Techrights logo

IRC: #boycottnovell @ FreeNode: Thursday, July 09, 2020

Join us now at the IRC channel.

schestowitzhttps://joindiaspora.com/posts/16912741#ca640d50a3980138f13e047d7b62795eJul 09 00:06
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@schestowitz@joindiaspora.com: #DragonBox #Pyra open source gaming computers start shipping http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/132261#comment-23026 #gnu #linux Jul 09 00:06
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell--> www.tuxmachines.org | DragonBox Pyra prototypes begin shipping (open source handheld gaming computer) | Tux MachinesJul 09 00:06
schestowitz"I read that OS/2 was sabotaged. Similar to BeOS."Jul 09 00:06
schestowitz"Jul 09 00:09
schestowitz    open sourceJul 09 00:09
schestowitzwithout context, this term could literally mean anything in the world.Jul 09 00:09
schestowitzenorbet2@diasp.orgJul 09 00:09
schestowitzenorbet2@diasp.org - 6 months agoJul 09 00:09
schestowitz… except closed source.Jul 09 00:09
schestowitzfreemedia@framasphere.orgJul 09 00:09
schestowitzfreemedia@framasphere.org - 6 months agoJul 09 00:09
schestowitzsure, but open source often implies closed source. open source often implies a mix of open and closed source.Jul 09 00:09
schestowitzhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_(soap)Jul 09 00:09
schestowitzenorbet2@diasp.orgJul 09 00:09
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-en.wikipedia.org | Ivory (soap) - WikipediaJul 09 00:09
schestowitzenorbet2@diasp.org - 6 months agoJul 09 00:09
schestowitzYou know what a Venn Diagram is, right?.. especially one of “A” and “B” where they are mainly separate but have a small area of overlap? The point is they are 3 distinct areas and if Open Source is “A” and Closed Source is “B”, while there can be an area of overlap that is neither wholly Open or Closed, entirely A or entirely B, but rather AB, it is still true that A!=B. Therefore while Open Source can mean a lot of Jul 09 00:09
schestowitzthings it absolutely cannot mean Closed Source.Jul 09 00:09
schestowitzfreemedia@framasphere.orgJul 09 00:09
schestowitzfreemedia@framasphere.org - 6 months agoJul 09 00:09
schestowitz    Therefore while Open Source can mean a lot of things it absolutely cannot mean Closed Source.Jul 09 00:10
schestowitzthats one argument, but then venn diagrams are usually circular, right?Jul 09 00:10
schestowitzin the context of what youre saying, its true, and im familiar with lots of rhetoric from open source (many years ago, i was an open source proponent before i abandoned it for free software.) im familiar with the osd, its author and 2nd dpl (devuan user, dfsg author) bruce perens, his resignation letter a year after co-founding osi and his recent resignation from osi in response to CAL.Jul 09 00:10
schestowitzso theres the osd of open source which we can consider the primary meaning of the phrase, even as i say that “open source is meaningless”Jul 09 00:10
schestowitzthe practical upshot of open source was always that it welcomed a mix of open and closed. it is the venn diagram. and it is also one part of the venn diagram. a better metaphor is that its two sides of the same coin. definitions aside, ambiguity in practice is a real problem for open, along with the genericisation of the trademark that bruce lamented two decades ago. fully co-opted, open source doesnt really mean anything. but it Jul 09 00:10
schestowitzcertainly could have, and arguably did. i guess it depends who you ask. maybe it shouldnt, but it does these days.Jul 09 00:10
schestowitzas long as actions mean more than words, open is everything-- open is also closed. what a shame, but the great travesties of free software today can thank open source for selling out to / by the linux foundation, to / by microsoft shills, to / by the gnome project-- and we can thank debian (thanks assholes!) as well.Jul 09 00:10
schestowitzif open isnt closed, its damned close to closed. a little too close to closed, if you know what i mean. and thats relevant, whether or not you recognise that it is also true. true in practice, false in theory. potato, potahto.Jul 09 00:10
schestowitzenter image description hereJul 09 00:10
schestowitzenorbet2@diasp.orgJul 09 00:10
schestowitzenorbet2@diasp.org - 6 months agoJul 09 00:10
schestowitzI think you have, whether consciously or by accident, in effect “poisoned the well” by placing closed inside of open which also assumes the conclusion in the premise. Venn diagrams usually include a Universe as the surface upon which the elements under study and their relationships are scrutinized. If we place the elements separately that would bias the outcome, too, but if we allow for a possible, but yet unconfirmed overlap, Jul 09 00:10
schestowitzthen we allow objective logical conclusion without the poisoning, right?Jul 09 00:10
schestowitzOpenVennJul 09 00:10
schestowitzenorbet2@diasp.orgJul 09 00:10
schestowitzenorbet2@diasp.org - 6 months agoJul 09 00:10
schestowitzSo one area of concern is “does the grey area even exist?” I propose that by definition open != closed… they are diametrically opposed, an absolute binary condition just like Black and White, 0 and 1.Jul 09 00:10
schestowitzfreemedia@framasphere.orgJul 09 00:10
schestowitzfreemedia@framasphere.org - 6 months agoJul 09 00:10
schestowitz    which also assumes the conclusion in the premise.Jul 09 00:10
schestowitzyoure the one who implied drawing a diagram could prove anything. i simply drew the diagram to illustrate my argument. as to why my-diagram would differ from my-argument, i cant imagine. i would be contradicting myself.Jul 09 00:10
schestowitzi know what “open” means and i know what the osd says. the point im trying to make to you is, that the people responsible for “open” have welcomed so many closed things, that the very idea that “closed” exists outside (or separately) of “open” is theoretical and doesnt reflect reality. the reality being that “open” is a meaningless label, it promotes “closed” to the point where it loses meaning (or Jul 09 00:10
schestowitzsignificance) and your diagram is useless for describing the way things actually are. but theoretically youre absolutely right. not in any way useful or real, but youre absolutely right in theory. good luck with that.Jul 09 00:10
schestowitzfreemedia@framasphere.orgJul 09 00:10
schestowitzfreemedia@framasphere.org - 6 months agoJul 09 00:10
schestowitz    by definition open != closed… they are diametrically opposedJul 09 00:10
schestowitzyes, by definition. but i said that MUCH MUCH earlier when i talked about the osd.Jul 09 00:10
schestowitzjust not in fact, not in reality, not in practice. in practice, closed is closed and open is meaningless. you continue to try to refute that by talking about what it is in theory-- i agreed with you in that context two pages ago. you continue to throw apples at my oranges and say “no! youre wrong.” your argument simply doesnt address mine. i addressed yours. you keep changing the subject to something else, which we already Jul 09 00:10
schestowitzagreed on. but you dont get to conflate the two. youre basically saying “if we agree on a, then we agree on b.” but b is not a, and a does not imply b like you continue to claim it does.Jul 09 00:10
schestowitzseparate issues–Jul 09 00:10
schestowitzone we agree on, two you conflate as the same thing but they arent. and you probably want to say “youre the one conflating open with closed” but really im not im simply commenting on the fact that the people responsible for “open” have conflated the two. i dont know why its so hard to say “they arent following their own definition, so what it means in theory is moot” though apparently if they do something incredibly Jul 09 00:10
schestowitzdishonest or incredibly contradictory, we have to move heaven and earth just to state the obvious about it. its not like this is some pet theory that other people dont talk about every other day. this sort of double standard has already been criticised for years.Jul 09 00:10
schestowitzenorbet2@diasp.orgJul 09 00:10
schestowitzenorbet2@diasp.org - 6 months agoJul 09 00:10
schestowitzDo we agree that BSD licensing is more “Open” than GPL?Jul 09 00:10
schestowitzfreemedia@framasphere.orgJul 09 00:10
schestowitzfreemedia@framasphere.org - 6 months agoJul 09 00:10
schestowitz    Do we agree that BSD licensing is more “Open” than GPL?Jul 09 00:10
schestowitzwhat, seriously? youre going to conflate “permissive” with “open” with someone with more than a decade of experience with this stuff?Jul 09 00:10
schestowitzmy only horse in the permissive vs copyleft race is that some projects (the linux kernel) clearly benefit from copyleft, and thats going to become clearer as the linux foundation turns over (gpl) compliance to common gpl-violator microsoft. i dont know which part of GAFAM youre in love with, microsoft or apple, but youre definitely not the “enorbet” i know from linuxquestions. that guy is too smart to ask me a ridiculous Jul 09 00:10
schestowitzquestion like that. even the open source definition (mentioned a few times already) does not refer to permissive as being “more open.” basically, its claptrap.Jul 09 00:11
schestowitzenorbet2@diasp.orgJul 09 00:11
schestowitzenorbet2@diasp.org - 6 months agoJul 09 00:11
schestowitzMaybe a conversation between two software engineers, one from Linux and one from the BSD kernel might speak to how “claptrap” my question was>Jul 09 00:11
schestowitzhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cofKxtIO3IsJul 09 00:11
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.youtube.com | YouTubeJul 09 00:11
schestowitzBTW I do hope you manage to curb your insulting posture. GAFAM love indeed! Pfff.Jul 09 00:11
schestowitzfreemedia@framasphere.orgJul 09 00:11
schestowitzfreemedia@framasphere.org - 6 months agoJul 09 00:11
schestowitz    Maybe a conversation between two software engineers, one from Linux and one from the BSD kernel might speak to how “claptrap” my questionJul 09 00:11
schestowitzif youre going to post two engineers talking about licensing issues, why not have building inspectors talking about lymph node surgery?Jul 09 00:11
schestowitz    to how “claptrap” my question wasJul 09 00:11
schestowitz“permissive has nothing to do with how open something is.”Jul 09 00:11
schestowitzits apples and oranges. youre presenting a political opinion as a fact. i cant help you if you think that should be relevant to me, ive spent literally years going over this very question-- ive looked at it from both sides. it is a fucking stupid argument to make. you can take that personally (you seem to) if you want, but ive already been on both sides of it. you may think its really interesting. but its not, its a really dumb Jul 09 00:11
schestowitzargument.Jul 09 00:11
schestowitzas to the engineers-- hell.Jul 09 00:11
schestowitzeverybody is ignorant about SOMETHING. its obvious, or it should be, that pro-gpl linux guys and pro-permissive bsd guys have opposite stances on this issue. ive explained that im ALMOST neutral on it, but in light of facts and experience and specific issues with the kernel, i cant be.Jul 09 00:11
schestowitzyouve given me nothing compared to that, just two people talking on youtube. sorry, come back when you have an argument. youre not bringing anything to the table here. this is a very very tired, very boring old debate that comes down to “we dont agree” every single time. you dont have anything new here. im not calling it trolling, but its not more useful than that.Jul 09 00:11
schestowitzenorbet2@diasp.orgJul 09 00:11
schestowitzenorbet2@diasp.org - 6 months agoJul 09 00:11
schestowitzI’m guessing you didn’t watch it all because it does discuss Free vs/ Proprietary software quite a lot. If I appear to be asking a stupid question to you it may be because I don’t understand what your driving at beyond destroying the denotation of the terms “closed” and “open” which is exactly represented in your Venn Diagram that has “Closed” entirely within the area of “Open” blurring to the point of removal Jul 09 00:11
schestowitzof an differentiation as if the two words have identical meaning but “Open” just means a bit more.Jul 09 00:11
schestowitzThis may be political for you but it is not for me. I like and agree with a lot that Richard Stallman stands for but he is too radical in it for me. I don’t see how as he describes it, he can ever “wipe proprietary software off the face of the earth”. It seems to me some form of co-existence is far more practical and possible to actually achieve. That was not how I saw this thread. I simply recoiled at the apparent use of “Jul 09 00:11
schestowitzdoublespeak” that now that I see where you are taking it, I see as a far greater threat than proprietary software represents.Jul 09 00:11
schestowitzWhat’s more I really don’t understand why you are so angry and defensive. Are you so engaged that to you everyone is either “with me or agin’ me”? People are binary? Is that it?Jul 09 00:11
schestowitzfreemedia@framasphere.orgJul 09 00:11
schestowitzfreemedia@framasphere.org - 6 months agoJul 09 00:11
schestowitz    This may be political for you but it is not for me.Jul 09 00:11
schestowitzif its not political, then what is the basis of your preference for things that are open? a design methodology?Jul 09 00:11
schestowitzthe entire process of transposing free software with free-software-minus-real-freedom has done nothing but destroy freedom.Jul 09 00:11
schestowitzsure, it claims otherwise. the claims are false.Jul 09 00:11
schestowitz    I like and agree with a lot that Richard Stallman stands for but he is too radical in it for me.Jul 09 00:11
schestowitzwhat does that even mean?Jul 09 00:11
schestowitzmore than a decade ago, i felt the same way. then i realised that open source was presenting a false compromise and rewriting history to favour themselves, and i lost my taste for it.Jul 09 00:11
schestowitzstallman isnt too radical, hes too much against companies that would like to compromise our control over our computing until they can have full reign over it again.Jul 09 00:11
schestowitz    I don’t see how as he describes it, he can ever “wipe proprietary software off the face of the earth”. It seems to me some form of co-existence is far more practical and possibleJul 09 00:11
schestowitzits not. under ideal circumstances, compromise is an optimisation-- a positive, a plus… overapplied, “compromise” gradually becomes synonymous with vulnerability, misplaced trust and failure.Jul 09 00:11
schestowitzlets go to some pages that were removed from the open source initiative website: http://web.archive.org/web/20021215113949/http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween1.phpJul 09 00:11
schestowitz    “commodity” services and protocols areJul 09 00:11
schestowitz    good things for customers; they promote competition and choice.Jul 09 00:11
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-web.archive.org | Open Source Initiative OSI - Doc1:Halloween DocumentsJul 09 00:11
schestowitz    for Microsoft to win, the customer must lose.Jul 09 00:11
schestowitzwhats practical about letting them defeat us?Jul 09 00:12
schestowitz    I simply recoiled at the apparent use of “doublespeak” that now that I see where you are taking it, I see as a far greater threat than proprietary software represents.Jul 09 00:12
schestowitzwhat doublespeak?Jul 09 00:12
schestowitzwhat im saying is that when open source talks about open source-- theyre full of shit.Jul 09 00:12
schestowitzwhen i say “open is closed” i dont mean theyre the same to me, i mean THEY are selling closed as “open”Jul 09 00:12
schestowitzthis has a word: openwashing. if youre unaware of how much openwashing (non-open sold as “open”) there is, we are keeping track of it: #openwashingJul 09 00:12
schestowitzits only increasing. the word is becoming meaningless.Jul 09 00:12
schestowitz    What’s more I really don’t understand why you are so angry and defensive. Are you so engaged that to you everyone is either “with me or agin’ me”? People are binary? Is that it?Jul 09 00:12
schestowitzcorporations are against us.Jul 09 00:12
schestowitzive spent the past year documenting and explaining to people how much google, amazon, microsoft, apple, facebook, and ibm have done to hurt our freedom.Jul 09 00:12
schestowitzthey arent willing to share, they arent even willing to let us share with each other.Jul 09 00:12
schestowitz    microsoft is still using patents to hurt free softwareJul 09 00:12
schestowitz    ibm is as wellJul 09 00:12
schestowitz    google is buying up (bribing) organisations that stand for freedom with large sums like microsoft used to (and does)Jul 09 00:12
schestowitz    microsoft is (still) illegally bribing the press and government officialsJul 09 00:12
schestowitz    apple is still creating walled gardens and buying bogus patents and trying to destroy gplJul 09 00:12
schestowitz    facebook is infiltrating operating system designJul 09 00:12
schestowitz    google is creating an anti-posix operating system named fuchsia. this is a major problem that most people havent caught onto yetJul 09 00:12
schestowitzheres what the founder of the open source initiative said 22 years ago:Jul 09 00:12
schestowitzBecause coexistence is not a stable solution for them, it cannot be for us either. We have to assume that Microsoft’s long-term aim is to crush our cultureJul 09 00:12
schestowitzyou can argue that microsoft has changed (and i can argue a lot more that they havent) though the real problem is the now OWN “open source.”Jul 09 00:12
schestowitzbut thats not what this is about-- this is about you putting personal faults onto me for saying the same thing that eric s raymond said 22 years ago, the year open source first got an organisation.Jul 09 00:12
schestowitzyou think im the one making it us vs them.Jul 09 00:12
schestowitzno, it wasnt me: https://share.naturalnews.com/posts/523ee27054d60137c3860218b787507bJul 09 00:12
schestowitznow ill quote quilero ordonez, who knows richard stallman:Jul 09 00:12
schestowitz    Opensource is not a good path to choose for obtaining freedom. It values quality and price.Jul 09 00:12
schestowitz    It is on the same side of freedom as is nonfree software [i found this quote today, AFTER i said that open source includes closed source] because they promote that businesses non make their core free software.Jul 09 00:12
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-share.naturalnews.com | (10 years ago) Bill Gates: “Where Are We on This Jihad?” (Against #...Jul 09 00:12
schestowitz    It is true businesses fund a great quantity of free software. But they do it to link their user subjugating nonlibre parts or services.Jul 09 00:12
schestowitzso YES-- open includes closedJul 09 00:12
schestowitzits not my doublespeak.Jul 09 00:12
schestowitzevery time they say “open” its their own doublespeak.Jul 09 00:12
schestowitzthats the problem i have with it. i dont appreciate the fact that theyve spent two decades creating an army of suckers to and opportunists to bullshit me, lie to me and try to destroy everything we built.Jul 09 00:12
schestowitzyou think i shouldnt take it personally? lol, everybodys got an opinion.Jul 09 00:12
schestowitzif you think your position isnt political, then you really dont understand politics.Jul 09 00:12
schestowitzpretending to be apolitical (not you, them) is a VERY political move. it fooled you, didnt it?Jul 09 00:12
schestowitzenorbet2@diasp.orgJul 09 00:12
schestowitzenorbet2@diasp.org - 6 months agoJul 09 00:12
schestowitzOK I get what you’re saying now. It is not you that believes Open is Closed, it’s mislabeling doublespeak on the part of some corporations. With that, I agree and always have since around 1995. I bought OS/2 and Win95 ~1996 and haven’t given either of them a dime since then. I’ve never owned an Apple product. I have, still do, and plan to for the future buy nVidia hardware and use their proprietary driver. I am not Jul 09 00:12
schestowitzsubscribed to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or any other common social media. I spent two days researching Diaspora before I joined here and btw, to answer your question it is not political, it’s ethical and practical. I work to protect my freedom but I also 'make deals" I can live with as with nVidia where it seems to me the upside is high and the downside is low, which is why in my position I think Stallman is too radical. Some Jul 09 00:12
schestowitzcompromise is valid, to me, if it doesn’t come packaged with surveillance, EULAS or other intrusive requirements. My laptop is a Thinkpad T60 which I bought used in 20014 exactly because it doesn’t have Intel’s MCE mess. I build my own PCs.Jul 09 00:12
schestowitzSo you see I’m not at all diametrically opposed to your position… just not quite as Binary.Jul 09 00:13
schestowitzfreemedia@framasphere.orgJul 09 00:13
schestowitzfreemedia@framasphere.org - 6 months agoJul 09 00:13
schestowitz    OK I get what you’re saying now. It is not you that believes Open is Closed, it’s mislabeling doublespeak on the part of some corporations. With that, I agree and always have since around 1995. I bought OS/2 and Win95 ~1996 and haven’t given either of them a dime since then.Jul 09 00:13
schestowitzos/2 was a sweet os, of course its from ibm and nobody can waste billions in research on a tanked product like they can. its not the software, its what they do with their products and their customers that killed it. it failed because people had to bend over backwards to develop for it-- licensing problems and a dumb strategy.Jul 09 00:13
schestowitz    I work to protect my freedom but I also 'make deals" I can live with as with nVidia where it seems to me the upside is high and the downside is low, which is why in my position I think Stallman is too radical.Jul 09 00:13
schestowitzfor you. imo if we want a free os but we are willing to let video card manufacturers make garbage that we cant fix, theyre practically dictating what version of the kernel we use.Jul 09 00:13
schestowitzthere are lots of “practical” arguments to avoid proprietary drivers, but only open source demands we focus exclusively on those. free software doesnt have that limitation (on arguments.)Jul 09 00:13
schestowitz    Some compromise is valid, to me, if it doesn’t come packaged with surveillance, EULAS or other intrusive requirements.Jul 09 00:13
schestowitzbut it always does eventually. its not “radical” to boycott all of it instead of some of it. all of it causes problems.Jul 09 00:13
schestowitz    My laptop is a Thinkpad T60 which I bought used in 20014 exactly because it doesn’t have Intel’s MCE mess. I build my own PCs.Jul 09 00:13
schestowitzthats pretty cool actually.Jul 09 00:13
schestowitz    So you see I’m not at all diametrically opposed to your position… just not quite as Binary.Jul 09 00:13
schestowitzthen youre where i was in the early years of this century.Jul 09 00:13
schestowitzi have no problem with people working their way up to “full freedom”-- in a way we are all doing that, because as we find ways to be more free, the find ways to foist new garbage. its a vicious cycle.Jul 09 00:13
schestowitzbut i reject the idea that the cycle isnt vicious, that its really practical, or that its better than stallmans position.Jul 09 00:13
schestowitzlike i said, ive tried it from both angles. and i was already interested in the underdog. the corruption is spreading, and we are in many ways at war (literally, as microsoft is now a defense contractor.)Jul 09 00:13
schestowitztoday its hardware video compression you cant access without a non-free driver. tomorrow its drones shooting at civilians in an illegal war. not really hypothetical. these companies are creating software that will be used to target and kill civilians illegally.Jul 09 00:13
schestowitzi dont expect you to simply believe my credentials, but they include predicting mp3s, usb drives (chips instead of floppies) and the purchase of red hat. as well as fpgas.Jul 09 00:13
schestowitzim not always right-- and thank fuck for that!Jul 09 00:13
schestowitzenorbet2@diasp.orgJul 09 00:13
schestowitzenorbet2@diasp.org - 6 months agoJul 09 00:13
schestowitzI was a member of TeamOS2 and many say the main failure of that awesome OpSys was IBM marketing, that if IBM bought out a successful Sushi business they would advertise it as “Raw, Dead Fish” ;)Jul 09 00:13
schestowitzThe area of graphics cards is particularly interesting and exemplary for me in that I really don’t see how nVidia could survive in such a fiercely competitive field if they essentially handed the blueprints to competitors. I am rather fiercely against monopolies but I have to admit that Patent Law that is followed to the letter, allowing a business, whether sole proprietorship or corporate, to capitalize on R&D which is always Jul 09 00:13
schestowitzexpensive, sometimes vastly so. with a HARD line drawn “in the sand” as to when it passes into Public Domain. There was a time when this was both observed and enforced and it needs to be again or the sides get way too polarized and radical. In my experience I don’t see that it is necessarily a consequence that such things must end up abused. nVidia has been supporting alternative systems, even very very small ones like BeOS Jul 09 00:13
schestowitzand OS/2 forever without feeling the compulsion to surveil, or in any way I have ever seen, infringe on user’s rights and freedom.Jul 09 00:13
schestowitzI have spent many thousands of dollars with nVidia and write them to explain that I did, yet again, exactly because of these attributes. Maybe I should have written to Ati, S3, Matrox and a host of others explaining why I didn’t buy theirs :)Jul 09 00:13
schestowitzfreemedia@framasphere.orgJul 09 00:13
schestowitzfreemedia@framasphere.org - 6 months agoJul 09 00:13
schestowitzthe sad thing about the hard line with patents is that sometimes they evergreen them anyway.Jul 09 00:13
schestowitzi think this comes up more often in the medical industry than computing, but you mostly hear about it from people in tech.Jul 09 00:13
schestowitzas for ibm marketing i agree, though there wasnt much in it for you if you developed for os/2 on ibm kit. i think it fizzled out because of the business side of it (hardware with a similar name, ps/2 actually had similar problems that hurt it badly) but their marketing always sucks. also the aptiva looked like a fugly 90s hewlett-packard reject that you could only buy at radio shack. what could go wrong? sometimes i think someone inJul 09 00:13
schestowitza boardroom just a lot a bet. it would make perfect sense if their product line was actually a big horse race to them, and the failed lines were “just trying to keep things interesting.”Jul 09 00:13
schestowitzenorbet2@diasp.orgJul 09 00:13
schestowitzenorbet2@diasp.org - 6 months agoJul 09 00:13
schestowitzIsn’t it odd and interesting in light of Jobs’ Big Brother ad, that Apple became far more draconian than IBM ever had? In fact the reason I never gave M$ another dime after 1996 was that I built a PC from a mobo that sported the then new AGP bus and before removing the old mobo. deleted everything in Device Manager and Win95 booted up with the new mobo w/o a peep about “illegal function” BUT it wouldn’t see the AGP bus. Jul 09 00:13
schestowitzAfter a few days hunting around for a driver I discovered that a single file called Usbsys.dll was all it needed so I called M$. They told me “Sure! No problem we can sell you that 32kB file… for $50.00 USD… but, if you were REALLY smart, you’d just add 40bux and just upgrade to Win98!”. Given that I had numerous, like 20+ upgrade packs from bad ol’ IBM that totaled as much as 30MB each, for free with my initial purchaseJul 09 00:13
schestowitz that was it for me. When I actually saw someone else’s PC running Win98 and saw how little was actually changed, like a really small service pack, that confirmed my decision to never purchase my own enslavement ever again. Paul Allen seemed like a pretty cool dude, but Monkey Boy Ballmer and Billy Gates can rot with vultures picking their bones clean and I’d celebrate for days.Jul 09 00:13
schestowitzfreemedia@framasphere.orgJul 09 00:13
schestowitzfreemedia@framasphere.org - 6 months agoJul 09 00:13
schestowitz    Isn’t it odd and interesting in light of Jobs’ Big Brother ad, that Apple became far more draconian than IBM ever had?Jul 09 00:14
schestowitzit says a lot about marketing.Jul 09 00:14
schestowitz    Apple became far more draconian than IBM ever had?Jul 09 00:14
schestowitzin some notable contexts, sure.Jul 09 00:14
schestowitzictus@diasp.orgJul 09 00:14
schestowitzictus@diasp.org - 37 minutes agoJul 09 00:14
schestowitzI read that OS/2 was sabotaged. Similar to BeOS.Jul 09 00:14
schestowitz"Jul 09 00:14
schestowitz"Currently only the paid prototypes are shipping. Which means 8 pyrae. I am somewhere around 900 in line I guess ^^"Jul 09 00:14
schestowitzhttps://joindiaspora.com/posts/16865557#e6e2e6f00ca10138d5762a0000053625Jul 09 00:14
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-@schestowitz@joindiaspora.com: #DragonBox #Pyra prototypes begin shipping (open source handheld gaming computer) http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/132261 #debian #gnu #linux inside Jul 09 00:14
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell--> www.tuxmachines.org | DragonBox Pyra prototypes begin shipping (open source handheld gaming computer) | Tux MachinesJul 09 00:14
schestowitzhttps://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/tweets/rules-and-filtering/overview/standard-operatorsJul 09 00:33
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-developer.twitter.com | Standard operators — Twitter DevelopersJul 09 00:33
schestowitz no option for sORTINGJul 09 00:34
schestowitzat allJul 09 00:34
schestowitze.g. by timeJul 09 00:34
schestowitzunless one can sort chronologically they're just doing whatever they feel like, promoting one thing over anotherJul 09 00:36
schestowitzhttps://www.pocket-lint.com/apps/news/twitter/145777-change-this-twitter-setting-to-see-tweets-in-reverse-chronological-orderJul 09 00:36
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.pocket-lint.com | Change this Twitter setting to see tweets chronologicallyJul 09 00:36
schestowitzhttps://blog.twitter.com/engineering/en_us/topics/insights/2016/moving-top-tweet-search-results-from-reverse-chronological-order-to-relevance-order.htmlJul 09 00:37
schestowitz"Initially, we experimented with showing a gallery of Tweet results instead of individual Tweets and observed a negative impact on the engagement metrics of account results. The Tweets gallery would take up a lot of space at the top of search results page, which consequently drops the accounts gallery (if there is one) to a much lower position because it can’t appear between the relevance-ordered Tweet results. In a later Jul 09 00:37
schestowitziteration, we observed that showing individual Tweet results allows us to improve overall engagement while not heavily hurting the metrics related to account results so we decided to move forward with the individual Tweets layout."Jul 09 00:37
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-blog.twitter.com | Moving Top Tweet Search Results from Reverse Chronological OrderJul 09 00:37
schestowitzIdiots. "Engagement"Jul 09 00:37
schestowitzso they censor to get more hitsJul 09 00:37
schestowitz"To further avoid losing account engagements, we made score adjustments so that the range of Tweet scores do not overpower the accounts. We also implemented logic to adjust the scoring and positioning of Tweets and the accounts gallery based on whether the query has an inferred intent to search for accounts."Jul 09 00:38
schestowitzhttps://twitter.com/search-advanced?lang=en-gbJul 09 00:39
schestowitzWOWJul 09 00:39
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-mobile.twitter.com | TwitterJul 09 00:39
schestowitzNo option AT ALL for chronologicalJul 09 00:39
schestowitznoneJul 09 00:39
schestowitzthey do "their own thing"Jul 09 00:39
schestowitzno sortbyJul 09 00:40
schestowitz2016Jul 09 00:40
schestowitzhttps://venturebeat.com/2016/12/19/twitter-starts-showing-search-results-by-relevance-not-reverse-chronological-order/Jul 09 00:40
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-venturebeat.com | Twitter starts showing search results by relevance, not reverse chronological order | VentureBeatJul 09 00:40
schestowitzthat's when the site was starting to dieJul 09 00:40
schestowitzcensorship and throttlingJul 09 00:41
schestowitzfor agendaJul 09 00:41
schestowitzfor "engagement"Jul 09 00:41
schestowitz"v"Jul 09 00:41
schestowitz"Twitter is updating its top search results so that tweets will be ranked based on relevance instead of by time, bringing those search results in line with what users have experienced on their timeline for the past 10 months. Based on early trials, the company claims there has been more engagement in search results and tweets, with more time spent using the service."Jul 09 00:41
schestowitz"engagement"\Jul 09 00:41
schestowitza-holes!Jul 09 00:41
schestowitz"Jul 09 00:42
schestowitzIn February, Twitter announced that it was shaking up the user timeline for everyone. Previously, it had offered the algorithmic change as an opt-in program, but it became mandatory a month later. The effort was intended to make the service more appealing to new and casual users, so that they can see interesting tweets instead of things that are just whizzing by. And now this same feature is coming to search results.Jul 09 00:42
schestowitzPrior to today, Twitter’s search was broken into various categories, such as most popular or the latest (a live stream), and segmented by people, photos, videos, and more. Now it appears that there’s one more signal being used to algorithmically control how at least the top tweets are shown to you.Jul 09 00:42
schestowitz"Jul 09 00:42
schestowitzhttps://www.vox.com/culture/2018/9/20/17876098/twitter-chronological-timeline-back-finallyJul 09 00:42
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.vox.com | Twitter’s chronological timeline is back. Here’s how to restore it. - VoxJul 09 00:42
schestowitz"In a move many would characterize as restoring a functionality it never should have removed in the first place, the social media platform announced on Monday that it will now allow users to fully opt out of “curated” timelines, in which “top-ranked” tweets — according to an algorithm, anyway — are shown first, above more recent tweets displayed in chronological order. "Jul 09 00:43
schestowitz"Users have always had the ability to turn off the curation function, which is listed as “Show the best tweets first” in Twitter’s settings menu — but only in a limited sense. Even users who disabled the “Show the best tweets first” setting were shown curated categories of tweets they couldn’t opt out of seeing (including popular tweets from people they didn’t follow) and which affected the order of their feeds. In Jul 09 00:43
schestowitzessence, there was no such thing as a purely chronological timeline."Jul 09 00:43
schestowitzhttps://www.adweek.com/digital/twitter-tweet-search-results-relevance/Jul 09 00:47
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-www.adweek.com | Twitter Top Tweet Search Results Now Displayed By Relevance Instead of Chronologically – AdweekJul 09 00:47
schestowitz"Twitter quietly tweaked its top tweet search results to display in order of relevance, rather than in reverse chronological order."Jul 09 00:47
schestowitzhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20473272Jul 09 01:15
-TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-news.ycombinator.com | Search results in reverse chronological order is Twitter's killer feature but, b... | Hacker NewsJul 09 01:15
schestowitz"Jul 09 01:15
schestowitz ssalka 11 months ago [–]Jul 09 01:15
schestowitzI'm pretty sure it's easier to sort by -timestamp than to run a complex ranking model across all recent tweets (which would have to be windowed by timestamp anyway), and then sort by the output of that.Jul 09 01:15
schestowitzSeems to me like they are going out of their way to force their "top tweets" algorithm on users.Jul 09 01:15
schestowitz"Jul 09 01:15
schestowitz"Jul 09 01:15
schestowitz Search results in reverse chronological order is Twitter's killer feature but, bafflingly, it seems like they've been going out of thier way to prevent that for years now, especially on mobile. Why? Also, if there's any Android app which lets you do that without having a Twitter account, I'd love to know about it. I used to use a nice little app called SearchBird for this, but it's disappeared and I can't find a replacement.Jul 09 01:15
schestowitzJul 09 01:15
schestowitzJul 09 01:15
schestowitzsnowwrestler 11 months ago [–]Jul 09 01:15
schestowitz> Search results in reverse chronological order is Twitter's killer feature but, bafflingly, it seems like they've been going out of thier way to prevent that for years now, especially on mobile. Why?Jul 09 01:15
schestowitzThe engagement metrics have got to be better with Home. It makes sense, since the whole idea of an algorithmic timeline is to take the stuff the company knows is getting a reaction and feed it to more people.Jul 09 01:15
schestowitzPersonally I think this is a great example of how engagement metrics mislead companies. The numbers go up, but it fundamentally changes the nature of the experience.Jul 09 01:15
schestowitzWhen you're on a reverse-chron timeline you have a sense of people's lives in real time and can have conversations. You only see people you have chosen to follow, so you recognize people and get a sense of their personality. A lot of the content is fairly banal, which gives an (accurate) sense that life for most people is kind of calm and mildly interesting.Jul 09 01:15
schestowitzWhen you're on an algorithmic timeline, you're seeing content that is really likely to get a reaction--that usually means it has a lot of emotion tied up in it: outrage, anger, sadness, humor, etc.Jul 09 01:15
schestowitzBut it's also content that is old and choked with replies. So you can't have a normal conversation around it; there are too many people acting too emotionally. And you're seeing content from more people you don't follow--Twitter's Home timeline brings in a higher percentage of tweets that your follows have liked or replied to.Jul 09 01:15
schestowitzSo if your timeline is filled with this kind of content, it creates the (inaccurate) impression that life is full of really extreme moments and amped-up strangers!Jul 09 01:15
schestowitzI can almost always tell when Twitter has switched me back to home. Suddenly I realize I'm feeling more angry, and the numbers on most of the tweets are bigger. I also see more tweets from people I don't recognize. It's like opening my kitchen door and suddenly finding a loud restaurant with spicy food in my house. Jul 09 01:15
schestowitz"Jul 09 01:15
*nergal[m] has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)Jul 09 17:56
*nergal[m] (nergalmatr@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-xjiqncclvqrwyecl) has joined #boycottnovellJul 09 18:00

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!