Freetards BTFO?

Mongrel complex

I like how you presented it as if you didn't write it.

Cringe and bluepilled, this entire article is shitty as hell. Also, *even* if this shit is all correct, I'll still stick to Free Software because it is open-source, which guarantees there aren't any backdoors or spyware. Sage.

I read the whole thing and couldn't stop laughing. Thought I would share some entertainment with my fellow gentoomen 8^)

>mental gymnastics, the website
thanks OP

Attached: 1544331238734.jpg (151x233, 11K)

found the pedo

It’s pretty stupid

Cute damage control, faggot.

he just argues politics and everyone and their mother knows that politics are bullshit.
also this

>which guarantees there aren't any backdoors or spyware
Nothing can guarentee that, but it does mean that as soon as one is found it can be removed without going through the offending author or having to completely abandon the software.

>if you have nothing to hide, it’s ok to be spied on

Stay cucked, fag

What an idiot.

>I'll still stick to Free Software because it is open-source
lol

>"The freedom to run the program [...] without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. " - You mean that, for all those years I've been using Windows programs, I've been required to communicate with some "entities"? That's funny.
What they're saying here op is that the end user should have the freedom to not have to send data back to home base like windows does.

>"In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose" - This is actually impossible - the purpose is always defined by the programmers.
The user can redefine the purpose of software by modding it, which you can't do on proprietary software because you don't have access to the source code.

> And "free software" might still impose unwanted "purposes" onto you - like all the "free software" browsers on spyware.neocities.org/articles/ (archive). On the other hand, a nonfree software might make its purpose evident and not violate it - and will provide more actual freedom than so-called free software..
Sure free software can have malicious elements, but unlike proprietary software we can just go audit the source code and weed out the bad elements if there are any.

>"The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not forbidden or stopped from making it run" - this is easy to violate in the so-called "free software". What prevents me from making a program that can only be run on Wednesdays? Nothing.
Well lets say a dev decided to only allow you to run a program on wednesday, well in free software you can mod out this, but guess what? You can't fucking do this on proprietary software.\
1/2

Attached: nojazz.jpg (540x720, 53K)

Attached: 1520262590112.png (977x375, 89K)

>"The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
Okay, here is where we start to run into serious problems. First of all, access to the source code is absolutely not a precondition for this. People have been disassembling all kinds of software forever - for example Pokemon games, which have spawned many hacks that improve (or claim to) on these games. No source code required! On the other hand, much of the so-called "free software" is untouched except by the people who control it in the first place. If a person wanted to modify Mozilla Firefox so that it "does their computing as they wish", they would have to have enough programming skill first. Then they would have to have the patience to wade through thousands of lines of code, find whatever is bothering them, and spend time trying to fix it. And when they are done, they might notice that a new version of Firefox came out with a bunch of essential security fixes that they will now have to implement. See? It's insurmountable - Mozilla ends up controlling FF anyway. Source code, therefore, does not always provide real, personal freedom - unlike what the freetards claim. Disassembling some simpler programs might be more practical...
Having access to the source code makes it easier to modify and audit programs you dumbfuck. If firefox was closed source I would have a hell of a harder time finding the shit I don't like and cutting out the shit I don't like.

>"The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2)."
Windows programs are being redistributed all the time, and probably more people are helped that way than by freetardism.
But, even though it is rare, you can get in trouble for pirating and you have to wait for someone to have the fucking program in the first place.
2/3

Attached: brainletchess.png (1000x432, 165K)

>"The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
>So here is where we come to the crux of the issue, it seems. It is the distribution of modifications, that gives real freedom, according to the freetards. But does it actually? Again, you, first of all, need the programming skill to make these modifications - skill that 99% of users don't have. Then there is the issue of your version becoming obsolete by the time you finish your changes - see Freedom 1. And of course, disassembling is still a possibility - you say it's too hard? So is programming for the vast majority of people - again, no advantage for free software to be found.
It's not our fault that most of the population is fucking retarded like you OP and this is like someone whining about their parents giving them a bike, but the bike has wheels that are too small for their taste, so instead of learning about how to replace the wheels they go onto a bearded dragon fighting board and cry like a dumb bitch.

OP either you are a dumb 12 year old who hasn't done their research or the most retarded kike I've seen. 3/3

Attached: bearlaptop.jpg (1300x926, 106K)

>Jow Forums idiots actually believe this
Leave it up to some contrarian zoomer to pass his half-baked bullshit as """critical analysis"""".

Holy shit it is a retarded 12 year old

Attached: wheeze.jpg (1280x720, 101K)

> neocities
not even worth opening. i'm sure it's full of fucking nonsense written by a retard with the IQ of wet sand.

>Are these false flags? Trolls?
both.

>neocities
>another website/software with pro-furry logo
>owner is legit poster boy for that one Jow Forums wojack with the glasses, beard, and open mouth

Attached: 1501359244473.jpg (630x418, 40K)

>comparing Firefox to pokemon games

Attached: raf,750x1000,075,t,fafafa:ca443f4786.u1.jpg (750x1000, 84K)

>gtk
dropped

Shill your shitty blog elsewhere

>Barely readable drivel
Can I get a TL;DR?

It's just a bunch of strawman and whataboutisms, don't waste any time on it.

The author actually tried to imply that making changes to binary is easier than when you have the source code, I stopped reading at that point.

And he also complains that modifying Firefox is hard, yet he is also the one who says that disassembling binaries is easier that changing the source code, as if he can't decide if he's a programmer or not.

This was written by someone with no understanding of what they are talking about. A waste of time.

This guy doesn't understand the concept of freedom at all.
First of the projection that software is free is the same as god is real, we know that god is not real but just something that lives inside us, some prefer to call it god and that's totally fine, Stallman did the same projection on to software and that's fine.

>im dumb thereof not free
This is the claim that the author of this article proposes but that's actually not true because our world is ordered in societies that help each other out, the lack of knowledge in one department can be corrected by relaying on a group, each other does one thing and that's also fine, one codes, other shitposts on Jow Forums and some lonely live does man pages.
Its the basic structure all Free Software builds upon, healthy communities with one single goal in common(yes thats also the reason why people reject CoCs, free software is not making your personal kindergarten).

>muuuuuuuuuuu complexity
Ye faggot and now you understand why people don't like systemd, to big to monolithic and dependant of a small group of developers, we already noticed those flaws you low tier WIndows user, that's the reason people like their terminals and projects with modules like emacs...

he's not wrong on everything

>freedom 0
While he's wrong on the "communication with entity" part, he's right on the "purpose of use" being pretty vague term.
>freedom 1
He's right here that the freedom to study and modify doesn't address at all if the software is readable, comprehensible or modifiable. This is pretty common realization.

But it seems to me that he's confusing ALL with ANY though (see freedom 2).

>license lies
now the point he's missing (probably because he's uneducated) is that EULA has tons and tons of non-enforceable entries in it
see cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html
EULA in real world is pretty much free software because most restrictions the user agreed on are non-enforceable. But not because "you violated it and nothing happened", that would be the implication in opposite direction.

>if you attach a "wrong" license to the software, you are equally unethical to a proprietary program
this historically has been a conflict point for tons and tons of software. Many old open source licensed had the entry and you can't distribute copies with modification. Having problem with this was an utter retardation because you can distribute original copy and your own custom patch separately (as in the same directory). Many distro projects still had an issues with that though despite providing all freedoms.
Even unlicensed, with default copyright, passes the free software definitions.

Honestly, I'm surprised he didn't mentioned how confusing the phrase "free as in speech, not free as in beer" is. Freedom of speech as vastly different goals and "free as in beer" is an aphorism that translates even worse than explaining the dual meaning of the "free" word.

> he's right on the "purpose of use" being pretty vague term
It means no one can restrict how you use the program and what you use it for. Seems pretty clear to me. ESL fag has confused 'purpose' with something like the goal of the software.

He complains a lot about the FSFs uncompromising philosophy but that has nothing to do with free software itself.

The only valid criticism of free software that I've seen is that it could hinder technological progress because some types of software may be uneconomical to develop and therefore there is no incentive to develop them.

The 'free' issue has existed since its inception. If they had just called their movement the 'software freedom movement' and free software 'freedom respecting software' or something then we wouldn't have to deal the confused retards.

>Again, you, first of all, need the programming skill to make these modifications - skill that 99% of users don't have.
This Freudian slip right here is OP's real issue: being too stupid to modify the source code, therefore those who can do it are REEEE FREETARDS.

Is he trolling?

>actually uses the word freetardism
Sorry son. The tards are the ones using proprietary software exclusively.

This reads just like one of the old adequacy.org articles. I'm pretty sure this is satire.

is this dude larping the Phreak??

>Hey you know that thing that you like? Well guess what, IT SUCKS. HA. GOTEM.

It's a shitty site even by Web 1.0 standards as well.

To be fair there are still devs out there who do not know how to use version control or even diffs. Thankfully most are retired or dead by now, but by no means all.

>he's not wrong on everything
>>freedom 0
>While he's wrong on the "communication with entity" part,

Attached: 1548020563577.png (1228x1150, 230K)

wow you must be really good at reading

Attached: 746.gif (500x391, 2.05M)

Sounds like a 12 y/o Windows fanboy to me lmao

That nigger should kill himself

Most retarded article of all time.

Going with his Pokemon analogy. Imagine all the amazing Pokemon games we could have if GF released the source code. Instead, we have shitty romhacks that take 3 years to make and barely have any differences with the original game.

Why Stalldude looks so sad in that picture?