Well, I'm not sure who would have standing to sue in this case. Linus Torvalds? Red Hat? The FSF?
In any case, I wasn't trying to make a legalistic distinction. I don't know, and don't especially care, if the FUD Microsoft et al. are throwing at Linux rises to the legal definition of slander or not. (I also don't believe that corporations or organizations should be able to sue for slander at all, but that's a whole 'nother argument.) But it is definitely slanderous, rather than critical, in tone and content: that is, it's "words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another" rather than real analysis of the relative merits and flaws of Linux as compared to other OSs.
The fanaticism comes from the other side. If Microsoft were capable of seeing other OSs as competition rather than The Enemy, we'd have no problem. "Enemies of Linux" is a perfectly reasonable description for people who think the way Bill&Co. do.
As a Mac guy, I've seen this before. Typical exchange:
"I'm sick of all the viruses and crashes I get on my Windows box!"
"Well, you could try a Mac..."
"OMG LOL M4XZ I5 T3H 5VX0RZ!"
"Um, well, it's a pretty good machine, actually, and it doesn't have any viruses..."
"I'M SO SICK OF ALL YOU MAC FANATICS!"
(etc.)
So if Linux people are starting to get a little defensive, that's pretty much why, I think.
Did they really expect for linux to be a viable product and not get criticized by the people whos market they are taking?
"Criticized" is one thing; "slandered" is another. Linux is far from perfect, and all but the most rabid zealots acknowledge this; there are many valid criticisms to be made, and in some cases the validity of these criticisms is sufficient to point users direction of Windows or one of the proprietary flavors of Unix.
BUT... If you insist on multiplying a single security vulnerability by the number of available distros, or tell people that they'll have to recompile their kernel every time they add a patch, or claim that software to do X, Y, or Z isn't available for Linux when in fact it is, or claim that open source development is inherently insecure, or that running proprietary software on a GPL'd OS will get you sued by the FSF, or make any of the other kinds of propganda attacks we've all seen on Linux (and F/OSS generally) from Microsoft and its lackeys... then you have indeed gone beyond "competitor" to "enemy."
Argh. What is this obsession with calling terrorists "cowards?" They're not. You can call them murderers, you can call them evil, you can call them insane, and I won't argue with you -- but calling them cowards, when in fact most terrorists run a far greater risk of dying in the line of what they perceive as their duty than do soldiers in regular armies, is absurd.
It seems to be part of the overall human need to demonize our opponents by denying them any virtues at all. Reminds me of the run-up to both the Civil War and WW1, when the combatants on both (or in the latter case, all) sides spent a lot of time characterizing their opponents-to-be as paper tigers who talked tough but would fold as soon as the bullets started flying. We know how that turned out.
Nice job of self-editing your memory, there. I suggest you actually go back and read some articles from right after 9/11. The outpouring of symapthy and support from all over the world for the US was like nothing we've ever seen before -- or, given our behavior since then, are likely ever to see again. For Christ's sake, Syria offered to help us track down the perpetrators. What a difference a few years make...
I suspect it's a matter of who has greater willpower, very much like the periodic brawls in the US between the White House and Congress. The Parliament can (and should) reject it, and keep rejecting it every time the EC kicks it back to them, but will they have the political will to do so? Cf. "Social Security" and "judicial appointments."
batter (verb): 1. To hit heavily and repeatedly with violent blows. 2. To subject to repeated beatings or physical abuse. 3. To damage, as by heavy wear.
As much as the open source community loves to hate Bill and Microsoft, they have transformed the world. Contrast the office of today with that of 20 years ago. Today, almost every office worker is using his/her computer most of the day. Before, there were legions of secretaries, typists and assistants to help in the production of documents and letters.
The truly enormous hole in your thesis is your assumption that Bill G. contributed in any way, shape or form to this change (which is, indeed, a Good Thing) happening. He didn't; all he did was make money off it. Not only would it have happened without him, it probably would have happened faster and better than it did with his malign presence.
I'm guessing that you're against cannabilism, for example.;)
Mmmm, long pork. </Homer>
Where was I?
Okay, fair enough; I should have clarified that by saying "beliefs generally under debate in American politics." There are, I like to believe, certain core American political values shared by almost every voter in every party; what horrifies me about the current crop running the country is how casually they seem to disregard those values. But that's a whole 'nother debate...
That depends on whether you consider an election a statistical sampling. I don't; the population is the sample, or at least it's supposed to be. OTOH, I agree that randomizing the order of the names on the ballot would be a good idea -- if nothing else, it would make people actually read the things.
This is an area where reasonable people of all political persuasions ought to be able to come to an agreement. Based on your comment, I'm guessing that you're a conservative and I'd probably disagree with at least three-quarters of your beliefs -- but the one thing we can almost certainly agree on is that every eligible voter who wants to vote should be able to do so in a way that guarantees that vote is counted. We may argue all day about policy, but the mechanisms by which that policy is created and enacted must be trustworthy if that policy is to be anything more than the whim of a few autocrats.
So, what Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, independents, and, hell, I don't know, Prohibitionists and Natural Law believers all ought to ask themselves is: if anyone, of any party or stripe, opposes this -- what possible reason can they have for such opposition; or whether, what reason that does not mark them as irredeemably evil?
Would you watch a TV station that played its ads over the show, cutting in at random moments so you miss key dialogue? Me neither. There are ways to host ads on Web sites that don't annoy the hell out of the user.
The 10th Amendment has been a dead letter for a looong time. If it were strictly applied, most of what the Federal government does would necessarily be judged unconstitutional. Not that I'm saying that would be a bad thing, but don't expect it any time soon -- 200+ years of precedent are against you.
Well, hell, it wasn't that long ago that would-be bioinformatic[ists|icians]* in the US and other Western countries had the same attitude. The bioinformatics bubble, IMO, was very much like the dot-com bubble in miniature: there's real value there, and it really does have the potential to do great things, but first we had to get through the phase where world + dog sees it as the Next Big Thing and people who have no business in the field are all trying to jump in at once. Now things are finally settling down, and real work is being done. India will figure this out too.
Okay, let me get this straight. You're touting what you were taught in your 9th grade Earth Science class and a Popular Science cover story as evidence of broad-based consensus among actual working scientists?
There is, at this point, as much debate between climatologists on whether or not humans are causing global warming as there is between biologists on whether or not new species arise via evolution. There is a great deal of debate on the specifics, but essentially none on whether or not the phenomenon occurs. Only a few loudmouthed cranks are keeping the idea that "there really is debate on the issue" alive, in the sense you mean.
There was a time when it looked like Claris might outgrow Apple. If that had happened, and it had reabsorbed its parent, I'm sure we'd still call the resulting entity "Apple," and consider it a success or failure in much the same way as we do now. I kind of expect this sequence of events with HP and whatever-the-hell its spinoff is called.
Enron was a short-lived conglomeration built on financial smoke and mirrors from the beginning, and AT&T made not a few but an unbelievable string of incredibly dumb decisions over the course of decades; I don't see either of those as being true of Microsoft. I will also note that AT&T, as of now, still exists, and is still huge. However, I'll admit the possibility of Microsoft's stock falling to the point where it could realistically be bought out by another giant -- but I rather suspect that if that happened with anyone but IBM, the new company would then call itself "Microsoft," to capitalize on the name.
The Boston Tea Party was a protest against unfair taxation; as in the people were forced to pay it.
Nobody is forcing you to buy music at an unfair price. Try again.
The Boston Tea Party, as one may cleverly infer from the name, was a protest against a tax on tea. Nobody needs tea to live; nobody is forced to buy tea. What the British government was saying was, "If you buy tea, you have to pay this tax." The, um, partiers considered this unfair. Since governments (particularly the US government, which obviously forgot its origins long ago) are increasingly involving themselves in enforcing corporate rules, particularly those involving luxury items, the analogy is pretty close.
Realistically, Microsoft isn't going to put themselves out of business, with this stupid trick or any other. They'll be around, and be a damn big company, for a veeery long time.
What I do hope and halfway expect will happen is that they'll find themselves "in trouble" by Wall Street standards -- steadily declining profits turning into steady losses, with a corresponding implosion in stock proce -- and that this will force them to become a good company making a good product at a good price in order to gain their customers' trust and support. It's happened before; if someone had told me 20 years, hell, 10 years, ago that IBM in the 21st c. would be considered one of the good guys, I'd have laughed my ass off.
Slashdot Mirror
Giordano Bruno.
Well, I'm not sure who would have standing to sue in this case. Linus Torvalds? Red Hat? The FSF?
In any case, I wasn't trying to make a legalistic distinction. I don't know, and don't especially care, if the FUD Microsoft et al. are throwing at Linux rises to the legal definition of slander or not. (I also don't believe that corporations or organizations should be able to sue for slander at all, but that's a whole 'nother argument.) But it is definitely slanderous, rather than critical, in tone and content: that is, it's "words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another" rather than real analysis of the relative merits and flaws of Linux as compared to other OSs.
The fanaticism comes from the other side. If Microsoft were capable of seeing other OSs as competition rather than The Enemy, we'd have no problem. "Enemies of Linux" is a perfectly reasonable description for people who think the way Bill&Co. do.
..."
..."
As a Mac guy, I've seen this before. Typical exchange:
"I'm sick of all the viruses and crashes I get on my Windows box!"
"Well, you could try a Mac
"OMG LOL M4XZ I5 T3H 5VX0RZ!"
"Um, well, it's a pretty good machine, actually, and it doesn't have any viruses
"I'M SO SICK OF ALL YOU MAC FANATICS!"
(etc.)
So if Linux people are starting to get a little defensive, that's pretty much why, I think.
Did they really expect for linux to be a viable product and not get criticized by the people whos market they are taking?
... If you insist on multiplying a single security vulnerability by the number of available distros, or tell people that they'll have to recompile their kernel every time they add a patch, or claim that software to do X, Y, or Z isn't available for Linux when in fact it is, or claim that open source development is inherently insecure, or that running proprietary software on a GPL'd OS will get you sued by the FSF, or make any of the other kinds of propganda attacks we've all seen on Linux (and F/OSS generally) from Microsoft and its lackeys ... then you have indeed gone beyond "competitor" to "enemy."
"Criticized" is one thing; "slandered" is another. Linux is far from perfect, and all but the most rabid zealots acknowledge this; there are many valid criticisms to be made, and in some cases the validity of these criticisms is sufficient to point users direction of Windows or one of the proprietary flavors of Unix.
BUT
Argh. What is this obsession with calling terrorists "cowards?" They're not. You can call them murderers, you can call them evil, you can call them insane, and I won't argue with you -- but calling them cowards, when in fact most terrorists run a far greater risk of dying in the line of what they perceive as their duty than do soldiers in regular armies, is absurd.
It seems to be part of the overall human need to demonize our opponents by denying them any virtues at all. Reminds me of the run-up to both the Civil War and WW1, when the combatants on both (or in the latter case, all) sides spent a lot of time characterizing their opponents-to-be as paper tigers who talked tough but would fold as soon as the bullets started flying. We know how that turned out.
Nice job of self-editing your memory, there. I suggest you actually go back and read some articles from right after 9/11. The outpouring of symapthy and support from all over the world for the US was like nothing we've ever seen before -- or, given our behavior since then, are likely ever to see again. For Christ's sake, Syria offered to help us track down the perpetrators. What a difference a few years make ...
With Macs this is not the case and has not been the case in well over a decade if not longer.
You are, of course, wrong. But given the attitude you display in your post, I don't expect you to listen to any of the reasons why you're wrong.
I suspect it's a matter of who has greater willpower, very much like the periodic brawls in the US between the White House and Congress. The Parliament can (and should) reject it, and keep rejecting it every time the EC kicks it back to them, but will they have the political will to do so? Cf. "Social Security" and "judicial appointments."
batter (verb):
1. To hit heavily and repeatedly with violent blows.
2. To subject to repeated beatings or physical abuse.
3. To damage, as by heavy wear.
You're not as clever as you think you are.
As much as the open source community loves to hate Bill and Microsoft, they have transformed the world. Contrast the office of today with that of 20 years ago. Today, almost every office worker is using his/her computer most of the day. Before, there were legions of secretaries, typists and assistants to help in the production of documents and letters.
The truly enormous hole in your thesis is your assumption that Bill G. contributed in any way, shape or form to this change (which is, indeed, a Good Thing) happening. He didn't; all he did was make money off it. Not only would it have happened without him, it probably would have happened faster and better than it did with his malign presence.
I'm guessing that you're against cannabilism, for example. ;)
...
Mmmm, long pork. </Homer>
Where was I?
Okay, fair enough; I should have clarified that by saying "beliefs generally under debate in American politics." There are, I like to believe, certain core American political values shared by almost every voter in every party; what horrifies me about the current crop running the country is how casually they seem to disregard those values. But that's a whole 'nother debate
That depends on whether you consider an election a statistical sampling. I don't; the population is the sample, or at least it's supposed to be. OTOH, I agree that randomizing the order of the names on the ballot would be a good idea -- if nothing else, it would make people actually read the things.
This is an area where reasonable people of all political persuasions ought to be able to come to an agreement. Based on your comment, I'm guessing that you're a conservative and I'd probably disagree with at least three-quarters of your beliefs -- but the one thing we can almost certainly agree on is that every eligible voter who wants to vote should be able to do so in a way that guarantees that vote is counted. We may argue all day about policy, but the mechanisms by which that policy is created and enacted must be trustworthy if that policy is to be anything more than the whim of a few autocrats.
So, what Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, independents, and, hell, I don't know, Prohibitionists and Natural Law believers all ought to ask themselves is: if anyone, of any party or stripe, opposes this -- what possible reason can they have for such opposition; or whether, what reason that does not mark them as irredeemably evil?
Would you watch a TV station that played its ads over the show, cutting in at random moments so you miss key dialogue? Me neither. There are ways to host ads on Web sites that don't annoy the hell out of the user.
1. To preserve all the Mac-specific information, use CpMac and MvMac.
;)
2. The resource fork data you lose with cp and mv is stuff you don't have on a regular Unix system anyway.
You're right. It's not Unix. It's Unix++.
The 10th Amendment has been a dead letter for a looong time. If it were strictly applied, most of what the Federal government does would necessarily be judged unconstitutional. Not that I'm saying that would be a bad thing, but don't expect it any time soon -- 200+ years of precedent are against you.
Heh. Looks like I overtyped a little there.
... and biology ... and stuff."
A friend of mine says, "I tell people you work with computers
Well, hell, it wasn't that long ago that would-be bioinformatic[ists|icians]* in the US and other Western countries had the same attitude. The bioinformatics bubble, IMO, was very much like the dot-com bubble in miniature: there's real value there, and it really does have the potential to do great things, but first we had to get through the phase where world + dog sees it as the Next Big Thing and people who have no business in the field are all trying to jump in at once. Now things are finally settling down, and real work is being done. India will figure this out too.
* I don't care. REALLY.
Okay, let me get this straight. You're touting what you were taught in your 9th grade Earth Science class and a Popular Science cover story as evidence of broad-based consensus among actual working scientists?
Jeeezus.
"Every Reputable Scientist on the Planet" believed in Global Cooling in the 70s and early 80s.
... wait a minute, I'm thinking ... hold on ...
There's a word for this argument. It's on the tip of my tongue
Oh yeah! It's called a "lie."
There is, at this point, as much debate between climatologists on whether or not humans are causing global warming as there is between biologists on whether or not new species arise via evolution. There is a great deal of debate on the specifics, but essentially none on whether or not the phenomenon occurs. Only a few loudmouthed cranks are keeping the idea that "there really is debate on the issue" alive, in the sense you mean.
Good point!
There was a time when it looked like Claris might outgrow Apple. If that had happened, and it had reabsorbed its parent, I'm sure we'd still call the resulting entity "Apple," and consider it a success or failure in much the same way as we do now. I kind of expect this sequence of events with HP and whatever-the-hell its spinoff is called.
Enron was a short-lived conglomeration built on financial smoke and mirrors from the beginning, and AT&T made not a few but an unbelievable string of incredibly dumb decisions over the course of decades; I don't see either of those as being true of Microsoft. I will also note that AT&T, as of now, still exists, and is still huge. However, I'll admit the possibility of Microsoft's stock falling to the point where it could realistically be bought out by another giant -- but I rather suspect that if that happened with anyone but IBM, the new company would then call itself "Microsoft," to capitalize on the name.
Umm, not even close to a valid comparison.
The Boston Tea Party was a protest against unfair taxation; as in the people were forced to pay it.
Nobody is forcing you to buy music at an unfair price. Try again.
The Boston Tea Party, as one may cleverly infer from the name, was a protest against a tax on tea. Nobody needs tea to live; nobody is forced to buy tea. What the British government was saying was, "If you buy tea, you have to pay this tax." The, um, partiers considered this unfair. Since governments (particularly the US government, which obviously forgot its origins long ago) are increasingly involving themselves in enforcing corporate rules, particularly those involving luxury items, the analogy is pretty close.
Realistically, Microsoft isn't going to put themselves out of business, with this stupid trick or any other. They'll be around, and be a damn big company, for a veeery long time.
What I do hope and halfway expect will happen is that they'll find themselves "in trouble" by Wall Street standards -- steadily declining profits turning into steady losses, with a corresponding implosion in stock proce -- and that this will force them to become a good company making a good product at a good price in order to gain their customers' trust and support. It's happened before; if someone had told me 20 years, hell, 10 years, ago that IBM in the 21st c. would be considered one of the good guys, I'd have laughed my ass off.