Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] (MS)NBC's Reputation Injured After Discriminating Against GNU/Linux

Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

>> What's funny is that if MS released Silverlight for Linux, under a 
>> fully open source license, Schestowitz would be bitching about them
>> trying to infiltrate open source, or something like that.

FSVO: "open source".

You obviously lack any comprehension about why people reject Microsoft's
software ("something like that"). Your obtuseness is shocking, indeed
quite scary, because it suggests there are people in the world who
either still don't understand or don't care about the problem. Such
people are either stupid or malevolent. Which one are you?

> I would buy that, completely.  You can never trust Microsoft to /not/
> change the terms of the license, once they've reeled you in.

Smith is forgetting that all "open source" is not created equal
(politically speaking), and that "open source" does not /necessarily/
mean patent free, or even desirable, for any number of reasons.

If Microsoft were to release Silverlight totally unencumbered by patents
(not just some RAND nonsense), then it might be a viable option for the
Free Software community, although I'd still be wary of the fact that
it's owned and controlled by Microsoft (they could subsequently /change/
the license), and I'd still be disinclined to do anything that supports
a company with such reprehensible business practises.

It continues to amaze me that Microsoft "evangelists" seem incapable of
recognising the inherent malevolence of the company they support, and
therefore become confused when people reject their technology, even if
it might occasionally be technically good - or even free (cost). This
has /nothing/ to do with costs (paraphrased: "Linux users are
cheapskates simply because they refuse to give /Microsoft/ their money"
... how bloody arrogant), or even technical achievements (paraphrased:
"Homer is a hypocrite for praising the technical aspects of .Net, whilst
still criticising Microsoft"), and little even to do with copyrights and
patents. It has /everything/ to do with the *company* behind that
software. Criticising people for disliking a company because it behaves
like gangsters, by claiming they must therefore be "cheapskates", is
gross arrogance and obtuseness in the extreme. Either that or it means
these "critics" are as inherently evil and corrupted as the thugs they
support, and therefore simply don't care about such things.

Has Smith been living in a cave for the last three decades, that he
seems completely ignorant of Microsoft's vile behaviour, or is it that
he actually supports - indeed *reveres* - such behaviour?

It'd be like justifying the presence of a convicted paedophile at a
children's party, handing out free lemonade, on the basis that "the
lemonade is free, after all". I wouldn't give a crap if Microsoft paid
/me/ to use their software, AFAIAC they're little more than gangsters in
suits. I want nothing to do with them. Ever.

>> Schestowitz's position seems to be that Microsoft should not be 
>> allowed to develop anything new.

My position is that Microsoft should not be allowed to exist. Period.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

.----
| By bucking Microsoft for open source, says Gunderloy, "I'm no
| longer contributing to the eventual death of programming."
| ~ http://www.linux.com/feature/142083
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
 20:33:02 up 237 days, 17:08,  4 users,  load average: 1.24, 1.21, 1.18

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index