Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:
>> Dopez99 wrote:
>>> Homer <usenet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
>>>> I refuse to have anything to do with it, because it is tainted
>>>> by those corporate gangsters from Redmond.
>>>
>>> Thanks for confirming COLA users like yourself
I don't speak for "COLA users" (whatever that's supposed to mean), I
speak only for myself.
>>> don't love Linux
Correct. I don't particularly "love Linux".
For one thing, it'd be quite unnatural to experience something as
profoundly emotive as "love" for an insentient thing like an operating
system kernel. How would this kernel reciprocate?
Certainly I /like/ Linux, and there is much to commend it. It's highly
feature complete, extremely well maintained, has a huge developer base,
is very secure, and supports an incredible array of standards, including
filesystems and CPU architectures. Best of all though, it's Free Software.
But there are also aspects of Linux that I really don't like, such as
the fact that it's monolithic, that its creator has a far too pragmatic
viewpoint, that it isn't licensed under version 3 of the GPL, that its
development tends to favour enterprise needs more than desktop users,
and worst of all that (despite its supposedly "Free" status) it is
riddled with binary blobs (e.g. microcode), thus necessitating projects
like linux-libre.
Overall, I'd have to say I prefer the Amiga Exec over Linux (from a
technical perspective), even though it has almost none of Linux's very
useful features (virtual memory, memory protection, or any security
features whatsoever), but it was (is) incredibly fast. Unfortunately
Amiga Exec is almost entirely unsuitable for modern day computing, but I
think there is still a place in the world for ultra-lightweight kernels,
for certain tasks.
>>> and non-MSFT technologies
Is there some particular reason I should be obligated to like "MSFT
technologies" (whatever that is - do ticker symbols produce technologies)?
> for their merits
Political dissent against Microsoft is not mutually exclusive with
technical criticism against their software. In my case, I also happen to
believe their software is a steaming pile of shit ... it's just that
this isn't my primary motive for opposing Microsoft.
> but because they hate MSFT.
Again, "hate" is an unnatural reaction to an insentient thing,
especially hate directed towards a stock ticker symbol. I don't "hate" a
stock ticker symbol, or even a piece of paper featuring the word
"incorporated". What I /hate/ is the kind of /people/ who would sabotage
charities, and run a racketeering operation to suppress competition. I
don't believe it's particularly irrational to hate gangsters, do you?
> You are a dumbshit, Dopez. This is not about "loving" Linux or
> "hating" Micro$oft.
>
> This is about freedom.
Yes. Microsoft is the biggest threat to computer users' freedom, even
(in fact especially) for those who prefer Free Software, since Free
Software users are those who Microsoft attacks most viciously (their
Nemeses).
> You would have to be a real POS, Dopez, to claim that we are "bad
> people" because we might sacrifice some things, for the sake of
> retaining our freedom.
Freedom is an illusion, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't /strive/ to
be as free as possible, and with totalitarians like Microsoft constantly
attacking our Freedom, that endeavour is a very hard battle indeed.
However, despite the adversity of having to fight Microsoft even for
certain basic rights (e.g. to buy a prebuilt computer /without/ paying
Microsoft for an OS I don't want), I don't feel especially deprived.
What have /I/ sacrificed by choosing GNU/Linux?
Nothing, AFAICT.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "Seek not the favour of the multitude; it is seldom got by honest
| and lawful means. But seek the testimony of few; and number not
| voices, but weigh them." ~ Immanuel Kant
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.26.8-57.fc8
23:35:11 up 85 days, 3:33, 5 users, load average: 0.10, 0.05, 0.01
|
|
