I refuse to visit any site whose content was produced by MS' proprietary software which uses special characters which don't adhere to standard character sets.
Hmmm. MS denies that there is even anything called a browser. They do admit to having OS functionality that performs "rendering". If we are to follow MS' logic, it would be impossible to use the OS without using the "rendering" system. I will indulge you by assuming that you were actually referring to using the browser to acccess the internet . If consumers used the "rendering" hooks just as a glorified file manager, then yes, they would not be exposed to malicious viruses introduced via internet connections. Being two rational human beings, do you think it would be fair to say that a majority of consumers have used their bundled "rendering" functionality to peruse the internet? I don't think that even you can wiggle your way around that.
Sure it is [a criticism of Internet] Explorer
This is a criticism of Internet Explorer: "This piece of crap browser lets viruses delete my hard disk...it sucks"
The Judge did not make any judgements about the quality of the software. Any rational human being would admit that Internet Explorer is a fine product. It does, however, have very serious security problems. The judge pointed to those security problems as one of the proofs that he hopes will support his assertion that MS's actions have harmed consumers. An ancillary effect of pointing to the security problems, I guess, could be the perception that the Judge made a criticism of the software. Most rational, informed people understand what the Judge was doing. If you don't, I would suggest that you do not pursue a career in law or any other field that requires that you actually use your brain to analyze information.
Because they signed a liscence[sic] stating that they would not.
Yes. And all those wonderful licenses are coming back to haunt MS. They've left more evidence than O.J. Too bad they don't have a Johnny Cochoran on their side.
The reason that the OEM's accept that clause in the liscence[sic] is that that's what most customers want.
I'm glad to see that you have an intimate relationship with the OEM's and have conveyed their happiness with their licenses. I guess I'll have to disregard the sworn testimony of officials from IBM, Compaq, Gateway, etc. who offered testimony that stated otherwise. But hey, you have far more credibility than they do. I mean, the way you put forth your argument is so persuasive I have no choice but to believe you in the face of mounting, conflicting evidence.
I am simply defending MS's right to control the terms on which they offer their products. I see nothing "infantile" about economic freedom.
You should have applied to join the MS legal team because they are making the same arguments that you present here. Unfortunately their arguments appear to have fallen on deaf ears. I don't understand why such capable legal minds such as yourself and the MS team have been ignored. Judge Jackson, I guess, was too busy criticising MS's software to pay attention to the stellar legal arguments. Oh well. There's always the appeal option.
Or perhaps I've just thought about this issue more than you have
There has been a lot of scientific debate on whether dogs actually think. I will petition them to include you in the study because I am not certain that you posess that skill. I will email you my findings.
and I see no basis for making such an ad hom.
I see no reason why you are allowed to use a computer. It is a waste of bandwidth.
Most of whom would have a political agenda, since they would be called by one of the two sides. And even if he had dozens of impartial advisors at his side...
Everyone has a damn political agenda! You and I have political agendas regarding this issue! The difference between you and me and the experts at the trial is that they are professionals who are called on to curb their political agendas and offer objective testimony. To the extent that some experts let their political agenda (or even financial compensation) influence their objectivity, it is the trial judge's responsibility to determine whose testimony is more believable and trust-worthy.
I still think it's a bad idea for software design to be the subject of court challenge.
Show me where Judge Jackson has based his decision on "software design". I don't think you can. The judge, in trying to support his claim that end users were harmed by MS's monopolistic actions (which is the only basis to sue for Anti-trust violations...harming competitors doesn't matter), pointed to MS's practice of bundling a browser (actually, their browser) with Windows distributions, for consumers who may have not even wanted a browser at all, which left them susceptible to bugs and viruses that could crash their systems. That is not a criticism of Internet Explorer or Windows per se, it is a proof of harm to the consumer based on MS's monopolistic actions.
And that's their choice.
That's their "choice" ? Explain how the consumer had a "choice" when the system came bundled with Internet explorer and said system was mandated by MS' license to exclude any competitor's browser.
IE works just fine for most purposes.
So does Netscape. So does Opera. Why were OEM's not allowed to place these on the systems they were selling?
Nonsense. They were free to reject Microsoft's liscence and sell any OS they wanted.
Yeah, that makes sense. I can just see Dell saying the hell with MS and then concentrating on locking up the 5% of the PC market that MS does not own.
You are offering infantile arguments. I apologize for calling you stupid but you are either very young without any understanding of business and law or you are a fan on MS's products with no interest in honestly debating the issue.
When MS admitted that they never took competitor OS pricing into consideration when setting the pricing for Win98, they basically admitted that they are a monopoly. Judge Jackson believes they harmed consumers while enjoying this monopoly status. I and many others agree. You have the right to disagree. I would just hope that you would offer up semi-intelligent dissent.
t strikes me as a terrible idea to even think about letting judges make software engineering choices.
Don't be silly. The Judge listened to dozens of technical experts. He is not pulling this information out of his ass. You might be, however.
Consumers have several viable web-browser choices, and so if they don't like Microsoft's product, they can use a different one.
Microsoft, by pressuring OEM's and ISP's, tried to do everything in it's power to limit the choices of browser software you saw on your machine. Most people just go with what is on their machine. That is limiting. Thank god for the internet, which allowed people to find Netscape or Opera. Once again you are looking at the issue simplistically and are not offering anyting new. There have been tons of myopic individuals like yourself dispensing the same advice. Thank god Judge Jackson has half a brain though.
Since no one has ever been forced to buy a Microsoft product, I don't see how anyone could have been harmed except through their own poor choices.
My God, you are stupid. I guess all those OEM's who had to pay the MS for every machine they sold, regardless of whether it contained MS software enjoyed that practice. They were squeezed and as a result, we the consumers were squeezed.
We would all demand that. No one wants to see any one company in control of the computer field. We've already slowed progress under MS's strangle hold already. We don't want to waste any more time.
Bloatware has always been a MS tactic, not some act of sloppy coding that most people attribute it to. Bloatware has always been about propelling the need for higher end systems with more storage and ram to support MS's larger OS's. MS wants to drop the consumer desktop OS as soon as possible and stick with the one size fits all server OS. They are one iteration of their OS away from reaching this dream. Actually, I should say they were one iteration away from their dream.
People out there forget that most computer peripherals first have a Windows 95/98/NT driver available, because that's what most users will be running. Let's see how long before we'll see Linux drivers for most inkjet printers, backup peripherals, USB peripherals and IEEE-1394 peripherals.
Bro. Did you read Judge Jackson's finding of facts at all? He sums up the exact dilemma you refer to -- the chicken and the egg problem. MS's domination of the dekstop OS market has created an environment that it makes it difficult for new desktop OS's to become viable. A big part of this reason is that developers prefer to develop for markets that have large numbers of users, i.e., potential customers. Customers, equally, don't want to use desktop OS's that lack in the number of applications that they use or plan to use in the future.
Sure there are a lot of open source developers out there doing great things for Linux. But the majority of harware manufacturers have yet to embrace Linux yet because they are too busy supporting the Win/Intel platforms.
First thing Monday morning I am going to contact my lawyer to discuss whether we should pursue opening a class-action lawsuit. I personally feel that MS has harmed me by overcharging for it's software and I plan to seek legal redress.
I'm sure some of you reactionary, right wing, republican types will howl at this comment, but I don't care because I honestly believe in what I will be doing Monday morning. I suspect I won't be the only person pursuing justice either.
Judge Jackson states that Linux is becoming an option on the server side, but that it no where near competing with MS on the desktop front for at least a few years. If you read the Judge's release,which I suspect you haven't, you would have found that he elucidated voluminous, well-founded arguments on why MS has made competition on the desktop impossible.
Initially perhaps. Eventually it will go back up, and when I say up, I mean way up.
Bill Gates and MS stockholders make out like fat cats no matter what happens. People selling MS stock right now are complete idiots. I don't own any MS stock but it sure isn't a bad time to think about picking some up.
Any judgement against Microsoft will result in them lobbying Congress to nullify the courts decision "in the interests of the American People".
Lobbying can't save them from the hole they're in now unless Congress passes a law that repeals the Sherman Act and makes it retroactive to 1986. That would require some hellacious lobbying, the likes of which none of us have ever seen.
What we're likely to see is Microsoft pull the string on the politicians it has attempted to buy (and in the case of Senator Slade from Washington, has successfully bought) and have them denounce the finding of fact and the subsequent finding of law that will determine how Judge Jackson wants to treat MS's monopoly status. A lot of noise will ensue but it won't matter much.
Besides, doesn't "censorship" (in the strictest definition of the word)connotate government action?
I'm not sure, but isn't Yahoo facing some issues about moderating the contents of its discussion boards (or whatever they call them)? I understand that they were removing posts that they demmed not to be factual. They have always claimed that they could not be liable for the content of the postings because they did not censor them. Now that they have acknowledged censoring, they have potentially opened up a hornet's nest for themselves.
True, Rob and Gang do allow you to see all the posts, but I think a lot of people have their threshhold set to 1, so in effect censorship is taking place.
I'm personally not a fan of the moderation system so I wouldn't mind it if Rob got scared and ditched it anyway. Rob, are you listening?
I'm in a loving mood today, so I'll ignore the ad hominem attacks on my person. But I would like to point out some contradictions in your post. >>The only thing I can see the judge doing, which >>would have any chance of passing apellate >>muster,is putting in a provision that would >>mandate some kind of oversight of Microsoft's >>business dealings for something like the next 5 >>years.
>...What evidence do you have that such a remedy >would pass appellate muster? What evidence do you >have that more would not?
Previously, back on the ranch... >>That is, in his fact of finding, his conclusion >>should be that a breakup of Microsoft should >>not happen.
>...I expect the findings of fact will probably >declare Microsoft to be a monopoly, and not >suggest anything as to remidies
So let me get this straight. I'm supposed to gather evidence to support my suppositions, yet you are allowed to postulate as to what Judge Jackson is going to do? I heard they released a movie about being in John Malkovich's head. Someone should have told them that you were already starring in the movie about being in Judge Jackson's head.
Something substantial has to be done to Microsoft if the industry is to recover, whether a breakup or strict regulation is best I don't know. A slap on the wrist would hasten the death of the proprietary software industry, because Microsoft would continue to kill it.
Hmm...I guess since you're saying it, "evidence" isn't needed to prove your point?
It would be a fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc, I think) to conclude that the down time was a result of Apache.
Correct. However, in the absence of any revelation of what the actual problem was, it is a good possibility that the changeover to a new webserver might be the problem. It might not be the reason either, but a change of webservers is just about as big a change as you can do on an e-commerce site.
And, if you bothered to actually read the article on CNet, you would have seen that there were other outages before the switch over.
I actually did "bother" to read the article on Cnet. I know how to work those link thingies too;>)
I guess the point of my original article is that this outage can be miscontrstrued by people, organizations (any guesses here...) who have an apache ax to grind or who want to promote other web servers. I'm rather agnostic on the issue but I'm always intrigued to hear comments from people who are in the trenches.
That is, in his fact of finding, his conclusion should be that a breakup of Microsoft should not happen. The only thing I can see the judge doing, which would have any chance of passing appellate muster, is putting in a provision that would mandate some kind of oversight of Microsoft's business dealings for something like the next 5 years.
The computing landscape has changed significanty since this case was brought to trial. I don't think breaking up Microsoft would be good for the industry in general. Part of the reason that the landscape has changed is that MS's actions have been under the spotlight. Putting them under an extended spotlight might allow further change.
Dude, the guy that runs that site is warped! That bit about the Implementor and the monkey in a bagel doing the taxes had me pissing my pants off! Damn, I haven't laughed like that in a while!
You're absolutely right. CS, in and of itself, is not a contradiction. It's the work that goes on under it's name, within the proprietary framework, that is the contradiction, as it is with any other branch of science.
Thanks for helping to clarify that. I certainly didn't intend to indict CS itself.
I've also never understood why people like Richard Stallman always bitch and moan about proprietary software. If they don't want to use it, no one is forcing them (well, their job might, but that's a different issue).
When Richard Stallman expresses his disatisfaction with proprietary software, he is pointing out the contradiction of the very term 'Computer Science'. How can you call a branch a knowledge a science when it is predicated upon closure and propietary knowledge?
True scientists seek answers and share their findings. That is how science has evolved and continues to evolve. Where would we be if Newton and Einstein and all the others withheld their findings and served them up to the highest bidders?
Stallman is of the belief that advancement is slowed in the face of propietary knowledge. I agree with him.
I think that we should have killed her on the spot, but that's just me. Yet another reason why I haven't been able to vote for a Democrat for close to ten years.
Ain't the Republicans just lucky to have you in their fold?
Slashdot Mirror
I refuse to visit any site whose content was produced by MS' proprietary software which uses special characters which don't adhere to standard character sets.
If they actually used the browser.
Hmmm. MS denies that there is even anything called a browser. They do admit to having OS functionality that performs "rendering". If we are to follow MS' logic, it would be impossible to use the OS without using the "rendering" system. I will indulge you by assuming that you were actually referring to using the browser to acccess the internet . If consumers used the "rendering" hooks just as a glorified file manager, then yes, they would not be exposed to malicious viruses introduced via internet connections. Being two rational human beings, do you think it would be fair to say that a majority of consumers have used their bundled "rendering" functionality to peruse the internet? I don't think that even you can wiggle your way around that.
Sure it is [a criticism of Internet] Explorer
This is a criticism of Internet Explorer: "This piece of crap browser lets viruses delete my hard disk...it sucks"
The Judge did not make any judgements about the quality of the software. Any rational human being would admit that Internet Explorer is a fine product. It does, however, have very serious security problems. The judge pointed to those security problems as one of the proofs that he hopes will support his assertion that MS's actions have harmed consumers. An ancillary effect of pointing to the security problems, I guess, could be the perception that the Judge made a criticism of the software. Most rational, informed people understand what the Judge was doing. If you don't, I would suggest that you do not pursue a career in law or any other field that requires that you actually use your brain to analyze information.
Because they signed a liscence[sic] stating that they would not.
Yes. And all those wonderful licenses are coming back to haunt MS. They've left more evidence than O.J. Too bad they don't have a Johnny Cochoran on their side.
The reason that the OEM's accept that clause in the liscence[sic] is that that's what most customers want.
I'm glad to see that you have an intimate relationship with the OEM's and have conveyed their happiness with their licenses. I guess I'll have to disregard the sworn testimony of officials from IBM, Compaq, Gateway, etc. who offered testimony that stated otherwise. But hey, you have far more credibility than they do. I mean, the way you put forth your argument is so persuasive I have no choice but to believe you in the face of mounting, conflicting evidence.
I am simply defending MS's right to control the terms on which they offer their products. I see nothing "infantile" about economic freedom.
You should have applied to join the MS legal team because they are making the same arguments that you present here. Unfortunately their arguments appear to have fallen on deaf ears. I don't understand why such capable legal minds such as yourself and the MS team have been ignored. Judge Jackson, I guess, was too busy criticising MS's software to pay attention to the stellar legal arguments. Oh well. There's always the appeal option.
Or perhaps I've just thought about this issue more than you have
There has been a lot of scientific debate on whether dogs actually think. I will petition them to include you in the study because I am not certain that you posess that skill. I will email you my findings.
and I see no basis for making such an ad hom.
I see no reason why you are allowed to use a computer. It is a waste of bandwidth.
Most of whom would have a political agenda, since they would be called by one of the two sides. And even if he had dozens of impartial advisors at his side...
Everyone has a damn political agenda! You and I have political agendas regarding this issue! The difference between you and me and the experts at the trial is that they are professionals who are called on to curb their political agendas and offer objective testimony. To the extent that some experts let their political agenda (or even financial compensation) influence their objectivity, it is the trial judge's responsibility to determine whose testimony is more believable and trust-worthy.
I still think it's a bad idea for software design to be the subject of court challenge.
Show me where Judge Jackson has based his decision on "software design". I don't think you can. The judge, in trying to support his claim that end users were harmed by MS's monopolistic actions (which is the only basis to sue for Anti-trust violations...harming competitors doesn't matter), pointed to MS's practice of bundling a browser (actually, their browser) with Windows distributions, for consumers who may have not even wanted a browser at all, which left them susceptible to bugs and viruses that could crash their systems. That is not a criticism of Internet Explorer or Windows per se, it is a proof of harm to the consumer based on MS's monopolistic actions.
And that's their choice.
That's their "choice" ? Explain how the consumer had a "choice" when the system came bundled with Internet explorer and said system was mandated by MS' license to exclude any competitor's browser.
IE works just fine for most purposes.
So does Netscape. So does Opera. Why were OEM's not allowed to place these on the systems they were selling?
Nonsense. They were free to reject Microsoft's liscence and sell any OS they wanted.
Yeah, that makes sense. I can just see Dell saying the hell with MS and then concentrating on locking up the 5% of the PC market that MS does not own.
You are offering infantile arguments. I apologize for calling you stupid but you are either very young without any understanding of business and law or you are a fan on MS's products with no interest in honestly debating the issue.
When MS admitted that they never took competitor OS pricing into consideration when setting the pricing for Win98, they basically admitted that they are a monopoly. Judge Jackson believes they harmed consumers while enjoying this monopoly status. I and many others agree. You have the right to disagree. I would just hope that you would offer up semi-intelligent dissent.
t strikes me as a terrible idea to even think about letting judges make software engineering choices.
Don't be silly. The Judge listened to dozens of technical experts. He is not pulling this information out of his ass. You might be, however.
Consumers have several viable web-browser choices, and so if they don't like Microsoft's product, they can use a different one.
Microsoft, by pressuring OEM's and ISP's, tried to do everything in it's power to limit the choices of browser software you saw on your machine. Most people just go with what is on their machine. That is limiting. Thank god for the internet, which allowed people to find Netscape or Opera. Once again you are looking at the issue simplistically and are not offering anyting new. There have been tons of myopic individuals like yourself dispensing the same advice. Thank god
Judge Jackson has half a brain though.
Since no one has ever been forced to buy a Microsoft product, I don't see how anyone could have been harmed except through their own poor choices.
My God, you are stupid. I guess all those OEM's who had to pay the MS for every machine they sold, regardless of whether it contained MS software enjoyed that practice. They were squeezed and as a result, we the consumers were squeezed.
Anything else you'd like to ignorantly rehash?
We would all demand that. No one wants to see any one company in control of the computer field. We've already slowed progress under MS's strangle hold already. We don't want to waste any more time.
Bloatware has always been a MS tactic, not some act of sloppy coding that most people attribute it to. Bloatware has always been about propelling the need for higher end systems with more storage and ram to support MS's larger OS's. MS wants to drop the consumer desktop OS as soon as possible and stick with the one size fits all server OS. They are one iteration of their OS away from reaching this dream. Actually, I should say they were one iteration away from their dream.
People out there forget that most computer peripherals first have a Windows 95/98/NT driver available, because that's what most users will be running. Let's see how long before we'll see Linux drivers for most inkjet printers, backup peripherals, USB peripherals and IEEE-1394 peripherals.
Bro. Did you read Judge Jackson's finding of facts at all? He sums up the exact dilemma you refer to -- the chicken and the egg problem. MS's domination of the dekstop OS market has created an environment that it makes it difficult for new desktop OS's to become viable. A big part of this reason is that developers prefer to develop for markets that have large numbers of users, i.e., potential customers. Customers, equally, don't want to use desktop OS's that lack in the number of applications that they use or plan to use in the future.
Sure there are a lot of open source developers out there doing great things for Linux. But the majority of harware manufacturers have yet to embrace Linux yet because they are too busy supporting the Win/Intel platforms.
First thing Monday morning I am going to contact my lawyer to discuss whether we should pursue opening a class-action lawsuit. I personally feel that MS has harmed me by overcharging for it's software and I plan to seek legal redress.
I'm sure some of you reactionary, right wing, republican types will howl at this comment, but I don't care because I honestly believe in what I will be doing Monday morning. I suspect I won't be the only person pursuing justice either.
Judge Jackson states that Linux is becoming an option on the server side, but that it no where near competing with MS on the desktop front for at least a few years. If you read the Judge's release,which I suspect you haven't, you would have found that he elucidated voluminous, well-founded arguments on why MS has made competition on the desktop impossible.
Initially perhaps. Eventually it will go back up, and when I say up, I mean way up.
Bill Gates and MS stockholders make out like fat cats no matter what happens. People selling MS stock right now are complete idiots. I don't own any MS stock but it sure isn't a bad time to think about picking some up.
Any judgement against Microsoft will result in them lobbying Congress to nullify the courts decision "in the interests of the American People".
Lobbying can't save them from the hole they're in now unless Congress passes a law that repeals the Sherman Act and makes it retroactive to 1986. That would require some hellacious lobbying, the likes of which none of us have ever seen.
What we're likely to see is Microsoft pull the string on the politicians it has attempted to buy (and in the case of Senator Slade from Washington, has successfully bought) and have them denounce the finding of fact and the subsequent finding of law that will determine how Judge Jackson wants to treat MS's monopoly status. A lot of noise will ensue but it won't matter much.
Big deal the stock is down now. If MS is ever broken up Bill Gates will become the first trillionaire to walk the face of the earth.
Besides, doesn't "censorship" (in the strictest definition of the word)connotate government action?
I'm not sure, but isn't Yahoo facing some issues about moderating the contents of its discussion boards (or whatever they call them)? I understand that they were removing posts that they demmed not to be factual. They have always claimed that they could not be liable for the content of the postings because they did not censor them. Now that they have acknowledged censoring, they have potentially opened up a hornet's nest for themselves.
True, Rob and Gang do allow you to see all the posts, but I think a lot of people have their threshhold set to 1, so in effect censorship is taking place.
I'm personally not a fan of the moderation system so I wouldn't mind it if Rob got scared and ditched it anyway. Rob, are you listening?
I'm in a loving mood today, so I'll ignore the ad hominem attacks on my person. But I would like to point out some contradictions in your post.
>>The only thing I can see the judge doing, which
>>would have any chance of passing apellate
>>muster,is putting in a provision that would
>>mandate some kind of oversight of Microsoft's
>>business dealings for something like the next 5
>>years.
>...What evidence do you have that such a remedy
>would pass appellate muster? What evidence do you
>have that more would not?
Previously, back on the ranch...
>>That is, in his fact of finding, his conclusion
>>should be that a breakup of Microsoft should
>>not happen.
>...I expect the findings of fact will probably
>declare Microsoft to be a monopoly, and not
>suggest anything as to remidies
So let me get this straight. I'm supposed to gather evidence to support my suppositions, yet you are allowed to postulate as to what Judge Jackson is going to do? I heard they released a movie about being in John Malkovich's head. Someone should have told them that you were already starring in the movie about being in Judge Jackson's head.
Something substantial has to be done to Microsoft if the industry is to recover, whether a breakup or strict regulation is best I don't know. A slap on the wrist would hasten the death of the proprietary software industry, because Microsoft would continue to kill it.
Hmm...I guess since you're saying it, "evidence" isn't needed to prove your point?
Well, Rob does support the moderation system. Is that a form on content censorship?
It would be a fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc, I think) to conclude that the down time was a result of Apache.
;>)
Correct. However, in the absence of any revelation of what the actual problem was, it is a good possibility that the changeover to a new webserver might be the problem. It might not be the reason either, but a change of webservers is just about as big a change as you can do on an e-commerce site.
And, if you bothered to actually read the article on CNet, you would have seen that there were other outages before the switch over.
I actually did "bother" to read the article on Cnet. I know how to work those link thingies too
I guess the point of my original article is that this outage can be miscontrstrued by people, organizations (any guesses here...) who have an apache ax to grind or who want to promote other web servers. I'm rather agnostic on the issue but I'm always intrigued to hear comments from people who are in the trenches.
That poor guy. He's going to have to fend off legions of corporate, monkey lawyers now. Someone mirror his stuff now before it's lost forever.
Uh oh, doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of Apache. Let's see how people rationalize this one.
Nothing.
That is, in his fact of finding, his conclusion should be that a breakup of Microsoft should not happen. The only thing I can see the judge doing, which would have any chance of passing appellate muster, is putting in a provision that would mandate some kind of oversight of Microsoft's business dealings for something like the next 5 years.
The computing landscape has changed significanty since this case was brought to trial. I don't think breaking up Microsoft would be good for the industry in general. Part of the reason that the landscape has changed is that MS's actions have been under the spotlight. Putting them under an extended spotlight might allow further change.
Dude, the guy that runs that site is warped! That bit about the Implementor and the monkey in a bagel doing the taxes had me pissing my pants off! Damn, I haven't laughed like that in a while!
I, for one, have never heard of a fundamental discovery being packaged into a patent
Happens every day in the Pharmacy industry.
You're absolutely right. CS, in and of itself, is not a contradiction. It's the work that goes on under it's name, within the proprietary framework, that is the contradiction, as it is with any other branch of science.
Thanks for helping to clarify that. I certainly didn't intend to indict CS itself.
I've also never understood why people like Richard Stallman always bitch and moan about proprietary software. If they don't want to use it, no one is forcing them (well, their job might,
but that's a different issue).
When Richard Stallman expresses his disatisfaction with proprietary software, he is pointing out the contradiction of the very term 'Computer Science'. How can you call a branch a knowledge a science when it is predicated upon closure and propietary knowledge?
True scientists seek answers and share their findings. That is how science has evolved and continues to evolve. Where would we be if Newton and Einstein and all the others withheld their findings and served them up to the highest bidders?
Stallman is of the belief that advancement is slowed in the face of propietary knowledge. I agree with him.
Sarcasm at it's best! At least I hope it was sarcasm...
I think that we should have killed her on the spot, but that's just me. Yet another reason why I haven't been able to vote for a Democrat for close to ten years.
Ain't the Republicans just lucky to have you in their fold?