He doesn't use Fortress Linux

If only toughbooks had a clitmouse. It's the only thing that's kept me from buying one.

>Actually trying to sell linux...

FOSS can be sold you retarded teenage cunt.

Do you even read the news? It was compromised, congrats for using a botnet.

Nope. Cancer open source software may. Free software may not.

Reminder to never use anything non-GPL licensed. Demand that developers respect your freedom!

A lot of things can be done, it doesn't mean shit. Show me just one successful free sofwtare that sells and people actually buy. You can't because there's barely any successful free software in the first place.

on his site Stallman actually encourages people to make money off their free software

>Free software may not.

???

Where does it say that free (as in freedom) software cannot be sold?

>secure
>firmware binary blobs
>xorg

Copyright (c) 2016 TrueGNU Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire post are permitted provided this notice is preserved.

>Mein seiden
*Meine Seiten
Fixed that for you

>using any """"secure"""" distro
no

>A lot of things can be done, it doesn't mean shit. Show me just one successful free sofwtare that sells and people actually buy. You can't because there's barely any successful free software in the first place.
redhat you retard

people buy copies of OpenBSD (it is GPL compatible)

fucking nerd

let me give you a list
>apache
>php
>mysql
>R
>python
>ruby
>linux itself
etc., etc.

kys
also, filtered

Because private property is theft, and theft kills freedom.

What?

What does that have to do with free software.

Through donations. Stallman proposes that everyone should create only free software for free and absolutely everyone using said software should donate. Read more Stallman pleb.

The license states that the code has to be free. Though you can charge for the executable, the code has to be publicly available in order to respect freedom, thus anyone can build the software from code and skip paying.

>redhat you retard

Are they selling you the software? No, they're selling you support; a service. Educate yourself dumbass.

>OpenBSD

Are they paying for the software? No, they're paying for the cost of physical copies and shipping.

>he posted a list of successful free software instead of a list successful free software that sells

Now if you made the same list with proprietary software you could easily write over 100 from the top of your head and the second list wouldn't be empty. Keep trying freetards.

That is a legitimate thing that Stallman has said.

Freetards are Communists in disguise.

>>he posted a list of successful free software instead of a list successful free software that sells
yup, you are retarded. try selling MS software without paying for it.

>Are they selling you the software? No, they're selling you support; a service. Educate yourself dumbass.
they SELL SOFTWARE AND SUPPORT

how is this different form Tails?

>[...] Though you can charge for the executable [...]

So now you're saying you CAN charge money for free software. Nice backtracking retard.

>yup, you are retarded. try selling MS software without paying for it.

I know you're desperate here, but at least say something that makes sense.

>they SELL SOFTWARE AND SUPPORT

Incorrect. They're selling you support and for your convenience providing the software that you could build yourself; educate yourself.

>So now you're saying you CAN charge money for free software. Nice backtracking retard.

Quote where I even said that you can't charge for free software. I didn't. Still doesn't change the fact (a fact that you're all ignoring) that you can't make money from free software because no one would pay for it due to it being shit and also because you're able to build it from source.

said
> Actually trying to sell linux...
said
>FOSS can be sold you retarded teenage cunt.
(you) said
>Nope. Cancer open source software may. Free software may not.

>Still doesn't change the fact (a fact that you're all ignoring) that you can't make money from free software because no one would pay for it due to it being shit and also because you're able to build it from source.

By that same logic, I guess there's no money in selling bread either, right?

Wew lad, you must be a professional logician, because you just discovered that there's only one poster in this thread, and therefore I'm arguing with myself.

>inb4 hurr durr that image is fake, everyone has to be the same person hurr

Feel free to feel like an idiot now.

Epic metaphor friend

So you reply to me () when I replied to (), and you expect me to magically deduce that I'm talking to someone who is not ()?

Nice.

About as epic as the argument I replied to, I would recon.

>I guess there's no money in selling bread either, right?

Actually there is, making bread involves growing ingredients and a production process where you transform those ingredients using energy and work (time). If a person wants bread they can either grow their own ingredients and build their bread from scratch, or pay for the finished product. On the other hand, if the ingredients were free and all you had to do was to dump them in a machine in your kitchen and click a button, nobody would pay shit for bread. This is why you can't sell ice in Alaska, but you will probably learn a little more about that in high school.

...

> making bread involves growing ingredients
What? No it doesn't. I don't have to farm my own wheat in order to bake bread you fucking retard.

>transform those ingredients using energy and work (time)
Yes. People who buy a license to pre-compiled software, pay to not have to compile it themselves. They pay to get software that "just works".

And before you start arguing "hurr durr you have to pay for the bread ingredients then retard". Do you build your own computer from scratch then, before you compile software? Do you mine all the minerals, generate your own electricity and so on?

>there is some sort of rule/code saying that only people you're already talking to can reply to you

But if that was true nobody could reply to anyone ever you retard.

>you expect me to magically deduce that...

I expect you to use your fucking head in a logical way. Why would you even think that it has to be the same person? You probably should stop browsing and move to a site with usernames instead.

>About as epic as the argument I replied to, I would recon.

The argument that none of you have addressed yet by the way. I'm still waiting for examples of free software that makes money from selling the software, like some of you claimed.

You are just weasel wording a lot and trying to nitpick small details to autistically argue about while ignoring the main issue, but I will let it slide.

>People who buy a license to pre-compiled software, pay to not have to compile it themselves

Fair enough, you're wrong but for the sake of the argument let's say you're not. Show me one software that:

1.- Is freely available as source code
2.- Is available to be LICENSED as a binary, meaning that you only buy a license and don't own the software, according to your words
3.- People buy it. Bonus points if it makes sick dosh

Of you course you can't because this goes against the basic tenets of free software, but worded it yourself so I'll let you try. Feel free to stop replying anytime when you realize that you don't even know the meanings of the words you're using.

This metaphor is so tortured, it really doesn't work.

>private property is theft

You some kind of commie?

>xfce
EPIC
still better than gnome 3 though

ya that's cool!

yes exactly Cred Forums plebs don't even know about richard stallman and his ideas.

he believes in breaking the botnet free open source != freed of monetary properties. he's a big proponent in open source developers being compensated for their tireless and selfless work!

That is a legitimate political point of view of Stallman, at least when it comes to software. Not only he speaks for the free software, but also for the eradication of proprietary software; also he's overtly vocal and aggressive about it:

>I can't sympathize much with those app developers, since they are making proprietary software. They all deserve to fail.

Freetards not only believe in having a right to make their choice, they also believe in the right to remove your right to choose and then force their choice on you as well.

Sorry. I assumed there was only one retard in this thread. Guess I was wrong and mistook you for him.

>Show me one software that:
I guess RHEL would fit that list close enough.

Going back to your original argument (if your still this guy , that is).

>because no one would pay for it due to it being shit
Subjective. If you can only argue based on your feelings, then its no wonder I mistook you for a generic retard.

>because you're able to build it from source.
Still doesn't imply that you can't make money from it.

Taking into consideration that a lot of proprietary software is in fact malware and spyware of course he's rather vocal and aggressive about it - after all who wants to unwittingly be spied on or run compromised code?

>they also believe in the right to remove your right to choose and then force their choice on you as well.

They give rights to the software users. If you don't give a shit about your users, use a proprietary License. Or if you're a total cuck and don't care about anything, use MIT or something similar.

>I guess RHEL would fit that list close enough

Already explained why it's not, Are you only grasping at straws now?

>1.- Is freely available as source code

Check.

>2.- Is available to be LICENSED as a binary, meaning that you only buy a license and don't own the software, according to your words

Not check, there are not licenses attached to the software itself, there are only licensed that entitle you to call for support.

>3.- People buy it. Bonus points if it makes sick dosh

Not check, people buy the support not the licenses.

>ad hominem something something

I'd let it slide because you're just so wrong that's not worth it bothering with these bits.

>Still doesn't imply that you can't make money from it.

What you can't or can not do doesn't mean shit if it doesn't happen in real life. There could be a FOSS product that made more $ that Microsoft and Apple together (and for some reason not a single people in the world would build it themselves; they would all pay), the next year Linux could seize 95% of the desktop market, and then I could single-handedly make the most rad indie game since Daikatana. Is this your argument? That "it could happen"? Because it doesn't happen. Show me one example of selling free software as a successful business model; it doesn't exist, you can't make money from free software.

>Not keeping up a normie presence on the botnet to deceive the system

It's like you almost want to have someone kick in your door. If you go completely lights out/off the botnet it will raise a lot of suspicion.

whonix.org/
now gtfo.

>actually arguing with a shill

There's not even any entertainment value in this. Just report it and hope the mods realize it's spam.

I don't understand the logic of these people. How is acting like a belligerent jackass when people refuse to use your software going to make them use your software after all? It's not. It's just going to result in them doing the exact opposite of what you ask. You're tanking your own marketing campaign because you let your personal ego get involved.

>not check....
OK. So the license applies not to the software, but to services surrounding it. Who cares, people still make money from it. If you're going to argue against that, then I'm going to
>Are you only grasping at straws now?
at you too.

>you can't make money from free software.
Well, RedHat does.
>but hurr durr

Whatever. My original reply was in response to someone claiming you cannot sell free software: You can. You (who is not that idiot, but someone else entirely) agree on this, so I'm not really sure why I keep up this inane argument.

>I can't be wrong, there's has to be something wrong with people with a different opinion and it's obviously the result of a vast conspiracy funded by proprietary software makers. Also I'm reporting you because I'm triggered

If you're genuinely thinking this, that's how you know that you're wrong and your argument can't be defended.

>So the license applies not to the software, but to services surrounding it. Who cares

Nice backpedaling.

>My original reply was in response to someone claiming you cannot sell free software: You can

All I'm asking is where are the IRL examples?

Being able to do thing =/= doing thing.

>All I'm asking is where are the IRL examples?

Fuck off. You (presumably) choose not to in your computer chair, doesn't mean it's impossible or illegal.

... not to [shit/piss/eat/drink/whatever] in your computer chair....

>Being able to do thing =/= doing thing.

Yeah, you have "permission" to do it, but "permission" is not the only thing needed in order to do it successfully. Now I will proceed to paste a list of all the known examples of free software with a successful business model that involves charging for the software:

1.-

Clearly "permission" to do something is not all it takes to succeed, as this lengthy list of companies above shows. Just because it can be done in theory it doesn't mean that it can be done.

>Yeah, you have "permission" to do it,

Thank you.

I didn't read the rest because those are answers and/or questions to something you yourself have been claiming all along, in order to win this pathetic argument.

>something you yourself have been claiming all along

Not really. Provide a quote and I shall explain your misunderstanding.

What do you recommend rather than xorg?

>i conveniently didn't read the part that shows how I'm wrong

Xenocara

>Calling it an argument when you're getting schooled one sidedly

at least you got the pathetic part right

rio

Why? You are purposefully tiptoeing around the fact that, yes, you can sell free software, which was my original point. I don't give a fuck about whether or not it is profitable. That is a point you've been trying to argue for this entire thread, one I don't really care about.

Again, please point me to where it says that I literally cannot sell free software.

Just to be clear:

Cannot should be taken as "I cannot do this thing, because this other thing literally says I'm breaking contract/going against the law by doing it".

Not as in "It is not profitable".

Where?

My point:
>You can sell free software

His point:
>You can, but it's not profitable.

Thanks for clarifying, I understand everything now. You care about theoretical stuff that does not necessarily work in practice, just like Linux. Sorry that i mistook you for a sane person.

And it only took you ~20 posts to understand the original 11 words I wrote.

wew

>proprietary software is in fact malware and spyware
lmao
how retarded can one be

I'm not him you were talking to. Create a problematic product in order to profit from it. hyper-capitalism 101, the true nature of pure capitalism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

>there are people on Cred Forums who unironically defend capitalism

Those are the same people making all the anti-encryption threads, pro-mass surveillance threads, anti-Snowden threads. Shills and cucks.

Thanks Deutsch-kun

I'm so glad to see Cred Forums's core community being anti-capitalist.

>Now if you made the same list with proprietary software you could easily write over 100 from the top of your head and the second list wouldn't be empty. Keep trying freetards.

The list would be about successful proprietary software that sells, but I agree that a lot of proprietary software sell. However, I hardly consider Windows Vista as more successful than nginx.

Cred Forums is only OK with capitalism when Cred Forumstards raid in. Complaining on /qa/ is useless, mods do nothing. Cred Forums is definitely a problem, but they also are too loud, and admins only care about ad revenue..

My sentiment wasn't meant as anti-capitalist. My statements are essentially misanthropist, although there was no context for me to express- until now- why every other political, economic, and social system humans create are primitive and barbarian. If you think capitalism is the endgame of civilization as if humans have reached an 'end of history' scenario you better think again- or better, 'start' thinking because humans are doomed to extinction and oblivion at this rate of computation.

Wayland

You would be spied on by using proprietary hardware though. Use separate chips, one as a network interface and one as a message encryption device. That would cost around 260$ (with separate hardware if you want to stay anonymous), plus Cryptech's code on a FGPA chip as a random bits generator.

>We should negociate the collective unblocking of Cred Forums ads to get rid of Cred Forums tards

No, we should just outstraight ditch Cred Forums. It's been a widespread request from all Cred Forums users for a while now.

...