Posted on 06/19/2005 6:41:20 AM PDT by Willie Green
NEW YORK - Theo de Raadt is a pioneer of the open source software movement and a huge proponent of free software. But he is no fan of the open source Linux operating system.
"It's terrible," De Raadt says. "Everyone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, 'This is garbage and we should fix it.'"
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
LOL!
The devil will be in the details, which we do not know. I am guessing MS will give them as much software as they can to get in the market. Most likely, it will go to the government and schools to build, over a long-term, a customer base.
What we do know, is the whole thing is repulsive. Microsoft will be allowed to donate software/money/training/whatever to Vietnam, to try to compete with the freeware that is already being handed to them by IBM and Red Hat. It's disgraceful, and absurd, on the whole. At least to me, but there is a segment of our society out there that doesn't care, at all, so long as they get free stuff, too.
I'm sorry if it came across that way. There are times when I cannot seem to express myself on this medium the way I would like. The original point was that Linux is harder to use than Windows because "grandma" can't install it. My point was that Windows is just as difficult, if not more so, than Linux to install.
I respect you more than the Linux jihadists, Shadow, but you sound just like them sometimes. Your post #94 here is an example.
Please see above. I was just trying to point out that the issue he brought up (installing Linux by grandma) is a straw man that doesn't mean much, as Windows suffers from the same difficulty.
"Grandma" should not have to install the OS. That's like assembling a bike for a child. The child doesn't care how it's put together, he just wants to go out and use it. Grandma is much the same way--she doesn't care what's running, she just wants to use her computer.
Note: I am NOT saying "grandma" is a child. Just using an analogy here.
Not that you care, anyway, right? Not according to your comments from just 11 days ago, where you said if it's your property, you can do what you want with it. Don't tell me you're going to go back on those words like you just did on "using what works best for you" too?
Salo said: "I support the GPL...If it's your property, you can do what you want with it...If Red Hat is ok with China using their stuff and calling it Red Flag, I won't argue with them...If it's your property, you can do what you want with it...what they are doing is ok..."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1420613/posts?page=39#39
Suse 9.2 was a snap to install and configure! I recommend trying it.
No, you obviously don't understand:
Most of these GPL suits are about companies using GPL software written by others to drive their hardware, and then not complying with the GPL in order to get redistribution rights for the software. The sad thing is that all they needed to do in the beginning was include a copy of the GPL and post the source at their web site.
I pay a set fee for my broadband, no matter what I do on it. The more I download Linux ISOs, the cheaper my broadband effectly gets per megabyte.
Forbes has a notorious anti-Linux slant.
Like Apple. :^)
Well, they do make the best systems.
Since when has M$ ever revealed source code? Looks like a major cave in to the evil Middle Kingdom.
Wrong, all the settlements require releasing their code. You used to be a little sharper, but now you're getting the facts wrong just as much as the others you've been hanging out with lately.
Since Linux came along and started giving not only the right to view the Linux code, but the right to foreign governments to even resell it under a different name like China does when they rename and resell Red Hat Linux from the US as "Red Flag" over in China.
This was a response by Microsoft to the Linux giveaways, but only gave them peeks at it under special circumstances, sometimes even requiring a visit to Washington state to see certain portions of it. What we're seeing from the Linux crowd, is obviously a primitive attempt to divert attention away from the complete and total giveaway of Linux to the chicoms, by somehow trying to blame Microsoft for it all based on their comparatively tiny peeks instead. Ridiculous, obviously.
That's right, you pay. Money. Paying money means it wasn't free.
I mainly have broadband for my VOIP phone, email, surfing and Windows updates. Linux ISOs are hobby, and ride on the back of what I've already paid for what I need. They cost me nothing extra to download.
You are really reaching here. But you forgot to mention the few pennies I paid for the CD I write them on and the electricity I use when downloading if I'm not using the computer for something else at the time.
In any case, the point of "free" is that the IP is free, not any cost to get that IP to you. Do you really think it cost Microsoft and the retailers $199 in materials, shipping and store overhead to get a copy of XP Pro to the store shelves? You pay for the IP too.
The best part of this anti that he is contradicting his own claim that linux is foreign freeware, obviously if people have to pay to download, burn, and run it its not free right?
Any of their own code they may have released was done so voluntarily as part of a settlement, as any suits are never about their own code, but code written by others. NOBODY but the government can force you to release any code (and even that's apparently difficult), since it belongs to you.
Cisco, for example, could have dumped the GPL code in its routers, replacing it with a stripped Cisco OS, paid the copyright holders for its violation of copyright in units already shipped, and issued a recall with non-GPL firmware. It would have been expensive and painful, but that's what happens when you violate copyright. They would have received no better treatment from Microsoft.
At least with the GPL they have the option of releasing the tiny bit of software they own (the wireless driver compiled into the kernel) to make it all go away.
Blah blah blah, your claim they could pay off the FSF was wrong, and you said it was an option.
They don't pay us for the bandwidth though, do they. Nope, and when they overload our bandwidth or our servers, the idiots put more online for them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.