|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author: [H]omer[H]omer Date: Aug 28, 2007 05:54
Verily I say unto thee, that Richard Rasker spake thusly:
> About #28 (that users don't care if the software is open source or
> closed source): OK, that is a fact -- but users *should* care. A lot
> of the Linux problems he mentions ultimately originate from the
> industry still defaulting to closed source, even where this is
> unnecessary, such as with unavailable WiFi specifications/drivers,
> and proprietary file formats.
This point was the only one I strongly disliked. Like you, I agree that
it's true ... but it shouldn't be. In fact I agreed with pretty much all
his points to some extent, but he clearly has an unhealthy attitude, and
I'm not sure if GNU/Linux will benefit from a influx of people like him.
Like I've said before, if all GNU/Linux is destined to become is just
another Windows, then why bother?
> But for all the rest, I agree that overall, it's a very well-balanced
> piece, with quite accurate observations.
He's made the effort and overcome much of his obvious bias (judging from
previous articles), but I'd say he still has a long way to go before he
"gets it".
|
| Show full article (1.37Kb) |
|
| | 35 Comments |
|
|
Author: HadronHadron Date: Aug 28, 2007 06:16
"[H]omer" uce.gov> writes:
> his points to some extent, but he clearly has an unhealthy attitude, and
> I'm not sure if GNU/Linux will benefit from a influx of people like
> him.
*Ding*
Omer advocacy at it's best again.
"It works for me. Everyone else can just fuck off."
Omer agrees with 29 out of 30 points. But ONE little difference and the author
is labelled as a moron and thicky not welcome into the Linux world.
COLA.
It's where "advocacy" doesn't mean what it says on the tin.
--
"But what we need to know is, do people want nasally-insertable computers?"
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: KierKier Date: Aug 28, 2007 10:03
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 04:54:09 +0100, [H]omer wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Richard Rasker spake thusly:
>
>> About #28 (that users don't care if the software is open source or
>> closed source): OK, that is a fact -- but users *should* care. A lot
>> of the Linux problems he mentions ultimately originate from the
>> industry still defaulting to closed source, even where this is
>> unnecessary, such as with unavailable WiFi specifications/drivers,
>> and proprietary file formats.
>
> This point was the only one I strongly disliked. Like you, I agree that
> it's true ... but it shouldn't be. In fact I agreed with pretty much all
> his points to some extent, but he clearly has an unhealthy attitude, and
> I'm not sure if GNU/Linux will benefit from a influx of people like him.
There's room for plenty of people who don't share your narrow views. Linux
users cross a whole spectrum of views and attitudes; God help OSS if they
all have to be like you.
|
| Show full article (2.00Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ThufirThufir Date: Sep 2, 2007 23:08
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 04:54:09 +0100, [H]omer wrote:
> Like I've said before, if all GNU/Linux is destined to become is just
> another Windows, then why bother?
What do you mean "another Windows"? For my two cents, Linux wouldn't
exist if Dr. Dos and others were out there with competing OS's. If OS's
could be purchased a la carte, and when needed, that would be a good
thing.
As OS's cannot be purchased a la carte, and likely never will be, then
Linux is a substitute.
If Linux were to become "another Windows", I'm not seeing the downside.
The licensing will always allow forking and it can never really go closed
source.
-Thufir
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: [H]omer[H]omer Date: Sep 2, 2007 23:48
Verily I say unto thee, that Thufir spake thusly:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 04:54:09 +0100, [H]omer wrote:
>
>
>> Like I've said before, if all GNU/Linux is destined to become is
>> just another Windows, then why bother?
>
> What do you mean "another Windows"?
I mean yet another proprietary operating system.
> For my two cents, Linux wouldn't exist if Dr. Dos and others were out
> there with competing OS's.
What on earth does DrDOS have to do with Linux?
> If OS's could be purchased a la carte, and when needed, that would be
> a good thing.
Why should an OS /need/ to be /purchased/ at all?
> As OS's cannot be purchased a la carte, and likely never will be,
> then Linux is a substitute.
|
| Show full article (1.88Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ThufirThufir Date: Sep 3, 2007 10:34
On Sep 2, 3:12 pm, Hadron googlemail.com> wrote:> "[H]omer" uce.gov> writes:
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Thufir spake thusly:
>
>
>
>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 04:54:09 +0100, [H]omer wrote:
>
>>>> Like I've said before, if all GNU/Linux is destined to become is
>>>> just another Windows, then why bother?
>
>>> What do you mean "another Windows"?
>
>> I mean yet another proprietary operating system.
>
>>> For my two cents, Linux wouldn't exist if Dr. Dos and others were out
>>> there with competing OS's.
>
>> What on earth does DrDOS have to do with Linux? ...
|
| Show full article (1.38Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: [H]omer[H]omer Date: Sep 3, 2007 12:20
Two idiots wrote:
[A load of crap]
LOL! I'm getting quotes from Madonna now ... the fountain of knowledge,
and coincidentally on the same moral and intellectual plane as Quark.
Oh but sorry, I forgot, we must worship her like a Goddess because she
made barrel-loads of money doing the music industry equivalent of porn.
I'll bear that in mind next time I send Torvald's a cheque for the right
to use Linux. Oh wait ... I don't do that ... nobody does, because it's
free (and Free). He makes his money though corporate investment in his
work, not by holding end-users to ransom with licensing. But he's smart;
he's figured out that there are ways of making money other than running
a protection racket or locking people in to closed formats. And by all
accounts he quite good at making money - not as good as Pearly and
Sweaty mind you. No, to be /that/ good you need to be a morally
reprehensible and ruthless bastard, who's more than happy to exploit
people like cattle. Oh well, nobody's perfect.
|
| Show full article (2.47Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: HadronHadron Date: Sep 3, 2007 13:21
"[H]omer" uce.gov> writes:
> Two idiots wrote:
> [A load of crap]
>
> LOL! I'm getting quotes from Madonna now ... the fountain of knowledge,
> and coincidentally on the same moral and intellectual plane as Quark.
>
> Oh but sorry, I forgot, we must worship her like a Goddess because she
> made barrel-loads of money doing the music industry equivalent of porn.
>
> I'll bear that in mind next time I send Torvald's a cheque for the right
> to use Linux. Oh wait ... I don't do that ... nobody does, because it's
> free (and Free). He makes his money though corporate investment in his
> work, not by holding end-users to ransom with licensing. But he's
> smart;
*snip drivel*
Nurse. Up his meds please.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: LinonutLinonut Date: Sep 3, 2007 14:38
After takin' a swig o' grog, Thufir belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> FOSS is the preferable model, sure, but, to quote Madonna, it's a
> material world. In an alternate universe, with Dr DOS still around,
> and maybe four others, there simply wouldn't demand for Linux as an
> alternative because that need would be filled by other OS's.
I doubt Stallman would agree that those proprietary OS's would fulfill
the need for freedom to distribute and modify.
--
Tux rox!
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
