"You don't need that anyway"

If you confront a freetard about something his software can't do, he replies
>You don't need that anyway

Why?

Attached: 1424239490045.png (885x760, 92K)

Other urls found in this thread:

mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-linux/2007-July/004712.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour),
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Cult mentality. Applefags do the same.

Because KISS is objectively the best design philosophy.

He might genuinely not need X or he's just being a die-hard hipster about it.

is that why Linux is incapable of serious music production because of no VST support?

>KISS
>software
Do I have a bridge to sell you. The whole compiling and various methods of linking is complex enough on it's own that it will never satisfy KISS.

A lot of free software follows the "Unix Philosophy"; they won't do anything they weren't meant to do. If you have a text editor, it edits text. This is why people get mad at emacs, because it abandons this entirely

"Simple" is a relative term. The KISS principle means that you don't make things more complicated than they need to be, not that they can't be complicated.

What can't FOSS do that isn't to blame on the closeness and uncooperativeness of proprietary software?

But both LMMS and Ardour support VST, user.

you dont even need to do any of that if you dont want to, popular distros like ubuntu can be used just fine by people who have clue how to use the cli, compile programs, use ssh, etc

4/10 im a freetard made me reply

I believe you're comitting a fallacy because you're bunching a subset of minimal software into FOSS.
Most FOSS is minimalist because the environment that allowed it to develop was minimalist, although not all of it is so. Emacs is a good example of a swiss army knife of a text editor, while nano is one of a just text editor.
Plus, if the freetard in question says that you don't need X, they too are committing the same fallacy. You can do X with minimal free soft, you just have to put glue in, as an example, you very well can do file management and multiple text file edition in the terminal with nano, you gotta background nano then fg it or use something like tmux (nano has buffers, its version of tabs). And in the extreme case that you can't glue new features, well you can implement them in, it's free software, you can bake ranger into nano.
Not being able to add features is exactly why rms had an autistic fit in the first place.

or you could be a bitch and try to derail a movement that's about giving (You) control of the software you use

You're a retard

I have VSTs on my linux setup. Don't know why you're such a retard.

>he says "you don't need that anyway"
>about software that I use to do my job
>so I can get paid
>so I can afford a computer

Attached: whyisahorseahorse.png (800x600, 871K)

still me
An example of minimal FOSS and its minimalism getting in the way is webfs.
By defaults, it serves directory listings and serves files if you specify the address. You can config it to serve a file on directory root though. However, it has really piss-poor error pages and you have to specify the exact name of the file, even if .html.
I've been studying it lately because I want to make it configurable so it redirects to an error page and tests ${url}.html on 404.

That's how you get around free software, baby!

Because free software developers are incompetent. If they were qualified, they'd be developing for money, not for free. The reason free software is always playing catch up with proprietary software feature-wise is because they legitimately have no clue how to implement basic features. Look at this post on a KDE mailing list:
mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-linux/2007-July/004712.html
User requests basic feature that proprietary OSes have had for ages, namely, be able to hide the mouse cursor automatically when you start typing so it doesn't get in the way, and is told by the developers that that would be someone else's problem (first, it's the X developers' responsibility, then, it's the Qt developers). No one assumes responsibility, they just point fingers at each other like the immature children they are.
That post is from 2007. KDE still doesn't have that feature to this day.

>sadfrog_gnome_thumbnail_picker_2004.jpg

>a user requested a useless feature that nobody really prioritized, therefore free software bad
I fucking hate neo-Jow Forums

The cold hard truth is, one million "useless" features later, free software sucks ass. You can go cry elsewhere, summerfag - there's containment threads for freetards like

the people complaining could have already learned how to program to get that fixed by now.
or just do that patch floating around

maybe because... you don't need that anyway

>If they were qualified, they'd be developing for money, not for free.

Most FOSS folk, including myself, DO develop for money. FOSS software costs money to develop. It just doesn't cost money to use or modify.

The great thing is, thanks to this wonderful thing called "division of labor" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour), they don't have to. They can just get Windows or a Mac.

but in doing so they would be giving up their freedom, better to get another developer to write a patch for them

More like 'Keep it stupid, simple.'

Software is just a tool. Freedom isn't a function of what you can do to the tools you have, but rather of what you can do WITH the tools you have. Hence, Linux is less free than Windows, because Windows can accomplish more than Linux can.

Attached: autistic_screeching.png (2408x1488, 1.33M)

>cherry picking from a support thread from 11 years ago that includes no responses from actual KDE developers
Discussions among proprietary developers are even worse

>Freedom isn't a function of what you can do to the tools you have, but rather of what you can do WITH the tools you have.
lol

wat?

Tools aren't an end, they're means to an end.

Ok. What does that have to do with privacy and freedom?

>Freedom isn't a function of what you can do to the tools you have, but rather of what you can do WITH the tools you have
i agree but proprietary software does not give you the freedom use it as a tool in any way you want, it can only be used in the way the developer explicitly allows you to, all other use is forbidden

>Linux
linux is a kernel which is useless on its own, of course it doesn't do as much as a whole OS

>"can your music player solve triple integrals, mine cryptocurrency and compile C?"
>n-no
>"LOL YOUR SOFTWARE FUCKING SUCKS YOU RETARDED FREETARD"
Do you want every software to be an Emacs-tier abomination?

>why can't this open source calculator send email???
>uh why would you want that
>see! opensource is dumb! freetards eternally btfo!

because if you're so buttblasted about absolutely needing that shit in that guy's software you just add it yourself.
Or pay someone to fork it, do so, and post it on MicroHub(tm) as someshit-PATCHED-v0.0.1

Because usually it's faggots that claim they need to play all the latest games while using the entire Adobe and Autodesk suites while using CAD software, all on their home computer.

Yeah, like you have the freedom to be free or a slave.