It does not seem to have been discredited to many Mormons.
The catholic church is more credible on pedophilia because they denounce it in every way, they do not leave any room, let alone declare, that they will resume it in the future or do it in heaven and that former practicers of it were great, moral people.
You have a long way to go to establish that it is not still a doctrine of the Mormon Church. I have seen no evidence. Many institutions have doctrines that they do not practice officially or directly encourage people to do only because they are illegal. I believe that it will be obvious if the doctrine of Polygamy is ever reduced to heresy in the Mormon Church.
I would observe the same of inconsistency between John Kerry, who favors abortion, and the Catholic Church, which opposes it, but in this case, everyone is aware of the disagreement, and it is not a stand being pursued in a religious fervor. It is not enough to say that since the Church does not condone bombing abortion clinics and go along with the laws they have abandoned their anti-abortion stance.
I am Libertarian in my thinking. Why on earth does the government have to be involved in defining what marriage is in the first place. If it was such a bad thing for early Mormons to have so much hate focused on them for having an alternative definition, why is it now a good thing to turn over to the Federal Government. Certainly not because we can trust them more today.
That is the great hypocricy, and it didn't need the ammendment to show the great intolerance by many Mormons in Utah. It is one thing to say "my religion defines this as a sin", it is quite another to say we are going to prevent any other sort of unorthadox family committment between adults. Are married practicing homosexuals really worse than unmarried practicing homosexuals or heterosexuals who believe in free sex, which is not unconstitutional, and should the Federal Government be suddenly getting involved in the definition of marriage to favor current Mormon fashion of the day?
How could they deny you a spouse life insurance policy.
I read about a man who took out an insurance policy on his goldfish, and the insurance company, after realizing it after they had paid the claim, was laughed out of court when they tried to get their money back, because the man had filled out the form completely truthfully, including height, weight, etc. and they had no evidence of foul play in the insured's demise, although they strongly suspected it:-)
I am no leftie, but I am not a neocon, either. I think Pat Buchanan, a conservative, or Tom Clancy, are both close to my position. I am aqainst criminals in the White House. I have no one to vote for in November. I have always voted Republican before, and been quite conservative.
I agree (and it seemed obvious to me) that Richard Clark came down on two points, one for those who think Bush is incompetent and the other who believe specific extreme measures supposedly against terrorism are evil, and he is therefore likely to disagree with close to half of what typical pro-war or anti-war groups believe, and each will suspect the half they disagree with. It sounds like you may be choosing to ignore the other half.
If the slave laws were still on the books, and the government still said it was a valid practice that just happened to be outlawed in the states but that might be reinstated at any time it becomes feasible, then I would agree with you that the comparison was valid.
I believe that at no time has the Mormon church condemned the prior acts by their leadership as evil nor discredited the doctrine, nor ruled it out for the future, but they still perform polygamous marriages that are expected to be valid and plural in the next life and they permit preexisting polygamous marriages of former muslim converts to continue in some places where it is legal. If you read the announcement discontinuing it, it was only a prohibition due to the law of the land. If you have evidence otherwise, please present it.
Your quote was accurate, but your characterization of what I said was wrong. Stick with the quote. Substitute "even if" for "if", and I think it is obvious that I did not say they practiced it. Even if they do not practice it, they vigorously defend it. Adding "Even" is not a negation, but only a more-explicit way of saying it.
Clearly their defense of it is as a doctrine for Mormons, not for permitting others to practice it. In fact, most Mormons tend to strongly object to the practice of polygamy by non-Mormons in Utah. That is where the hypocricy lies, in the religious intolerance that even precludes their own doctrine, the proposed ammendment only underscoring the hypocricy.
The point was hypocricy in Utah, and that is just another sore point because it is true.
If Catholic church still defended the doctrine that the earth was the center of the Universe, then, yes.
I do not say that the prior Mormon practice is wrong, any more than I would say that the biblical practice was wrong, but only that while the Mormon Church defends it, the ammendment is hypocricy, pronouncing similar judgement on the practice of others that others still pronounce on their own past practices and existing doctrine, and incidentally making their own prior practice and current doctrine unconstitutional. Doctrinally, it is still defended in the church even if it has been discontinued for the present -- it is still considered the order of heaven, and Temple marriages to multiple wives (not multiple husbands) is still performed as long as not all are alive at the same time under the theory that in the resurrection, they will be married to all of them according to the principle of polygamy. I understand that in certain Muslim cultures in Africa, new converts to the Mormon church who were polygamists before joining the church are permitted to keep multiple wives, although they avoid the hot potatoe of sanctioning new plural marriages there even though it is legal, and I am sure they would force them to seperate if it ever became politically sensitive again.
Making waves for a constitutional ammendment getting the Federal government involved in the definition of marriage in such a way that would outlaw the practice is incredible hypocricy.
I had personally sent Orrin Hatch several letters before 9/11 opposing his antiterrorism legislation, because of precisely the types of issues the Patriot Act became known for.
At the time of the Patriot Act, it was reported in the news that they had taken this previous legislation by him as the core, with little modification and that was what congress was voting on. This agreed with my own ongoing personal knowledge of the legislation, so finding the best reference will take a little time. If you know where to look up historical votes with links to the legislation, I will try to find it for you. I believe it was a follow-up to the 1996 antiterrorism acts, which also had patriot-act-like secret evidence rules, which Hatch was also very involved with.
If I do a Google search on "orrin hatch" antiterrorism patriot-act the title of the first article is "The USA Patriot Act was planned before 9/11".
While this particular article provides little good analysis or concrete reference to congressional record, I am not the only one who came to that conclusion, and I will look for the specifics if it is possible to find the record of that time, because it had been in committe, was publicly viewable, and may have come to votes. It may take me a while to find the actual record on my own.
They are at least consistent in their actions. Whether you believe that there should be constitutional ammendments establishing this sort of religious convention which is clearly against Mormon doctrine is another discussion.
But for a Mormon to make the particular argument, seems a little like a Saudi wanting to hold foreign infidels responsible for the unequal treatment of women or American's invasion of Iraq supposedly to eliminate the evils of Sadaam, WDM, and terrorism while relaxing (a generous interpretation) rules on torturing captives, imprisoning thousands of innocents with no recourse, supporting Pakistan the greatest nuclear WMD exporter and a significant exporter of terrorism.
If you request URLs supporting these issues, I will provide them.
As a list of items, I chose things of which there is public knowledge. This is a comment, not a documentary, but I am happy to look up what public references may be avaialble to back up any of the statements with factual references if you stake out a position by disagreeing, or if you even ask, out of interest where you can find more information. A single thread is hardly a place to pursue a list of things in parallel.
But the general claim that such a list is inherently a flaimbait without discussing what you feel may be non-factual is silly and even contradicts your signature line.
But you will clearly succeed in swaying the set of mods who are only using it to disagree without having to thoughtfully disagree.
I said they defended it and believed it was a correct principle when it was taught and practiced by Mormon leaders and the discontinuance was only a capitulation to the rulings of the courts, and it is still an important part of their doctrine. As anyone knows, Mormons who practice it at this time get excommunicated and join splinter groups.
Senator Orin Hatch, primarily responsible for DMCA, Patriot Act (he had it written before 9/11) and lots of other very evil legislation.
Senator Bob Bennet, perhaps more benign, but the sort of cluelessness where he claims to be a giant of tech. He takes credit for a lion's share of the drive behind convincing the government to lean on private industry with the Y2K silliness, to the effect of a hundred of billion dollar or more wasted. Then is suprised that tech later had less money to spend on legitimate projects.
Hundreds of thousands of Mormons arguing for a constitutional ammendment that is so religiously based that it also makes the marriage practices of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc., which are still vigorously defended if not practiced by Mormons unconstitutional (is this an uninteended consequence? all there were previously were court rulings).
The Utah Republican Party campaigning to defeat a popular referendum (popular in Utah where the majority is Republican) to regulate and tax the absolute worst forms of dumping of toxic wastes in Utah (also represented by Hatch's Son, like SCO).
Perhaps it is not one you would care to acknowledge (if you treat them that way and deny them). Many say the human is just a machine of circumstances without a soul, as well. My computer has a soul, and Mozilla clearly has a soul as well.
Since what is meaningful to you is such a tiny subset of the important differences that exist between Mozilla and IE, perhaps your declaration that it lacks a soul also overlooks something.
And I have seen Scott Collins' car, and it clearly has a beautiful soul.
I just said it should be Microsoft's nightmare, that the more they support SCO, the more likely that it could occur. So how, again, does Microsoft benefit? If SCO wins they lose. If SCO loses they lose. And the IPR and the attorneys can carry on with new finances following the disposition of the property to someone else. Arguably the only value of the properties (both DR-DOS and System V) is to continue lawsuits whoever bids on it in a bankruptcy fire-sale.
Just equalising the balance.. Exactly how will SCO win some legal victories?
Because if you get enough lawyers in a courtroom, anything can happen. Intellectual property law is in general such a slippery slope that as is often the case in the courtroom, anything can and does happen.
If you place simple people in a courtroom, justice based upon common sense will occur if that is commonly what happens in the environment. If you put lots of attorneys in the courtroom, they are able to spread so many theories and such that even knowing nothing of the arguments, even if SCO started with no argument at all, anything can happen.
It is a battle of attorneys, with little regard for justice.
I did not say SCO would win. I certainly do not want them to win. But it is clearly within the realm of possibility, employing that many attorneys, that they could win, even against the IBM "Nazgul". Often, regardless of the evidence, when asked the chances of winning in a courtroom, attorneys watching the case will say 50/50, precisely because of this.
I am sure that IBM knows this and takes the possibility far more-seriously.
Sun should realize that through their actions supporting SCO and taking out new licenses with them, they have given over all control of Solaris to SCO. How long until even Microsoft realizes that their worst nightmare is a SCO who has won some legal victories and comes back with new money and claims that Windows is a derivative work of DR-DOS?
What of all the great developments of Xerox PARC did Xerox bring to market?
The question is whether innovation produced by Microsoft researchers' admittedly-brilliant people in the labs is permitted to become innovative new products. Innovation is by it's nature disruptive.
I am sorry you just want to make generalizations and not discuss specific cases. The original poster seemed with his opening sentence to be relating / comparing Windows to Linux. Read the post.
The fact is, like Windows, Linux cut / copy / paste just works in most up-to-date applications, and if you can't figure out how to use the "paste current selection", which is also available on some other platforms, as I pointed out previously (the Mac terminal emulator, for example), then ignore it and it does not interfere.
Mac keystrokes are not the same as Linux for cut / copy / paste, even if they were styled after them (except, for example, when running unmodified Unix apps under X on Mac). Windows does not typically define a command key, but Mac has a control key. You are clueless, again.
I have no windows machines. I have seen edit not provide usable cut copy paste even within the same file using standard keystrokes, that it is clear to me that in most cases it does not work. This has happened more than once as I see Windows users try to use edit to modify a file and unable to figure out how to move a line, and I found the keystrokes for them they had to use, so I think you are wrong, but I will not pay a Microsoft tax to prove it.
The discussion moved to concrete applications like edit because making generalizations is silly and edit was an obvious counter example. Had you brought up other specific applications, then perhaps an intelligent conversation could be had assuming you spent more time getting your facts strait, and made a real argument.
You claim you somehow criticized my favorite apps, without having any clue what those apps might be, because you have failed to discuss them at all -- like a bug report, that just says "it is broken" with no details (not even the applications) that flies in the face of many intelligent users who know things commonly work just fine for them. Had you or the original writer posted any intelligent argument or examples, I might have agreed or disagreed with some of the conclusions. We will never know because the posting and your followups were clueless (as was the understanding of paste current selection, as though that somehow prevented people from just using cut / copy / paste).
Keystrokes haven't worked for anyone I have seen using the program on XP including a week ago. But being unfriendly to users is apparently not a crime when Microsoft does it.
The cut and paste are weird combinations with the insert and delete keys, if memory serves me. Perhaps you had something operating as part of your Windows command box you were executing it in. That would also explain why you do not mention remove. Is two out of three good enough for you, or is that what the standard says, editors do not need to be able to cut? That is the first command I try to use. I think you are clueless.
>Clue anyone?
Yes, I have, but you should go find one.
>It doesn't even matter, expecting a old DOS
>program to act like a windows one is like
>expecting vi to conform to X standards, it's
>silly. It was a terrible example.
The sillyness was about the same as your expectations of old apps to conform to Windows cut copy paste keystrokes.
>Either way, why not just suggest that the guy use
>Kde or Gnome apps strictly, that would have been
>far more constructive than flaming him.
If you think that is good advice, then you should go for it. I would not have suggested it, because I have not noticed that this good behavior was restricted to Gnome or KDE apps.
But the poster's understanding of things was very screwed up, not even understanding basics that middle click is not a paste from clipboard. So criticizing it was silly, and never should have been accepted as a story on Slashdot except for roasting. The rest of the operations work fine in major/supported apps, just as on Windows. The argument that Linux somehow cannot extend the model because it is too hard for a few low-end Windows users to peek outside of their box is just plain silly.
Bottom line is that most apps just work, just like on Windows, and blaming Linux for apps that do not is just plain silly, and not reading the documentation to have a clue about an operation for which there is no common Windows equivalent and criticizing it because it does not duplicate existing Windows functionality is something a Microsoft whiner might do, but not anyone with any intelligence or self respect.
>Hmmm....
>
>In edit paste is.... Control+V
>
>copy is.... Control+C
Hasn't worked for anyone I have seen using the program on XP including a week ago. The cut and paste are weird combinations with the insert and delete keys, if memory serves me. Perhaps you had something operating as part of your Windows command box you were executing it in. That would also explain why you do not mention remove. Is two out of three good enough for you, or is that what the standard says, editors do not need to be able to cut? That is the first command I try to use. I think you are clueless.
>Clue anyone?
Yes, go find one.
>It doesn't even matter, expecting a old DOS >program to act like a windows one is like >expecting vi to conform to X standards, it's >silly. It was a terrible example.
The sillyness was about the same as your expectations of old apps to conform to Windows cut copy paste keystrokes.
>Either way, why not just suggest that the guy use >Kde or Gnome apps strictly, that would have been >far more constructive than flaming him.
If you think that is good advice, then you should go for it. I would not have suggested it, because I have not noticed that this good behavior was restricted to Gnome or KDE apps.
But the poster's understanding of things was as screwed up as yours, not understanding that middle click is not a paste from clipboard, so criticizing it was silly, when the rest of the operations work fine in major/supported apps, just as on Windows.
The argument that Linux somehow cannot extend the model because it is too hard for a few low-end Windows users to peek outside of their box is just plain silly.
Bottom line is that most apps just work, just like on Windows, and blaming Linux for apps that do not is just plain silly, and not reading the documentation to have a clue about an operation for which there is no common Windows equivalent and criticizing it because it does not duplicate existing Windows functionality is something a Microsoft whiner might do, but not anyone with any intelligence or self respect.
You need a clue as well, about what was posted by most people, about Windows, and a great many other things. The keystrokes that work on the edit program are not the windows keystrokes. And why is expecting an old DOS or older Windows programs (even written by Microsoft) to support standards any sillier than expecting an old X program to do so? Oh, they are Microsoft and you paid them hundreds of dollars, so they can do no wrong.
Just as in Windows, most up-to-date well-supported Linux programs support the standards and many that are not up-to-date or well-supported do.
The poster, and you, were not even cluefull enough to post what program you had the problem with.
Just like windows. For an extreme case, perhaps you have never tried to use "edit" to edit a text file on Windows XP. It violates all the UI rules for Windows, yet it still apparently ships with windows and some people still try to use it I have observed, because it is called "edit" so it seems to some like it should be the default. Notepad was badly broken in many releases of Windows as well. People had to use a word processor like WordPad to get reasonable text editing.
There are plenty of apps to choose from in a typical Linux distribution, and most work exactly the way they should.
You can find abberant apps if you look hard enough for any OS, but blaming the OS for inconsistency of apps is silly. It is not like this is rocket science or some deep dark secret how it is supposed to behave.
Just because the apps he uses, which he hasn't even identified, are not conformant (but I suspect misreporting and user error) does not mean that there are not standard apps he could be using that are conformant.
Slashdot Mirror
It does not seem to have been discredited to many Mormons.
The catholic church is more credible on pedophilia because they denounce it in every way, they do not leave any room, let alone declare, that they will resume it in the future or do it in heaven and that former practicers of it were great, moral people.
You have a long way to go to establish that it is not still a doctrine of the Mormon Church. I have seen no evidence. Many institutions have doctrines that they do not practice officially or directly encourage people to do only because they are illegal. I believe that it will be obvious if the doctrine of Polygamy is ever reduced to heresy in the Mormon Church.
I would observe the same of inconsistency between John Kerry, who favors abortion, and the Catholic Church, which opposes it, but in this case, everyone is aware of the disagreement, and it is not a stand being pursued in a religious fervor. It is not enough to say that since the Church does not condone bombing abortion clinics and go along with the laws they have abandoned their anti-abortion stance.
I am Libertarian in my thinking. Why on earth does the government have to be involved in defining what marriage is in the first place. If it was such a bad thing for early Mormons to have so much hate focused on them for having an alternative definition, why is it now a good thing to turn over to the Federal Government. Certainly not because we can trust them more today.
That is the great hypocricy, and it didn't need the ammendment to show the great intolerance by many Mormons in Utah. It is one thing to say "my religion defines this as a sin", it is quite another to say we are going to prevent any other sort of unorthadox family committment between adults. Are married practicing homosexuals really worse than unmarried practicing homosexuals or heterosexuals who believe in free sex, which is not unconstitutional, and should the Federal Government be suddenly getting involved in the definition of marriage to favor current Mormon fashion of the day?
How could they deny you a spouse life insurance policy.
I read about a man who took out an insurance policy on his goldfish, and the insurance company, after realizing it after they had paid the claim, was laughed out of court when they tried to get their money back, because the man had filled out the form completely truthfully, including height, weight, etc. and they had no evidence of foul play in the insured's demise, although they strongly suspected it :-)
I agree (and it seemed obvious to me) that Richard Clark came down on two points, one for those who think Bush is incompetent and the other who believe specific extreme measures supposedly against terrorism are evil, and he is therefore likely to disagree with close to half of what typical pro-war or anti-war groups believe, and each will suspect the half they disagree with. It sounds like you may be choosing to ignore the other half.
If the slave laws were still on the books, and the government still said it was a valid practice that just happened to be outlawed in the states but that might be reinstated at any time it becomes feasible, then I would agree with you that the comparison was valid.
I believe that at no time has the Mormon church condemned the prior acts by their leadership as evil nor discredited the doctrine, nor ruled it out for the future, but they still perform polygamous marriages that are expected to be valid and plural in the next life and they permit preexisting polygamous marriages of former muslim converts to continue in some places where it is legal. If you read the announcement discontinuing it, it was only a prohibition due to the law of the land. If you have evidence otherwise, please present it.
Your quote was accurate, but your characterization of what I said was wrong. Stick with the quote. Substitute "even if" for "if", and I think it is obvious that I did not say they practiced it. Even if they do not practice it, they vigorously defend it. Adding "Even" is not a negation, but only a more-explicit way of saying it.
Clearly their defense of it is as a doctrine for Mormons, not for permitting others to practice it. In fact, most Mormons tend to strongly object to the practice of polygamy by non-Mormons in Utah. That is where the hypocricy lies, in the religious intolerance that even precludes their own doctrine, the proposed ammendment only underscoring the hypocricy.
The point was hypocricy in Utah, and that is just another sore point because it is true.
If Catholic church still defended the doctrine that the earth was the center of the Universe, then, yes.
I do not say that the prior Mormon practice is wrong, any more than I would say that the biblical practice was wrong, but only that while the Mormon Church defends it, the ammendment is hypocricy, pronouncing similar judgement on the practice of others that others still pronounce on their own past practices and existing doctrine, and incidentally making their own prior practice and current doctrine unconstitutional. Doctrinally, it is still defended in the church even if it has been discontinued for the present -- it is still considered the order of heaven, and Temple marriages to multiple wives (not multiple husbands) is still performed as long as not all are alive at the same time under the theory that in the resurrection, they will be married to all of them according to the principle of polygamy. I understand that in certain Muslim cultures in Africa, new converts to the Mormon church who were polygamists before joining the church are permitted to keep multiple wives, although they avoid the hot potatoe of sanctioning new plural marriages there even though it is legal, and I am sure they would force them to seperate if it ever became politically sensitive again.
Making waves for a constitutional ammendment getting the Federal government involved in the definition of marriage in such a way that would outlaw the practice is incredible hypocricy.
I had personally sent Orrin Hatch several letters before 9/11 opposing his antiterrorism legislation, because of precisely the types of issues the Patriot Act became known for.
At the time of the Patriot Act, it was reported in the news that they had taken this previous legislation by him as the core, with little modification and that was what congress was voting on. This agreed with my own ongoing personal knowledge of the legislation, so finding the best reference will take a little time. If you know where to look up historical votes with links to the legislation, I will try to find it for you. I believe it was a follow-up to the 1996 antiterrorism acts, which also had patriot-act-like secret evidence rules, which Hatch was also very involved with.
If I do a Google search on "orrin hatch" antiterrorism patriot-act the title of the first article is "The USA Patriot Act was planned before 9/11".
While this particular article provides little good analysis or concrete reference to congressional record, I am not the only one who came to that conclusion, and I will look for the specifics if it is possible to find the record of that time, because it had been in committe, was publicly viewable, and may have come to votes. It may take me a while to find the actual record on my own.
Read the other comments. I did not say Mormons were practicing it at this time.
But for a Mormon to make the particular argument, seems a little like a Saudi wanting to hold foreign infidels responsible for the unequal treatment of women or American's invasion of Iraq supposedly to eliminate the evils of Sadaam, WDM, and terrorism while relaxing (a generous interpretation) rules on torturing captives, imprisoning thousands of innocents with no recourse, supporting Pakistan the greatest nuclear WMD exporter and a significant exporter of terrorism.
If you request URLs supporting these issues, I will provide them.
As a list of items, I chose things of which there is public knowledge. This is a comment, not a documentary, but I am happy to look up what public references may be avaialble to back up any of the statements with factual references if you stake out a position by disagreeing, or if you even ask, out of interest where you can find more information. A single thread is hardly a place to pursue a list of things in parallel.
But the general claim that such a list is inherently a flaimbait without discussing what you feel may be non-factual is silly and even contradicts your signature line.
But you will clearly succeed in swaying the set of mods who are only using it to disagree without having to thoughtfully disagree.
I said they defended it and believed it was a correct principle when it was taught and practiced by Mormon leaders and the discontinuance was only a capitulation to the rulings of the courts, and it is still an important part of their doctrine. As anyone knows, Mormons who practice it at this time get excommunicated and join splinter groups.
The definition of marriage ammendment against homosexual unions also defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Let's see...
Senator Orin Hatch, primarily responsible for DMCA, Patriot Act (he had it written before 9/11) and lots of other very evil legislation.
Senator Bob Bennet, perhaps more benign, but the sort of cluelessness where he claims to be a giant of tech. He takes credit for a lion's share of the drive behind convincing the government to lean on private industry with the Y2K silliness, to the effect of a hundred of billion dollar or more wasted. Then is suprised that tech later had less money to spend on legitimate projects.
Hundreds of thousands of Mormons arguing for a constitutional ammendment that is so religiously based that it also makes the marriage practices of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc., which are still vigorously defended if not practiced by Mormons unconstitutional (is this an uninteended consequence? all there were previously were court rulings).
The Utah Republican Party campaigning to defeat a popular referendum (popular in Utah where the majority is Republican) to regulate and tax the absolute worst forms of dumping of toxic wastes in Utah (also represented by Hatch's Son, like SCO).
The list goes on and on [...]
Since what is meaningful to you is such a tiny subset of the important differences that exist between Mozilla and IE, perhaps your declaration that it lacks a soul also overlooks something.
And I have seen Scott Collins' car, and it clearly has a beautiful soul.
I just said it should be Microsoft's nightmare, that the more they support SCO, the more likely that it could occur. So how, again, does Microsoft benefit? If SCO wins they lose. If SCO loses they lose. And the IPR and the attorneys can carry on with new finances following the disposition of the property to someone else. Arguably the only value of the properties (both DR-DOS and System V) is to continue lawsuits whoever bids on it in a bankruptcy fire-sale.
Just equalising the balance.. Exactly how will SCO win some legal victories?
Because if you get enough lawyers in a courtroom, anything can happen. Intellectual property law is in general such a slippery slope that as is often the case in the courtroom, anything can and does happen.
If you place simple people in a courtroom, justice based upon common sense will occur if that is commonly what happens in the environment. If you put lots of attorneys in the courtroom, they are able to spread so many theories and such that even knowing nothing of the arguments, even if SCO started with no argument at all, anything can happen.
It is a battle of attorneys, with little regard for justice.
I did not say SCO would win. I certainly do not want them to win. But it is clearly within the realm of possibility, employing that many attorneys, that they could win, even against the IBM "Nazgul". Often, regardless of the evidence, when asked the chances of winning in a courtroom, attorneys watching the case will say 50/50, precisely because of this.
I am sure that IBM knows this and takes the possibility far more-seriously.
Correction. That should be "a strait copy of CPM by DR.
This was demonstrated when an engineer caused a copy of MS-DOS to pop up a DR-DOS copyright.
I recently noticed this mentioned here.
Sun should realize that through their actions supporting SCO and taking out new licenses with them, they have given over all control of Solaris to SCO. How long until even Microsoft realizes that their worst nightmare is a SCO who has won some legal victories and comes back with new money and claims that Windows is a derivative work of DR-DOS?
What of all the great developments of Xerox PARC did Xerox bring to market?
The question is whether innovation produced by Microsoft researchers' admittedly-brilliant people in the labs is permitted to become innovative new products. Innovation is by it's nature disruptive.
I am sorry you just want to make generalizations and not discuss specific cases. The original poster seemed with his opening sentence to be relating / comparing Windows to Linux. Read the post.
The fact is, like Windows, Linux cut / copy / paste just works in most up-to-date applications, and if you can't figure out how to use the "paste current selection", which is also available on some other platforms, as I pointed out previously (the Mac terminal emulator, for example), then ignore it and it does not interfere.
Mac keystrokes are not the same as Linux for cut / copy / paste, even if they were styled after them (except, for example, when running unmodified Unix apps under X on Mac). Windows does not typically define a command key, but Mac has a control key. You are clueless, again.
I have no windows machines. I have seen edit not provide usable cut copy paste even within the same file using standard keystrokes, that it is clear to me that in most cases it does not work. This has happened more than once as I see Windows users try to use edit to modify a file and unable to figure out how to move a line, and I found the keystrokes for them they had to use, so I think you are wrong, but I will not pay a Microsoft tax to prove it.
The discussion moved to concrete applications like edit because making generalizations is silly and edit was an obvious counter example. Had you brought up other specific applications, then perhaps an intelligent conversation could be had assuming you spent more time getting your facts strait, and made a real argument.
You claim you somehow criticized my favorite apps, without having any clue what those apps might be, because you have failed to discuss them at all -- like a bug report, that just says "it is broken" with no details (not even the applications) that flies in the face of many intelligent users who know things commonly work just fine for them. Had you or the original writer posted any intelligent argument or examples, I might have agreed or disagreed with some of the conclusions. We will never know because the posting and your followups were clueless (as was the understanding of paste current selection, as though that somehow prevented people from just using cut / copy / paste).
>Hmmm....
>
>In edit paste is.... Control+V
>
>copy is.... Control+C
Keystrokes haven't worked for anyone I have seen using the program on XP including a week ago. But being unfriendly to users is apparently not a crime when Microsoft does it.
The cut and paste are weird combinations with the insert and delete keys, if memory serves me. Perhaps you had something operating as part of your Windows command box you were executing it in. That would also explain why you do not mention remove. Is two out of three good enough for you, or is that what the standard says, editors do not need to be able to cut? That is the first command I try to use. I think you are clueless.
>Clue anyone?
Yes, I have, but you should go find one.
>It doesn't even matter, expecting a old DOS
>program to act like a windows one is like
>expecting vi to conform to X standards, it's
>silly. It was a terrible example.
The sillyness was about the same as your expectations of old apps to conform to Windows cut copy paste keystrokes.
>Either way, why not just suggest that the guy use
>Kde or Gnome apps strictly, that would have been
>far more constructive than flaming him.
If you think that is good advice, then you should go for it. I would not have suggested it, because I have not noticed that this good behavior was restricted to Gnome or KDE apps.
But the poster's understanding of things was very screwed up, not even understanding basics that middle click is not a paste from clipboard. So criticizing it was silly, and never should have been accepted as a story on Slashdot except for roasting. The rest of the operations work fine in major/supported apps, just as on Windows. The argument that Linux somehow cannot extend the model because it is too hard for a few low-end Windows users to peek outside of their box is just plain silly.
Bottom line is that most apps just work, just like on Windows, and blaming Linux for apps that do not is just plain silly, and not reading the documentation to have a clue about an operation for which there is no common Windows equivalent and criticizing it because it does not duplicate existing Windows functionality is something a Microsoft whiner might do, but not anyone with any intelligence or self respect.
>Hmmm.... > >In edit paste is.... Control+V > >copy is.... Control+C Hasn't worked for anyone I have seen using the program on XP including a week ago. The cut and paste are weird combinations with the insert and delete keys, if memory serves me. Perhaps you had something operating as part of your Windows command box you were executing it in. That would also explain why you do not mention remove. Is two out of three good enough for you, or is that what the standard says, editors do not need to be able to cut? That is the first command I try to use. I think you are clueless. >Clue anyone? Yes, go find one. >It doesn't even matter, expecting a old DOS >program to act like a windows one is like >expecting vi to conform to X standards, it's >silly. It was a terrible example. The sillyness was about the same as your expectations of old apps to conform to Windows cut copy paste keystrokes. >Either way, why not just suggest that the guy use >Kde or Gnome apps strictly, that would have been >far more constructive than flaming him. If you think that is good advice, then you should go for it. I would not have suggested it, because I have not noticed that this good behavior was restricted to Gnome or KDE apps. But the poster's understanding of things was as screwed up as yours, not understanding that middle click is not a paste from clipboard, so criticizing it was silly, when the rest of the operations work fine in major/supported apps, just as on Windows. The argument that Linux somehow cannot extend the model because it is too hard for a few low-end Windows users to peek outside of their box is just plain silly. Bottom line is that most apps just work, just like on Windows, and blaming Linux for apps that do not is just plain silly, and not reading the documentation to have a clue about an operation for which there is no common Windows equivalent and criticizing it because it does not duplicate existing Windows functionality is something a Microsoft whiner might do, but not anyone with any intelligence or self respect.
You need a clue as well, about what was posted by most people, about Windows, and a great many other things. The keystrokes that work on the edit program are not the windows keystrokes. And why is expecting an old DOS or older Windows programs (even written by Microsoft) to support standards any sillier than expecting an old X program to do so? Oh, they are Microsoft and you paid them hundreds of dollars, so they can do no wrong.
Just as in Windows, most up-to-date well-supported Linux programs support the standards and many that are not up-to-date or well-supported do.
The poster, and you, were not even cluefull enough to post what program you had the problem with.
Just like windows. For an extreme case, perhaps you have never tried to use "edit" to edit a text file on Windows XP. It violates all the UI rules for Windows, yet it still apparently ships with windows and some people still try to use it I have observed, because it is called "edit" so it seems to some like it should be the default. Notepad was badly broken in many releases of Windows as well. People had to use a word processor like WordPad to get reasonable text editing.
There are plenty of apps to choose from in a typical Linux distribution, and most work exactly the way they should.
You can find abberant apps if you look hard enough for any OS, but blaming the OS for inconsistency of apps is silly. It is not like this is rocket science or some deep dark secret how it is supposed to behave.
Just because the apps he uses, which he hasn't even identified, are not conformant (but I suspect misreporting and user error) does not mean that there are not standard apps he could be using that are conformant.