MESSAGE
| DATE | 2004-01-16 |
| FROM | Adam Kosmin
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Re: ogg tutorial
|
Pick up a pebble and throw it into a puddle. See the ripples?
Now think about your question again.
Adam
Steve Milo (slavik914-at-rennlist.com) wrote:
" Explain to me where this is selfish?
"
" That a company should choose the better product for its survival is
"
" considerd selfish?
"
" Did you actually read what I wrote?
"
" Steve M
"
" ----- Original Message -----
" From: Adam Kosmin
" Date: Thursday, January 15, 2004 1:38 pm
" Subject: Re: [hangout] Re: ogg tutorial
"
" > Steve,
" >
" > This is actactly the kind of attitude that makes me think that
" > FOSS will
" > never succeed. This entire philosophy is based on selfishness. Are you
" > sure you're on the right mailing list?
" >
" > Adam Kosmin
" >
" > 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. Not because it isnt '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. 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 havent 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. 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. 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.
" > "
" > " 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
" > whatit is."
" >
" > -- Kevin McBride SCO vs. IBM 12/05/03
" >
"
"
--
"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
|
|
