Child molesters
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| mk Nov 06, 2005 11:28 PM EDT |
Child molesters are great guys - as long as they support Linux. Or what does this article want to say ? Intel is not a monopolist ? Freedom means freedom of choice. Linux is not Open Source. Open Source should not be bound to _any_ particular OS. There are even good reasons to use Open Source with Microsoft Windows. And i don't see why Redhat and Novell (or Intel for that matter) are "better people" than Microsoft. If they can, they will destroy their competitors as well. They (still) just cannot - even with all the freeloader pack on their side. (mk) |
| dcparris Nov 07, 2005 12:55 AM EDT |
And you've been part of the libre software community how long? One of the key benefits of libre software is that it becomes almost impossible for companies to monopolize the market - at least not not via the software. It's just too easy for someone to step up and compete. Microsoft has a long and well-established legal history of monopolism, IP infringement, and simply screwing over their so-called (potential) 'business partners', vis a vis DR DOS. The industry has coined the term "microsofted" to refer to being victimized by their tactics. I haven't seen anything like that with Intel, Red Hat, Novell or the others. |
| mk Nov 07, 2005 1:48 AM EDT |
I know free software from the times before the Linux borgs started to steal it :-) Evil Linux companies are alianating the free software market. More and more formerly free software is turned into "Linux software" and controlled by commercial Linux companies. And they use it very much to _lock_ people into Linux. To come back to "freedom of choice". This also depends on standards. Open Source often kills standards, because as soon as there is something it is hacked and "extended". And companies that _comply_ with standards are suddenly accused to lag. (mk) |
| PaulFerris Nov 07, 2005 2:35 AM EDT |
Quoting: And they use it very much to _lock_ people into Linux.mk, no offense, but last I checked, the reality of this situation proves a stark contrast. Linux vendors do not "lock" people into anything. You want lock-in, try getting someone off of an operating system that has a proprietary API at it's base. If someone decides to use GNU/Linux, they can switch to any number of distributions -- or even migrate a bunch of the stuff to another Unix (AIX, HP-UX, Solaris), or one of the BSDs -- people are even, as you point out, using a lot of Free Software on top of Windows. The converse to this is not true at all. You can run something like CrossOver office to get some Windows junk to misbehave on your PC, but that's hardly an open proposition. I sense you have some sort of axe to grind here (just a guess). Check reality, it's working against your facts. |
| Tsela Nov 07, 2005 3:41 AM EDT |
'Open Source often kills standards, because as soon as there is something it is hacked and "extended".' What have you been smoking? I'd like some ;) . Seriously, accusing Open Source of hacking and "extending" standards is beyond stupidity. Has Open Source hacked Kerberos? No, it used it as is. Microsoft, on the other hand... What about XML? Once again some proprietary company added binary extensions that are completely against the spirit of XML, while Open Source companies use it pretty much as it was meant to be. TCP/IP, Posix, W3C, ODF, etc... All those standards are strictly followed by Open Source developers and companies. With no "extension" whatsoever. And even if they did extend them, those extensions would be Open Source themselves! How can you lock people in with extensions anyone can pick up and add to their own products?! mk, I don't know in which world you're living, but you seriously need a reality check. Companies and individuals who migrate from one Linux distribution to another, or from Linux to BSD and vice-versa, are extremely numerous. Hey, you have some people who try nearly every distribution on Earth (Linux *and* BSD) before settling to one. How could they achieve that if Linux was really locking them in? Let me guess: you are a BSD fanboy who thinks that only the BSDs are truly free and that the GPL is really very unfree, and locks people in because they cannot redistribute GPL code under their own licenses, unlike BSD code. Yes, jealous people will always try to explain their failures by insulting their opponents. It doesn't make them right... |
| TxtEdMacs Nov 07, 2005 5:59 AM EDT |
Quoting: ... free software from the times before the Linux borgs started to steal it :-) and the smiley has as much sincerity as found in a Walmart's advertisement. What's your handle on /.? I love the terms you throw around so blithely and ignorantly - the code is not stolen. Hence, you are completely ignorant of the meaning of "free" software (not as MS means it as in no cost), but freedom, which you really seem to have no use for. Hence, for being so demonstrably ignorant one would think you would be a bit more circumspect about giving the benefit of your opinions, unless the pay is too good to ignore. The fan bois have arrived on LXer! |
| tadelste Nov 07, 2005 6:00 AM EDT |
mk: Thanks for bringing these issues to our attention. |
| mk Nov 07, 2005 6:35 AM EDT |
Linux monopolists / pest and cholera
-------------------------------------------------
Linux destroys more than Microsoft ever could. For me it would be a dark world, where i only would have the choice between Microsoft Windows and Linux. A choice between pest and cholera. To be able to choose from three dozen flavors of cholera doesn't make things much better.
Frankly, i never had "problems" with Windows. Only since i know Linux i have an idea why some people hate Windows. FUD, your name is Linux --------------------------------- Linux is cheaper than... Linux is more modern (HAH!) than... Linux is faster than... Linux is more stable than... Linux is more secure than... And no, in the real world, where real work has to be done, one cannot do trial and error indefinitely. When you've got fooled into something there is fast a point of no return. Too many people end up with an expensive, mediocre Linux solution. Who needs standards when the source is open ? ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is exactly what i wanted to say. (mk) |
| PaulFerris Nov 07, 2005 6:48 AM EDT |
mk: thank you. You made my day ;) --FeriCyde |
| tadelste Nov 07, 2005 7:06 AM EDT |
mk: mine too. |
| jimf Nov 07, 2005 8:24 AM EDT |
mk: that makes 3 of us... I'm sure there will be more :) |
| phsolide Nov 07, 2005 8:39 AM EDT |
mk writes: Quoting:To come back to "freedom of choice". This also depends on standards. Open Source often kills standards, because as soon as there is something it is hacked and "extended". And companies that _comply_ with standards are suddenly accused to lag. This sort of thing has come around before. To quote a 1991 "RISKS digest": http://safariexamples.informit.com/0130464163/maillists/risk... Quoting:I once went to hear a talk by Thompson at MIT. Thompson said one of the professors had said to him, "I hate you. UNIX stopped all research in operating systems." Thompson apologized. 1991 was well before the open source/free software movement acquired any kind of steam. I can recall reading a GNU project newsletter in that period where compiling the 4.2BSD kernel with GCC was a big, big item. mk does not express a very new viewpoint. Unfortunately, it's also sort of a Stalinist viewpoint, and one that annoys me. Just an example: DHCP, a widely recognized standard. I bought a DEC UDB in 1997, Red Hat 4.0 booted on it, but I couldn't get the DHCP client to work correctly - whoever wrote the C code didn't understand anything about alignment issues. This isn't a bug, you have to admit: the code compiled cleanly, and worked flawlessly on x86 CPUs. The DEC UDB used an Alpha CPU however. I wanted to get some experience with 64-bit-register CPUs. They looked like the Next Big Thing in 1997. But the DHCP client didn't work. With access to the source, I could fix it. If I were nothing but a Proletarian in some Stalinist "paradise" (which unfortunately most workers in US corporations are) I couldn't do anything about it. |
| TxtEdMacs Nov 07, 2005 10:23 AM EDT |
mk, hmm mk ... , what does "mk" mean when you claim extensive, long term knowledge of free software, albeit bereft of knowledge of real standards not defined by MS? The one thing that fits is: "Microsoft Klutz", a little late, but I have been expecting you: Welcome to LXer.com! |
| tuxchick Nov 07, 2005 10:49 AM EDT |
We have been discovered by the MS Astroturf Brigade. Expect more. |
| PaulFerris Nov 07, 2005 11:01 AM EDT |
tuxchick: What? Don't tell me that people are hired to simply create confusion on news sites -- that would be stupid, immoral and (heh) a waste of time here. You'll truly know we've been discovered when you get that call from Wag-Ed. I can't wait, myself. --FeriCyde |
| jimf Nov 07, 2005 11:04 AM EDT |
LOL Tuxchick, they must have to go to MS Astoroturf training camp.... I just can't imagine anyone who could arive at that headstate without intensive brainwashing %) |
| phsolide Nov 07, 2005 11:10 AM EDT |
You know, "mk" does remind me of Microsoft Apologists I used to argue with during the heyday of usenet. I used to argue vociferously in "alt.fan.bill-gates" with a bunch of people. I looked up two of the pro-MSFT names I could recall last year. They existed as Real Humans, one actually employed at MSFT. I wonder how his ego gets through the door. |
| tuxchick Nov 07, 2005 11:20 AM EDT |
You guys are merciless. Good. Doncha love having the facts on your side? That makes it easy. |
| number6x Nov 07, 2005 11:22 AM EDT |
Jimf, Good comeback. I wonder if its in lesson three or four at the training camp where they teach the recruits to start threads with names like this one has, so news sites get blocked by many proxy server rules? I haven't seen the manual, so I'm just making a guess... |
| jimf Nov 07, 2005 11:28 AM EDT |
No number6x, the first lesson is obviously incoherency.... then weeks of txt messaging on a cell... :) |
| tadelste Nov 07, 2005 11:38 AM EDT |
OK. Have we traced anyone to a secure facility for the criminally insane? |
| jimf Nov 07, 2005 11:50 AM EDT |
Actually tadelste, we are all at the facility... it's that guy that keeps calling in here trying to sell astroturf that is the hastle :D |
| tuxchick Nov 07, 2005 11:58 AM EDT |
yeah, me and jim are collaborating on a pair of beaded mocassins in TherPuOps. We share- he gets one, I get one. |
| jimf Nov 07, 2005 12:08 PM EDT |
Oh no!... now comes the fight about who gets left and who gets right :D |
| mvermeer Nov 07, 2005 2:07 PM EDT |
Tom.... comment of the day, this ;-) |
| tuxchick Nov 07, 2005 2:08 PM EDT |
Jim, take whichever one you want- if you dare. |
| tadelste Nov 07, 2005 2:45 PM EDT |
Actually, the tuxxie chick has rights to comment of the day posting. Indeed. |
| jimf Nov 07, 2005 2:57 PM EDT |
She can also have 'both' beaded mocassins with my blessing :) |
| helios Nov 07, 2005 4:35 PM EDT |
You have been discovered...indeed. Congratulations. I smell another /. around the corner To be worthy of Microsoft attention is to be considered a Microsoft threat. helios |
| AnonymousCoward Nov 08, 2005 3:25 AM EDT |
phsolide: or to put it another way: Those who do not understand Unix are doomed to reinvent it. Poorly. |
| TxtEdMacs Nov 08, 2005 7:53 AM EDT |
Cannot tell you where I heard this, however, I was told years ago within Microsoft they thought: NT was Unix done right! |
| tadelste Nov 08, 2005 8:34 AM EDT |
You mean because they put Free BSD code into the product without attribution? Or maybe because DEC got Microsoft to believe it was a PC version of VMS before DEC unloaded the terrible project to Microsoft? |
| TxtEdMacs Nov 08, 2005 9:09 AM EDT |
Quoting: ... because they put Free BSD code into the product without attribution? Not sure why the Microsofties thought that way. Since it was such common knowledge that MS used BSD code, I thought they had displayed the BSD acknowledgment somewhere, though I have never seen it on NT 3, 4 or 5. Quoting: [or] ... a PC version of VMS ... Again I do not know. However, I thought DEC got its cash after the fact by either bring a suit or threatening to do so. Moreover, I thought they hired Dave Cuttler and all parties were aware that he was doing VMS for the pc as NT. Furthermore, from what I read recently that was the mechanism by which DEC got MS to support the Alpha chip. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!