- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Windows vs. Linux: Time to Call a Truce?
|
|
|
Comments (60)
I'd say not...
...because there are still some of them left alive. Always a bad sign. (-:
No truce, we're not naive
4 earlier comments in the full thread.
The goals of the Free Software community and providers of freedom-restricting wares will always be at odds. Therefore, a truce is not possible. One will win, one will lose, period.
That's actually true wind0wsr3fund.
If the goal of proprietary software companies is to restrict freedom for their profit (which it actually is) and the goal of Free Software community is exactly that freedom which is being restricted, it is a big clash of interests.
So, it's a good point.
If the goal of proprietary software companies is to restrict freedom for their profit (which it actually is) and the goal of Free Software community is exactly that freedom which is being restricted, it is a big clash of interests.
So, it's a good point.
Why do there need to be winners and losers? Both Free and non-Free software can exist in the same world. It's not an either/or proposition. I was joking when I said " Linux advocates are foaming religious zealots who want to control everyone's lives." But perhaps there is a kernel of truth in it.
As far as any "truce", get a grip. Add my metoos to all the other responses to this.
As far as any "truce", get a grip. Add my metoos to all the other responses to this.
Open Standards will always win because they will always exist and will most likely not change.
"Why do there need to be winners and losers? Both Free and non-Free software can exist in the same world."
Wrong. Non-free software attacks users of free software by attempting to exclude them from participating with its market share. It doesn't happen the other way around. The very nature of the proprietary software provider's business model demands constant growth (assimilation) of that market. What you have here is a version of "Digital Divide".
For those of you who think that the proprietary software regime does not affect your ability to use your computer in freedom (because you use Free Software), consider the following:
You are the only person on the planet who runs Free Software on your computer. Because everyone else uses Microsoft's Windows OS, you can not swap files with anyone because of file formatting issues that can not be reversed engineered due to the protection offered by the DMCA, can not browse a web site on the Internet (because all are created for IE optimization AND because you do not have a valid Microsoft Passport), can not send or receive email (everyone uses the latest version of LookOut that has been "extended" to utilize "ActiveIMAP" and/or "ActivePop3").....
You get the idea (I hope).
Bottom line is, you are now the prisoner.
You have the right to create and use proprietary software. Just do me and everyone else a favor and keep it to yourself. Once the software is distributed, I feel very strongly that you have an ethical responsibility to provide certain freedoms along with it. More specifically, freedoms 0-3 as defined by the GPL.
Thank you,
wind0wsr3fund
Wrong. Non-free software attacks users of free software by attempting to exclude them from participating with its market share. It doesn't happen the other way around. The very nature of the proprietary software provider's business model demands constant growth (assimilation) of that market. What you have here is a version of "Digital Divide".
For those of you who think that the proprietary software regime does not affect your ability to use your computer in freedom (because you use Free Software), consider the following:
You are the only person on the planet who runs Free Software on your computer. Because everyone else uses Microsoft's Windows OS, you can not swap files with anyone because of file formatting issues that can not be reversed engineered due to the protection offered by the DMCA, can not browse a web site on the Internet (because all are created for IE optimization AND because you do not have a valid Microsoft Passport), can not send or receive email (everyone uses the latest version of LookOut that has been "extended" to utilize "ActiveIMAP" and/or "ActivePop3").....
You get the idea (I hope).
Bottom line is, you are now the prisoner.
You have the right to create and use proprietary software. Just do me and everyone else a favor and keep it to yourself. Once the software is distributed, I feel very strongly that you have an ethical responsibility to provide certain freedoms along with it. More specifically, freedoms 0-3 as defined by the GPL.
Thank you,
wind0wsr3fund
"Open Standards will always win because they will always exist and will most likely not change."
Wrong!
Standards, whether Open, Licensed, or defacto, are only as good as their implementation. How in the world can anyone know how a standard has been implemented if the user is not free to inspect the code?
Standards are VERY important but in no way justify non-free software.
Wrong!
Standards, whether Open, Licensed, or defacto, are only as good as their implementation. How in the world can anyone know how a standard has been implemented if the user is not free to inspect the code?
Standards are VERY important but in no way justify non-free software.
w3f -
Unbelievable!
We halfway agree on something!
Open Standards do not win by default. They win only if people follow them.
As to inspecting the code...Always a plus. However, you don't need to see the code to know if a standard has been implemented. It's certainly nice for troubleshooting, but not needed. The reference for a standard is its specification, not any single implementation.
Unbelievable!
We halfway agree on something!
Open Standards do not win by default. They win only if people follow them.
As to inspecting the code...Always a plus. However, you don't need to see the code to know if a standard has been implemented. It's certainly nice for troubleshooting, but not needed. The reference for a standard is its specification, not any single implementation.
and since they're open...people will always follow them and make them better...see if they don't like the technology that supports the open standard, they make the technology better.
open standards do not cost...that makes sure that they'll always be used. The mere fact that they'll always be used means they win. Period. The only way they lose is if no one uses them.
open standards do not cost...that makes sure that they'll always be used. The mere fact that they'll always be used means they win. Period. The only way they lose is if no one uses them.
Oh, thanks w3f. At least I don't need to start preaching again. :D
It's not about FOSS zealots wanting their Free Software to take over the world or something. No, that's just a necessary sideffect. :P What we, so called "zealots", want is for freedom to take over the world. When that truly happens, noone really rules the world! :)
Proprietary software is fundamentally about ruling over someone though, and that doesn't lead to freedom, nor choice nor anything good. It leads to a form of slavery or whatever you call a total opposite of freedom.
It's not about FOSS zealots wanting their Free Software to take over the world or something. No, that's just a necessary sideffect. :P What we, so called "zealots", want is for freedom to take over the world. When that truly happens, noone really rules the world! :)
Proprietary software is fundamentally about ruling over someone though, and that doesn't lead to freedom, nor choice nor anything good. It leads to a form of slavery or whatever you call a total opposite of freedom.
Libervis, our definitions of freedom are not the same. Yours and cranky3f seems to involve making choices on behalf of people "for their own good", unless I am reading your posts incorrectly.
>Proprietary software is fundamentally about ruling over someone though
Now that's getting just plain wacky.
The government rules over people. It has nasty folks with guns and big sticks and all manner of ugly hardware to keep you in line.
Proprietary software? I don't see how. You don't even have to buy it. I know lots of people who don't. People who make that choice make trade-offs, including some they probably aren't aware of. But ruled over? You should talk to the folks at Ernie Ball about that. When Microsoft's buddies (or alter egos, if you prefer) tried ruling over Ernie Ball, the company switched to free software. The bad guys extorted some blood money in the process, but Ernie Ball now breathes the sweet air of freedom and all that nasty proprietary software can't do a blessed thing about it.
Now that's getting just plain wacky.
The government rules over people. It has nasty folks with guns and big sticks and all manner of ugly hardware to keep you in line.
Proprietary software? I don't see how. You don't even have to buy it. I know lots of people who don't. People who make that choice make trade-offs, including some they probably aren't aware of. But ruled over? You should talk to the folks at Ernie Ball about that. When Microsoft's buddies (or alter egos, if you prefer) tried ruling over Ernie Ball, the company switched to free software. The bad guys extorted some blood money in the process, but Ernie Ball now breathes the sweet air of freedom and all that nasty proprietary software can't do a blessed thing about it.
one of the real issues in all this are corporations. Let's face it corporations are a construct to limit the liability and responsibility of individuals. As such, they don't really encourage responsibility or morality, or ethical behavior. The main goal of a corporation is, after all, profit for the stockholder.
It also seems to me that the bigger these corporations become the less they abide by ethical behavior. The government's mindless pandering to business interests encourages this bad behavior. While that isn't always true, MS is certainly a great example of the corporate sleazeball behavior that's become prevalent, though not the only one by far.
Linux and the GPL not only give us legal guidelines, but also stress the ethics of how one should create and use software. It's obvious that many of the less ethical of the corporate giants have problem handling that. It's not a 'war', but it's hard to see how any of this, software or otherwise, is going to be resolved soon, certainly not by any truce between MS and Linux.
It also seems to me that the bigger these corporations become the less they abide by ethical behavior. The government's mindless pandering to business interests encourages this bad behavior. While that isn't always true, MS is certainly a great example of the corporate sleazeball behavior that's become prevalent, though not the only one by far.
Linux and the GPL not only give us legal guidelines, but also stress the ethics of how one should create and use software. It's obvious that many of the less ethical of the corporate giants have problem handling that. It's not a 'war', but it's hard to see how any of this, software or otherwise, is going to be resolved soon, certainly not by any truce between MS and Linux.
dinotrac: >"Proprietary software? I don't see how. You don't even have to buy it. I know lots of people who don't. People who make that choice make trade-offs, including some they probably aren't aware of."
Those trade-offs are exactly why Stallman began GNU and created the GPL. It was the enticement to behave unethically, that is, to shun his community by not sharing his work to help others, that led him to begin GNU. As you say, it wasn't because closed, EULA-restricted software could somehow rule over him. It was because it requires trade-offs that he considered unethical.
jimf: >"It also seems to me that the bigger these corporations become the less they abide by ethical behavior. The government's mindless pandering to business interests encourages this bad behavior."
That fits most mega-corporations, either wholly or in part. The really large ones are like hydras, but with some decent heads and some downright evil.
Personally, if Sam Palmisano showed up at my door, I'd invite him in or for a walk around the place. If Bill Gates showed up, I'd lock the door and invite him to leave, immediately. (If he declined, I'd call the police to report an unsavory character on the premises).
Those trade-offs are exactly why Stallman began GNU and created the GPL. It was the enticement to behave unethically, that is, to shun his community by not sharing his work to help others, that led him to begin GNU. As you say, it wasn't because closed, EULA-restricted software could somehow rule over him. It was because it requires trade-offs that he considered unethical.
jimf: >"It also seems to me that the bigger these corporations become the less they abide by ethical behavior. The government's mindless pandering to business interests encourages this bad behavior."
That fits most mega-corporations, either wholly or in part. The really large ones are like hydras, but with some decent heads and some downright evil.
Personally, if Sam Palmisano showed up at my door, I'd invite him in or for a walk around the place. If Bill Gates showed up, I'd lock the door and invite him to leave, immediately. (If he declined, I'd call the police to report an unsavory character on the premises).
@tuxchick2
Not really. My definition of freedom is acting however you will as long as it doesn't detriment anothers' freedom to act as they will. What you end up with is a balance and some natural restrictions that arise to protect it. For example, I am and should be restricted from doing anything that will restricts anothers freedom and ability to do their own thing, and they are in turn restricted the same way. It's a kind of a reciprocity.
In accordance with this I believe that releasing software as proprietary (and hence excercising control over all of its copies) steps over the boundaries of this balance, as users don't have the same freedom that the software developer has once they choose to cast away their freedom by using this proprietary software (which usually happens either out of not knowing or not valuing their freedom enough).
Why should users have the same freedoms as developers with the same software? Because developers are users too and every user is a potential developer.
@dinotrac
Well they did try to rule over them, didn't they?
Yes, the government has the ruling power, but that same government distributes some of this power, through law, to copyright holders which can then use it to "rule over" those who are ignorant or unknowing enough not to value their freedom or give freedom to everyone who uses their software.
Grouch also explained it nicely regarding the trade-offs. What is unethical about those trade offs (such as not being able to share software with your neighbour) is the anti-social behavior which is caused by the lack of freedom (which is also unethical). So of course, unethical gives birth to more of unethical, and that circle starts with someones imposition of proprietary terms on software (helped through law by the government who allows all, including these terms).
Thanks
Quoting:Libervis, our definitions of freedom are not the same. Yours and cranky3f seems to involve making choices on behalf of people "for their own good", unless I am reading your posts incorrectly.
Not really. My definition of freedom is acting however you will as long as it doesn't detriment anothers' freedom to act as they will. What you end up with is a balance and some natural restrictions that arise to protect it. For example, I am and should be restricted from doing anything that will restricts anothers freedom and ability to do their own thing, and they are in turn restricted the same way. It's a kind of a reciprocity.
In accordance with this I believe that releasing software as proprietary (and hence excercising control over all of its copies) steps over the boundaries of this balance, as users don't have the same freedom that the software developer has once they choose to cast away their freedom by using this proprietary software (which usually happens either out of not knowing or not valuing their freedom enough).
Why should users have the same freedoms as developers with the same software? Because developers are users too and every user is a potential developer.
@dinotrac
Quoting:When Microsoft's buddies (or alter egos, if you prefer) tried ruling over Ernie Ball, the company switched to free software. The bad guys extorted some blood money in the process, but Ernie Ball now breathes the sweet air of freedom and all that nasty proprietary software can't do a blessed thing about it.
Well they did try to rule over them, didn't they?
Yes, the government has the ruling power, but that same government distributes some of this power, through law, to copyright holders which can then use it to "rule over" those who are ignorant or unknowing enough not to value their freedom or give freedom to everyone who uses their software.
Grouch also explained it nicely regarding the trade-offs. What is unethical about those trade offs (such as not being able to share software with your neighbour) is the anti-social behavior which is caused by the lack of freedom (which is also unethical). So of course, unethical gives birth to more of unethical, and that circle starts with someones imposition of proprietary terms on software (helped through law by the government who allows all, including these terms).
Thanks
>Well they did try to rule over them, didn't they?
Try is the operative word. It only matters if you can.
Try is the operative word. It only matters if you can.
grouch, you would really pass on such a marvelous opportunity? Picture a different scenario:
*knock knock* Grouch opens his door. "Mr. Gates, why are you knocking on my door at 2am?" Gates: "Oh, I just thought I'd drop by and see how you're doing. I have a strong commitment to customer satisfaction, you know." Grouch: "Well, it's kind of late, but since you're here you might as well come in." Grouch makes coffee and invites Gates to his basement computer room. "Here is my Windows PC, running XP Professional. Go ahead, sit down and make yourself at home."
Gates sits down and starts fooling around. "What, you have dialup? Who has dialup anymore. Gee, this is slow." Grouch edges away. Gates continues to type and mutter. "This is taking forever. What's all this stuff in the systray? Anti-virus, anti-spyware, firewall...hey! quit pestering me with questions, how do I know if I want that service to access the Internet? No, I do not want to check for updates now. No, I really don't, damn you! Oh all right, go ahead and download. Gee, 300 megabytes for a Windows update? This is going to take forever! How am I going to check email? Oh no, three thousand new messages, I'll die of old age first..."
Meanwhile, Grouch quietly bolts the basement door and tiptoes back to bed. Mrs. Grouch says "what's going on?" Grouch replies, "Oh, just letting someone experience Windows without the help of a gigantic personal tech support staff." Mrs. Grouch falls instantly asleep at the mention of computers.
*knock knock* Grouch opens his door. "Mr. Gates, why are you knocking on my door at 2am?" Gates: "Oh, I just thought I'd drop by and see how you're doing. I have a strong commitment to customer satisfaction, you know." Grouch: "Well, it's kind of late, but since you're here you might as well come in." Grouch makes coffee and invites Gates to his basement computer room. "Here is my Windows PC, running XP Professional. Go ahead, sit down and make yourself at home."
Gates sits down and starts fooling around. "What, you have dialup? Who has dialup anymore. Gee, this is slow." Grouch edges away. Gates continues to type and mutter. "This is taking forever. What's all this stuff in the systray? Anti-virus, anti-spyware, firewall...hey! quit pestering me with questions, how do I know if I want that service to access the Internet? No, I do not want to check for updates now. No, I really don't, damn you! Oh all right, go ahead and download. Gee, 300 megabytes for a Windows update? This is going to take forever! How am I going to check email? Oh no, three thousand new messages, I'll die of old age first..."
Meanwhile, Grouch quietly bolts the basement door and tiptoes back to bed. Mrs. Grouch says "what's going on?" Grouch replies, "Oh, just letting someone experience Windows without the help of a gigantic personal tech support staff." Mrs. Grouch falls instantly asleep at the mention of computers.
> Try is the operative word. It only matters if you can.
Still, it describes a tendency.
Proprietary software gives full control, or you could call it a "ruling power", to its copyright holder which actually is power over other people who use this software regarding the use of its software. Of course I am not saying that this rule extends to all other areas of users life, but it does still include the area of software use.
Still, it describes a tendency.
Proprietary software gives full control, or you could call it a "ruling power", to its copyright holder which actually is power over other people who use this software regarding the use of its software. Of course I am not saying that this rule extends to all other areas of users life, but it does still include the area of software use.
Libervis:
Ummmm......
Free software also gives full control to its copyright holder. In the case of free software, the copyright holder (or holders) generously share much more of that control than the holders of copyright on proprietary software.
The only software that doesn't do that is in the public domain.
Ummmm......
Free software also gives full control to its copyright holder. In the case of free software, the copyright holder (or holders) generously share much more of that control than the holders of copyright on proprietary software.
The only software that doesn't do that is in the public domain.
> Free software also gives full control to its copyright holder. In the case of free software, the copyright holder (or holders) generously share much more of that control than the holders of copyright on proprietary software.
And there you have it - a much more balanced approach to control. I may have written the software, but you are running it on your computer. Therefore, you deserve to have control of the software on your computer. I don't see what - other than current copyright law - gives me the right to prevent you from having that control. I think it is utterly rude, crude and socially unacceptable to prevent you from having control over the software running on your computer.
Also, you should note that people frequently subject themselves to the control of others, despite having numerous alternate choices. From kids who join gangs to prostitutes, people often subject themselves to the control of unscrupulous people. And Windows is merely the poster child for why no one should ever release code under non-free terms.
And there you have it - a much more balanced approach to control. I may have written the software, but you are running it on your computer. Therefore, you deserve to have control of the software on your computer. I don't see what - other than current copyright law - gives me the right to prevent you from having that control. I think it is utterly rude, crude and socially unacceptable to prevent you from having control over the software running on your computer.
Also, you should note that people frequently subject themselves to the control of others, despite having numerous alternate choices. From kids who join gangs to prostitutes, people often subject themselves to the control of unscrupulous people. And Windows is merely the poster child for why no one should ever release code under non-free terms.
tuxchick2:
Interesting scenario, except I don't do MS Windows. Never had eXtortion Protection in my house; never will. I had to use that nasty thing once, long enough to download a manual to a dsl modem for a local business to see how to set it up for GNU/Linux. That was a disgusting 30 minutes.
Interesting scenario, except I don't do MS Windows. Never had eXtortion Protection in my house; never will. I had to use that nasty thing once, long enough to download a manual to a dsl modem for a local business to see how to set it up for GNU/Linux. That was a disgusting 30 minutes.
No war, no truce required.
15 earlier comments in the full thread.
I think I'm going to hurl.
I can contribute one (1) 7 ft.- 6 in. long, 3" O.D. schedule 80 steel pipe, with one (1) 6 cylinder, 90 cfm air compressor to power it, and several bushels of old, sun-hardened black walnuts for ammunition. Anybody got a trigger and air cannon plans? Need somebody to calculate the ballistics, too. C'mon, folks. Show some cooperative spirit. I want to share some good American black walnut trees with Brother Bill, via air delivery. Someone needs to call him before the launch so no family members are in the landing zone. Don't want to dent heads; just roof, cars, pool, etc.
> No flak jacket required, This is the love bombing thread.
Must find flower-patterned camouflaged flak jacket and "Flower Power" helmet... oh yeah, and bell bottoms!
Must find flower-patterned camouflaged flak jacket and "Flower Power" helmet... oh yeah, and bell bottoms!
If I were to guess, I would think that all of you in these idiotic hypothetical "threads" (War, et. alia.) are 1) under the age of 15, 2) have way too much time on your hands, are 3) crass and unfeeling and unworldly ("bangy things"?), 4) have now wasted more time on arguing than on investigation, 5) are very VERY defensive, nasty, cliquey, and throw your stones from a safe distance, and lastly 6) have an incredibly low opinion of yourselves, making you VERY VERY angry and outwardly conceited-acting.
What, do you think you alone can speak for the myriad of developers, visionaries, early adopters, geniuses, and just plain folk who may or may not run a certain type or piece of software.?
Get over yourselves, people. These kinds of threads are a colossal waste of time and drive space. Hey - get this: I have been using "PC"'s since 1976 ( I built a HeathKit), I burned out on surfing such services as Quantumlink and Compuserve - the "Internets" of their day - by about 1979. And games. I was there at the beginning of all the most important Internet and other protocols of our time. I was in the industry for over 30 years, am still an MCSE, CISSP, former CISO, CTO. I phreaked phone calls with my "nerdie" friends for the first time around 1965. Jammed radio stations with my Heathkit, an oscilloscope and a repeater.
Now I'm retired, and looking to pursue some nice new topics and this is what I find. Little kids throwing mud at each other and congratulating each other for knowing how to spell their own name. You sound like Family Feud: "Good answer. GOOD Answer."
Did you know: There used to be a product called "Internet in a Box" from BSDI software, that cost $800 per server, and of course was just FreeBSD in a friendly package. Well, Linus wasn't the first to think to do such a thing, but stealing the same package and lowering the price to the "cost" of a CD? Smart, very smart.
And while all you guys were arguing over Open Source etc., there were many variants of Unix/Linux that had Netscape Navigator embedded in their software, and no way to get it out. Remember when Microsoft got in so much trouble over embedding IE in their offering?
Just goes to show you how stupid and petty anything other than collective progress is. Am I a genius? Nope. By your standards I'm an idiot, if only because I make a lot of syntactical errors, or I might have a made a misstatement or two.
Just take these things to heart: Music is only one facet of life, and certainly not worth the money that's spent on its acquisitions and accessories ; TV, IPtoTV, videos, cell phones, camera phones, ESPN phones. What's the problem? You've got all this new technology, but the problem is that you have nothing of any substance to say. Much of your music in fact is "sampled" (stolen) from others and does not even require human intervention. The art is creating itself without you.
Video games are not real, and they will teach you nothing you will ever need to know in your life. When you have TV shows on how to cheat, I know this planet isn't long for this galaxy. Lastly, getting a "technical education", with little or no emphasis on art, humanity, language and most importantly - THE most important class for making me a good technical and executive worker - was philosophy. it taught me how to think, and to solve any problem, with or without the Internet or a book, or a cell phone to cheat on my exams. I made it to age 55 before they decided that in spite of our massive well of knowledge and experience, our company just couldn't afford as many high paid executives as we had. (Translation: Bush needs to throw a few more offshoring contracts to some of his buds.) But we made it to 55 and above because we knew much, much more than just a boot camp's worth of forgotten crap. You will not last anywhere near to 55, because in 3 or 4 years when you ask for your first decent raise, they will fire you and hire some more newbies for dirt. And for any of you offshore/outsource supporters......well....you're not gonna' be fans, because you will have no where in the world to go to pitch your wares.
Wake up kids: Your future is crap. We are in the BioTechnical Age now anyway. The only jobs soon will be truck driver, health worker, customer service (yeah, but they're in Brazil), construction, Accountants, and not much more.
My final advice: As you go through life, don't memorize the answers; know where and how to find them, when they are needed, with little or no guideposts.
The Voice of Reason
Ok, whose turn was it to watch kennyf27? You know the medication must be applied hourly or you get the above disjointed, presumptive diatribe.
grouch:
Kennyf27 doesn't much concern me...but, if his post is right, somebody has really pissed off The Voice of Reason.
Kennyf27 doesn't much concern me...but, if his post is right, somebody has really pissed off The Voice of Reason.
Grouch wrote:
Alright. I agree. I still don't think w3f is a real troll. He may have misunderstood dinotrac's posts, but I don't think the intentions are ones of a troll (to throw the discussion to waste), but rather express an opinion based on a misunderstanding.
Why am I defending him? Well, from what I've seen him post in other threads I didn't recognize the intention of killing a discussion or turning it into a flamewar as trolls usually do. Some of his opinions are in my opinion valid. I guess for that I can give him at least a little more credit.
As for the topic, some really nice posts have been written (particularly by dinotrac) and I agree that Free Software community is not about waging wars. Microsoft does that and we are merely required to defend ourselves. So if there is a war and if therefore there needs to be a truce, it's all up to MS, as already pointed out.
@kennyf27
I can respect you as a senior (compared to me) and your experience, but I am not sure I quite get the whole point of your post. I don't think these threads are necessarily childish diatribe. I don't see it as such, as well as I don't see anything wrong with dedicating a little bit of your time to engage in such discussions. It's all part of the whole interaction process that makes a community be a community.
But then again I might just be a 21 year old child if you will. ;)
Thanks
Quoting:I admit that I have bad eyes and sometimes misunderstand plain ASCII, but those two comments appear to reflect both involvement and conviction to me. Each sounds like a line being drawn around personal choice and freedom, with an implied warning of consequences if that line is crossed.
Alright. I agree. I still don't think w3f is a real troll. He may have misunderstood dinotrac's posts, but I don't think the intentions are ones of a troll (to throw the discussion to waste), but rather express an opinion based on a misunderstanding.
Why am I defending him? Well, from what I've seen him post in other threads I didn't recognize the intention of killing a discussion or turning it into a flamewar as trolls usually do. Some of his opinions are in my opinion valid. I guess for that I can give him at least a little more credit.
As for the topic, some really nice posts have been written (particularly by dinotrac) and I agree that Free Software community is not about waging wars. Microsoft does that and we are merely required to defend ourselves. So if there is a war and if therefore there needs to be a truce, it's all up to MS, as already pointed out.
@kennyf27
I can respect you as a senior (compared to me) and your experience, but I am not sure I quite get the whole point of your post. I don't think these threads are necessarily childish diatribe. I don't see it as such, as well as I don't see anything wrong with dedicating a little bit of your time to engage in such discussions. It's all part of the whole interaction process that makes a community be a community.
But then again I might just be a 21 year old child if you will. ;)
Thanks
> Ok, whose turn was it to watch kennyf27? You know the medication must be applied hourly or you get the above disjointed, presumptive diatribe.
I thought it was either one of those clever spam messages that I heard about on TLLTS, or Steve Ballmer sharing the news with us that he has been dismissed before it breaks in the mainstream media. Of course, it could be Scott, now that he has some free time on his hands.
As they say, there's one in every crowd! :-)
I thought it was either one of those clever spam messages that I heard about on TLLTS, or Steve Ballmer sharing the news with us that he has been dismissed before it breaks in the mainstream media. Of course, it could be Scott, now that he has some free time on his hands.
As they say, there's one in every crowd! :-)
> Ok, whose turn was it to watch kennyf27?
Well, I hope the rant helped him, but there is a lot of anger and frustration there. Sounds like someone has really given up on the world.
Well, I hope the rant helped him, but there is a lot of anger and frustration there. Sounds like someone has really given up on the world.
Oh, come on guys, at least give Kenny the benefit of taking his comment seriously. After all, we all know he's not going to make it to the end of the show. :)
So, here goes:
> 1) under the age of 15
Closer to the other end of the scale I'm afraid.
> 2) have way too much time on your hands
Possibly.
> 3) crass and unfeeling and unworldly ("bangy things"?),
Possibly.
> 4) have now wasted more time on arguing than on investigation
Extremely doubtful.
> 5) are very VERY defensive, nasty, cliquey, and throw your stones from a safe distance
Defensive? Sometimes. Nasty? Not really. Cliquey? I wouldn't know. I've never been in one. I always try to throw stones from a safe distance. Otherwise, what's the point of throwing stones?
> 6) have an incredibly low opinion of yourselves,
I'm certain there are far too many people who would disagree with that. :)
That covered, let's see if there was anything else of interest...
> Lastly, getting a "technical education", with little or no emphasis on art, humanity, language and most importantly - THE most important class for making me a good technical and executive worker - was philosophy. it taught me how to think, and to solve any problem,
No, I can't say I took philosophy in college. A shame, the ability to solve ANY problem would be extremely useful. Such as how to avoid getting your job outsourced, for instance.
> I made it to age 55 before they decided that in spite of our massive well of knowledge and experience, our company just couldn't afford as many high paid executives as we had.
Whoops, I guess they didn't cover that one after all. Oh well. Maybe they covered how to win the Powerball this weekend.
> You will not last anywhere near to 55,
Sorry Kenny, I'm already somewhere near 55, though not quite there yet. Thanks for playing, and better luck next time.
So, here goes:
> 1) under the age of 15
Closer to the other end of the scale I'm afraid.
> 2) have way too much time on your hands
Possibly.
> 3) crass and unfeeling and unworldly ("bangy things"?),
Possibly.
> 4) have now wasted more time on arguing than on investigation
Extremely doubtful.
> 5) are very VERY defensive, nasty, cliquey, and throw your stones from a safe distance
Defensive? Sometimes. Nasty? Not really. Cliquey? I wouldn't know. I've never been in one. I always try to throw stones from a safe distance. Otherwise, what's the point of throwing stones?
> 6) have an incredibly low opinion of yourselves,
I'm certain there are far too many people who would disagree with that. :)
That covered, let's see if there was anything else of interest...
> Lastly, getting a "technical education", with little or no emphasis on art, humanity, language and most importantly - THE most important class for making me a good technical and executive worker - was philosophy. it taught me how to think, and to solve any problem,
No, I can't say I took philosophy in college. A shame, the ability to solve ANY problem would be extremely useful. Such as how to avoid getting your job outsourced, for instance.
> I made it to age 55 before they decided that in spite of our massive well of knowledge and experience, our company just couldn't afford as many high paid executives as we had.
Whoops, I guess they didn't cover that one after all. Oh well. Maybe they covered how to win the Powerball this weekend.
> You will not last anywhere near to 55,
Sorry Kenny, I'm already somewhere near 55, though not quite there yet. Thanks for playing, and better luck next time.
"Oh, come on guys, at least give Kenny the benefit of taking his comment seriously. After all, we all know he's not going to make it to the end of the show. :) "
Well OK then. My mom taught me to not take ranty self-contradicting off-topic windbags seriously, but what the hey, she also taught me to take my fun where I can get it.
I'm 48, and I don't fear layoffs because I am the boss of me. I'm a cruel, demanding taskmaster who doesn't give me enough time off, and I'm always painting myself into a corner by taking on too much work. But I get to work at home and play my Lawrence Welk music really loud (a polka comes to life when it rattles the windows, by gum), and I can say all the politically incorrect things to my horses that I want.
And that's as far as I feel like going.
Well OK then. My mom taught me to not take ranty self-contradicting off-topic windbags seriously, but what the hey, she also taught me to take my fun where I can get it.
I'm 48, and I don't fear layoffs because I am the boss of me. I'm a cruel, demanding taskmaster who doesn't give me enough time off, and I'm always painting myself into a corner by taking on too much work. But I get to work at home and play my Lawrence Welk music really loud (a polka comes to life when it rattles the windows, by gum), and I can say all the politically incorrect things to my horses that I want.
And that's as far as I feel like going.
tuxchick2 -
>and I can say all the politically incorrect things to my horses that I want.
Horsefeathers.
>and I can say all the politically incorrect things to my horses that I want.
Horsefeathers.
>Lawrence Welk music really loud
Ouch! and I was begining to think you were the perfect woman :D
Ouch! and I was begining to think you were the perfect woman :D
Man, I feel young! :)
(no offence intended to anyone older than me)
(no offence intended to anyone older than me)
> Man, I feel young! :)
Contrary to the advise of Mick Jagger, time is 'not' on your side.
Contrary to the advise of Mick Jagger, time is 'not' on your side.
Hehe thanks for the warning Jimf. :)
Lawrence Welk music? Is that like, Aussie Hip-Hop or something? Pre-15ers want to know.
> like, Aussie Hip-Hop or something?
German/Bavarian hip-hop to be precise.
German/Bavarian hip-hop to be precise.
>German/Bavarian hip-hop to be precise.
Only for the first few rounds. Then it becomes drip 'n drop.
Only for the first few rounds. Then it becomes drip 'n drop.
jimf: >"Contrary to the advise of Mick Jagger, time is 'not' on your side."
"Life's like an hourglass glued to the table. No one can find the rewind button, boys, so cradle your head in your hands and breathe, just breathe." -- Anna Nalick, Breathe (2 AM)
"Life's like an hourglass glued to the table. No one can find the rewind button, boys, so cradle your head in your hands and breathe, just breathe." -- Anna Nalick, Breathe (2 AM)
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post