Microsoft to "non-commercial" developers: Would you please work forme for free? - Linux

This is a discussion on Microsoft to "non-commercial" developers: Would you please work forme for free? - Linux ; On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 16:59:05 -0700 (PDT), Ramon F Herrera wrote: > My name happens to be in the thank-you section of several OSS > packages. And you consider this a good thing? -- Moshe Goldfarb Collector of soaps ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 51 of 51

Thread: Microsoft to "non-commercial" developers: Would you please work forme for free?

  1. Re: Microsoft to "non-commercial" developers: Would you please work for me for free?

    On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 16:59:05 -0700 (PDT), Ramon F Herrera wrote:


    > My name happens to be in the thank-you section of several OSS
    > packages.


    And you consider this a good thing?

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  2. Re: Microsoft to "non-commercial" developers: Would you please work for me for free?


    "Steve de Mena" wrote in message
    news:zKqdnSTVgaetdtXVnZ2dnUVZ_tDinZ2d@giganews.com ...
    > Edward Scholl wrote:
    >> On Jun 5, 6:04 pm, Dave Fritzinger wrote:
    >>> On Jun 5, 2:58 pm, Steve de Mena wrote:

    >>
    >>>> Aren't everyone participating in the Olympics "amateurs"? No one
    >>>> seems to whine about calling them that.
    >>> Ever since the '92 Olympics (I believe), professionals were allowed to
    >>> compete in the Olympics, at least in certain sports. Certainly, the US
    >>> Olympic basketball team is almost entirely composed of professionals
    >>> from the NBA (Remember the "Dream Team", with Magic Johnson, Larry
    >>> Bird, etc?). The same holds true of the teams from other countries. I
    >>> believe the Olympic hockey teams are also composed of professionals,
    >>> at least to some extent.

    >>
    >> professionals have been allowed in the olympics since at least the 80s
    >> (with a couple specific exceptions)- it's up to each sports
    >> federation (and each country i believe) to decide if, and how many,
    >> pros they allow. you're thinkin' 92 because that's the first year
    >> professional basketball players were first allowed in, but they were
    >> previously allowed in other sports. before that, there were many
    >> athletes that were basically professionals, in that they were paid to
    >> train full time.

    >
    > Who cares? The point was about "amateurs", and no one looks down at the
    > amateurs (some, most, hardly any at all) in the Olympics because they are
    > not professional.


    I look up to professionals, I look down on amateurs, and I kind of glance
    sidewise at Semi-Pros.


    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  3. Re: Microsoft to "non-commercial" developers: Would you please work for me for free?


    "Huge" wrote in message
    news:g2bti4$48e$3@anubis.demon.co.uk...
    > On 2008-06-05, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >> On Jun 5, 10:48 am, "Ezekiel" wrote:
    >>
    >> > You cross-posting idiot. (Cross-posts removed.)

    >>
    >> I suggest you take it up with Google, which allows me to post to up to
    >> 5 newsgroups. You should also complain to the designers of NNTP and
    >> Usenet in general.

    >
    >
    > http://www.****wit.info/whatis.htm
    >
    > *plonk*


    Hey, this is *HUGE*!


    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  4. Re: Microsoft to "non-commercial" developers: Would you please workfor me for free?

    On Jun 7, 8:13*am, "Ezekiel" wrote:

    > You utterly fail to explain the fact how all of these OSS developers are
    > working for free and get nothing but personal satisfaction for their
    > efforts. Meanwhile IBM, Google and Redhat all make fortunes by exploiting
    > the fruit of their labors while the original developers are often forced to
    > beg for "Paypal donations" on their web page.
    >



    You DO know that Redhat is an OPEN SOURCE company, don't you?
    I.e. your claim that "all" of these "OSS developers" are working for
    free
    is PATENTLY FALSE AND ABSURD.


  5. Re: Microsoft to "non-commercial" developers: Would you please work for me for free?


    "mike3" wrote in message
    news:e3077125-6a29-4bdf-b5ec-7c83bb6577f5@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
    On Jun 7, 8:13 am, "Ezekiel" wrote:

    >> You utterly fail to explain the fact how all of these OSS developers are
    >> working for free and get nothing but personal satisfaction for their
    >> efforts. Meanwhile IBM, Google and Redhat all make fortunes by
    >> exploiting
    >> the fruit of their labors while the original developers are often forced
    >> to
    >> beg for "Paypal donations" on their web page.
    >>

    >
    >
    >You DO know that Redhat is an OPEN SOURCE company, don't you?
    >I.e. your claim that "all" of these "OSS developers" are working for
    >free is PATENTLY FALSE AND ABSURD.
    >


    The only thing patently absurd is your reading comprehension. I *never*
    said that "all OSS developers" work for free. I said "all of these OSS
    developers" that are working for free. There is a difference.

    I realize that linux is probably a religion for you so you are very
    protective with anything OSS. So let me use this in another context so that
    maybe you can understand... "All of these people who drive gigantic SUV's
    are spending a fortune in gas." - See... I never said that "all people
    drive SUV's." My sentence refers to all of the people that do drive SUV's.

    Back to my original sentence. It doesn't say that "all OSS developers work
    for free." It refers specifically to all of the OSS developers that *do*
    work for free. If you still don't understand find somebody who speaks
    English and have them explain it to you.



    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  6. Re: Microsoft to "non-commercial" developers: Would you please workfor me for free?

    On Jun 15, 7:34*am, "Ezekiel" wrote:
    > "mike3" wrote in message
    >
    > news:e3077125-6a29-4bdf-b5ec-7c83bb6577f5@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
    > On Jun 7, 8:13 am, "Ezekiel" wrote:
    >
    >
    > >> You utterly fail to explain the fact how all of these OSS developers are
    > >> working for free and get nothing but personal satisfaction for their
    > >> efforts. Meanwhile IBM, Google and Redhat all make fortunes by
    > >> exploiting
    > >> the fruit of their labors while the original developers are often forced
    > >> to
    > >> beg for "Paypal donations" on their web page.

    >
    > >You DO know that Redhat is an OPEN SOURCE company, don't you?
    > >I.e. your claim that "all" of these "OSS developers" are working for
    > >free is PATENTLY FALSE AND ABSURD.
    > >

    >
    > The only thing patently absurd is your reading comprehension. I *never*
    > said that "all OSS developers" work for free. I said "all of these OSS
    > developers" that are working for free. There is a difference.
    >


    Who are "these" OSS developers, then? I assumed they were the GNU/
    Linux
    OSS developers. Redhat then provides a counterexample to the idea that
    such developers all work for free.

    > I realize that linux is probably a religion for you so you are very
    > protective with anything OSS. So let me use this in another context so that
    > maybe you can understand... "All of these people who drive gigantic SUV's
    > are spending a fortune in gas." - See... I never said that "all people
    > drive SUV's." *My sentence refers to all of the people that do drive SUV's.
    >
    > Back to my original sentence. It doesn't say that "all OSS developers work
    > for free." It refers specifically to all of the OSS developers that *do*
    > work for free.


    You didn't say "all of these OSS developers *who* are working for
    free", you
    just said "You utterly fail to explain the fact how all of these OSS
    developers
    are working for free and get nothing but personal satisfaction for
    their efforts."


  7. Re: Microsoft to "non-commercial" developers: Would you please work for me for free?


    "mike3" wrote in message
    news:3def79a8-350e-45d4-96c7-eab7d202f147@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
    On Jun 15, 7:34 am, "Ezekiel" wrote:
    > "mike3" wrote in message
    >
    > news:e3077125-6a29-4bdf-b5ec-7c83bb6577f5@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
    > On Jun 7, 8:13 am, "Ezekiel" wrote:
    >
    >
    > >> You utterly fail to explain the fact how all of these OSS developers
    > >> are
    > >> working for free and get nothing but personal satisfaction for their
    > >> efforts. Meanwhile IBM, Google and Redhat all make fortunes by
    > >> exploiting
    > >> the fruit of their labors while the original developers are often
    > >> forced
    > >> to
    > >> beg for "Paypal donations" on their web page.

    >
    > >You DO know that Redhat is an OPEN SOURCE company, don't you?
    > >I.e. your claim that "all" of these "OSS developers" are working for
    > >free is PATENTLY FALSE AND ABSURD.
    > >

    >
    > The only thing patently absurd is your reading comprehension. I *never*
    > said that "all OSS developers" work for free. I said "all of these OSS
    > developers" that are working for free. There is a difference.
    >


    Who are "these" OSS developers, then? I assumed they were the GNU/
    Linux
    OSS developers. Redhat then provides a counterexample to the idea that
    such developers all work for free.

    > I realize that linux is probably a religion for you so you are very
    > protective with anything OSS. So let me use this in another context so
    > that
    > maybe you can understand... "All of these people who drive gigantic SUV's
    > are spending a fortune in gas." - See... I never said that "all people
    > drive SUV's." My sentence refers to all of the people that do drive SUV's.
    >
    > Back to my original sentence. It doesn't say that "all OSS developers work
    > for free." It refers specifically to all of the OSS developers that *do*
    > work for free.


    -You didn't say "all of these OSS developers *who* are working for
    -free", you
    -just said "You utterly fail to explain the fact how all of these OSS
    -developers
    -are working for free and get nothing but personal satisfaction for
    -their efforts."



    Somehow everyone else was able to comprehend what I wrote and meant. Seems
    that you're the only one that's more concerned with symantics than the
    substance of the post.

    I know what I wrote and I know what I said. If you're not capable of
    understanding it then that's too bad.



    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  8. Re: Microsoft to "non-commercial" developers: Would you please work for me for free?

    Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > On Jun 6, 7:45 pm, "Ezekiel" wrote:


    >> Sounds like a very accurate description of the majority of the FOSS
    >> developers. They do the work... mostly for free.


    As the results clearly show.

    Only a real brainless chump would spend months and years of his life to
    develop a GPL package, then let a RedHat or Novell package his work and sell
    (excuse me, license) it so the CEO can meet his compensation goal of $X
    millions, and the members of the Board of Directors can pull down $200,000+
    for a part-time job.

    http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_.../FY07Proxy.pdf




    > Linux is *mine*, Firefox is *mine*, the FSF is *mine*, Java is *mine*,
    > Apache is *mine*, etc.


    If they're your's, you can do with them as you wish. So see what happens
    when you slap a new name on them and sell them (or try to give them away).

    Thought so, freetard.



    > My name happens to be in the thank-you section of several OSS
    > packages.


    What was your exact contribution?



    > I will help build a bridge or a barn (like the Amish) or
    > whatever when it benefits the whole town.


    Who cares? The whole town uses the bridges and barns they paid for. Your
    leaky, rattly, ugly bridges and barns sit there all alone, waiting for the
    government to condemn them for shoddy materials and workmanship.



    > You clowns cannot make a single statement, filling the blank:
    >
    > " is mine"


    huh? Every bit of code I write is mine.



    > Because not even your personality, let alone dignity belongs to you.


    Signed, Ramon
    Lifelong Windows User
    Typing From Windows As We Speak
    Pretend Linux Advocate
    Extreme Hypocrite And Proud Linux Liar




  9. Re: Microsoft to "non-commercial" developers: Would you please workfor me for free?

    Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > On Jun 5, 11:28 am, "Ezekiel" wrote:
    >> Not illegal but that doesn't give you the right to post your anti-MS spam to every newsgroup in the world.
    >> You don't post **** to every group under the sun just because you can.

    >
    > But back to the point. What was the point? Oh, yes: So many years in
    > Usenet and it is only now I find out that it is composed by 3
    > newsgroups only! Ezekiel just discovered (invented?) it.



    Lol I also like Ezekial berating you for posting anti-MS spam given his
    record for posting anti-linux spam in cola. Pots and kettles spring
    instantly to mind.

  10. Re: Microsoft to "non-commercial" developers: Would you please work for me for free?

    Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    > He's just another nut that got loose from the Linux can.


    This particular Ramon freetard is a real dumbass.

    Left side of his mouth: "Windows users have no personality or dignity"
    Right side of his mouth: "We OSS users can hold any opinion and use any
    operating system"

    Of course he posts all his idiocy from Windows.




  11. Re: Microsoft to "non-commercial" developers: Would you please work for me for free?

    * DFS peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Of course he posts all his idiocy from Windows.


    Bwahahahahaha!

    --
    Understand that this is the last physical format there will ever be.
    -- Bill Gates, On Blu-ray. interview The Daily Princetonian (14 Oct 2005)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3