Ion3 port is obsolete

[Marco Peereboom]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 09:20:34PM +0200, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
> On 2007-11-16 20:13 +0100, Marc Balmer wrote:
> > but windows does not need a window manager...
>
> Indeed, Ion is my only remaining umblical cord to FOSS crap, and
> no thanks to the FOSS herd, but vestiges of software from the age
> before the FOSS craze, from the age before the WIMP desktop model
> became hegemonic. If Windows could provide something like Ion, I
> wouldn't think twice of switching to it.

Man you are in luck.  I happened to make ion work on windows to make it
more bearable.  It's on my site; enjoy!

>
> --
> Tuomo
>

[Marco Peereboom]

Who is talking about using windows apps?

I just said I ported it work in cygwin so that I don't have to "use"
windows at work.  GNU userland beats even MS cli commands.

On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:27:37PM +0200, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:

> On 2007-11-16 13:45 -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> > Man you are in luck.  I happened to make ion work on windows to make it
> > more bearable.  It's on my site; enjoy!
>
> Yeah, right. Actually, with the compositing manager now in Vista
> (which they call the "Desktop Window manager", heh), it might be
> possible to hack a sorry emulation of a WM by replacing it. Even
> a tabbing and tiling one by scaling the applications' backbuffers,
> which would of course make things look like shit. And then you'd
> have to hack around the application-drawn (AFAIK) window frames.
>
> --
> Tuomo

[Marco Peereboom]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:23:02PM +0200, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
> On 2007-11-16 13:38 -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> > You are naive.  The open source community is harsh and does not tend to
> > cater to someone's feelings.  Kind of like the real world.
>
> In the harsh real world the companies sue you for distributing
> their software. I might just as well adopt their licenses and
> practices: as you have admitted, the FOSS herd is harsh and no
> different from them.

So why are you acting all surprised?

>
> > I fail to see how that is your problem.  Its free software, they change
> > it they deal with it.  
>
> They don't deal with it: they don't rename the software and tell
> users to not bug the original author. As long the software clearly
> points to the original author, users will come asking support for
> the distro's version. That is the case if the software has a "face"
> and has not become such "generic" software that just is there,
> and of which there are known to be various implementations (such
> as the basic *nix tools).

And you say: "go away" or nothing at all.  Wow, thats really hard.

>
> > Why do you care if someone else is starring at blurry fonts?
>
> I care when they make it purposefully difficult for me to personally
> use unblurry fonts, or some particular font (such as the beautiful
> X Helvetica bitmap font, which is often blocked). I will not have my
> software support such software that takes away or makes personal
> choice for me very difficult.

How do they make it difficult for you?  What you are saying is: I use
their stuff and I don't like it.  How about not using their stuff?

>
> > Dealing with Linux people tends to anger people.  Maybe you should try to
> > leave the linuxers behind and work in a more constructive community.  
>
> And that is? While indeed *BSD (of which only FreeBSD is likely to have
> the driver support I'd need) don't suffer from such utter and total
> crap as udev, and other recent idiot box idiocies in the Linux kernel,
> they still unfortunately rely on the same luserland (sic) that tends
> to be designed for the monoculturist desktop projects these days.

The best community for you seems to be the Tuomo one.  You know, your own
world where everything is just like you want it.  You know what, you
could even control who gets a passport.

>
> > Your bitterness stems from
> > getting involved with people you are incompatible with.
>
> That's about 99% of people. As witnessed in this thread.

Then why do you keep talking?

>
> > And if you are that pissed off, why don't you just quit?
> > You don't owe anyone anything.
>
> I like to finish what I've started. Then I'll quit.

You don't need to release your code and put up with it.  You can just
keep it all to yourself.  You are apparently a masochist that keeps
asking for more.

>
> --
> Tuomo

[Tuomo Valkonen]

On 2007-11-16 13:38 -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> You are naive.  The open source community is harsh and does not tend to
> cater to someone's feelings.  Kind of like the real world.

In the harsh real world the companies sue you for distributing
their software. I might just as well adopt their licenses and
practices: as you have admitted, the FOSS herd is harsh and no
different from them.

> I fail to see how that is your problem.  Its free software, they change
> it they deal with it.  

They don't deal with it: they don't rename the software and tell
users to not bug the original author. As long the software clearly
points to the original author, users will come asking support for
the distro's version. That is the case if the software has a "face"
and has not become such "generic" software that just is there,
and of which there are known to be various implementations (such
as the basic *nix tools).

> Why do you care if someone else is starring at blurry fonts?

I care when they make it purposefully difficult for me to personally
use unblurry fonts, or some particular font (such as the beautiful
X Helvetica bitmap font, which is often blocked). I will not have my
software support such software that takes away or makes personal
choice for me very difficult.

> Dealing with Linux people tends to anger people.  Maybe you should try to
> leave the linuxers behind and work in a more constructive community.  

And that is? While indeed *BSD (of which only FreeBSD is likely to have
the driver support I'd need) don't suffer from such utter and total
crap as udev, and other recent idiot box idiocies in the Linux kernel,
they still unfortunately rely on the same luserland (sic) that tends
to be designed for the monoculturist desktop projects these days.

> Your bitterness stems from
> getting involved with people you are incompatible with.

That's about 99% of people. As witnessed in this thread.

> And if you are that pissed off, why don't you just quit?
> You don't owe anyone anything.

I like to finish what I've started. Then I'll quit.

--
Tuomo

[Tuomo Valkonen]

On 2007-11-16 13:45 -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> Man you are in luck.  I happened to make ion work on windows to make it
> more bearable.  It's on my site; enjoy!

Yeah, right. Actually, with the compositing manager now in Vista
(which they call the "Desktop Window manager", heh), it might be
possible to hack a sorry emulation of a WM by replacing it. Even
a tabbing and tiling one by scaling the applications' backbuffers,
which would of course make things look like shit. And then you'd
have to hack around the application-drawn (AFAIK) window frames.

--
Tuomo

[Tuomo Valkonen]

On 2007-11-16, Marco Peereboom <slash@...> wrote:
> So why are you acting all surprised?

What surprise? I said I used to have some hope in FOSS ages ago,
but gradually it has worn off, to the extent that I no longer
care for the cause at all.

> And you say: "go away" or nothing at all.  Wow, thats really hard.

It's still users bugging you, and a few more turned off from your
software because the ancient or modified versions provided by the
distros fail on them.

> How do they make it difficult for you?  What you are saying is: I use
> their stuff and I don't like it.  How about not using their stuff?

That means not using a lot of software: it basically means limiting
yourself to xterm (and a few other odd utilities, such as xdvi and gv,
for now anyway). Soon maybe not even that, once the obsolete the old
font system completely. Already e.g. Ubuntu at some point did not
come with any fonts for the X core font system. Certainly you'd have
no graphical browsers to use, none that can access any more pages than
a text-mode one anyway. And unfortunately, while the Web indeed is crap,
it has some useful and interesting information within it. Even on pages
that refuse to work fine in text-mode browsers.

> The best community for you seems to be the Tuomo one.  You know, your own
> world where everything is just like you want it.  

At least a world where not everything is polar to where you want it --
as things seem to be heading -- and where people are more open to your
ideas.

--
Tuomo

[Siju George]

On Nov 16, 2007 11:31 PM, Tuomo Valkonen <tuomov@...> wrote:

> On 2007-11-16, Craig Brozefsky <craig@...> wrote:
> > Yah, sucks to write free software, perhaps you should just stop.
>
> Indeed, Ion3 is my final gift to the FOSS herd, that it can never
> hope to repay. After that any software I might create, will come
> without any license at all (the djb way). With or without source,
> I have not yet decided. Probably without, since FOSS is degrading
> into a pile of steaming shit so fast, that I'm likely to be
> switching to Windows within a few years time, and binaries will
> work just fine there.
>

Come on Tuomo.
Don't get so upset of not being paid back for your efforts in some way
or the other.
Let me ask you this.
How many free software have you used your self?
For how many have you paid back?
At least with a "thank you" towards the authors?
Just think for a while and reply and don't reply just for the sake of
winning an argument.

Is it really worth to stir up all this fuss here?

>Hmm... I guess (L)GPL isn't very free. It isn't, in fact; and I
>do consider the BSD license more "free". In fact, the name use
>terms in my license are basically all that I care about; the LGPL
>is just baggage.
>

If some thing in your license is just baggage then just remove it.
Put what you just care for and people will love you for it.

Don't read this post with an insulting view.
I am just politely pointing out some thing in a friendly way :-)

kind regards

Siju

[Tuomo Valkonen]

On 2007-11-17 21:38 +0530, Siju George wrote:
> Come on Tuomo.
> Don't get so upset of not being paid back for your efforts in some way
> or the other.

I don't expect to get paid back, but I'd rather people not fuck with
me after all my efforts, as the distros do.

> Let me ask you this.
> How many free software have you used your self?
> For how many have you paid back?
> At least with a "thank you" towards the authors?

Not much worth thanking for there. Most of the good stuff is clones
that I could have pirated anyway. It just happens that FOSS crap
has become dominant among many of those programs. And for browser
I use Opera. (Even warez groups, BTW, often tend to distribute their
cracks alongside the pirated copy, instead of distributing modified
binaries only. Yeah, and version is apparent from the file name
listed by sites.)

> If some thing in your license is just baggage then just remove it.

I thought about that, but it was just simpler to extend the LGPL.

--
Tuomo

[Siju George]

On Nov 17, 2007 9:54 PM, Tuomo Valkonen <tuomov@...> wrote:

> On 2007-11-17 21:38 +0530, Siju George wrote:
> > Come on Tuomo.
> > Don't get so upset of not being paid back for your efforts in some way
> > or the other.
>
> I don't expect to get paid back, but I'd rather people not fuck with
> me after all my efforts, as the distros do.
>
> > Let me ask you this.
> > How many free software have you used your self?
> > For how many have you paid back?
> > At least with a "thank you" towards the authors?
>
> Not much worth thanking for there. Most of the good stuff is clones
> that I could have pirated anyway.
>

I just don't get your point here Tuomo.

You don't consider the least thing you can do ( i.e to thank the
authors ) a worth while effort because you have the option to pirate (
is it an option? isn't it illegal? are illegal stuff decent options? )
.
But you get upset at people who work on your software so that is is
made available to the masses more easily, because they are unable to
continue their good work, because of the new license restrictions you
yourself brought in.

So just help them out.
Change you licence back to some really free one like the BSDL.
You yourself said

==============================================================
>In fact, the name use
>terms in my license are basically all that I care about; the LGPL
>is just baggage.
==============================================================

this will most likely solve the problem.

Being a programmer yourself you should be more aware of the chaos all
the different flavors of licenses create while sharing code.

I politely urge not to add your own terms and create your own licenses
if you would like to share your code in FOSS.

>It just happens that FOSS crap
> has become dominant among many of those programs. And for browser
> I use Opera. (Even warez groups, BTW, often tend to distribute their
> cracks alongside the pirated copy, instead of distributing modified
> binaries only. Yeah, and version is apparent from the file name
> listed by sites.)
>
> > If some thing in your license is just baggage then just remove it.
>
> I thought about that, but it was just simpler to extend the LGPL.
>

Please re-think your decision.

I am sure your software has been beneficial to a lot of people and so
let it continue to be beneficial. In the long run I am sure you will
see random addition of clauses to FOSS licenses will not help either
you or people who maintain your software or the users of your
software.

Hope you will make a helping move that is beneficial to all :-)

Kind Regards

Siju

[Siju George]

On Nov 16, 2007 11:37 PM, Tuomo Valkonen <tuomov@...> wrote:
> I'm sure OpenBSD would like very much for me to distribute some
> ancient and significantly modified release as the latest. Except,
> of course, I don't have the resources for such to have much of an
> effect, unlike The Party, i.e. the big distros.
>

If OpenBSD changed its license and put in restrictions you would have
no other way but to distribute the old one.

See it is not the OpenBSD people who tarnishes you.
It is your own license restrictions that are working against you.

kind regards

Siju

[fuzzyping]

On Nov 17, 2007, at 11:40 AM, "Siju George" <sgeorge.ml@...>  
wrote:

> On Nov 16, 2007 11:37 PM, Tuomo Valkonen <tuomov@...> wrote:
>> I'm sure OpenBSD would like very much for me to distribute some
>> ancient and significantly modified release as the latest. Except,
>> of course, I don't have the resources for such to have much of an
>> effect, unlike The Party, i.e. the big distros.
>>
>
> If OpenBSD changed its license and put in restrictions you would have
> no other way but to distribute the old one.
>
> See it is not the OpenBSD people who tarnishes you.
> It is your own license restrictions that are working against you.

The real kicker is that your license change hurt everyone involved.  
Stupid Linux users will *still* pester you about "Ion_NOT-
SUPPORTED-0.1".  On top of that, you've lost arguably your most  
competent user base due to licensing incompatibilities.

I don't think you really care though.  You sound like a very bitter  
person.

---
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net

[Nikolay Sturm-2]

* Siju George [2007-11-17]:
> If OpenBSD changed its license and put in restrictions you would have
> no other way but to distribute the old one.
>
> See it is not the OpenBSD people who tarnishes you.  It is your own
> license restrictions that are working against you.

Could you move this stupid flame war elsewhere, please? Or even better,
just stop it.

cheers,

Nikolay

[Tuomo Valkonen]

On 2007-11-17 22:10 +0530, Siju George wrote:
> See it is not the OpenBSD people who tarnishes you.
> It is your own license restrictions that are working against you.

The extra terms in the license are there for a reason, you know.
Distros far bigger than OpenBSD fucking with you by distributing
Xft-modified versions and ancient development snapshots for years.

--
Tuomo

[Theo de Raadt]

Please immediately take this to your own list, instead of spamming
this list further.

> On 2007-11-17 22:10 +0530, Siju George wrote:
> > See it is not the OpenBSD people who tarnishes you.
> > It is your own license restrictions that are working against you.
>
> The extra terms in the license are there for a reason, you know.
> Distros far bigger than OpenBSD fucking with you by distributing
> Xft-modified versions and ancient development snapshots for years.
>
> --
> Tuomo
>

[Siju George]

On Nov 17, 2007 10:38 PM, Nikolay Sturm <sturm@...> wrote:

> * Siju George [2007-11-17]:
> > If OpenBSD changed its license and put in restrictions you would have
> > no other way but to distribute the old one.
> >
> > See it is not the OpenBSD people who tarnishes you.  It is your own
> > license restrictions that are working against you.
>
> Could you move this stupid flame war elsewhere, please? Or even better,
> just stop it.
>

Done. Full stop .

> cheers,
>

cheer to you too :-)

kind regards

Siju

[Tuomo Valkonen]

On 2007-11-17 12:03 -0500, Jason Dixon wrote:
> I don't think you really care though.  You sound like a very bitter  
> person.

I tend to like bitter. And stout and other varieties too.

--
Tuomo

[Tuomo Valkonen]

On 2007-11-17 22:08 +0530, Siju George wrote:
> You don't consider the least thing you can do ( i.e to thank the
> authors ) a worth while effort because you have the option to pirate

I'm just saying that most of the good pieces of FOSS are generic
clone software, not software with a "face" and a definite author
to thank. Actually, I find it funny when very occasionally people
do send me "thank you" emails with no other content. It would be
different if you had something else to say too, but such idle thank
yous are not in the culture I've grown up in.

> (is it an option? isn't it illegal? are illegal stuff decent options? )

You think I'd actually buy Windows when I switch to it? (Well, I'd
probably get a new computer then, and they tend to come with it.)

> But you get upset at people who work on your software so that is is
> made available to the masses more easily,

Meaning significantly modified obsolete development snapshots
still pointing to me for support are made available for the
masses.

> So just help them out.
> Change you licence back to some really free one like the BSDL.

And suffer distros _still_ carrying ancient development snapshots.
No thanks.

It has been suggested that I simply disallow distributing development
snapshots. Maybe it would simpler than the current license, but the
ideologists in the FOSS herd would still cry that "it's non-free!
baawaawaa! He does not like "freedom"! baawaawaa!". And besides,
distros should provide important bug fixes to stable releases too
-- for me stable implies quality, not "static" like for the distros.
Not every bug fix is that important, however, and might be seen be
"insignificant" per the license.

I don't particularly like the strict 28 day clause myself either, but
in a license you have to put something there. I don't like licenses;
they make people follow their letter instead of negotiating to find
a solution that works for both. That's why I have chosen to create
license-free software in the future, if I can be bothered releasing
anything. That way I don't have to care so much about the FOSS
ideologist politics, and how distros fuck with you. I call it "The
Apathy License" and "The Piratic License" -- do what you can get
away with, without pissing off the author. Yes, I encourage people
to pirate my (and other) software, as long as they don't piss me
off.

> I politely urge not to add your own terms and create your own licenses
> if you would like to share your code in FOSS.

I don't particularly care about that; it has been of no tangible
benefit so far. It's very difficult to get quality contributions.
Take the Xft support for example. I've a zillion times asked people
to make a proper dynamically loadable _module_ of it, that users
who absolutely want that shit could install. But no, they want
you to include and maintain a patch for shit you don't want there.

> I am sure your software has been beneficial to a lot of people and so
> let it continue to be beneficial.

Users can still install it by downloading the original source
package, or finding a sensible distributing that respects authors
a bit more.

--
Tuomo