Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GNU Taler 0.0.0 released

lists.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 202 posts

Re: GNU Taler 0.0.0 released

#191

Post by tobltobs »

rglullis wrote: post #188
DanBC wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep mentioning voting. Some people reflexively downvote any post that talks about votes. If you didn't mention voting you may get fewer downvotes.

I don't care about getting the votes. I do care about pointing out irrational behavior. In this case, I am pretty sure it was the person I responded to because I saw the karma score drop right along with the response to my previous comment.

So you don't care about votes, but you seem to reserve some storage place in your brain for your HN karma and deploy some real time monitoring for it?

> I do care about pointing out irrational behavior.

Can't find anything about "pointing out irrational behavior" in your post, just some rage about "unsubstantiated" downvotes.

I upvoted your parent comment now, maybe that helps cooling down.

Re: GNU Taler 0.0.0 released

#192

Post by rglullis »

tobltobs wrote: post #190
rglullis wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it's funny how you'd rather downvote me reflexively instead of finding a way to engage in an useful exchange of ideas. Please, do not downvote because of disagreement. I am voting you up as a sign of confidence that you can do better. Let's try again, then: please tell me what is inherently bad at having options for "better earning individuals"? And what guarantees can be given by you that your proposal for a "fu…

Cool down, i didn't downvote you. > please tell me what is inherently bad at having options for "better earning individuals"? The problem with that is that such a system doesn't work for a public health insurance if rich people can avoid their contribution to solidarity. If at all you will have system of two classes of people like we had in the middle age. Germany already has this two class system within their health…

> The problem with that is that such a system doesn't work for a public health insurance if rich people can avoid their contribution to solidarity.

1) There is still nothing bad (immoral) at accepting a society where some people will "avoid their contribution to solidarity". Like I said up-thread: we can't code compassion into law, and every time we tried it, the long term consequences have been more damaging than beneficial.

2) I am not "rich", and I'd rather have the option. I want the best care that is possible at the most affordable price. The "public" system is not really free.

> Germany already has this two class system within their health system.

That is quite a bit of hyperbole, and wrong. There is nothing classist about a business that needs money to operate.

If anything, the real classism in Germany shows when you see something like the Künstlersozialkasse, where the Government pays part of the health insurance only to some type of people.

Re: GNU Taler 0.0.0 released

#193

Post by [deleted] »

rglullis wrote: post #192
tobltobs wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool down, i didn't downvote you. > please tell me what is inherently bad at having options for "better earning individuals"? The problem with that is that such a system doesn't work for a public health insurance if rich people can avoid their contribution to solidarity. If at all you will have system of two classes of people like we had in the middle age. Germany already has this two class system within their health…

> The problem with that is that such a system doesn't work for a public health insurance if rich people can avoid their contribution to solidarity. 1) There is still nothing bad (immoral) at accepting a society where some people will "avoid their contribution to solidarity". Like I said up-thread: we can't code compassion into law, and every time we tried it, the long term consequences have been more damaging than be…

[deleted]

Re: GNU Taler 0.0.0 released

#194

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #193
rglullis wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with that is that such a system doesn't work for a public health insurance if rich people can avoid their contribution to solidarity. 1) There is still nothing bad (immoral) at accepting a society where some people will "avoid their contribution to solidarity". Like I said up-thread: we can't code compassion into law, and every time we tried it, the long term consequences have been more damaging than be…

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: GNU Taler 0.0.0 released

#195

Post by tobltobs »

rglullis wrote: post #192
tobltobs wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool down, i didn't downvote you. > please tell me what is inherently bad at having options for "better earning individuals"? The problem with that is that such a system doesn't work for a public health insurance if rich people can avoid their contribution to solidarity. If at all you will have system of two classes of people like we had in the middle age. Germany already has this two class system within their health…

> The problem with that is that such a system doesn't work for a public health insurance if rich people can avoid their contribution to solidarity. 1) There is still nothing bad (immoral) at accepting a society where some people will "avoid their contribution to solidarity". Like I said up-thread: we can't code compassion into law, and every time we tried it, the long term consequences have been more damaging than be…

> There is still nothing bad (immoral) at accepting a society where some people will "avoid their contribution to solidarity".

That depends on your moral compass and your level of egoism.

> That is quite a bit of hyperbole, and wrong.

I guess you never tried to get an appointment with a medical specialists in Germany with a non private insurance.

Re: GNU Taler 0.0.0 released

#196

Post by rglullis »

tobltobs wrote: post #195
rglullis wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with that is that such a system doesn't work for a public health insurance if rich people can avoid their contribution to solidarity. 1) There is still nothing bad (immoral) at accepting a society where some people will "avoid their contribution to solidarity". Like I said up-thread: we can't code compassion into law, and every time we tried it, the long term consequences have been more damaging than be…

> There is still nothing bad (immoral) at accepting a society where some people will "avoid their contribution to solidarity". That depends on your moral compass and your level of egoism. > That is quite a bit of hyperbole, and wrong. I guess you never tried to get an appointment with a medical specialists in Germany with a non private insurance.

> That depends on your moral compass and your level of egoism.

When talking about the individual actions, it certainly depends on the individual's moral values, but this is not being discussed at the moment.

In regards on how to turn society values into laws, it really doesn't. I am not saying that the "right thing to do" is to avoid community and eschew solidarity. I am saying that no one should be able to impose their values into any other group, no matter if it is a majority or not.

So, while I (personally) am all for a more equal and compassionate society, I am also saying that we will NOT achieve this while we have so many individuals expecting that this should be enforced by the Government.

> I guess you never tried to get an appointment with a medical specialists in Germany with a non private insurance.

I don't want to. I don't need to. If it's already known that the public service is of such low quality, why would I subject myself to it? I'd rather find ways to help other people to enjoy the higher quality service than forcing everyone to share the misery.

Like I said before, what I want is to get the best service at the most affordable price possible. Being "public" is not a requirement. Where is the guarantee that if we remove the private insurance companies, that the public offering will improve? Look at all the ongoing debate in the UK and the NHS, all of the cuts in their system. How effective is it really?

Also, reverse the roles just for a second: if you were a teenager now and saw that it keeps getting harder and harder to make a career as a Medical Doctor and that the Government is removing any possibility for you to do a job outside of their terms, would you do it?

---

Basically, what you are saying is that the "moral" thing is to have the Government dictating how much people should earn for their job. If you think about it, what you want is to have people that will dedicate their entire lives to become professionals and be forced to serve you and the "poor and less fortunate". And yet you want to pin on me the accusations of being selfish.

Re: GNU Taler 0.0.0 released

#197

Post by abritinthebay »

ybx wrote: post #133
abritinthebay wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument would hold water if that money was earned with no help from federal or state at all. So no use of public utilities, roads, etc, oh and your company can't employ people who have benefited from them either - like going to a public or state school. Good luck with that.

While I don't consider myself a libertarian by any stretch, typically roads and utilities are two of the things that have pretty easy counter-arguments - make utilities free market (or something of the sort) and roads can be paid via tolls. If you want something that doesn't have a good counter-argument, look at policing and contract enforcement (basically, a public legal system). That's something that can't be done…

> make utilities free market (or something of the sort) and roads can be paid via tolls.

Yeah, like a lot of Libertarian "counter-points" though it's very handwavy and doesn't really hold up to much scrutiny when looked at for the economics of it.

We used to do that - know what happened? Mostly terrible "roads" and a few VERY expensive ways to travel. At some point all those systems got nationalized - why? Because it works better.

Re: GNU Taler 0.0.0 released

#198

Post by piotrkubisa »

stephenr wrote: post #180
piotrkubisa wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "A pre-release version MAY be denoted by appending a hyphen and a series of dot separated identifiers immediately following the patch version. Identifiers MUST comprise only ASCII alphanumerics and hyphen [0-9A-Za-z-]" [1] I think they should use 0.0.1-pre instead of 0.0.0. The version 0.0.0 I would consider as "the development have not started yet". [1] http://semver.org/

I think this advice is even more pertinent: > How should I deal with revisions in the 0.y.z initial development phase? > The simplest thing to do is start your initial development release at 0.1.0 and then increment the minor version for each subsequent release. Source: http://semver.org/#how-should-i-deal-with-revisions-in-the-0...

I don't get it why I got down-voted since I haven't suggested to use 0.0.1-pre. I have just pointed out that is weird to release version with only zeros - we usually take zero as point to "nothing, void" for non-techie folks (most of end-users).

Oh If you would search SemVer repository on GitHub then there are some mentions about 0.0.0 [1]. It is interesting point of view but I prefer non-production versions ready as 0.x.y, where x is greater or equal to 1. So yes, the 0.1.0 is way more meaningful and I recommend it.

[1] https://github.com/mojombo/semver/issues/221

Re: GNU Taler 0.0.0 released

#199

Post by tremon »

stephenr wrote: post #181
sidhu1f wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A majority (if not most) of the contributions to the Linux kernel come from developers paid to do so by the likes of Intel, Google, IBM etc. [1]. Do you have any reason to believe that said for-profit companies would have contributed to the same degree to a BSD/MIT licensed Linux kernel instead of focusing on a Linux kernel with proprietary extensions under a closed license? [1] http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-me…

Do you have reason to believe that they wouldn't have, or that they would do so, if it were GPL3+ licensed? Apple famously doesn't provide any "recent" GNU tools because they're GPL3+ licensed, when they were previously GPL2.x and less restrictive.

Do you have reason to believe that they wouldn't have

Maybe, as a data point: how many of the manufacturers' contributions to Linux are MIT licensed, so that they can be picked up by *BSD as well?

Re: GNU Taler 0.0.0 released

#200

Post by tremon »

coldtea wrote: post #129
simondedalus wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it would have been absurd to write that toolchain with a "kind of free" license. why would RMS bother? it's not like he didn't have access to existing software. i'm guessing you think that's just "incidental"... but that's a very strange argument to ever make if you think anything has any explanatory power at all.

> it would have been absurd to write that toolchain with a "kind of free" license. why would RMS bother? it's not like he didn't have access to existing software. BSD/MIT is not "kind of free". It's freer (more people can do more things) than the GPL.

It's freer

That depends on your goals and definitions, of course. The goal of the GPL is to ensure freedom of the code, by placing demands on the distributor. The BSD license does not do this, so a developer is "more free" with BSD-licensed code. However, the code is "more free" when it's GPL-licensed.

Which you prefer is a personal choice, but it's kinda pointless to argue which one is "more free" as the licenses have different interpretations of freedom.

Post reply on HN