MESSAGE
| DATE | 2004-01-16 |
| FROM | Adam Kosmin
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Re: ogg tutorial
|
In fact, what are you doing on this list? It's obvious to me that you
could care less about Free Software. How about I go find you a good MCSE
list where you'll obviously be more comfortable?
Let me know and I'll send you a link or two.
Adam
Steve Milo (slavik914-at-rennlist.com) wrote:
"
" I'm tired of listening to people pine away at how bad this that or the
" other thing is.
"
" Your sarcasm and cynism is really sickening.
"
" You can mince words Adam, but I wont.
"
" Youre welcome,
" Steve M
"
" PS. Tell your ancestry to go back from where they came from, because
" they didnt study the Constitution of the United States. Jack ass.
"
" > I know. I'm just sick of this Open Source mentality. The more I think
" > about it, the more I realize what a true cop out it really is. As a
" > subscriber to the Open Source way of thinking, I don't have to
" > have any
" > conviction, I don't have to have any morals, I don't have to have any
" > conscious awareness as to the role my computing habits play in our
" > society.
" >
" > I can see why this is so successful in business.
" >
" > Adam
" >
" >
" > Mike Richardson - (NYLXS: President) (miker-at-mrbrklyn.com) wrote:
" > " Adam the philosphy of Free Software has to be taught as an ongoing
" > " repetaive lesson. You have New People who don't know, and those
" > who speak
" > " about freedoms but have not read the defination of Free Software
" > or the
" > " GPL in a while.
" > "
" > " On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Adam Kosmin wrote:
" > "
" > " >
" > " > Steve Milo (slavik914-at-rennlist.com) wrote:
" > " > " > more functional, but it is not good enough because it is
" > not free
" > " > " > (as in
" > " > " > speech) and therefore, damages to our society's ability to
" > " > " > collaborate,innovate, and protect our privacy.
" > " > "
" > " > " Actually, more functional is much more than good enough, if
" > the better
" > " > " more secure product is available from Microsoft then by all
" > means it
" > " > " should be used.
" > " >
" > " > This is bullshit. This is exactly the kind of thinking (common
" > to people
" > " > who subscribe to the Open Source philosophy) that threatens
" > the adoption
" > " > of Free Software and (if not stopped) will allow Microsoft to
" > build" > whatever toll gates they desire upon the virtual roads
" > that we use to
" > " > collaborate and communicate.
" > " >
" > " >
" > " >
" > " > Not because it isn't 'free'..as in whatever. But
" > " > " because it does the job that is required of it. If the Open
" > Source" > " community can come along and create an equal or better
" > product then that
" > " > " software has earned its positions.
" > " >
" > " > Free as in whatever? How can you not appreciate the freedoms
" > granted by
" > " > the GPL? This stuff is critical and I'd expect anyone
" > subscribed to this
" > " > list to be well versed in the benefits.
" > " >
" > " >
" > " >
" > " >
" > " >
" > " > If we are talking about widgets then
" > " > " the only thing that MS or any other proprietary company is
" > guilty of is
" > " > " defending their products secrets. They haven't infringed on
" > freedom of
" > " > " speech, they are using freedom to persue 'life and liberty'.
" > If MS were
" > " > " to go out and seek a court order to silence its critics that is
" > " > " infringing on freedom of speech. But as far as the widget
" > is concerned,
" > " > " MS has everyright to create its product, they can run around
" > and let
" > " > " their sales people tell you anything they want to get their
" > product in
" > " > " your hands.
" > " >
" > " > I don't blame Microsoft for wanting world domination. I blame
" > the idiots
" > " > who aren't bright enough to choose a different path and who
" > are so
" > " > obsessed with fulfilling their own selfish short term agendas
" > despite the
" > " > costs to innovation.
" > " >
" > " >
" > " > The fault is not with MS when a network crashes due to a
" > " > " virus, but the IT director who chose to use MS. In turn
" > compromising" > " the security of their organizations system. No,
" > simply because MS is
" > " > " closed source is not a good enough reason to not purchase
" > their product
" > " > " and anyone in this day and age will tell you that.
" > " >
" > " >
" > " > No one who understands and agrees with the goals of the Free
" > Software" > movement will tell me this crap. Whether you realize
" > it or not, your
" > " > statement and thinking has been fed to you by Open Source friendly
" > " > marketing departments. From where I'm sitting, I see that this
" > is going
" > " > to be a HUGE problem going forward. People are jumping on the
" > Linux" > bandwagon for all the wrong reasons. It's like inviting
" > foreigners to
" > " > come over to the United States of America without studying the
" > " > Constitution!!!
" > " >
" > " >
" > " >
" > " > The reasons to go
" > " > " with Open Source is simply because its better. Its better
" > on price
" > " > " point, its better on security, its better on maintenance,
" > its better on
" > " > " support. Simply put, GNU/Linux/Open Source is just better
" > and for those
" > " > " patriotic souls, is so very American. Open Source got its
" > start in this
" > " > " country and is based on the same principles and values that
" > were used
" > " > " when this country was founded. But using a better product
" > is common
" > " > " sense. If MS creates a better OS than GNU/Linux I would go
" > out and buy
" > " > " it. But it doesnt make a better OS, it only has a stronger
" > marketing" > " machine. The problem with the Open Source
" > community is that too many
" > " > " people are hung up pining away at how MS is bad. We're
" > focusing on all
" > " > " the wrong points, the focus has to be turned away from MS
" > and back onto
" > " > " Linux. If MS makes a better product thats fine the problems
" > are the
" > " > " limitations imposed on reverse engineering for a better
" > product. The
" > " > " auto industry does it, the hardware manufacterers do it,
" > McDonalds does
" > " > " it. Everyone reverse engineers, its a normal patter of critical
" > " > " thinking. But the DMCA law doesnt allow reverse
" > engineering, not even
" > " > " to *not* make a profit.
" > " > "
" > " >
" > " > Obviously you know very little about the history of Open
" > Source since
" > " > you seem to think that it even has one. The term "Open Source" is
" > " > nothing more than a recently created buzz term to sell Free
" > Software to
" > " > people that don't have the capacity to understand the moral
" > arguements of
" > " > the Free Software movement. That's it! (if you didn't get that
" > last" > statement, read it over and over until it sinks in).
" > " >
" > " >
" > " > Adam Kosmin
" > " >
" > " >
" > " >
" > " >
" > " >
" > " > " Steve M
" > " > "
" > " > "
" > " >
" > " > --
" > " >
" > " > "Yes, Your Honor. Now, where we are so far, in at least my
" > " > line of reasoning, is I want to walk the Court through enough
" > of our
" > " > complaint to help the Court understand that IBM clearly did
" > contribute a
" > " > lot of the Unix-related information into Linux. We just don't
" > know what
" > " > it is."
" > " >
" > " > -- Kevin McBride SCO vs. IBM 12/05/03
" > " > ____________________________
" > " > NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
" > " > Fair Use -
" > " > because it's either fair use or useless....
" > " > NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
" > " >
" > "
" > "
" >
" > --
" >
" > "Yes, Your Honor. Now, where we are so far, in at least my
" > line of reasoning, is I want to walk the Court through enough of our
" > complaint to help the Court understand that IBM clearly did
" > contribute a
" > lot of the Unix-related information into Linux. We just don't know
" > whatit is."
" >
" > -- Kevin McBride SCO vs. IBM 12/05/03
" > ____________________________
" > NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
" > Fair Use -
" > because it's either fair use or useless....
" > NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
" >
"
" ____________________________
" NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
" Fair Use -
" because it's either fair use or useless....
" NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
"
--
"Yes, Your Honor. Now, where we are so far, in at least my
line of reasoning, is I want to walk the Court through enough of our
complaint to help the Court understand that IBM clearly did contribute a
lot of the Unix-related information into Linux. We just don't know what
it is."
-- Kevin McBride SCO vs. IBM 12/05/03
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
