On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:29:55 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>
> <thad05@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:pmrp55-9bv.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> DFS <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> How do you know they weren't purposely leaked?
>>>
>>> You're one of the morons I describe below; you interpret everything so it
>>> reinforces your idiocy and ignorance.
>>
>> That begs the questions, what would MS have to gain in leaking
>> something that reinforces their image as a predatory monopolist
>> that subverts standards? Why would they leak a document that
>> legitimizes open source as a competitive threat when all other
>> efforts have been toward the oposite?
>>
>> Just wondering.
>>
> I think you are grossly overstating the case here. The original document
> was in the form of an email from a low-level employee to a Microsoft upper
> level manager that was a general analysis of the product potential for Linux
> and some relatively unsophisticated evaluation of the business case that he
> author envisioned for Linux as a competing product. How it was received
> within Microsoft and who believed in its contents and who did not is only a
> matter for speculation.
>
> Linux fans suffer from an inherent lack of self-esteem and are constantly
You are a liar.
> faced with a general lack of acceptance of their view of technical
> direction. Whenever any recognition whatsoever comes along, they cherish it
> and fawn over it endlessly. An unlettered fellow like Eric Raymond can be a
'Unlettered?' Are you totally cracked?
> hero by publishing a romantic theory such as the the Cathedral and the
> Bizzare to suggest that contrarian behavior such as Linux and OSS can
> triumph over traditional ways due to this eagerness for any justification
> whatsoever. The Halloween document email is no different.
Bullshit.
>
> There is no manifestation of any evil in a commercial enterprise until some
> action contrary to law has been taken and that has not occurred.
Really? More bullshit.
--
Kier
|
|
