Free Software at Risk Under Lemon law

mpawlo writes: "Newsforge published a piece I wrote on a lemon law for software. That is - what would happen if shrinkwrap limitation of liability clauses would be banned? I think Microsoft and the GNU Project would both suffer."

Comments

Re:Patents.

[himi]

Blindly defending something with a completely uninformed argument? Was I doing that?

I was off a little in the details, but half an hour's research on google came up with more information, which backed up my original claim: the gimp didn't implement CMYK because of patent problems related to it.

Would I have defended a Microsoft product this way? Perhaps, if I'd seen someone trashing it the way you were trashing the gimp. Most likely not, though - I don't use any MS products, nor do I know anything much about any of them, so I'm not likely to step in with an explanation of why something is the way it is.

I have problems with MS's approach to business, based on what I've read about them (including reading through the findings of fact from their current court case). But then, I have problems with many businesses based on my experiences with them. That doesn't make me a zealot, by any stretch of the imagination. If anything, it makes me an informed consumer - something to be proud of, I think.

I realise you're trolling, by the way, so I won't respond to any more comments you make unless there's some real substance to them.

himi

Re:Patents.

[himi]

See, now you're rewriting what you said. you didn't say "patents relating to CMYK prevent its implementaion", you said "CMYK is patented". You're inventing reality as we speak. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously?

And now /you're/ being a stupid prick. I /said/ in my second reply that I'd gotten the details of my claim wrong, and I clarified them, with references. Yes, I changed my claim - that's the point of being able to have a continuing dialogue. I cleared up my misremembering of the situation, and I did so in a reasonable manner, with references.

Furthermore, if the GIMP is not a poorly written hack, then why are they planning a massive rewrite for version 2.0? If it's so good, why rewrite it?

This demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of how real world software is developed. They did an initial implementation of the core, and it worked for what they were interested in at the time. Later experience showed that it /didn't/ work for areas the software grew into, and as a result of the changed demands they decided to reimplement things. That seems quite sane to me, and to a lot of other people who develop software.

Anyway, if this is so terribly horriffic, maybe you should villify Microsoft - they did exactly the same thing when they started developing NT.

Ok, how can you make an informed decision about which is the best product to use if you don't "know anything much about any of them". How can you be sure you've chosen the best product if you have no knowledge of the competition? Once again, you're proving your blind allegiance to the inferior.

Well, given I get paid to develop Linux software, I really don't know how something like VC++ could ever be the best choice . . .

I /do/, however, use BitKeeper - commercial software, which just happens to be vastly superior to any of the free alternatives. At the same time, I use GNU emacs, because I prefer its interface to Xemacs, and I like the way emacs in general works. I use gcc because it's a good compiler, freely available, and because it's necessary for compiling kernels. I use mutt as my mua, because when I started reading lkml it was the best choice - now, I use it because I just happen to like it.

All of these are my personal preferences. I'm not standing up and shouting to the world "You must all use GNU emacs, because Xemacs is evil!" I'm simply saying /I/ prefer it. That's definitely not zealotry.

Your delusion is self-defeating twofold: 1) If you're not willing to admit that OSS has a ways to go before it's "as good as" commercial software, it's never going to progress. 2) Other people will take OSS less seriously, because information about it from proponents like you is not 100% factual, further hindering its adoption.

I'm not only willing to admit that open source software has a ways to go in many cases before it's as good as commercial software, I'm willing to put time and effort into helping get it there. Or, as is the case with my using BitKeeper, I simply use the superior commercial software.

As for my information not being 100% factual, you're right, I /did/ screw up my original post - I should have done that half hour of research on google /before/ posting. Thankyou for calling me on that.

Not that it would have made any difference - you would most likely still have been trolling, and I'd probably have ended up just ignoring you completely.

You're trolling quite well, for what it's worth. You're just a little too vehement in ignoring what I've actually said, and that's making you look like a fuckwit.

himi