>Both sides are convinced they are waging a defensive war, and anything can be justified if one thinks one is defending oneself.
But only one side is carrying on a 40 year illegal occupation.
>This does not exempt either side from culpability, and it also does not make either side the clear moral victor.
Moral victors are those trying to gain their independence from an occupying force.
>How do we prevent further death?
Start by ending the occupation. Pull back to the 64 borders, build a wall around yourself, let the UN patrol the other side of the war. Never ever deal with any muslim country again.
"REQUIRING an accept of a license, even if it's the GPL, is a restriction of use, that, according to the GPL, must be absent in ANY distribution. Even if it's possible to download the software in other ways, it's still a distribution, and thus a violation."
It's not a violation of anything. Really!. It violates absolutely nothing.
The installer requires a license, people put the GPL there. You should aim your anger at windows.
That has nothing to do with the license and everything to do with the installer.
Things you apparently are incapable of thinking about.
1) This only happens if you download the installer. If you download the zip or the source you don't have to agree to jack. 2) This only happens for the windows version, people who use linux just use their package manager.
I don't know why it is so difficult for you to think about these things but perhaps you should push yourself and actually try to understand when a license applied to you and when it doesn't.
Given that there are two competing potential standards and one has patents and the other doesn't then why should ISO choose the one with patents? Of course it also doesn't help that one standard is 600o pages long and can only be 100% implemented by MS.
Clearly the ISO bodies are being corrupted (packed) by MS and I really don't understand why. MS has never obeyed any standard and they will not obey this one either. Why does ISO even pretend that MS has respect for standards? Why do would they ratify a standard which will immediately be extended by MS?
>there isn't one hive mind but rather thousands of individuals, some to are more friendly to open source than others.
I would like to see some evidence of this myth. Can you provide a link to the blogs of some MS employees who disagree with their corporate policy on anything?
>This creates internal frictions within the company in terms of determining strategy.
Again, where did you get this notion from? Can you provide some links please.
>However this is not a good reason to reject good licenses.
The licenses should be rejected because there are too many open source licenses already. MS should just pick one of the existing ones and release under that. I would reccomend the GPL mainly because it would cause Ballmer to have a heart attack and die.
>Correct me if I'm wrong (as I'm sure others here have looked into this deal much more than I have),
We are not allowed to see the agreement. It's super sekkret top level!. MS and Novell are so proud of their agreement that they won't show it to anybody lest we sully it with our gaze. Besides we might not be able to stand in the light of such an agreement and they don't want us to go blind.
Anyway most analysts think you are wrong. It seems to cover only people who buy from MS and Novell. If you get your mono from the mono site or from another repository MS will sue you (unless you pay them of course).
>However, the notion that all the Linux guys working at Novell are going to go along with attacking Linux just on Microsoft's say-so is pretty naive. I mean, how many guys quit Novell over the mere interoperability deal?
So? Lots of people quit SCO too. It doesn't matter.
>Let alone Linspire, and Xandros. Those guys would go down to bankruptcy in a heartbeat if they ever directly took orders from Microsoft to attack IBM or anyone else on the Linux front.
Yes, that's the idea. MS funds them into bankrupsy while using them to hurt IBM or HP or Google or whoever they perceive as their mortal enemy.
>It's tin-foil hat conspiracy theory. Microsoft paid these guys just to advance their FUD
What? Have you been on another planet? It will be just like SCO. SCO is not bankrupt and spent. They need a new SCO and it will be linspire, xandros or Novell.
They have already transfered the funds to these companies the next step is to file meritless lawsuits. That's how MS fights people.
They tried pretty hard. In the end they will end up buying it, this is just a small stumbling block. They will spend more money, bribe more people, corrupt more organizations and shove their format down everybodies throat.
Everytime anything goes wrong just blame windows. Say something like "I had to reboot the windows server and it would not come up for a while, just like the time we rebooted your desktop and it would not come up remember".
Soon the PHB will get the message that the answer is not windows, the problem is windows.
Re:And all of a sudden....
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 1
Maybe I didn't take into account how stupid MS programmers are. If the rest of them are as stupid and ignorant as you then that too could explain a lot.
I think it's pretty obvious Novell has no real future. They haven't been able to make a go of netware which was a very good product. They can't make a go of linux either.
There has to be a reason why MS spent so much money on Novell, linspire, xandros and others. Nobody can figure out why they gave so much money to small dying companies in order to keep them afloat.
I think it's obvious they plan on using these companies as attack dogs just like they used SCO. They can have these companies attack IBM, HP, Oracle or anybody else they want. Remember the case doesn't have to have any merit.
We have to keep in mind that MS has no ethics and the people running it are immoral to the core. It's a safe bet to expect the worst from corrupt immoral people.
Re:And all of a sudden....
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
1) There is no doubt that MS funded SCO to sue IBM. 2) In addition to giving SCO money directly they arrainged baystar to give them money (basically MS fucked baystar by lying to them and telling them SCO had a case) 3) If any MS developers disagreed with any of this they never spoke up so it's safe to presume they were on board.
>But I can promise you, of the 75,000 employees at Microsoft, 74,900 of them just want to win by making a better OS... Disagree with us if you like, but that doesn't make us evil.
I just don't believe you. I never heard any of those 75,000 programmers at MS ever critisize their company about anything. It's obvious you all have are either in 100% agreement with what your company is doing just don't give a flying fuck how unethical and yes evil your company acts.
Basically that tells me you guys just don't have a conscience.
Slashdot Mirror
>Both sides are convinced they are waging a defensive war, and anything can be justified if one thinks one is defending oneself.
But only one side is carrying on a 40 year illegal occupation.
>This does not exempt either side from culpability, and it also does not make either side the clear moral victor.
Moral victors are those trying to gain their independence from an occupying force.
>How do we prevent further death?
Start by ending the occupation. Pull back to the 64 borders, build a wall around yourself, let the UN patrol the other side of the war. Never ever deal with any muslim country again.
"REQUIRING an accept of a license, even if it's the GPL, is a restriction of use, that, according to the GPL, must be absent in ANY distribution. Even if it's possible to download the software in other ways, it's still a distribution, and thus a violation."
It's not a violation of anything. Really!. It violates absolutely nothing.
The installer requires a license, people put the GPL there. You should aim your anger at windows.
It's important to remember that anybody who says anything negative about MS is by definition a kook or insane.
Microsoft Corporation rules, it's the best corporation on the planet bar none. Corporations rock!
That has nothing to do with the license and everything to do with the installer.
Things you apparently are incapable of thinking about.
1) This only happens if you download the installer. If you download the zip or the source you don't have to agree to jack.
2) This only happens for the windows version, people who use linux just use their package manager.
I don't know why it is so difficult for you to think about these things but perhaps you should push yourself and actually try to understand when a license applied to you and when it doesn't.
Given that there are two competing potential standards and one has patents and the other doesn't then why should ISO choose the one with patents? Of course it also doesn't help that one standard is 600o pages long and can only be 100% implemented by MS.
Clearly the ISO bodies are being corrupted (packed) by MS and I really don't understand why. MS has never obeyed any standard and they will not obey this one either. Why does ISO even pretend that MS has respect for standards? Why do would they ratify a standard which will immediately be extended by MS?
>there isn't one hive mind but rather thousands of individuals, some to are more friendly to open source than others.
I would like to see some evidence of this myth. Can you provide a link to the blogs of some MS employees who disagree with their corporate policy on anything?
>This creates internal frictions within the company in terms of determining strategy.
Again, where did you get this notion from? Can you provide some links please.
>However this is not a good reason to reject good licenses.
The licenses should be rejected because there are too many open source licenses already. MS should just pick one of the existing ones and release under that. I would reccomend the GPL mainly because it would cause Ballmer to have a heart attack and die.
>I am saying that Wicket has plugins (for all 3 major IDEs in fact) and that they are nowhere as integrated as ASP.NET natively is with VS.
What the hell does that mean?
What specifically is your gripe about the wicket plug in?
Wow MS lawyers don't understand software licensing. How cool is that!
I don't know about wicket per se but I bet it has an eclipse plug in. Every framework known to mankind has an eclipse plug in.
What are you talking about. Both eclipse and netbeans (and intellij IDEA) are vastly superior to Visual Studio.
>Correct me if I'm wrong (as I'm sure others here have looked into this deal much more than I have),
We are not allowed to see the agreement. It's super sekkret top level!. MS and Novell are so proud of their agreement that they won't show it to anybody lest we sully it with our gaze. Besides we might not be able to stand in the light of such an agreement and they don't want us to go blind.
Anyway most analysts think you are wrong. It seems to cover only people who buy from MS and Novell. If you get your mono from the mono site or from another repository MS will sue you (unless you pay them of course).
>What part of that don't you understand? There's nothing Microsoft can do to them unless Microsoft sues them.
MS can pay them. More likely MS can arrange payments to them from third parties like they did with SCO.
"Therefore they have absolutely ZERO incentive to do anything for Microsoft, especially as if they did, they would go out of business.
These corporations are dying already, they need the money to reward the few shareholders they have.
"They are not in any danger of going out of business like SCO was. "
Yes they are.
>You're clueless. Xandros, Linspire and Novell are nothing like SCO
They don't have to be LIKE SCO they will be used in the same way SCO was. MS has already transfered funds to them. Next it's the lawsuit.
>However, the notion that all the Linux guys working at Novell are going to go along with attacking Linux just on Microsoft's say-so is pretty naive. I mean, how many guys quit Novell over the mere interoperability deal?
So? Lots of people quit SCO too. It doesn't matter.
>Let alone Linspire, and Xandros. Those guys would go down to bankruptcy in a heartbeat if they ever directly took orders from Microsoft to attack IBM or anyone else on the Linux front.
Yes, that's the idea. MS funds them into bankrupsy while using them to hurt IBM or HP or Google or whoever they perceive as their mortal enemy.
>It's tin-foil hat conspiracy theory. Microsoft paid these guys just to advance their FUD
What? Have you been on another planet? It will be just like SCO. SCO is not bankrupt and spent. They need a new SCO and it will be linspire, xandros or Novell.
They have already transfered the funds to these companies the next step is to file meritless lawsuits. That's how MS fights people.
They tried pretty hard. In the end they will end up buying it, this is just a small stumbling block. They will spend more money, bribe more people, corrupt more organizations and shove their format down everybodies throat.
Yes but now it's all MS cheerleading. That's not very attractive nor is it very fun. I mean why MS and not Maytag or something?
Well if your customers don't care then let's abandon the whole thing.
MS accused open source developers of being communist and it didn't seem to hurt their business.
So sad about slashdot. Now that all the geeks are left it's turned into an anti GPL pro microsoft web site.
Where is the next slashdot? Not reddit or digg, where did all the slashdotters go.
Everytime anything goes wrong just blame windows. Say something like "I had to reboot the windows server and it would not come up for a while, just like the time we rebooted your desktop and it would not come up remember".
Soon the PHB will get the message that the answer is not windows, the problem is windows.
Maybe I didn't take into account how stupid MS programmers are. If the rest of them are as stupid and ignorant as you then that too could explain a lot.
I think it's pretty obvious Novell has no real future. They haven't been able to make a go of netware which was a very good product. They can't make a go of linux either.
There has to be a reason why MS spent so much money on Novell, linspire, xandros and others. Nobody can figure out why they gave so much money to small dying companies in order to keep them afloat.
I think it's obvious they plan on using these companies as attack dogs just like they used SCO. They can have these companies attack IBM, HP, Oracle or anybody else they want. Remember the case doesn't have to have any merit.
We have to keep in mind that MS has no ethics and the people running it are immoral to the core. It's a safe bet to expect the worst from corrupt immoral people.
You are liar.
You spread FUD.
You pretend that your make believe world is real.
Please go and fuck yourself.
1) There is no doubt that MS funded SCO to sue IBM.
2) In addition to giving SCO money directly they arrainged baystar to give them money (basically MS fucked baystar by lying to them and telling them SCO had a case)
3) If any MS developers disagreed with any of this they never spoke up so it's safe to presume they were on board.
>But I can promise you, of the 75,000 employees at Microsoft, 74,900 of them just want to win by making a better OS... Disagree with us if you like, but that doesn't make us evil.
I just don't believe you. I never heard any of those 75,000 programmers at MS ever critisize their company about anything. It's obvious you all have are either in 100% agreement with what your company is doing just don't give a flying fuck how unethical and yes evil your company acts.
Basically that tells me you guys just don't have a conscience.
You can't relate to people talking to each other and discussing things that are important to them.
You keep making up stupid "what if" scenarios and talking about them as if they actually happened.
You are first class shill and FUDder.
My hat is off to you.