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