": Vista has to generally remain bug-for-bug compatible with every piece of software written for the overall Microsoft platform since MS-DOS 2.0."
Why? When I go do download some software from MS either it's only available for XP/2000 or it offers different downloads for 98, NT, XP, XP SP2, NT 3.5+, 2000, 2003 etc.
Clearly every version of windows is slightly incompatible with other versions. Even service packs break backwards compatibility requiring separate downloads for XP and XP SP2.
I think vista will not be fully backwards compatible with any other MS operating system. Some things will work but I would expect everything to be either completely or partially borked.
"Give them another 200-300 years and then we'll start scratching the surface"
Yea, that's a good idea. Do nothing for the next 200 or three hudred years.
"I'd honestly bet that most of them aren't pouring money into debuking global warming per se, but to refine what they really want to know."
Wow. I am shocked at your naivete. You are a rare breed my friend. Somebody who is convinced that corporations are out to get at the truth rather then chase the next quarters profits. How cute. I was going to say the world needs more people like but actually I don't so. Corporations need more people like you but the world could use less of you.
"The corporates want to know if it'll really be as bad as religious "global warming" will end all the good first world civilizations on the planet crowd make it out to be."
Capitalism and free markets are more of a religion then global warming will ever be. At least global warming is being subject to scientific process and peer review.
"They really don't want that crowd making any rules or regulations that their industries have to follow."
LOL. They don't want anybody to making any rules or regulations their industries have to follow.
"When I say "funding," I mean for more research doing the same long term monitoring. "
When I say funding I mean "getting money to write a paper". There are buckets of money waiting for any scientist who are ready to say global warming does not exist or that it's good for us or that nothing should be done about it.
I find it interesting that your crowd has run that course too. You guys went from "it doesn't exist" to "it's good for us" to "we can't do anything about it anyway".
"The funding is just so the basics take place not for political reports."
What are you like 10 years old or something? Everything a corporation does is political. They spend billions buying and selling politicians. They buy scientists and papers too. That's why there is so much money available for any scientist that wants to debunk global warming.
If you compare the amount of funding by the US govt to the amount of funding by corporations, right wing thinktanks, and right wing foundations you will find that the US govt is lagging far behind.
If you want to debunk global warming you don't even need to do research. There are billions of dollars available to anybody who wants to say there is no such thing as global warming. Penn and Teller did an episode debunking it, Micheal Crighton wrote a book, there have been countless TV shows about it. You don't even need to be a scientist and the right wing will throw money at you.
Imagine if you were a scientists? I am sure Exxon would prefer to get a scientist on the air rather then John Stossel and they would be willing to pay big bucks for the privledge.
"You really think that? Germany nor France have any military power to occupy any country like Iraq. They simply could not.... It would require too much personnel. You can usually take the rule "the army of a European country will be just enough to defend it for 10 days". That only counts for the big European countries.... I won't even start on the small ones."
They have enough troops. Just because we have not chosen to deploy enough troops that does not mean they will make the same choices. We only have around 150K troops there and any european nation can raise that amount. Hell Turkey could do it without even thinking.
"anyone wanting to invade Europe gets a "walk in free" card."
Oh yes I am sure the europeans are shaking in their boots about the upcoming invasion by.... Who again?
I don't think the funding angle works. If a scientist publishes a bad paper and other scientists can not duplicate his results then his standing diminshes and his funding dries up.
On the other hand any scientist who writes a paper debunking global warming instantly becomes rich because the right wing and the corporations throw money at him like it's going out of business. Look at how rich the global warming debunkers have become. Look at how well their books sell.
There is a very large group of very rich people who are opposed all environmental regulation and emission reductions. They are willing to pay a lot of money to try and influence the public and they pay for a lot of research that puts their point of view forward.
I don't have stats but I bet right now there is more money in doing research that debunks global warming then research that supports it.
"I made it perfectly clear that my concern was FSF and their supporters don't take the dipshitted attitude of "you don't like it shut up" approach to discussing these things."
Right. And my point is that I can't see how any sane and rational person could come to that conclusion or accusation given the completely open and incremental manner in which this issue is being conducted.
How can any sane and rational person look at the way the this new license is being handle and have that concern.
Your concern is not founded in reality. It does not jibe with the facts. The process is open, inclusive, honest, and takes the opinions of all stakeholders seriously. Just exactly what is causing your concern?
"Merely existing as a monopoly in this country is not illegal."
Of course not. MS was found guilty of illegally abusing that monopoly. Abusing the monopoly by definition caused harm to the consumer. Sometimes that involved denying choice to the consumer, sometimes inflated pricing, sometimes collusion.
"There are plenty of people in the government that are power-hungry and oppose the current administration (for any definitino of "current"). If there was an open and shut case, why didn't they go for it?"
Because individual lawyers in the justice dept don't have the power to bring about criminal cases.
"Why are you sure of something you can neither describe nor cite?"
I don't feel like doing your research for you. Just google it. He lied under oath. Honestly if you insist on burying your head in the sand how can we have a conversation. Would it kill you to google it yourself instead of making me do it and putting a link?
"The only reason that the U.S. is different from most other countries in this regard is because the U.S. has a lot more power than most."
No. The principle reason is that we are willing to use that power. We have no qualms about killing as many people as we want and causing as much damage as we want to get what we want.
There are other powerful countries in the world like china, germany, france etc that have armies that can invade and occupy most weak countries (like iraq) but they don't do it.
The US has been involved in some war or another every three to seven years for all my life. We are a country of warmongers. We can't go a decade without killing somebody or another and that's a stark difference between us and china.
"as i understand it, in the US, anti-trust revolves around demonstrated consumer harm."
I think your understanding is wrong. The law is the law. Saying "no harm no foul" does not absolve you of your crimes. If you steal something and bring it back you still stole it and you are still a criminal.
"what constitutes a "wrist slap" in this case? What would have been an "appropriate" punishment, and on what grounds?"
Before the Bush administratio took over the case there was a lot of talk about splitting the company up. The first thing the Bush justice dept did was to take that off the table. At that point MS won. It didn't matter what the punishment was, as long as it didn't mean splitting the company up then MS was happy.
"Can you describe the bit about Gates lying in federal court?"
He was caught in at least two lies in depositions (Clinton was impeached for lying in a deposition). Look it up.
"What do you know that an entire army of lawyers doesn't? Someone could have made quite a career for themselves if there'd been enough evidence to put Gates behind bars. Don't you think they would have if the opportunity had been there?"
No. The rich and the powerful in this country have different standards for illegal behavior then everybody else. In this case MS had already bought the justice dept and there was no way in hell the Bush justice dept was going to pursue a case against Gates. Since perjury is a criminal offence and since this was a federal case the justice dept would have to bring up charges. If it was a civil case then some lawyer could have tried making a name for himself.
Why is this a problem? Don't the apache people want the GPLed programs to adapt their code? I thought the whole point of the apache license was to be BSD like desire for others to adapt their code.
"You're right, I was confused by the FSF Europe which has strong democratic elements. "
What do you mean "strong democratic elements"?
"If FSF and their supporters begin to take the attitude "You don't like it then shut up", then that's total crap."
This is all being done out in the open. They could have written the license and tell you to shut up and take it but they didn't. They invited legal scholars, prominent developers and business people. They wrote a draft. They published the draft. They invited comments on the draft. They held meetings and seminars. They explained their position. They clarified. They let a bunch of asswipe astro turfers on slashdot go on their anti-GPL/anti-FSF/anti-RMS tirades on slashdot.
Honestly what more do you fucking want???? How much more open and transparent does the process need to be?
Despite Postgres being a technically superior product it lags in user acceptance and developer enthusiasm because it's not GPLed. For some reason (I think I know why but I will leave it to you to come up with your own) the developers seem to prefer working on GPLed products even when there are competing BSD based projects out there. It is because of that the MSQL development is robust and the userbase is strong while postgres remains more or less a niche product.
This isn't to say postgres is not a better product (or firebird or whatever) it's just that in the marketplace it's lost mojo.
This is a pretty common scenario. Given any product space you will find that the GPLed products are more likely to be widely used and have greater developer communities. Probably because they are all communists and zealots and you know how those types are like, they tend to stick together.
OK if you insist on getting bitchslapped then stand there and take it like the bitch you are.
I will refer you this URL on groklaw in which PJ posts a letter she got from the FSF. Here is a quote.
" The Free Software Foundation wishes to clarify a few factual points about the Second Discussion Draft of GNU GPL version 3, on which recent discussion has presented inaccurate information.
1. The FSF has no power to force anyone to switch from GPLv2 to GPLv3 on their own code. We intentionally wrote GPLv2 (and GPLv1) so we would not have this power. Software developers will continue to have the right to use GPLv2 for their code after GPLv3 is published, and we will respect their decisions.
2. In order to honor freedom 0, your freedom to run the program as you wish, a free software license may not contain "use restrictions" that would restrict what you can do with it.
Contrary to what some have said, the GPLv3 draft has no use restrictions, and the final version won't either.
GPLv3 will prohibit certain distribution practices which restrict users' freedom to modify the code. We hope this policy will thwart the ways some companies wish to "use" free software -- namely, distributing it to you while controlling what you can do with it. This policy is not a "use restriction": it doesn't restrict how they, or you, can run the program; it doesn't restrict what they, or you, can make the program do. Rather it ensures you, as a user, are as free as they are.
3. Where GPLv2 relies on an implicit patent license, which depends on US law, GPLv3 contains an explicit patent license that does the same job internationally.
Contrary to what some have said, GPLv3 will not cause a company to "lose its entire [software] patent portfolio". It simply says that if someone has a patent covering XYZ, and distributes a GPL-covered program to do XYZ, he can't sue the program's subsequent users, redistributors and improvers for doing XYZ with their own versions of that program. This has no effect on other patents which that program does not implement.
Software patents attack the freedom of all software developers and users; their only legitimate use is to deter aggression using software patents. Therefore, if we could abolish every entity's entire portfolio of software patents tomorrow, we would jump at the chance. But it isn't possible for a software license such as the GNU GPL to achieve such a result.
We do, however, hope that GPL v3 can solve a part of the patent problem. The FSF is now negotiating with organizations holding substantial patent inventories, trying to mediate between their conflicting "extreme" positions. We hope to work out the precise details of the explicit patent license so as to free software developers from patent aggression under a substantial fraction of software patents. To fully protect software developers and users from software patents will, however, require changes in patent law. "
Look if you want to shill for your favorite corporation or are a paid astro turfer then you really need to a better job. All you are doing is embarrasing yourself and your corporation otherwise.
"Now, clearly the Spectre of DRM doesn't impact on Freedoms 1-3. Nothing in DRM stops a user from obtaining the source under the terms of the licence, from studying it, modifying it or distributing it"
Really. How are you to examine the source code to determine whether or not if violates your license? The DRM can prevent you from even examining the binary. If the binary is loaded on a proprietary device and will not load on any other device you are completely locked out. Combine that with other legal obstacles to reverse engineer the protocol and you have a serious problem.
So the DRM can stop all of the freedoms you listed.
There is no need to respond to the rest of your rant except to say that everything is politics. BSD is politics and proprietary software is big time politics. I have never heard any BSD (any variant) programmer go on a rant against the GPL. The only people who start a tirade about the GPL are corporate shills and people who want to profit off of other peoples work. They resent the fact that they can't just take the GPLed code and incorporate it into their programs. They found a loophole in DRM and are not having a knipsion about the GPL3.
Even Linus who disagrees with the GPL3 doesn't go on about how linux should be BSD and he certainly does not release any new code he writes under BSD. We are talking about linus here. Linus probably cares less about software freedom then any other well known programmer in the world. Even after the bitkeeper incident he still doesn't give a shit about free software but oddly enough even he releases code under the GPL.
Like I said back to astro turfing school with you. If you are going to shill at least get good at it. Calling people zealots has kind of lost its sheen. Maybe you guys can go back to communist or cancer, that had pretty good impact for a while.
Although the idea of nuking brown people is better then viagra for republitards I suspect that even most of the republitards realize that nuking an entire country the size of Iran will have serious consequences for the entire world. Sure you get a massive hard on thinking about all those dead a-rabs and you fuck the hell of out of your wife or GF but that radiation will eventually come around to the US. It will also effect china. Then your wallmart will be empty and then how will you supply your GF with fake silver jewelry?
In the mean time you can get hard thinking about dead iranians, lebanese or palestenians. No shortage of dead a-rabs around to keep your dick hard.
I know you don't like it but the comparison was apt. Deal with it. You are making a judgement about the entire userbase of linux from a (possibly nonexistant) instance. I have never heard of anybody who wiped somebodies hard drive and installed linux without first asking and getting a reasoned response. Never. In fact you are probably making that up.
"Wrong, I said you are a zealot, "
You said that because I don't like windows and I disagree with you. If anything you are the zealot because you haven't provided a rational argument for why I should be providing free help to windows users or even why windows is better then a mac.
"Do you see the difference between the two statements? One is a TRUE statement of a fact, the other is a FALSE generalization based on a singular personal encounter."
No both statements are true. The generalization is also true and apt. Deal with it. Windows breaks, windows users are stupid. Those are simple facts which will not penetrate past your fan boi mind but they are true nevertheless.
BTW your shilling fu needs an upgrade. Go get some astro turfing lessons from somebody.
Slashdot Mirror
": Vista has to generally remain bug-for-bug compatible with every piece of software written for the overall Microsoft platform since MS-DOS 2.0."
Why? When I go do download some software from MS either it's only available for XP/2000 or it offers different downloads for 98, NT, XP, XP SP2, NT 3.5+, 2000, 2003 etc.
Clearly every version of windows is slightly incompatible with other versions. Even service packs break backwards compatibility requiring separate downloads for XP and XP SP2.
I think vista will not be fully backwards compatible with any other MS operating system. Some things will work but I would expect everything to be either completely or partially borked.
"Give them another 200-300 years and then we'll start scratching the surface"
Yea, that's a good idea. Do nothing for the next 200 or three hudred years.
"I'd honestly bet that most of them aren't pouring money into debuking global warming per se, but to refine what they really want to know."
Wow. I am shocked at your naivete. You are a rare breed my friend. Somebody who is convinced that corporations are out to get at the truth rather then chase the next quarters profits. How cute. I was going to say the world needs more people like but actually I don't so. Corporations need more people like you but the world could use less of you.
"The corporates want to know if it'll really be as bad as religious "global warming" will end all the good first world civilizations on the planet crowd make it out to be."
Capitalism and free markets are more of a religion then global warming will ever be. At least global warming is being subject to scientific process and peer review.
"They really don't want that crowd making any rules or regulations that their industries have to follow."
LOL. They don't want anybody to making any rules or regulations their industries have to follow.
"When I say "funding," I mean for more research doing the same long term monitoring. "
When I say funding I mean "getting money to write a paper". There are buckets of money waiting for any scientist who are ready to say global warming does not exist or that it's good for us or that nothing should be done about it.
I find it interesting that your crowd has run that course too. You guys went from "it doesn't exist" to "it's good for us" to "we can't do anything about it anyway".
"The funding is just so the basics take place not for political reports."
What are you like 10 years old or something? Everything a corporation does is political. They spend billions buying and selling politicians. They buy scientists and papers too. That's why there is so much money available for any scientist that wants to debunk global warming.
If you compare the amount of funding by the US govt to the amount of funding by corporations, right wing thinktanks, and right wing foundations you will find that the US govt is lagging far behind.
If you want to debunk global warming you don't even need to do research. There are billions of dollars available to anybody who wants to say there is no such thing as global warming. Penn and Teller did an episode debunking it, Micheal Crighton wrote a book, there have been countless TV shows about it. You don't even need to be a scientist and the right wing will throw money at you.
Imagine if you were a scientists? I am sure Exxon would prefer to get a scientist on the air rather then John Stossel and they would be willing to pay big bucks for the privledge.
Sorry I got you confused with another asto turfer. The shills have flooded slashdot lately.
"You really think that? Germany nor France have any military power to occupy any country like Iraq. They simply could not.... It would require too much personnel. You can usually take the rule "the army of a European country will be just enough to defend it for 10 days". That only counts for the big European countries.... I won't even start on the small ones."
They have enough troops. Just because we have not chosen to deploy enough troops that does not mean they will make the same choices. We only have around 150K troops there and any european nation can raise that amount. Hell Turkey could do it without even thinking.
"anyone wanting to invade Europe gets a "walk in free" card."
Oh yes I am sure the europeans are shaking in their boots about the upcoming invasion by.... Who again?
That's outside of the GPL for now.
I don't think the funding angle works. If a scientist publishes a bad paper and other scientists can not duplicate his results then his standing diminshes and his funding dries up.
On the other hand any scientist who writes a paper debunking global warming instantly becomes rich because the right wing and the corporations throw money at him like it's going out of business. Look at how rich the global warming debunkers have become. Look at how well their books sell.
There is a very large group of very rich people who are opposed all environmental regulation and emission reductions. They are willing to pay a lot of money to try and influence the public and they pay for a lot of research that puts their point of view forward.
I don't have stats but I bet right now there is more money in doing research that debunks global warming then research that supports it.
SomeRandomCompany: "Hey look what I did!. You see how cool and l33t it is!"
RestOfTheWorld: "Hey that's cool as long as it's free I will use it and like it"
Microsoft: "Me too!"
"I made it perfectly clear that my concern was FSF and their supporters don't take the dipshitted attitude of "you don't like it shut up" approach to discussing these things."
Right. And my point is that I can't see how any sane and rational person could come to that conclusion or accusation given the completely open and incremental manner in which this issue is being conducted.
How can any sane and rational person look at the way the this new license is being handle and have that concern.
Your concern is not founded in reality. It does not jibe with the facts. The process is open, inclusive, honest, and takes the opinions of all stakeholders seriously. Just exactly what is causing your concern?
There is no need to answer your questions if you equate programmers to terrorists. You are by definition irrational.
"Merely existing as a monopoly in this country is not illegal."
Of course not. MS was found guilty of illegally abusing that monopoly. Abusing the monopoly by definition caused harm to the consumer. Sometimes that involved denying choice to the consumer, sometimes inflated pricing, sometimes collusion.
"There are plenty of people in the government that are power-hungry and oppose the current administration (for any definitino of "current"). If there was an open and shut case, why didn't they go for it?"
Because individual lawyers in the justice dept don't have the power to bring about criminal cases.
"Why are you sure of something you can neither describe nor cite?"
I don't feel like doing your research for you. Just google it. He lied under oath. Honestly if you insist on burying your head in the sand how can we have a conversation. Would it kill you to google it yourself instead of making me do it and putting a link?
"The only reason that the U.S. is different from most other countries in this regard is because the U.S. has a lot more power than most."
No. The principle reason is that we are willing to use that power. We have no qualms about killing as many people as we want and causing as much damage as we want to get what we want.
There are other powerful countries in the world like china, germany, france etc that have armies that can invade and occupy most weak countries (like iraq) but they don't do it.
The US has been involved in some war or another every three to seven years for all my life. We are a country of warmongers. We can't go a decade without killing somebody or another and that's a stark difference between us and china.
"as i understand it, in the US, anti-trust revolves around demonstrated consumer harm."
I think your understanding is wrong. The law is the law. Saying "no harm no foul" does not absolve you of your crimes. If you steal something and bring it back you still stole it and you are still a criminal.
"what constitutes a "wrist slap" in this case? What would have been an "appropriate" punishment, and on what grounds?"
Before the Bush administratio took over the case there was a lot of talk about splitting the company up. The first thing the Bush justice dept did was to take that off the table. At that point MS won. It didn't matter what the punishment was, as long as it didn't mean splitting the company up then MS was happy.
"Can you describe the bit about Gates lying in federal court?"
He was caught in at least two lies in depositions (Clinton was impeached for lying in a deposition). Look it up.
"What do you know that an entire army of lawyers doesn't? Someone could have made quite a career for themselves if there'd been enough evidence to put Gates behind bars. Don't you think they would have if the opportunity had been there?"
No. The rich and the powerful in this country have different standards for illegal behavior then everybody else. In this case MS had already bought the justice dept and there was no way in hell the Bush justice dept was going to pursue a case against Gates. Since perjury is a criminal offence and since this was a federal case the justice dept would have to bring up charges. If it was a civil case then some lawyer could have tried making a name for himself.
Why is this a problem? Don't the apache people want the GPLed programs to adapt their code? I thought the whole point of the apache license was to be BSD like desire for others to adapt their code.
"Good ideas from Tivo could improve my project, but it would be nice if good ideas from MythTV could improve Tivo."
They could. All they have to do is to accept the GPL. There is nothing preventing that right now.
Aah yes. I was wondering how long it would take to call the GPL programmers zealots. Didn't take long.
Linus just doesn't care all that much. He hasn't learned the proper lesson from the bitkeeper incident yet apparently.
"You're right, I was confused by the FSF Europe which has strong democratic elements. "
What do you mean "strong democratic elements"?
"If FSF and their supporters begin to take the attitude "You don't like it then shut up", then that's total crap."
This is all being done out in the open. They could have written the license and tell you to shut up and take it but they didn't. They invited legal scholars, prominent developers and business people. They wrote a draft. They published the draft. They invited comments on the draft. They held meetings and seminars. They explained their position. They clarified. They let a bunch of asswipe astro turfers on slashdot go on their anti-GPL/anti-FSF/anti-RMS tirades on slashdot.
Honestly what more do you fucking want???? How much more open and transparent does the process need to be?
The point is this.
Despite Postgres being a technically superior product it lags in user acceptance and developer enthusiasm because it's not GPLed. For some reason (I think I know why but I will leave it to you to come up with your own) the developers seem to prefer working on GPLed products even when there are competing BSD based projects out there. It is because of that the MSQL development is robust and the userbase is strong while postgres remains more or less a niche product.
This isn't to say postgres is not a better product (or firebird or whatever) it's just that in the marketplace it's lost mojo.
This is a pretty common scenario. Given any product space you will find that the GPLed products are more likely to be widely used and have greater developer communities. Probably because they are all communists and zealots and you know how those types are like, they tend to stick together.
OK if you insist on getting bitchslapped then stand there and take it like the bitch you are.
I will refer you this URL on groklaw in which PJ posts a letter she got from the FSF. Here is a quote.
" The Free Software Foundation wishes to clarify a few factual points about the Second Discussion Draft of GNU GPL version 3, on which recent discussion has presented inaccurate information.
1. The FSF has no power to force anyone to switch from GPLv2 to GPLv3 on their own code. We intentionally wrote GPLv2 (and GPLv1) so we would not have this power. Software developers will continue to have the right to use GPLv2 for their code after GPLv3 is published, and we will respect their decisions.
2. In order to honor freedom 0, your freedom to run the program as you wish, a free software license may not contain "use restrictions" that would restrict what you can do with it.
Contrary to what some have said, the GPLv3 draft has no use restrictions, and the final version won't either.
GPLv3 will prohibit certain distribution practices which restrict users' freedom to modify the code. We hope this policy will thwart the ways some companies wish to "use" free software -- namely, distributing it to you while controlling what you can do with it. This policy is not a "use restriction": it doesn't restrict how they, or you, can run the program; it doesn't restrict what they, or you, can make the program do. Rather it ensures you, as a user, are as free as they are.
3. Where GPLv2 relies on an implicit patent license, which depends on US law, GPLv3 contains an explicit patent license that does the same job internationally.
Contrary to what some have said, GPLv3 will not cause a company to "lose its entire [software] patent portfolio". It simply says that if someone has a patent covering XYZ, and distributes a GPL-covered program to do XYZ, he can't sue the program's subsequent users, redistributors and improvers for doing XYZ with their own versions of that program. This has no effect on other patents which that program does not implement.
Software patents attack the freedom of all software developers and users; their only legitimate use is to deter aggression using software patents. Therefore, if we could abolish every entity's entire portfolio of software patents tomorrow, we would jump at the chance. But it isn't possible for a software license such as the GNU GPL to achieve such a result.
We do, however, hope that GPL v3 can solve a part of the patent problem. The FSF is now negotiating with organizations holding substantial patent inventories, trying to mediate between their conflicting "extreme" positions. We hope to work out the precise details of the explicit patent license so as to free software developers from patent aggression under a substantial fraction of software patents. To fully protect software developers and users from software patents will, however, require changes in patent law. "
Look if you want to shill for your favorite corporation or are a paid astro turfer then you really need to a better job. All you are doing is embarrasing yourself and your corporation otherwise.
"Now, clearly the Spectre of DRM doesn't impact on Freedoms 1-3. Nothing in DRM stops a user from obtaining the source under the terms of the licence, from studying it, modifying it or distributing it"
Really. How are you to examine the source code to determine whether or not if violates your license? The DRM can prevent you from even examining the binary. If the binary is loaded on a proprietary device and will not load on any other device you are completely locked out. Combine that with other legal obstacles to reverse engineer the protocol and you have a serious problem.
So the DRM can stop all of the freedoms you listed.
There is no need to respond to the rest of your rant except to say that everything is politics. BSD is politics and proprietary software is big time politics. I have never heard any BSD (any variant) programmer go on a rant against the GPL. The only people who start a tirade about the GPL are corporate shills and people who want to profit off of other peoples work. They resent the fact that they can't just take the GPLed code and incorporate it into their programs. They found a loophole in DRM and are not having a knipsion about the GPL3.
Even Linus who disagrees with the GPL3 doesn't go on about how linux should be BSD and he certainly does not release any new code he writes under BSD. We are talking about linus here. Linus probably cares less about software freedom then any other well known programmer in the world. Even after the bitkeeper incident he still doesn't give a shit about free software but oddly enough even he releases code under the GPL.
How odd is that?
Like I said back to astro turfing school with you. If you are going to shill at least get good at it. Calling people zealots has kind of lost its sheen. Maybe you guys can go back to communist or cancer, that had pretty good impact for a while.
Although the idea of nuking brown people is better then viagra for republitards I suspect that even most of the republitards realize that nuking an entire country the size of Iran will have serious consequences for the entire world. Sure you get a massive hard on thinking about all those dead a-rabs and you fuck the hell of out of your wife or GF but that radiation will eventually come around to the US. It will also effect china. Then your wallmart will be empty and then how will you supply your GF with fake silver jewelry?
In the mean time you can get hard thinking about dead iranians, lebanese or palestenians. No shortage of dead a-rabs around to keep your dick hard.
We can soon add iran to that cost. That one is going to be even more expensive.
I know you don't like it but the comparison was apt. Deal with it. You are making a judgement about the entire userbase of linux from a (possibly nonexistant) instance. I have never heard of anybody who wiped somebodies hard drive and installed linux without first asking and getting a reasoned response. Never. In fact you are probably making that up.
"Wrong, I said you are a zealot, "
You said that because I don't like windows and I disagree with you. If anything you are the zealot because you haven't provided a rational argument for why I should be providing free help to windows users or even why windows is better then a mac.
"Do you see the difference between the two statements? One is a TRUE statement of a fact, the other is a FALSE generalization based on a singular personal encounter."
No both statements are true. The generalization is also true and apt. Deal with it. Windows breaks, windows users are stupid. Those are simple facts which will not penetrate past your fan boi mind but they are true nevertheless.
BTW your shilling fu needs an upgrade. Go get some astro turfing lessons from somebody.