All Apple brought to the table was the PPC port and co-ordination effort. Now I am not saying that isn't important, it is, but if and when the demand for FreeBSD-PPC builds, this kind of thing would have happened anyway.
Yes... if and when! But Apple went and did it. They've made some sort of a contribution.
Darwin is fine and dandy, but as other have said before it is NOTHING NEW. Every part of Darwin's source code is available in one form or another elsewhere.
I would hope then, that you would react with an equally vitriolic response when a FreeBSD port is released by a non-commerical organisation, because hey, every part of its source code is available in one form or another elsewhere. As the previous poster mentionned, you've conveniently ignored QT streaming server.
If you don't like LinuxPPC or NetBSD, fine, but don't come here and tell us off because we don't jump and scream YAY! every time a big corporation jumps on the Open Source bandwagon.
Personally, I use Debian Linux on Intel hardware, and don't even own a Mac. It's simply unnerving to see the levels of hypocrisy displayed by a few self-righteous free-software zeolots. What's really the issue is that, had the same software been released, and the same effort been made by say, Software in the Public Interest, everyone would have cheered (except perhaps the hard-core Apple haters, who frown upon anything remotely Apple); but because Apple (my God are they evil) released it, some people scoff.
Would you rather they go back to producing proprietary-only software? I'd much rather see some large corporations show that they are willing to try open source, without necessarily making a huge commitment at first, and then - if it works for them - make a firm commitment. Corporations are simply unwilling to commit to a (fairly revolutionary) concept that could potentially (in their eyes) flush them down the toilet.
How long has Apple been in the Open Source arena? Less than a year now. You can't possibly expect them to drop everything and go 100% open source instantly. But by encouraging them, they may open more software up. By shouting insults, they're more likely to simply give up on a community that seems not to want them involved.
It's disheartening to think that there are segments of the open source community that spend so much time complaining about Apple and others who've begun contributing. It's simply counter-productive to the movement as a whole. If we want wide-spread adoption of the open source concept, we're going to have ensure that there are no double standards, that everyone is equally welcome to contribute. Otherwise, others will decide that it's simply not worth the bother.
I'm curious why it is everyone seems to be so bloody condescending toward Apple. I mean, half the postings I've seen so far are along the lines of "Who cares?" or "it's just a ploy to impress people, don't download it - it's not *pure*".
Well, so what if it is a publicity stunt? I, for one, don't believe that Apple's doing this through some sort of perverted notion of altruism. No way, they're trying to attract back some market share! But who cares?
I know Richard Stallman would likely say that it's not real free software, but listen, it's great to see a company doing this at all! People now have some new code to play with if they want; they have a new option. Maybe, just maybe, there's even something we can learn from the architecture they've thrown together. Hey, there might even be some great idea in there that could be incorporated into Linux to make it better. And perhaps not, but at least they've opened up the code to let us learn from what's there.
If nothing else, it's a new toy for interested people to play with, modify, and hack.
So Apple produces proprietary software (in general). So they don't swear alliegiance to the Free Software Foundation. Who cares? They've done something right. If someone hands you a free hamburger, you don't whine and complain that it wasn't a steak, you take it and say thanks or you leave it and say no thanks. Now I know some people are going to say "but they're trying to pass this hypothetical hamburger off as a steak!" My response: you'd have to be an idiot to believe that. They've tossed one more modification of BSD onto the table. Dissect it, hack it apart, figure out what makes it tick, or leave it alone, but please, stop whining!
It is totally ludicrous to imply that the distribution of wealth was more skewed in Communist Russia than in the Capitalist world. If you've compared the two (like I did), this notion would seem to you like a sick joke.
Perhaps I was unclear; I was not attempting to imply that the distribution of wealth was more skewed in Communist Russia than in a capitalist country - far from it! Only that it was skewed, and that it was skewed in favour of an elite ruling class.
The distribution of wealth in a capitalist system is extremely skewed, but skewed based on an individual's ingenuity. Actually, this is not true... it's skewed in favour of individuals with a strong business incentive. Nonetheless, this equally allows (practically) anybody to put in a lot of effort and become wealthy. In this sense, the individual has more freedom to control his lifestyle than in a communism. It all boils down to what you want: equality for everyone or the freedom to choose (with the consequence that those with less drive lose out and those with more win). I would say that in either system, those who cheat the system (via bribery and other unethical behaviour) stand to benefit; it's unfortunate, but it's reality.
As to the patent issue. If patents promote innovation, why does the Windows partition of my computer constantly crash, but the Linux part (where almost everything is GPL'ed) is stable?
I fail to see how this relates. Windows is not patented, it is copyrighted. Were it patented, all of the algorithms would be made public. To be patentable, an invention must not yet be patented, must be "novel", and must be "useful". I would submit that Windows it none of the above, but that's a different story. Software copyrights are unlike any others. Whereas with books, music and other creative expressions, you release the "source" (everything is made available), only the binary is released with proprietary software. Note the GPL'ed software is copyrighted too, just that the source must be made available as part of the license. Copyrights, then, can serve useful purposes too in software.
The problem with Windows is that the source code is proprietary. This is not a problem with capitalism, it's a problem with software developers. The problem could easily be fixed by only granting copyright protection if the source code was released with the binary - a system that much better parallels copyrights for books and music. The reason why this wasn't implemented was probably cultural lag - the legal/government world had little understanding of software at the time, and it was given protection as a "literary work". Ridiculous.
I wonder, however, whether the source code to all the software written for the government in the former USSR was made available to the general public. The problem is essentially the same; the source code stays within the organisation.
Were my views influenced by 17 years spent living in Russia? Sure.
As mine are obviously influenced by my living in a working capitalism. I have to agree completely with you that the Soviet conversion to a market-based economy has been an absolute disaster. As with any change of such magnitude, it's impossible to expect that it could work overnight, if at all. As soon as a few individuals realised they could take advantage of others through unethical business conduct, a large segment of them did; capitalism allowed this to happen. Since the change was so sudden, it was impossible to restore some control to the ensuing chaos.
I think however, you'll find that because of it's exceptional circumstances, Russia is the exception rather than the norm for capitalist systems. Take a look at Canada, Great Britain and France, and what you'll see is very different. Granted that Canada and France have more socialist tendencies than the States, but they are, nonetheless, 'controlled' capitalisms.
As I say though, my personal opinion is that communism is an ideologically superior system to capitalism. In practice, neither works amazingly well. In Canada, capitalism works; in Russia communism worked better than the current system - at least for the most part. A conversion to communism here would result in the same chaos the switch to a market economy did in Russia.
While a lot of the arguments you use have some very strong basis, I'd be curious to know just how much of this was spoon-fed to the citizens of Russia to stir anti-capitalist sentiment. What tipped me off is that almost all of these arguments only tell half the story. I could make just as many one-sided arguments against communism, but I won't. I'll give you an example:
Another, less trivial example of capitalism's inefficiency: suppose you invent something. In a market society you maximize the return on your invention by guarding it a secret and monopolizing production (see: US pharmaceutical companies). Under Socialism the inventor worked for the government and any innovation was instantly published, increasing what you've just called "the greatest good for the greatest number of people".
I'm curious then why a capitalist government would ever promote the sharing of knowledge via patents, for example. Was it conveniently left out of your schooling that as soon as you file for a patent it becomes public knowledge, exactly as it would if it were published as you say, by the government under a communist system? The purpose of puting patents in the public domain is utilitarian: society as a whole benefits from the shared knowledge. To urge people to do this, the government offers the reward that your invention is protected by patent law for 17 years (at least here in Canada); while others cannot produce an exact replica of the patented invention during this time, they CAN benefit from the stringently documented knowledge that is now in the public domain. Also, I would be very surprised if all inventions really were published by the government in communist Russia. Do you really think that the plans for Sputnik were released before it went into orbit?
You say that communism works for the "the greatest good for the greatest number of people". Coming from a Ukrainian immigrant family, I can tell you that it does not. First, in a communism, all the power rests with a small handful of elites. As can be seen from almost any communist government, there are very high levels of corruption (not to say that capitalist governments can't be corrupt either), and the distribution of wealth soon becomes not equal, but skewed. You want to get something done? Take a brown paper envelope to the local government representative and you're set.
You say: "In theory, capitalism works fine." I would also say, that in theory communism works fine. In fact, I would say, in theory, I would prefer the communist philosophy to the capitalist philosphy - BUT, in reality, because of the corruption and high level of control exerted by the ruling elite, communism fails miserably in the end. Your freedoms are massively restricted - how often did you see doctors and other professionals going to church? And why were so few there?
I will also grant you that the prison system works better. Prisoners are employed to do useful work for the state. They would be here, but Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibits exploitation in this manner. I prefer the communist standpoint here. But overall, it simply doesn't allow individuals the same quality of life that capitalism does.
Captitalism essentially rewards ingenuity. I won't say it rewards hard work or labour (by the way money is not a measure of labour, it's a measure of value. More labour != more value.). This system creates an incentive to be ingenious, and a disincentive not to be. Your lifestyle is a product of your own decisions. If I want to have a swimming pool, mansion and sprawling lawns, I CAN, if I can come up with some clever products that people consider to be valuable. If not, then I might end up in an apartment on welfare.
The system, at least in Canada, attempts to prevent you from hitting rock bottom (ie. with welfare, universal "free" health-care, etc.), but does not put a limit on how much you can do with your life... well, there is taxation, which goes to the common good.
I'm not of the opinion that communism is evil and "better dead than red"; it could work if all government elites were uncorruptible and altruistic, or if the government were a big supercomputer. This isn't going to happen, realistically. Capitalism isn't perfect either, but it seems to work better at this point in time. I don't particularly like either system, realistically, but I prefer a socialist-leaning capitalism like Canada to either. Perhaps that's why I'm here.
I agree with you 100%. Releasing the engine code and charging for art/sound/levels is a great way to go. Actually, I believe this is the route that crack dot com and Bungie took with their multi-player platform game, Abuse.
Don't give up yet! For those who have been following this story, you'll note that while amateur astronomers were asked to go out in droves just in case, neither the amateurs nor the professionals were ever expecting a visible plume. They were, however, expecting to obtain spectometric readings to detect water. Thus, a determination of whether water was found or not will not be possible for days or even weeks.
Of course, if no water is detected, this is still not proof that there is no water on the moon - only that there is no water at the crash site, or at least not a detectable quantity. Don't give up hope on that moonbase yet Hemos!
This isn't intended to start a flame war or anything, but the story would not likely have been titled "CGI crashes Linux, Get Your Fix Here" three or four months after the initial release of Linux...
Although I agree that strictly speaking this certainly isn't an "Internet War," the fact of the matter is that the Internet, as a means of communication, has had a significant impact on those who have access to it, as evidenced by the figures relating to CNN online readership that Mr. Katz has presented us.
As for his point that this war is more suited to so-called 'traditional' media, I can't help but laugh; anything printed in a reputable paper is available online from various distribution outlets. If Reuters and the Associated Press aren't enough, the CBC, BBC and CNN each produce a plethora of online articles daily. More importantly, they provide searchable databases of past reports, something that no newspaper, radio or television station can provide.
One might note that television has an obvious edge over print media inasmuch as video coverage is often far more spectacular than a written story and a few photographs, but one must also consider that television isn't particularly conducive to independent thinking. These 'traditional' media tend to present a one-sided perspective of the news, a situation in strict opposition to the eclectic variety of standpoints one invariably finds on the Internet.
Mr. Katz is right: this isn't an "Internet War". But he's in claiming that coverage of this war is more suited to television, radio or newspaper. If anything, it's more important than ever that each individual makes up his own mind on such an important issue; this isn't a comparison of toaster ovens, it's blood, death and human lives. If a person simply accepts the one-sided reporting found in 'traditional' media without considering the opposing arguments, he is doing himself a great disservice. With all the freedom of expression the Internet provides, it would be a shame to not take advantage of it.
Finally we'll be able to get the source code to the Blue Screen of Death!
I somehow get the feeling that this initiative will hit the Open Source community like a rejected organ transplant. Not only is there a huge amount of animosity toward Microsoft, but I don't really see that anyone would want to get a hold of much of their code seeing as it wasn't designed to be flexible or extensible, as Linux was, but to be exactly what Microsoft wanted. Not much but the really low-level kernel-type stuff would be of interest to anyone.
Thank you for providing a much-needed humorous interlude in the midst of what was an otherwise stale thread. It's always nice to read comments from 'intellectuals' whose main purpose in posting is simply to show off their enviable eclectic vocabularistic eccentricities, whilst providing the layman with an affecting, albeit anticlimactic aphorism or adage. Alas, too many people in this world seem to think that by emulating the style of Martin Amis they'll actually impress someone.
Sad, when I saw your handle Thinker, I figured your comment might actually be something clever. I am a believer in constructive criticism however, so I'll point out that I really enjoyed your creative use of boldface - that was quite good! You need to work on the anger management though; consider looking into professional counselling.:)
Slashdot Mirror
If you visit /. enough you'll also develop a herd mentality.
Are you sure that's not a HURD mentality?
Being a native speaker of French, all I can say is cache is not pronouced cah-shay. En français, it's still cash.
However, as the cache is hidden from the user, your could re-spell it as 'cachée' and pronounce it cah-shay with no problem...
All Apple brought to the table was the PPC port and co-ordination effort. Now I am not saying that isn't important, it is, but if and when the demand for FreeBSD-PPC builds, this kind of thing would have happened anyway.
Yes... if and when! But Apple went and did it. They've made some sort of a contribution.
Darwin is fine and dandy, but as other have said before it is NOTHING NEW. Every part of Darwin's source code is available in one form or another elsewhere.
I would hope then, that you would react with an equally vitriolic response when a FreeBSD port is released by a non-commerical organisation, because hey, every part of its source code is available in one form or another elsewhere. As the previous poster mentionned, you've conveniently ignored QT streaming server.
If you don't like LinuxPPC or NetBSD, fine, but don't come here and tell us off because we don't jump and scream YAY! every time a big corporation jumps on the Open Source bandwagon.
Personally, I use Debian Linux on Intel hardware, and don't even own a Mac. It's simply unnerving to see the levels of hypocrisy displayed by a few self-righteous free-software zeolots. What's really the issue is that, had the same software been released, and the same effort been made by say, Software in the Public Interest, everyone would have cheered (except perhaps the hard-core Apple haters, who frown upon anything remotely Apple); but because Apple (my God are they evil) released it, some people scoff.
Would you rather they go back to producing proprietary-only software? I'd much rather see some large corporations show that they are willing to try open source, without necessarily making a huge commitment at first, and then - if it works for them - make a firm commitment. Corporations are simply unwilling to commit to a (fairly revolutionary) concept that could potentially (in their eyes) flush them down the toilet.
How long has Apple been in the Open Source arena? Less than a year now. You can't possibly expect them to drop everything and go 100% open source instantly. But by encouraging them, they may open more software up. By shouting insults, they're more likely to simply give up on a community that seems not to want them involved.
It's disheartening to think that there are segments of the open source community that spend so much time complaining about Apple and others who've begun contributing. It's simply counter-productive to the movement as a whole. If we want wide-spread adoption of the open source concept, we're going to have ensure that there are no double standards, that everyone is equally welcome to contribute. Otherwise, others will decide that it's simply not worth the bother.
I'm curious why it is everyone seems to be so bloody condescending toward Apple. I mean, half the postings I've seen so far are along the lines of "Who cares?" or "it's just a ploy to impress people, don't download it - it's not *pure*".
Well, so what if it is a publicity stunt? I, for one, don't believe that Apple's doing this through some sort of perverted notion of altruism. No way, they're trying to attract back some market share! But who cares?
I know Richard Stallman would likely say that it's not real free software, but listen, it's great to see a company doing this at all! People now have some new code to play with if they want; they have a new option. Maybe, just maybe, there's even something we can learn from the architecture they've thrown together. Hey, there might even be some great idea in there that could be incorporated into Linux to make it better. And perhaps not, but at least they've opened up the code to let us learn from what's there.
If nothing else, it's a new toy for interested people to play with, modify, and hack.
So Apple produces proprietary software (in general). So they don't swear alliegiance to the Free Software Foundation. Who cares? They've done something right. If someone hands you a free hamburger, you don't whine and complain that it wasn't a steak, you take it and say thanks or you leave it and say no thanks. Now I know some people are going to say "but they're trying to pass this hypothetical hamburger off as a steak!" My response: you'd have to be an idiot to believe that. They've tossed one more modification of BSD onto the table. Dissect it, hack it apart, figure out what makes it tick, or leave it alone, but please, stop whining!
It is totally ludicrous to imply that the distribution of wealth was more skewed in Communist Russia than in the Capitalist world. If you've compared the two (like I did), this notion would seem to you like a sick joke.
Perhaps I was unclear; I was not attempting to imply that the distribution of wealth was more skewed in Communist Russia than in a capitalist country - far from it! Only that it was skewed, and that it was skewed in favour of an elite ruling class.
The distribution of wealth in a capitalist system is extremely skewed, but skewed based on an individual's ingenuity. Actually, this is not true... it's skewed in favour of individuals with a strong business incentive. Nonetheless, this equally allows (practically) anybody to put in a lot of effort and become wealthy. In this sense, the individual has more freedom to control his lifestyle than in a communism. It all boils down to what you want: equality for everyone or the freedom to choose (with the consequence that those with less drive lose out and those with more win). I would say that in either system, those who cheat the system (via bribery and other unethical behaviour) stand to benefit; it's unfortunate, but it's reality.
As to the patent issue. If patents promote innovation, why does the Windows partition of my computer constantly crash, but the Linux part (where almost everything is GPL'ed) is stable?
I fail to see how this relates. Windows is not patented, it is copyrighted. Were it patented, all of the algorithms would be made public. To be patentable, an invention must not yet be patented, must be "novel", and must be "useful". I would submit that Windows it none of the above, but that's a different story. Software copyrights are unlike any others. Whereas with books, music and other creative expressions, you release the "source" (everything is made available), only the binary is released with proprietary software. Note the GPL'ed software is copyrighted too, just that the source must be made available as part of the license. Copyrights, then, can serve useful purposes too in software.
The problem with Windows is that the source code is proprietary. This is not a problem with capitalism, it's a problem with software developers. The problem could easily be fixed by only granting copyright protection if the source code was released with the binary - a system that much better parallels copyrights for books and music. The reason why this wasn't implemented was probably cultural lag - the legal/government world had little understanding of software at the time, and it was given protection as a "literary work". Ridiculous.
I wonder, however, whether the source code to all the software written for the government in the former USSR was made available to the general public. The problem is essentially the same; the source code stays within the organisation.
Were my views influenced by 17 years spent living in Russia? Sure.
As mine are obviously influenced by my living in a working capitalism. I have to agree completely with you that the Soviet conversion to a market-based economy has been an absolute disaster. As with any change of such magnitude, it's impossible to expect that it could work overnight, if at all. As soon as a few individuals realised they could take advantage of others through unethical business conduct, a large segment of them did; capitalism allowed this to happen. Since the change was so sudden, it was impossible to restore some control to the ensuing chaos.
I think however, you'll find that because of it's exceptional circumstances, Russia is the exception rather than the norm for capitalist systems. Take a look at Canada, Great Britain and France, and what you'll see is very different. Granted that Canada and France have more socialist tendencies than the States, but they are, nonetheless, 'controlled' capitalisms.
As I say though, my personal opinion is that communism is an ideologically superior system to capitalism. In practice, neither works amazingly well. In Canada, capitalism works; in Russia communism worked better than the current system - at least for the most part. A conversion to communism here would result in the same chaos the switch to a market economy did in Russia.
While a lot of the arguments you use have some very strong basis, I'd be curious to know just how much of this was spoon-fed to the citizens of Russia to stir anti-capitalist sentiment. What tipped me off is that almost all of these arguments only tell half the story. I could make just as many one-sided arguments against communism, but I won't. I'll give you an example:
Another, less trivial example of capitalism's inefficiency: suppose you invent something. In a market society you maximize the return on your invention by guarding it a secret and monopolizing production (see: US pharmaceutical companies). Under Socialism the inventor worked for the government and any innovation was instantly published, increasing what you've just called "the greatest good for the greatest number of people".
I'm curious then why a capitalist government would ever promote the sharing of knowledge via patents, for example. Was it conveniently left out of your schooling that as soon as you file for a patent it becomes public knowledge, exactly as it would if it were published as you say, by the government under a communist system? The purpose of puting patents in the public domain is utilitarian: society as a whole benefits from the shared knowledge. To urge people to do this, the government offers the reward that your invention is protected by patent law for 17 years (at least here in Canada); while others cannot produce an exact replica of the patented invention during this time, they CAN benefit from the stringently documented knowledge that is now in the public domain. Also, I would be very surprised if all inventions really were published by the government in communist Russia. Do you really think that the plans for Sputnik were released before it went into orbit?
You say that communism works for the "the greatest good for the greatest number of people". Coming from a Ukrainian immigrant family, I can tell you that it does not. First, in a communism, all the power rests with a small handful of elites. As can be seen from almost any communist government, there are very high levels of corruption (not to say that capitalist governments can't be corrupt either), and the distribution of wealth soon becomes not equal, but skewed. You want to get something done? Take a brown paper envelope to the local government representative and you're set.
You say: "In theory, capitalism works fine." I would also say, that in theory communism works fine. In fact, I would say, in theory, I would prefer the communist philosophy to the capitalist philosphy - BUT, in reality, because of the corruption and high level of control exerted by the ruling elite, communism fails miserably in the end. Your freedoms are massively restricted - how often did you see doctors and other professionals going to church? And why were so few there?
I will also grant you that the prison system works better. Prisoners are employed to do useful work for the state. They would be here, but Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibits exploitation in this manner. I prefer the communist standpoint here. But overall, it simply doesn't allow individuals the same quality of life that capitalism does.
Captitalism essentially rewards ingenuity. I won't say it rewards hard work or labour (by the way money is not a measure of labour, it's a measure of value. More labour != more value.). This system creates an incentive to be ingenious, and a disincentive not to be. Your lifestyle is a product of your own decisions. If I want to have a swimming pool, mansion and sprawling lawns, I CAN, if I can come up with some clever products that people consider to be valuable. If not, then I might end up in an apartment on welfare.
The system, at least in Canada, attempts to prevent you from hitting rock bottom (ie. with welfare, universal "free" health-care, etc.), but does not put a limit on how much you can do with your life... well, there is taxation, which goes to the common good.
I'm not of the opinion that communism is evil and "better dead than red"; it could work if all government elites were uncorruptible and altruistic, or if the government were a big supercomputer. This isn't going to happen, realistically. Capitalism isn't perfect either, but it seems to work better at this point in time. I don't particularly like either system, realistically, but I prefer a socialist-leaning capitalism like Canada to either. Perhaps that's why I'm here.
I agree with you 100%. Releasing the engine code and charging for art/sound/levels is a great way to go. Actually, I believe this is the route that crack dot com and Bungie took with their multi-player platform game, Abuse.
Don't give up yet! For those who have been following this story, you'll note that while amateur astronomers were asked to go out in droves just in case, neither the amateurs nor the professionals were ever expecting a visible plume. They were, however, expecting to obtain spectometric readings to detect water. Thus, a determination of whether water was found or not will not be possible for days or even weeks.
Of course, if no water is detected, this is still not proof that there is no water on the moon - only that there is no water at the crash site, or at least not a detectable quantity. Don't give up hope on that moonbase yet Hemos!
This isn't intended to start a flame war or anything, but the story would not likely have been titled "CGI crashes Linux, Get Your Fix Here" three or four months after the initial release of Linux...
Although I agree that strictly speaking this certainly isn't an "Internet War," the fact of the matter is that the Internet, as a means of communication, has had a significant impact on those who have access to it, as evidenced by the figures relating to CNN online readership that Mr. Katz has presented us.
As for his point that this war is more suited to so-called 'traditional' media, I can't help but laugh; anything printed in a reputable paper is available online from various distribution outlets. If Reuters and the Associated Press aren't enough, the CBC, BBC and CNN each produce a plethora of online articles daily. More importantly, they provide searchable databases of past reports, something that no newspaper, radio or television station can provide.
One might note that television has an obvious edge over print media inasmuch as video coverage is often far more spectacular than a written story and a few photographs, but one must also consider that television isn't particularly conducive to independent thinking. These 'traditional' media tend to present a one-sided perspective of the news, a situation in strict opposition to the eclectic variety of standpoints one invariably finds on the Internet.
Mr. Katz is right: this isn't an "Internet War". But he's in claiming that coverage of this war is more suited to television, radio or newspaper. If anything, it's more important than ever that each individual makes up his own mind on such an important issue; this isn't a comparison of toaster ovens, it's blood, death and human lives. If a person simply accepts the one-sided reporting found in 'traditional' media without considering the opposing arguments, he is doing himself a great disservice. With all the freedom of expression the Internet provides, it would be a shame to not take advantage of it.
Chris.
Finally we'll be able to get the source code to the Blue Screen of Death!
I somehow get the feeling that this initiative will hit the Open Source community like a rejected organ transplant. Not only is there a huge amount of animosity toward Microsoft, but I don't really see that anyone would want to get a hold of much of their code seeing as it wasn't designed to be flexible or extensible, as Linux was, but to be exactly what Microsoft wanted. Not much but the really low-level kernel-type stuff would be of interest to anyone.
> Why are you trying to impress me?
:^(
Don't flatter yourself.
> Was Daddy absent or unattentive?
What the hell? Are you drunk?
> I know how that is.
That's quite obvious.
> They have no trouble communicating ideas without
> using every vernacular profanity in the American
> lexicon.
Let me quote you from your high-scoring comment insecure, teen-age egotists (Score:1)
on Fri March 12, 13:49 EDT
>Humour.
>
>I guess you cannot see it through all the piss.
>
>Nobody who understands free software gives two
>shits about Bill Gates or Microsoft.
Who needs GUIDs when stupidity and hypocrisy leave a more obvious trail?
>like I said I was sick of writing at the end of this article
I can't help but wish he'd been sick of writing at the beginning of this article...
Thank you for providing a much-needed humorous interlude in the midst of what was an otherwise stale thread. It's always nice to read comments from 'intellectuals' whose main purpose in posting is simply to show off their enviable eclectic vocabularistic eccentricities, whilst providing the layman with an affecting, albeit anticlimactic aphorism or adage. Alas, too many people in this world seem to think that by emulating the style of Martin Amis they'll actually impress someone.
:)
Sad, when I saw your handle Thinker, I figured your comment might actually be something clever. I am a believer in constructive criticism however, so I'll point out that I really enjoyed your creative use of boldface - that was quite good! You need to work on the anger management though; consider looking into professional counselling.