedia it says 30% of them are still illiterate, find me one White country that bad without going back to the middle ages.

Attached: gnaa-linux.jpg (1680x1050, 215.51K)

Fucking Steve Job and Bill gates got their idea from niggers. No wonder computers are so shit nowadays. Terry A Davis was right.

You know that's not always the case, right? Some things just have to be proprietary by their nature in order to exist.

Attached: malik.jpg (620x1013, 167.99K)

I get negro fatigue if I just have to speak to one on the end of the phone, I couldn't imagine trying to organize them to work.

Attached: truck.png (1286x722, 807.98K)

>>>/g/

youtu.be/cHPhuo4NtmY

I am subd to them on jewtube just in case anything happens, most of their uploads are shilling of either their IBM Cloud or pushing this sort of feminist and antiracist shit... sad, although I seen them try copy DWave with theor quantum computer stuff

Believe it or not, when you venture out of >>>Zig Forums, you'll find the real world isn't communist. It's very hard to make a profit developing GPL software, which is why almost all companies don't go for that model. When they do use open source, it's for a broader strategic objective.

You can sell GPL and other FreeSource Software for real money.

Attached: Screenshot from 2018-03-20 22-05-34.png (754x493, 103.89K)

Sure. You can also build your own aircraft fleet and launch bombing attacks against the United States, but it's very hard to do.

QT does it and it works out fine. You need a product people actually want though.

Attached: guys vs girls at coding.jpg (600x576 1.49 MB, 64.71K)

Attached: intel million diversity asian white.png (637x530 121.04 KB, 64.5K)

Attached: tech silicon valley.png (646x690 114.12 KB, 50.22K)

Attached: women leaving stem for sjw studies.png (646x2265, 643.48K)

I think you're missing the point here. QT is also in a different position than most commercial software.

This make me angry somehow.

Redhat, Apple, Oracle kinda.

I mean a lot of companies do. Linus makes nearly 1 mill annually on just his kernel and he's one of the lesser entities in terms of FreeSource revenue.

Redhat sells services for software others write (they "give back" by providing systemd, pulse etc)
Oracle is where free software goes to die.
Apple is tossing out GPL as fast as they can, they prefer to cuck BSD for their tools. They didn't even. choose GPL for their Swift language.

Companies make strategic use of free software when it suits them. Can you imagine a company like Adobe switching to GPL for Photoshop, or something smaller like IDA Pro? They'd be out of business in no time.

You can download FreeSource of tons of their apps in addition to their kernel. Chess, Textedit, some Cocoa libraries, and much more.

Why's that?

Do you understand the difference between GPL and OpenSource?

You mean FreeSoftware and GPL.

FreeSoftware and OpenSource*

inb4 the "it's not Free if it's not copyleft" FUD that Kikesoft has been shilling here.

gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html

Attached: microsoft windows.jpg (1121x1123, 500.84K)

...

...

If your definition of FreeSoftware is from GNU, then yes Adobe will go out of business if they make their software FreeSoftware. Namely because it would enable Microsoft to distribute Adobe Photoshop in Windows to their customers (they have to change the icons), without any royalties to Adobe.

Redhat gets by. Microsoft's entire software library is zero-cost too and they get by.

Africa is getting more and more industrialized by the day, so I don't exactly find the humor in this. This is basic economics. There is going to be a tech boom there because most people have yet to buy any sort of computer or even get on the internet. If GNU/Linux and free software is what they choose instead of proprietary shit, then more power to them. I would hope more people did this.

Then those things shouldn't exist.

No, it's hard to keep a multi-million dollar company where the guy who keeps most of it is the guy that doesn't write a single line of code. Programmers can work just fine by commission.

It is free, but copyleft preserves that freedom down the line. GPL all the way.

India can't even get wiring straight, how do you think blacks can pull it off?
Blacks can't even maintain existing railroads.

India is doing pretty well, and GDP in both Africa and India keeps growing. I don't know why you think this is some kind of impossibility. Even then, we aren't talking about Africa becoming the tech continent. We're talking about heightened consumption of technology due to increased wages. Last I checked blacks buy computers and cellphones and even manage to use them. Strange, I know, but I don't see why this should be looked at as anything else than an investment opportunity for western tech companies.

t. knuckle dragging Zig Forumstard

Statements like this just make you look naive. You're a zealot parroting mantras on issues you don't really understand.

Pretty easy to grow when you're at rock bottom.

You're the idiot who envisions software development like a blacksmith in medieval England, aren't you? Stop viewing everything as a "single guy commissioned", and view it as a business, because that's the world we operate in. You may not like it, but you'll be incompatible with everyone else if you pretend we live in a bygone era. Some projects are massive and require a large and expensive team to complete, which involves upfront investment. Investors are those taking the largest risks to get a project off the ground may make sizeable profits certainly, but that's the reward for their efforts. You're free to be an entrepreneur, or a 9-5 employee.

How would Adobe Photoshop "get by" by converting their software to GPL tomorrow? Also, don't you think if that could somehow benefit them monetarily, they would do it ASAP? You might be an anarcho-captalist or commie, but surely you can agree that large corporations are well incentivized to earn as much as humanly possible.

*Adobe get by... converting Photoshop to GPL ...

Translation: No arguments

The same way as every open sores operation: SaaS. They're already halfway there with "Creative Cloud", all they need is to shift execution off the user's CPU, and they're home free.

That's the worst of both worlds. Now you get a dumb "FreeSoftware" client, that can't do much more than violate your privacy as you login to your cloud service which could be denied to you if you're found to be producing WrongThink images.

Apologies for being so rude. Of course your ideas are insane, but I should have been more civil.

As online communities go, Zig Forums's diversity of opinions isn't great.
People can say anything they want, but opinions are used as shibboleths. Have the wrong ones and you're told to go to >>>/reddit/ or >>>Zig Forums or whatever, not engaged with on an honest level. Most technical non-political opinions are exempt, but that's normal.
Places like these rely heavily on shibboleths because they're anonymous. If you want to judge whether someone belongs, you can't use more than the content of their post.
It's a feedback loop. People who actually do belong but have problematic opinions learn to hide them because it never leads to productive discussion, so most of the people who show them really do not belong yet.
It could be worse. I'm sure there are places that are much worse. But Zig Forums has the lowest diversity of opinion out of the places I visit.

only on Zig Forums lul

You realize that the source code only needs to be available to those who receive the binary, yes?
This will sound pretty jewish, but it works:
* Make contract for GPL software
* Make updates to source and binary available under the terms of contract
* Put yearly fee on contract
* If source or binary is made available to non-authorized individuals, make contract invalid and/or sue them for damages. you also have the right to DMCA the source code
This way, if you pay for the binary you also get the right to make modifications, receive support from the vendor and the vendor gets to keep the IP rights.

This violates the GPL. You can't restrict redistribution to that extent.
GRsecurity does the closest thing to it that (while disputed) still seems to be just within the limits of what the GPL allows. If you redistribute, your contract is terminated. But there's no suing for damages, and no DMCA.

Doesn't source code count as intellectual property? Can't you DMCA for your intellectual property?

The way I understand it, there's no legal definition of intellectual property. It's an amalgamation of copyright, patents, trademarks and other things, all of which exist for different reasons and work in different ways.
Source code is covered by copyright. The GPL is a copyright license that covers source code.
You could DMCA people for violating the GPL, possibly. But the GPL forbids adding certain classes of extra restrictions, so licensing something under the GPL gives people the irrevocable right to redistribute it. You can't force people to take GPLed code down just because you own the copyright - you put the GPL on it, so it's theirs to share.
The GPL tries to make something free software, and keep it that way. There are a few tricks to make GPLv2 software sort-of proprietary, which is one of the reasons GPLv3 was released, but GPLv3 is generally good at its job, so if you get GPL software you can study it, modify it, demand source code, and redistribute it for free or against a price.

Install Gentoo

You don't get to define non-authornized. Anyways, Microsoft would buy a copy of Adobe Photoshop, and distribute it to all their users in your scenario. This is why GPL cannot be used for all commercial ventures.

My sides

no

If ypu can't sell it it's not free as in free speech(tm). Those are the rules as set out by Richie Stolm.

It's not free. Once you license your shitty source code with shitty GPL, you no longer have the freedom to sell the copyright to another person or business.

How about selling a GPL program for the cost of developing it + a profit margin?

You can always sell copies of the software.
You can also sell the copyright, although you can't retract the GPL licensing. But the new owners of the copyright would be able to re-release the software under any license they like, GPL-compatible or not. Naturally that only applies if you do own all the code - if you incorporate outside contributions it's different.

Wrong. The developer of CUPS licensed it under GPL and then sold the copyright to Apple (who cuck licensed it).

That's true, but that's what is going to make a ton of money. China is still worse than fucking Mexico poor, and just because of the amount of people there, billions have been made due to foreign investment. Africa is much the same. Sell a $2 product to every African, and you've made yourself a very wealthy guy.

Must be a niggerbrained woman. You made user's point faux diversity cuck.

Free from loving husbands and functional satisfying families.:^)

This does not imply it's the world we have to operate in. So the supposition that some things have to operate in a certain way is false. If we always accepted things as they are, there would be no change. Pushing against the status quo should be the goal of everyone interested in technology.

With the lack of job security quickly catching up to pretty much everyone, the 9-5 employee is going to be a thing of the past. This is a lie peddled by faggots that are wannabe idea guys. The only relationship that matters is that of the user and the dev, not some middle man faggot investor. Let people put their money directly in the dev's pocket.

How can you sell the copyright and allow the new owners to re-license the software if the software once it's licensed under GPL is permanently and forever licensed as GPL?

Not under the GPL. Show me where it says you can sell the copyright and can revoke the GPL licensing.

Dual licensing is a thing, stop making shit up.

You can't revoke the license of those that already received a copy(and therefore a license), but you can simply license future versions under another license. It is your software, you can still do whatever you want with it, but only you can change the license, nobody else can, as they are only licensees, not copyright holders.

Because you would need to know a priori what your max profit ceiling is, and then have the arduous task of getting someone (or a group) to buy it in one go. In reality, companies reinvest their profits to hire new staff, some developers and others in marketing to expand the reach of the software to new people.

We should just develop a patreon alternative for GPL projects, and then programmers could have a full-time job while constantly working only on free software.

I'd also like to end usury, but it's a bit hard with only wishful thinking.

Yep. The one big caveat here is that you (or your group) need to be the sole owner of the copyright. Which means you either reject all outside contributors, or make them sign a contributor agreement which assigns copyright to you.

I didn't say that. I said there is no inherent necessity for them to be that way. Usury, on the other hand, can't end without ending the system of capitalism, since this is the way we expand and contract the monetary system. This would apply even to gold, as owed gold is just as good as real gold from a properly insured source. Unless you're some kind of communist, you can't end usury, but you could argue this case and I would agree that usury is not an inherently necessary part of society, just one of the current kind. I don't disagree that the current mode of development is the financially necessary one, but I do think that it doesn't have to be this way, and that we're quickly trending toward doing things another way simply because employers are more than willing to throw programmers under the bus.

It's not a bad idea, but how do you incentivize people to donate? What is in it for them?

Exactly, this is why Linux cannot into GPLv3, because there is no such clause.

Well, they're getting good software out of it. MS and Apple are planning to rent SaaS to the user anyway. Adobe already does this. Why not put your money toward something that you're going to own and not something that can suddenly be changed to fuck you over even harder? I think that the motivation is quite clear, but we as the Free Software community have to make the case by starting to do it ourselves first.

You know, the only thing that is really stopping me from agreeing with you, in some fashion, is the GPL "Freedom" to redistribute. Remove that, and I have no problem with building businesses (read: a living for programmers) with open source software.

ahh, it's the collective voice speak again ;)

A good counter example is Sage, and it's attempt to unseat Mathematica. It has a competent developer, a Math PhD who retired from his post just to work on sage. Yet it's not popular or well funded. Why? Because people want something good 'right now', and they'll spend money on something tangible, instead of an idea.

No. I'm not an Open Source advocate. I'm a Free Software advocate. I guess it's because I'm more of an academic, but I don't like being shut out of cool shit or being prevented by the current system, especially one that relies heavily on software patents (which shouldn't even exist).

Bitch, that's the royal we.

Attached: 10775-beautiful-katamari-2[1].jpg (430x320, 33.44K)

he wasn't wrong though. just look at what happend to computers. the first consumer grade computers used a very easy language called basic that allowed pretty much anyone to write programs. it actually taught people how to use code. then the windows thing came and gave us win32api's and horrible useless interfaces.

The trouble is I just don't see how a company keeps the lights on with the freedom to redistribute, which essentially, gives away the store. I want end users to have the freedom to inspect how the code works, and even adjust it for their own needs, but it's too easy for people to get around the inconvenience of having to fund the development. I cannot tell you how many "I fucking love open source" faggots I've met who will espouse all the benefits but shy away when asked do if they money or code to their beloved project.

Sample size everyone

...

fuck I'm going there next semester

The internet isn't the only place you can you can sell software. For example you can sell it at a store to normals. Or you could go to a convention and sell your product there. You could sell disk copies online that come bundled with a nice box and instruction manual.
Being a place that just offers downloading a binary don't set you apart.

Oh lordy. You have no idea how difficult that is. You talk about wanting to cut out middlemen, dealing with store distributions is especially tiresome. I think Walmart might even be worse than Apple for taking a cut.

They can get paid to work instead of selling copies.
Anyone saying open source hasn't gone deep enough yet, but I do use my money to fund projects, and I think a patreon-like scheme could work out for the better in the long run. There is a lot of good software that just gets thrown away.

Oh I too miss 1990s products, but we can't have nice things anymore.

Go make it.