"Linonut" wrote in message
news:rr8dj.53896$L%6.12109@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft.html
>
> Secrecy and patents do threaten free software. They have obstructed
> us greatly in the past, and we must expect they will do so even more
> in the future. But this is no different from what was going to happen
> even if Microsoft had never noticed us. The only real significance of
> the 'Halloween documents' is that Microsoft seems to think
> that the GNU/Linux system has the potential for great success.
>
> Thank you, Microsoft, and please get out of the way.


I see that the author is so proud of his work that the coward wouldn't even
put his name on this crap. My guess is that calling successful
multi-national companies "Satan" works well to wind up those who already
drank the kool-aid but it doesn't do much to convert normal people who don't
take such radical positions.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:26:11 -0500, Dusty Hendrix wrote:

> "Linonut" wrote in message
> news:rr8dj.53896$L%6.12109@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft.html
>>
>> Secrecy and patents do threaten free software. They have obstructed
>> us greatly in the past, and we must expect they will do so even more
>> in the future. But this is no different from what was going to happen
>> even if Microsoft had never noticed us. The only real significance of
>> the 'Halloween documents' is that Microsoft seems to think that the
>> GNU/Linux system has the potential for great success.
>>
>> Thank you, Microsoft, and please get out of the way.
>
>
> I see that the author is so proud of his work that the coward wouldn't
> even put his name on this crap. My guess is that calling successful
> multi-national companies "Satan" works well to wind up those who already
> drank the kool-aid but it doesn't do much to convert normal people who
> don't take such radical positions.

Actually, he is calling a company that has violated anti-competition laws
on a least 2 continents, and used every means fair or foul to stifle
competition Satan.

--
Rick

* Dusty Hendrix fired off this tart reply:

> "Linonut" wrote in message
> news:rr8dj.53896$L%6.12109@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft.html
>>
>> Secrecy and patents do threaten free software. They have obstructed
>> us greatly in the past, and we must expect they will do so even more
>> in the future. But this is no different from what was going to happen
>> even if Microsoft had never noticed us. The only real significance of
>> the 'Halloween documents' is that Microsoft seems to think
>> that the GNU/Linux system has the potential for great success.
>>
>> Thank you, Microsoft, and please get out of the way.
>
> I see that the author is so proud of his work that the coward wouldn't even
> put his name on this crap. My guess is that calling successful
> multi-national companies "Satan" works well to wind up those who already
> drank the kool-aid but it doesn't do much to convert normal people who don't
> take such radical positions.

Didn't read the full article, did you? And, if you did, you didn't
understand it, did you?

Maybe your mind is a bit "dusty", Dusty?

--
Tux rox!

* Rick fired off this tart reply:

> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:26:11 -0500, Dusty Hendrix wrote:
>
>>> Thank you, Microsoft, and please get out of the way.
>>
>> I see that the author is so proud of his work that the coward wouldn't
>> even put his name on this crap. ...
>
> Actually, he is calling a company that has violated anti-competition laws
> on a least 2 continents, and used every means fair or foul to stifle
> competition Satan.

You misunderstood it, too, Rick.

--
Tux rox!

"Linonut" wrote in message
news:lP8dj.53999$L%6.15154@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>* Dusty Hendrix fired off this tart reply:
>
>> "Linonut" wrote in message
>> news:rr8dj.53896$L%6.12109@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft.html
>>>
>>> Secrecy and patents do threaten free software. They have obstructed
>>> us greatly in the past, and we must expect they will do so even more
>>> in the future. But this is no different from what was going to happen
>>> even if Microsoft had never noticed us. The only real significance of
>>> the 'Halloween documents' is that Microsoft seems to think
>>> that the GNU/Linux system has the potential for great success.
>>>
>>> Thank you, Microsoft, and please get out of the way.
>>
>> I see that the author is so proud of his work that the coward wouldn't
>> even
>> put his name on this crap. My guess is that calling successful
>> multi-national companies "Satan" works well to wind up those who already
>> drank the kool-aid but it doesn't do much to convert normal people who
>> don't
>> take such radical positions.
>
> Didn't read the full article, did you? And, if you did, you didn't
> understand it, did you?
I did read it this time. But my point remains that if you begin an article
with "Is Microsoft the Great Satan" then most people won't bother to read it
because of the assumption (right or wrong) that it's some radical
pro-freedom anti-establishment article. And the author still hasn't fessed
up to what his name is.

> Maybe your mind is a bit "dusty", Dusty?
Perhaps a bit "rusty" this early in the morning.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

____/ Rick on Friday 28 December 2007 15:39 : \____

> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:26:11 -0500, Dusty Hendrix wrote:
>
>> "Linonut" wrote in message
>> news:rr8dj.53896$L%6.12109@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft.html
>>>
>>> Secrecy and patents do threaten free software. They have obstructed
>>> us greatly in the past, and we must expect they will do so even more
>>> in the future. But this is no different from what was going to happen
>>> even if Microsoft had never noticed us. The only real significance of
>>> the 'Halloween documents' is that Microsoft seems to think that the
>>> GNU/Linux system has the potential for great success.
>>>
>>> Thank you, Microsoft, and please get out of the way.
>>
>>
>> I see that the author is so proud of his work that the coward wouldn't
>> even put his name on this crap. My guess is that calling successful
>> multi-national companies "Satan" works well to wind up those who already
>> drank the kool-aid but it doesn't do much to convert normal people who
>> don't take such radical positions.
>
> Actually, he is calling a company that has violated anti-competition laws
> on a least 2 continents, and used every means fair or foul to stifle
> competition Satan.

It's not a company, it's an authority. Who do you think runs the government?

--
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | /earth: file system full
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Cpu(s): 25.1%us, 4.1%sy, 1.0%ni, 65.7%id, 3.7%wa, 0.3%hi, 0.1%si, 0.0%st
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:49:06 -0500, Linonut wrote:

> * Rick fired off this tart reply:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:26:11 -0500, Dusty Hendrix wrote:
>>
>>>> Thank you, Microsoft, and please get out of the way.
>>>
>>> I see that the author is so proud of his work that the coward wouldn't
>>> even put his name on this crap. ...
>>
>> Actually, he is calling a company that has violated anti-competition
>> laws on a least 2 continents, and used every means fair or foul to
>> stifle competition Satan.
>
> You misunderstood it, too, Rick.

Possibly, still Microsoft did what I said :-)

--
Rick

* Dusty Hendrix fired off this tart reply:

> And the author still hasn't fessed up to what his name is.

The "author" is the FSF.

--
Tux rox!

* Roy Schestowitz fired off this tart reply:

> ____/ Rick on Friday 28 December 2007 15:39 : \____
>
>> Actually, he is calling a company that has violated anti-competition laws
>> on a least 2 continents, and used every means fair or foul to stifle
>> competition Satan.
>
> It's not a company, it's an authority. Who do you think runs the government?

Microsoft doesn't run the government. They just run the antitrust,
standards, and procurement divisions.

--
Tux rox!

____/ Linonut on Friday 28 December 2007 16:45 : \____

> * Roy Schestowitz fired off this tart reply:
>
>> ____/ Rick on Friday 28 December 2007 15:39 : \____
>>
>>> Actually, he is calling a company that has violated anti-competition laws
>>> on a least 2 continents, and used every means fair or foul to stifle
>>> competition Satan.
>>
>> It's not a company, it's an authority. Who do you think runs the government?
>
> Microsoft doesn't run the government. They just run the antitrust,
> standards, and procurement divisions.

Well, for the record, Mrs. Gates is with Bilderberg.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLtETeooWds

--
~~ Best of wishes

Beware the Windows box spewage (more commonly known as "spam")
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 120 total, 1 running, 119 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine

"Linonut" wrote in message
news:lP8dj.53999$L%6.15154@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>
> Didn't read the full article, did you? And, if you did, you didn't
> understand it, did you?
>
Not much there to understand. Presumably it is Stallman or a clone
re-iterating that all commercial software is evil. He is a nut, of course,
and not to be taken seriously. I really wonder how many people actually
believe that a person who thinks up a nifty idea that can benefit many
people is not deserving of great rewards. Stallman for one, but who else?

Many more people resent Microsoft because Gates and some others have gotten
wealthy beyond any real measure and thousands more have become independent
for life from what is today not so hard to replicate. They seem to see that
as wasteful or as a blot on the conservationist landscape. If Microsoft is
the epitome for this kind of grand scale success, all the others are seen as
heros by comparison.

However, there a number of others in the non-Microsoft areas of the computer
business have gotten as wealthy in the same way. Even your hero
Shuttleworth made his pile selling baubles to the simpletons and isn't even
giving much of it back compared to, say, Gates. He paid more to take a
rocket ride for himself than he has apparently paid for distributing Ubuntu,
if your own figures can be believed. So why don't people resent them as
well?

I think that the answer lies in the appeal that being a contrarian has
always had for the techie crowd. The stereotype gearhead is always finding
something amiss with what the regular people are doing and is seen to be
busy at creating a private workaround that amazes all his friends. There
are kiddy cartoon series on the cable channels that have institutionalized
this concept. Where the person has substituted technical interest for more
common social behavior, this affectation persists into adulthood and perhaps
even to the grave. With this kind of attitude it is easy to see why people
focus on the leader of the pack, which is Microsoft.

micoshaft corporation's asstroturfer amicus_curious berger wrote on behalf
of micoshaft corporation:

>
> "Linonut" wrote in message
> news:lP8dj.53999$L%6.15154@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>>
>> Didn't read the full article, did you? And, if you did, you didn't
>> understand it, did you?
>>
> Not much there to understand. Presumably it is Stallman or a clone
> re-iterating that all commercial software is evil. He is a nut, of
> course,
> and not to be taken seriously.

So what are you saying. You are not a nut and and should be
taken seriously?


> I really wonder how many people actually
> believe that a person who thinks up a nifty idea that can benefit many
> people is not deserving of great rewards. Stallman for one, but who else?


Stallmann and the open source community now ship around 1 million+
Linux desktops per month and at least 1 million Linux devices per day.

>
> I see that the author is so proud of his work that the coward wouldn't even
> put his name on this crap.

Dear Coward,

Yes, "COWARD". That's the word you used to describe someone who won't
put his name on it, wasn't it, Dusty? Or is it Capt. Morgan, or is it
Judge Dredd or Keith Windsor this time? Or choose any name you like:

Adam Baum, Antonio Murphy, Barb Dwyer, Bruce Banner, Capt. James Pike,
Capt. Morgan, Captain Commando, Colonel Ichabod Conk, Cpl Kronk, Dan
D. Lyons, Dr. Disco, Dr. Fafoofnik, Dr. Feelgood, Dr Gang Green,
Dr. GroundAxe, Dr. Hungwell, Dr. Hurt, Dr. Livingston,
Dr. McGillicudy, Dr. Pain, Dr. Seymour Butts, Dr. Shlongwell,
Dr.Smooth, Dr. Zhivago, Dusty Hendrix, Enzyte Bob, Geppetto Olivio,
Gordon Glover, Jeremy Wembley, Judge Dredd, Keith Windsor, Lintard
Luser, Lt. Stardust, Mindy Cohen impersonator, Mr. Doug Hoel, Mr. X,
Ms. Polly Ester, Ofc. Michael Clayton, Professor Dungby, Randy Oaks,
Reggie Nolad, SgtMajor Gansevoort, Sgt. Wannacker, Simon Templar, Sir
Michael Clayton, Sophie McDowell, Sue Romer, Troy McClure, Walter
Smeddler, Warren Piece, Zumwalt Humphry????

Trying to make it look like there are lots of people out there with
your sick inclinations? That's a form of lying, isn't it? Let's
tally it up: COWARD, LIAR.

One thing you're good at is accusing people of things you yourself are
guilty of. You love to hit HPT for nymshifting, don't you? It's a
real pattern. Makes it interesting when you accuse Roy Schestowitz of
being paid for his efforts. We could add HYPOCRITE to the list, but
it's too mild for what you do.

* amicus_curious fired off this tart reply:

>
> "Linonut" wrote in message
> news:lP8dj.53999$L%6.15154@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>>
>> Didn't read the full article, did you? And, if you did, you didn't
>> understand it, did you?
>>
> Not much there to understand. Presumably it is Stallman or a clone
> re-iterating that all commercial software is evil. He is a nut, of course,
> and not to be taken seriously. I really wonder how many people actually
> believe that a person who thinks up a nifty idea that can benefit many
> people is not deserving of great rewards. Stallman for one, but who else?

Actually, Stallman simply believes that a nifty idea should be shared,
not used as an income-extraction tool.

> However, there a number of others in the non-Microsoft areas of the computer
> business have gotten as wealthy in the same way. Even your hero
> Shuttleworth made his pile selling baubles to the simpletons and isn't even
> giving much of it back compared to, say, Gates. He paid more to take a
> rocket ride for himself than he has apparently paid for distributing Ubuntu,
> if your own figures can be believed. So why don't people resent them as
> well?

You really believe in going far afield.

In any case, let me think. One guy ruthlessly quashes competing
businesses by finding loopholes in agreements, adding apparently
innocuous terms at the last minutes, violating non-disclosure
agreements, and using privileged information to develop competing
product.

The other guy ships free software CDs when asked, and provides a fairly
well-maintained Linux distribution.

My feeling is that you ask your question out of some serious
misapprehension concerning ethical behavior.

> I think that the answer lies in the appeal that being a contrarian has
> always had for the techie crowd. The stereotype gearhead is always finding
> something amiss with what the regular people are doing and is seen to be
> busy at creating a private workaround that amazes all his friends. There
> are kiddy cartoon series on the cable channels that have institutionalized
> this concept. Where the person has substituted technical interest for more
> common social behavior, this affectation persists into adulthood and perhaps
> even to the grave. With this kind of attitude it is easy to see why people
> focus on the leader of the pack, which is Microsoft.

I believe what you say above has some merit. However, it leaves out
consideration of the scumbag nature of some of Microsoft's business
behavior. Perhaps as important is Microsoft's attempts to supplant
well-known conventions and protocols, somewhat gratuitously.

To put it succintly, Microsoft deserves a fair amount of the contumely
it attracts.

--
Tux rox!

Linonut wrote:
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft.html
>
> Secrecy and patents do threaten free software. They have obstructed
> us greatly in the past, and we must expect they will do so even more
> in the future. But this is no different from what was going to
> happen even if Microsoft had never noticed us. The only real
> significance of the 'Halloween documents' is that Microsoft seems
> to think that the GNU/Linux system has the potential for great
> success.
>
> Thank you, Microsoft, and please get out of the way.

Get out of the way so we 'free software' tightwads can freely copy everyone
else's good ideas because we have absolutely none of our own.

What utter idiots. Users have no more right to software 'freedoms' (view
source, copy, modify, distribute) than they have a right to know the secret
formula for Coca-Cola.

If any of you cola bozos - that means you too Linonut - gave two ****s about
'free software' you wouldn't be developing proprietary systems by day and
whining about MS by night.

Thank you, Microsoft, for your incredibly good software.

"Linonut" wrote in message
news:%wedj.54401$L%6.42926@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>* amicus_curious fired off this tart reply:
>
>>
>> "Linonut" wrote in message
>> news:lP8dj.53999$L%6.15154@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>>>
>>> Didn't read the full article, did you? And, if you did, you didn't
>>> understand it, did you?
>>>
>> Not much there to understand. Presumably it is Stallman or a clone
>> re-iterating that all commercial software is evil. He is a nut, of
>> course,
>> and not to be taken seriously. I really wonder how many people actually
>> believe that a person who thinks up a nifty idea that can benefit many
>> people is not deserving of great rewards. Stallman for one, but who
>> else?
>
> Actually, Stallman simply believes that a nifty idea should be shared,
> not used as an income-extraction tool.
>
Oh he seems to go beyond "should be" by a lot. More like "must be".

>> However, there a number of others in the non-Microsoft areas of the
>> computer
>> business have gotten as wealthy in the same way. Even your hero
>> Shuttleworth made his pile selling baubles to the simpletons and isn't
>> even
>> giving much of it back compared to, say, Gates. He paid more to take a
>> rocket ride for himself than he has apparently paid for distributing
>> Ubuntu,
>> if your own figures can be believed. So why don't people resent them as
>> well?
>
> You really believe in going far afield.
>
> In any case, let me think. One guy ruthlessly quashes competing
> businesses by finding loopholes in agreements, adding apparently
> innocuous terms at the last minutes, violating non-disclosure
> agreements, and using privileged information to develop competing
> product.
>
> The other guy ships free software CDs when asked, and provides a fairly
> well-maintained Linux distribution.
>
> My feeling is that you ask your question out of some serious
> misapprehension concerning ethical behavior.
>
My feeling is that you are blinded by the light. Microsoft has not been
particularly ruthless in any regard. Gates has donated a much higher
percentage of his net worth to charities than Shuttleworth. What is the
history of Shuttleworth's original company anyway? Did he produce anything
with a fair value? Did he have investors? Whatever happened to his
business?

>> I think that the answer lies in the appeal that being a contrarian has
>> always had for the techie crowd. The stereotype gearhead is always
>> finding
>> something amiss with what the regular people are doing and is seen to be
>> busy at creating a private workaround that amazes all his friends. There
>> are kiddy cartoon series on the cable channels that have
>> institutionalized
>> this concept. Where the person has substituted technical interest for
>> more
>> common social behavior, this affectation persists into adulthood and
>> perhaps
>> even to the grave. With this kind of attitude it is easy to see why
>> people
>> focus on the leader of the pack, which is Microsoft.
>
> I believe what you say above has some merit. However, it leaves out
> consideration of the scumbag nature of some of Microsoft's business
> behavior. Perhaps as important is Microsoft's attempts to supplant
> well-known conventions and protocols, somewhat gratuitously.
>
> To put it succintly, Microsoft deserves a fair amount of the contumely
> it attracts.
>
I don't think that is particularly true, the more so since you do not have
even a hint of any instance of this. Granted that Microsoft has been very
insistent in how its brand is presented to the world in exchange for price
considerations extended to OEMs, and those practices were certainly designed
to protect its business in exchange for some reduced profits, but doing that
was not illegal at the time and is a fairly common practice in all mass
markets. If Kroger tries to put Procter and Gamble products on less desired
shelf levels or shorts them on overall space, they will hear from their
account rep very quickly. It is a business distribution partnership method
that has been effective long before PCs were invented. Whatever constraints
are placed on that conduct due to monopoly concerns have been followed as
ordered for quite some time now.

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:51:25 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:

> "Linonut" wrote in message
> news:%wedj.54401$L%6.42926@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..

>>* amicus_curious fired off this tart reply:

> Gates has donated a much higher percentage of his net worth to
> charities than Shuttleworth.

And you know this for a fact do you, as opposed to having pulled it out
of your ass?


> What is the history of Shuttleworth's original company anyway? Did he
> produce anything with a fair value? Did he have investors? Whatever
> happened to his business?

He founded Thawte, one of the original companies selling trusted SSL
certificates for web commerce. He sold the company to Verisign in 1999.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thawte

I understand that your schtick is a kind of know-nothingness, but you
really ought to make some attempt to know what the hell you're talking
about.


--
-| Bob Hauck
-| "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
-| http://www.haucks.org/

* Bob Hauck fired off this tart reply:

> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:51:25 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> What is the history of Shuttleworth's original company anyway? Did he
>> produce anything with a fair value? Did he have investors? Whatever
>> happened to his business?
>
> He founded Thawte, one of the original companies selling trusted SSL
> certificates for web commerce. He sold the company to Verisign in 1999.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thawte
>
> I understand that your schtick is a kind of know-nothingness, but you
> really ought to make some attempt to know what the hell you're talking
> about.

amicuss's schtick is to see how much "debate" he can manufacture out of
nothingness.

--
Tux rox!

* DFS fired off this tart reply:

> Get out of the way so we 'free software' tightwads can freely copy everyone
> else's good ideas because we have absolutely none of our own.
>
> What utter idiots. Users have no more right to software 'freedoms' (view
> source, copy, modify, distribute) than they have a right to know the secret
> formula for Coca-Cola.
>
> If any of you cola bozos - that means you too Linonut - gave two ****s about
> 'free software' you wouldn't be developing proprietary systems by day and
> whining about MS by night.
>
> Thank you, Microsoft, for your incredibly good software.

DFS -- Drone For Softee.

--
Tux rox!