government is not a corporation. Government is the people.
You're both wrong, though it's more accurate to say that the government is a corporation than it is "the people." Give me a break! When was the last time you voted on a law? When was the last time you declared war on another country? When was the last time you decided how much money would be allocated to federal programs?
They get the government they pay for.
Government's natural tendency is to grab for even more power. Go back and read up on Clinton's (failed) EO 13083 entitled "Federalism."
When they don't bother to turn off the schlock coming from people like you who've read only Ayn Rand, and go and vote, they get the pond scum that is in office now.
More ad hominems. How do you know he's read "only Ayn Rand"? Furthermore, what "pond scum" are you referring to that has been put in office due to Libertarian vote? Every "pond scum" politician I've seen comes from the Republicrat or Green parties.
It still doesn't make government a corporation.
It makes it even less "the people."
No go off and get you daily dose of Limba on the government project known as the Internet.
More inaccuracies. DARPA was a government project. What we know as the Internet today is largely due to commercial successes. Is slashdot a private company or does the government run it?
Wow, what an awesome comeback! Instead of responding to any of my points you just whip out the tired, old, "racist redneck" comment. Racists and rednecks aren't confined to the South, dear. They exist all over the country. The strongholds of the Neo-Nazi and Christian Identity movements are actually in the West.
Tell me, what was it that I said which gives you the impression that I'm a "racist redneck"? I can tell you exactly what you said that gives me the impression that you're a rude, stupid, and cruel yankee. (Provided that you're the same anonymous coward that I responded to previously.)
For the record, I'm a gay man, and I have a committed partner with whom I've adopted a little boy from Ukraine. Growing up gay in the South wasn't easy (as if it was easy anywhere). I've probably suffered more from "racist rednecks" than you could ever imagine.
Just because you were all stupid enough to think that you could win a war of attrition when you had half the population, no real industry, and a poor infrastructure doesn't mean you should keep bitching about it.
That wasn't what he was bitching about. He was bitching about being equated with Yankees.
I feel real bad for destroying an economy that was based on slavery.
You had as much to do with destroying the evil institution of slavery as I did with perpetuating it: nothing.
I hear Atlanta was a gorgeous city too, at least until Sherman burned it down.
Your words perpetuate the stereotype that yankees are rude, stupid, and cruel.
I've always wanted to take a tour of the south in a car that named the 'General Sherman'. Would be fun. Sure fire way to learn all about 'southern hospitality'
Let me get this straight: It would be fun to flout an act of so-called "Total War" in the face of people who have done nothing to you and then look for hypocracy when they don't give you hospitality? This is your idea of "fun"? Again, your words perpetuate the stereotype that yankees are rude, stupid, and cruel.
It's ridiculous that Southerners get the label of "not letting go of the war" when Northerners can write things like you just did and not be labeled with anything.
(I should learn not to feed the trolls, but sometimes I don't mind turning the spotlight on after a yankee's shown his whole ass.)
BTW, to a non-USAian, all U.S. citizens are 'Yanks', as Robert pointed out.
Yes, I know, though I think what you meant to say is, "to an English-speaking non-USAian, all U.S. citizens are 'Yanks'." I became aware of this fact after spending a good amount of time with my Scottish in-laws. I was attempting to make a joke, I think the humor was lost in the medium.
To an Aussie, a "Yank" (or "Seppo", the derivation of which is kind of amusing but a little difficult to explain) is a citizen of the US. While it's often prefixed with "crazy", "loony" or a variety of epithets, we're casting slurs on all US citizens rather than a subset:)
I'm a Southerner, and I agree with the Aussies that yankees are rightly prefixed with "crazy," "loony," or many other colorful epithets!
The portrayal and images of women (and men:)) in porn cause the viewers of porn to have a skewed sense of women or men in general.
Really? Define "sense of women" and "sense of men." Then tell me how much the viewing of porn will skew this sense. How did you measure it? Is the amount of skew variable in port viewers? If so, what level is skew is "acceptable"?
This is not a troll. These are fair, scientific questions that I think you should be expected to answer.
Perhaps it's just the porn I've seen, but it almost always has a hard edge and women are (seemingly) being used and treated solely as sex objects. I know, I know... it's a porn... they're supposed to be sex objects..
Yes, and so what? Isn't any sex partner a "sex object" in some way? Even in a "loving, committed relationship" people are getting off on eachother.
It's not that your opinion is unpopular, but that your facts are wrong.
I'm using windows 2000, and it's NEVER crashed on me!
I've used Win2k and is has crashed on me. Multiple times. I have friends who've used it and it's crashed on them. Multiple times. When I tried to install it at home, it "forgot" that I had a CD-ROM device. It never installed. In other words, it's really not that much more reliable than any other windoze.
integrated REALLY WELL, on a level that no one else has done before, and i think it's GREAT!
That which is convenient to you is not necessarily good for capitalism. Capitalism works only when products can compete based on their merits. When Microsoft released products that are integrated (also known as "bundling") then they are making the sale of one product contingent upon another. This is never good for consumers. It means that their competitors are fighing an uphill battle on a way-unlevel playing field. Microsoft will ultimately win, but not for any capitalistic reason. And when they have no competitors and thus no reason to innovate, how much more can they charge for nothing? The sky is the limit!
And don't tell me they have an advantage because they work on the OS too. AOL/Netscape or even Yahoo or whoever coulda done the exact same thing better, but they didn't.
Did AOL/Netscape get a free ride on IBM's coattails and then enact a horrible (but wonderful... for Microsoft) licensing scheme that was later declared illegal? AOL/Netscape did *not* have the incredible luck that Microsoft had.
microsoft has some pretty good ideas, and a lot of the time they have em and deploy em first.
The fact that they have more money than God helps this out. Money is power. And if it weren't for MS-DOS they would have none.
MySQL has a different purpose than SMSQLServer and is for a different market, but to say that he couldnt possibley defend his argument, well.... you sound like a nut too.
I did not say that he couldn't possibly defend his argument. I stated that he provided no evidence to support his argument. Your argument is a strawman, and then an ad hominem.
Who thinks for an enterprise standpoint the MySQL is even close to the same class as Oracle, SQLServer, or hell even Sybase or DB2 for that matter.
I surely didn't. Your implication is a non sequitur.
I MySQL is great for what it does do, but jeez. I believe that it is too easy to interpret the MySQL is technically superior view of the quote as that, even if that was not what was intended. And the poster's main point that the quote was irresponsible FUD stands. Even of all you choose to do is tear up the poster on high school level debate tactics.
Never did I dispute the original poster's claim that the statement made by the MySQL folks was FUD. In fact, I agree with him/her! But that doesn't change the fact that his/her post was also FUD, and that was the point of my post. That's also the point that you have failed to address. And as for your snide "tear up the poster with high-school level debate tactics," it seems that maybe you need to go back to high school debate team for some lessons. You can't seem to form an argument without resorting to strawman attacks, non-sequiturs, and plain old invective. Case in point:
sorry, you sound like a nut too. oh wait I said that already.
So the distributor of MySQL, the most brain-dead POS DBMS on the planet, says MS can't beat them technically. I'm sorry, but MySQL cannot even come close to MSSQL.
You attempt to show that MSSQL is better than MySQL merely by stating, "...MySQL cannot even come close to MSSQL." and you provide no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim.
Furthermore, you describe MySQL as the most brain-dead piece of shit database management system on the planet. Again, providing no evidence whatsoever to support your claim.
Then you have the unmitigated gall to state, "I guess it goes to show that FUD comes from both directions." Did you fail to realize that your post can only lie somewhere in between FUD and flamebait? Hell, maybe it even encompasses both! The least you could have done is post some benchmarks or some anecdotal evidence to support your position. It would certainly have done much more for your argument than decrying what you despise as a piece of shit.
And who decides what is "necessary"? I hereby decide that it is "necessary" that I know every detail of your sexual life so that I may share it with everyone who knows you or may meet you in the future. So I'll invent unavoidable devices that spy on you 24/7. The fact that I can develop said technology is, by your argument, a fairly good indicator of need. Necessity is the mother of invention, after all.
Here you'll probably say that my "need" is invalid since it's not for the "greater good of society." This argument assumes that the government will never abuse their power. Who is in the government, faultless saints and angels, or flesh-and-blood, fallible humans like you and I? Perhaps you should do a web search on MK-ULTRA and find out. No, I'm not talking about the band; I'm talking about when the CIA chose to use mind control experiments including using LSD on hapless civilians. No, I'm not kidding. And that's just the tip of the iceberg once we start talking about abuse of government power in this so-called "Land of the Free."
BTW, fuck privacy - you don't need it if you ain't guilty.
And what happens when someone in power decides you are guilty -- except that you are innocent? Are you going to say that people in government won't abuse their power? How many Russians died under the rule of Stalin? (Answer: 100 million)
Privacy is protection from tyranny. Your attitude is indicative of the belief that powerful governments are the source of compassion and never do wrong. Unfortunately, history is not on your side.
Come on, now. Don't start rattling off your matchbook cover rendition of Political Economy to explain how people's freedom is reduced by closed source software. That's bullshit.
Your response is pathetic. You don't tell me how my analysis is wrong. Instead, you merely accuse me of being small-minded and call my argument "bullshit." In other words, it's an ad hominem.
The day when I can't take NetBSD source code, change it into anything that I want, compile it, install it, screw down the lid on it and sell it without telling anybody what I did to change it is the day somebody has taken away my freedom.
You still don't understand. Freedom does not imply that I am free to harm others. The United States is still a "free country" but has laws limiting my freedom to infringe on others' freedom. Are you free to commit burglary or to enslave another U.S. citizen? Are you going to complain about the loss of those freedoms as well?
At this point you'll probably argue that burglary and enslavement are not analogous to anything to do with software use. Incorrect. The issue is whether or not you are using your freedom to limit another's. You still have to counter my point that Microsoft (and by proxy, *BSD) is using software to limit others' freedom.
Yes, you sound like a broken record. Somebody tap on his tone arm, okay?
Yet another ad hominem. Perhaps you'd like to respond to my points rather than stooping to invective. Time will tell.
Honestly, what's wrong with using something like the BSD license?
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, here it is:
The BSD license allows programmers to take software and then use that to limit others' freedom. Microsoft has used BSD code and then released code that reduces others' freedom. The BSD programmers were inadvertently working for Microsoft, a company which works night and day to remove people's choice and thus their freedom.
I argue that free code that can be used as a cudgel against others' freedom is something that hinders freedom.
Forcing the openness of all the software would have been wrong and anti-American.
How is it any more wrong than forcing the closedness of code? How is it anti-American at all? Sometimes being anti-American isn't a bad thing, considering what happens in the CIA (do a google search for MK-ULTRA), the NSA, the School of the Americas (anyone remember "Blowtorch Bob"?), and the War on (Some) Drugs.
Guys, Netscape already tried to recover stock price and marketshare by attacking Microsoft instead of creating quality product of their own. It didn't work.
It's kind of hard to imagine that anything Netscape could have done would have worked considering that Microsoft integrated their product into their OS. What do you think will happen to Quicken if Microsoft decides to integrate Money into their OS? Why do you think AOL lobbies so strongly for their icon to appear on the Windows desktop? Microsoft knows where the power is.
So ? I know plenty of people who made and continue to make mistakes. They get punished for it in one way or another - should I discontinue my relationship with them just because they are fallible human beings?
Same goes for Microsoft, I am sure they have done things, which weren't commendable, but in my opinion, their overall conduct was pretty decent.
I wonder what makes you think they're so "decent." If Microsoft is "decent," then who is bad?
But I wasn't asking you to terminate your relationship. I'm trying to get you to understand why I think they're trying to limit others' freedom. Answer me this: are you free to run a non-IIS webserver on Windows NT Workstation 4.0?
It's strange how you jump to the defense of Microsoft while you decry RMS as some kind of "enemy of freedom."
How can you say that? For you, maybe, but I became avid user of IE starting with version 3.1 and therefore directly benefited from having this software bundled with MS OS ( or other products.)
What time you became a user of IE has nothing to do with whether or not they have forced the sale of IE. Microsoft has admitted under oath that they generate revenue from IE. It is impossible for you or anyone else to claim that IE is a free product. And since the sale of Windows 98 and other products included the sale of IE, you must agree that the sale of IE was forced. If you disagree, then I expect you to tell me how one can buy Windows 98 without paying for IE.
You obviously have a problem with acknowledging that people CAN have radically different opinions than you. Your "facts" are unequivocal while my "subjective" opinions are simply bragging of a "drunken individual."
What made you think that I needed you to tell me what my "problems" are? This is yet another ad hominem.
I never claimed that my facts are "unequivocal." If you disagree with my facts, then tell me why. I may be convinced to your point of view. But telling me "You obviously have a problem..." will convince me of nothing. Furthermore, I never made any judgement about your opinions. I said that your facts were subjective, and I don't know from where you gleaned the phrase "drunken individual." It seems you are attempting to demonize my words in an completely unjustified manner.
Do you realize how many of my points went uncontested by you? Do you realize how many of my questions went unanswered by you?
One word: GPL. I vividly remember how much pain and bad press KDE folks got from FSF and GPL zealots. We are not talking here about some commercial entity trying to free ride on other people code.
We are talking about freedom fighters like RMS actually going out of their way to disturb other peoples _free_ work simply because it failed to meet their criteria of freedom.
Likewise, you're calling RMS an enemy of freedom because... he fails to meet your criteria for freedom. As you can see, the problem is semantic, and you are treading very closely to hypocrisy.
I claim that software that can be used as a tool to limit others' freedom does not help the cause of freedom. These are some of my criteria for freedom. What part or parts of my claim do you dispute, and why?
No, I never felt threatened or oppressed by MS.
I didn't ask you how you felt.
Frankly, I feel the only reason I was able to afford a lot of hardware and software was revolution brought to this industry by MS folks.
Another non-sequitur. What does this have to do with whether or not Microsoft forced the sale of IE or IIS?
Remember Unix market? How stiff and out of reach with reality these companies were and still are.
Non sequitur again! This has nothing to do with Microsoft's business practices.
You argue that I and countless others are being robed of our freedoms by Microsoft.
Funny thing, I don't feel that way and, my impression is that most people don't feel that way either.
Who cares how you and countless others feel? When people are drunk, they may feel like they're beautiful and invulnerable. Do their feelings make them so? Of course not! You are not only making a projection argument ("how I feel determines truth and reality"), but you're also throwing in an ad numeram argument by suggesting that a whole lot of people agreeing with your subjective sentiment somehow lends credence to it. It does not.
You do live in a different world.
Once again, you trot out the ad hominems. Do you think you will convince me with personal attacks?
Now, I asked you two questions, one of which you flatly ignored, and another that you attempted to answer with a paragraph of non-sequiturs, personal testimony, an ad numeram argument, and an ad hominem argument. I'll ask you the two questions again, and maybe this time I'll get some answers:
1. Do you know how Microsoft forced the sale of IIS through deceit and an underhanded license agreement?
2. Do you know how Microsoft forced the sale of IE through bundling which provided no benefit to consumers?
An enemy of freedom?
What if I declared RMS an archenemy of freedom?
Would you consider me a lunatic?
No, I would not. I would instead ask you to support your argument.
Are you implying that I am a "lunatic?"
If you start with that kind of assumption then we have no common ground to even begin reasonable dispute.
Except that it isn't an assumption. Microsoft does not want people to have choice. Choice is freedom. Microsoft does everything it can to stifle choice. Do you know how they tried to force the sale of IIS through deceit and an underhanded license agreement? Do you know how they forced the sale of IE through bundling which provided no added benefit to consumers? How much more evidence will you require to be convinced that Microsoft is an enemy of individal freedom?
It isn't an assumption; it is a conclusion drawn from evidence. Evidence that I'll be happy to provide for you if you are interested.
You live in a different world.
This is a meaningless ad hominem.
I notice that you have failed to address hardly any of the points I've made.
PS. If "BS" offended you so much, I will gladly take it back.
I wasn't offended, but you should still take it back. Not for me, but for the sake of improving the quality of your pathetic argument, which, right now, is heavy on the ad hominems and light on the answers.
Opening your argument with a line like this only works to discredit your argument. Draw your conclusion after you make your argument, not before. Furthermore, referring to my argument as "bullshit" only validates the stereotype of the elitist, arrogant, and rude BSD advocate.
The original product which is what we are talking about still stays free !!! What BSD license acknowledges is while they can enforce freedom on their software they cannot and should enforce anything on stuff that people build on top of their code. This is real freedom.
As long as the code can be used as a cudgel against someone else's freedom, then it is not, as you claim, "real freedom." If Microsoft, an enemy of freedom, uses BSD code, then BSD programmers are working for Microsoft.
If I wrote a web server and published it under BSD no matter how many derivatives will be made proprietary and what have you, my original code will always be free.
So what? If your web server is taken by a freedom-hating company and used to dominate the market and thus restrict others' freedom, then you have worked against freedom, not for it. And this is exactly what has happened.
Who gives me a right to enforce my choice of license on people who decide to extend and modify my code?
Quite frankly, the law does. As an advocate of individual freedom, I will not allow another to use my code to restrict another's freedom. And as long as laws exist to enable me to enforce my will for my code, then I intend to expoit them.
It seems to be that you are shooting yourself in the foot. Even the BSD license has restrictions. Are you suggesting that those restrictions are only there to humor those reading them, and that they are not to be enforced?
The best thing you can do to destroy my argument is for you to refute my evidence that BSD code has been used to restrict others' freedom. If you can destroy that evidence, then I have no argument.
The GPL is a free license and it is designed to stay free. The BSD license is free enough to allow someone to take it and use it to remove someone else's freedom. Is that truly a "free" license? I think not. I think if something dares to call itself "free" then it should stay free and not allow itself to be used as a cudgel against others' freedom.
This is why I oppose *BSD. I think BSD is worse for freedom than, say, BeOS (proprietary license). Why? Because companies like Microsoft, who are dedicated to removing individuals' freedom in every way possible, have used BSD code in their software. The BSD coders were inadvertently working for Microsoft. The BeOS developers weren't.
One could also argue that Be, Inc. is just as bad as Microsoft becuase they develop non-free software. Not so. Stalin and Andrew Jaskson were both evil, but Stalin much more so. Likewise, Microsoft and Be, Inc. may both be wrong, but Be, Inc. did not try to force the sale of IIS through outright lies and underhanded licensing agreements.
Some would argue that for such a large scale installation we should have vendor installed servers. But we found that we wanted a very customised solution, and without putting the vendor down, we felt that we had enough expertise within. At the end of the day we were in complete control.
And therein lies one of the undeniable powers of free (libre) software: the user is in complete control.
This is something that proprietary software cannot compete with. Proprietary software always takes some control away from the user. With free software, the user always has control.
Advocates of proprietary software may not like this fact, but it doesn't make it a troll.
Why does everyone bitch about MS subsidizing their OWN PRODUCTS???
Because what Microsoft is doing is rightly called "dumping." It's illegal and anti-capitalistic.
Microsoft has made enough money convincing people to buy their product.
Inaccurate. Microsoft was riding on IBM's coattails for years while their MS-DOS cash cow churned out millions. They didn't have to spend a dime convincing anyone of anything; IBM's reputation took care of that.
Saying that MS doesn't have to right to spend money on it's own product implies that Microsoft does not have the right to spend its own money.
Except that I didn't say this. I am against dumping, not investing. If you and I are selling shoes, and I use the profits of my diamond mine to sell my shoes at $0/pair, would you regard that as "capitalism"?
Naturally, there is a fine line between the two, but it's impossible to argue that Microsoft is anywhere near that line considering that they hold monopoly power in the Desktop OS market making them the richest and most powerful company in the world -- commanding almost an entire sector of the U.S. and world economy and the fates of dozens if not hundreds of companies who base their entire future (see also: Intuit) on running on the Microsoft OS.
I'd have that over a diamond mine any day of the year. At least then I wouldn't be held captive by DeBeers.
If a company wants to lose wads of cash on a poor product, LET IT. If they want to string it along until it's good enough for people to use, LET IT. Microsoft doesn't hold a gun to people's head and say "use MSN or you're dead."
Again you beat up a strawman. I never said Microsoft forces people to use their products. I argued that people are forced to choose their products because they have no other choice. And MSN is only one of their products in which they don't have monopoly power. But it's only a matter of time. Despite the fact that MSN has been a loser for years, Microsoft has enough power and resources to simply outspend their rivals. In a fair market (i.e. one not pervaded by Microsoft's monopoly power), MSN would have gone belly-up a long time ago.
There are always equivalent alternatives.
Wrong. For the majority of people in the world, especially the business world, there is no alternative to a Microsoft OS + Microsoft Office. For those people (again, the majority), not choosing Microsoft means not choosing computing. At least, the desktop kind. Notice how Microsoft is using their desktop monopoly to start creeping into the server space and every other aspect of computing. Is it beginning to make sense to you why I am concerned?
What's so unamerican about a company having the freedom to make and sell products as they see fit? If anything, all the rules and restrictions placed on Microsoft (and our efforts to put more restrictions on them, and in fact to break up the entire company) could hardly be called "American."
Does Microsoft have the freedom to compete with other companies with the strength of monopoly power to subsidize its failures? That seems pretty anti-capitalistic to me. In my capitalistic utopia, the competitors compete solely based on the merits of their products and services.
Why is that bad? Katz, you're knee-jerking again. They coming up with new projects and products. That's *wonderful*, not terrible. It adds to the "marketplace of ideas." If we don't like them, we don't have to buy them.
And if we don't like electricity, we don't have to use it. For the vast majority of people (especially businesses) in this country, there simply is no alternative. That's the nature of monopoly, that's the way Microsoft wants it, and that's why their expansion is a bad thing.
If Linux (or anything else) is going to make it in the marketplace, the people behind it will have to stop whining about not having the market equivalent of affirmative action, and instead will have to develop business models based on something other than "If we make it, they will come."
Linux's success has little to do with the technical merits of Linux. As long as 1. There are no "killer apps" for Linux, and 2. Microsoft controls the standards (which they have written about doing ), then Linux cannot compete no matter how good it is. The OS market is wildly different from almost any other market, and traditional economic principals simply don't apply. What other kinds of non-software, non-media products can you envision that can be duplicated infinitely at nominal cost?
Uhhh....what about the fact that almost everyone who goes online also intersects with Cisco routers? You're not using any logic, Katz.
Apples and oranges. Cisco complies with open standards. Microsoft, on the other hand, *is* the standard. Anyone can go make a router and try and sell it. Competing in the OS market is about a bazillion times more difficult. Go ask Be, Inc. how their experiences competing with Microsoft in the desktop OS market are going (and BeOS is superior to *any* desktop OS Microsoft has produced, IMHO).
This Microsoft garbage is getting really old. Aren't there any important tech topics left in the world?
What's getting old are your invalid, pro-Microsoft arguments. And considering that Microsoft's power is growing, not shrinking, I think it's still an important topic.
Slashdot Mirror
No you stupid bum,
Ad hominem.
government is not a corporation. Government is the people.
You're both wrong, though it's more accurate to say that the government is a corporation than it is "the people." Give me a break! When was the last time you voted on a law? When was the last time you declared war on another country? When was the last time you decided how much money would be allocated to federal programs?
They get the government they pay for.
Government's natural tendency is to grab for even more power. Go back and read up on Clinton's (failed) EO 13083 entitled "Federalism."
When they don't bother to turn off the schlock coming from people like you who've read only Ayn Rand, and go and vote, they get the pond scum that is in office now.
More ad hominems. How do you know he's read "only Ayn Rand"? Furthermore, what "pond scum" are you referring to that has been put in office due to Libertarian vote? Every "pond scum" politician I've seen comes from the Republicrat or Green parties.
It still doesn't make government a corporation.
It makes it even less "the people."
No go off and get you daily dose of Limba on the government project known as the Internet.
More inaccuracies. DARPA was a government project. What we know as the Internet today is largely due to commercial successes. Is slashdot a private company or does the government run it?
I bet you are a racist redneck too.
Wow, what an awesome comeback! Instead of responding to any of my points you just whip out the tired, old, "racist redneck" comment. Racists and rednecks aren't confined to the South, dear. They exist all over the country. The strongholds of the Neo-Nazi and Christian Identity movements are actually in the West.
Tell me, what was it that I said which gives you the impression that I'm a "racist redneck"? I can tell you exactly what you said that gives me the impression that you're a rude, stupid, and cruel yankee. (Provided that you're the same anonymous coward that I responded to previously.)
For the record, I'm a gay man, and I have a committed partner with whom I've adopted a little boy from Ukraine. Growing up gay in the South wasn't easy (as if it was easy anywhere). I've probably suffered more from "racist rednecks" than you could ever imagine.
Last I heard, you fired first.
As if this justifies rape.
Just because you were all stupid enough to think that you could win a war of attrition when you had half the population, no real industry, and a poor infrastructure doesn't mean you should keep bitching about it.
That wasn't what he was bitching about. He was bitching about being equated with Yankees.
I feel real bad for destroying an economy that was based on slavery.
You had as much to do with destroying the evil institution of slavery as I did with perpetuating it: nothing.
I hear Atlanta was a gorgeous city too, at least until Sherman burned it down.
Your words perpetuate the stereotype that yankees are rude, stupid, and cruel.
I've always wanted to take a tour of the south in a car that named the 'General Sherman'. Would be fun. Sure fire way to learn all about 'southern hospitality'
Let me get this straight: It would be fun to flout an act of so-called "Total War" in the face of people who have done nothing to you and then look for hypocracy when they don't give you hospitality? This is your idea of "fun"? Again, your words perpetuate the stereotype that yankees are rude, stupid, and cruel.
It's ridiculous that Southerners get the label of "not letting go of the war" when Northerners can write things like you just did and not be labeled with anything.
(I should learn not to feed the trolls, but sometimes I don't mind turning the spotlight on after a yankee's shown his whole ass.)
BTW, to a non-USAian, all U.S. citizens are 'Yanks', as Robert pointed out.
Yes, I know, though I think what you meant to say is, "to an English-speaking non-USAian, all U.S. citizens are 'Yanks'." I became aware of this fact after spending a good amount of time with my Scottish in-laws. I was attempting to make a joke, I think the humor was lost in the medium.
To an Aussie, a "Yank" (or "Seppo", the derivation of which is kind of amusing but a little difficult to explain) is a citizen of the US. While it's often prefixed with "crazy", "loony" or a variety of epithets, we're casting slurs on all US citizens rather than a subset :)
I'm a Southerner, and I agree with the Aussies that yankees are rightly prefixed with "crazy," "loony," or many other colorful epithets!
(Yes, I'm joking!)
The portrayal and images of women (and men :)) in porn cause the viewers of porn to have a skewed sense of women or men in general.
Really? Define "sense of women" and "sense of men." Then tell me how much the viewing of porn will skew this sense. How did you measure it? Is the amount of skew variable in port viewers? If so, what level is skew is "acceptable"?
This is not a troll. These are fair, scientific questions that I think you should be expected to answer.
Perhaps it's just the porn I've seen, but it almost always has a hard edge and women are (seemingly) being used and treated solely as sex objects. I know, I know... it's a porn... they're supposed to be sex objects..
Yes, and so what? Isn't any sex partner a "sex object" in some way? Even in a "loving, committed relationship" people are getting off on eachother.
It's not that your opinion is unpopular, but that your facts are wrong.
I'm using windows 2000, and it's NEVER crashed on me!
I've used Win2k and is has crashed on me. Multiple times. I have friends who've used it and it's crashed on them. Multiple times. When I tried to install it at home, it "forgot" that I had a CD-ROM device. It never installed. In other words, it's really not that much more reliable than any other windoze.
integrated REALLY WELL, on a level that no one else has done before, and i think it's GREAT!
That which is convenient to you is not necessarily good for capitalism. Capitalism works only when products can compete based on their merits. When Microsoft released products that are integrated (also known as "bundling") then they are making the sale of one product contingent upon another. This is never good for consumers. It means that their competitors are fighing an uphill battle on a way-unlevel playing field. Microsoft will ultimately win, but not for any capitalistic reason. And when they have no competitors and thus no reason to innovate, how much more can they charge for nothing? The sky is the limit!
And don't tell me they have an advantage because they work on the OS too. AOL/Netscape or even Yahoo or whoever coulda done the exact same thing better, but they didn't.
Did AOL/Netscape get a free ride on IBM's coattails and then enact a horrible (but wonderful... for Microsoft) licensing scheme that was later declared illegal? AOL/Netscape did *not* have the incredible luck that Microsoft had.
microsoft has some pretty good ideas, and a lot of the time they have em and deploy em first.
The fact that they have more money than God helps this out. Money is power. And if it weren't for MS-DOS they would have none.
and you people are attacking / defending products STILL, even in this thead.
Which is precisely what you did in your previous post, mr. "you don't know what the fuck you are talking about."
why dont you talk about that.
Good question, why don't you?
MySQL has a different purpose than SMSQLServer and is for a different market, but to say that he couldnt possibley defend his argument, well.... you sound like a nut too.
I did not say that he couldn't possibly defend his argument. I stated that he provided no evidence to support his argument. Your argument is a strawman, and then an ad hominem.
Who thinks for an enterprise standpoint the MySQL is even close to the same class as Oracle, SQLServer, or hell even Sybase or DB2 for that matter.
I surely didn't. Your implication is a non sequitur.
I MySQL is great for what it does do, but jeez. I believe that it is too easy to interpret the MySQL is technically superior view of the quote as that, even if that was not what was intended. And the poster's main point that the quote was irresponsible FUD stands. Even of all you choose to do is tear up the poster on high school level debate tactics.
Never did I dispute the original poster's claim that the statement made by the MySQL folks was FUD. In fact, I agree with him/her! But that doesn't change the fact that his/her post was also FUD, and that was the point of my post. That's also the point that you have failed to address. And as for your snide "tear up the poster with high-school level debate tactics," it seems that maybe you need to go back to high school debate team for some lessons. You can't seem to form an argument without resorting to strawman attacks, non-sequiturs, and plain old invective. Case in point:
sorry, you sound like a nut too. oh wait I said that already.
(argumentum ad hominem)
So the distributor of MySQL, the most brain-dead POS DBMS on the planet, says MS can't beat them technically. I'm sorry, but MySQL cannot even come close to MSSQL.
You attempt to show that MSSQL is better than MySQL merely by stating, "...MySQL cannot even come close to MSSQL." and you provide no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim.
Furthermore, you describe MySQL as the most brain-dead piece of shit database management system on the planet. Again, providing no evidence whatsoever to support your claim.
Then you have the unmitigated gall to state, "I guess it goes to show that FUD comes from both directions." Did you fail to realize that your post can only lie somewhere in between FUD and flamebait? Hell, maybe it even encompasses both! The least you could have done is post some benchmarks or some anecdotal evidence to support your position. It would certainly have done much more for your argument than decrying what you despise as a piece of shit.
Necessity is still the mother of invention.
And who decides what is "necessary"? I hereby decide that it is "necessary" that I know every detail of your sexual life so that I may share it with everyone who knows you or may meet you in the future. So I'll invent unavoidable devices that spy on you 24/7. The fact that I can develop said technology is, by your argument, a fairly good indicator of need. Necessity is the mother of invention, after all.
Here you'll probably say that my "need" is invalid since it's not for the "greater good of society." This argument assumes that the government will never abuse their power. Who is in the government, faultless saints and angels, or flesh-and-blood, fallible humans like you and I? Perhaps you should do a web search on MK-ULTRA and find out. No, I'm not talking about the band; I'm talking about when the CIA chose to use mind control experiments including using LSD on hapless civilians. No, I'm not kidding. And that's just the tip of the iceberg once we start talking about abuse of government power in this so-called "Land of the Free."
BTW, fuck privacy - you don't need it if you ain't guilty.
And what happens when someone in power decides you are guilty -- except that you are innocent? Are you going to say that people in government won't abuse their power? How many Russians died under the rule of Stalin? (Answer: 100 million)
Privacy is protection from tyranny. Your attitude is indicative of the belief that powerful governments are the source of compassion and never do wrong. Unfortunately, history is not on your side.
Reason and Evidence.
Come on, now. Don't start rattling off your matchbook cover rendition of Political Economy to explain how people's freedom is reduced by closed source software. That's bullshit.
Your response is pathetic. You don't tell me how my analysis is wrong. Instead, you merely accuse me of being small-minded and call my argument "bullshit." In other words, it's an ad hominem.
The day when I can't take NetBSD source code, change it into anything that I want, compile it, install it, screw down the lid on it and sell it without telling anybody what I did to change it is the day somebody has taken away my freedom.
You still don't understand. Freedom does not imply that I am free to harm others. The United States is still a "free country" but has laws limiting my freedom to infringe on others' freedom. Are you free to commit burglary or to enslave another U.S. citizen? Are you going to complain about the loss of those freedoms as well?
At this point you'll probably argue that burglary and enslavement are not analogous to anything to do with software use. Incorrect. The issue is whether or not you are using your freedom to limit another's. You still have to counter my point that Microsoft (and by proxy, *BSD) is using software to limit others' freedom.
Yes, you sound like a broken record. Somebody tap on his tone arm, okay?
Yet another ad hominem. Perhaps you'd like to respond to my points rather than stooping to invective. Time will tell.
Honestly, what's wrong with using something like the BSD license?
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, here it is:
The BSD license allows programmers to take software and then use that to limit others' freedom. Microsoft has used BSD code and then released code that reduces others' freedom. The BSD programmers were inadvertently working for Microsoft, a company which works night and day to remove people's choice and thus their freedom.
I argue that free code that can be used as a cudgel against others' freedom is something that hinders freedom.
Forcing the openness of all the software would have been wrong and anti-American.
How is it any more wrong than forcing the closedness of code? How is it anti-American at all? Sometimes being anti-American isn't a bad thing, considering what happens in the CIA (do a google search for MK-ULTRA), the NSA, the School of the Americas (anyone remember "Blowtorch Bob"?), and the War on (Some) Drugs.
Guys, Netscape already tried to recover stock price and marketshare by attacking Microsoft instead of creating quality product of their own. It didn't work.
It's kind of hard to imagine that anything Netscape could have done would have worked considering that Microsoft integrated their product into their OS. What do you think will happen to Quicken if Microsoft decides to integrate Money into their OS? Why do you think AOL lobbies so strongly for their icon to appear on the Windows desktop? Microsoft knows where the power is.
I said that your facts were subjective,
Er, what I *meant* to type was:
I said that your feelings were subjective
*grin*
So ? I know plenty of people who made and continue to make mistakes. They get punished for it in one way or another - should I discontinue my relationship with them just because they are fallible human beings?
Same goes for Microsoft, I am sure they have done things, which weren't commendable, but in my opinion, their overall conduct was pretty decent.
I wonder what makes you think they're so "decent." If Microsoft is "decent," then who is bad?
But I wasn't asking you to terminate your relationship. I'm trying to get you to understand why I think they're trying to limit others' freedom. Answer me this: are you free to run a non-IIS webserver on Windows NT Workstation 4.0?
It's strange how you jump to the defense of Microsoft while you decry RMS as some kind of "enemy of freedom."
How can you say that? For you, maybe, but I became avid user of IE starting with version 3.1 and therefore directly benefited from having this software bundled with MS OS ( or other products.)
What time you became a user of IE has nothing to do with whether or not they have forced the sale of IE. Microsoft has admitted under oath that they generate revenue from IE. It is impossible for you or anyone else to claim that IE is a free product. And since the sale of Windows 98 and other products included the sale of IE, you must agree that the sale of IE was forced. If you disagree, then I expect you to tell me how one can buy Windows 98 without paying for IE.
You obviously have a problem with acknowledging that people CAN have radically different opinions than you. Your "facts" are unequivocal while my "subjective" opinions are simply bragging of a "drunken individual."
What made you think that I needed you to tell me what my "problems" are? This is yet another ad hominem.
I never claimed that my facts are "unequivocal." If you disagree with my facts, then tell me why. I may be convinced to your point of view. But telling me "You obviously have a problem..." will convince me of nothing. Furthermore, I never made any judgement about your opinions. I said that your facts were subjective, and I don't know from where you gleaned the phrase "drunken individual." It seems you are attempting to demonize my words in an completely unjustified manner.
Do you realize how many of my points went uncontested by you? Do you realize how many of my questions went unanswered by you?
One word: GPL. I vividly remember how much pain and bad press KDE folks got from FSF and GPL zealots. We are not talking here about some commercial entity trying to free ride on other people code.
We are talking about freedom fighters like RMS actually going out of their way to disturb other peoples _free_ work simply because it failed to meet their criteria of freedom.
Likewise, you're calling RMS an enemy of freedom because... he fails to meet your criteria for freedom. As you can see, the problem is semantic, and you are treading very closely to hypocrisy.
I claim that software that can be used as a tool to limit others' freedom does not help the cause of freedom. These are some of my criteria for freedom. What part or parts of my claim do you dispute, and why?
No, I never felt threatened or oppressed by MS.
I didn't ask you how you felt.
Frankly, I feel the only reason I was able to afford a lot of hardware and software was revolution brought to this industry by MS folks.
Another non-sequitur. What does this have to do with whether or not Microsoft forced the sale of IE or IIS?
Remember Unix market? How stiff and out of reach with reality these companies were and still are.
Non sequitur again! This has nothing to do with Microsoft's business practices.
You argue that I and countless others are being robed of our freedoms by Microsoft.
Funny thing, I don't feel that way and, my impression is that most people don't feel that way either.
Who cares how you and countless others feel? When people are drunk, they may feel like they're beautiful and invulnerable. Do their feelings make them so? Of course not! You are not only making a projection argument ("how I feel determines truth and reality"), but you're also throwing in an ad numeram argument by suggesting that a whole lot of people agreeing with your subjective sentiment somehow lends credence to it. It does not.
You do live in a different world.
Once again, you trot out the ad hominems. Do you think you will convince me with personal attacks?
Now, I asked you two questions, one of which you flatly ignored, and another that you attempted to answer with a paragraph of non-sequiturs, personal testimony, an ad numeram argument, and an ad hominem argument. I'll ask you the two questions again, and maybe this time I'll get some answers:
1. Do you know how Microsoft forced the sale of IIS through deceit and an underhanded license agreement?
2. Do you know how Microsoft forced the sale of IE through bundling which provided no benefit to consumers?
An enemy of freedom?
What if I declared RMS an archenemy of freedom?
Would you consider me a lunatic?
No, I would not. I would instead ask you to support your argument.
Are you implying that I am a "lunatic?"
If you start with that kind of assumption then we have no common ground to even begin reasonable dispute.
Except that it isn't an assumption. Microsoft does not want people to have choice. Choice is freedom. Microsoft does everything it can to stifle choice. Do you know how they tried to force the sale of IIS through deceit and an underhanded license agreement? Do you know how they forced the sale of IE through bundling which provided no added benefit to consumers? How much more evidence will you require to be convinced that Microsoft is an enemy of individal freedom?
It isn't an assumption; it is a conclusion drawn from evidence. Evidence that I'll be happy to provide for you if you are interested.
You live in a different world.
This is a meaningless ad hominem.
I notice that you have failed to address hardly any of the points I've made.
PS. If "BS" offended you so much, I will gladly take it back.
I wasn't offended, but you should still take it back. Not for me, but for the sake of improving the quality of your pathetic argument, which, right now, is heavy on the ad hominems and light on the answers.
Sorry but this is load of BS.
Opening your argument with a line like this only works to discredit your argument. Draw your conclusion after you make your argument, not before. Furthermore, referring to my argument as "bullshit" only validates the stereotype of the elitist, arrogant, and rude BSD advocate.
The original product which is what we are talking about still stays free !!! What BSD license acknowledges is while they can enforce freedom on their software they cannot and should enforce anything on stuff that people build on top of their code. This is real freedom.
As long as the code can be used as a cudgel against someone else's freedom, then it is not, as you claim, "real freedom." If Microsoft, an enemy of freedom, uses BSD code, then BSD programmers are working for Microsoft.
If I wrote a web server and published it under BSD no matter how many derivatives will be made proprietary and what have you, my original code will always be free.
So what? If your web server is taken by a freedom-hating company and used to dominate the market and thus restrict others' freedom, then you have worked against freedom, not for it. And this is exactly what has happened.
Who gives me a right to enforce my choice of license on people who decide to extend and modify my code?
Quite frankly, the law does. As an advocate of individual freedom, I will not allow another to use my code to restrict another's freedom. And as long as laws exist to enable me to enforce my will for my code, then I intend to expoit them.
It seems to be that you are shooting yourself in the foot. Even the BSD license has restrictions. Are you suggesting that those restrictions are only there to humor those reading them, and that they are not to be enforced?
The best thing you can do to destroy my argument is for you to refute my evidence that BSD code has been used to restrict others' freedom. If you can destroy that evidence, then I have no argument.
The GPL is a free license and it is designed to stay free. The BSD license is free enough to allow someone to take it and use it to remove someone else's freedom. Is that truly a "free" license? I think not. I think if something dares to call itself "free" then it should stay free and not allow itself to be used as a cudgel against others' freedom.
This is why I oppose *BSD. I think BSD is worse for freedom than, say, BeOS (proprietary license). Why? Because companies like Microsoft, who are dedicated to removing individuals' freedom in every way possible, have used BSD code in their software. The BSD coders were inadvertently working for Microsoft. The BeOS developers weren't.
One could also argue that Be, Inc. is just as bad as Microsoft becuase they develop non-free software. Not so. Stalin and Andrew Jaskson were both evil, but Stalin much more so. Likewise, Microsoft and Be, Inc. may both be wrong, but Be, Inc. did not try to force the sale of IIS through outright lies and underhanded licensing agreements.
Some would argue that for such a large scale installation we should have vendor installed servers. But we found that we wanted a very customised solution, and without putting the vendor down, we felt that we had enough expertise within. At the end of the day we were in complete control.
And therein lies one of the undeniable powers of free (libre) software: the user is in complete control.
This is something that proprietary software cannot compete with. Proprietary software always takes some control away from the user. With free software, the user always has control.
Advocates of proprietary software may not like this fact, but it doesn't make it a troll.
[Why is it] that, according to Stallman, only the bad laws propagate, and not the good?
Maybe (if I may put words in his mouth) his point is that all laws propagate, and the vast majority of them are bad, some of them egregiously so.
I believe that any law which makes illegal an activity that doesn't deprive another of life, liberty, or property is a bad law.
Why does everyone bitch about MS subsidizing their OWN PRODUCTS???
Because what Microsoft is doing is rightly called "dumping." It's illegal and anti-capitalistic.
Microsoft has made enough money convincing people to buy their product.
Inaccurate. Microsoft was riding on IBM's coattails for years while their MS-DOS cash cow churned out millions. They didn't have to spend a dime convincing anyone of anything; IBM's reputation took care of that.
Saying that MS doesn't have to right to spend money on it's own product implies that Microsoft does not have the right to spend its own money.
Except that I didn't say this. I am against dumping, not investing. If you and I are selling shoes, and I use the profits of my diamond mine to sell my shoes at $0/pair, would you regard that as "capitalism"?
Naturally, there is a fine line between the two, but it's impossible to argue that Microsoft is anywhere near that line considering that they hold monopoly power in the Desktop OS market making them the richest and most powerful company in the world -- commanding almost an entire sector of the U.S. and world economy and the fates of dozens if not hundreds of companies who base their entire future (see also: Intuit) on running on the Microsoft OS.
I'd have that over a diamond mine any day of the year. At least then I wouldn't be held captive by DeBeers.
If a company wants to lose wads of cash on a poor product, LET IT. If they want to string it along until it's good enough for people to use, LET IT. Microsoft doesn't hold a gun to people's head and say "use MSN or you're dead."
Again you beat up a strawman. I never said Microsoft forces people to use their products. I argued that people are forced to choose their products because they have no other choice. And MSN is only one of their products in which they don't have monopoly power. But it's only a matter of time. Despite the fact that MSN has been a loser for years, Microsoft has enough power and resources to simply outspend their rivals. In a fair market (i.e. one not pervaded by Microsoft's monopoly power), MSN would have gone belly-up a long time ago.
There are always equivalent alternatives.
Wrong. For the majority of people in the world, especially the business world, there is no alternative to a Microsoft OS + Microsoft Office. For those people (again, the majority), not choosing Microsoft means not choosing computing. At least, the desktop kind. Notice how Microsoft is using their desktop monopoly to start creeping into the server space and every other aspect of computing. Is it beginning to make sense to you why I am concerned?
What's so unamerican about a company having the freedom to make and sell products as they see fit? If anything, all the rules and restrictions placed on Microsoft (and our efforts to put more restrictions on them, and in fact to break up the entire company) could hardly be called "American."
Does Microsoft have the freedom to compete with other companies with the strength of monopoly power to subsidize its failures? That seems pretty anti-capitalistic to me. In my capitalistic utopia, the competitors compete solely based on the merits of their products and services.
Why is that bad? Katz, you're knee-jerking again. They coming up with new projects and products. That's *wonderful*, not terrible. It adds to the "marketplace of ideas." If we don't like them, we don't have to buy them.
And if we don't like electricity, we don't have to use it. For the vast majority of people (especially businesses) in this country, there simply is no alternative. That's the nature of monopoly, that's the way Microsoft wants it, and that's why their expansion is a bad thing.
If Linux (or anything else) is going to make it in the marketplace, the people behind it will have to stop whining about not having the market equivalent of affirmative action, and instead will have to develop business models based on something other than "If we make it, they will come."
Linux's success has little to do with the technical merits of Linux. As long as 1. There are no "killer apps" for Linux, and 2. Microsoft controls the standards (which they have written about doing ), then Linux cannot compete no matter how good it is. The OS market is wildly different from almost any other market, and traditional economic principals simply don't apply. What other kinds of non-software, non-media products can you envision that can be duplicated infinitely at nominal cost?
Uhhh....what about the fact that almost everyone who goes online also intersects with Cisco routers? You're not using any logic, Katz.
Apples and oranges. Cisco complies with open standards. Microsoft, on the other hand, *is* the standard. Anyone can go make a router and try and sell it. Competing in the OS market is about a bazillion times more difficult. Go ask Be, Inc. how their experiences competing with Microsoft in the desktop OS market are going (and BeOS is superior to *any* desktop OS Microsoft has produced, IMHO).
This Microsoft garbage is getting really old. Aren't there any important tech topics left in the world?
What's getting old are your invalid, pro-Microsoft arguments. And considering that Microsoft's power is growing, not shrinking, I think it's still an important topic.