Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:06:09 GMT,
> yttrx <yttrx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Jamie Hart <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> A crack or patch is not the same as piracy.
>>>
>>
>> A crack is not the same thing as a patch. Had you any experience
>> in the matter at all, you would understand that.
>>
>>>> What else would you call a "crack"?
>>>>
>>> A method of changing the functionality of a binary encoded executable.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong, again. A crack is a method of circumventing copy protection
>> on software, period, case closed, end of story. There's no argument
>> here---you're simply wrong.
>>
>
>
> you are (deliberately?) missing the point. Piracy, is not merely the
> cracking of a program that is piracy, you must make an illegal copy,
> and distribute (or receive) it. Cracking your own binary, is not piracy.
> Cracking the binary may be neccessary for example, to run some
> applications on a system without a CDRom drive, or on an architecture
> that the binary wasn't originally compiled for.
>
Youre splitting hairs, and you know full well what the author of
the quoted text meant. He meant "get it any way you can".
Its precisely your sort of attitude that makes linux advocates at
large look like a bunch of bratty little children who refuse to
read a book.
>>> Again, what's your fucking point?
>>>
>>
>> That you're pretending you know things that you don't, and that
>> posts like this one must make that embarrassing for you.
>
> I wonder if your poor attitude follows you "in real life" ?
>
Goddamn right it does. I do not suffer idiots in any venue, on
any level, period.
-----yttrx
|
|
