tech - God bless the AMD

>It's OK to pirate software, which isn't open source
No, because it's unethical to use nonfree software.

>1
agree.

>2
agree.

>3
??? holy fuarrrk that's a stupid idea. without copyright forming a capitalist system would be so unbelievably complicated.

>4
agree. although not entirely anonymous.

>5
agree.

>6
100% agree. facts should never be copyrighted.

>7
honestly donation only services work so well i actually agree.

>8
eh. sure.

>>10968
this

>1. Microsoft and Apple products are useless or malware
Being proprietary doesn't make something useless or malware. That's like calling black people thieves. Correlation does not imply causation.
>2. Know your OS and keep it fast and safe
Ok.
>3. A copyright doesn't exist
Rights exist by force, and if force is strong enough, copyrights will exist. If resistance is low or inexistant, I don't care, I just pirate absolutely everything.
>4. The Internet should be a free and anonymous place. Boycott sites which aren't
Free, yes. Anonymous, by choice.
>5. Understand what you are doing. Don't just copy your soykaf together
?
>6. Knowledge need to be free and accessible for everyone. It belongs to nobody
Agree.
>7. It's OK to pirate software, which isn't open source
Yes
>8. The language is English
Using English is like using Windows, it's just the most confortable language, not the best by any parameter. But the only alt lang that's more or less spoken is Esperanto and it could be way better.

>>10968
Writing proprietary software is unethical, using is just unethical in the sense you are augmenting the software's popularity or paying it. Otherwise, the problem is yours.

>>10967
>1
Yep.
>2
Yep.
>3
This soykaf idea.
>4
Yep.
>5
Nope. Newfags need it.
>6
Yep.
>7
No. Just no, anon.
>8
No.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. maybe
6. Yes
7. No
8. Yes

>>10974
>That's like calling black people thieves.
But they are.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>>10974
>Being proprietary doesn't make something useless or malware.

If it isn't free, how can you know?

>inb4 well how do you know

The wise man will assume the worst case scenario in this situation.

>>10981
Worst case scenario is not always the wisest thing to do. There's always the chance your computer explode, but that doesn't seem to be probable.

Using Skype or using Photoshop are two very different things, as one is clearly spying on you while the other is most probably just a very complicated tool. Not playing Pokemon because it may be malware is... silly.

>>10986
My statement was contextual, as noted when I said "in this situation" - this situation being between Windows/OSX as opposed to other OS's.

Also,
>using photoshop when Gimp is free
>playing children's video games

>>10987
>using photoshop when Gimp is free

That's a comprehensive choice for someone working on something else than funny montage or basic photo editing.

>>10974
>Correlation does not imply causation.
When you see correlation constantly and unchanging, you can call it cause.

Proprietary software is malware by definition.

>>10994
I can make free software malware, this is just a bad argument.

>>10987
It was MS/Apple, and both do more than just the OS.

I use Gimp, but I can agree that Photoshop has more functionalities. Pokemon was an example that goes to the point.

I am myself a "freetard", a Parabola GNU/Linux-libre user, tor and i2p peer, etc... But I'm trying to bring reasonable arguments to the table, as any monochromatic discussion is not productive. I still believe in this chan...

>>10997
>I can make free software malware, this is just a bad argument.
Free Software can be malware, but proprietary software is always malware.

>>11000
I want your definition of malware, then.

>>10967
Eh. I agree with knowledge needing to be free for everyone. Everything else I don't hold such a strong and/or extremist view.

>>11005
Are you a new bitch? Did you not read >>10981?

Read these words and remember it forever:

If it's not [i]free[/i], then you can't look at its code - it's malware.

Definition of MALWARE
: software designed to interfere with a computer's normal functioning

>What's a computer's [i]normal functioning[/i]?

This is philosophical in question, and the OP is questioning whether we're all on the same side of this - which we sould be.

And if you're seriously asking us what the definition of malware is, you're clearly showing us you don't even know who Stallman is. So you should bugger off, lurk more technology boards more online, and educate yourself.(USER WAS BANNED FOR TEN MINUTES FOR FAILING TO LURK MORE)

>>11005
I knew this would turn to a discussion of definitions.

Malware is software that artificially inhibits the user in some way or goes against the wishes of the user.

This definition includes software that disobeys the user and software that doesn't let the user do what they want with it, but the artificial above prevents software with technical restrictions from being considered malware.

If you see any holes in this definition, please point them out so I can refine it.

>>11011
>If it's not [i]free[/i], then you can't look at its code - it's malware.
Proprietary software can let you look at its source code. Here's a good example:
http://www.freedos.org/software/?prog=4dos

4DOS is the command interpreter of FreeDOS. The source code is available to view and modify, but there are restrictions on the environment it can be used in and the purposes it can be compiled for and its use in commercial ventures.

It's funny that you're citing Stallman, yet your idea of freedom seems to be limited to being able to view the source code, which is merely open source.

>>11011
Stallman is an extremist. And we need people like him to show the way. But extreme actions are usually not the best way out of situations.

First, you can have unfree software where you can look at the source code, you just have to have a restrictive license over the use and display of the code. Is this malware?

Second, as you put this out, that means that the normal functioning of a computer includes something close 'knowing what's happening inside it'. Well, already it does not have to do with what the computer is doing, but how you see its activity. and that's highly relative, as it is clear that you didn't read most of the code of the programs you are using, so you believe in some common sense. Other people can read and understand it.

But as soon as you introduce some heuristics, you have the problem of choosing the heuristic and it becomes highly relative. "the code has been audited by many independent parties and is guaranteed to just do what it claims, and the software is free for distribution", is it malware still? For 99% of the public, this is absolutely equivalent to open source software.

I always saw open source software to be more about the results of the computing, and free software as the opportunities of community building, sharing culture, etc...

I'm a freetard, I need to test my beliefs if I want to be a worthy member of the community...

Also:
>animu face
really?

>>11011
>Are you a new bitch?
It seems to me that you've been around imageboards for some time, but not in lainchan in particular.
And if he was new, then you shouldn't answer like that.
>Did you not read >>10981?
You shouldn't be assuming any scenarios to know or state a definition.
>If it's not [i]free[/i], then you can't look at its code - it's [software designed to interfere with a computer's normal functioning]
That's wrong, using photoshop won't interfere with Windows' normal ways because it's a proprietary OS that uses proprietary software. A computer is a machine that processes information, it's not "abnormal" for it to do it even when the programmer hasn't published the code for its users.

>And if you're seriously asking us what the definition of malware is
He asked about YOUR definition of it, because it's a very particular one.
>you're clearly showing us you don't even know who Stallman is.
Don't assume anything about him man, don't be a dick. Stallman's defitition for malware is "a program designed to mistreat its users", a definition that depends on one's thoughts about what it means "to mistreat".
That's a common point with your definition, they both delve into philosophical/moral/ethical definitions that would take up a big discussion that wouldn't lead anywhere.
I think a case-based definition would be better than that, but worse than a definition based on computer science.
>data mining, maybe having the user accept some ToS
>remote access, be it for personal reasons or to make a botnet
>scams for money like credit card traps or cryptolockers
>spyware for indexing personal info
>plain evil destructive viruses


Let's be nice to eachother and learn together, shall we?

>>11020
Stallman isn't a extremist, is visionary of dystopia.
Why don't support piracy? Because non-free software is always put position of submission.
Another point is use piracy is another way support the megacorps like Microsoft. You still support the "System".

I disagree with the anonymity clause of 4. If people want a service where you know exactly who you are talking to then that is their choice. It usually tones down the harassment and shit-posting significantly.

A distributed open source social network like diaspora or friendica that enforced real name identification should do better at getting the general population on it.

>>10967
1. Depends
2. duh
3. depends
4. yes
5. yes
6. yes
7. Depends, but not ever just because it isn't open source / free as in freedom
8.don't care

>1. Microsoft and Apple products are useless or malware
reverse brand loyalty is just as bad as brand loyalty. How do you know some other company won't come up and do the same thing microsoft and apple are doing? There needs to be a better rule than this.
>2. Know your OS and keep it fast and safe
how well am I supposed to know my OS? why is keeping it fast ethical?
>3. A copyright doesn't exist
not even to protect someone from plagiarism?
>4. The Internet should be a free and anonymous place. Boycott sites which aren't
this sounds more like a personal choice and unweildy. There's lots of websites that serve their purpose better when you have some kind of identity.

>8. The language is English
this makes no sense whatsoever.

>>11043
In real world you need a real name. But cyberspace you don't need be accept this rule. Bring real names for cyberspace will bring too the heavy hand of state and greedy eyes of corporations.

>>11051
There's not only Anonymous vs. Real Names. There's also the concept of Pseudonymous (e.g., Reddit), or even knowing that the person you talked to yesterday is the same you're talking to tomorrow, which can be done without exchanging names but just exchanging crypto keys. That doesn't tell you who the other party is, just that when you see that crypto key it's the same person.

>>11091
But create same problem of Real Names. The question of reputation and alliance by person not by ideas.

>>11095
Well, if you have no identifier, you have no way to make people link to your past comments and etc... so ideas are very shallow, as they are just contained in one "post".

The problem with the real names policy is that you have absolutely no choice to be anonymous if you want.

>>11095
>>11097
Optional anonymity is the best, in my opinion.

I can all of the benefits of a name when it suits me and none of the issues when it doesn't.

>>10967
>1. Microsoft and Apple products are useless or malware
I think microsoft is what it is, take it or leave it. don't like them cause they got PRISM. apple has been awful since Jobs died. everything that doesn't have his influence is like kicking dead whales down the beach design wise, and on a tech level iOS hasn't improved since the shitty redesign of iOS 7.

>2. Know your OS and keep it fast and safe
agreed

>3. A copyright doesn't exist
well, I think copyright exists, except for private use, in which I think everything should be free.
>4. The Internet should be a free and anonymous place. Boycott sites which aren't
agreed
5. Understand what you are doing. Don't just copy your soykaf together
6. Knowledge need to be free and accessible for everyone. It belongs to nobody
>7. It's OK to pirate software, which isn't open source

games, I agree unless it's a game that you feel is worth giving money to (i.e STALKER, Europa, ect). I've never bought any software that wasn't a game.

>8. The language is English
future will most likely be some mix of russian, english, and japanese/chinese

>>11097
>if you have no identifier... ideas are very shallow
I think it's the opposite.
On chans especially, I've seen discussions flourish from anon to anon, most of the time anons read the thread before posting, so they take into account every other anon's ideas on the topic before contributing their own.

While this can be done with real names, it may be cut short because you may not want to talk about religion when your fundamentalist mother is reading it, or you may not want to shitpost about chinese cartoons in front of your normalfag friends from high school.

Even IDs don't pose any benefit in discussion. Go on any argument on 8ch /v/ and you'll see countless people ending arguments because their ID only has 1 post in the thread.

It would be appreciable for some more logical constructed language to be adopted.

Yeah, idealism, I know.

>>11051
Agreed but govs and corps can be handled separately from real names with distributed content and/or proper encryption.

Maybe a distributed pgp key server that offered real name id would be worthwhile.

Being able to find someone from real life online is valuable, given that whatever you find is only what they want the public to see. It's clear that the masses want real name id for certain services. Instead of fighting that we should be fighting centralized control of it.

>>11114
This is a long march but anonimaty by policy is frist step. Where anyone is john doe , john doe is anyone. Second step is anonimaty by design (no static ip for common people and logs.)

>>11135
You can keep offering platitudes but you aren't addressing that people want both. Should people be able to register with a real-name service? Because OP made it sound like that should boycotted regardless if it was a decentralized, libre, encrypted service.

>>10967

>Microsoft and Apple products are useless
What's useless for some people, can be very useful to somebody else.

>or malware
The fact something is proprietary doesn't make it malware.
Still, there are several proof about the way Microsoft is collecting data about their users, and it's not exactly clear how they are using it.
Apple, on the other hand, is know for their security and the way they protect their users and user's data (it's basically a selling point, other than one being of the reasons their userbase don't switch to the competition).
They even refused to give authorities data from their userbase's cellphones, and when they were forced to do it, they encrypted their devices' OS by default, making them unable to open it to law enforcement, FBI and NSA.
As a result, the US government and police officials tried to scare americans into believing encrypted cellphones are a bad thing using what was described as “misleading PR offensive”. It all happened about a year ago.

>Know your OS and keep it fast and safe
Sure

>A copyright doesn't exist
Too bad it exists. You can believe it's simply right or that it's immoral, it's up to you, but if you act as if it doesn't exist, you'll face the consequences (or maybe you won't). That's because, like it or not, you're living in a society with laws. Leave the society, follow the laws or don't do it at all, it's your choice.


>The Internet should be a free and anonymous place.
I agree.

>Boycott sites which aren't
It's hard to tell which sites are actually free and anonymous, these days. Still, I won't stop using sites I need just because they weren't created with my conceptual idea of a perfect place on the web. I'll just try to be smarter than them.

>Understand what you are doing.
Sure.
>Don't just copy your soykaf together
what

>Knowledge need to be free and accessible for everyone.
I agree.
>It belongs to nobody
The whole concept of "belonging" is created by humans. It's not something intrinsic in the universe. If humans decide someone has the right to "own" something, you can do very little to change a whole way of thinking. Same can be said about me. You can try, though.

>It's OK to pirate software, which isn't open source
I don't agree.
But I pirate anyways.

>The language is English
Not the best, but surely one of the most direct and simple, so yeah.

>>11150
>Apple, on the other hand, is know for their security and the way they protect their users and user's data
> (it's basically a selling point
It's not a feature of the products, it's just a feature of the advertisements for those products. I still like to bring up the iCloud leak from 2014. Those could have been any iCloud users' secure files, but luckily they were only pop figures'. Think of how many idiots store pictures of other peoples' credit cards or tax info on their iCloud account.

>>11157
That was social engineering dude, that's not apple's fault if someone can guess your recovery questions.

>>11160
Was a brute attack force.

1. Believing this makes you as equally stupid as the people who think it's the best thing in the world.

2. Yes this is important. I doubt many of you, if any, have actually contributed to the Linux kernel, written an OS, or even understand how even simple buffer overflows work, but I digress.

3. Being against copyright is moronic. Being against our CURRENT system is good: because it is soykaf . Copyrights and patents are necessary for any form of economics to really function, but they're currently implemented far too long (copyright should last for 5 years, patents for 10, no exceptions)

4) Do you mean the Internet? Or the World Wide Web? Those things aren't interchangeable, you know. Also: it should be an OPTION, not mandatory.

5) Yes, knowledge is important. Go learn something.

6) If knowledge is always completely free, how do you expect to get more? Research is expensive, since materials and labor is expensive. Unless you're willing to mine ore for free. Then we can talk.

7) Justifying thievery is fuarrrk ing retarded. I'd appreciate you posting your Name, Bank Information, Credit Card information, address, birth date, security questions, and any other personal details online. I mean, since you don't have to pay for anything. Sounds fair, right?

8. Mostly. I mean, grammar isn't the best, but it's definitely not the worst, and you appear to have used spellcheck. Not bad for a post on the Internet.

9. Yes, I'm an asshole. Deal with it.

>>11180

> 3. Being against copyright is moronic

Not really. It may be moronic in the current state of affair (meaning, a capitalist framework), but copyright is not an absolute human value. So I can be against copyright without being a moron, especially when I'm against capitalism.

> Justifying thievery is fuarrrk ing retarded

Copyright violation is not theft, anyway you look at it. You're not taking something away in a way that leaves the other party without that stuff. Unless you're stealing actual CDs from a store. You may be talking about missed sales, which, still, is not the same as 'theft'.

> I'd appreciate you posting your Name, Bank Information, Credit Card information, address, birth date, security questions, and any other personal details online. I mean, since you don't have to pay for anything. Sounds fair, right?

Seriously, WAT? What does privacy have to do with copying software?

> 9. Yes, I'm an asshole
Yes you well may be, and a confused one at that.

>>11182
Yes, being against copyright is utterly retarded, since you need to actually have an understanding of what copyright IS in order to be against it. Copyright is literally nothing more than a proof that YOU created THIS work. Nothing more, nothing less. That's it. It's basically provable authorship. It also ALLOWS the author to decide how, when, and where the work gets distributed for a limited amount of time. That's it. I can't claim that I wrote A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, not because Douglas Adams wrote it, but because he PROVABLY wrote it, and that's through copyright. That's all it is. All of the other copyright bull soykaf is tacked on after the fact. But copyright, on its face, is a natural way to ensure that people get rightly credited for the work they produce. Without copyright, Microsoft would be able to use GNU code without credit. Without copyright, I'd be able to use anything you'd ever created as my own. So, yes. Being against copyright is a sign of someone who's never had an original thought in their life. My code is freely available. I've been a contributer to multiple distributions, including the Kernel, for years, and I've released pretty much everything I've done, with the exception of the shitty stuff, for free. Doesn't mean that I don't want to get paid for the massive amount of time, effort and skill I've put into writing code that sits quietly on the back end of some server somewhere. I don't just soykaf out code after I eat a bag of chips. It takes time, effort, debugging, hardware, etc., to do what I do, and NONE of these things are free. The one time I asked for donations (btw, this is for an application you probably used back in the late '90s, and no, I'm not going to mention what, anonymity and all) I got precisely $1.55. After over 20,000 downloads. When I finally sold the code to ********* so I could, you know, eat, I got called a sellout for making my application closed source. What does copyright have to do with privacy? The fact that when you pirate Windows, I don't really care. Not how Micro soykaf makes their money. But when you pirate MY software? You might be only one customer out of a dozen in a month, but think about that. That might be enough for me to buy sandwich, or maybe even, you know, pay a very tiny portion of my rent, or the electricity bill so I can keep writing software.

>>11184
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but copyright is a legal concept.

You don't need the legal framework to PROVABLY prove that you made some work. Just mail it to yourself in a sealed envelope before publishing and open it only when you need to claim authorship of that work. The post office will gladly timestamp it for you. If you say that doesn't prove anything from a legal standpoint, well, we're talking about legal again.

> So, yes. Being against copyright is a sign of someone who's never had an original thought in their life

Not really. I published two albums of my own, a lot of writing on my personal blog and some 130 half-hour podcast episodes. I attached a CC-BY license to them just because at the time CC-Zero was not available.

> What does copyright have to do with privacy? The fact that when you pirate Windows, I don't really care. Not how Micro soykaf makes their money. But when you pirate MY software?

Again, WAT?

> I don't just soykaf out code after I eat a bag of chips. It takes time, effort, debugging, hardware, etc., to do what I do, and NONE of these things are free

That's unfortunate, but I'd say that's because selling a license to an intellectual artifact (which, once out of your head can be reproduced at nearly-zero cost) is a naturally ineffective way to sustain yourself. And I say this as a developer myself.

>>11184
Copyright is bad because it hinders competition.
From a sicialists perspective it's also invalid.

Medicine is overpriced because of copyrights, and generic brands bring price down often 500%. For software, without copyrights providing legal protection they'd be forced to fend for their own protection; a solution would be found.

>>11190
No....those are called patents, not copyright. Copyright ONLY protects artistic works. You know, art, literature, etc. Not things. Things can only be patented. You can't "copyright" a drug: you can patent a drug. And, I seem to remeber saying how fuarrrk ed up the patent system is. Look at the recent bull soykaf regarding...that scummy dude whose name I can't remember (guess it isn't me this time), the one who drove the price of the drug that helped/whatever with toxoplasmosis 5000% or so. That's not due to the fact patents exist: it's how patents are implemented. Let's go into storytime:

You create a brand new drug. You've got, under my idea above, 10 years of absolute legal ownership. After that: you've got nothing. The plans are available. That means that, assuming you've gotten an FDA license to actually sell this(takes about three years or so from what I've heard), you've got about six or seven years until other manufacturers are allowed to SELL it: a patent doesn't protect stop them from producing it in a lab and looking at it: it prevents them from PROFITING from it in any way. If you don't set a fair price, when company B swoops in at the sunset of the patent and sells it for a lot lower, you're fuarrrk ed. In addition, that could very easily lead to a complete loss of business, since people are greedy and don't want to pay money for ANYTHING, so some people will simply wait for a generic version of that drug to appear. Let's do the same thing with a book. You write a book. It's actually good. So good it gets published. You sell it for a reasonable price, make some money, and it gets released, by the Library of Congress, for FREE after five years. If someone wants a print copy of the book, they can still purchase it from you, since only you can SELL your copyrighted work for a longer amount (say 10 years or so), but that doesn't stop anyone, legally from downloading it and having it bound at their local store. This, right here, is fair. You're allowed to profit of intellectual work (and all work, one way or another, is essentially intellectual: someone figured out HOW to produce nails, and HOW to produce a hammer. Devices don't design themselves in a vacuum, as my pops would have said). This allows creators to CREATE while still putting the burden on them to act fairly, since failure to do so WILL result in serious consequences. And you're forgetting that getting that intellectual artifact OUT of your head ISN'T a zero sum game. If I can't eat, I can't write code/novels/whatever. Your argument is predicated on the fact that it's free to produce content, but until it's FREE to live and maintain one's health (a la Star Trek), I'm going to charge you a licensing fee to use what comes out of my head.

>>11196
In discussion, copyright is used as the catch term for copyrights and patents, because constantly saying both is awkward for wording.


Thats still ten years of free reign to fuarrrk over patients, and right at 9.9 years the company can reduce to bear-minimum profit margin.

For entertainment media, lets say videogames, they can be released in split chapters and given for free with optional purchase, with the promise of the next installment if a minimum amount of money is funded through purchase.
For books this work as well, as publishers can be latched onto by unknown authors.

Businesses and content producers don't want their soykaf stolen by name or profit, I agree, and thus solutions (whether mine or another's) will be implemented.

>>11175
We wanted to provide an update to our investigation into the theft of photos of certain celebrities. When we learned of the theft, we were outraged and immediately mobilized Apple’s engineers to discover the source. Our customers’ privacy and security are of utmost importance to us. After more than 40 hours of investigation, we have discovered that certain celebrity accounts were compromised by a very targeted attack on user names, passwords and security questions, a practice that has become all too common on the Internet. None of the cases we have investigated has resulted from any breach in any of Apple’s systems including iCloud® or Find my iPhone. We are continuing to work with law enforcement to help identify the criminals involved.

To protect against this type of attack, we advise all users to always use a strong password and enable two-step verification. Both of these are addressed on our website at http://support.apple.com/kb/ht4232.

>>10967
>1. Microsoft and Apple products are useless or
>malware
Yep. For me.
>2. Know your OS and keep it fast and safe
Yep.
>3. A copyright doesn't exist
Nope, copyrights exist, and are broken in their current form. We need copyright reform,not to get rid of them alltogether.
>4. The Internet should be a free and anonymous place. Boycott sites which aren't
Yep.
>5. Understand what you are doing. Don't just copy your soykaf together
Eh, I agree with know what you are doing, but in software development, knowing what you are doing usually means using bits and pieces of other people code. Reinventing the wheel is a waste of your time and mine, so I have nothing against using a library or too to make your job easier.
>6. Knowledge need to be free and accessible for everyone. It belongs to nobody
Yes, completely
>7. It's OK to pirate software, which isn't open source
Non-open source source software is not worth using anyways, there is always an open source alternative that will make your life easier.
>8. The language is English
No, I also speak Spanish, and a little German. English is a good language, but other languages are also good.

>1. Microsoft and Apple products are useless or malware
It can be useful, and it depends on the software for whether or not it's malware. A lot of it is though.
>2. Know your OS and keep it fast and safe
Si.
>3. A copyright doesn't exist
Dunno what you mean by that.
>4. The Internet should be a free and anonymous place. Boycott sites which aren't
Can we start using libre or frei instead of "free"? I don't know if you mean frei or kostenlos.
>5. Understand what you are doing. Don't just copy your soykaf together
I searched for 'soykaf' and only found some gross Tumblr blog.
>6. Knowledge need to be free and accessible for everyone. It belongs to nobody
Ja.
>7. It's OK to pirate software, which isn't open source
open source != libre software
>8. The language is English
Mainly, yeah. For the most part, English is a nice language. Sometimes I prefer using German or Spanish over certain parts, though. Such as with the word "free".

>>11212
>I searched for 'soykaf' and only found some gross Tumblr blog.
it's an autosubstitution for s h i t

>>11213
I really wish the worldfilter wasn't a thing. If people want to say 'soykaf' or 'fuuuuuark' they will of their own accord.

>>11157
>I still like to bring up the iCloud leak from 2014

Yeah. They bruteforced their accounts by guessing their fuarrrk ing easy passwords.

It's a little different than collecting user data even when the user don't agree with it (it's happening with W10 and the latest patches of W7 and 8/8.1),
and selling it to unknown people, don't you think?

>>11190
>Medicine is overpriced because of copyrights

And it's also so advanced because copyright. It is like kicking dead whales down the beach , but it's what it is.

>1. Microsoft and Apple products are useless or malware
They're good for the end user who don't know anything about computers. Whatever works for them as their target audience. When the user thinks it is malware it then becomes malware.

>2. Know your OS and keep it fast and safe
Impossible to know everything in one lifetime. You are wasting your time knowing 5% of what a computer is capable of doing unless it is your job. There should be your OS and tools build from security up (with audits, etc) as a global standard for everyone and not just yourself. It will never happen.

>3. A copyright doesn't exist
Copyright does not exist, just like unicorns, country borders, religion, law, money, etc. It is a social construct made to tell off others and or made for everyone to agree to in order to get things done because if there are no rules that everyone follows, you can't trust strangers strangers.

You should respect copyright. Though with a new model replacing the current one as it has not aged well.

4. The Internet should be a free and anonymous place. Boycott sites which aren't
Yes, free place. Anonymous by choice.
boycott is your choice.

5. Understand what you are doing. Don't just copy your soykaf together
??
6. Knowledge need to be free and accessible for everyone. It belongs to nobody
Original thought is something you should own for now, until if when the population has comfortable lives by having automation replace all their work. The child in Uganda might want an education but cannot afford it, but the person or team making up original thought will need incentive to make such content therefore not producing the content wouldn't win in both cases which is a problem.

There should defiantly be a platform for anyone to purchase any knowledge you want, but it might have to be something like earning under a certain amount or living situation grants access to the knowledge of 2 resources at a time, for free, legally. Just a thought of this and then sounds very difficult to maintain.

7. It's OK to pirate software, which isn't open source
It is ok to illegally download software because having an unlimited amount of something is not going to harm anyone if stolen. But it is in good taste to give back after using the tool to improve your financial situation.


8. The language is English
Forcing other cultures to learn English isn't a bad thing to do if they want to use a computer or do business. They are free to make up their own version if they want from the ground up.

>1. Microsoft and Apple products are useless or malware
Not useless, but sure a malware.

>3. A copyright doesn't exist
>6. Knowledge need to be free and accessible for everyone. It belongs to nobody
Thats very important. I think that can really change the world.

>4. The Internet should be a free and anonymous place. Boycott sites which aren't
Difficult, and not really efficient if a lot of people don't participate. But I'm doing it.

>8. The language is English
You are just lazy, OP.

>>10968
>OK to pirate
not to run... just to piss them off!

no, there should be no strict ethics or rules. certainly not as specific as you listed. In spirit of lain i say there should be one vague rule
1. stay connected

and in general we should always strive whether its in political matters or societal affairs to look through the lens of how this will affect technological progress especially in regards to communication technologies such as the internet.

these are the things i hold myself too as much for my own personal benefit as out of principal. i dont see any flaw in them because its fairly simple and not restricting, but feel free to point any you see out.

>>10986
>photoshop
yep photoshop win fag reporting in... (need accelerated multi monitors and cuda acceleration for work) I do belive adobe has activity that may not be as the user expects... (try scanning a bank note! and see what traffic is drummed up - n.b. i don't know if it spills the beans, but it does stop you scanning or importing the file and warns you its not good citizenship)

I add this lot to my hosts file to lessen data sent back home:

Adobe stuff:
127.0.0.1 192.150.14.69
127.0.0.1 192.150.18.101
127.0.0.1 192.150.18.108
127.0.0.1 192.150.22.40
127.0.0.1 192.150.8.100
127.0.0.1 192.150.8.118
127.0.0.1 209-34-83-73.ood.opsource.net
127.0.0.1 3dns-1.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 3dns-2.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 3dns-2.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 3dns-3.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 3dns-3.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 3dns-4.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 3dns.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 activate-sea.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 activate-sea.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 activate-sjc0.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 activate-sjc0.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 activate.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 activate.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 activate.wip.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 activate.wip1.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 activate.wip2.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 activate.wip3.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 activate.wip3.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 activate.wip4.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 adobe-dns-1.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 adobe-dns-2.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 adobe-dns-2.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 adobe-dns-3.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 adobe-dns-3.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 adobe-dns-4.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 adobe-dns.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 adobe-dns.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 adobe.activate.com
127.0.0.1 adobeereg.com
127.0.0.1 crl.verisign.net
127.0.0.1 CRL.VERISIGN.NET.*
127.0.0.1 ereg.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 ereg.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 ereg.wip.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 ereg.wip1.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 ereg.wip2.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 ereg.wip3.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 ereg.wip3.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 ereg.wip4.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 hl2rcv.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 ood.opsource.net
127.0.0.1 practivate.adobe
127.0.0.1 practivate.adobe.*
127.0.0.1 practivate.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 practivate.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 practivate.adobe.ipp
127.0.0.1 practivate.adobe.newoa
127.0.0.1 practivate.adobe.ntp
127.0.0.1 tss-geotrust-crl.thawte.com
127.0.0.1 wip.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 wip1.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 wip2.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 wip3.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 wip3.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 wip4.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 wwis-dubc1-vip60.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 wwis-dubc1-vip60.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 wwis-dubc1-vip60.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 hl2rcv.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 adobeereg.com
127.0.0.1 activate.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 practivate.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 ereg.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 activate.wip3.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 ereg.wip3.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 wip3.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 activate-sea.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 wwis-dubc1-vip60.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 activate-sjc0.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 3dns.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 3dns-1.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 3dns-2.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 3dns-3.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 3dns-4.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 adobe-dns.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 adobe-dns-1.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 adobe-dns-2.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 adobe-dns-3.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 adobe-dns-4.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 adobe-dns-5.adobe.com
127.0.0.1 hh-software.com
127.0.0.1 www.hh-software.com
127.0.0.1 activate.adobe.de
127.0.0.1 practivate.adobe.de
127.0.0.1 ereg.adobe.de
127.0.0.1 activate.wip3.adobe.de
127.0.0.1 wip3.adobe.de
127.0.0.1 3dns-3.adobe.de
127.0.0.1 3dns-2.adobe.de
127.0.0.1 adobe-dns.adobe.de
127.0.0.1 adobe-dns-2.adobe.de
127.0.0.1 adobe-dns-3.adobe.de
127.0.0.1 ereg.wip3.adobe.de
127.0.0.1 activate-sea.adobe.de
127.0.0.1 wwis-dubc1-vip60.adobe.de
127.0.0.1 activate-sjc0.adobe.de
127.0.0.1 wwis-dubc1-vip60.adobe.de
127.0.0.1 hl2rcv.adobe.de
127.0.0.1 nero.com
127.0.0.1 www.nero.com
127.0.0.1 activate.nero.com
127.0.0.1 www.activate.nero.com
127.0.0.1 nero.de
127.0.0.1 www.nero.de
127.0.0.1 activate.nero.de
127.0.0.1 www.activate.nero.de
127.0.0.1 validation.sls.microsoft.com

>>11180
>7) Justifying thievery is fuarrrk ing retarded. I'd appreciate you posting your Name, Bank Information, Credit Card information, address, birth date, security questions, and any other personal details online. I mean, since you don't have to pay for anything. Sounds fair, right?

Implying copying is theft - top kek!

>>10987
>using photoshop when Gimp is free

Graphicfag here; Gimp is ok if you're just the average user, but it's a laughable joke if you must use it because of your profession.
They aren't really comparable on a professional level.

Still, if all you need to do is your youtube channel graphic, it's perfectly fine

Uncomfortable, but fine

>>11282
>I can't be sure about X, so I'm absolutely sure it must be the exact opposite!

wow

>>11575
>Uncomfortable, but fine
This - try working CMYK with gimp. (ok i guess you could work 4 indervidual gray plates but fuarrrk that!)
And photoshop is an awsome application - along with most of the adobe stuff - they are heavyweight apps and deliver if you do grfx for a crust!
But totaly I am learning FOSS app equivilants - as 1) i totaly respect the community and ethos. 2) one day they will be the future!

>>11575

Sad but true. Gimp is, ironically, crippled. 8 bit per channel sRGB is a pathetic limitation in 2015. GEGL is supposed to fix that, but it's been promised "in the next version" for literally 15 years.

Raster editors on Linux are a disaster in general. Krita's ripping out photo-centric tools in favour of design-centric ones, Bibble went to soykaf when Corel bought them and redesigned it as Aftershot (including their own brand of buggy sauce), and nearly everything else is basically a Paint.net clone.

The only program I've come across that actually deserves the title "Photoshop competitor" is Affinity Photo by the folks at Serif, and that's sadly OSX-only.

>>11180
>9. Yes, I'm an asshole. Deal with it.

You're also conceited and mostly incorrect. Grow up anon.

>>11577
>adobe stuff - they are heavyweight apps
Yup, in library dependencies that is.

>1. Microsoft and Apple products are useless or malware
They are not useless. There is a reason why Windows and Mac OS are the most popular operating systems. They run most programs used for work and function well for facebook machines for normal people.
They probably are malware, yes. I think having malicious features you don't have much control over would fall within malware.
>2. Know your OS and keep it fast and safe
By this I assume you mean knowing how your OS works, having a general grasp of your directories and keeping it free from boat.
I definitely think so, and I do these things. But you cannot expect normal people to be doing this.
>3. A copyright doesn't exist
Well, it does. Whether it should be followed or not I'm not so sure. Copying and getting paid for someone else's work should not be allowed. Expanding on or basing your work on someone else's should. When it comes to modifying someone's work I think yes, to an extent. A lot of good stuff on the internet is someone's modified work, it would be a shame to let it go.
>4. The Internet should be a free and anonymous place. Boycott sites which aren't
Mostly agree. That is indeed the beauty and maybe even point of the internet. But I think sites such as Facebook should be boycotted, not because of it's absence of anonymity but more because of the malicious features your information is used for.
>5. Understand what you are doing. Don't just copy your soykaf together
What.
>6. Knowledge need to be free and accessible for everyone. It belongs to nobody
Definitely.
>7. It's OK to pirate software, which isn't open source
Don't know yet. I feel pretty indifferent to it.
>8. The language is English
What. That's up to the community I suppose.

I don't see myself as radical or have very strict ethics. But I find it very interesting and like reading or thinking about it.

>>10972
FUCK capitalism

>>10967
>1. Microsoft and Apple products are useless or malware
Agreed.
>2. Know your OS and keep it fast and safe
I'm more concerned with safety than speed.
>3. A copyright doesn't exist
It does, but the concept should really be abolished or handicapped by now.
>4. The Internet should be a free and anonymous place. Boycott sites which aren't
Agreed.
>5. Understand what you are doing. Don't just copy your soykaf together
Agreed.
>6. Knowledge need to be free and accessible for everyone. It belongs to nobody
Credit for knowledge can belong to someone, but yes the actual knowledge doesn't.
>7. It's OK to pirate software, which isn't open source
I wouldn't really use software that isn't Free Software. If I had to or had some specific reason, I would probably pay for it.
>8. The language is English
Okay.

>1. Microsoft and Apple products are useless or malware
They each have their uses. I personally use linux, but for the typical user whichever works for them works.

>2. Know your OS and keep it fast and safe
Yep. See abobe.

>3. A copyright doesn't exist
I don't respect copyrights personally.

>4. The Internet should be a free and anonymous place. Boycott sites which aren't
Boycotting doesn't do anything when the majority of users don't care about it. I probably won't use a service if I don't like it (I nearly never use facebook for example).

>5. Understand what you are doing. Don't just copy your soykaf together
It's always better to understand how your code works, but there's a time and place for messy code. There's no such thing as perfect code in production.

>6. Knowledge need to be free and accessible for everyone. It belongs to nobody
I feel it should, but there needs to be some reliable way for skilled creators to get paid for their stuff. I'm all for pirating things if the service isn't convenient, but for example I use spotify since it's more convenient than pirating music.

>7. It's OK to pirate software, which isn't open source
I have no problem with people pirating software. SaaS make sense for people who want to make money though.

>8. The language is English
As long as most (aka all) code is in "English", I think that the tech industry will do business in it.

>>10967
>1. Microsoft and Apple products are useless or malware
i fully agree.
>2. Know your OS and keep it fast and safe
that's a good idea but not everyone is able to do so.
>3. A copyright doesn't exist
it does exist but i don't think it should.
>4. The Internet should be a free and anonymous place. Boycott sites which aren't.
agree
>5. Understand what you are doing. Don't just copy your soykaf together
not everyone can understand everything but if you can, you should try to know about it.
>6. Knowledge need to be free and accessible for everyone. It belongs to nobody
agree
>7. It's OK to pirate software, which isn't open source
what >>10968 said
>8. The language is English
on the internet

>>12739
>>1. Microsoft and Apple products are useless or malware
>i fully agree.

How are Apple and Microsoft products useless? If I need an OS to, for example, check my e-mails, Windows or macOS works perfectly fine for that. Their products have plenty of uses, that's mostly why they sell.

>>12740
gnu/linux radicals will always be like that, Lainon, but the truth is every OS has pros and cons

related: http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.html

>>11150
Underrated post

>8. The language is English

literally metaphorically why

>1. Microsoft and Apple products are useless or malware
Malware, maybe, but they are far from useless.
>2. Know your OS and keep it fast and safe
Define "know". Should I "read all 5 million lines of the linux kernel and know what they do" know or "know who makes it" know?
>3. A copyright doesn't exist
Then why don't you work for free?
>4. The Internet should be a free and anonymous place. Boycott sites which aren't
Agree.
>5. Understand what you are doing. Don't just copy your soykaf together
Again, there are things you will never understand fully. Books make you smart but making things work is what gives you knowledge.
>6. Knowledge need to be free and accessible for everyone. It belongs to nobody
If it's not accessible then it's not worth knowing. As for free, no one will print the books you read for free.
>7. It's OK to pirate software, which isn't open source
Translation it's ok to pirate software that's better than what I have but let me frame it with the usual "fuck the man!" packaging.
>8. The language is English
The language is whatever the masses want.

Honestly, this entire thread is edgelord to the max. This isn't the matrix where you run everything off the terminal. Compromises will have to be made.

I keep trying to revise OP's list and I just end up deleting all of it. First a couple of criticisms
>Boycott sites which aren't
This is very specific for a ethic and rule, this is like a command. Why must I boycott? Why can't I take other actions?
Others are too vague
>2. Know your OS and keep it fast and safe
What does "Know my OS" mean? And why must I keep it fast? Hell why must I keep it safe (though thats more understandable).
Anyways here is my final go.

>1. Avoid spying eyes.
>2. Information and tools you find are yours to use.
>3. The Internet should be a free and anonymous place.
>4. Strive to learn
>5. Knowledge wants to be shared

Now why I made some changes. For one you will notice that many of these extend beyond the realm of tech, and that is because there is wonderful and beautiful people on lainchan, contributors who aren't particularly tech savvy but still bring a lot to the table.

I grouped your 1. and 2. into just my 1. Someone who avoids spying eyes will also avoid apple, microsoft, and keep their OS safe.

I grouped your 3. and 6. into 2.. My 2. It doesn't directly tell people to go out and break copyright and illegally pirate things, but it does suggest that this is an option should they please.

Your 4. stayed as my 3. But I disliked you directly commanding people to "Boycott sites which aren't". People can decide their own actions off of the ethics and rules.

2. 5. and 6. come together to form my 4.. Again it has no specific tech focus. We have chemists, electricians, artists here. Whether they chose to learn in those fields or branch off is their choice, but they should be learning I agree with that.

and your 4. 6. show up again in my final one 5. If people want to make others pay for their knowledge that is fine, knowledge is power and many dont want to freely give up that. But it probably should be shared and often finds its way out of the person holding it regardless.

some other changes were I removed 8, a tech board above all others should tolerate other languages seeing as how translating software isnt hard to come across. It may be shabby but it exists. I'm not actually a fan of moral codes but this is my alternative to yours. If someone feels like mine could use some changes they could continue this process.

>>12980
oh and one other thing. I realize you said this list of rules was for /tech/ guys. I didn't like that either really. This imageboard is already kind of a niche and most people here go on a whole lot of the boards here I imagine. To specify it down even further is strange.

>>11660
This guy gets it.

>>10967
1. Microsoft and Apple products are useless or malware
True, won't use non-free software from either company.
2. Know your OS and keep it fast and safe
A good thing.
3. A copyright doesn't exist
True, it's not property anymore when it exited the creators mind.
4. The Internet should be a free and anonymous place. Boycott sites which aren't
True but it's not the job of the government to regulate.
5. Understand what you are doing. Don't just copy your soykaf together
Yes, else you won't be able to fix your program down the road.
6. Knowledge need to be free and accessible for everyone. It belongs to nobody
This but government shouldn't regulate this.
7. It's OK to pirate software, which isn't open source
Yes, they are using government as a tool to enforce copyright.
8. The language is English
English is the most useful language to know.

>>12954
Thanks. This makes me feel relieved to have both Linux and Windows.

>>12980
good post. The OP was indeed badly written.

>>12970
>Complains about people being edgy.
>Attaches a picture of guns.
But otherwise, good post.

1. Microsoft and Apple products are useless or malware - Disagree
2. Know your OS and keep it fast and safe - Agree
3. A copyright doesn't exist - Disagree
4. The Internet should be a free and anonymous place. Boycott sites which aren't - Disagree
5. Understand what you are doing. Don't just copy your soykaf together - Agree
6. Knowledge need to be free and accessible for everyone. It belongs to nobody - Agree
7. It's OK to pirate software, which isn't open source - Disagree
8. The language is English - Agree

Nobody "knows" any modern OS. Not even Linus Torvalds knows everything about the linux kernel. You can be damned sure that nobody at Microsoft knows everything about the NT kernel. If you think it's important to "know your OS", you should probably write your own OS.

And what does it mean to keep it "fast and safe"? "Fast" sounds like dumbass linux fanboy horse soykaf "oh my OS takes up 500 megabytes of my 500 gigabyte boot SSD, I'm free from boat", meaningless autistic bean counting, not "ethics". "Safe" is barely up the user, and no OS is actually safe.

Proprietary software is only malware if it does things that it shouldn't do. Free software is also malware if it does things it shouldn't do, it's just that because it's free, you can change it to no longer be malware. I don't even think fuarrrking rms says that proprietary software is malware by definition.

Y'all need to go back to ricing i3 and leave the computer ethics to people who know how to think.

>>13388
If by
> modern OS
you mean
> sufficiently complex OS
then yes, there are OSs so complex that nobody knows everything about them.

>1. Microsoft and Apple products are useless or malware
I disagree here, Windows is a great OS.

7. It's OK to pirate software, which isn't open source
Software piracy is always okay

>>10967
> 1. Microsoft and Apple products are useless or malware
They are for people who don't understand soykaf about tech and/or don't care about security
> 2. Know your OS and keep it fast and safe
Nice to have. No must.
> 3. A copyright doesn't exist
true, its an abstract concept to enforce material logic into the digital world
> 4. The Internet should be a free and anonymous place. Boycott sites which aren't
Nice to have. No must.
> 5. Understand what you are doing. Don't just copy your soykaf together
Requirement - people who don't should fuarrrk off
> 6. Knowledge need to be free and accessible for everyone. It belongs to nobody
Requirement
> 7. It's OK to pirate software, which isn't open source
See 3.
> 8. The language is English
Agree, Its easy to learn and still powerful.

>>14009
>They are for people who don't understand soykaf about tech and/or don't care about security

This is not true.

>>14013
I think he means that the operating systems are for normal people. Not that they are useless or malware for normal people.

>>14009
>English is easy to learn.
This really depends on your mother tongue. In some countries learning English is very hard. Japan, for example, springs to mind. If you speak another Germanic language it shouldn't be too hard to learn, but I wouldn't say easy. Moreover, if you want to learn it well you will always be learning. It is such a huge language.

>>14009
Basically this, but...
Windows still has legit uses, Macs are for glitter boyz who get confused by 2 button mice.

English is a practical language as of now it seems the logical choice. Otherwise we need to invent a new language. It must be the most flexible, economical, concise and audibly differentiable language ever used by humans. - (yeh maybe just use English)

>1. Microsoft and Apple products are useless or malware
Windows is malware. Microsoft makes some good software, like OneNote. Apple products are a mixed bag but the only one I'd perhaps consider outright malware is iTunes.

>2. Know your OS and keep it fast and safe
Ok.

>3. A copyright doesn't exist
It does exist and should exist, but should be (significantly more) limited in duration and liberal fair use exceptions should exist.

>4. The Internet should be a free and anonymous place. Boycott sites which aren't
It can't be free and anonymous.

>5. Understand what you are doing. Don't just copy your soykaf together
Obviously that's ideal, but nobody is a master in every domain and so people must rely on others who are more knowledgeable in particular areas.

>6. Knowledge need to be free and accessible for everyone. It belongs to nobody
No. Both people and governments need have a need to restrict knowledge outflow. In the case of people it's called privacy, and in the case of governments it's called security.

>7. It's OK to pirate software, which isn't open source
No. There isn't even a real need to pirate software given the open source alternatives.

>8. The language is English
Sure.

>>14267
You sound reasonable enough, and I agree with most of your positions but

>It can't be free and anonymous.

I don't see why not?

>>14270
He's probably referring to the limitation of TCP/IP, you must be identified by something to use it.

It's not like radio, which anyone in broadcasting range can collect with no one being able to tell.

>>14271
Ah. So every packet has to have been sent from somewhere and somewhere in that packet there is inherently some sense of where it has to send information back to, so there's also some element that makes who or whatever made the request identifiable.

>>14270
If the Internet is free you can choose to be anonymous or not.

>>14271
>>14273
I think you are over thinking it