|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] microsoft lost
|
On Wed, 5 Apr 2000, Bill Jonas wrote:
> Weren't you one of the people asking (telling?) me to watch my language?
If I was involved (I don't remember), it was probably asking. And I have
been; however, restraint only goes so far.
> 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.
Politics are politics. Last time I looked, Linux was an operating system,
not a philosophy.
> 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.
No, Open Source software isn't inherently superior. It has a better
potential to be superior. Crap software is crap software, whether you
have the source code or not. Open Source didn't save Navigator.
> 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.
If it relates to Linux, no. If it doesn't possibly.
> 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.
Please don't try to guess what triggered my request. It's not productive.
> 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."
No, whether or not. I would just prefer that this list not devolve into
political debate.
> 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.
And I'm sure that you'll understand my feeling it necessary to clarify
myself in the face of a personal attack.
> Because you give the appearance (to me, anyway) of wanting every thread
> which contains a negative sentiment towards Microsoft
> (products||company) to go away.
No, check the archives. I've been in DEEP arguments about Microsoft, and
it's taken Chris to say "enough".
> 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.
See my message about advocacy, and keep in mind that those 238 (was that
the number?) subscribers some of them may be new to Linux.
> 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.
Technology is no substitute for manners.
> 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.
Actually, I don't pay anything for them. My company pays for them. My
company, in turn, pays for me to become knowledgable about Microsoft
products. In short, it's my job to say "no, that will cause the
instructor's computer to explode and kill 3 students that may not have
paid yet."
> Forgive me for being at the start of my computer career.
That's easy.
> >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.)
Gladly. I don't think I'm that unusual in being a knowledgable Microsoft
professional. For example, I work with professionals that are experts on
various parts of the Microsoft platforms, and know its strengths and
weaknesses. There are things that they will recommend Microsoft for and
things they'll recommend to avoid. Their thoughts on Linux? Some good
points, some really good potential, but they're put off by the
over-the-top community. You start on how Microsoft is "Evil" or
everything that Microsoft does sucks, or even take an attitude of "my
product is better than your product in EVERY way", you've lost them.
They've been around the block. They know there's not such thing as the
One True System.
> 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.)
I have no idea. You might want to post the question outside this thread,
in case we're being ignored by someone who can answer it.
> 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.
Counter-point: if I recall, on the first go, Red Hat didn't respond. On
the second go around, it was a somewhat fairer test. I think a good
ripost would be for Red Hat, Linuxcare, or some other segment on the Linux
community with the clout, to initiate their own bakeoff.
Also, the Linux community isn't completely righteous here, either. Linux
Magazine ran an item on the Mindscape tests. They made a big deal about
the first test, but just swept the second test under the carpet.
> Perhaps a more constructive approach would be to counter FUD with
> facts? I, for one, would certainly find this interesting.
I don't always have the facts, but I can try.
> 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.
I think the crux of our disagreement is that I'm looking at what I think
the *intent* of the list is, and you're looking at the letter.
> 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.
I think we need to temper "of interest" with "good for Linux".
Michael W. Ryan, MCP, MCT | OTAKON 2000
mryan@netaxs.com | Convention of Otaku Generation
http://www.netaxs.com/~mryan/ | http://www.otakon.com/
PGP fingerprint: 7B E5 75 7F 24 EE 19 35 A5 DF C3 45 27 B5 DB DF
PGP public key available by fingering mryan@unix.netaxs.com (use -l opt)
______________________________________________________________________
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
|
|