In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Wed, 05 Sep 2007 04:59:51 +0100
<2091321.2blDrHKgsA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> ____/ The Ghost In The Machine on Tuesday 04 September 2007 22:38 : \____
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, dapunka
>> <dapunka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:28:28 -0700
>> <1188941308.783839.184130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> On 4 Sep, 21:33, AirRaid <AirRaid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> http://riverag.com/2007/09/03/the-word-linux-is-inappropriate-in-xbox...
>>>>
>>>> "I love Linux and the XBOX 360, so yesterday I tried to include the
>>>> word "LINUX" in the motto section on XBOX Live. I was stunned when I
>>>> got a message saying "Your motto contains inappropriate language.
>>>> Please try again". Come on Microsoft is that really inappropriate?
>>>> Maybe only to you guys."
>>>
>>> Using the word "linux" in any system run by or for Microsoft is
>>> blatant obscenity. They'll have the NetKops on you next!
>>>
>>
>> The Keystone NetKops? :-)
>>
>> Oh, the horror.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Kops
>
> Don't forget Yahoo.
>
> http://slated.org/yahoo_censoring_open_source
>
> Oh, 54,000 pageviews for [H]omer's analysis. Job well done..
>
A case could be made -- a very very weak, fragile case
that a butterfly wing's breeze could push over -- that
she violated paragraph 6g of
http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/utos-173.html
but one has to ask some fairly obvious questions as
to what the boundary lines are; after all, were I to
recommend Gentoo (www.gentoo.org) on a similar forum,
would it be advertising? Ubuntu is a for-profit, Gentoo a
foundation. Is it OK to recommend Debian but not Red Hat?
How about Fedora, openSuSE, HP/UX, or Solaris? (Well, OK,
the last two aren't even in the right ballpark, generally,
although someone might be contemplating a port of the one,
and the other has an x86 variant mouldering somewhere.)
And of course one might ask similar questions regarding
Yahoo!, or Google, or Microsoft.
Unless the Government has been stupid enough to designate
Canonical Ltd (Ubuntu's commercial sponsor) as some sort of
terrorist group. Highly unlikely, even with the present
Administration. Of course, some Microsoft sales execs
might be very scared of Ubuntu right about now...
And how does one differentiate between a product one is
oneself using (which Amanda presumably is) on a daily
basis, versus a distro one has a little familiarity with,
versus a product one's hawking just because someone else
"offscreen" said "Here, sell this; it's great for the
image"?
http://answers.yahoo.com/info/community_guidelines.php
also suggests in Don't Number 3 that someone might have
thought Ubuntu vulgar. The "human ring" logo has the
potential to show some cleavage, but that's about it --
and the Ubuntu front page shows 4 heads in a row instead,
anyway. (Attached to 4 fully clothed torsos, of course.
Hallowe'en is coming, but it's still almost 2 months away.)
It is also remotely possible that someone couldn't read
(Don't Number 19). Duh, yeah, we need to, uh, post in
words of 1 syllable or less to ensure that, erm, the
censors can read it. Duh.
I don't know how intelligent Mack Sennet's stuff was
(though I get the feeling they're not discussing nuclear
physics), but one wonders about *this* stuff.
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Never argue with a wordsmith,
as it annoys the words no end.
Linux. Because it's there and it works.
Windows. It's there, but does it work?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
