Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> ____/ Mark Kent on Tuesday 28 August 2007 17:43 : \____
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Tuesday 28 August 2007 11:53 : \____
>>>
>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Tuesday 28 August 2007 10:18 : \____
>>>>>
>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Friday 24 August 2007 18:56 : \____
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [H]omer <spam@xxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> | Linus: I actually don't worry about MS at all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why should he? After all he "likes Tivoisation", so the prospect of
>>>>>>>>> Microsoft turning GNU/Linux into just another proprietary blob of
>>>>>>>>> Microsoft patented code shouldn't bother him at all. They're just
>>>>>>>>> "sharing" his code then "giving" it back, aren't they? So OK, what
>>>>>>>>> they're "giving back" is toxic waste designed to poison the Free
>>>>>>>>> Software community, but hey ... that's just nit-picking.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's also this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> " Linus: I don't really have a hugely strong opinion on it. Business
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> business, and I don't get involved with it; "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And yet, what could be more critical to business than the patent
>>>>>>>> threat, and the need for GPLv3, and the elimination of binary drivers
>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>> lock-in mechanism? The problem I have with the above statement is that
>>>>>>>> he clearly /does/ get involved, very frequently, and very deeply, and
>>>>>>>> yet often lacks the kind of experiences myself and others have had, so
>>>>>>>> fails to recognise what business actually needs. At least, the
>>>>>>>> customers, anyway. From a vendor perspective, binary drivers are a
>>>>>>>> great lock-in enabler.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have been thinking about it recently. What Linus does is, on one
>>>>>>> level, brilliant. He is very focused on ensuring that he keeps kernel
>>>>>>> stuff in mind. He doesn't want to be distracted, so he leaves the
>>>>>>> 'politics' to others. The problem with that is that he /TOTALLY/ fails
>>>>>>> to understand what Microsoft is up to (Mark Shuttleworth, on the other
>>>>>>> hand, knows it all too well), so he makes licence choice with only
>>>>>>> technical issues (e.g. TiVo) in mind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, the GPL was always a political issue, so you can't really
>>>>>> make licence choices without considering the politics. Naive people
>>>>>> always like to think that they can be separated, like sport and
>>>>>> politics. They can't.
>>>>>
>>>>> In an idea world they could. But look what Microsoft does to OOXML
>>>>> debates, which ought to have been technical. It was long ago that people
>>>>> around the world, some of whom I know, accused Microsoft of turning the
>>>>> whole thing into politics. As OOXML is very weak on technical grounds,
>>>>> making non-technical people concentrate on politics is much easier. Later
>>>>> on, the corruption came as well.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even way back when only Telcos were in the ITU, when I used to attend,
>>>> many debates were hotly political. Many countries had their own
>>>> manufacturers just like they had their own telcos, and would work to try
>>>> to get standardised the work of their indigenous suppliers. The IETF
>>>> merely made this process overt!
>>>>
>>>> OOXML has highlighted that the ISO process is completely broken, and
>>>> amazingly easy to rig, in this case by Microsoft, but who knows who
>>>> might try it next time?
>>>>
>>>> ECMA is a joke; it always was a mouthpiece for a handful of vendors,
>>>> but the OOXML disaster has highlighted the uselessness of ECMA.
>>>
>>> In BN we referred to ECMA as a coin-in-the-slot organisation and a
>>> production line. Rob Weir (of IBM) showed some slides from Ecma that could
>>> leave you speechless.
>>>
>>> The closer I looked at OOXML (Groklaw got me more into it), the more crime I
>>> saw. This appealed to me because it became the next "DR-DOS"-type attack,
>>> ODF being the target.
>>>
>>> In years to come, all these information from the TC and anonymous leaks from
>>> those who attended to meetings could truly serve the courts. I don't think
>>> Microsoft will walk away calmly and peacefully. It's downtown Beirut in the
>>> ISO panels.
>>>
>>
>> I think that the internet has probably put paid to that kind of
>> behaviour as a long-term strategy, since information can be so widely
>> disseminated so rapidly, and no amount of lawyers can keep the lid on -
>> why do you think that Governments are so keen to keep preaching the
>> "censorship is good" mantra? In my view, they're being driven by the PR
>> organisations representing the kind of corporates who would dearly love
>> a return to the 1990s.
>>
>> I suspect that the PR engines of the oil companies and Microsoft will be
>> the first to fall foul of this new world.
>
> I agree wholeheartedly which is why I, among others, are very worried to see
> the rise in censorship. We're not talking terror and child porn here. AT&T
> intercepted criticism of George Bush. It wasn't caught until last month, but
> there were prior incidents. It admitted this.
>
How many times have I pointed out here that the US media is a
propaganda machine extraordinaire? I hadn't realised that the
censorship of government criticism had also reached the internet so
quickly, but I suppose that I should have. I bet the chinese are
/really/ jealous about how well the US manages its propaganda machines.
Expect to see more "protect the children" as an excuse to censor the
internet yet further.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
