On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 10:27:59 +0200, above the shrieking, FUDding & whining
of the trolls Richard Rasker was heard to say:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Homer <usenet@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Peter Köhlmann spake thusly:
>>>
>>>>> Or that tight arsed free loaders should get other peoples efforts for
>>>>> free when those people are professionals trying to earn money from
>>>>> their efforts.
>>>>
>>>> Like MS?
>>>
>>> Yes, where did MS get their TCP/IP stack from again?
>>>
>>> Of course, that's just the tip of the iceberg.
>>>
>>> How about their first (and every subsequent) Windows UI?
>>>
>>> Let's not forget Billy Gates' dumpster diving for /other people's/
>>> "IP". Did he ever compensate those people for "all their hard work", I
>>> wonder?
>>>
>>> In fact, Gates' whole rotten empire is founded on the work of /others'/
>>> that he embraced, extended and extinguished over the years, resulting
>>> in one big plagiarised portfolio. But then we're not allowed to talk
>>> about that, because that'd upset Microsoft's biggest fan, Hardon (or
>>> actually the second biggest, after Miguel de Icaza).
>>
>> Huh? I am certainly no MS fan.
Hardon Quack, not a M$ fan? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
Maybe he didn't mean these quotes then:
<quote>
You disappoint me. Up until now I didn't realise you really were "anti
Windows".
<unquote>
Hadron - Message-ID: <fr2ip5$j61$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<quote>
Anyone who says Open Office is as
good as MS Office is living in denial.
<unquote>
Hadron Quark - Message-ID: <87wsxqrjmz.fsf@xxxxxxxxx>
<quote>
The great majority of Windows application SW
is eons better than it's OSS copy or alternative.
<unquote>
Hadron - Message-ID: <fkga6j$ure$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<quote>
I see no illegally maintained monopoly.
<unquote>
Hadron - Message-ID: <fk8pu0$ovj$5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<quote>
What specifically was wrong with XP? I used it for development for years
and never experienced the BSODs the liars in this group claim. Was it
perfect? No. Did it work well? Yes, most certainly.
<unquote>
From: Hadron Quark <hadronquark@xxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <87ir9p5p4u.fsf@xxxxxxxxx>
And so on, & so on....
>> But interestingly I wonder what this hypocritical thinks of Ubuntu or
>> Red Hat or .... <insert hundreds of companies who make money from
>> others peoples work>.
>
> As a rule, I don't like to get personal, but /you/ were the one kicking
> off this "freeloader" rant, after my observation that both the media mafia
> and quite a few artists continuously try pushing the boundaries of
> copyright law, for their own profit exclusively. It's not that these
> people should not be rewarded for their work and creativity -- for a long
> time already, copyright law has seen to it that they can reap the benefits
> of their achievements.
> What I find repulsive, however, is that they never appear to be satisfied
> with the rights they have -- all the time, they want more. More money,
> more control.
> The result is that quite a lot of great works of art are behind lock and
> keys, and can't be made public in any meaningful way, because the
> copyright owners refuse to re-release it, but won't give up their rights
> to it either.
> Or this appalling situation where making a documentary of our current life
> and culture is akin to taking a swim in a crocodile pond -- because it
> would inevitably contain lots of cultural icons and fragments of
> copyrighted work, the owners of which (usually the media mafia) either
> demand ludicrous fees for its inclusion, or refuse to co-operate
> altogether. This, of course is exactly what they want: ownership of our
> culture as a whole -- a cultural heritage which is artificially made both
> scarce and volatile, and can only be experienced by paying a select group
> of people time and again.
>
> In reality, lots of people make their living by building on or simply
> using other people's work. In most cases (e.g. technology), this is
> completely inevitable. Sure, it's no more than fair that these people
> should get a reward for their original work; but it's also fair that a
> particular work reverts to the public domain after a reasonable time. And
> "the artist's life plus ninety-five years" (for the media mafia) is *not*
> a "reasonable time, in my opinion. It doesn't offer substantially more
> benefits to the rights holder than, say, simply "the artist's life" (I
> recall that well over 90% of total profits are made in the first few years
> following the release of a work), whereas the general public is denied
> access to this work for a long, long time.
>
> Richard Rasker
--
Debian/Ubuntu are a pain in the hole - you need to recompile the latest
NVidia drivers using a set version of the compiler, for example, when
changing kernels.
Hadron Quark: Message-ID: <c9rks4-gc7.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
