MESSAGE
| DATE | 2004-01-16 |
| FROM | From: "Steve Milo"
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Re: ogg tutorial
|
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
>
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
