In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:55:24 +0100
<6585508.Fd2zRHVLae@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> ____/ [H]omer on Tuesday 03 July 2007 13:50 : \____
>
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>
>>> "Show us the Code" campaign silenced
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | The following day at the place of my employment though was an odd
>>> | one. My manager called me into a closed door meeting between
>>> | myself and him. His managers and in fact the CIO of the company I
>>> | was employed at had it brought to their attention that I had an
>>> | "anti-microsoft" site. It was also brought to my attention the
>>> | Fortune 1000 company I worked for was a direct partner with
>>> | Microsoft.
>>> `----
>>>
>>>
> http://showusthecode.wordpress.com/2007/07/02/what-happened-to-show-us-the-code/
>>>
>>> http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40729
>>>
>>> So they tried to gag PJ, along with SCO. Now they go for the small
>>> guy. Luckily I have a supportive environment.
>>
>> This story disgusts me.
>>
>> There is *no* mention of the blogger's RealLife® employer on that site
>> at all, in fact AFAICT the whole effort is completely anonymous, so for
>> his employer to threaten him because they claim he is representing the
>> company, is pure bullshit.
>>
>> And what exactly is all the fuss about? It's a request for Microsoft to
>> stop making unfounded and libellous claims about IP infringement, and
>> actually *prove* their claims with evidence.
>>
>> The fact that this company has some connection with the Beast is
>> irrelevant, probably every company in the *world* has *some* sort of
>> connection to MS, should that prohibit people from demanding that they
>> prove their bogus claims?
>>
>> Gah! As Ghost says, Welcome to the New World Order.
>
> I was warned in the past that my employer (I have two)
> might have some connections with Microsoft, but that was
> a long time ago. As for Dan of Forbes (the one mentioned
> in this blog), he knows me because he linked to
> Boycottnovell in one of his recent articles. It appears
> as though he pretty much got the boot and got replaced
> (at least for reports on this topic). The new guy isn't
> much better, with phrases like "open-source software as
> the geeks call it". He makes it sound like Free software
> comes from acne-ridden teenagers.
>
As long as the source code is fixable later, who really cares?
That's the beauty of open source: the source can come from
an acne-riddled teenager, a blackhat having a fit of conscience
(and clarity, hopefully), a bored business suit looking to
make a little extra, an evangelist who wants purity in all
things including code, a hacker who likes to do weekend projects,
a committee writing a package as part of their business plan.
As long as it's readable (Jeff Relf's, uh, contributions
are legendary but not all that useful :-) ) by both man
and machine (more properly man and compiler running on
a machine), it shouldn't matter all that much.
And of course the ultimate consumer -- someone using
the compiled binary -- needs to ensure it meets his or
her needs, but usually the code is pigeonholable enough
to not be a problem (one wouldn't use OpenOffice for,
say, game development, :-) though it might be used for
documentation relating thereto).
To be sure, closed source has one advantage: customer
support. But this isn't a big advantage if all of that
support is routed to somewhere in India.
As for Microsoft's patent claims ... that's all they are
until someone puts specifics on the table. What patents
are being violated by open source products?
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Woman? What woman?"
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
