MESSAGE
| DATE | 2004-01-16 |
| FROM | From: "Steve Milo"
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Re: ogg tutorial
|
Curb your cynism.
Youre not as wise you you have led yourself to believe.
Steve M
>
>
> 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
> 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
|
|
