Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Claims 'We Love Open Source'
jbrodkin writes "Everyone in the Linux world remembers Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer's famous comment in 2001 that Linux is a 'cancer' that threatened Microsoft's intellectual property. While Microsoft hasn't formally rescinded its declaration that Linux violates its patents, at least one Microsoft executive admits that the company's earlier battle stance was a mistake. Microsoft wants the world to understand, whatever its issues with Linux, it no longer has any gripe toward open source."
Because you are trolling. I know normal folks who are very happy that they don't get viruses anymore. Nor have to pay for anti-virus software, etc.
Sure some OSS software is crap, about 90% of it, but that is the same ratio for closed software. For MS the ratio might actually be worse. Outlook is a piss poor imap client and Sharepoint is a lousy CMS. Add to that the other evil stuff they do, like requiring signed drivers for x64 and you see that they like setting the bar low too.
Outlook is a piss poor imap client and Sharepoint is a lousy CMS
And democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others that have been tried.
(Alternately, Outlook is more than an imap client and Sharepoint is more than a CMS.)
The world is full of products that everyone seems to hate that nonetheless enjoy a ridiculous level of marketplace dominance because even if they are terrible, they still seem to be the best for what most of the market wants. Flash, for example.
I don't know if this is fair. Certainly there have been people in history who did natural science as part of a practice grounded in Christian theology, but I don't know that Christianity has ever had a hand in the part of science which, well, makes it science.
That is to say, there have been plenty of early scientists who were motivated by the conviction that they were exploring and understanding the Almighty's handiwork, in addition to the more practical advantages associated with understanding nature, but I don't think there's much reason to believe that Christianity has ever informed the practice of science beyond that. When people have used their faith on the "what" of science, rather than merely the "why", they've pretty consistently gotten it wrong.
You can hit a home run for Jesus, or for your own notoriety as a baseball player, or just for love of the game, but regardless of your reason, the specifics of where you should swing the bat and when, depend entirely on the pitch. If you're not just swinging the bat for Jesus, but also relying his advice about where to swing, you're gonna strike out.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Mmmm. Christianity has tolerated science in recent centuries better than it did in previous centuries. But, I for one will never forget that the Christians burnt books at every opportunity during the dark ages and the crusades. If we were looking for a religion that is friendly to science, I would have to point out that Islam preserved a lot of learning during Europe's dark ages, despite all book burning Christians.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
That's common use in the English language. Back off to school sunny boy.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.