##linux.irclog

<michaelrose> phogg, it still ought to be illegal to restrict computers(aka phones) in ways that subvert the OWNERS right to use their own device please note that even a subsidized phone is SOLD to the new OWNER
<phogg> michaelrose: if you want to buy a restricted device that is clearly labeled as such I see no reason that it should be illegal just to save you from yourself
<michaelrose> doubly so when the device is made possible by free software, taking the communities work to be used in a device that is locked thusly is as good as stealing from the entire foss community
<phogg> michaelrose: now, failing to *offer* any unrestricted devices perhaps should be illegal and *misleading the customer* about whether it's restricted should be illegal.
<bls> stealing from the OSS community? what a load of crap
<reisio> michaelrose: well, it probably already _is_ illegal, at least in the USA
<phogg> michaelrose: it is not theft to comply with the licenses under which the software was released, even if you find the use distasteful
<reisio> it ought to be illegal for people to not be familiar with the constitution, though :)
<reisio> licenses are simple, though
<bls> if people didn't want their software to be used for commercial purposes, they'd have licensed it that way
<Pe3k> phogg: ok, I'll try - it seemed to me weird - because of that 'moving' text output during work of wget
<reisio> buying the right to use something isn't the same as buying something
<michaelrose> laws aren't even an expression of ethics often regulations are an expression of what is best for the market/people at large
<reisio> so just buy what someone sells altogether instead
<reisio> competition ftw
<michaelrose> I fail to see how people would be less well off with MORE freedom
<diegoviola> what does freedom means to you
<michaelrose> imagine if you bought an "AOL computer" and you switched to comcast and were told you would have to sell your aol computer and buy a comcast one... the entire computer industry could have ended up like this
<reisio> nah
<reisio> people still try that
<bls> if people were stupid enough to pay for lock in, they'd deserve it
<reisio> and there are few victims because you have the option to _not_ spend your money on _that_ particular stupid choice
<michaelrose> since you wouldn't have been allowed to install linux on ANY of them, oss would have never gotten a foothold anywhere outside the server room
<reisio> there will always be a competitor willing to not rape you as much
<phogg> Pe3k: you'll get the hang of it. Tag the stackoverflow question with shell, maybe I'll answer it there
<diegoviola> I will never buy an "AOL computer", the same way I will never buy an "Apple computer"
<reisio> michaelrose: nope
<airsoftmodels> wasn't uefi an attempt to lock us in to microsoft?
<reisio> the idea that any magical circumstance made it possible for open source to thrive is farce
<reisio> open source was the beginning
<reisio> and is inevitably the end
<BlastHardcheese> you wouldn't download a computer
<reisio> it is unstoppable, nothing affects its domination
<michaelrose> rofl
<diegoviola> reisio: what about things like patents and other dangers?
<phogg> BlastHardcheese: I would if I could!
<reisio> diegoviola: dangers?
<phogg> BlastHardcheese: as home fabrication improves one day it will be possible
<diegoviola> reisio: sure
<michaelrose> if your computer was as locked down as an iphone and the entire industry was as such there would be no oss
<reisio> what dangers?
<diegoviola> reisio: patents are a problem
<diegoviola> reisio: software patents
<reisio> there is literally nothing in the world of software that you can do if the majority of programmers do not want it to happen
<michaelrose> reisio, most programmers work for $
<reisio> and, frequently, if even one or two talented ones don't want it to happen
<reisio> michaelrose: has no bearing on my claim
<michaelrose> reisio, things like trusted computing and other means of restricting freedom are easily enough to ensure that 99.9% of all people don't see anything corps don't want them to
<diegoviola> FOSS has done well at creating solutions that aren't affected with patents, like codecs and such, but we still have problems with software patents, for example, look at android... MS is making a profit from android just because of "patents", it's a problem that is ought to be solved
<jacekowski> diegoviola: why?
<jacekowski> patents are not universally bad
<reisio> michaelrose: yes, but
<reisio> michaelrose: 99.9% of all people are thwarted by a random fat person in a dark tone uniform saying "you can't do this"
<diegoviola> jacekowski: why should MS receive money for something they have nothing to do with
<reisio> so again, little bearing
<jacekowski> diegoviola: how they have nothing to do with t
<reisio> except in the world of software, there isn't even a fat man in a uniform
<diegoviola> jacekowski: Android is not their private property
<michaelrose> tech created by those with no ethics + evil legislation is easily enough to neuter an entire nations freedom, the only reason this isn't so is the incompetence of tyrants and a legal climate that historicly hasn't been friendly to tyranny
<jacekowski> diegoviola: android uses a lot of microsoft technologies
<reisio> there is what the software you're interacting with can be made to do, and what it can't
<diegoviola> jacekowski: like?
<reisio> and the can't is essentially nonexistant
<michaelrose> believing that technology is inherantly resistant to tyranny is a dangerous fiction
<jacekowski> diegoviola: fat filesystem is one of those (that's why most new android phones use shitty MTP)
<reisio> technology and software are different things
<michaelrose> technology if anything has the potential to enable and empower tyrants
<jacekowski> patents should be used only to protect investment
<reisio> they shouldn't be used at all :p
<michaelrose> software patents shouldn't even exist, nor business model patents, nor patents on genes
<reisio> luckily, again, there's basically no way to enforce them for software
<jacekowski> reisio: that would stop a lot of things
<reisio> jacekowski: what would?
<jacekowski> being unable to protect your investment
<reisio> no patents?
<reisio> yeah
<MasterGberry> I am having some problems with this sh script: http://pastebin.com/R6Uukqia A bunch of ": command not found" and ": command not found selinuxenabled
<reisio> it'd stop the wholesale retardation of our society :p
<MasterGberry> " i'm assuming its some dumb formatting error with the way i saved spaces or something
<jacekowski> reisio: rotfl
<reisio> sorry, can't use this technology, wait 20 years
<reisio> oh wait, they lobbied congress
<reisio> wait forever instead
<reisio> it only matters to profiteers, though
<reisio> if you aren't making money, few people care if you're using the same tech as they are
<jacekowski> that's patent abuse
<jacekowski> as i've said, patents should only be used to protect your investment
<jacekowski> it's hard to find good examples in software world
<jacekowski> but think about all drug related patents
<reisio> very hard
<reisio> what about them?
<diegoviola> why should everyone be entitled to protect his/her investment with patents and by doing so backstab the entire society? wouldn't that be unfair/unethical?
<jacekowski> do you think that drug companies would be willing to spend the money on development if they knew that someone can just copy their drug day after it's made public
<reisio> you've been watching too much West Wing
<jacekowski> without having to spend any money on research
<reisio> first of all
<michaelrose> drugs are an example of patents that serve a useful purpose
<reisio> they can and do do that
<reisio> with or without patents :p
<reisio> but that isn't really the issue
<michaelrose> but do keep in mind that a LOT of basic research is actually conducted on your dime if you are a us citizen
<reisio> patents wouldn't bother me _as much_ if the durations of exclusivity weren't like... a THIRD of a human lifespan
<reisio> seriously
<reisio> people who are 50 years old could be dead by the time the patent expires
<jacekowski> patents should be limited to time it takes to get return on your investment
<reisio> people who are 1 yr old could be dead from a war
<reisio> jacekowski: that would be far more sane
<jacekowski> + little bit extra
<jacekowski> it would make sure that you make profit on taking a risk that nothing may come out of it
<reisio> but again
<reisio> if the internet has the free information to make it yourself
<reisio> and of course it has
<reisio> you can make your own :D
<jacekowski> not legally
<reisio> sure you can
<reisio> selling and making are different things
<Smilex> I get that 'g' for chmod changes permissions for group, but I was wondering how I specify which group?
<reisio> even during prohibition you could make your own wine... for yourself
<reisio> Smilex: man chmod :)
<hydrotoast> bufsave
<jacekowski> Smilex: owning group
<Smilex> jacekowski, as in the group of the user applying the change?
<Smilex> reisio, well I am reading online manuals
<jacekowski> Smilex: no, group that owns the file
<jacekowski> Smilex: file has owner user and owner group