|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] microsoft lost
|
On Wed, 5 Apr 2000, Michael W. Ryan wrote:
>> a.) How is this *not* a political issue?
>
>It's a fucking operating system, not a political party.
Weren't you one of the people asking (telling?) me to watch my language?
Anyhow, I think we're operating from differing definitions of
"politics". I suspect that the definition you were working from
included governmental politics. The definition I was using also
included one's personal politics.
Yes, I am ideological about free (newspeak is Open Source) software.
You are more practical and are teaching me to be more practical as well.
However, I still believe that when there there is a more or less "equal"
choice between free and non-free (again, I am referring to freedom, not
price) software, free software is *inherently* superior *because* you
get the source code and *because* you don't depend on some other
company. If proprietary software fits your needs better (taking into
account budgetary constraints), then by all means, use it. If there is
software available that will perform the same functions, then it is a
better choice. But that's only the ignorant opinion of one user.
>> b.) Why is advocating the use of Free Software in governmment any
>> different than advocating it for personal use?
>
>The thread wasn't about that. It was a paranoid political tirade.
Who would have thought in 1998 when the DMCA was passed that it would
turn out to be so insidious? (And yes, that is my personal opinion and
politics.) If someone had told us back then that what has come to pass
would actually happen, what would we have said about that? Would we
have called *them* paranoid?
Would discussion of the current events surrounding the DMCA and lawsuits
filed by the MPAA be off-topic? These are things that directly affect
the development of free software in the forthcoming century. Today it's
just movies. Tomorrow, it might not be.
The posting which prompted you to say that it should be taken off-list
was borderline paranoia. And paranoia helps keep you on your toes.
(See the second-to-last paragraph.)
I believe that the main trigger point might have been "If people don't
say anything then Microsoft will take over this State and there is no
turning back." This does not mean literally. At this point in time it
is no more likely that Microsoft would be able to actually take over a
government than it would be for them to announce MS-GNU/Linux at 4:30
today. What *is* possible, though, is that the politicians get used to
receiving money from an entity in the state coffers or elsewhere, and it
becomes much easier for them to be favorably inclined to said entity's
position on different issues. If you think it can't happen, just ask
Jack Valenti.
>Nope, I don't really care what you are.
As long as I don't express libertarian views? I quote: "Yes, and I've
had the Libertarian, holier-than-thou agenda shoved down my throat here
enough times, thank you."
>> Users of what?
>
>Linux.
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=facetious ::
facetious \Fa*ce"tious\, a. [Cf. F. fac['e]tieux. See Faceti[ae].]
...
2. Characterized by wit and pleasantry; exciting laughter; as, a
facetious story or reply.
>Because everytime someone suggests moderation of the rabid anti-Microsoft
>(and I mean Microsoft the company) attitude that seems to infect the Linux
>community, they get slapped down.
Because he was theorizing about Microsoft's intent, which *does* affect
Linux now that it is the darling of Wall Street. Microsoft is not the
ideal corporation with perfect intentions. They have performed
blatantly criminal acts. (This is not only my opinion. It is now the
opinion of a federal judge.)
Because you give the appearance (to me, anyway) of wanting every thread
which contains a negative sentiment towards Microsoft
(products||company) to go away.
>And no, the concept is the same. You're expecting me to take action when
>others should show a bit more respect and/or restraint.
And I maintain it is not.
a.) You took action when you posted your request for the discontinuance
of this thread to the list. You could have expended far less effort
than even just the original post by killfiling the thread. (Based on
the number of bytes/keystrokes.)
b.) "Others" do *not* need to perform any action, since the stated
purpose of this list is to discuss topics of interest to members of the
Philadelphia Linux User's Group. I suspect and maintain that the topic
in question *is* of interest to the majority of PLUG members. In all
seriousness, perhaps we should have a general poll to determine exactly
*what* topics are of interest to the majority of the subscribers. Then
the topic can be revised to include only those items. This would have
the advantage of having much less room for doubt.
>> I remind you, this list is for the discussion of things that are of
>> interest to the Philadelphia Linux User's Group.
>
>Can I start discussing why I find the Muromachi period of Japan
>intersting? Where does it stop?
If a topic is of general interest to PLUG members (collectively or
individually), I have no problem with it being discussed on PLUG, up to
and including the Muromachi period of Japan. If this happens, I'll
brush up on procmail recipes.
>Yes, because I, and probably others, find the blantant Microsoft-bashing
>insulting, inappropriate, and, frankly, damaging to Linux.
>
>> >Now, you appear to want to make it personal.
>>
>> I was merely pointing out my own opinion.
>
>No, you made a personal attack. Or do I need to go dig your "emperor's
>clothes" comment in reference to my certifications out of the archive?
I know very well what I said. That comment was a bit over the top, and
I'm sorry. What I was trying to express (albeit not very well) was that
perhaps you are a bit more biased in favor of Microsoft because you pay
money to them in order to maintain acronyms appended to your name. This
is directed towards you, not towards MC-whatever in general, based on
posting behavior I have observed.
>No, actually it makes it easier. Because I've taken time to learn about
>both sides. When I say "this is bad" about Microsoft, I'm actually saying
>it with real world professional knowledge and experience.
Forgive me for being at the start of my computer career.
>Criticism requires knowledge of what you're criticizing. Bashing involves
>spouting off without bothering to learn the facts. I'll cite as an
>example when the Knowledge Base article about removing a Linux partition
>was posted to the list. It was cited as yet more evidence that Microsoft
>hates Linux, when it was plain, practical information on how to do
>something that's not necessarily straight-forward.
The criticism was that the state accepted a hundred grand from a company
who at that time had questionable business practices; the rest was
questioning of said company's intentions.
Actually, I found the KB article amusing. Here's my criticism of it: If
you followed it exactly, step-by-step, (Linux's!) fdisk would complain
about being unable to open device /mbr.
>That's my point. I DON'T view myself as better than the average bear.
>THIS is why I think that the rabid anti-Microsoft attitude in the Linux
>community is damaging.
Could you clarify? I didn't quite understand which part the "this" is
referring to. (No sarcasm intended.)
>My apologies. I didn't mean it personally. The Linux community, through
>the above-mentioned attitude exhibits immaturity.
*That* certainly is better. Hmm... I seem to recall someone else in
this thread using the phrase "holier-than-thou"...
>Yes, it could. Microsoft's two biggest strengths are 1) marketing and 2)
>user interfaces. And just to make this applicable to Linux: the Linux
>community should take a hint from this. While Windows may not be the best
>platform out there, keep in mind that it easily has the majority of the
>market. There's a reason.
I agree WRT MS's strengths. I may need to clarify my earlier statement:
I was referring to the *installed* base on the desktop. Certainly,
MS-Linux could gain Windows' current annual sales (especially if MS quit
selling Windows).
An aside: What was the deal with IRIX? Was Microsoft selling it while
developing NT? Did they continue to sell it after they started
marketing NT, or did they drop it almost immediately? (Granted, not
strictly related to the last paragraph, this was their server OS for a
time.)
>Agreed. Competition is good in the server market, also.
Yes. I neglected to mention the server market, though, because there's
already competition there.
>I don't really view Microsoft's marketing as "religious". They don't try
>to make the competition out as evil or as inherently bad. They stick to
>pointing out how their product is better. The difference is subtle. The
>up-and-coming product needs to approach carefully, or else their
>self-promotion will sound like sour grapes instead of marketing.
I must disagree (though not completely) with you here. As one example,
take the Mindcraft study. This was a very uneven comparison, comparing
NT at its best to a very sub-optimized Linux/Apache installation.
>You are agreeing, though. The purpose of applications and OSes is to get
>work done.
Violent agreement, this is. Two differing approaches/schools of thought
of looking at this that basically boil down to the same thing.
>No, it's when threads degenerate into bashing Microsoft that I step in.
>Keep in mind, I do my own share of criticizing Microsoft. I'll even do it
>in a class. It's part of my job.
Perhaps a more constructive approach would be to counter FUD with
facts? I, for one, would certainly find this interesting.
>In this case, however, it's not just the MS bashing, but the purely
>political nature of the discussion. It wasn't really about Microsoft or
>Linux, but about our state government and how it spends our tax money.
I still disagree with this. I think that that sort of thing is
relevant, as that affects each one of us and the future of computing in
general.
It is my opinion that under this line of thinking, a thread about Gov
Ridge's proposed (not sure it it actually went through or not) proposed
computer "tax holidays" would be off-topic, and I believe that such a
topic would be of general interest to PLUG.
>No, more lists aren't necessary. All that's needed, I think, is for
>people to remember that not everyone has the same philosophy, outlook, or
>opinions, and these should be respected.
I agree with this. I feel, though, that it boils down to some of us
having differing viewpoints about what is of interest to the PLUG
readership (BTW, I don't purport to speak for the group; I'm only
stating what *I think* is of general interest.) and what does or does
not constitute bashing.
Bill
--
"I couldn't give him advice in business and he couldn't give me
advice in technology." --Linus Torvalds, about why he wouldn't
be interested in meeting Bill Gates
Harry Browne for President: http://www.harrybrowne2000.org/
Stop abusive software patents! http://www.noamazon.com/
Visit me at http://www.netaxs.com/~bj/
______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://plug.nothinbut.net
Announcements - http://lists.nothinbut.net/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion - http://lists.nothinbut.net/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|