[–]▶ No.871347>>871381 >>871382 >>871405 >>871420 >>871433 >>871445 >>871475 >>871498 >>871505 >>871508 >>871578 >>871622 >>871682 >>871858 >>871867 >>871958 >>872138 [Watch Thread][Show All Posts]
Let's say you made a recipe for (mom's) spaghetti for a very well respected restaurant and didn't want anybody else to know the exact ingredients in the spaghetti, would it be unethical to lock it away in a vault so nobody would steal it and make money off of your creation? No, of course not. The same thing goes for proprietary software. If you made a game that took years and hundreds of dollars to make and you didn't want somebody to steal all the code and make money off it would it be unethical to hide the code from the user? NO.
Proprietary software is only bad when it exploits the user or hides the code for malicious reasons, take Chrome for example.
Proprietary software also does not "control" the user, the software controls itself and protects itself.
Richard is wrong, it's time for us to realize that.
▶ No.871359>>871382
But muh marxist arguments.
▶ No.871368>>871373 >>871383
The problem with proprietary software is you can't be sure that it's not malicious, you're stuck between "it might be malicious" and "it definitely is malicious".
▶ No.871373
>>871368
If it collects your data it's unethical but you can easily tell if it does through network usage statistics.
▶ No.871377
Another win for proprietary software is that as a developer, you don't have to deal with the nonsense you can expect in any successful open source community. In the proprietary world, if a developer starts bitching that the code base is 'toxic' because it contains terminology such as MASTER/SLAVE, they'll be handed a pink slip and a cardboard box.
▶ No.871381>>871385 >>871487 >>871757
>>871347 (OP)
The difference between the spaghetti and software is that spaghetti is an output of an recipe. You do not require recipe in order to consume spaghetti. You need a recipe (software) to play a game, however. It's like saying jpegs produced by photoshop are bad because photoshop is proprietary software and that only gimp creates ethical jpeg files. And there is a plenty of ways to profit from games that are free software (multiplayer server hosting, in-game content).
>Richard is wrong, it's time for us to realize that.
Listen more carefully to what he is saying.
▶ No.871382>>871422
>>871347 (OP)
I don't know how it's in schoolshootingstan, but in my country it is defined by law to write full ingredients and standards used for food products on the label. If it's a restaurant, they put ingredients on the menu or their website.
I wouldn't buy anything that doesn't say clearly how or what it is made of. And I surely wouldn't eat it, because these "super secret recipe spaghetti" might turn out to have arsenic sweetener with glutamine salts and heroin microdoses or whatever shit ingredient you put in them to increase profits and customer returns.
>>871359
GNU has nothing to do with marxism. In fact, free software GPL licenses are made for free market benefits, unlike permissive BSD licenses that allow source lockdown by monopolists, jews and commies.
▶ No.871383>>871438
>>871368
This. There was a time was the proprietary vs. free debate was more philosophical than practical, but circumstances have changed.
▶ No.871384
This argument is moot because proprietary software gets pirated anyway, regardless of the license and without availability of the source code. Your analogy is terribly lacking because most of the cost of food in restaurant comes from creating the food and serving it, recipies are available in abundance and reverse engineering is legal and industry practice. In contrast when creating software almost all of the cost is in developing one specific instance of it, copying it costs virtually nothing. Therefore developers should get paid for developing code, not licensing an arbitrary amount of binaries that cost them nothing.
And of course proprietary software controls the user. It has sluts sending nudes to facebook. it has normies giving their phone numbers to google. It forces people to connect to the internet for its DRM. It acts against the interest of the user and instead as an agent of the developer, preventing the user from doing what he wishes as soon his interests do not align with those of the developer.
There are of course degrees of badness in proprietary software, Chrome is worse than some old DOS game. however it puts such a large amount of power into developers hands, due to the ignorance of most software users, that the temptation to exploit it is simply so high that it inevitably becomes the norm. See "App Stores".
▶ No.871385>>871387 >>871390
>>871381
> You do not require recipe in order to consume spaghetti.
Program is an arrangement of instructions which the processor interprets
Spagetti is an arrangement of proteins, carbohydrates, fats etc... which the human body interprets
▶ No.871387>>871394
>>871385
It doesn't interpret, it consumes. Your analogy is bunk, move on.
▶ No.871389>>871408
I bet you're one of those GMO-endorsing normies cuz "hurr I fucking love science stop living in middle ages xd".
▶ No.871390>>871396
>>871385
Run the same program twice, observe the results.
Eat the same spaghetti twice, observe the results.
▶ No.871392>>871500
>would it be unethical to lock it away in a vault
According to which ethical framework?
Ethics aside, you've prevented humanity and other life forms from experiencing delicious food just so you can pretend you're better than the rest of us and use that as an excuse to exploit us.
▶ No.871394
>>871387
High-glucose syrup consumer.
▶ No.871396>>871406
>>871390
That's the solution we need. Each time the software is run, it turns into shit, and really needs to be purchased again if you want to enjoy it like the first time.
▶ No.871405>>871412
>>871347 (OP)
Proprietary software = OP's spaghetti with cheap ketchup from third party for 99.99
Proprietary chinese software = noodles with arsenic and nanobots that infiltrate your brain and organs.
Systemd = deep-fried butter spaghetti with 1 million pages recipe.
BSD-licenced software = your wife's delicious spaghetti recipe stolen by OP
Suckless software = healthy chicken-veg salad with 1-page recipe.
▶ No.871406
>>871396
But we already have the cloud :^)
▶ No.871408
>>871389
Give me proof that GMO's are harmful
(you can't because they aren't)
▶ No.871412>>871417 >>872031
>>871405
Any vegan options?
▶ No.871417
>>871412
*WHEEZE* Y-yes...sorry I'm just lightheaded *COUGH* *COUGH*
▶ No.871420
>>871347 (OP)
The spaghetti isn't secretly logging your keystrokes, you (((idiot))).
▶ No.871422>>871428
>>871382
You don't know what marxism is.
And the GPL license is objectively less free than the BSD licence. That's fine, I'm not against the GPL license existing, but I'm not against proprietary software existing either.
▶ No.871428>>871441 >>871855
>>871422
Proprietary software is an exercise of power -- it harms the users by denying their freedom. When users lack the freedoms that define free software, they can't tell what the software is doing, can't check for back doors, can't monitor possible viruses and worms, and can't find out what personal information is being reported (or stop the reports, even if they do find out). If it breaks, they can't fix it; they have to wait for the developer to exercise its power to do so. If it simply isn't quite what they need, they are stuck with it. They can't help each other improve it.
Discussions of rights and rules for software use have usually concentrated too much on the interests of programmers alone. Few people in the world program regularly, and fewer still are owners of proprietary software businesses. But the entire developed world now needs and uses software, so decisions about software determine what kind of world we have. Software developers now control the way the world lives, does business, communicates, and is entertained. The ethical and political issues cannot be avoided under the slogan of "freedom of choice (for developers only)".
▶ No.871433
>>871347 (OP)
>Proprietary software is NOT unethical
>Let's say you made a recipe for (mom's) spaghetti for a very well respected restaurant and didn't want anybody else to know the exact ingredients in the spaghetti, would it be unethical to lock it away in a vault so nobody would steal it and make money off of your creation? No, of course not. The same thing goes for proprietary software. If you made a game that took years and hundreds of dollars to make and you didn't want somebody to steal all the code and make money off it would it be unethical to hide the code from the user? NO.
If I don't know what your code is doing I won't buy your program. I can make spaghetti at home since that recipe has been around for a long time, much longer than corporate NDAs. There was also a time when all software was free as in freedom. I can take my own recipe for spaghetti and share it with my friends if I want and I'd even think it would be cool if they made a profit off it or modified it. Nothing wrong with that.
▶ No.871438>>871452 >>872054
>>871383
For the most part, open source software is so bad that normal users have no option other than proprietary. It turns out most people who claim to "LOVE OPEN SOURCE" neither contribute code nor funds to the free ecosystem.
▶ No.871441
>>871428
>freedom means something I just now made up in the context of being autistic about copyright law
wow Richard you're such a hero
▶ No.871445
>>871347 (OP)
>muh ethics
fuck off moralfag
>would it be unethical to lock it away in a vault so nobody would steal it and make money off of your creation?
no but i don't really like eating stuff with "secret ingredients". better yet i usually cook my own food. i don't use proprietary garbage to do secure communication for me because there's no point and it's just insecure. as you can see this has nothing to do with morals.
▶ No.871452>>871458
>>871438
>For the most part, open source software is so bad that normal users have no option other than proprietary.
Wrong. They do have a choice. They simply value the convenience that proprietary software gives them higher than their freedom. Something is worth to you exactly as much as you are willing to sacrifice for it, the people exclaiming how they would "love" to use "open source" , but don't due to technical shortcomings are therefore merely signaling virtue and do not actually value freedom.
>It turns out most people who claim to "LOVE OPEN SOURCE" neither contribute code nor funds to the free ecosystem.
This is true.
▶ No.871457
What the fuck do you care if Stallman says it's unethical or not? If you don't want to use GNU licenses, don't use then and fuck off.
▶ No.871458>>871468
>>871452
That "convenience" typically revolves around the ability to earn a living. While /tech/ is an abnormality, most normal people are exceedingly pragmatic. They don't even form their own political views, it's easier to recite the ones easiest to learn in their socio-economic circle.
I explained GNU and the open source culture to two normies recently. One couldn't even understand that people program "for free", it just wouldn't sink in. The other thought GNU people should "get a life", but really started to clue in when I said, "if Apple removes a feature you like, you're at their mercy. If they provided the source people would have the power to control how their software works".
▶ No.871466>>871467 >>871470 >>871475
Proprietary software isn't bad. You aren't forced to use proprietary software. (Unless it's something to do with the government making you use it for some reason like public school) I don't want to force a person to use Linux if they don't give a shit. I'll inform them of the lack of freedom but I don't want a law. I think most people who want free software agree with this if I'm not mistaken. Most people know they are giving google their information, they don't care. Why try to make them care. I'll use my free software and they use their spyware.
▶ No.871468>>871471
>>871458
>pragmatic
>don't even form their own political views, it's easier to recite the ones easiest to learn in their socio-economic circle.
How is this pragmatic? Isn't it simply arrogant and irresponsible?
▶ No.871470>>871480 >>871983
>>871466
Wrong you do get forced into proprietary software, by network effects like with WhatsApp. Or Corporations that force you to use proprietary software, but i see that you are a lolbert and therefore restrictions are fine, unless they come from the government.
▶ No.871471>>871478
>>871468
>How is this pragmatic? Isn't it simply arrogant and irresponsible?
Where is the contradiction?
▶ No.871475
>>871466
>>871347 (OP)
Proprietary software is bad even when nobody is forced to use it. I don't want a law to outlaw proprietary software, as I don't believe in adding useless laws to the pile.
▶ No.871478>>871484
>>871471
>Where is the contradiction?
There isn't one if the practical goal is destruction.
I'm used to the word pragmatic being used when we want to focus of what is directly observable, so I don't understand how it's being used in this context.
How is behavior that depends on priviledge/convenience more pragmatic than behavior that doesn't?
▶ No.871480>>871484
>>871470
don't use WhatsApp.
▶ No.871484>>871493
>>871478
It does indeed depend on the goal, however in general I see the pragmatic choice to be the path of least resistance. Thinking for yourself costs effort, might cause you to have uncomfortable thoughts and could distance you from your peer group if those thoughts are voiced.
>>871480
Don't fill out those government forms.
▶ No.871487>>871489
>>871381
I think it's a good analogy. Producers (in most developed countries anyway) put the ingredients of their products on the label to let consumers know what's in it. It wouldn't be ethical to sell products without letting customers know what is in it. Even restaurants let their customers know what they're being served.
▶ No.871489
>>871487
It would not be legal, that is the only reason they do it and there are inspections and hefty punishments When it was introduced the food industry did bitch and whine about the government oppressing them and so on of course.
▶ No.871493>>871496
>>871484
> Thinking for yourself costs effort, might cause you to have uncomfortable thoughts and could distance you from your peer group if those thoughts are voiced.
Thinking does costs effort, but it also has an ROI that exceeds the cost assuming you have caloric intake that isn't at starvation level.
People have uncomfortable thoughts no matter what they do. Thinking allows us to choose how to react to those thoughts, to hold onto them, to use them as motivation, to examine them, to let them go.
And by all means, if your peer group consists of terrorists, (for example, you work for a legal business)
don't voice your opinions. (unless you want to stir the pot) Pearls before swine, bulls yoke on a horse.
▶ No.871496>>871499
>>871493
>Thinking does costs effort, but it also has an ROI that exceeds the cost assuming you have caloric intake that isn't at starvation level.
False, as that depends on the given problem. But you're on the right track.
▶ No.871498
>>871347 (OP)
>software
>unethical
What the fuck are you talking about?
▶ No.871499
>>871496
>that depends on the given problem
Could you elaborate? Does this need to be restricted to problems?
▶ No.871500>>871501
▶ No.871501
>>871500
>couldn't do better?
▶ No.871505>>871612
>>871347 (OP)
>didn't want anybody else to know the exact ingredients in the spaghetti
But what if there's a common allergen or a controversial ingredient in the spaghetti? Shouldn't the customers have a right to know what they're eating?
▶ No.871508>>871516
▶ No.871516
>>871508
You mean people voluntarily give up their information
▶ No.871578>>871583
>>871347 (OP)
you are required by law to list the ingredients of any food you intend to sell, your straw man argument is bad, and you should feel bad...
▶ No.871583>>871589
>>871578
You get the ingredients but not the instructions to make the food (no coke formula). A binary gives you all opcodes but does not give you the source.
▶ No.871589>>871590 >>871598
>>871583
again, its a straw man argument anyway, i cant eat my binaries after all...
▶ No.871590>>871594
>>871589
You run your binaries. You can poison food, you can put a virus in your binary. What part of it is the straw man.
▶ No.871594>>871596 >>871599
>>871590
when you run your binaries they dont go into you body, you can run a binary twice, you gonna eat your shit too?
also, since you clearly dont know what a straw man argument is, check the link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
after that, if you still dont get it, you should try posting on >>>/pol/ instead of here, you see, tech people are typically smart, or at least, they can follow logic
▶ No.871596>>871601
>>871594
>provides no argument for it being a straw man
>when argument is demanded links to wikipedia with phil 101
>you can run a binary twice
This makes it a strawman how
▶ No.871598>>871601
>>871589
An analogy isn't a strawman.
▶ No.871599>>871601 >>871870
>>871594
>you can use a hammer multiple times therefore hammer companies must publish instructions on how to build a hammer
▶ No.871601>>871602 >>871632
>>871598
>>871596
making an analogy and then attacking that analogy instead of the actual topic is the very definition of a straw man argument
>>871599
oh great now we have multiple straw men, what is this, iowa?
▶ No.871602>>871605
>>871601
>calling an analogy a strawman makes it a strawman
▶ No.871603>>871604
What people don't understand is that proprietary software MUST exist...at least, as long as we have capitalism. Because those people have to earn a living. Dump capitalism and bam, no proprietary software.
▶ No.871604
>>871603
>le communism means everything is shared meme
proprietary software will exist all the same
▶ No.871605>>871606
>>871602
sorry mate i dont have any fancy autism pics saved like all your /pol/ friends
▶ No.871606>>871610
>>871605
>losing an argument
quick call them /pol/ users!
▶ No.871610>>871611
>>871606
yes, im loosing this argument, because youre too autistic to read the definition of something and comprehend it then apply it to the situation...
▶ No.871611>>871613
>>871610
>calling something a strawman makes it one
▶ No.871612>>871614 >>871616
>>871505
Great comment. What you don't know, (or what you purposefully hide from yourself (and those around you) ) can hurt you. (and those around you)
▶ No.871613>>871614 >>871616
>>871611
calling this argument a strawman [as well as calling you autistic] is not what makes these things facts, what makes them facts is the definition of those words, if only you werent autistic youd understand...
▶ No.871616>>871621
>>871612
>>871613
>>cant think of an argument
>AUTISTIC!
>POL USER
>LE WIKIPEDIA
>U JUST DONT GET IT
the absolute state of you
▶ No.871621>>871628 >>871631
>>871616
my argument is that op is a straw man argument
anyone who knows what that means would see it clear as day
keep bumping your own thread tho
show the whole world how autistic you are
▶ No.871622>>871631
>>871347 (OP)
bait thread
>would it be unethical to lock it away in a vault so nobody would steal it and make money off of your creation?
You'd be a twat but a recipe isn't a tool like free software it's more like knowledge.
>The same thing goes for proprietary software.
Software is a tool, if people don't have control of the tool that guides their life they don't have control over their life.
>If you made a game that took years and hundreds of dollars to make and you didn't want somebody to steal all the code and make money off it would it be unethical to hide the code from the user?
The code of a proprietary video game isn't released to the public and they are anyway cracked/pirated it's shared illegally.
DRMs on games are made because a game ask for a massive investment (more than any free software) before it's public release, they absolutely need to at least reimburse the money they invested in it,but, adding DRMs/not releasing the code isn't the good way to proceed, not releasing the content would be a more ethical solution and after a few years they could let the content be re-licensed under a new license for the community to thrive. .
>Proprietary software is only bad when it exploits the user or hides the code for malicious reasons, take Chrome for example.
>Proprietary software is only bad when
Proprietary is bad when it takes away the ownership/control of the tool that the user is using, aka all the time.
Licensed software under a copyleft license doesn't stop one from adding malware like functions.
>Proprietary software also does not "control" the user, the software controls itself and protects itself.
True the ones who control the users are the ones who control the Proprietary software
>Richard is wrong, it's time for us to realize that.
This is bait and you need to kys.
▶ No.871628
>>871621
cmon, im waiting, i beat off to this, you wouldnt give me blue balls, would you?
▶ No.871631>>872157
>>871621
>stalling this hard
>>871622
>Software is a tool, if people don't have control of the tool that guides their life they don't have control over their life.
Food sustains life. If people don't cook all their own food they don't have control over their life.
>Proprietary is bad when it takes away the ownership/control of the tool that the user is using, aka all the time.
The user has full control over every instruction their computer executes. Just because they don't bother looking at the instructions does not mean they don't have full control.
>I don't have control over this tractor because I refuse to read the operators manual
>The code of a proprietary video game isn't released to the public and they are anyway cracked/pirated it's shared illegally.
Where is that diable 3 hack then? Seems that most games these days have always online uncracked DRM.
>True the ones who control the users are the ones who control the Proprietary software
The user control what software they run and what instructions their computers execute. The instructions are in plain form for the user to inspect if they wish.
▶ No.871632>>871636 >>871644
>>871601
Attacking an spurious argument instead of your opponent's argument is the definition of a strawman. Whether or not the strawman in question is based on an analogy is irrelevant.
▶ No.871636>>871644
>>871632
Which part of it was the strawman again? It should be pretty simple. Instead you repeat 5 times
>muh strawman
>muh strawman
>muh strawman
>muh strawman
surely a smart guy like yourself can point it out pretty quickly
▶ No.871644>>871646 >>871658
>>871632
>>871636
software is not food, to claim that they are the same or even similar is spurious, it just so happens that 99.9% of straw man arguments [especially the ones loved most by /pol/tards] are based on shitty analogies...
▶ No.871646>>871647
>>871644
Which part of the analogy is wrong? You just added yet another instance of:
>muh strawman
>muh strawman
>muh strawman
>muh strawman
>muh strawman
You sure seem to repeat yourself a lot. I was hoping you actually had a reason. Guess not. Like a broken record.
▶ No.871647>>871648 >>871650
>>871646
read the first 4 words of the post you replied to
▶ No.871648>>871652
>>871647
>analogies are always strawmen because one thing is not literally the same object
you see what you just said right?
▶ No.871650>>871652
>>871647
What about software not literally being food makes it a strawman
▶ No.871652>>871653 >>871654 >>871655
>>871648
now youre catching on!
thats exactly correct!
no argument made with an analogy can possibly be logically sound...
>>871650
i gave the link to wikipedia defining a straw man argument
if you cant comprehend it then i recommend remedial english classes
▶ No.871653>>871656
>>871652
>no argument made with an analogy can possibly be logically sound...
You really fucked up phil 101. Analogies are absolutely a basic logically sound tool. I did not realize you were this retarded.
▶ No.871654>>871657
>>871652
omg, its almost like the analogy you made is a straw man, and you attack it instead of the real issue!
▶ No.871655
>>871652
>every analogy is always a strawman
hahahahahah this guy is a genius wew
▶ No.871656>>871659
>>871653
the analogy is a man made of straw, he is an illusion, a distraction...
▶ No.871657>>871661
>>871654
which part of it was a strawman
▶ No.871658>>871662
>>871644
I have used the word 'spurious' purely in opposition to the actual opponent's argument i.e. to mean that any argument beside the opponent's actual argument is 'spurious'. What makes an argument illegitimate in so far as it belongs to that class that falls under the strawman fallacy is not whether or not the argument is appropriate or not in other domains, but simply the fact that it's author affirms that it attacks a position held by a group of people when in fact it doesn't. Even if his argument were valid, it would still be a strawman as long as nobody held the positions which it purports to attack. And whether or not his argument is valid is very much subject to discussion, since some posters have already implied that they believe in the validity of the analogy when they appealed to the potential presence of harmful subjects in a recipe in order to makea case for free software.
▶ No.871659>>871818
>>871656
which part of the analogy was a strawman
▶ No.871661>>871663
>>871657
the part where you replaced software with food, keep going, im about to cum!
▶ No.871662>>871668
>>871658
which part of the analogy was a straw man?????? Strawman arguments existing as a concept in the world does not make something a strawman.
▶ No.871663>>871665
>>871661
an analogy is not the same thing as a strawman. which part of it was a strawman
▶ No.871665>>871667
>>871663
the analogy is being used as a straw man, that does not make them the same thing, that makes 1 being used for the other...
▶ No.871667>>871674
>>871665
Which part of it was a strawman. The fact that it is food does not make it a strawman. What about it being food is the strawman.
▶ No.871668>>871670
>>871662
Don't reply to posts you haven't properly read or understood.
▶ No.871670>>871672 >>871674 >>871677
>>871668
Which part of the metaphor does not hold? Simple question. Saying "food is not software" is not a reason. What is the difference that breaks the analogy.
>hurr durr you one
does not break it
▶ No.871672
▶ No.871674>>871676
>>871667
the fact that food is being used to talk about software...
>>871670
not saying its a bad analogy, im saying that you cant prove anything with an analogy, at least not logically anyway...
▶ No.871676>>871679
>>871674
>you cant prove anything with an analogy
you must not have read much on logic
▶ No.871677
>>871670
I've said nothing about the validity of the analogy so far, nor do I intend to. If this issue bugs you, you'll have to work it out on your own.
▶ No.871679>>871680
>>871676
you cant prove anything by attacking an analogy instead of the topic at hand, thats what makes it a straw man after all, oh god i just came thank you so much guys my work here is done...
▶ No.871680>>871681
>>871679
>you cant prove anything by attacking an analogy
Wrong. Which part of the analogy does not hold. It being an analogy is not a reason. Read a 101 fucking wiki on this.
▶ No.871681>>871683 >>871686
>>871680
the analogy is perfect, the straw man [food] that youve set up to replace the topic [software] is wonderful, i really loved sticking my dick in it...
▶ No.871682
>>871347 (OP)
>Richard is wrong, it's time for us to realize that.
fuck off outsider
▶ No.871683>>871685
>>871681
What makes food a strawman. Analogies are not the same thing as strawman.
▶ No.871685>>871688
>>871683
its a straw man because nobody here cares about the freedom of food, yet you make the argument as if they are, replacing the argument of free software with something thats easy for an autistic /pol/tard such as yourself to attack...
▶ No.871686
>>871681
>I failed phil 101 and have no idea how logic or arguments work
▶ No.871688>>871689
>>871685
There that was easy you finally have a reason after 30 fucking posts
>Its a straw man because.....
O goodie here it comes
>nobody here cares about the freedom of food
A fuck great its a strawman because: >nobody cares
Well I thought you were close there for a second. Guess you don't actually have a reason.
▶ No.871689>>871690
>>871688
actually its the same reason i had in my 1st post, it just took 30 for it to sink into your autistic head, are you gonna keep going? this reminds me of my ex, she used to keep sucking long after id cum just to see me shiver...
▶ No.871690>>871693
>>871689
Did you read my post lol? Its not a reason
▶ No.871693>>871694
>>871690
not if you stop reading after the word food, your comprehension skills are just as low as my ex too, oh wait, you and my ex, its another analogy, its a perfect analogy, that means you must wanna suck me off too, after all, if you can make an analogy that makes everything about the 2 things exactly the same right?
▶ No.871694>>871695 >>871697
>>871693
>I care about food
lolololo nice argument faggot i'm sure you like sucking and getting sucked
▶ No.871695
>>871694
fuck it
*
>I don't care about food
▶ No.871697>>871699
>>871694
oh come on you have to try harder than that my dick is stiff again im going for second nut here
▶ No.871699>>871703
>>871697
>my last 20 posts were utter shit so i'm just going to post about being a faggot for the next 10
wew laddddd
▶ No.871703>>871706
>>871699
my posts are shit! another excellent analogy! so great! lets build up a straw man for this one too! something about how they should be flushed maybe?
▶ No.871706>>871708
>>871703
>everything I disagree with is a strawman
▶ No.871708>>871711
>>871706
when you make an analogy, and then shit talk that analogy, using it as a means to attack the analogous thing, that is a straw man argument, amazing you still havnt read the linked wiki page, maybe it was too much for your autistic brain, heres the simple english version for you instead...
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
▶ No.871711>>871713
>>871708
>>using it as a means to attack the analogous thing, that is a straw man argument
>All analogies in argument are strawmen
You really don't get how logic works do you. Incapable of even basic abstraction. You have failed to have even the most simple understanding of the wiki you link.
▶ No.871713>>871715
>>871711
>not all analogies in argument are straw men
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
>The phrase describes a misrepresentation or false version of an argument.
how is taking something and replacing it with something else not a misrepresentation?
▶ No.871715>>871719 >>871819
>>871713
Its only misrepresentation if it changes the fundamental structure of the argument. Analogies are used constantly as basic tools of logic. An analogy is wrong if it is used to make a point that CANNOT be applied to the subject matter. If we were say arguing about pricing of a game and my analogy involved the physical price of producing a bowl of food, then you could say "but video games can be copied forever at no cost", which would be a point against the analogy.
▶ No.871719>>871720 >>871721
>>871715
so you want me to attack the straw man too? fine, here we go:
1. you can eat food but not software
2. you can store programs on a hard drive but not food
3. you can see food but not software
4. you can type on a keyboard to make software but not food
5. you can run the same piece of software more than once but you cant eat the same piece of food multiple times
6. food cant spy on you but software can
7. you can live without software but not food
8. software requires logic and food does not
9. you can make food from animals plands and fire but software needs electricity
i can do this all day, because food is not software, it can not replace software in an argument...
▶ No.871720>>871722
>>871719
> can do this all day, because food is not software, it can not replace software in an argument...
Not a single one of the reasons you listed changes anything about the argument. Name a reason that invalidates the argument. The fact that something is not the same color as something else is not relevant when talking about taste. The fact that something is not the same height as something else is not relevant when talking about how long its hair is.
▶ No.871721
>>871719
>food cant spy on you but software can
is getting much closer to an argument
▶ No.871722>>871724
>>871720
the point is that all that is just talk about food, and food has nothing to do with software, the burden of proof here lies with you...
▶ No.871724>>871725
>>871722
Food is pretty similar to software in many ways. Food can have a secret recipe but a public composition list. For example you can break down pepsi and see its composition, hell its even printed on the bottle. Just because you have the ingredients does not mean you have the recipe. You cant tweak it or make new coke.
With software you have a binary which you can break down and show the opcode composition of it. That does not mean that you could modify very easily, and in the case of DRM you also cant redistribute it.
Food is certainly more important than computers yet private recipes are still allowed and fine. A food company could poison you. A software repository could put viruses in your code.
A person can decide what food they want to eat, they can decide what software they want to run.
▶ No.871725>>871726
>>871724
none of that explains how you can replace software with food in an argument about freedom
▶ No.871726>>871727
>>871725
I just explained how they were similar in an argument about freedom.
▶ No.871727>>871728
>>871726
just because you did it doesnt mean you explained how it is logically sound to do so
▶ No.871728>>871730
>>871727
I explained many of the relevant structural relationships between food and software. Analogies are valid logic so long as the argument for them does not depend on something that cannot exist similarly in the other. Not being able to eat software is for example not relevant because the argument does not hinge on needing to eat the food.
▶ No.871730>>871732 >>871734
>>871728
the argument hinges on the fact that you run software on a computer, again you seem similar to my ex, but i dont expect you to suck my dick now do i?
▶ No.871732>>871735
>>871730
What about it running on a computer invalidates the argument
▶ No.871734>>871737
>>871730
I am not a woman and am not gay so using me as an analogy has a few flaws in relationship to dick sucking
▶ No.871735>>871736 >>871739
>>871732
shifting the burden of proof again?
>What about it running on a computer invalidates the argument
because its
>something that cannot exist similarly in the other
dont waste your time explaining how eating food is like running software either, because i pointed out the flaws in that earlier, it has nothing to do with computers and can only be done once per food item...
▶ No.871736
>>871735
>can only be done once per food item
what exactly about that changes anything
▶ No.871737>>871738
>>871734
and nothing about you being a straight man makes it not possible for you to suck my dick
▶ No.871738>>871740
>>871737
Na it won't be possible with you so low on your knees looking up at me
▶ No.871739>>871742
>>871735
you still after alllll this time have not given a reason besides
>Lollololol they are not the same color / height / weight / other thing that does not matter so there!
retard level
▶ No.871740>>871741
>>871738
>ive lost this argument
ill see you later in >>>/pol/
▶ No.871741>>871742 >>871822
>>871740
>>fuck I cant understand basic logic
>hurr durr you must be a pol user
btfoooooo
▶ No.871742>>871743
>>871739
>>871741
kek moron learn to read
▶ No.871743
>>871742
>I have the abstract reasoning ability of a starving cave man
▶ No.871744>>871745 >>871746 >>871748
if literally anyone else thinks that comparing software to food isnt a straw man argument, let them reply to this thread, im going to sleep now ive busted 2 nuts here, my left arm is numb from stroking my dick, and my fingers are numb from typing to this fool...
▶ No.871745>>871748
>>871744
>still cant understand elementary logic
oogaa booga muh dick
oogaa booga muh dick
oogaa booga muh dick
▶ No.871746>>871748
>>871744
>I still don't know what a strawman is and instead can only think about my dick
▶ No.871748>>871749
>>871746
>>871745
>>871744
go ahead and wait here for somebody to agree with you, with any luck, youll eventually starve to death from not having eaten enough software...
▶ No.871749
>>871748
>muh ding dong ooga booga me no understand food? computer? it no smell same! CANT BE SAME NO SMELL SAME
▶ No.871757
>>871381
Please take a moment and rewatch this video.
software is like a recipe
▶ No.871818>>871825
>>871659
That demanding software to be free means we demand food recipes to be published. We do not, a video where Stallman illuminates the differences, that you try to obscure with your analogies your types love so much, was posted. Go back to sucking off Rand, /pol/tard
▶ No.871819>>871825 >>872022
>>871715
>Its only misrepresentation if it changes the fundamental structure of the argument. Analogies are used constantly as basic tools of logic.
Wrong. They are used as tools of rhetoric to convince retards, like on /pol/. Since two distinct ideas are not the same, replacing one with the other will ALWAYS be a misrepresentation intended to make the audience see what the sophist wants them to see while obscuring what he wants to hide. Once his analogy has been accepted, he goes and replaces it with the original again. This is not logically sound, because the replacement was invalid the arguments about the replacement do not apply to the original.
▶ No.871822>>871825
>>871741
All the bootlicking libertarians defending proprietary/cuck license are from pol though.
▶ No.871825
>>871822
>>871819
>>871818
>o no we cant understand trivial properties of logical thinking what to do we do!
>lets call them /pol/ users!
you guys are worse than the fags on pol that say muh jews in response to every argument against them. its a level of braindead I hoped humanity had beaten
▶ No.871834>>871835 >>871836
>FOSS
>Hackers know how to exploit the software perfectly because all the code is freely available on the web --- BAD!
>Proprietary
>Hackers can't exploit it because they don't know how it works since all the code is hidden --- GOOD!
Checkmate /tech/. :^)
▶ No.871835
>>871834
This is no joke what the tech people at my mother's government job thinks. She schedules the load for our dams
▶ No.871836
>>871834
Not only that, the hackers can just put backdoors into FLOSS code because the it is public.
▶ No.871855>>872138
>>871428
"Private property is an exercise of power -- it harms the proletariat by denying their freedom. When the proletariat lacks the freedoms that define the communist system, they can't tell what the bourgeois is doing, can't check for possible forms of exploitation. If something breaks, they can't fix it; they have to wait for the owner to exercise his power to do so. They can't help each other improve the property.
Discussions of rights and rules for the distribution of capital use have usually concentrated too much on the interests of the bourgeois alone. Few people in the world work in are product designers, and fewer still are owners of industry. But the entire developed world now needs and uses products, so decisions about the distribution of those products (and thus of capital) determine what kind of world we have. The bourgeois now control the way the world lives, does business, communicates, and is entertained. The ethical and political issues cannot be avoided under the slogan of "freedom of choice (for the bourgeois only)"."
Take a look in the fucking mirror sometime, will you? Look. I like free software, but you have a right to make that software non-free, and that's okay. I personally use whatever software I think is best for the job and most people do too. And I use a lot of free software because of the benefits it has and because, a lot of the times, in the long run, it ends up being better than proprietary software.
And if you want to use only free software because you are paranoid about viruses and tracking and what not, that's fine. But seriously, when's the last time you personally checked the code of a piece of software to make sure it doesn't track you?
▶ No.871857
>americans will defend proprietary food and "secret ingredients" unironically
▶ No.871858>>871864
>>871347 (OP)
I don't really think there's going to be an answer. In a world of increasing shitskins, whereby the relative prevalence of asians {kikes, chinks, designateds, spics, etc} and africans is increasing, there is little total man power left for useful free software. The custodians are overrun. The cucks, sjw, betas - perpetual ungrateful children by any other name - also don't help the picture in the slightest.
All the energies of computation, with end-to-end silicon manufacturing from design to end-user, from distribution, to currency/account payment systems and scheduling, all require their own might at each level. The components need to be appropriate and considerate of the State of Man, but that's a sad joke. Advanced hardware and software systems have been regressing since roughly 2003. There are relative ups and downs, with some staving off the workloads of dealing with the hoards of lying pottering liars by closing all open and merchantable distribution (going dark, dedicated, etc), but this doesn't work for long: The cost of some infrastructure component goes up, looses ownership, and total work must increase, or bail.
In this iterative and serial shithole environment, both proprietary software and open software alike easily make themselves unethical. They are all grinding into dust, and the total poverty is rising without cessation.
No one would object, nor have reason to, if Chrome was still staffed by the teams that first made it. Same with all of Google, Microsoft, and Amazon systems. No so much for Apple. Regardless, they were replaced. And since replacement, their code as coasted on the vitality built into the legacy, slowly fading over time to varying degrees. The entire internet hardware infrastructure suffers the same.
'Ethical' almost seems like a pointless distinction. All must build, build servers, build services, build fabs, build production, build trade networks, build currency and company. Build might, --and-- keep it. Do not let any fall into asian {kike, kazakh, chink, by any other name} or cuck hands. And iterate. I don't know what to call this, but I'm certain 'ethic' in the context of the OP is a luxury not affordable for over 10yrs, let alone the next 10yrs.
We're going to have to kill alot of asiatics, if you want to consider such lofty definitions of 'ethic' ever again.
▶ No.871864>>871865
>>871858
>hurr durr proprietary software is ok if it's made by "whites" (really just cryptojews like billy gaytes)
>kazakhs are bad
u w0t m8
▶ No.871865
>>871864
did you not answer your own strawman, with that strawman?
The nature of any given proprietary stems from the nature of the people behind it. With enough shit rolling down hill, ethic (in the terms of the OP) becomes impossible to determine in a shithole.
tldr: You, nor I, actually care any more.
▶ No.871867
>>871347 (OP)
First, there's no such thing as "ethical correctness". Ethics is a made up term. Second;
I have the right to refuse to eat something if I'm not told what it contains and how it's made. Eating it would be stupid otherwise, so using closed source software is stupid. It might be poison or completely unhealthy, do you not have common sense?
>Proprietary software is only bad when it exploits the user or hides the code for malicious reasons
Chrome isn't the only example. See µTorrent, Ghostery, Windows.
The thing is that you don't know if it's malicious unless you see the source code. You do have to understand at least some code, but for anyone interested it's significantly easier to check for malicious behavior and the idea is that such behavior would be reported.
>steal all the code and make money off it
And this is where you need to understand the difference between closed source and proprietary. And this is VERY IMPORTANT for you to understand. You CAN have an open source product and still use a proprietary license. The source would be there to make sure the end user can confirm it's not malicious, and adapt it to their needs. See: Unreal Engine 4.
Of course, I also think that patents and intellectual property itself is a totalitarian cancer. If I were to invent the same recipe you, or reverse engineered it, you shouldn't have the right to deny me using it and selling it.
But this is beside the point. As long as they do exist I'm still open for open source proprietary software. Now before you make arguments like "what if someone steals the code", someone can steal your products anyway. DRM never works and there will always be "pirates". And, since intellectual property is a thing you can always sue the people who steal code from you.
▶ No.871869>>871873
None of you have any clue whether something like firefox has malicious code because the codebase is a abominable behemoth that would take you the rest of the year to shift through for hidden kike schemes.
▶ No.871870
>>871599
Hammers can't be obfuscated, retard.
▶ No.871873
>>871869
>rest of the year
Nah, it would take longer than that. Firefox took an estimated of 11784 years of work so far. https://www.openhub.net/p/firefox Even if everyone on /tech/ started looking through the source it would take 30 years in best case. It would probably took even longer to get an idea of what the code is actually doing.
▶ No.871874
what if you put arsenic in the spaghetti? shouldn't I be allowed to see the recipe after I buy a dish of spaghetti, or before hand?
▶ No.871958
>>871347 (OP)
>Proprietary software is only bad when it exploits the user or hides the code for malicious reasons, take Chrome for example.
The problem is that you never know in advance, and by definition can't know in advance.
And a prime example had just happened: >>871957
▶ No.871983>>871987 >>871999 >>872017
>>871470
I believe regulations are fine unless they come from the government, because a corporation can by definition not tell you to do anything.
When you're working for a corporation of course you have to use what software they want you to use. That's just common fucking sense. But you can work yourself up to management and propose the use of FOSS. I'm sure they'd take you very seriously.
As for WhatsApp. Nobody's forcing you to use it. However, you're going to probably have to, and you're going to have to use it because it's just better than anything else out there.
▶ No.871987>>872027
>>871983
>I believe regulations are fine unless they come from the government, because a corporation can by definition not tell you to do anything.
>When you're working for a corporation of course you have to use what software they want you to use.
hmmm...
>As for WhatsApp. Nobody's forcing you to use it. However, you're going to probably have to, and you're going to have to use it because it's just better than anything else out there.
No, you have to use it because everyone else uses is it. Communication is a natural monopoly, what makes it "good" is that it has the widest network. You just have the deep belief that the world is a meritocracy.
Your problem is that you simply define "force" to be anything that is done by the government while any other force that is used to pressure you to act a certain way (e.g. at the threat of getting fired) is just "a free choice" or something, even though this distinction is completely artificial and nonsensical. You can go and blow up a federal building, nobody is "forcing" you not to either if you were actually consistent and intellectually honest.
▶ No.871988>>872004
why the fuck are you guys even bothering to respond to this obvious straw man argument anyway? dont feed the trolls, let this thread die.
▶ No.871999>>872004 >>872027
>>871983
>it's just better than anything else out there
>relying on SMS for auth
>if someone gets your auth SMS, your session is gone, even before they try to type your "2nd factor" password
>…which is limited to fucking 6 decimal digits
>can't check if recipient encryption key is changed before you actually send them a message
it's shit, if you think about it
▶ No.872004
>>871999
>>871988
you forgot to sage, but so did i, lets strive to improve.
▶ No.872017
>>871983
>it's just better than anything else out there.
Worse than Wire and Riot.im. Anything that needs SIM cards to work is garbage.
▶ No.872022>>872038
>>871819
finally this garbage thread was off the front page why would you bump it back to the top?
▶ No.872027>>872032 >>872038
>>871999
Anything better out there? The only thing I'm aware of is Signal, but that's never going to go mainstream, because it marketed itself as an esoteric thing for people who want privacy.
>>871987
> No, you have to use it because everyone else uses is it.
I have many friends/family members who don't use WhatsApp. Guess how many difficulties they have in reaching people? 0. It's just more convenient to reach people on WhatsApp.
> Communication is a natural monopoly,
Wrong. I have like 12 apps on my phone which I can use to communicate with people through text messages and out of those 6 are more than fairly common (SMS, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Skype, Snapchat (don't judge me, I need it for various complicated reason), Gmail).
>what makes it "good" is that it has the widest network.
SMS is by almost by definition wider than WhatsApp. And yet people use WhatsApp more than SMS. Hmmmm.....
> You just have the deep belief that the world is a meritocracy.
Yes (wherever the government doesn't intervene). Proof that that's not the case?
> Your problem is that you simply define "force" to be anything that is done by the government while any other force that is used to pressure you to act a certain way (e.g. at the threat of getting fired) is just "a free choice" or something, even though this distinction is completely artificial and nonsensical.
No. If Facebook held a gun to my face and said "Use WhatsApp, or else... that'd be force." that'd be force. The difference is that the government can not not do that. If you genuinely think that companies can afford to have employees use whatever companies they so choose you're naive af man. By that same logic could you not say that, in the case of a cashier, the employer was forcing you to bee happy, and that's an infringement on your rights?
>if you were actually consistent
Name one way in which I was inconsistent.
▶ No.872031
The NSA is not in my spaghetti.
Also there are frequently product recalls for foods, proprietary contaminated food has killed children and the elderly before.
>>871412
proprietary vitamin B12 pills = mystery ingredients and talcum powder for $40
▶ No.872032
>>872027
>Anything better out there?
XMPP for example.
>>872027
>never going to go mainstream, because it marketed itself as an esoteric thing for people who want privacy
what the fuck am I reading?
also, it's bullshit, because it also wants your (((mobile phone))) number.
>>872027
>Snapchat (don't judge me, I need it for various complicated reason)
You know, when you tell us something like this, there's some explaining to do, and yours is not sufficient yet.
>>872027
>Yes (wherever the government doesn't intervene). Proof that that's not the case?
For example, why do most people prefer to listen to shit music? Or play shit games?
>>872027
>SMS is by almost by definition wider than WhatsApp. And yet people use WhatsApp more than SMS. Hmmmm.....
Not everywhere in the world.
▶ No.872038>>872066
>>872022
Don't most use the catalog?
>>872027
>I have many friends/family members who don't use WhatsApp. Guess how many difficulties they have in reaching people? 0. It's just more convenient to reach people on WhatsApp.
If it more convenient there is a cost to not using it which is not "0".
>> Communication is a natural monopoly,
>Wrong. I have like 12 apps on my phone which I can use to communicate with people through text messages and out of those 6 are more than fairly common (SMS, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Skype, Snapchat (don't judge me, I need it for various complicated reason), Gmail).
Irrelevant. But I am not surprised that you use proprietary software, Mr. Materialist.
<A natural monopoly is a monopoly that exists because the cost of producing the product (i.e., a good or a service) is lower due to economies of scale if there is just a single producer than if there are several competing producers.
>You just have the deep belief that the world is a meritocracy.
Yes (wherever the government doesn't intervene). Proof that that's not the case?
>proof a negative
The burden is on you. And the government is part of the world, so you are contradicting yourself.
>If Facebook held a gun to my face and said "Use WhatsApp, or else... that'd be force." that'd be force. The difference is that the government can not not do that.
There is no death sentence in most of the world. And if the government would not forbid it corporations would make use of physical force, without bothering with laws or jurys. Also they do force you if for example losing the job would mean you would starve, the result is the same they are just using more subtle means.
▶ No.872054>>872066
>>871438
Tell that to my college, they literally got everyone to install Libreoffice cus of its database suite.
▶ No.872066
>>872038
>Don't most use the catalog?
i cant speak for everyone, but i certainly dont, at least not usually, and considering it was off the front page for several hours before that reply, the evidence points to most people not using the catalog.
>>872054
the number of bumps in this shit thread is too damn high!
▶ No.872138>>872164
>>871347 (OP)
>comparing software to recipes
A goddamn bowl of spaghetti is not going to upload 'telemetry data' (read: your information and related metadata) to the 'cloud' (read: someone else's server). It's also not going to get remotely hacked and leak information to other parties. And you can choose not to eat it, whereas people are often required to use certain software to accomplish a task.
Additionally, when you eat out you're paying for service, not just the 'recipe', and anyone can make their own spaghetti for like $2. Practically no one has spare time to make their own operating system/web browser.
>so nobody would steal it and make money off of your creation
<implying building on the work of others is not a good thing
<implying it makes any difference whether software is free or proprietary
If people want it badly enough, it's getting 'pirated' either way. If it's popular enough, you might even have people reverse-engineering it. The only 'upside' to proprietary software (for right holders, that is) as you said is hindering competition and impeding interoperability, both of which are at odds with the user's interests.
>Proprietary software is only bad when it exploits the user or hides the code for malicious reasons
And when...
<it spies on you, collects, and uploads your data
<it's insecure and can't be fixed (e.g. hardcoded insecure settings) or replaced
<it can't be ported to newer operating systems (see Paris's 2 main airports collapsing when a Windows 3.1 machine crashed)
<it has malicious anti-features (e.g. forced updates, unwanted features (e.g. can't uninstall certain 'pre-installed apps' from your devices), phoning home, any kind of DRM, deliberately limited functionality (see Nvidia gimping double-precision float calculations on consumer GeForce cards)
<it doesn't allow you to have control over your data (see can't export messages from WhatsApp, iPhone not letting you transfer files to and from local storage)
<etc.
>the software controls itself and protects itself.
That's exactly the problem. It's supposed to be a tool I, the user, utilize to solve my problems, like a screwdriver or a hammer. It's not supposed to do stuff I don't want, it's not supposed to shove unwanted shit into my face, it's not supposed to 'protect' itself from me. It's supposed to serve me. The problem is, proprietary software vendors think otherwise.
>>871855
>Private property
Those are excludable and rivalrous goods. If you're sitting on a chair no one else can use it. Software doesn't give a fuck whether 1 or 10000 people are using it simultaneously. Plus you can buy your own fucking chair, and varnish it, paint it, fix it, or even make one yourself. You can't make your own Microsoft Office (patent/copyright infringement, insane development costs), and you can't fix its bugs.
>you have a right to make that software non-free
and people have a duty to steer clear of it.
Why? People are sick of seeing their antiviruses and related bloatware do shady shit in the background (under the guise maintenance, "improving the experience" or whatever) and advertise their crappy 'performance optimization' tools and/or 'privacy-oriented' (not) VPNs, people are sick of seeing Windows Update running whenever it wants, bogging everything down, and deciding when to restart, people are sick of having to throw away functioning devices with outdated/insecure software designed not to let the user update or install a newer firmware/OS (e.g. Internet of Shits and Android anything), People are sick of fucking DRM slowing everything down and not letting them back up their software and requiring activation and an internet connection to work, and people are sick of seeing devices that don't let them export/backup their data (consoles are especially bad about this, see old WiiWare, 360 XBLA, PS3 PSN games, lost DLCs), etc.
All this cancer is only possible thanks to that software being proprietary. If it were all free, someone would have done away with that cancer and restored control to the user long ago.
Reminds me of when a random dude made a League of Legends client that was 10x better than all of Riot Games's incompetent staff. RAM consumption in the 100MB range (as opposed to 800MB), no fucking Electron embedded in the client, long-requested features like hiding your online status, no bloat. What did Riot jews do? Pull it and force their pozzed, bloated client down everyone's throats. Thank god for proprietary licenses.
▶ No.872157
>>871631
Still bait
>If people don't cook all their own food they don't have control over their life.
You don't need to cook to know how to chew a leg.
>The user has full control over every instruction their computer executes
obvious bait is obvious
> Just because they don't bother looking at the instructions does not mean they don't have full control.
True but not having at all the instructions means that they can't at all have control even if they wanted to.
>Where is that diable 3 hack then?
bait
>The user control what software they run
They control the installation (at some level) not the execution.
>The instructions are in plain form for the user to inspect if they wish.
sure go read the full magic numbers of a network card from marvell you'll be sure to understand what it does without any manual or details.
Again bait you need to get out.
▶ No.872164
>>872138
why the fuck are you bumping this garbage again?
every time its gone from the front page someone has to bring it back,
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS