____/ Peter Köhlmann on Wednesday 19 September 2007 21:23 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Wednesday 19 September 2007 17:30 : \____
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Wednesday 19 September 2007 10:10 : \____
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Wednesday 19 September 2007 09:10 : \____
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://news.opensuse.org/?p=265
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just another example of the "bad" Novell
>>>>>>>> Right, Roy? Mark?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it wasn't them, it would be someone else (possibly Red Hat).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it *is* them
>>>>>> And they work since *four* *month* with AMD people on this project.
>>>>>> That it is now public has to do with the fact that before disclosing
>>>>>> it they had to clear up technical and legal things
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't simply shrug it off and ascertain that it "would have been
>>>>>> someone else". Because it isn't. And SuSE/Novell have for a long time
>>>>>> worked on X and drivers for it. In fact, a large chunk of the existing
>>>>>> drivers where done by people paid by SuSE
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This just to show that your disqualifying Novell for no good reason is
>>>>>> somewhat dubious. I don't like the attitude of several "advocates" to
>>>>>> partition the linux world
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, it is SuSE partly because AMD has historical reasons for working
>>>>> with them, as SuSE did a lot of the 64bit-implementation for AMD64.
>>>>> Another reason why it is not simply "someone else would have done it"
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is some more background info
>>>>>
>>>>> http://egbert-e.livejournal.com/359.html
>>>>
>>>> Fair point. I would still say that the harms they bring outweigh the
>>>> benefits. There's no doubt about it -- Novell tries to help Linux too,
>>>> but some of the routes it takes are selfish and damaging to Linux /as a
>>>> whole/.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, Roy, *you* (and others) claim that Novell is "damaging linux".
>>> But so far I have seen nothing at all which would substantiate that
>>> claim. Just some wild speculations. Frankly, that is not very convincing
>>
>> There are many ways in which Novell harms Linux and I wrote a lot about
>> it.
>
> Yes. And I found every bit of it as convincing as DFSs idiotic rants. Most
> of it even less convincing, if possible at all. It was nearly as lunatic as
> a "7" post
>
>> I used to like Novell for its relationship with Linux, but its new
>> relationship with Microsoft now seems equally important to them (even if
>> it means hurting Linux for Novell's own, short-term benefit).
>
> You are not privy to their terms with MS. *Everything* you write on those
> terms is simply wild speculation.
>
>> If Novell
>> kills its supplier, it will be left with nothing. It's like selling your
>> mom's blood for profit.
>>
>
> See? You spout some wild speculation. And then you have the nerve to think
> that I should accept that as "evidence" or even as "fact"
>
> No way. I am simply not singleminded enough for that claptrap
I have used literally *thousands* of peripheral citations to support everything
I write in bn.com. It is based on evidence and one just needs to follow the
cross- and external references.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | http://debian.org
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
23:05:07 up 9 days, 21:11, 4 users, load average: 2.83, 2.26, 2.48
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
